“I should point out that the canon of Scripture was actually fixed by the disciplinary session of the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 692 (called by Western scholars variously the Trullan Synod or Quinisext Council”
The Trullan synod, which was rejected by Pope Constantine, actually affirmed a great deal of books as canonical, affirming, actually, several different and contradictory lists, even some with books that the RCC today does not regard as part of the canon, such as III Maccabees. Hence the reason why even up to the eve of the Reformation, the RCC still reverted to the default position of Jerome.
It’s also worth noting that the vast majority of these books de-canonize themselves anyway due to their errors and even self-admissions of having them. You can cling to these books if you like, but aside from the empty authority of some church tradition, there is no internal or truly historical reason to accept them.
“...aside from the empty authority of some church tradition, there is no internal or truly historical reason to accept them.”
This is ahistorical nonsense. I’ll leave aside the snarkiness about tradition, except to say “see 2 Thess 2:15.”
As for no reasons... Surely you mean aside from the reason that “the Scriptures” referred to in the Gospels reference the only set of scriptures that were available to Jews of the day, i.e., the Septuagint, which includes all the books mentioned in the article.
-yudan, adult convert to Holy Orthodoxy
So what? As an Orthodox Christian, the view of any particular Pope of Rome, even before the Latin Schism from the Church is irrelevant to me — as it is to all other Orthodox Christians (or the rest of us in the East) — the consensus patrum of the Orthodox Church is all that matters, and the Trullan Synod was a session of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and thus not something whose judgements are to be disputed.