You couldn't be more wrong!
"But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men!"- John Calvin
"The Scriptures obtain full authority among believers only when men regard them as having sprung from heaven, as if there the living words of God were heard."- John Calvin
God’s word does not need any one church’s stamp of approval to make it authentic,inspired, or Scripture.
It is so by it’s very nature as being God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired, Truth.
That makes it, and it alone, inerrant, infallible, authoritative, and Scripture.
The fact that the Catholic church recognizes it is to their credit, even though they were late to the party, but that recognition certainly doesn’t add anything to Scripture or make it what it already was.
Both men and writings of God are so regardless of what men say, and the NT church began with the common people correctly ascertaining both, in dissent from the magisterial stewards of Scripture.
As for Calvinism, he was right on some things, but like Luther there was some holdovers from Rome, as the work of reformation is not the work of one day or two. Calvin believed the sacrament of the Eucharist provided “undoubted assurance of eternal life to our minds, but also secures the immortality of our flesh,” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.17.32)
However, while Catholics and some others lift this out of context. Calvin is not speaking of the Catholic Eucharist:
The truth of God, therefore, in which I can safely rest, I here embrace without controversy. He declares that his flesh is the meat, his blood the drink, of my soul; I give my soul to him to be fed with such food. In his sacred Supper he bids me take, eat, and drink his body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine. I have no doubt that he will truly give and I receive. Only, I reject the absurdities which appear to be unworthy of the heavenly majesty of Christ, and are inconsistent with the reality of his human nature. ...
the corporeal presence which the nature of the sacrament requires, and which we say is here displayed in such power and efficacy, that it not only gives our minds undoubted assurance of eternal life, but also secures the immortality of our flesh, since it is now quickened by his immortal flesh, and in a manner shines in his immortality. Those who are carried beyond this with their hyperboles, do nothing more by their extravagancies than obscure the plain and simple truth....
Now by participation of the body, as we have explained, we nourish faith not less richly and abundantly than do those who drag Christ himself from heaven. - https://www.biblestudytools.com/history/calvin-institutes-christianity/book4/chapter-17.html
Rather than his own attempts to formulate this sort of Real Presence, or that of Catholicism, the Scriptural and simple meaning in the light of Scriptural teaching is that Christian have communion/fellowship with Christ and each other like as pagans had fellowship with demons by taking part in their dedicatory feasts.
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:16-21)
Which fellowship in either case was by partaking of the real flesh and blood of the one in whose name the feast was done, but by signifying oneness with the object of worship and with each other.
Thus in the next chapter the Corinthians were guilty of coming together in order to take part in the Lord;s supper but really were not, since they were treating other members as if they were not, feasting independently while others were hungry, (1 Corinthians 11:17-22) while as Paul reminds them by repeating the words the Lord speak at the Last Supper, they were to do this communal feast in effectually (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:2) remembrance of Him who died for them, thereby showing/declaring "the Lord's death till He comes" by sharing food as one body for whom Christ died. (1 Corinthians 11:23-26) For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:26)
Thus to presume they were having/taking part in the Lord's supper while acting utterly contrary to remembering the Lord who bought the church with His own sinless shed, blood (Acts 20:28) not recognize the body of Christ as consisting of those they ignored, was a damnable sin, resulting in Divine chastisement. (1 Corinthians 11:27-31)
Therefore the solution was to examine oneself, whether one's heart and conduct corresponded to effectually remembering the Lord for died for them, and which means loving others for whom Christ died (cf. Romans 14:15) as He did, and to not come hungry looking for food and thus give in to temptation to eat independent of others and to excess in this "feast of charity." (Jude 1:12)
Thus and more fully, taking part in the Lord's supper in remembrance of Him means showing His death for those purchased by it, that as one "bought with a price" (1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23) we are to seek to be in this world as He was, (cf. 1 John 4:17) and in particular seek to love His body the church as He did (and in examination repent of failing to do so), showing union with Christ and each other as brethren together taking part in a commemorative meal.
To do so contrary to that is worse than Communists taking part in a Thanksgiving meal. But how short do I come, especially in heart, of loving others as brethren (esp. some) as well others who are not.
IF you ASSUME that the Church is not protected from error by the Holy Spirit,
THEN the decisions on the canon are “the decision of men.”
AND THEN those who side with Calvin have to explain how the canon was closed, there being no record of a notarized telegram from heaven.
*I* would say, rather, that the Holy Spirit acting in the deliberations of the Church recognized the Holy Spirit's work in the canonical books. So — TO ME — Calvin indulges in false alternatives.
Again the admirable Calvin seems to me to neglect the distinction between source and conduit, or to think that once one has affirmed the source one need not mention the conduit. Clearly (though the implications may not be so clear) the inspiration of the Holy Ghost proceeds from the core (so to speak) of the Godhead. [Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses, reading the same perspicuous Scriptures as Calvin would find the term “Godhead” blasphemous, and many other non-Trinitarians find grounds in the same books to repudiate most mainline Protestants, etc.]
But is “the pillar and foundation of truth” to be so easily and carelessly cast aside? So “the living words of God” describe the Church, after all.
...
I swam the Tiber 23 years ago come 12/26. The Catholic Church makes me crazy! (Well, okay, in my case, maybe craziER would be better.) I find a lot to love in Calvinists and even more in some Baptists. But I find nothing to make me sorry I signed on.
And when non-Catholics try to tell me what I believe and what, say, Unam Sanctam demands of me, it's not persuasive.