Trouble with anti-Catholic book/website

[cfrancis]

Re: the Canons of the Council of Carthage, and the Bishop of Rome:

Faustinus the bishop, legate of the Roman Church, said: Let not your holiness do dishonour to the Roman Church, either in this matter or in any other, by saying the canons are doubtful, as our brother and fellow-bishop Alypius has vouchsafed to say: but do you deign to write these things to our holy and most blessed pope, so that he seeking out the genuine canons, can treat with your holiness on all matters decreed. But it suffices that the most blessed bishop of the city of Rome should make enquiry just as your holiness proposes doing on your part, that there may not seem to have arisen any contention between the Churches, but that you may the rather be enabled to deliberate with fraternal charity, when he has been heard from, what is best should be observed.

Aurelius the bishop said: In addition to what is set down in the acts, we, by the letters from our insignificance, must more fully inform our holy brother and fellow-bishop Boniface of everything which we have considered. Therefore if our plan pleases all, let us be informed of this by the mouth of all. And the whole council said: It seems good to us.

---

I, Aurelius, Bishop of the Church of Carthage have consented to this decree and have subscribed my name. And so all the other bishops subscribed.

Letters ought likewise to be sent to the judges that, until the lord permit the legates to return to us, they give protection through the soldiers of the cities, and through the holders of the farms of the Catholic Church. It ought also to be added concerning the dishonest Equitius, which he had shown by laying claim to the jus sacerdotum, that he be rejected from the diocese of Hippo according to the statutes of the Emperors. Letters ought also to be sent to the Bishop of the Church of Rome in commendation of the legates, and to the other Bishops who may be where the Emperor is. To this they assented.

---

Canon 101. (Greek civ. bis)
Of making peace between the Churches of Rome and Alexandria
It seemed good that a letter be written to the holy Pope Innocent concerning the dissension between the Churches of Rome and Alexandria, so that each Church might keep peace with the other as the Lord commanded.

---

Canon 106. (Greek cix.)
That those who are going to carry their case to court should be careful to inform either the bishop of Carthage or the bishop of Rome.

It seemed good that whoever wished to go to court, should give notice in the form which is sent to the Church of the city of Rome, that from thence also he should receive a formed letter to court. But if receiving only a formed letter to Rome, and saying nothing about the necessity which he had of going to court, he willed immediately to go thither, let him be cut off from communion. But if while at Rome the necessity of going to court suddenly arose, let him state his necessity to the bishop of Rome and let him carry with him a rescript of the same Roman bishop. But let the formed letters which are issued by primates and by certain bishops to their own clergy have the date of Easter; but if it be yet uncertain what is the date of Easter of that year, let the preceding Easter’s date be set down, as it is customary to date public acts after the consulship.

It further seemed good that those who were sent as delegates from this glorious council should ask of the most glorious princes whatever they saw would be useful against the Donatists and Pagans, and their superstitions.

It also seemed good to all the bishops that all conciliar letters be signed by your holiness alone. And they subscribed: I, Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, have consented to this decree, and having read it, now subscribe my name. Likewise also the rest of the bishops subscribed.

---

(to be continued)

 

[cfrancis]

Canon 134. (Continuation of cxxxv. in the Greek.)
Here begins the letter directed from the whole African Council to Boniface, bishop of the City of Rome, by Faustinus the bishop, and Philip and Asellus the presbyters, legates of the Roman Church

To the most blessed lord, and our honourable brother Boniface, Aurelius, Valentine of the primatial See of Numidia, and others present with us to the number of 217 from the whole council in Africa.

