Over books in the Bible that the RCC didn't even agree on until the 1400's? That's not exactly a *huge* roadblock. Heck, it's not even a roadblock. Especially since the Catholic church doesn't consider Scripture, but rather itself, as authoritative.
LOL.
Weak dodge.
Try 382 AD when it became the official Bible for use and included everything that had been in the Septuagint. The fact that some groups didn’t accept it all makes no difference just like it makes no difference that Luther put his faith in the Pharisees who survived after 70 AD rather than in the Apostles.
The Canon of Bible was closed by the Council of Rome under the direction of Pope Damasus I in 382 AD. The Vulgate Bible produced to this canon by St. Jerome was later reaffirmed in 1442.
Peace be with you
I wonder what it is in these "other" books that some Catholics think excluding them from the other books EVERYONE agrees are Divinely-inspired presents this "roadblock" between themselves and the grace Christ wants to pour out on them? I think the REAL point is not at all that they really care about these extra books but that they can pull their "Luther card" to try to make ALL non-Catholics out to be missing a "fuller" faith that they alone think they have as well as "their" church having the only authority TO decide what is and is not Scripture.
I'll bet if you asked one to tell you what deep theological truth is contained in these books that are not also found in the mutually acknowledged ones, no one could name even one thing. The ONLY one I have ever heard attempted is the idea of "Purgatory" possibly being discussed in the book of Maccabees, but even that one is questionable because it never uses the word (nor is it found in any others) and it speaks of idolaters being prayed for - hardly jiving with Purgatory being a place to cleanse "venal" sins. Pretty sure worshiping false gods is a "mortal" no-no.