How 27 Writings Became The New Testament

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1255266' date='Apr 24 2007, 12:23 PM']Hi, Reza,

Sad to say, some are blind to the implications that historical facts have upon their theology. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (Mt 13:9).

[color="#FF0000"]It could be that some are blind, but others have actual concerns and problems and can't be put into such a protestant box.[/color]

How about the Byzantine Catholic Church, or the Maronite Catholic Church, or the Coptic Catholic Church, or any of the 22 Churches (23 counting the Roman rite) that together constitute the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? Are they biblical, in your opinion?

[color="#FF0000"]Depends on the church, the Coptic Catholic Church [for example] was affirmed to replace the Coptic Orthodox Church, for it's rejection of Chalcedon [which was proven to have been factually inaccurate of the doctrines of the Coptic Orthodox Church]. Therefore replacing it with a clone, is wrong. You can't replace the original church that St. Mark founded, just because everyone in Egypt [not just the clergy but nearly every] disagrees with you, and through military force you keep them from telling the truth, etc.[/color]

Orthodoxy fails to follow the biblical teaching on the primacy of Peter, the Chief of the Apostles and head of the one united, universal (Catholic) and Apostolic Church.

[color="#FF0000"]That's your interpretation of history, but not nearly universal [which is why Protestants have a huge problem with the Roman Catholic Church].[/color]

I considered the Orthodox before I became a Catholic. But in addition to the disagreement over who is in charge of the Church, they have caved in on certain moral issues they held firmly to for centuries.

[color="#FF0000"]Coptic Orthodox NEVER held to the supremacy of the Roman Catholic Patriarch. As I'd pointed out, St. Clement was the head dude of his era, and yet he was Coptic. St. Anthanasious [who wrote the Nicene Creed] was also Coptic, among many others. The "Coptic Catholic" Church was a clone, created by Roman because the entire population of Egypt massively rejected Rome and the Council of Chalcedon.[/color]

I also couldn’t accept the ethnic divisions within Orthodoxy. I had to choose among the autonomous Russian, Greek, Ukrainian, Coptic, or other Orthodox Churches.

[color="#FF0000"]This is a large misconception: Orthodox doesn't put faith in Ethnicity, this is like saying that the Roman Catholic Church puts emphisis on Europeans. History lesson: St. Mark brought the truth of Jesus Christ to the Egyptians. Coptic means "Egyptian", St. Mark didn't try and change their culture but rather adapted their culture around the message. The only difference in liturgy between the Ethopian Orthodox [for example] and the Coptic Orthodox is the language and instrumentation, etc. This doesn't mean that Copts or Ethopians are "superior" as God doesn't care, the reason that it hasn't been changed is that the Apostles gave it to us as such, and we don't believe in changing the traditions, even the slightest bit, so we keep them the same.

Romans is also a race, Chaldeon also refers to an ethnic group [both submitting to the Roman Catholic Pope]. It doesn't mean that there is spiritual significance to these ethnic groups. I'm not racially Egyptian, yet I'm not considered "lessor" of a person spiritually. St. Moses the Etheopian is one of our most honored Saints and he's racially not Egyptian but he's Coptic [was a Monk in the Desert]. The Russian Orthodox Church was founded in Russia, amongst Russians, so why wouldn't it involve their culture? The Greek Orthodox Church was founded amongst Greeks, so why wouldn't it involve Greek Culture [Fun Fact: Most Christian Palestinians are Greek Orthodox]? The Apostles didn't seek to massively abolish every culture of the people, in order to minister but "baptized" the culture.[/color]

They're too identified and integrated with the governments of those countries, IMHO.

[color="#FF0000"]This also is very far from the truth: Syriac Orthodox [persecuted by their muslim governments], Coptic Orthodox [persecuted by their muslim government], Russian Orthodox [persecuted by the communists], and the list goes on... What do you think the Roman and Byzintine Crusades were trying to do? They were trying to use military force to get people to follow their agenda [religious and political]. Now it goes without saying that the Christians have had a posetive impact of such government secular institutions. Why wouldn't it? The Saints of Jesus Christ during the 3rd century had an impact of Diocletian's government too [caused him to go insane, as ridding the government of him].[/color]

The Church needs a center of unity -- the Pope, our Papa, the successor to St. Peter. This is the biblical model of the one unified Church.

