Even the author of this article recognizes this is not a dogmatic declaration of the canon...and it did not eliminate the question of the canon for Rome as daniel1212 has noted.
As daniel1212 has noted on this thread, it was only at Trent that Roman Catholicism declared its canon as dogmatic.
To continue to insist is to ignore history.
It [the Church] professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.Like a good legalist, you are hanging your hat on a technicality. As the author of that article said: "While this may not (technically) be a dogmatic definition, it eliminates any ambiguity about whether or not the Deuterocanon is canonical." Dogmatic declarations are not used to create new dogma, only to reaffirm what is already taught. And as I have said before, the day-to-day teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium is just as infallible as the solemn declarations of the Extraordinary Magisterium. And here the Council of Florence actually lists which books the Church holds as Scripture. Can there be any doubt that the Catholic Church accepted the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books at the Council of Florence?Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.
Hence it anathematizes the madness of the Manichees who posited two first principles, one of visible things, the other of invisible things, and said that one was the God of the new Testament, the other of the old Testament.
The question is not when a dogmatic decree was issued, but when these books were accepted by the Church. This she did in her Ordinary Magisterium since the 4th century, or the 5th century if you want to wait for their acceptance in the East.
More precisely, it was only at Trent that repeated Roman Catholic teachings says the canon was dogmatically declared, and I did not merely note is, but well substantiated it, and not be some shameless poper.
And states "It firmly believes, professes and preaches" 5 times, such as in imagining we are all in damnation, but does not use that language when listing books, nor does its anathema clause after the section refer to the issue of the canon, nor is dissent from it anywhere mentioned as cause for anathema. (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/ecumenical-council-of-florence-1438-1445-1461)
For since its judgments were manifestly wrong about what the NT church believed, then why should its judgments on the canon of Scripture (which writings are of God) necessarily be believed?
They no more warrant belief than all the judgments of who was of God by those who sat in the seat of Moses did., despite their own pedigree and being the magisterial stewards of express Divine revelation.
And yet look at the hand-wringing debate when faced with a teaching that Florence did dogmatically declare (since the V2 "clarification" is rather clearly a contradiction of it): https://forums.catholic.com/t/how-is-this-papal-bull-not-infallible/78970/30
Just one more example of how the self-proclaimed grandInterpreter is subject to interpretation.