not hypocritical at all. When the Catholic church compiled the bible it was in its "raw" form, they edited the various writings, papers, whatever there was available and determined which books, letters etc. would make up the bible. Someone had to do that and the Catholics were the only ones around. The bible then existed, thanks again to the Catholics, for 1500 years, reviewed time and again by Vatican councils and approved over and over by the learned men in the church. Along comes Martin and his fellow "reformers" with their scissors and removed some of the books that weren't to their liking. I guess if that's OK with you then have at it. I prefer the complete version myself. They were not condecending at all, they were following instructions and establishing an orderly Christian religion for all mankind. Did every letter or sermon given by every apostle appear in the bible....probably not. Did the few passages which appear in the bible written by Paul encompass his entire ministry on earth....hardly.The bible itself mentions that there are far too many things that happened to put them all in a single book which, of course, means editing. I think that the Catholic church did a magnificent job and we should all be very thankful that she protected and preserved the word of God throughout sometimes a very troubled history.
The first statement of the New Testament Canon was included in the Easter letter (367 A.D.) of Athanasius. Who was this person? He was the Bishop of Alexandria, NOT Rome. What was going on here? during the first several hundred years of the Church the Bishops of the major churches shared responsibilities. That year it fell to the Bishopric of Alexandria to publish an annual letter to declare when Easter was to be observed. In this letter Athanasius included the first known list of the books of the New Testament Canon.
So the earliest list is not demonstrated to be published by a Bishop of Rome. In fact, it was only well after over 350 years before the Bishop of Rome asserted a preeminent position within the Church.
So yes, the Church compiled the early Canon, but the Church at Rome had the help of churches throughout the Mediterranean; e.g., Alexandria and Carthage.
That this canard continues to be repeated (refuted almost weekly on a FR) is another testimony to the deception in RC apologetics, as the facts are that the canon was not infallibly, indisputably settled until the year of Luther's death, and doubt and disagreement about books Luther also questioned continued right into Trent by some of Rome's top scholars. See here and links therein.
And thus Luther had strong precedent and scholarly reasons for his rejection of some books (which he nonetheless included in his Bible) while the 39 book Hebrew canon was from antiquity, as was the 27 N.T. canon. The page to see on Luther's canon is here.
In addition, the idea that the N.T. church was the same as one that ordained a separate class of formal sacerdotal priests (versus bishops/elder) and prays to the departed, and looked to Peter as the beginning of an assuredly infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy reigning supreme over all, etc. (and yes, we've seen the assertions and eisegetical wresting of text) is neither Scriptural or historical, while the idea that the early Bible was the work of various editors is one the liberals love.
But that is the nature of much of Roman Catholic scholarship, as even seen in your approved notes in your own official American Bible, which relegates stories like Jonah and the fish, Balaam and the donkey to be fables, the conquests of Joshua to be folk tales, and questions whether Jesus Christ was actually involved in some conversations which the gospel records, and thinks that most of which Jesus is recorded as saying was probably theological elaboration by the writers, and who likewise simply placed the Lord Jesus on a hill in giving the sermon on the Mount etc.
Likely you were not informed of much of this but there is much to know.
I think that the Catholic church did a magnificent job and we should all be very thankful that she protected and preserved the word of God throughout sometimes a very troubled history.
Even if one accepts your premise, yet, that does not render them the assuredly infallible interpreters of it , anymore it did to the Jews who were the instruments and stewards of divine revelation, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) or even to those who sat in the seat of Moses. (Mt 23:2) However, what the history of the canon does do is refute the the fantasy of da Vinci code theorists who imagine that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible to justify itself. But if that were the case then she lacked much foresight, as with a few additions (like just one example of someone praying to the departed) Rome would not have to resort to the degree of extrapolation of Bible texts they must resort to in defending her.
As for protecting the Bible, Rome did do quite a job in doing that, even from free access by her own. And as with the other issues, I hope you read before you responded as do not think I overstated the case.
And as the Scriptures today are under attack perhaps as never before in recent history, may the Lord mightily confirm His word and more believer become his vessels for such. (Mark 16:20)