[color="#FF0000"]We'd disagree with this and say that the unity factor is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the head of our church, not a man.[/color]

Condemned? Limbo, which was pure theological speculation and neither doctrine nor Sacred Apostolic Tradition, was not condemnation but a state of perfect natural happiness.

[color="#FF0000"]It was largely accepted by the Roman Catholic Church [as this pope and other popes have stated over and over again] and was formally discontinued. It was a tradition in itself, that was discontinued. Copts [among the rest of the Orthodox] don't speculate, because that causes problems [and that's a large problem that Protestants have with Roman Catholics]. If it's a "mystery" then leave it as a Mystery.[/color]

Limbo, as Raphael said, is not now and never was a doctrine. It was the speculation of some theologians. Be careful what you read in the media, who always gets it wrong when reporting the activities of the Catholic Church. Go to an official Catholic source.

[color="#FF0000"]I don't go strictly by the Media, I read the Pope's own Words, I read Roman Catholics own Words and base it upon that but again... why speculate with something such as baby's going to heaven or hell? Jesus Christ made it very clear that little children could come to him, why even use such a widespread speculation that suggests otherwise? You might say that it was never "an official doctrine of the church" but it was wide spread enough that everyone knew what the Pope was talking about when he abolished it![/color]

The Church's name is not Roman Catholic. It is simply, the Church. Or, the Catholic Church. Roman is only one of the many rites of the Church.

[color="#FF0000"]No Roman Catholic Church referrs to those that see the Roman Patriarch as "supreme" and follow such teachings. "The Church" is the united Church of Jesus Christ prior to the Schism. After the Schism, the Roman Church declared itself to be "supreme" and "the church" but definately isn't in agreement with the rest of the rites, including nearly every single one of the other rites that the Apostles themselves formed![/color]

The Church wrote the NT. The term 'Catholic' was first mentioned in writing by St. Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrnaeans c. A.D. 107, who probably learned it from his teachers and mentors, the Apostles: “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Notice that Ignatius didn't say, 'there is the Orthodox Church.')

[color="#FF0000"]Notice that St. Ignatius was also not Roman Catholic, didn't have Apostolic Succession of the Roman See and yet had considerable amount of "weight" regardless of Roman's thoughts at the time! I agree with the term "Catholic" and "The Church", I just don't agree with your defintion of Rome's supremacy. As I'd mentioned, I believe that Jesus Christ is the head of the church [as it's written in the orthodox doctrines]. I like that you say "he didn't use the word orthodox" because that was just a stab with not much theological backing. Just because he didn't use the term "orthodox" doesn't prove nothing, by St. Ignatious being Antiochian thou, it does prove that the Supremacy of the Roman Catholic Church wasn't always held. The Roman Catholic Church didn't write the NT, didn't compile it, but rather the whole church pre-schism [in which Rome likes to take credit for but would be more properly credited to those in the Oriental Orthodox Church historically].[/color]

Please provide the cites for the rites you mention. I’d be interested in reading them.

[color="#FF0000"]Read Isaiah 19![/color]

Yes, the Catholic Church certainly acknowledges that the Eastern Churches are her sisters and works diligently for reunification. Pray for the unity of the once undivided Churches! As JPII said, there's plenty of blame on both sides of the Great Schism.

[color="#FF0000"]Agreed![/color]

I’m glad to know that. Most Protestant I’ve met don’t have a clue, nor did I when I was Protestant.

[color="#FF0000"]You're probably right, particularly in the past, that most typical protestants used to not know much, but you'd be surprised at the grips that is going to Protestant Bible Colleges, now... etc. that even after studying history don't agree with the Roman Catholic Church, etc.[/color]


I refer you to John Henry Newman’s book, [i]An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.[/i] Newman (an Anglican priest) was set on proving that the Catholic Church was not the church of history. When his research and his book were finished, he put down his pen, called a priest, and became a Catholic.
Or the Coptic Catholic Church.

