Not quite…
The Catholic Encyclopedia states: The “Protocanonical (are) those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.”
AND
“[The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters,”
Please, cite the text in context.
Protocanonical (protos, “first”) is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters,
but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the “Apocrypha”. These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel.
It should be noted that protocanonical and deuterocanonical are modern terms, not having been used before the sixteenth century. As they are of cumbersome length, the latter (being frequently used in this article) will be often found in the abbreviated form deutero.
The scope of an article on the sacred Canon may now be seen to be properly limited regarding the process of
- what may be ascertained regarding the process of the collection of the sacred writings into bodies or groups which from their very inception were the objects of a greater or less degree of veneration;
- the circumstances and manner in which these collections were definitely canonized, or adjudged to have a uniquely Divine and authoritative quality;
- the vicissitudes which certain compositions underwent in the opinions of individuals and localities before their Scriptural character was universally established.
It is thus seen that canonicity is a correlative of inspiration, being the extrinsic dignity belonging to writings which have been officially declared as of sacred origin and authority. It is antecedently very probable that according as a book was written early or late it entered into a sacred collection and attained a canonical standing. Hence the views of traditionalist and critic (not implying that the traditionalist may not also be critical) on the Canon parallel, and are largely influenced by, their respective hypotheses on the origin of its component members.
The Catholic Church admits the deuteros were not always universally accepted,- at first they were disputed.
Yes – but so were certain books that were finally included in the canon of Scripture; these were all called
Antilegomena (literally “spoken against”), in contrast with the
Omologoumena, or universally acknowledged writings.
The first church historian, Eusebius, circa AD 303-325, applied the term Antilegomena to the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, the Apocalypse of John, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews:
Among those things spoken against which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John,
whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles;** and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books.** And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among those spoken against.
The Epistle to the Hebrews is also listed earlier:
It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews,
saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul.
Codex Sinaiticus, a 4th century manuscript of the Bible, includes the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas.
The original Syriac P’shitta excluded 2-3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation. Some modern editions, such as the Lee P’shitta of 1823, include them.
The term is sometimes applied also to certain books in the Hebrew Bible. There are records in the Mishna of controversy in some Jewish circles during the 2nd century A.D. relative to the canonicity of the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. Some doubts were expressed about Proverbs during this period as well. The Gemara notes that the book of Ezekiel had also been questioned about its authority until objections to it were settled in 66 A.D. Also, in the first century B.C. the disciples of Shammai contested the canonicity of Ecclesiastes because of its pessimism, whereas the school of Hillel just as vigorously upheld it. ]
[/quote]
Whomever has led you to believe that is without question in error. If you take the time to do some “actual” research, you will see that the 7 books, knows as the Apocryphal books, have always been a part of the Catholic Bible. In fact, Luther also kept them in his bible, in fact when the KJV was first done…King James demanded that those books be included. The simple truth and reality is: Someone who thinks that they are smarter than God…has removed those books from non-Catholic bibles…and apparently has done so based on their pre-supposed human authority.