I am posting from a laptop which makes my typing even slower (stiff fingers), so i am only going to say that the issue on pope Damasus (the murderer) and the Gelasian decree, is what modern scholarship has found due to increased research.
But the point is that Trent was the first infallible definition, and before that debate continued, not like that of modern revisionists favoring women ordination, but by men of antiquity was well as opponents of Luther over a matter that was considered to open to debate that Luther’s rejection of 2 Mac (TMK), was not a charge against him, but which required Rome to finalize her canon (yet that of the EOs is not exactly the same, but it not made an issue).
well, I most admit, my hands hurt like crazy from typing. In addition, I played 18 holes of golf both Saturday and Sunday so my hands are indeed numb!.
Ok, so you we can at least agree that Trent was the final definition and as I said, the “Most definitive” and thus while the term infallible was not used, in essence it was an infallible definition for as the current Cathechism states, repeating in essence what Trent said, “The Complete list is called the canon of scripture” [CCC 120]. Still, there indeed definitions of the Canon well before that were the same canon that Trent “infallibly” and “Definitively” defined. So Trent finally put the issue to rest and yes there was debate but every time there was a debate going back to the late 4th century, the canon defined at Trent was the canon that was defined every time before it going back to the 4th century.
As for Pope Damasus, can we now agree that there indeed was a Council in Rome that meet circa 382AD, per the Canons and Letters from the Council of Constantinople. So these internet so called protestant apologist posting on their blogs no such Council happened is incorrect. I will take a measure of goodwill and assume out of ignorance, not hatred of Catholicism. Now as for the Decree-Tome of Pope Damasus, two of my Catholic sources, both recent, Fr. Jurgens Faith of the Early Fathers, Volumes 1-3, published in 1979. In his Introductory Notes on the Council of Constantinopile, he states that a Doctrinal Tome drawn up at the Council is not extant [I think in Greek], although there are some who believe that 23 Doctrinal ananathemas in an Arabic Collection are likely from that Council. Jurgens notes (p.398 of Volume 1] that those Arabic 23 anathemas’ are identical to the 23 in the Tome of Damasus. Still, the exact link between the Arabic 23 anathamas and Damasus Tome has not yet been directly established. However the canons from that Council, which were in Greek, are extant.
Jurgens in his Introductory notes on Pope Damasus and his Tome and Decrees notes that the Tome of Damasus is in fact a work from the Council of Rome (382AD). He notes in this Introduction that the 23 Arabic anathamas are likely a summary of the Doctrinal tome drawn up at the Council of Constantinopile in 381AD and this Arabic summary is again, identical to the Tome of Damasus. Now, in addition to the Letter that notes a Council going on in Rome under Damasus. In addition, Canon 1 of the Council of Constantinopile in 382 [preserved erroneously as Canon 5 in the 381 Council] refers to a reception of a Tome from the Western Church. If we conclude, as it seems likely, that this Tome was from Damasus, along with the 3 Decrees, and these were sent from Rome in 382 to the Council in Constantinople meeting that same year to respond to the arrogance of the Council in 381 [for example, Decree 3 mentions that Constantinople making itself 2nd in Primacy is a violation of the Council of Nicea Canon 6 and it reiterates that Due to the connection to Saint Peter, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch hold the 3 highest primacies], it becomes easy to account for the Arabic collection of anathemas, which are almost identical to the ones of Pope Damasus, and which as noted, were presented as part of the Council of Constantinople in 381.
Jurgens continues and states that if the Tome of Damasus was sent to Council being held in 382, when the canons of that council became mixed with the canons Council of Constantinopile in 381, it could easily have happened that the Tome of Damasus also became attached to the Acts of that Council of 381AD and when translated into Arabic, the impression would be that the anathemas of the Tome of Damasus belonged to the Acts of Constantinople 381 Tome.
As a quick note, the Tome of Damasus anathemizes Sabellius and his error, Arius and then the Macedonians, who were the ones that the Council of Constantinople were meeting about. They were questioning the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. For example Tome 16 states “If anyone does not say the Holy Spirit is truly and properly of the Father, just as the Son, of the Divine substance and true God, he is a heretic” Tome17 states “If anyone does not say that the Holy Spirit can do all things, knows all, and is everywhere, just as the Father and Son, he is a heretic. Tome 18, If anyone says the Holy Spirit is a creature, or He was made by the Son, he is a heretic. Tome 20 states “If anyone does not say of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that here is one Godhead, one strength, majesty, power, glory, he is a heretic. Tome 21 states, If anyone does not say that there are Three Persons of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, equal, always living, embracing all things visible and invisible, ruling all...He is a heretic.
Again, citing Schaff, he notes that we still have extant portions of the Tome of Damasus which contain anathemas. The Decrees, the first 3 are extant to Damasus [Fr. Jurgens (1979) and New Jerome Biblical Commentary (1990), although there was some editing to them done by Pope Gelasius who in a Council at Rome in 494, published the works of the Church Fathers in a volume, listed heretical books and attached a canonical list, but as the New Advent article on Pope Gelasius notes, this work was done most likely by Pope Damasus [note this is from the Catholic Encyclopedia published in the early 20th century].
Again, see Schaff’s notes on the COuncil of Constantinople and the Tome of the Western Church, which he does attribute to Pope Damasus
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.vi.html
Scaff also describes why the Council of Constantinople was not viewed as an Ecumenical Council in the West until much later. Even then, only the Creed was accepted, not the canons. The canon at hand was Constantinople making itself 2nd in the rank of the Primacy. Jurgens again mentions the 3 Decrees which are extant. The 1st Decree deals with the Holy Spirit, which the Tome deals with exclusively. The 2nd one, dealing with the canon of Scripture has been known as the opening part of the Gelasian Decree, but Jurgens notes that it is commonly held that that part of the Gelasian decree is now an authentic work of the Council of Rome in 382, not the Council held in 494 under Pope Gelasius and then with respect to Decree 3 which reiterates the Primacies as defined in Canon 6 of Nicea, Jurgens clearly attaches it to Pope Damasus, not Pope Gelasius.
I think a couple of reasons, 1 with respect to the Canon Decree (#2), the canon in the West was not a major issue at the time of Pope Gelasius. With Pope Innocent I’s Letter and the work of Saint Augustine and the North African Councils, confirmed by Pope Boniface, the canon in the West never really surfaced as an issue that needed Papal Letters or Councils again till the Council of Basle-Florence in 1442 when the Catholics and Orthodox tried to restore communion and of course Trent. Decree 3 [Primacy of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch and now Constantinople putting itself as 2] makes sense in the context of being around 382 given in 381, this was the first time Constantinople in 381 challenged Canon 6 of Nicea. By the end of the 5th century when Pope Gelasius was Bishop of Rome, this issue would not be dealt with the way it was written in the 4th under Damasus. By that time, Constantinople at Chalcedon did it again so that letter, in the way it was written fits the 4th century, not the late 5th.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.x.html