[color="#FF0000"]That's almost my story, except that I didn't come to the same conclusion. I was Protestant [kinda thru force of my aunt and uncle] then rejected it [along with the rest of Christianity] because of the hypocracy [among other reasons], became Muslim [as was several of my sisters through foster] and then decided to study the Bible and Quran together, study history indepth [history of the compilation of the Bible, etc] and found that the Coptic Church was the path God had desired for me. I would probably never be Coptic Catholic because why would I want to be a clone, when I can be the real thing?[/color]

Peace be with you,

Likos

[color="#FF0000"]May God's mercy and blessings keep you. I just read your post about your leg situation and various medical problems... hope things are better now!

Reza[/color][/quote]

[Katholikos]

Sorry, Reza, but your commentary in red will not copy, so I can't respond to your last post.

Likos

[RezaMikhaeil]

hmmm... alright

[dairygirl4u2c]

is it true, to your knowledge, that the apocraphyal books, or the books that are disputed from hte OT with protestants, were inserted into the back of the bible when the bible was first put together late 300's? That's my understanding. Whether tehy were to be for edificaiton or actual scripture was ambiguous given the way they were treated. And they weren't ratified until Trent. (though I think technically none of them were officially)

ideas?

[Katholikos]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1256566' date='Apr 25 2007, 11:47 PM']is it true, to your knowledge, that the apocraphyal books, or the books that are disputed from hte OT with protestants, were inserted into the back of the bible when the bible was first put together late 300's? That's my understanding. Whether tehy were to be for edificaiton or actual scripture was ambiguous given the way they were treated. And they weren't ratified until Trent. (though I think technically none of them were officially)

ideas?[/quote]

You have been misinformed. The books that Protestants call apocryphal were canonized with the rest of the books, without any distinction whatsoever, and had the same recognition as Isaiah or the Gospel of John.

The Council of Trent [b][i]affirmed[/i][/b] the Vulgate edition of the Bible, published in 402, which was based on the list of Scriptures canonized by the Council of Rome in 382. The Vulgate was translated by St. Jerome, commissoned by Pope Damasus I, who presided at the Council of Rome.

QUOTE

Pope Damasus and the Council of Rome (AD 382)

Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.

The order of the Old Testament books begins here:

Genesis, one book
Exodus, one book
Leviticus, one book
Numbers, one book
Deuteronomy, one book
Joshua Nave, one book
Judges, one book
Ruth, one book
Kings, four books [= 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings]
Paralipomenon, two books [= 1 & 2 Chronicles]
Psalms, one book

Solomon, three books:

Proverbs, one book
Ecclesiastes, one book
Canticle of Canticles, one book

Likewise:

Wisdom, one book [= Wisdom of Solomon]
Ecclesiasticus, one book [= Sirach]

Likewise the order of the Prophets:

Isaiah, one book
Jeremiah, one book [probably includes Baruch]
with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations
Ezekiel, one book
Daniel, one book
Hosea, one book
Micah, one book
Joel, one book
Obadiah, one book
Jonah, one book
Nahum, one book
Habakkuk, one book
Zephaniah, one book
Haggai, one book
Zechariah, one book
Malachi, one book

LIkewise the order of the histories:

Job, one book
Tobias, one book [= Tobit]
Esdras, two books [= Ezra & Nehemiah]
Esther, one book
Judith, one book
Maccabees, two books

Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church supports.

Of the gospels:

according to Matthew, one book
according to Mark, one book
according to Luke, one book
according to John, one book.

The Epistles of Paul, in number fourteen:

to the Romans, one
to the Corinthians, two
to the Ephesians, one
to the Thessalonians, two
to the Galatians, one
to the Philippians, one
to the Colossians, one
to Timothy, two
to Titus, one
to Philemon, one
to the Hebrews, one

Likewise:

the Apocalypse of John, one book.
and the Acts of the Apostles, one book.

Likewise the canonical epistles, in number seven:

of Peter the Apostle, two epistles
of James the Apostle, one epistle
of John the Apostle, one epistle
of another John, the presbyter, two epistles
of Jude the Zealot, the Apostle, one epistle.

The canon of the New Testament ends here.
END QUOTE
[Source: Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, sect. 84.]