Since it has pleased the Lord that our humility should write concerning those things which with us our holy brethren, Faustinus a fellow-bishop and Philip and Asellus, fellow presbyters, have done, not to the bishop Zosimus of blessed memory, from whom they brought commands and letters to us, but to your holiness, who art constituted in his room by divine authority, we ought briefly to set forth what has been determined upon by mutual consent; not indeed those things which are contained in the prolix volumes of the acts, in which, while charity was preserved, yet we loitered not without some little labour of altercation, deliberating those things in the acts which now pertain to the cause. However the more gratefully would he have received this news as he would have seen a more peaceful ending of the matter, my lord and brother, had he been still in the body! Apiarius the presbyter, concerning whose ordination, excommunication, and appeal no small scandal arose not only at Sicca but also in the whole African Church, has been restored to communion upon his seeking pardon for all his sins. First our fellow bishop Urban of Sicca doubtless corrected whatever in him seemed to need correction. For there should have been kept in mind the peace and quiet of the Church not only in the present but also in the future, since so many evils of such a kind had gone before, that it was incumbent to take care that like or even graver evils should be prevented thereafter. It seemed good to us that the presbyter Apiarius should be removed from the church of Sicca, retaining only the honour of his grade, and that he should exercise the office of the presbyterate wherever else he wished and could, having received a letter to this effect. This we granted without difficulty at his own petition made in a letter. But truly before this case should be thus closed, among other things which we were treating of in daily discussions, the nature of the case demanded that we should ask our brothers, Faustinus our fellow bishop, and Philip and Asellus our fellow presbyters, to set forth what they had been enjoined to treat of with us that they might be inserted in the ecclesiastical acts. And they proceeded to make a verbal statement, but when we earnestly asked that they would present it rather in writing, then they produced the Commonitory. This was read to us and also set down in the acts, which they are bringing with them to you. In this they were bidden to treat of four things with us, first concerning the appeal of bishops to the Pontiff of the Roman Church, second that bishops should not unbecomingly be sailing to court, thirdly concerning the treating the causes of presbyters and deacons by contiguous bishops, if they had been wrongly excommunicated by their own, and fourthly concerning the bishop Urban who should be excommunicated or even sent to Rome, unless he should have corrected what seemed to need correction. Of all which things concerning the first and third, that is that it is allowed to bishops to appeal to Rome and that the causes of clerics should be settled by the bishops of their own provinces, already last year we have taken pains to insinuate, in our letter to the same bishop Zosimus of venerable memory, that we were willing to observe these provisions for a little while without any injury to him, until the search for the statutes of the Council of Nicaea had been finished. And now we ask of your holiness that you would cause to be observed by us the acts and constitutions of our fathers at the Council of Nicaea, and that you cause to be exercised by you there, those things which they brought in the commonitory: that is to say, If a bishop shall have been accused, etc. [Here follows Canon vii. of Sardica.]

---

(to be continued)

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;4235216]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Not so. The church did not consider the DC’s fully Scripture until Trent. Here is what the The New Catholic Encyclopedia says:

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).”

As you can see it was not until Trent rendered an infallible decision that these books considered fully Scripture. It is true that many individuals may have thought they were but what matters is what the church offically proclaims as it did at Trent.

As for Luther he was wrong. He was just like all men capable of error.

Church Militant
Really? Well then you better tell all these early church fathers.

Quote:
The Old Testament Canon

During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.

As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.
Kelly supports my point when he writes “It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books”. These books were not universally accepted until Trent made its decision.

Below we give patristic quotations from each of the deuterocanonical books. Notice how the Fathers quoted these books along with the protocanonicals. The deuterocanonicals are those books of the Old Testament that were included in the Bible even though there had been some discussion about whether they should be.

Also included are the earliest official lists of the canon. For the sake of brevity these are not given in full. When the lists of the canon cited here are given in full, they include all the books and only the books found in the modern Catholic Bible.

When examining the question of what books were originally included in the Old Testament canon, it is important to note that some of the books of the Bible have been known by more than one name. Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Samuel with 1 and 2 Kings as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings—that is, 1 and 2 Samuel are named 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are named 3 and 4 Kings. The history and use of these designations is explained more fully in Scripture reference works.

The Didache

“You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]” (Didache 4:5 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas

“Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Is. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]” (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).

Clement of Rome

“By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, “What have you done?” or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]” (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).

Polycarp of Smyrna

“Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17].
. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!” (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).

