Dialogue under My Apologies' Video : was already 382 infallible?

My Apologies Leaves Out Parts of the Argument He Pretends to Refute · Dialogue under My Apologies' Video : was already 382 infallible? · "My Apologies" Claims to Defend Infallible Scripture As Somehow Accessible Without Infallible Church · No Deception, Your Apologies, Just a Thing You Hadn't Learned to Read : an Implication

Mike Gluszewski

@mikegluszewski1527

Athanasius assembled a canon in 367. Check out his writings on that. In 382 at the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus 1, the canon was set. At Council of Hippo in 393 it was reaffirmed. Then again it was reaffirmed at Council of Carthage in 397. It was definitively reaffirmed at Council of Florence in 1442.

My Apologies

@my.apologies

There are even earlier Fathers that assembled canon lists and they are surprisingly consistent. It is not historically the case though that the canon was authoritatively defined at any of those earlier local councils - the issue was dealt with, but there was no authoritative ecumenical declaration. There were still discussions about the canon for the next thousand + years. There are even copies of the Latin Vulgate that include the Book of Laodiceans (which is never part of those early canons btw). The Council of Florence is the first time it was dogmatically defined.

Canada Eh! A Pinoy Vlog

@CanadaEhAPinoyVlog

@my.apologies while its true that there were no infallible declaration of the christian canon prior to trent, we have local councils issuing canon to the their jurisdiction but not on an infallible level.

Despite church fathers arguing if books such as the deuteros, hebrews, revelations, james etc are inspired or not (though not one church father considered them apocryphal), at the end of the day the local church councils would overrule their opinions. Example. Jerome never doubted the deuteros were not apocryphal, he only had hesitations that they were not inspired but only good for teaching, still he is not the authority when it comes to the canon, he was under the jurisdiction of Rome and Rome's canon had the deuteros on which he was instructed to translate along with the rest of the 73 book bible into latin.

Aside from Rome, we had 3 other christian councils affirming the 73 book bible prior to Trent, there's hippo, carthage and florence.

What we don't have in christian history prior to the reformation is the 66 book protestant canon so protestants cannot claim their canon is even historical.

The deuteros were part of the christian canon in the time of Luther, if they were not then why would Luther even try to remove them from the christian canon? See the point there!? its take a bit of common sense to sink this information in.

When Protestants botched the christian canon by removing the deuteros, Trent had to step in and affirm in an infallible sense that the 73 book canon is the tradition of the church as was evidently proven in Rome, Hippo, Carthage and Florence. You can read Trent's statement if you like.

The best argument protestants can make against the catholic canon are the opinions of certain individuals in the church about the deuteros but that is already a defeater for them! A church father's opinion on any matter is just that, an opinion. Its not authoritative in any sense, the church is the authority on the matter through its councils.

Catholics give councils' declaration as proof of their canon

Protestants give individual church father's opinion on the deuteros along with some mambo jumbo explanation to "prove" their canon is even historical (which is not!).

You can clearly see who has solid historical back-up when it comes to the correct christian canon and its not the protestants.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

sorry, @CanadaEhAPinoyVlog, but, 382 AD is infallible.

As a local council, it is not infallible according to its scope as a council, but it is infallible through the constant approval of the Holy See (like other councils so approved, Toledo, Orange each of these two having many approved councils).

Canada Eh! A Pinoy Vlog

@hglundahl do you have documents to prove that? I don't know of any.

Of course I would love for the council of Rome to be infallible but I still have to stick to the facts. we must present our evidences to the protestants as truthfully as it can get.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Get to a preconciliar list of the loci of theology, @CanadaEhAPinoyVlog .

After the ones infallible in themselves, you will find that Councils approved by the Roman Pontiff are a go to, since they are covered by the Roman Pontiff's approval.

Canada Eh! A Pinoy Vlog

@hglundahl please give me the link and the quote from where you are getting your information that it is an infallible council, because I dont know of any.

In fact, ecumenical councils are infallible if approved by the pope, local councils however are not even though the presider is the pope, it is not an infallible council unless papal infallibility is invoked which we dont have proof it was in the council of rome.

Roshan Kurien

@roshankurien203

Athanasius canon didn’t have Esther and had Baruch. Kindly read his Easter letter before misquoting him. Obviously this Protestant hasn’t done too much research. The Canon of scripture was dogmatically defined in 1546 at Trent. Just wiki it for crying out loud if you don’t want read

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Get me right, @CanadaEhAPinoyVlog .