The canon was again confirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419)
The Council of Carthage is recognized by Protestants as the official canonization date. Here is the decree:

QUOTE
COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE, A.D. 397

Canon 36 (or otherwise 47)[It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue [.Joshua], Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books, .Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, the Twelve Books of the prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias [Tobit], Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras [Ezra, Nehemiah], two books of the Machabees. Moreover of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John. Thus {it has been decided] that the Church beyond the sea may be consulted regarding the confirmation of that canon, also that it may be permitted to read the sufferings of the martyrs, when their anniversary days are celebrated.

Source: Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, p. 39-40

(Philip Schaff adds: Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.)

Source: Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. XIV. The Seven Ecumenical Councils. (453).

Here's the Council of Trent: QUOTE

[url="http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html"]http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html[/url]

COUNCIL OF TRENT – FOURTH SESSION

And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. [b]But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.[/b]
END QUOTE

(bold added)

Since I converted the Greek names into the more familiar Hebrew in the list from the Council of Rome, I didn't always do it for Carthage or Trent. BTW, the Council of Florence, 1445, also named the canonized Scriptures, a century before Trent.

As I said in my first post in this thread, it is a Protestant myth that the Church added books at the Council of Trent. The Scriptures that the Church canonized in A.D. 382, 393, 397, and 419, which were confirmed by Pope Innocent I in 405, and are contained in the Vulgate, are identical to the table of contents of the Catholic Bible today.

Likos

[Katholikos]

Hey, Dairygirl, my brain just slipped into gear. I realized where you got the idea that the apocryphal books were added as an addendum at the back of the Bible. Keeeerect! But it was Martin Luther's Bible. He removed eleven books and parts of Esther and Daniel from the canon of Scripture -- four NT books and seven from the OT + E & D as noted, and put them in a separate section at the back of his German translation of the Bible c. 1545. The NT books were Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. The OT books were Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (aka Sirach), Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. Luther not only separated these writings, he wrote prefaces for them explaining why he did not consider them Scripture. And to be doubly sure folks didn't make any mistake about the fact that he rejected them, he left the pages unnumbered so they couldn't be confused with the rest of the writings he considered Scripture.

His followers later restored the NT writings, but let Luther's cuts to the OT stand. When the KJV was first published in 1611, the translators followed Luther's strategy and put the so-called apocrypha in an addendum at the back. They were dropped altogether in later editions. That's why to this day they are missing from Protestant Bibles.

Sorry that didn't come to mind sooner. It's very late and I'm tired. I'll check back as soon as I can, but I'll be out of commission in the morning.

Likos

[Katholikos]

Reza,

Catholic Cid (computer guy extraordinaire) formatted your post with the red print and sent it to me in a PM so that I could respond to it. That's the reply I have been working on, but was delayed due to eye surgery. I'll try to have it completed soon.

But I notice in your other posts there's more of the red. If you want me to reply, please use the quote function and not the red print. Don't know if it's just my computer, but the red won't reproduce in the "reply" mode. Others may not have the problem. I'm not very savvy about computers.

Peace, Likos

[dairygirl4u2c]

Well, here's Jerome, apparently on the addendum matter...

a noncatholic friend says this:
[quote]Jerome included them as an addendum, as a favor to some friends, but his prefaces are enough to show he didn't see these books as inspired Scripture. He stated that they were useful and good to read, but they weren't to be used to support the doctrines of the Church. 2 Timothy 3:16 tells you that ALL Scripture is profitable for doctrine, so for Jerome to say this about these books goes to show, once again, his position on their non-canonicity.[/quote]quotes from jerome
[quote]The stories of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon are not contained in the Hebrew…. For this same reason when I was translating Daniel many years ago, I noted these visions with a critical symbol, showing that they were not included in the Hebrew.... After all, Origen, Eusebius and Appolinarius and other outstanding churchmen and teachers of Greece acknowledge that, as I have said, these visions are not found amongst the Hebrew, and therefore they are not obliged to answer to Porphyry for these portions which exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture (Preface to Daniel)

...and...

I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon; because, however, they are to be found everywhere, we have formed them into an appendix, prefixing to them an obelus, and thus making an end of them, so as not to seem to the uninformed to have cut off a large portion of the volume.[/quote]

[Katholikos]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1259880' date='Apr 29 2007, 08:03 PM']Well, here's Jerome, apparently on the addendum matter ... a noncatholic friend says this:
quotes from jerome[/quote]

Jerome was not a bishop of the Catholic Church and did not participate in the Council of Rome. Perhaps he was a spectator at most. He and others were free to express their opinions until the canon was settled. After that, [i]Roma locuta est, causa finita est. [/i] Rome has spoken, the case is closed.