There were also many who did not accept them either. John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado rejected the DC’s as Scripture. What this shows is that these books were in dispute.

 

[cfrancis]

Item concerning presbyters and deacons. If any bishop has been quickly angered, etc. [Here follows Canon xvii. of Sardica.]

These are the things which have been inserted in the acts until the arrival of the most accurate copies of the Nicene Council, which things, if they are contained there (as in the Commonitory, which our brethren directed to us from the Apostolic See alleged) and be even kept according to that order by you in Italy, in no way could we be compelled either to endure such treatment as we are unwilling to mention or could suffer what is unbearable: but we believe, through the mercy of our Lord God, while your holiness presides over the Roman Church, we shall not have to suffer that pride (istum typhum passuri). And there will be kept toward us, what should be kept with brotherly love to us who are making no dispute. You will also perceive according to the wisdom and the justice which the most Highest has given you, what should be observed, if perchance the canons of the Council of Nicaea are other [than you suppose]. For although we have read very many copies, yet never have we read in the Latin copies that there were any such decrees as are contained in the commonitory before mentioned. So too, because we can find them in no Greek text here, we have desired that there should be brought to us from the Eastern Churches copies of the decrees, for it is said that there correct copies of the decrees are to be found. For which end we beg your reverence, that you would deign yourself also to write to the pontiffs of these parts, that is of the churches of Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople, and to any others also if it shall please your holiness, that thence there may come to us the same canons decreed by the Fathers in the city of Nice, and thus you would confer by the help of the Lord this most great benefit upon all the churches of the West. For who can doubt that the copies of the Nicene Council gathered in the Greek empire are most accurate, which although brought together from so diverse and from such noble Greek churches are found to agree when compared together? And until this be done, the provisions laid down to us in the Commonitory aforesaid, concerning the appeals of bishops to the pontiff of the Roman Church and concerning the causes of clerics which should be terminated by the bishops of their own provinces, we are willing to allow to be observed until the proof arrives and we trust your blessedness will help us in this according to the will of God. The rest of the matters treated and defined in our synod, since the aforesaid brethren, our fellow bishop Faustinus, and the presbyters Philip and Asellus are carrying the acts with them, if you deign to receive them, will make known to your holiness. And they signed. Our Lord keep you to us for many years, most blessed brother. Alypius, Augustine, Possidius, Marinus and the rest of the bishops (217) also signed.

(to be continued)

 

[cfrancis]

Canon 138. (Not numbered in the Greek.)
Here begins the epistle of the African synod to Pope Celestine, bishop of the City of Rome

To the lord and most beloved and our honourable brother Celestine, Aurelius, Palatinus, Antony, Totus, Servusdei, Terentius, Fortunatus, Martin, Januarius, Optatus, Ceticius, Donatus, Theasius, Vincent, Fortunatian, and the rest of us, assembled at Carthage in the General Council of Africa.