I did not say the Council of Rome in 382 was infallible, as a council.

I said its content is infallible due to the approval by a Pope.

One of the things in which Popes exercise the infallibility is, approving local councils.

This is true for Rome and Carthage, and it is also true for a whole series of councils in Orange and in Toledo.

I found the info in a book, back before 2004, when I could access a University Library with that kind of content. Not sure I can find it again.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@roshankurien203 Trent confirmed 382.

Canada Eh! A Pinoy Vlog

@hglundahl Like what I said previously, when Trent infallibly defined the canon all it did was confirmed the Tradition of the Church from previous councils. It means that the 73 book canon was the tradition of the Church and Trent stated this in an infallible sense.

Those early local councils themselves were not infallible nor were their declaration of the canon infallible. Trent was the one who made the infallible declaration of the Canon.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CanadaEhAPinoyVlog "Those early local councils themselves were not infallible"

In themselves.

"nor were their declaration of the canon infallible."

Until the councils were approved by the Supreme Pontiff. This falls under the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium.

Canada Eh! A Pinoy Vlog

@hglundahl sorry but you are just plainly wrong, like I said again, NOT EVERYTHING A POPE APPROVES BECOMES INFALLIBLE.

Please read the teaching of the Catholic Church on papal infallibility.

Mike Gluszewski

@roshankurien203 my mistake. I was speaking about the new testament canon. Ithought it was the ecumenical council of Florence when the canon was declared?

Canada Eh! A Pinoy Vlog

@mikegluszewski1527 Though florence was an ecumenical council, it did not state in an infallible way the canon. Trent did.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I tried to find the exact reference I had in mind, @CanadaEhAPinoyVlog , thinking it was Pastor Aeternus. It wasn't. As far as I could find by a quick search.

It was a summary and here is another summary:

Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following:

1) Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592 ff);
2) Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645 ff);
3) Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticum, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no. 659 ff).

I think Pope St. Damasus' approval of Rome 382 falls under heading 3.

We are perhaps in agreement it doesn't fall under 1, I am not sure.

Clear ideas on the pope's infallible magisterium
SSPX — US
https://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wait, @CanadaEhAPinoyVlog ... here is a quote from Pastor Aeternus itself which supports what I said:

Romani autem Pontifices, prout temporum et rerum conditio suadebat, nunc convocatis oecumenicis Conciliis aut explorata Ecclesiae per orbem dispersae sententia, nunc per Synodos particulares, nunc aliis, quae divina suppeditabat providentia, adhibitis auxiliis, ea tenenda definierunt, quae sacris Scripturis et apostolicis Traditionibus consentanea Deo adiutore cognoverant.

Meaning, when a Pontiff approves a local synod, its content becomes infallible.

Canada Eh! A Pinoy Vlog

@hglundahl You are reading Pastor Aeternus wrong. It does not say that. Here is what it says in english

"The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions."

It says the Pope can summoned ecumenical councils/consult the opinions of the church or any other means afforded by the church WHEN HE DEFINE DOCTRINES.

In essense it means the pope does not just declare a dogma out of thin air, the pope can use different methods that the church has in its disposal to know for certainty a dogma that he is about to define.

Canada Eh! A Pinoy Vlog

@hglundahl There is no papal document post 382 AD from any pope after Pope Damasus declaring the council of 382 as infallible.

the canon of Rome along with Hippo, Carthage and Florence are infalible because Trent stated it to be when Trent infallibly defined the Canon. But no document from Trent ever said that these previous councils' declaration of the canon in their time were infallibly declared.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yeah, exactly: @CanadaEhAPinoyVlog

"sometimes by special synods,"

Exactly what I meant.

"In essense it means the pope does not just declare a dogma out of thin air,"

No, that is covered in the next section.

What it essentially means is, papal approval of a local synod ("special" is a bad translation) is one of the means by which he expresses "what he knows" i e his infallibility.

A specific document from a Pope stating "this local synod was infallible" or "I declare this local synod infallible" is not necessary.

As long as Popes have approved (even in very general terms) rather than disapproved of 382, this constitues in and of itself "papal approval of a local council" ....