In *Systematic Theology* chapter 3 "The Canon of Scripture", Wayne Grudem says > It was not until 1546, at the Council of Trent, that the Roman Catholic Church officially declared the Apocrypha to be part of the canon (with the exception of 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh). (This is on page 59 in the 1st edition.) What does he mean by this? He is certainly not unaware of the Council of Carthage (397), because he cites this just 5 pages later for its decision on the NT canon. However, the Council of Carthage's Old Testament canon includes all of the Apocrypha found in modern Catholic Bibles (except Baruch). Is this an oversight on Grudem's part? Or is there some qualitative difference between the decision of the Council of Carthage and the Council of Trent that makes the latter an official declaration while the former not? *Note:* Grudem also does not mention the Council of Rome (382) anywhere that I can find, which was the first council to discuss the canon and included the Apocrypha as well, but he may be following the scholarship which regards the canon list of the *Decretum Gelasianum* not to be genuinely derived from the Council of Rome. If so, then he would have no reason to mention it as no direct evidence of the Council of Rome's decisions exist.

I need the 33d and the 124th canons (rules) of this Synod. Thank you in advance.

According to the [Catholic Encyclopedia](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm) , a question about the First Ecumenical Council: Nicaea I (325) I have read that the Council of Jerusalem is labeled as a "General Council." Furthermore, it is my understanding that the terms "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" are synonymous. If that is correct, then why is the Council of Jerusalem (50 A.D. or thereabouts) not considered to be the First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church?

I often hear many people (of more traditionalist bent, but also more moderates) state that Vatican II is pastoral, not ecumenical. What does it mean for a council to be pastoral, and what does it mean for a council to be ecumenical?

What is commonly referred to as the ***“Black Week”*** in regards to the [Second Vatican Council](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council) in the recent history of Catholic Church? Did it have a standing effect on the administration of the Church?

The fourth council of Constantinople , held in 869-870 under Pope Hadrian II, is recognized as an official ecumenical council by the Roman Catholic Church (according to Catholic.com). The EWTN website has this to say regarding the infallibility of teachings promulgated by ecumenical councils: > Whenever the Pope alone or the bishops in union with the Pope exercise their divinely appointed office to teach on a matter of faith and morals to the whole Church, the teaching is infallible. The **most solemn expression** of this teaching authority would be an **ecumenical council** (which by definition would include and be in union with the Pope). Therefore, all the solemn **teachings on faith and morals promulgated by the ecumenical councils are infallible**. This council, therefore, infallibly affirms the following canons: Canon 1 > If we wish to proceed without offence along the true and royal road of divine justice, **we must keep the declarations and teachings of the holy fathers as if they were so many lamps** which are always alight and illuminating our steps which are directed towards God. **Therefore, considering and esteeming these as a second word of God**, in accordance with the great and most wise Denis, let us sing most willingly along with the divinely inspired David, The commandment of the Lord is bright, enlightening the eyes, and, Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my paths; and with the author of Proverbs we say, Your commandment is a lamp and your law a light, and like Isaiah we cry to the lord God with loud voice, because your commands are a light for the earth. For the exhortations and warnings of the divine canons are rightly likened to light inasmuch as the better is distinguished from the worse and what is advantageous and useful is distinguished from what is not helpful but harmful. This Canon goes on to proclaim that all preceding and forthcoming Canons are to be esteemed and obeyed as a second word of God *thus elevating tradition to equal footing with Holy Scripture*. Canon 3 > **We decree that the sacred image of our lord Jesus Christ, the redeemer and saviour of all people, should be venerated with honour equal to that given to the book of the holy gospels.** For, just as through the written words which are contained in the book, we all shall obtain salvation, so through the influence that colours in painting exercise on the imagination, all, both wise and simple, obtain benefit from what is before them; for as speech teaches and portrays through syllables, so too does painting by means of colours. **It is only right then**, in accordance with true reason and very ancient tradition, that icons should be honoured and venerated in a derivative way because of the honour which is given to their archetypes, **and it should be equal to that given to the sacred book of the holy gospels** and the representation of the precious cross. This Canon goes on to include all iconic representations of Mary, angels, apostles, prophets, martyrs and holy men as well as those of all the saints. Additionally, this Canon pronounces anathema for all who are not inclined to so venerate icons: > Let those who are not so disposed be anathema from the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit. * Anathema - 1) something or someone that one vehemently dislikes; 2) a formal curse by a pope or a council of the Church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine. So, there is a Catholic Canon, which is to be esteemed as equal in authority to the Gospels themselves (according to another Canon) and which is described as an infallible teaching to the whole Church regarding faith and morals, which *infallibly pronounces anathema upon anyone who does not venerate icons with an honor equal to that given to the Gospels themselves*. 1) Do individual Catholics actually venerate icons with honor equal to that of the Gospels? 2) Do those who do not consider icons and the Gospels equally honorable realize they have been pronounced separated from the Trinity by the 4th Council of Constantinople or has this particular Canon been cancelled?

The Council of Laodicea states in canon 29: > Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ. Anathema, being basically excommunication, is a serious thing. Why did the members of this council consider Saturday worship a sin and even worthy of such punishment? Why were Saturday worshipers on the same level as heretics and enemies of the church? Also, why would the church state something that is in direct contrast with the ten commandments? Calling the Sabbath rest Judaizing is one thing, but then it says to do it on Sunday. > 8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. [Exodus 20:8-11](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20&version=NIV) I would prefer answers from theologians and church leaders of this time. What did *they* say about it? ___ [The complete canons can be read here](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm) .

Acts 15 tells us the story of the Jerusalem Council and the importance that the Holy Spirit had in arriving at a final resolution, which was issued to the Gentiles, concerning their obligations toward the Mosaic Law: > 22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, 23 with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 **For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us** to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.” [Acts 15:22-29 ESV] As you can see, verse 28 (in bold) reveals the role of the Holy Spirit as an active part of the final agreement. Now, we all know that the history of the Church has been full of doctrinal debates about myriads of controversial topics, where the intervention of the Holy Spirit would have been as relevant and needed as it was at the Council of Jerusalem. Hence the question: are there any documented instances of a council settling a doctrinal debate with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, following the example established by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15?

I was just reflecting on an answer to a question I recently asked, and began to wonder... **How do we know the conclusions of a given Council were true?** Are all findings by Christian Councils authoritative? If not, what is the criteria by which we can judge the findings of a Council? Is it decided democratically amongst those claiming to be Christians? If there is indeed a "standard" by which Council findings are evaluated, why would we consider the Council findings as "authoritative", as opposed to simply considering the "standard" to be authoritative. *(The answer may not be as straightforward as it seems.)*