We could wish that, like as your Holiness intimated to us, in your letter sent by our fellow presbyter Leo, your pleasure at the arrival of Apiarius, so we also could send to you these writings with pleasure respecting his clearing. Then in truth both our own satisfaction, and yours of late would be more reasonable; nor would that lately expressed by you concerning the hearing of him then to come, as well as that already past, seem hasty and inconsiderate. Upon the arrival, then, of our holy Brother and fellow-Bishop Faustinus, we assembled a council, and believed that he was sent with that man, in order that, as he [Apiarius] had before been restored to the presbyterate by his assistance, so now he might with his exertions be cleared of the very great crimes charged against him by the inhabitants of Tabraca. But the due course of examination in our council discovered in him such great and monstrous crimes as to overbear even Faustinus, who acted rather as an advocate of the aforementioned person than as a judge, and to prevail against what was more the zeal of a defender, than the justice of an inquirer. For first he vehemently opposed the whole assembly, inflicting on us many injuries, under pretence of asserting the privileges of the Roman Church, and wishing that he should be received into communion by us, on the ground that your Holiness, believing him to have appealed, though unable to prove it, had restored him to communion. But this we by no means allowed, as you will also better see by reading the acts. After however, a most laborious inquiry carried on for three days, during which in the greatest affliction we took cognizance of various charges against him, God the just Judge, strong and long suffering, cut short by a sudden stroke both the delays of our fellow-bishop Faustinus and the evasions of Apiarius himself, by which he was endeavouring to veil his foul enormities. For his strong and shameless obstinacy was overcome, by which he endeavoured to cover, through an impudent denial, the mire of his lusts, and God so wrought upon his conscience and published, even to the eyes of men, the secret crimes which he was already condemning in that man’s heart, a very sty of wickedness, that, after his false denial he suddenly burst forth into a confession of all the crimes he was charged with, and at length convicted himself of his own accord of all infamies beyond belief, and changed to groans even the hope we had entertained, believing and desiring that he might be cleared from such shameful blots, except indeed that it was so far a relief to our sorrow, that he had delivered us from the labour of a longer inquiry, and by confession had applied some sort of remedy to his own wounds, though, lord and brother, it was unwilling, and done with a struggling conscience.

(continued)

 

[justasking4]

It is true that, had there been anyone who believed in SS, they would have been considered a heretic. During the middle ages, in Europe, since there was a joining of the Church with the secular leadership, heretics were considered seditious and traitors, and were persecuted and executed or banished by the secular authorities, who believed they were acting in the wishes of the Church.

Did anyone in the early centuries believe that the Scriptures alone were inspired-inerrant?

 

[cfrancis]

Premising, therefore, our due regards to you, we earnestly conjure you, that for the future you do not readily admit to a hearing persons coming hence, nor choose to receive to your communion those who have been excommunicated by us, because you, venerable Sir, will readily perceive that this has been prescribed even by the Nicene council. For though this seems to be there forbidden in respect of the inferior clergy, or the laity, how much more did it will this to be observed in the case of bishops, lest those who had been suspended from communion in their own Province might seem to be restored to communion hastily or unfitly by your Holiness. Let your Holiness reject, as is worthy of you, that unprincipled taking shelter with you of presbyters likewise, and the inferior clergy, both because by no ordinance of the Fathers has the Church of Africa been deprived of this authority, and the Nicene decrees have most plainly committed not only the clergy of inferior rank, but the bishops themselves to their own Metropolitans. For they have ordained with great wisdom and justice, that all matters should be terminated in the places where they arise; and did not think that the grace of the Holy Spirit would be wanting to any Province, for the bishops of Christ (Sacerdotibus) wisely to discern, and firmly to maintain the right: especially since whosoever thinks himself wronged by any judgment may appeal to the council of his Province, or even to a General Council * unless it be imagined that God can inspire a single individual with justice, and refuse it to an innumerable multitude of bishops (sacerdotum) assembled in council. And how shall we be able to rely on a sentence passed beyond the sea, since it will not be possible to send thither the necessary witnesses, whether from the weakness of sex, or advanced age, or any other impediment? For that your Holiness should send any on your part we can find ordained by no council of Fathers. Because with regard to what you have sent us by the same our brother bishop Faustinus, as being contained in the Nicene Council, we can find nothing of the kind in the more authentic copies of that council, which we have received from the holy Cyril our brother, Bishop of the Alexandrine Church, and from the venerable Atticus the Prelate of Constantinople, and which we formerly sent by Innocent the presbyter, and Marcellus the subdeacon through whom we received them, to Boniface the Bishop, your predecessor of venerable memory. Moreover whoever desires you to delegate any of your clergy to execute your orders, do not comply, lest it seem that we are introducing the pride of secular dominion into the Church of Christ which exhibits to all that desire to see God the light of simplicity and the day of humility. For now that the miserable Apiarius has been removed out of the Church of Christ for his horrible crimes, we feel confident respecting our brother Faustinus, that through the uprightness and moderation of your Holiness, Africa, without violating brotherly charity, will by no means have to endure him any longer. Lord and brother, may our Lord long preserve your Holiness to pray for us.

