Which Bible?
Luther's Bible, the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible?
The answer to this question requires an infallible extra-biblical authority. Otherwise you're left with, as R.C. Sproul once said, "a fallible collection of infallible books."
Whatever that means.
Luther's doctrine seems simple, but it's really just simplistic and erroneous.
Luther's translation, as you should know by now, contained the apocrypha, but following Jerome and other ancient precedent , they were placed separately from Scripture proper. And indeed, dissent among RCs continued over certain books right into Trent.
In any case, it is the middle, or the the Catholic Bibles , as there are more than 2, without the extra books, for in contrast to the relative obscurity of them (which would be even more obscure if the reading of them were not mandated via the Mass), the superior and enduring love for the 66 books of the Protestant Bible testifies to their Divine qualities.
However, if complete conformity to the RC canon is such a primary issue, and those that differ are to be maligned, then Catholics who provided precedent for not holding to the canon of Trent before it was defines are also maligned, as are other Catholic churches whose canon differs, even if slightly. But this is hardly even mentioned in RC relations with them.
The answer to this question requires an infallible extra-biblical authority. Otherwise you're left with, as R.C. Sproul once said, "a fallible collection of infallible books."
If the answer requires an infallible extra-biblical authority - and i affirm that Rome is an extra-biblical authority and thus not infallible - then Scripture is not that important to differ over .
However, your conclusion is based on a false premise, for writings were recognized as Scripture, versus those that are not, without any infallible extra-biblical authority. And that there were, as shown , is abundantly evidenced. And if writings were recognized as Scripture, versus those that are not, then in principle this leads to a canon by the same basis and means that other ones were recognized as Scripture.
And beyond that, your premise must also argue that an infallible extra-biblical authority is necessary for assurance of truth, and that this authority is the one that is the steward of Scripture, inheritor of promises, and has historical decent.
Yet as said, under this model souls should have submitted to those who sat in Moses seat (Mt. 23:2) in rejecting the itinerant Preacher they rejected. (Mk. 11:27-33)
Instead, as said, it was by Scriptural substantiation in word and in power that the church began by, not under the premise of an perpetually infallible magisterium.