“So your admitting I did what Mr. Rogers did? Yep, he made a baseless assertion.”
He did not make a baseless assertion. He provided evidence for his claim.
“Explain to me why the Codex Amiatinus”
This codex contains Jerome’s Prologus Galeatus, who differentiated between the regular canon and those books, exactly as I said before. It’s also missing Baruch.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04081a.htm
“And as usual, the rest of your post tells us nothing actually having to do with the issue”
The testimony of the ancient fathers has nothing to do with the issue?
“Clearly not - since the view of Florence was still very much in force a hundred years later on the canon.”
Evidently, what was “in force” was still very much not settled, hence the need for Trent and the objections of Cajetan and others:
From the New Catholic Encyclopedia:
“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).
“Doubts about the deuterocanonical books keep recurring in the history of the Church among those who are aware of the Jewish canon. Those who prefer the shorter canon or express some doubt about the full canonical status of the deuterocanonicals include Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Rufinus, Gregory the Great, John Damascene, Hugh of St. Victor, Nicholas of Lyra, and Cardinal Cajetan.
As mentioned earlier, the Council of Trent accepted definitively the deuterocanonicals, and it did so directly in opposition to the Protestant preference for the Jewish canon. Although as Catholics we accept the statement of the Council as binding in faith, it is wise for us to know some of the difficulties that surround this statement. Even on the eve of the Council the Catholic view was not absolutely unified, as the mention of Cajetan in the preceding paragraph clearly indicates. Catholic editions of the Bible published in Germany and in France in 1527 and 1530 contained only the protocanonical books. The Fathers of the Council knew of the 4th century African councils that had accepted the deuterocanonical books, and they knew the position taken at Florence; but at the time of Trent, there were insufficient historical tools to reconstruct the real picture of the canon in the 1st century.” (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, pg 523)
“You might want to look up Council of Florence, Session 11—4 February 1442 [Bull of union with the Copts].”
By the way, the Catholic church has already broken that council. Note what Florence teaches on the salvation of non-Christians and non-Catholics, and what the RCC teaches today:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church — not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics — cannot share in eternal life, and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; [the Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches] that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgivings and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and [the Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches] that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
(Ex cathedra solemn definition of Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence (Ecumenical Council), “Cantate Domino,” 1441; Denzinger)
Compare:
CCC 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”
“He did not make a baseless assertion. He provided evidence for his claim.”
Actually, no.
“This codex contains Jerome’s Prologus Galeatus, who differentiated between the regular canon and those books, exactly as I said before. It’s also missing Baruch.”
It has multiple deuterocanonicals.
“The testimony of the ancient fathers has nothing to do with the issue?”
Yes - but not just the ones you favor. You forget the decisions of synods, regional councils, and Fathers who don’t agree with you.
“Evidently, what was “in force” was still very much not settled, hence the need for Trent and the objections of Cajetan and others”
False reasoning. Abortion is settled as an issue in the Catholic Church. Are there Catholics STILL objecting to the Church’s teaching on abortion? You bet.
“This codex contains Jerome’s Prologus Galeatus, who differentiated between the regular canon and those books, exactly as I said before. It’s also missing Baruch.”
No. The Table of Contents of the Codex Amiatinus says there are 70 books of the Bible. Two letter of Peter are counted as one. Lamentations is in with Jeremiah. This table of contents is found on folio 4r of the ms. The actual contents of Codex Amiatinus are different - which shows the Table of Contents is AN IDEALIZED LIST, a perfect Bible in the view of the compilers and scribes.