Can anyone tell me what Trent's justification was for adding the apocryphal books to the canon? I find it rather ludicrous that these books, written before the New Testament period, when there were no legitimate prophets wandering about, which were also rejected by the early church fathers, would be picked for canonization almost a century and a half later instead of works that were more worthy of being canonized such as the letters of the early fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, etc.) I study the apocrypha and it is obvious why these books were rejected. It seems both the Orthodox and Romans agreed that they were sufficient to establish certain matters of doctrine. What is the whole scoop on this? Sure, there is some devotional value in them whenever they are biblically sound, but not in the way that I would think is firm enough to prove the more controversial doctrines.