Replies

Again, the issue was not when they basically were largely accepted, but when this was infallibly (key word) affirmed according to her terms.

And my point was that as far as the canon of scripture, this is not significant. They were scriptures, period. Not on the level of the Gospels, but part of the canon.

I understand you are arguing about infallibility, I'm just saying it's moot in this case.

I'm sorry to have taken you off your topic, and I appreciate your replies.

And my point was that as far as the canon of scripture, this is not significant. They were scriptures, period. Not on the level of the Gospels, but part of the canon

The infallibility of the councils, no matter how small or big, is from the Church. There is nothing inherently "infallible" about the councils except by proxy.

The extent to which council declarations are binding depends on the nature of the council. A local council is binding locally. A general Council is binding generally.

The canon of Carthage was legally (canonically) binding to the Latin Church but not to the other Patriarchates. Canonical weight is a legal clause that allows for condemnation and sanctions (for breaking the law).

Trent declared (although in a strange way) the canon of Carthage as canonical for the entire Church in order to be able to prosecute and punish Protestants who denied it. It has nothing to do with infallibility.