I am afraid you are in error; it wasn’t until after Trent that the notion of an
editio typica came into being. There were dozens of tiny variations (local additions/subtractions and textual corruptions) between Bibles, Breviaries, and Missals, which was solved by the Council of Trent itself by deferring to the Roman Curia to create an
editio typica which would be duplicated via printing press. The Latin text that was used to celebrate Mass at Trent and elsewhere was never an official edition of anything, except maybe for the city of Rome proper. The Sixtine Vulgate was the first edition that was; yet that was extremely rife with errors itself, which is why Pope Clement then authorized a revision only a few years later (the Sixto-Clementine edition, which is the one that was used right up until the Nova Vulgata was promulgated).
Furthermore, considering how explicit the decrees of Trent were for the most part, don’t you find your interpretation of “all their parts” to be suspiciously vague? You are telling me then I am using a faulty Bible unless I am using the exact same one that was used at the Council of Trent, despite that never having been promulgated as an official anything of whatever – not only does that mean pretty much every human being on earth save for a handful of ecclesiastical historians will never read or hear a word of the “true” Bible in their lives, but you’re also saying that everything about what constitutes the “correct” Bible was completely implicit in the Tridentine documents. You don’t find this suspicious one bit? The documents that meticulously proclaimed anathamas upon tax percentages of cathedrals and other such relatively unimportant matters is curiously silent about the disputed Bible verses, yet you are telling me that we are to find it implicit, and that these unspoken words are infallible, no less. And that the infallible Catholic Church also within three decades of making an infallible document instantly contradicted it by issuing different editions of the Vulgate. I am afraid that all of this is a bit hard to swallow, and that the simpler explanation is just that “and all their parts” did
not happen to contain an implicit infallible canon of verses.
Tell me: why do you not defer to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff in promulgating the Nova Vulgata as the official Bible of the Church? Why did the Second Vatican Council authorize a revision of the Vulgate if there already existed an infallible Tridentine edition somewhere in the Vatican archives that maybe a handful of people had seen?
Therefore, to judge if a verse or portion of a verse is part of the Canon, the basis should be whether it is found in the Latin scriptural tradition.
The “Latin scriptural tradition” is not consistent in any way. The Comma Johanneum was cited authoritatively by some Church Fathers and completely omitted by others. Scholarly speaking, it probably was an addition that came after the 4th century, else we would have a myriad of responses to the Arians that would have cited 1 John 5:7 as proof of the Trinity, though none appear to.