---

To what exaclty do you refer when you mention the African bishops telling the Pope about interfering in African affairs*

 

[cfrancis]

Kelly supports my point when he writes “It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books”. These books were not universally accepted until Trent made its decision.

There were also many who did not accept them either. John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado rejected the DC’s as Scripture. What this shows is that these books were in dispute.

Not just the deuterocanonicals, but Revelation, Hebrews, 2 Peter…just to historically accurate.

 

[justasking4]

Not just the deuterocanonicals, but Revelation, Hebrews, 2 Peter…just to historically accurate.

By the 4th century these books were accepted as Scripture. This was not the case with the DC’s and for good reason.

 

[cfrancis]

By the 4th century these books were accepted as Scripture. This was not the case with the DC’s and for good reason.

By the 4th century, the canon was set with the deuterocanonicals - it is the same one confirmed at Trent, as a response to the Reformation, the first concerted attempt to remove books from the canon.

If you are allowing individual thought to determine the canon, do you then allow for Luther’s opinion to call into question the canonicity of James and the Gospel of Matthew? What this shows, you say, is these books were disputed.
Yet, if you appeal to history and the canon set at the end of the 4the century, do you then admit the deuterocanonicals are canon, as they are included in those canons?

BTW, do you have a reference to the dissention from Gregory the Great and John of Damasus?

 

[justasking4]

cfrancis;4237470]By the 4th century, the canon was set with the deuterocanonicals - it is the same one confirmed at Trent, as a response to the Reformation, the first concerted attempt to remove books from the canon.

If you are allowing individual thought to determine the canon, do you then allow for Luther’s opinion to call into question the canonicity of James and the Gospel of Matthew? What this shows, you say, is these books were disputed.
Yet, if you appeal to history and the canon set at the end of the 4the century, do you then admit the deuterocanonicals are canon, as they are included in those canons?

Keep in mind that the DC’s were not included in the canon of the 66 books but were in a separate canon called the DC. The books in this canon were not considered fully inspired-inerrant by the church before Trent.

BTW, do you have a reference to the dissention from Gregory the Great and John of Damasus?

Its in the quote from The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon.

 

[cfrancis]

Keep in mind that the DC’s were not included in the canon of the 66 books but were in a separate canon called the DC. The books in this canon were not considered fully inspired-inerrant by the church before Trent.

Yes, the deuterocanonicals were included in the canon, not separated. Please produce the canons decided by Hippo and Carthage, then we’ll know.

Back to the issue of people’s thoughts on the canon:
If you are allowing individual thought to determine the canon, do you then allow for Luther’s opinion to call into question the canonicity of James and the Gospel of Matthew? What this shows, you say, is these books were disputed.
Yet, if you appeal to history and the canon set at the end of the 4the century, do you then admit the deuterocanonicals are canon, as they are included in those canons?

 

[cfrancis]

Its in the quote from The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon.

Is that online? Do you have a link? Thanks.

 

[justasking4]

cfrancis;4237669]Yes, the deuterocanonicals were included in the canon, not separated. Please produce the canons decided by Hippo and Carthage, then we’ll know.

What does the word “deuterocanonical” mean?

Back to the issue of people’s thoughts on the canon:
If you are allowing individual thought to determine the canon, do you then allow for Luther’s opinion to call into question the canonicity of James and the Gospel of Matthew? What this shows, you say, is these books were disputed.

Its one thing for someone to dispute something and another to demonstrate this was the opinion of the entire church at the time. The protestant church has never rejected these books out of the NT canon.

Yet, if you appeal to history and the canon set at the end of the 4the century, do you then admit the deuterocanonicals are canon, as they are included in those canons?

They were essentially 2 canons in the OT before Trent. The DC’s were in the second canon that did not possess the same authority as the first canon of 66 books.

 

[cfrancis]

What does the word “deuterocanonical” mean?

second canon, meanig they are Scripture. Again, produce the canon lists from Hippo and Carthage, and we’ll see what’s what.

