I have 2 questions for those of you fixated with Luther's comments on which books were canonical or not.
1) In the 16th Century Catholic men like Erasmus, Luther, Cajetan expressed doubts on the canonicty of some of the New Testament books. These men all share one thing in common. They formed their opinions on the canon previous to the dogmatic and binding decisions of the Council of Trent. At the Council of Trent, the question of canonicity was put forth before the Council once and for all, and they issued a dogmatic pronouncement of which books were "canon" for the entire church. Isn't the liberty that Erasmus, Luther, and Cajetan expressed simply the liberty as allowed by the Roman Catholic Church previous to dogmatic pronouncement? [By the way, if you simply respond by citing earlier councils, I'm going to then ask you if the councils you cite were ecumenical or local, and why the New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon”].
2. I would like a Roman Catholic who believes that Trent closed the canon issue once and for all to explain the following riddle. Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta states:
"The fourth question of the Capita Dubitationum asked whether those books that were not included in Trent's list, but were included in the Latin Vulgate (e.g. The Book of Esdras, 4 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees), should be rejected by a Conciliar decree, or should they be passed over in silence. Only three Fathers voted for an explicit rejection. Forty-two voted that the status of these books should be passed over in silence. Eight bishops did not vote. The majority won, and Trent deliberately withheld any explicit decision on these books.
...The question of Esdras' canonical status was left theoretically open." [Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007), pp. 240-241].If Michuta is correct, isn't it possible that there exists a book that is canonical, but not currently in the canon? If it is possible that the Bible is missing a book, and this book isn't simply hypothetical, don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to chastise Luther for making a personal opinion on canonicity previous to Trent, while you're free to speculate on the Book of Esdras, 4 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees previous to the Roman church finally setteling the issue?
Think about it.