I posted the list of the canonical writings from the Councils of Rome and Carthage II. Did you read them?

The opinions of Jerome, whatever they may have been, did not prevail. What matters is the contents of the canon. The writings of the Septuagint (LXX) that the Catholic Church inherited from Jesus and the Apostles were canonized and named the Old Testament. The table of contents of the Vulgate is well known and is identical to the canons of both Rome and Carthage II.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Early_Christianity"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cano...ly_Christianity[/url]

QUOTE

Early Christianity had no well-defined set of scriptures outside of the Septuagint. . .

According to J. N. D. Kelly [a Protestant scholar], "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church... always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books."
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Encyclopedia of Early Christianity [a Protestant book]
Second Edition, Everett Ferguson, Editor

The [Greek] Septuagint was the Bible of the earliest church . . . The church spread the Septuagint, together with her own writings contained in the New Testament, throughout the world in its missionary activities . . . Until the Protestant Reformation, [u]the canon of the church was the longer canon of the Septuagint. Only then did the Hebrew text of the Old Testament replace the Septuagint.[/u]
END QUOTE (underscore added)

Did you get that? "together with her own wrirings contained in the NT." The Church wrote the NT.

Be sure to send this to your Protestant friends.

Likos

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1259711' date='Apr 29 2007, 01:17 PM']Reza,

Catholic Cid (computer guy extraordinaire) formatted your post with the red print and sent it to me in a PM so that I could respond to it. That's the reply I have been working on, but was delayed due to eye surgery. I'll try to have it completed soon.

But I notice in your other posts there's more of the red. If you want me to reply, please use the quote function and not the red print. Don't know if it's just my computer, but the red won't reproduce in the "reply" mode. Others may not have the problem. I'm not very savvy about computers.

Peace, Likos[/quote]

This forum only allows so many quotes, so I use the red instead. And to answer your question, no the red doesn't work in reply mode, that's why you have to copy and past what I wrote, and reply to it as such.

[CatholicCid]

[code]This forum only allows so many quotes, so I use the red instead. And to answer your question, no the red doesn't work in reply mode, that's why you have to copy and past what I wrote, and reply to it as such.[/code]

A trick I like to use is after 5 or so quote tags, I start putting in code tags. Looks almost the same and I don't believe there is a limit on them (I just tested and had 50+ in one post no problem). The text will then show up in reply.

[code]doggy?[/code]

[ code ] text [ /code ]

(I find it ironic I can't use the code tags to show the code tags)

Edited April 30, 2007 by CatholicCid

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1260544' date='Apr 30 2007, 08:26 AM'][code]This forum only allows so many quotes, so I use the red instead. And to answer your question, no the red doesn't work in reply mode, that's why you have to copy and past what I wrote, and reply to it as such.[/code]

A trick I like to use is after 5 or so quote tags, I start putting in code tags. Looks almost the same and I don't believe there is a limit on them (I just tested and had 50+ in one post no problem). The text will then show up in reply.

[code]doggy?[/code]

[ code ] text [ /code ]

(I find it ironic I can't use the code tags to show the code tags)[/quote]

And I actually meant quote the user you are quoting in Code tags when you run out of Quote tags (you can use like a max of 10 or something on one page) and put your text inbetween. Not just put the code tags inside one large quote tag.

Ie

Say I run out of quote tags

[code]Puppies rule[/code]
I disagree, Cats rule.

Instead of

[quote]Puppies Rule
[code]I disagree, Cats rule[/code][/quote]


Woops, was going to edit <<, didn't realize I was quoting my post. Sorry for the double post.

Edited May 1, 2007 by CatholicCid

[jesussaves]

Good point Katho. I was going to look up the time frame but was too lazy. I thought Jerome was during the closing of the canon, so I wasn't sure if it was before or after he did that stuff. I do doubt whether he stopped after Rome..

“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 Church 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).

But you provide convincing evidence.
I think what does "canonical" mean matters here. As at trent they specified "sacred and canonical".

Edited May 1, 2007 by jesussaves