“The decree of the Council of Trent regarding the canon of Scripture is unambiguous.”
Regarding the canon, Trent was unambiguous. On the question of the value of the Apocrypha for doctrine, Trent deliberately chose to remain ambiguous, and not to answer the question.
“If one accepts Luther’s canon, then one has certainly accepted Luther’s infallibility and authority, i.e. a pope.”
Utterly false. If I accept Rush Limbaugh’s statement on anything, have I made him my Pope? To agree with an argument is not to suggest the person making an argument is infallible.
You miss the point. Protestants believe the canon belongs to the Holy Spirit - that it is God’s Word, not some church’s word.
“Now, many will use the early Fathers and Doctors to support their protestantism, saying well Jerome said this and Augustine said that. But, neither, in fact, none of them, were pope and had not the authority, the keys, as given to Peter and passed to his successors, to bind or loose.”
Umm...there is no scriptural support for the idea that the keys given Peter were anything other than opening the kingdom to the Jews at Pentecost, and the Gentiles with Cornelius. There is scriptural evidence that Peter’s successors had no authority, other than to rely on what is more sure - the prophetic revelation of God.
As Peter put it, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
And why rely on the word? Because, as Peter explains immediately afterword: “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words...”
Yet Peter doesn’t tell them to rely on His Successors, the Bishops of Rome and Vicars of Christ, but “the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place”.
The Council of Trent included the deuterocanonical books in the canon of Scripture, books that Luther rejected in hia canon of Scripture. Luther's canon differs from the Catholic canon, and the canon in common usage in his day. This much cannot be argued.
The question is, by what authority did Luther determine his canon of Scripture? Did he act infallibly?
I do not rely on the infallibility of Rush for my salvation, therefore to use him as an argument is fruitless.
As for the words of Peter regarding Scripture.
Peter speaks here of the fact that the Apostles and others are using the words of the prophets to lay infallible claim that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.
To accept what the Apostles are preaching, one must first accept that Jesus was who they said He is. Their authority is then derived from His. In your own post you admit that there were those who tried to use Scripture to deny the Master, Jesus.
Peter’s words are then prophetic for us as there are still those who would twist Scripture to their own end, to deny the Master and His Church.