I have discussed the issue of the book of Esdras and the Tridentine decree on the canon, such as:
In his new edition of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, Gary Michuta offers the following on the Counciil of Trent and the book of Esdras:
Trent’s “Rejection” of Esdras
The argument also makes a factual error. It is assumed that since the Council of Trent didn’t include the book of Esdras in its canon, it rejected it. If all we had to look at was the canon itself that might be a possible interpretation. It could be argued that Trent intended its canon to be exhaustive so that whatever is not included is to be considered rejected. But there is no reason to guess. We possess the Acts of Trent and the various diaries and letters of its participants, so we can know how the fathers of the council wished the decree to be interpreted. Once these primary sources are consulted, rather than commentators on those sources, it becomes clear that Trent did not implicitly or explicitly “reject” Esdras. Instead, they wished that the decree to be silent on the issue. How do we know this?
On March 29, 1546, fourteen questions (called capita dubitationum) were proposed to the council fathers to provide direction for the framers of the document. Question four asked whether the books that were not included in the official list of the canon, but were included in the Latin Vulgate (the book of Esdras, 3 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees), should be rejected by the decree by name or passed over in silence. Only three fathers voted for an explicit rejection. Forty-two voted that these books should be passed over in silence (Latin, libri apocryphi sub silentio). Eight were undecided.
Therefore, not only did Trent not explicitly reject the book of Esdras, but the fathers did express a wish that the decree not name these books as being rejected. This is a subtle but important point. It’s not altogether accurate to say that Trent “rejected” the book of Esdras.
Does this mean that Catholics can accept the book of Esdras as canonical Scripture or that the contents of the canon of Scripture is an open question? Not at all. The canon of Scripture is what is given at the Council of Trent, the Council of Florence, and the African councils. I suppose it could be theoretically possible at some future date to admit Esdras to the canon since it was never explicitly rejected, but this would be practically impossible since the book has fallen into disuse. (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger [rev ed.; El Cajon: Catholic Answers, 2017], 322-23, italics in original)
Note what Michuta is saying here: the infallible decree on the canon from Trent failed to answer authoritatively on the canonicity or thereof of a book that could or could not be inspired by God. This is rather significant as one of the claims of Roman Catholic apologists is that Rome can give infallible assurance of doctrinal issues, and yet, on the issue of Esdras, the now immutable decree of Trent in April 1546 passed over in silence a book that Michuta tries to downplay the significance thereof due to it simply having fallen out of use(!) If anything, it shows that Rome’s claim to being able to provide infallible certainty is nothing short of a smokescreen. Furthermore, Rome has proclaimed, using her alleged infallible authority, dogmas without any basis in the Bible and early Christian history, such as the Immaculate Conception (see Answering Tim Staples on Patristic Mariology and the Immaculate Conception) so one is forced to reject her claims of authority.
To be fair, this should not be seen as a wholesale rejection of Michuta’s book. As with the first edition, Michuta does a very good job at refuting a lot of the weaker arguments used against the Apocrypha, including the false claim that Jews believed that there was no special revelation from God between Malachi to the time of Jesus’ ministry, as well as “proof-texts” such as Luke 24:44.
Paypal
