Like you said, various councils did, but not all of them. There were so many heated debates and disagreements that the Catholic church didn't ratify their cannon until the 1500s. Everybody wasn't on the same page. Lets face it, some didn't want anything Paul wrote put in the bible. Let's be honest here, the council of Nicaea and Constantinople basically only decided Jesus divinity, there were three schools of thought as I'm sure your aware, and the homoousian won. Oh they also decided Arius was a heretic and I agree.
If what you are claiming was true, the Catholic church wouldn't have waited another 1200 years to ratify there cannon.
Let me ask you, why do you think us protestants rejected Tobit, Judith, The Book of Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, the Seven chapters in the book of Esther, Two chapters and a prayer in the book of Daniel? To be very honest with you; I have had some very intense debates with a couple of professors and pastors over this question.
Here again, I believe this was a human decision to eliminate them, not divinely inspired.
Please let me clarify something, I don't have any issues personally with the Catholic church; I also have some dear friends that are Catholic. The Catholic church today isn't the church of the dark ages, and I do understand that.
The same 73 books decided upon by the pope and Councils in the late 300s are the same we use today. It should be no surprise that the list was re-affirmed in the years following such approvals, nor a surprise it was re-affirmed during a time when Protestants wanted books dropped. The 1546 Council of Trent is well known to have added: “But if anyone receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.” An example of re-affirmation around the time of the original list is found in a historical document written by Pope Innocent I in his 405 A.D. letter to the Bishop of Toulouse:
“A short annotation shows what books are to be accepted as canonical. As you wished to be informed specifically, they are as follows: The five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; and Jesus Nave, one of Judges, four of Kingdoms, and also Ruth, sixteen books of Prophets, five books of Solomon, the Psalter. Likewise, of histories, one book of Job, one book of Tobias, one of Esther, one of Judith, two of Maccabees, two of Esdras, two books of Paralipomenon. Likewise, of the New Testament: four books of Gospels, fourteen Epistles of Paul, three Epistles of John, two Epistles of Peter, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle of James, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John. Others, however, which were written under the name of Matthias or of James the Less, or under the name of Peter and of John, by a certain Leucius – or under the name of Andrew, by the philosophers Nexocharis and Leonidas – or under the name of Thomas, and such others as may be, are not only to be repudiated, but, as you know, are also to be condemned.” There were some differences in readings for masses before the Bible became official in the late 300s, but at time the matter was and is settled. I don't know what heated discussions you are talking about nor why you think any Catholic want to exclude the writings of Paul. To the contrary, Catholics have pronounced those writings as the Word of God. Finally, I know the new Protestant religions rejected the concept of purgatory and prayers for the dead, thus dropping solid evidence would make for a better argument. I have been told the books were not included because they were rejected by Jews because none of the dropped books were ever written in Hebrew--the Dead Sea Scrolls proved that wrong. Personally I can see why many Jews dropped those books--the story in Holy Scripture of the family who was tortured to death because of their belief in resurrection had to be troubling to them.
