For Rome the time frame is even longer as Rome's canon was officially declared at Trent in 1546 in a 24 yea to 15 nay with 16 abstaining vote.
That doesn't ring too well for the clear unanimity Roman Catholics like to brag about.
Another interesting thing about the group that claims they never change is that at Trent the Vulgate was to be the authoritative text of Scripture. This was change in 1943 when Pius XII allowed Catholic translations to be based on texts other than the Vulgate.
That's a lot of change for the group that claims they don't change.
But we --- you and I --- would NOT know which were to be believed de fide and which were not, unless the Church on the basis of Sacred Tradition (the bishops' teachings, the creeds and liturgies) --- had winnowed them and set forth the Canon as truly reflecting the Faith that had been handed on to Her, and thus worthy of belief.
Demonstrably false. The ekklesia had generally agreed upon the canon. By 200 AD the current canon was accepted by the church. There were some in question due to authorship but were not rejected. No Council approved the Bible. The ekklesia lead by the Holy Spirit did.
The Roman Catholic likes to claim everything they're doing, believing today was handed down from the Apostles.
This is easily disproven.
The "Hail Mary" is a good example.
The Catholic Encyclopedia Online, which bills itself as "the most comprehensive resource on Catholic teaching, history, and information ever gathered in all of human history", has this to say about the "Hail Mary".
In point of fact there is little or no trace of the Hail Mary as an accepted devotional formula before about 1050. All the evidence suggests that it took its rise from certain versicles and responsories occurring in the Little Office or Cursus of the Blessed Virgin which just at that time was coming into favour among the monastic orders.
We know the apparitions claiming to be Mary were not handed down from the Apostles.
Much can be said of the Immaculate Conception as again the Catholic Encyclopedia Online notes:
no direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.
The Gen 3:15 translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. Regarding Luke 1:28 the CE admits is not proof of the dogma.
To further illustrate this was not a universally received belief of the early church Origen, Basil and Chrysostom claim she did sin in some capacity. The CE attempts to dismiss the "older Fathers" as being in error in this matter!
So what does the Roman Catholic have to rely upon for this doctrine? Proof from Reason per the CE! Gee, we want it to be, it has to be, it should be, we will make it be.
But none of this was taught by the Apostles.
I could keep going but I think I've illustrated the Roman Catholic claim of "Tradition" being exactly what the Apostles handed down to be a false claim.
If there were constant "unanimity", why would we have had the Council of Jerusalem? Why would we have had any Synods or Ecumenical Councils at all?
Your grasp of the history is weak-to-nonexistent if you think the story of the Catholic Church has been a story of unanimity--- or that that's what we "claim"!! !! Once again, your argument is based on what you "think" we teach, practice or believe, not on what we actually do.
Again (sigh): please do not tell me what I believe. ASK what I believe. TELL what YOU believe.
Your posts will be more accurate then on the whole, I trust, as well as thoughtful and interesting. I'm sure of it.
Pius XII did bother to explain in detail in Divino Afflante Spiritu what Trent meant by authoritative—but he also made it clear that Trent valued the original text more than the Latin—authoritative has a juridical sense, as Pius XII makes clear.
If one bothers to read Leo XIII’s 1893 Providentissimus Deus one can see that the value placed on original languages is not so modern, a point further emphasized by Pius XI in the 1920 encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus. The myth that 1943 some how changed everything was dreamed up by “scholars” in the 50’s and 60’s looking for an excuse to ignore the entire history of the field. Pius XII made very clear both in DIviono Afflante Spiritu, and in Humani Generis a few years later that his scriptural teaching embraced the encyclicals of both his predecessors in their entirety.
Whatever the vote at Trent, it was sufficient and then signed by the Pope.
Don't know much about History...