Hi. Here's the comment in question:
There is more than a little "gilding of the lily" in that passage. For one, there is no "Sacred Scripture had to be on hundred percent in keeping with Catholic Sacred Tradition..." That's just something a person who's proud of his denomination would like to claim as true.
When the Bible was canonized, that was not the determiner of whether the council included each book it finally did...or not. Almost all of the books that made it into the Bible were already accepted by the churches of the Christian world as being inspired and only a handful were questioned. That was before either of the two councils which canonized the Bible had met.
Also, the claim that "as passed down from Jesus through the Apostles" is just for show. None of the dogmas that have been declared by the RCC can be substantiated by reference to the historical record. Some of them don't even come close. But of course the allegation is made in order to have some apparent basis for these innovations.
AND Sacred Tradition is a term that does not refer to traditions in the church but, rather, to a theory that has no Biblical basis--i.e. that God set up a second stream of divine revelation to mankind, in addition to Scripture, by which an unbroken line of unofficial belief among the people of the church everywhere established doctrine, even if the Bible books did not.