? and so the point is what? since everyone I know considers them biblical, except for FC, who seems to dislike James, or has said to me previously that it's not meant for today's Christians..
Ya ever see how they make those dome churches? They inflate a giant bubble, build a shell around it, then remove the bubble. The shell remains standing.
Many Protestant doctrines are sorta like that, IMHO. They were created on the bubble that those 14 books were not biblical. A false interpretation of the remaining books was built. The bubble is removed, but the false interpretation remains.
The Catholic Church has always interpreted the bible in a way which refutes at least three of the "five solas." Protestants are so used to attaching a different meaning to certain bible verses, they usually fail to even acknowledge that Catholicism constructed its beliefs based on the bible. They see it as the natural way to interpret it, because they were taught the Catholic way was false probably before they could understand either.
Interpretation is based on tradition. The Protestant tradition was established on an incomplete bible. Certainly, modern authors have been able to invent arguments, for instance, that James does not contradict the Protestant interpretation of Paul, but the fact remains that the Catholic interpretation is based on the inerrancy and sufficiency of the entire bible, while the Protestant interpretation is a forced attempt to reconcile doctrines created apart from the full bible with the actual contents of the full bible.
Oh, by the way, Catholics, of course, fight the battle of interpretation with one hand tied behind their back, because the Calvinists came up withe a basis on which to agree with Luthers removal of some of the books of the bible.