Its one thing for someone to dispute something and another to demonstrate this was the opinion of the entire church at the time. The protestant church has never rejected these books out of the NT canon.

And the Catholic Church accepts the 73 books of Scripture. That should settle it.

They were essentially 2 canons in the OT before Trent. The DC’s were in the second canon that did not possess the same authority as the first canon of 66 books.

Please, present the canons of HIppo and Carthage, and we’ll see if your statement is true.

 

[cfrancis]

There were also many who did not accept them either. John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado rejected the DC’s as Scripture. What this shows is that these books were in dispute.

Would you say, then, these individuals would not quote the deuterocanonicals as Scripture, if they did not accept them as Scripture?

Again, if you have a link of some kind, I thank you!

 

[jmcrae]

Jan Hus-you guys killed him as you recall. He lived in 1400.

His Bishop actually was giving him another chance (one of many) to defend himself and justify his teachings, before excommunicating him (not killing him). It was his congregation that lynched him, because they thought the Bishop was being too slow to get rid of him. At the same time, they dug up the bones of Wyclif and threw them into the river alongside the ashes of Jan Hus, because Hus had been using Wyclif’s Bible in the liturgy. They also burned as many copies as they could find of that Bible, and also threw those ashes into the river, as well. The Bishop of course was horrified, and I suppose the ringleaders must have been brought to an account before the law. But it was because his congregation members were frustrated with him that he was killed; not because the Church wasn’t giving him freedom of speech or the chance to explain himself.

Just out of curiousity, do you agree with his teachings? (Do you even know what he taught?) Would you consider him a Protestant, if he lived today, or would you write him off as a kind of Branch Davidian or other cultic troublemaker?

Peter Waldo-you did not kill him. But some of his students. He lived around 1200.

And again, do you agree with the teachings of Peter Waldo? Would he be considered an upstanding member of your congregation, or would your people run him out on a rail?

 

[justasking4]

Is that online? Do you have a link? Thanks.

This is all i have. You might try to google it.

 

[justasking4]

cfrancis;4237868]
Originally Posted by justasking4
What does the word “deuterocanonical” mean?
cfrancis
second canon, meanig they are Scripture.

Why a second canon if they were accepted as Scripture?

Again, produce the canon lists from Hippo and Carthage, and we’ll see what’s what.

This would prove what?

Quote:justasking4
Its one thing for someone to dispute something and another to demonstrate this was the opinion of the entire church at the time. The protestant church has never rejected these books out of the NT canon.

cfrancis
And the Catholic Church accepts the 73 books of Scripture. That should settle it.

Evidently it did not since these books were in a second canon status.

Quote:justasking4
They were essentially 2 canons in the OT before Trent. The DC’s were in the second canon that did not possess the same authority as the first canon of 66 books.

cfrancis
Please, present the canons of HIppo and Carthage, and we’ll see if your statement is true.

No need to appeal to any councils. The mere fact these books were considered DC’s i.e. second canon tells us that there was some dispute on them. Otherwise it makes no sense to call them DC. Correct?

 

[cfrancis]

Why a second canon if they were accepted as Scripture?

This would prove what?

Evidently it did not since these books were in a second canon status.

No need to appeal to any councils. The mere fact these books were considered DC’s i.e. second canon tells us that there was some dispute on them. Otherwise it makes no sense to call them DC. Correct?

You seem intent on a position that that which is deemed canonical is not Scripture - an odd point without historical merit. Much like saying a by-law is not really a law.
At the same time, you seem to rest upon the presence of dispute equals evidence of non-canonicity, which raises the issue of Revelation, Hebrews and 2 Peter being in dispute until the end of the 4th century.
At which time, I presume, you would appeal to the decision of the Church to include Revelation, Hebrews and 2 Peter in the canon…which brings us back to the issue of the councils.
Indeed, a presentation of the decisions made by Church councils as to what is to be included in the Bible would settle the matter…unless you have some Scripture verses that provide such a list.