Here again, you have reaffirmed the original premise of the thread.
If one accepts Scripture and divinely inspired and inerrant in its truths, by whom or what authority does one accept it?
See my earlier post regarding the schizophrenia of thought it must take to say that the Church’s authority can be trusted in light of which books are Scriptural, yet is not to be trusted in other matters. Or that it takes to accept Scripture at all since no one, and there is no question of this, not a single one of us has come to that faith organically and on our own.
I’ve not affirmed any such thing, since the original premise of the thread was to question whether Martin Luther “infallibly” defined what books belong in the Bible, a ludicrous and nonsensical question that could only make the slightest sense to someone who regarded him as some sort of Protestant pope. He was not.
There was no “infallible” canon outside those books not in dispute as to their inspired nature, right up to and beyond the Protestant Reformation. Luther chose to handle those books in dispute by identifying them as such and moving them to the back of his Bible translation. This is not at odds with the belief of many of the best scholars of the Roman Catholic Church of the era.
This has been repeatedly explained and yet you and other keep returning to it. I can only conclude that certain key doctrines of the modern Roman Catholic Church have been construed from these historically disputed books since the Council Of Trent, otherwise there would not be such an uproar about it.
So, which doctrines of the modern Roman Catholic Church have been drawn from the Deuterocanonical books, which were described even by early Church fathers as not divinely inspired, good for edification but not a source for doctrine? Praying for the dead? It’s so heated it’s got to have something to do with Mariology, imho.
“If one accepts Scripture and divinely inspired and inerrant in its truths, by whom or what authority does one accept it?”
Ever hear of the Holy Spirit?