Right about Nicea not Fabricating, Wrong about Catholic Church Not Deciding

The one who is so:

Council of Nicaea Myth Debunked
VerseByVerseBT, added 29 Dec. 2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3uGKp23m_g

My comments saying he is so:

I

1:20 Your claim the Roman Catholic Church Hierarchy did not yet exist comes from where?

1:34 Your claim Eusebius suggested a council of "all the independent Christian churches" comes from where? Eusebius' Church history? What text, if so?

1:44 And your claim the bishops derived their legitimacy solely from their OWN see, without any interdependence of sees or subjection whatsoever, comes from where, i e prior to Nicea?

From the fact that some sorting was done, so that everything done could be claimed as invention of the council, if you like, centuries after, as you are coming?

II

2:41 That SOME Churches prior to both Nicea and - more relevant - Rome and Carthage and Laodicea were considering any given NT book as canonic does not mean there was an agreed canon.

Rome and Carthage gave canons which involve all of NT and which involve at least verbally same OT canon as Trent.

Laodicea gave a canon which supports the Protestant OT canon, but a defective NT one, books are lacking, notably Apocalypse.

Note very well, I am not into the "Nicea made the canon" spoof, I am talking about real local councils at which Bible canons were really discussed and published.

Your appeal to Church Fathers involves an appeal to men who were supporting the Hierarchy, i e St Irenaeus who said all Churches must agree with the Apostolic succession specifically in Rome, enumerating a few Popes there.

2:53 I am fairly sure, the reference in 2 Peter 3 is to Romans : St Peter was there, and some proto-Protestants had already made some twisted Romans road. It is therefore prophetic about Martin Luther.

And obviously, the verse, while not a direct refutation of "Scripture interprets other Scripture" is at least against "the Bible interprets itself (on same locus of text)".

3:17 As you may be aware, Muratorian fragment has an NT canon deviant, for some or other reason, from the currently universal one.

Yes, you said basically - omitting that it had, erroneously, included Pastor Hermas.

3:52 You are clearly right that 4 Gospels as such could be reconstructed as being canon from ante-Nicene fathers. While the most important ones, they are 4 out of 27.

III

4:15 And were universally rejected by the early Church.

Arguing, in one sense, Dan Brown was right : they were rejected by the Catholic Church. That is what "universal" means, and if you will argue that Catholic Church deciding on Gospels does not equal Catholic Church as coming out from Nicea, you will also have to argue that the canons from Carthage, Laodicea and Rome are from a spurious Church - leaving you with Four Gospels and Ante-Nicene fathers and Muratorian Fragment and a conundrum where the Church really went.

4:47 I reject the Nag Hammadi spurious "gospels" on authority of the Church.

You reject them on what authority? Only on authority of human reason?

Then, while your reasons are good, you can hardly have a real issue with someone who having other reasons takes that other option - which I, obviously, do not.

5:22 Obviously, Saint Hippolytus was rejecting Gospel of Thomas.

And obviously, since he was either Pope, or more probably a redeemed Antipope, whose writings were validated by subsequent real Popes, as a Catholic I obey this Church authority.

The early Church considered "Gospel of Thomas" as obvious heresies.

Fine. So do I. So do you.

The Church in the 16^th C considered Martin Luther's exegesis as obvious heresies.

So do I - but do you?

If not, are you dealing with two churches? Or are you claiming one and same Church had but later lost authority to decide what is heresy?

If the latter, why would the Church lose a promise of Christ? If the former, where do you set the limit in time, and where apart from Catholic Church was the "early Church" surviving?