Deutrocanonical Books-Apologetics

[Mannyfit75]

Nicholas of Lyra

Nicholas of Lyra (1270-1340) was one of the most highly regarded and influential theologians of the Middle Ages, surpassing even Thomas Aquinas in authority as a biblical commentator. His influence is evident in that his commentary was included in the Glossa ordinaria. Michael Woodward gives the following background on his importance:

Today, Nicholas of Lyra (c.1270-1349) is known as the most influential biblical commentator of the later middle ages. Well into the 17th century, his work was widely read and appreciated by both Catholic and Protestant exegetes. His running commentary on the entire Scriptures, Postillae perpetuae super totam Bibliam, was the first of its kind to be printed (Rome: Sweynheym and Pannartz, 1471-72). From this editio princeps up to the Biblia Maxima of Johannes de La Haye (Paris 1660), the Postilla litteralis was printed no less than 37 times, often accompanying the Glossa ordinaria in six folio volumes. Called ‘the clear and useful teacher (doctor planus et utilis),’ Nicholas was renowned for his knowledge of Hebrew…In 1322, Nicholas began work on his magnum opus, the Postilla litteralis…The Postilla genre consists of verse-by-verse glosses on the Bible, so-named because they come after those (post illa) glosses collected in the Glossa ordinaria…In his Postilla litteralis, Nicholas commented upon every canonical and deutero-canonical book, though the latter were treated more summarily…The Postilla litteralis became enormously popular. Besides the hundreds of manuscripts and printed editions of the entire work, many copies of extracts from the Postilla circulated as separate works and were translated into French, German and Italian…The Vita Benedicti XII prima, dated 1337, called Nicholas ‘the most learned master of theology, who commented upon (postillavit) the whole Bible most deeply and most subtly.‘164 The countless manuscripts of his works throughout Europe, about 100 of which are in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris alone, witness to Nicholas’ enduring popularity…Margaret Deanesly states that Nicholas’ 'postill, or commentary, on the Bible became the universal textbook for scholars in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.‘165 But Hans Rost is right to add that its preeminent place in Scripture studies lasted well into the Reformation period.166 …Indeed, Nicholas’ authority in biblical interpretation held sway until the 18th century, as the numerous editions of his works in the 16th and 17th centuries testify.167

Nicholas was a Hebrew scholar who endorsed the Hebrew canon according to the judgment of Jerome. In his preface to the book of Tobit, he wrote that the books of Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, and Maccabees were not considered canonical but were received and read by the Church only for the purposes of edification and moral encouragement.168 In his introductory remarks to the book of Ezra, Nicholas stated that he would forgo making comments on the books of Tobit, Judith and Maccabees because, even though they were included in Bibles, they were not received as canonical by either the Jews or Christians.169 When he did comment on the text of one of the Apocryphal books, he would begin by asserting its non-canonical status. For example, with Tobit he wrote, 'Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon.'170 Or, 'Here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon,'171 and, 'Here begins the Book of Wisdom which is not in the canon

christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

Are those copy and paste message from the cite?

 

[Milliardo]

Again, all well and good, kaycee–but after all they’ve said, did they not submit to what the Church has judged to be worthy of which would go into the Bible? That they said their piece, but made no further attempt to have it removed or ask it to be removed only shows that, notwithstanding their opinions, they agree and assent to the canon as laid down by Hippo and Carthage. So, do we have any other evidence aside from opinions then?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Again, all well and good, kaycee–but after all they’ve said, did they not submit to what the Church has judged to be worthy of which would go into the Bible? That they said their piece, but made no further attempt to have it removed or ask it to be removed only shows that, notwithstanding their opinions, they agree and assent to the canon as laid down by Hippo and Carthage. So, do we have any other evidence aside from opinions then?

kaycee is only showing opinions. Not official Church documents.

 

[kaycee]

Bible Translations

In the early sixteenth century, just prior to the Reformation, Cardinal Ximenes, the Archbishop of Toledo, in collaboration with the leading theologians of his day, produced an edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia. There is an admonition in the Preface regarding the Apocrypha, that the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel, are not canonical Scripture and were therefore not used by the Church for confirming the authority of any fundamental points of doctrine, though the Church allowed them to be read for purposes of edification.

This Bible, as well as its Preface, was published by the authority and consent of Pope Leo X, to whom the whole work was dedicated.

B.F. Westcott comments:
At the dawn of the Reformation the great Romanist scholars remained faithful to the judgment of the Canon which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Cardinal Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott Biblia Complutensia-the lasting monument of the University which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and the great glory of the Spanish press-separates the Apocrypha from the Canonical books. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation

Bruce Metzger provides additional information on the view of the Western Church during the sixteenth century:

The earliest Latin version of the Bible in modern times, made from the original languages by the scholarly Dominican, Sanctes Pagnini, and published at Lyons in 1528, with commendatory letters from Pope Adrian VI and Pope Clement VII, sharply separates the text of the canonical books from the text of the Apocryphal books. Still another Latin Bible, this one an addition of Jerome’s Vulgate published at Nuermberg by Johannes Petreius in 1527, presents the order of the books as in the Vulgate but specifies at the beginning of each Apocryphal book that it is not canonical. Furthermore, in his address to the Christian reader the editor lists the disputed books as 'Libri Apocryphi, sive non Canonici, qui nusquam apud Hebraeos extant.

christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

 

[kaycee]

The Polyglot Bible of Cardinal Ximenes was sanctioned by Pope Leo X. It separated the Apocrypha from the canon of the Old Testament and received papal sanction. Catholic apologists make much of papal approval like that given by Innocent I for the Council of Carthage in his letter to Exuperius. The sanction of Leo X is as authoritative as that of Innocent, yet they are fundamentally contradictory, demonstrating again that Rome’s claim that she determined the canon for the Church universal in the late fourth and early fifth centuries is not supported by the historical facts.

The weight of historical evidence supports the exclusion of the Apocrypha from the category of canonical Scripture. Thus, we must conclude that the decrees of the Council of Trent, relative to the true canon of Scripture, were made with brazen disregard for Jewish and patristic historical evidence, as well for the overall historical consensus of the Church prior to that Council. Renowned scholar, B.F. Westcott, makes these comments regarding the decree of Trent:

“This fatal decree, in which the Council…gave a new aspect to the whole question of, the Canon, was ratified by fifty-three prelates, among whom there was not one German, not one scholar distinguished for historical learning, not one who was fitted by special study for the examination of a subject in which the truth could only be determined by the voice of antiquity. How completely the decision was opposed to the spirit and letter of the original judgments of the Greek and Latin Churches, how far in the doctrinal equalization of the disputed and acknowledged books of the Old Testament it was at variance with the traditional opinion of the West, how absolutely unprecedented was the conversion of an eccelesiatical usage into an article of belief, will be seen from the evidence which has already been adduced.”

In addition to these historical reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha as being inspired and therefore not truly canonical, there are also heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies in the writings themselves which disqualify them from being given the status of Scripture. The following example from Bruce Metzger on the Book of Judith is a case in point:

One of the first questions that naturally rises regarding this book is whether it is historical. The consensus, at least among Protestant and Jewish scholars, is that the story is, sheer fiction…The book teems with chronological, historical, and geographical improbabilities and downright errors…For example, Holofernes moves an immense army about three hundred miles in three days (2:21). The opening words of the book, when taken with 2:1ff. and 4:21, involve the most astonishing historical nonsense, for the author places Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, over the Assyrians (in reality he was king of Babylon) at Nineveh (which fell seven years before his accession!) at a time, when the Jews had only recently returned from the captivity (actually at this time they were suffering further deportations)! Nebuchadnezzar did not make war on Media (1:7), nor capture Ecbatana (1:14)…The rebuilding of the Temple (4:13) is dated, by a glaring anachronism, about a century too early. Moreover, the Jewish state is represented as being under the government of a high priest and a kind of Sanhedrin (6:6-14; 15:8), which is compatible only with a post-exilic date several hundred years after the book’s presumed historical setting.

 

[Milliardo]

Again, kaycee, not good enough. These are opinions; the same way lawyers make their opinions about some case. Until the Supreme Court says with finality that this is the only way to interpret a law, then they have the right to say their piece. Once it has been put to rest by the Supreme Court, then a lawyer can still give his opinion, but he submits to what the Court has said. So far you’ve only whown us copy and paste jobs, opinions of various people. We have yet to find where there is a move to take the Deuterocanonicals out. So far none of these men you quoted have even asked the Church to remove them, or indeed has the Church made any attempt to do so. And as well, as we already know, they still submitted to what the Church has judged. With these in mind, can you show us then anything that would be less opinion and more of action? If none, then that’s all there is to it, and these men–great minds that they are–in the end wholly submit without dissent or contempt to the Church’s wisdom. That is the most important thing. Now, show us to the contrary.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Can you cite a source from Vatican website that declare Deutrocanonical Books as not used.

There are so many errors in the quote you cited.

Because the Council of Hippo, Council of Rome, and Council of Rome declare 46 OT inspired and part of Canon.

This what the Council of Rome in 382 A.D:

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.

The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.

Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the
New Testament.

Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

kaycee;

Not one of your posts state the Pope so and so “officially decree concerning those books as not inspired.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

Council of Hippo;

AD 393:
Council of Hippo. “It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon (included Wisdom and Ecclesiastes (Sirach)), the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books.”
(canon 36 A.D. 393). At about this time St. Jerome started using the Hebrew text as a source for his translation of the Old Testament into the Latin Vulgate.

The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…

AD 397:
Council of Carthage III. “It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach), twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees.”
(canon 47 A.D. 397).

and here is my source:

home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm

 

[Milliardo]

Mannyfit75:

and here is my source:

home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm

I like what Bob wrote there concerning the acceptance of half truths, and I agree with his observation–why do Protestants accept the canon of the New Testament, which were the accepted by those Councils, and yet reject the canon of the Old Testament made by the same Councils? What authority then do they have in accepting one, and yet reject the other?

 

[kaycee]

The Polyglot Bible of Cardinal Ximenes was sanctioned by Pope Leo X. It separated the Apocrypha from the canon of the Old Testament and received papal sanction. Catholic apologists make much of papal approval like that given by Innocent I for the Council of Carthage in his letter to Exuperius. The sanction of Leo X is as authoritative as that of Innocent, yet they are fundamentally contradictory, demonstrating again that Rome’s claim that she determined the canon for the Church universal in the late fourth and early fifth centuries is not supported by the historical facts.

The weight of historical evidence supports the exclusion of the Apocrypha from the category of canonical Scripture. Thus, we must conclude that the decrees of the Council of Trent, relative to the true canon of Scripture, were made with brazen disregard for Jewish and patristic historical evidence, as well for the overall historical consensus of the Church prior to that Council. Renowned scholar, B.F. Westcott, makes these comments regarding the decree of Trent:

This fatal decree, in which the Council…gave a new aspect to the whole question of, the Canon, was ratified by fifty-three prelates, among whom there was not one German, not one scholar distinguished for historical learning, not one who was fitted by special study for the examination of a subject in which the truth could only be determined by the voice of antiquity. How completely the decision was opposed to the spirit and letter of the original judgments of the Greek and Latin Churches, how far in the doctrinal equalization of the disputed and acknowledged books of the Old Testament it was at variance with the traditional opinion of the West, how absolutely unprecedented was the conversion of an eccelesiatical usage into an article of belief, will be seen from the evidence which has already been adduced

christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

 

[Mannyfit75]

I like what Bob wrote there concerning the acceptance of half truths, and I agree with his observation–why do Protestants accept the canon of the New Testament, which were the accepted by those Councils, and yet reject the canon of the Old Testament made by the same Councils? What authority then do they have in accepting one, and yet reject the other?

Half truths, or fullness of truth. I prefer the fullness of Truth which the Catholic Church has.

During the Reformation, the Protestant Reformers, did away with the Pope, the bishops, the priests, the sacraments, and only kept the Scriptures. Prior to that Western Europe was Catholic.

By taking the Pope, Bishop, priests, and sacraments, the Protestant doctrine contains half-truths because they rely only on Bible Alone and Faith Alone.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Polyglot Bible of Cardinal Ximenes was sanctioned by Pope Leo X. It separated the Apocrypha from the canon of the Old Testament and received papal sanction. Catholic apologists make much of papal approval like that given by Innocent I for the Council of Carthage in his letter to Exuperius. The sanction of Leo X is as authoritative as that of Innocent, yet they are fundamentally contradictory, demonstrating again that Rome’s claim that she determined the canon for the Church universal in the late fourth and early fifth centuries is not supported by the historical facts.

The weight of historical evidence supports the exclusion of the Apocrypha from the category of canonical Scripture. Thus, we must conclude that the decrees of the Council of Trent, relative to the true canon of Scripture, were made with brazen disregard for Jewish and patristic historical evidence, as well for the overall historical consensus of the Church prior to that Council. Renowned scholar, B.F. Westcott, makes these comments regarding the decree of Trent:

This fatal decree, in which the Council…gave a new aspect to the whole question of, the Canon, was ratified by fifty-three prelates, among whom there was not one German, not one scholar distinguished for historical learning, not one who was fitted by special study for the examination of a subject in which the truth could only be determined by the voice of antiquity. How completely the decision was opposed to the spirit and letter of the original judgments of the Greek and Latin Churches, how far in the doctrinal equalization of the disputed and acknowledged books of the Old Testament it was at variance with the traditional opinion of the West, how absolutely unprecedented was the conversion of an eccelesiatical usage into an article of belief, will be seen from the evidence which has already been adduced

christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

Most of your quote cite opinions. Again, what Catholic Church document at the time official declared it to be a decree it to be Not Canonical. I showed you in both Council of Rome, Council of Hippo, and Council of Carthage that the Church affirmed those Books. It was also affirmed in the later councils, and finally finalized it in the Council of Trent and closed it.

If you haven’t check the website I gave out, even the Jesus cited the Deutrocanonical books. In fact 2/3 of the NT comes from the Deutrocanonical Books…

 

[Zooey]

Additionally, in asserting that I Maccabees was not canonical, **Gregory was not sharing his personal opinion as a private theologian, but stating the position of the Church of his day. **

**Gregory would never have purposefully taught a view contrary to what he knew had been authoritatively established by the Church. **

**Clearly, when the Church received the Apocryphal books as canonical it defined the term in the sense expressed by Cardinal Cajetan. The term(canonical) had both a broad **and a narrow meaning.

*Broadly, it included all the books that were acceptable for reading in the Churches, which included the Apocrypha. *

But, in its narrower meaning, only the books of the Hebrew Canon were sanctioned as truly canonical for the purposes of establishing doctrine

The assertion that Gregory’s Morals on Job was not an official Church document is erroneous. In the later Middle Ages, his Morals was the standard commentary for the entire Western Church on Job. That this commentary was written while he was pope and was used as an official commentary for the entire Western Church is proof enough that this work was an official Church document.

Moreover, Gregory never retracted what he wrote about the Apocrypha. Thus, we have the official and authoritative perspective of a bishop of Rome in the late sixth and early seventh centuries regarding the canonical status of the Apocrypha.
http://christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html
The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation William Webster

I’ll tell you what I’m seeing here–and I did check the link-- I’m seeing a total misunderstanding of what the portion I underlined means…
In the article, it is even more obvious…There is this reference to “Gregory was pope” & that meaning* in & of itself*, that the Catholic Church was bound to believe & teach what he said.
That, just flat out, isn’t true. It’s like saying (for example) that “John Wesley believed in baptism by immersion” (which he did, by the bye) = Methodists must baptize by immersion. Not true; that was Wesley’s personal belief, & the baptisms he performed, after he developed this belief, were indeed by immersion. But that has never been part of Methodist doctrine.
Gregory was pope, but that does not mean, that every word that dropped from his lips was gospel truth…Indeed, that would be blasphemous to presume. (And Gregory, could he now speak, would so tell you).

kaycee;

Not one of your posts state the Pope so and so “officially decree concerning those books as not inspired.”

Exactly!!
There is, among Protestants, an extant notion that Catholics are bound by every word & deed of every pope, & that pointing out any dissenting opinion that one pope (or more) may have held, rings the death knell over Catholic belief & practice.
It doesn’t work that way. That, kaycee, is the problem. You’re beginning your argument from a false notion of what Catholicism teaches, & therein lies the rub: Because your basis for argument is faulty, your entire case sinks under the weight of that one misunderstanding!!

 

[Church_Militant]

Here’s a good article on the DCs.
“5 Myths about 7 Books”
Here are the answers to five common arguments Protestants give for rejecting the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament
By Mark Shea

People don’t talk much about the deuterocanon these days. The folks who do are mostly Christians, and they usually fall into two general groupings: Catholics - who usually don’t know their Bibles very well and, therefore, don’t know much about the deuterocanonical books, and Protestants - who may know their Bibles a bit better, though their Bibles don’t have the deuterocanonical books in them anyway, so they don’t know anything about them either. With the stage thus set for informed ecumenical dialogue, it’s no wonder most people think the deuterocanon is some sort of particle weapon recently perfected by the Pentagon.

The deuterocanon (ie. “second canon”) is a set of seven books - Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, as well as longer versions of Daniel and Esther - that are found in the Old Testament canon used by Catholics, but are not in the Old Testament canon used by Protestants, who typically refer to them by the mildly pejorative term “apocrypha.” This group of books is called “deuterocanonical” not (as some imagine) because they are a “second rate” or inferior canon, but because their status as being part of the canon of Scripture was settled later in time than certain books that always and everywhere were regarded as Scripture, such as Genesis, Isaiah, and Psalms.

