I just love dealing with people who just read snippets and polemicists’ proof-texts for their history!
Cardinal Catejan who fell for St. Jerome is not Saint Catejan.
Cardinal Catejan is Thomas Cardinal Catejan.
Saint Catejan is Gaetano dei Conti di Tiene.
That’s quite an impossible confusion for someone who has learned a single thing about either man, except for some out-of-context quotes. And you demonstrate a profound ignorance at what the Council of Trent was, which I find absolutely incredible.
An ecumenical council does not invent doctrine; it discerns when a doctrine is unquestionable.
The greatest schism in Christianity (Orthodox v Catholic) was created because the Catholic church began including a clarifying word (”filioque”) into the Apostles’ Creed. The Orthodox bishops unanimously assented to the notion that the Catholic meaning of having done so was orthodox, but simply because it lacked apostolic authority to insert the word, the Orthodox bishops anathematized to the Catholic bishops. But somehow the Catholics add seven books to the bible, and not only does not one single bishop in all of Catholic Christendom raise an eyebrow, but the Orthodox churches follow suit???
Record of the Council of Trent were kept. Not one bishop objected that the Council was not keeping tradition, as it was sworn to exclusively do. Not even Cardinal Cajetan. Oh, sure, we know that in later synods he eventually sided with Lutherans on several issues (not only the canon, but also condemning mandatory priestly celibacy and reception on the body of Christ through bread alone), so there is no cover-up here.
And it’s not like they all recognized a need to conspire to maintain their previous doctrinal assertions. Quite the opposite: not only did the Council of Trent require assent to doctrines found in the dueterocanonicals, it also reaffirmed where those doctrines Luther had rejected were found in the bible outside the dueterocanonicals.
Or shall we look to the Thomist churches? For 1,500 years, they grew in complete isolation from the Catholic and Orthodox churches. On their discovery, many of them affirmed their unity with the Catholic church. Some remained independent... but added seven books to their bibles anyway?
And let’s go back to those Church Fathers who you insist believed the deuterocanonicals were to be read for “edification,” but not “doctrine”: Suppose Luther and Calvin were correct about what doctrines the Church Fathers held. Suppose praying for the dead is sinful, that there is no temporal atonement, that there is no state of purgation between this life and Heaven: why would any reasonable person, then, recommend for “edification” and inclusion into church services books that specifically endorse praying and atoning for the dead so that they be spared purgation? How is edifying to include false doctrine?
The exact opposite was the case with the Church Fathers: there were many “legends” of extreme bravery and faithfulness in Early Christian culture. Every apostle had at least gospel written of them. Some were fantastic (there’s one passage that includes a lion given the miraculous ability to speak), and some had obvious heresies included by gnostics, but many were quite believable, and many had no heresies at all. And some had been read in church services since the days when the apostles still walked the Earth. But because their apostolic authority was uncertain, they were all held suspect, and they were all forbidden to be read in church services.
I don't understand why you find that incredible. Catholics have been telling me that for a long time.
The rest of the post is blah, blah, blah. Fact is the bible as defined by the Catholic Church was changed 1,000 years later. Whatever the reason this is a glaring issue that can't be ignored. Protestants have the true early church bible. Catholics have a bunch of addendums added to theirs.