Ok. Explain this to me. My understanding, from what Catholics say, is that books are either inspired or they are not, and, how can one know for sure if one’s canon is true. ISTM that to say the Cc at Trent has not dogmatically ruled against the additional EO books puts Catholics in the same position. If one doesn’t know if 3 Macc, for example, is inspired… It is either is, or it isn’t, and if the CC has determined a 73 book canon since Carthage and Hippo, why is it the CC doesn’t know about 3 Macc?
According to my reading of Trent, the Latin Church simply affirmed the inspiration of her own canon. The Council of Trent was a Western council contra Protestantism so the Eastern canons of Scripture were not of concern, especially when the Latin Church was at the time in communion with man Churches with broader canons. You ask how this is not hypocritical. Well, it is not really a comparable comparison. Regardless of the inspiration of other books, the Tridentine canon has been sufficient for the Latin Church and it is our tradition. For the canonicity of the books within the canon, we can trust the infallible judgment of the Church. At the same time, we can believe that there are inspired writings outside the canon, but we are fine with what we have. We would probably be just as fine with the Protestant canon, but that is not the canon of the Church. Protestants, on the other hand, generally teach that the deuterocanonical Catholic books are not inspired, and “edifying” at best.
Another reason it is different is because the Catholic Church does not operate according to the Protestant principles of “sola scriptura” and “sola fide.” What sola scriptura means in practice is that nothing can be believed if it is not clearly demonstrated from Scripture, since if another person does not see clearly that Scripture affirms what you teach, they will teach contrary to you. This is why not all Protestants became Lutheran. For this reason, it would be helpful to have as many books as were available. Although it is perhaps not sufficiently clear in other books, 2 Maccabees very explicitly teaches that praying for the dead is good, a practice traditionally rejected by Protestants. If praying for the dead is a good practice, then Protestants have really dropped the ball for their dead, which could have been averted if they had the larger canon.
The doctrine of “sola fide” ends up coloring one’s interpretation of Scripture in this way. The problem with the mantra “sola fide” is that it produces a distorted view of Christian life. “We don’t have to do X,” “We shouldn’t do X,” or “It is an abomination to do X” are all justified on the basis that they contradict “faith alone.” This mindset can put faith into opposition to things which are not at all contrary to faith. Another thing about “sola fide” is that it creates a distorted hierarchy of Scripture. This is especially true for Lutherans. Protestants, holding sola fide as their chief doctrine, ascribe primary importance to those books which they think most clearly teach it (such as Romans) and less importance to other books. For example, Catholics see James saying that we are not justified by faith alone, and while there may be a true interpretation of sola fide, they are puzzled why Protestants insist dogmatically on a formula which is not taught explicitly and explicitly rejected in Scripture (Protestant pro-sola fide interpretations of James notwithstanding). In your case, you have even said before that James, along with the other “Antilegomena” is of less authority than Paul’s letters. While Catholic interpretation ascribes more importance to certain books (the Gospels or the NT epistles) than others (Esther), I would argue that it does not have quite as imbalanced a view of Scripture.
Then why not the same level of “charitable reading” to Luther? Luther’s view of the DC’s isn’t far different than Cajetan’s. Luther was no longer under the authority of Rome when he and his colleagues translated, and yet he/they translated and included them the DC’s anyway, in clear deference to the history of the western Church.
I am not exactly sure what Cajetan’s view of the canon was. What I am suggesting is that his view might be more complicated than the wide Protestant idea of canon. It’s not clear to me from the passage usually quoted. But let’s suppose for now that Cajetan did not believe the deuterocanonical books were inspired. The fundamental difference with Cajetan was that he was still loyal to the Church, and would have accepted correction. Luther wanted to always have things his way, believing that he was subject to no other authority than Scripture (or his reading of it anyway). Secondly, Luther, as I recall, said some rather impious things about the Epistle of James, such as that it obscured the Gospel and that it didn’t make any sense. As far as I know, Cajetan limited his criticism to scholarly criticism.
In what verse of the Bible do you find the Table of Contents for the Bible?" 
uch::bigyikes: