And of course half-truths are pushed instead of the whole picture
True propaganda
The canon of orhtodoxy was settled in : the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse (405), and the Second Council of Carthage (419).
THIS???
From YOU?
Rather, what is “typical” is another RC post which seeks to deny the truth which was abundantly substantiated because Catholics will not look at or accept evidence that refutes them, and then falsely accuse them of fabrication.
However, the fact remains that none of those councils were ecumenical (http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm), thus they did not issue infallble decrees, and thus debate was allowed and took place right into Trent until (after a divided vote) an infallible decree was finally provided, that being the first one as RC sources themselves state.
If the canon had been infallibly defined then there could be no such debate over disputed books as was allowed and seen.
As much as RCs obfuscate the difference btwn a generally settled yet disputable canon and one that was infallible and thus indisputable, the fact is that,
The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)
...it also put a full stop to the 1000-year-old development of the biblical canon (History of the Council of Trent [London, 1961] 91, quoted by Raymond Edward Brown, American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar, in The New Jerome biblical commentary, p. 1168)
“For the first fifteen centuries of Christianity, no Christian Church put forth a definitive list of biblical books. Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and included the ‘Apocrypha’ in the canon, but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders.” (Joseph Lienhard, S.J., A.B., classics, Fordham University, “The Bible, The Church, And Authority;” [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59)
Thus the canon was not indisputably “settled” (which was the issue of this exchange) until then, and debate continued. Now cease your obfuscation and apologize for your false allegations.
Morever, there is the debate over 1 Esdras under its various nomenclature (http://peacebyjesus.tripod.com/ancients_on_scripture.html#Is) and the Orthodox canon which also disagrees with Rome, even if by additional books.
I can't help but wonder, if these Councils were all supposed to have "settled" the question of the Old Testament canon, then why was there a need for all the rest after the first one at the Synod of Rome? Why did the council at Trent then decide it needed to make ANOTHER "infallible" pronouncement on the canon if it was already a settled question and why was there STILL far from unanimous consent on what they did decide to do? Sure seems like the "propaganda" is on the side of those who insist it was a settled question in 382 A.D.