No? They just decided for themselves what was. I guess Luther relegating the deuterocanonicals to the status of apocrypha was an example of proper canonical/doctrinal development.
Clearly the RCC decided that MORE was . On what basis do they find Scripture inadequate?
Protestant fallacy. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are both valid sources of Revealed Truth and Authority. Neither contradicts the other.
And that's different from The Catholic church deciding for themselves what is Scripture just how?
Protestant fallacy. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are both valid sources of Revealed Truth and Authority. Neither contradicts the other.
That doesn't answer the question. I asked only about Scripture. You brought in the tradition part.
If *sacred tradition* doesn't contradict Scripture then its redundant and not needed after all.
“No? They just decided for themselves what was. “
Protestants have had hundreds of years to be led by God to examine the canon and correct errors from an earlier age.
Neither contradicts the other.
The second adds to the first.
Why?
Should we all just pretend that Luther wasn't following what had ALREADY been done by those before him (i.e., Jerome)??? It is odd the selective amnesia some RCs have whenever they want to toss out their "Luther card" seeing as these claims have been disputed HUNDREDS of times over the years here. It's curious that you even state he included those books in his translation as many FRoman Catholics assert he threw them out of "his" Bible. Can't Catholics agree on anything???