No, they are sure. They do not agree. There is a difference.Peter J said:Personally, I'm not too bothered. After all, we got by until 1870 without even the dogma that every ex cathedra statement is infallible. (It still wouldn't be a dogma, if Cardinal Newman had had his way.)Irish Hermit said:You are extremely hard on the Roman Catholic brethren. They know exactly how many infallible statements there are...
Those who are followers of the Catholic apologist Scott Hahn know there are only TWO
Those who follow Tim Staples know that there are FOUR
Those who follow the famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble know there are EIGHTEEN
(although he is not sure about four of them.)
Those who follow the even more famous theologian Ludwig Ott know that there are SIXTY.
BTW, I believe Fr. Taft (in his Orientale Lumen talk) points out that some Orthodox Churches are unsure of which books are in the bible. (Seems relevant to this thread, since some Orthodox are criticizing us for not having an official list of ex cathedra statements.)
We are all agreed on the Four Gospels. All the rest is commentary on these.
We are all agreed on the New Testament 27 books. The OT is read in the light of these.
The EO have III Maccabbees, which among the OO, only the Armenians have. The EO have IV Maccabbees as an appendix, except the Georgians who include it in the main body, and the OO do not have the appendix. The Greeks do not have II Esdras, the Slavs have it as an appendix, the Georgians and the OO having it in the main body of the OT. The Ethiopians have an expanded canon, part of which is quoted in the NT.
End of discrepancies. Since, however, Scripture is part of Tradition, and not opposed to Tradition, and the "disputed books" are in the Tradition, it doesn't make much of a difference. Only with Protestants.