“The church had a very set criteria for determining what should go into scripture and what shouldn’t.”
Well, actually, The Church didn’t, or at least it wasn’t the sort of standard everyone bought into. We here have been using the late 4th century as the time the canon of scripture was finalized, but of course that isn’t even close to true. Hebrews and Revelations were the subject of controversy for centuries after the 4th and the Protestants threw out the OT used by The Church for 1500 years in favor of the Hebrew canon. By the way, the writings of +Clement of Rome were read during the Liturgy for some centuries after his death as were the letters of +Ignatius of Antioch and +Polycarp. So far as I know, The Church NEVER stated that the works of the Fathers were not inspired of God; indeed, I don’t think even the Reformers went that far.
Your comment however, indicates to me that you misunderstand what The Church means by inspired. What The Church determined to be scripture is inerrant and inspired by God. Much of what The Fathers wrote and taught is likewise inerrant and inspired by God, but not all of it. No patristic writing is considered sacred scripture, but all patristic writings within the consensus patrum are beneficial to theosis.
The Church of course looks at scripture as part of the “medicine” with which The Church cures sick souls, a very important tool to be sure, but still only a “means to an end”. Bibliolatry is unknown in The Church unlike, for example, in Mohammedanism with the Koran which the Mohammedans believe was dictated by the moon god through an angel to Mohammed and thus is composed of the actual words of the moon god. That’s why they worship the Koran the way they do with the results we are all familiar with. This sort of attitude is not unknown among some Christian groups, though The Church would declare that heresy.
According to what you just wrote, the Church determined what scripture was completely inerrant and inspired by God. They must have had some criteria for determining that. There is also other writings that are somewhat inerrant and inspired that doesn't measure up to the same calibur as the fully inspired writings. Isn't that correct? That is precisely what I wrote.
Notwithstanding the few outstanding documents, both Protestants and Catholics agree that specific writings are "God breathed". Catholics/Orthodox like to say they determine them to be inspired. Protestants like to say they were confirmed to be inspired. It all works out in the wash.
Bibliolatry is unknown in The Church
I'm not sure what you mean by "Bibliolatry". If you mean Christians do not kiss the Bible, well you won't get much argument from me for I don't know of any Christian group advocating that. But if you mean that we heed those inspired writings as coming from God, then I would think most of us are biblioladolotrious. (Is there such a word???) After all, it is the Church's position that the scriptures are FULLY inspired.
The Church makes a clear distinction between the inspired writings and the less-than-inspired writing. You seem to be indicating that yourself. So do I. I don't think there is any misunderstandings.