Quite untrue, AR. See my post above.
All Trent did (that Florence didn't do) was to add an anathema to the denial of the canon. That makes perfect sense, historically, because nobody was actively denying the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books at the time of Florence.
Was the Council of Florance before or after there were two, then three Popes claiming the supposed See of Peter? All that neat, clean, uncorrupted Curia of the Renaissance?
Oh, that’s right it was after the Council of Constance of 1418 which condemned the heroic Czech reformer Father John Huss to be burned to death—after a kangaroo court denied that the guarantee given Huss of free passage was valid (promises to heretics were deemed of no authority...). THAT was also the council that restored one Pope as in charge—out of the “Babylonian Captivity.” It also made Councils superior in authority to Popes, which Pope Martin V quickly contradicted (authoritatively, of course).
All of this is rot....putting individuals, traditions, or institutions of men in authority over and above God’s Word given by the Apostles. Really—all in innovation, confusion and rebellion against the authority of Peter, Paul, John and all the Apostles—as recorded in holy Scripture.
It’s interesting you brought up the Anathamas (authoritative curses) of Trent too, as they clearly condemned to eternal Hell anyone who believed in justification by faith alone, that is all Protestants....that is until Vatican II called Protestants Christians and separated brethren.
So which is it...we who trust in Christ by faith alone are Hell bound...or brothers? These two supposedly fully authoritative councils, Trent and Vatican II, simply cannot be honestly reconciled.
More (and yet more) proof that Councils, Popes, and traditions have erred and contradicted each other, and do not have the authority of the Word of the Apostles-—that is the Word of God written, the Bible.