Why are Protestant Bibles missing these books? Protestants offer various explanations to explain why they reject the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. I call these explanations “myths” because they are either incorrect or simply inadequate reasons for rejecting these books of Scripture. Let’s explore the five most common of these myths and see how to respond to them.

 

[kaycee]

I’ll tell you what I’m seeing here–and I did check the link-- I’m seeing a total misunderstanding of what the portion I underlined means…
In the article, it is even more obvious…There is this reference to “Gregory was pope” & that meaning* in & of itself*, that the Catholic Church was bound to believe & teach what he said.
That, just flat out, isn’t true. It’s like saying (for example) that “John Wesley believed in baptism by immersion” (which he did, by the bye) = Methodists must baptize by immersion. Not true; that was Wesley’s personal belief, & the baptisms he performed, after he developed this belief, were indeed by immersion. But that has never been part of Methodist doctrine.
Gregory was pope, but that does not mean, that every word that dropped from his lips was gospel truth…Indeed, that would be blasphemous to presume. (And Gregory, could he now speak, would so tell you).

Exactly!!
There is, among Protestants, an extant notion that Catholics are bound by every word & deed of every pope, & that pointing out any dissenting opinion that one pope (or more) may have held, rings the death knell over Catholic belief & practice.
It doesn’t work that way. That, kaycee, is the problem. You’re beginning your argument from a false notion of what Catholicism teaches, & therein lies the rub: Because your basis for argument is faulty, your entire case sinks under the weight of that one misunderstanding!!

Is the belief that the Deut’s are scripture part of dogmatic faith?

 

[BrianH]

Most of your quote cite opinions. Again, what Catholic Church document at the time official declared it to be a decree it to be Not Canonical. I showed you in both Council of Rome

The Council of Rome was a meeting of Western church officials and theologians which took place in 382 under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It gained historical significance in the 18th century when the Decretum Gelasianum, offering a list of canonical books of the Bible, was associated with it. Historians dispute the connection and date the Decretum Gelasianum to the 6th century.

 

[Janet_S]

Is the belief that the Deut’s are scripture part of dogmatic faith?

Yes, the canon (NT & OT) was dogmatically defined at the Council of Trent in the 16th century. However, before the Council of Trent, the following Church Councils
gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT identical to the list later approved by the Council of Trent:
Council of Hippo (393)
Council of Carthage (397)
Council of Carthage (419)
Council of Florence (1441)

No Church Council documents from the 4th century onward list a canon that exclude the 7 deutercanonical books.

This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

II. THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546. For the Old Testament its catalogue reads as follows:

The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras (which latter is called Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter (in number one hundred and fifty Psalms), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets (Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacue, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias), two books of Machabees, the first and second.
The order of books copies that of the Council of Florence, 1442, and in its general plan is that of the Septuagint. The divergence of titles from those found in the Protestant versions is due to the fact that the official Latin Vulgate retained the forms of the Septuagint.

newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

A. THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON (A.D. 100-220)

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.

 

[Janet_S]

Quote from Brian H:
The Council of Rome was a meeting of Western church officials and theologians which took place in 382 under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It gained historical significance in the 18th century when the Decretum Gelasianum, offering a list of canonical books of the Bible, was associated with it. Historians dispute the connection and date the Decretum Gelasianum to the 6th century.

Even if you ignore the Council of Rome, what about these councils?
Council of Hippo (393)
Council of Carthage (397)
Council of Carthage (419)
Council of Florence (1441)
All these council documents list a canon of OT and NT which is identical to that of the Council of Trent (the canon accepted by the CC.) None of these council documents exclude the 7deuterocanonical books from the canon.

The 7 deuterocanonical books are included in the Gutenberg Bible from AD 1455. They are part of the OT canon and are not listed separately in an appendix. (The Gutenberg Bible can be viewed online, BTW.)

 

[Zooey]

Is the belief that the Deut’s are scripture part of dogmatic faith?

What part of “It doesn’t matter” did you not understand??
John Wesley believed that all baptisms should be done by immersion. (So did my grandfathers…but I digress).
Gregory expressed his opinion that the Deuterocanonical were of lesser importance than other books in the canon. It doesn’t matter!! His personal opinion no more formed the deposit of faith, than my personal opinion that red snapper tastes like http://bestsmileys.com/sick/9.gif transforms said red snapper into poison.
It’s only an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions???