Old Testament - seven extra books in Catholic Bibles

[Pete_Holter]

Interestingly enough, another Protestant scholar, Charles Elliott wrote…

…Protestants…do not reject the evidence of written testimony. They readily avail themselves of it as furnishing rational evidence of the genuineness of the books of Scripture…We know it to be impossible that forgeries should gain universal credit, because we know it to be impossible now, human nature and the laws of moral evidence being the same in all ages. We receive the Holy Scriptures as undoubtedly genuine…because they were identified with the literature of the period before the Church of Rome was distinguished above other churches. And it was impossible that she could, after the fourth century, add to the evidence…which had been established above all dispute in the second and third centuries. [Charles Elliott, *Delineation of Roman Catholicism

, Book I, p. 110]

Astonishingly enough, I agree. However, I don’t see how it helps the Protestant argument.

Wow! Augustine wrote the same thing about the impossibility of forgery in the case of Scripture. I wonder if this is where Charles Elliott got the idea. When Augustine was talking about the possibility of a writing being forged in Cyprian’s name he wrote,

At the same time, there are not wanting some who maintain that Cyprian never held the view ascribed to him, but that this was an unwarrantable forgery passed off by liars under his name. For it was impossible for the integrity and authenticity of the writings of any one bishop, however illustrious, to be secured and preserved as the canonical Scriptures are through translation into so many languages, and through the regular and continuous manner in which the Church has used them in public worship. Even in the face of this, some have been found forging many things under the names of the apostles. It is true, indeed, that they made such attempts in vain, because the text of canonical Scripture was so well attested, and so generally used and known; but this effort of an unholy boldness, which has not forborne to assail writings which are defended by the strength of such notoriety, has proved what it is capable of essaying against writings which are not established upon canonical authority. –Letter 93

 

[ac_claire]

Pete Holter-- your several long posts about Sirach are interesting, but they aren’t really on-topic. Maybe you could start a new thread on this subject?

 

[KingAlfred]

I discussed this in another thread, and suddenly the thread was deleted without any given reason. So I’ll try again…

Catholics have seven extra books in their Bible. These books are called “deuterocanonical” They are in the Old Testament. (The New Testament is the same for both Catholics and Protestants.)

The books are: Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, (and longer versions of Daniel and Esther)

I believe Catholics added these books as a counter measure against the split caused by Martin Luther.

No. Protestants don’t include them because by the time of the Reformation (1517), the Jews had ‘updated’ their OT, and had removed those books. The Catholic version is the older Jewish version of the OT. History is so critical to our understanding of Christianity.

 

[RobHom]

Ginger, have we been reading the same thread? I thought we were, but your summations make me wonder…

I was wondering that myself…and vis a vis summations…

I guess she is not aware that there are also two different “Jewish Canons”…

At this point in this thread, given that the original question/premise of the OP’s…has been answered repeatedly and set correct… I now have a question:

If I hammer a nail through a strand of hair with a bowling ball, what are the statistical chances of getting a uniformly split hair?

 

[irishpatrick]

Since no one wants to move forward and discuss the new information Pwrlftr introduced, I will provide a final summation before departing:

Catholic claim 1: Martin Luther removed 7 books from the Bible.
Fact:
Martin Luther did exactly what Jerome had done.
Luther separated the deuteros from the protocanicals. He appended the deuteros at the end of the OT with this comment, “These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”
Jerome stated, " the Church reads the books ….but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads …for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine." - Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon.

Catholic Claim 2: The Deuteros have always been part of the inspired Scriptures.
FACT:

• 1. The earliest canons do not include the Deuteros - and no one has found any disagreement from the same time period.
• 1. In contrast, there was disagreement found within the same time period as Hippo and Carthage.
• 1. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits:
     "[The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose **Scriptural character was contested in some quarters,

"
The Catholic Church admits the deuteros were not always universally accepted,- at first they were disputed.

• 1. When Jerome added them, he placed them apart from inspired Scriptures stating those 7 books were not of inspired authority as were the rest. Many church fathers agreed the deuteros were not inspired.
• 1. The pope consented to Jerome writing his “opinion” in the Vulgate stating the deuteros were not inspired, thereby giving, at the very least, the appearance the pope agreed.

Catholic Claim 3. Catholics have used the exact same canon since Jerome translated the Scriptures into Latin under the authority of Pope Damascus.
Fact:
The Council of Trent “passed over” 3 books that were originally included in Jerome’s vulgate. handsonapologetics.com/first_…te_webster.htm
Therefore the canon that was accepted for over 1000 years by the RC is not the same canon the RC uses today.

Thanks to all who helped make this thread a profitable learning experience. And thanks to the moderators for deleting off topic posts. - especially those whose sole purpose appeared to be to badger and insult.

May God Bless and keep all of you throughout the new year.

To all,

Can you not now see what you are facing with Ginger? She ignores all the evidence disproving her points, yet she posts the points in the quote above as if no-one has said a word. A person weak in faith who lands on her posts will think the Church is wrong, and a person who is leaning towards Protestantism will use her points as ammo to attack the faith or to draw others away from the faith. It is likely that from her pov she has done a resoundingly good job here, she has held strong in her anti-Catholic views and she has given like-minded people ammo.

To Ginger, it makes no difference that we have collectively disproved her points a hundred times, she continues to make her anti-Catholic points and posts because that is what she intended to do all along, and this forum and this thread has given her the place, time and voice to do that.

Notice how she ends the thread, and seemingly her presence here, with what appears to be a nice polite exit, all done after having jammed a stick in the eyes of Catholics once again.

 

[guanophore]

Since no one wants to move forward and discuss the new information Pwrlftr introduced, I will provide a final summation before departing:

It would be inappropriate to “move forward”(change the subject) when you are still suffering some of these errors.

Catholic claim 1: Martin Luther removed 7 books from the Bible.
Fact:
Martin Luther did exactly what Jerome had done.
Luther separated the deuteros from the protocanicals. He appended the deuteros at the end of the OT with this comment, “These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”
Jerome stated, " the Church reads the books ….but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads …for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine." - Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon.

The canon of scripture contains only inspired writings. Once writings are classified as “uninspired” then they no longer qualify as canonical. Jerome submitted to the practice of the Church, which was to include these books because they were part of the Septuagint used by the Apostles.

Catholic Claim 2: The Deuteros have always been part of the inspired Scriptures.
FACT:

• 1. The earliest canons do not include the Deuteros - and no one has found any disagreement from the same time period.

I am not sure what you are referring to as “earliest canons”. since the Deuteros were produced during the intertestamental period, of course they were not part of the “canon” prior to that.

You also do not seem to realize when the Septuagint, including the Deuteros, was produced. It predated the Jewish canon used by Protestants.

• 1. In contrast, there was disagreement found within the same time period as Hippo and Carthage.
• 1. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits:
     "[The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose **Scriptural character was contested in some quarters,

"
The Catholic Church admits the deuteros were not always universally accepted,- at first they were disputed.

• 1. When Jerome added them, he placed them apart from inspired Scriptures stating those 7 books were not of inspired authority as were the rest. Many church fathers agreed the deuteros were not inspired.
• 1. The pope consented to Jerome writing his “opinion” in the Vulgate stating the deuteros were not inspired, thereby giving, at the very least, the appearance the pope agreed.

This is irrelevant, since we know there was equally hot dispute over several NT books which are now accepted universally.
Dispute does not detract from the Teaching of the Church, guided by the HS. IN fact, it was because of those disputes that the canon was promulgated in 382.

Catholic Claim 3. Catholics have used the exact same canon since Jerome translated the Scriptures into Latin under the authority of Pope Damascus.
Fact:
The Council of Trent “passed over” 3 books that were originally included in Jerome’s vulgate. handsonapologetics.com/first_…te_webster.htm
Therefore the canon that was accepted for over 1000 years by the RC is not the same canon the RC uses today.

There are various collections of books, even in the East and West, however, all the collections containt the Deuteros, so that is irrelevant also.

 

[RobHom]

To all,

Can you not now see what you are facing with Ginger? She ignores all the evidence disproving her points, yet she posts the points in the quote above as if no-one has said a word. A person weak in faith who lands on her posts will think the Church is wrong, and a person who is leaning towards Protestantism will use her points as ammo to attack the faith or to draw others away from the faith.

To Ginger, it makes no difference that we have collectively disproved her points a hundred times, she continues to make her anti-Catholic points and posts because that is what she intended to do all along, and this forum and this thread has given her the place, time and voice to do that.

Notice how she ends the thread, and seemingly her presence here with what appears to be a nice polite exit, all done after having stuck a stick in the eyes of Catholics once again.

You are right in what you say…and as far as those who are weak in their faith…who may possibly fall prey to her fallacies, hopefully will take the time to read and research the educated and reasoned responses to her bogus claims. While it may seem that many are tilting against windmills and being overtly quixotic…it really isn’t. Those who reply and disprove false claims such as those made by her or another anti-Catholic are “defending the Faith” and doing it very well, and serve to be a good example to the rest of us.

One who uses “false talking points” is nothing less than a liar or deceiver, and anyone who falls for them is a fool.

She may have attempted to stick something somewhere, but her “bailing out” has merely proven that even she doesn’t believe her own line of hooey. What I have to wonder…is just how disaffected is this person, or does this person have a personality disorder or compulsion that is…well, basically evil, afterall… you have to wonder why someone would be so compelled to spend so much time spewing polemics…

 

[irishpatrick]

You are right in what you say…and as far as those who are weak in their faith…who may possibly fall prey to her fallacies, hopefully will take the time to read and research the educated and reasoned responses to her bogus claims. While it may seem that many are tilting against windmills and being overtly quixotic…it really isn’t. Those who reply and disprove false claims such as those made by her or another anti-Catholic are “defending the Faith” and doing it very well, and serve to be a good example to the rest of us.

One who uses “false talking points” is nothing less than a liar or deceiver, and anyone who falls for them is a fool.

She may have attempted to stick something somewhere, but her “bailing out” has merely proven that even she doesn’t believe her own line of hooey. What I have to wonder…is just how disaffected is this person, or does this person have a personality disorder or compulsion that is…well, basically evil, afterall… you have to wonder why someone would be so compelled to spend so much time spewing polemics…

Respectfully, I could not disagree more strongly. Lovingly correcting Ginger’s posts once or twice is fine, doing it 100 times does no good and lends credibility to Ginger’s message.

IMO, she bailed because she did exactly what she wanted, she drew many good Catholics into a debate that ended with her not admitting anything and with her once again posting her untruths. It is like poor little Ginger came and fought off the Golliath of Catholic Apologists and held her own in doing so.

I have to say, this modern idea of trying to force the faith down someone’s throat is most un-appealing, imo. Catholics here, while showing a great deal of knowledge (and I applaud them for that), showed very little wisdom in how they handled Ginger, imo. Frankly, Ginger won this debate, she walked away having made all her points many, many times, and she refused to concede any ground and in the end she gave comfort to those who might be leaning away from the faith.

Jesus never relentlessly pounded His truths into anyone’s mind. We are told to be prepared for the hope we have in Christ, yet we are not told to bear with an anti-Catholic person’s message over so many posts…it makes us look weak to have to repeat ourselves so many times.

IMO, this thread should have been closed as soon as Ginger’s OP was answered, thus shutting down her ability to make a farce out of Catholics and the faith…but hey, it is not my forum, nor my thread and people here will continue to do Ginger’s work if she happens to return.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Pete Holter-- your several long posts about Sirach are interesting, but they aren’t really on-topic. Maybe you could start a new thread on this subject?

Thanks ac claire! The reason I included these comparisons is because Protestants believe that the Scriptures are self-authenticating. And so I thought that the best line of evidence to offer a non Catholic would be found in the books themselves.

May God bless you!

 

[Pete_Holter]

I was asked a question about the following comparison:

“Give to the godly man, but do not help the sinner. Do good to the humble, but do not give to the ungodly; hold back his bread, and do not give it to him… For the Most High also hates sinners… Give to the good man, but do not help the sinner” (Sirach 12:4-7).

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy’” (Matt 6:43).

I believe that Jesus is drawing from the thought that is presented here in Sirach, which Sirach presents more glaringly and succinctly than elsewhere in the Old Testament. These verses from Sirach put both notions, of loving your neighbor and hating your enemy, together in immediate proximity, so that the book itself provides an Old Testament basis for how Jesus is going to bring the Law and the Prophets to their fulfillment in this particular case.

We are not to hate our enemies as David does in Psalm 139:21-22 – “Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you? I hate them with complete hatred; I count them my enemies” – except to hate the evil that is in them. But we are to love our enemies as shown in Exodus 23:4: “If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall bring it back to him.” Jesus is pulling the relevant texts together and showing us how to interpret them in light of Himself.

Without Sirach, we do not have as clear of an encapsulation for Jesus to draw from in order to bring it to fulfillment, and we might be tempted to think, “Where were we ever told to hate our enemies, not just by example as in David’s case, but by command? And where so clearly in immediate contradistinction with love of neighbor?”

This text from Sirach also touches on John’s teaching on both aiding and receiving aid from heretics. In 3 John 5-8 he teaches us

Beloved, it is a faithful thing you do in all your efforts for these brothers, strangers as they are, who testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their journey in a manner worthy of God. For they have gone out for the sake of the name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles. Therefore we ought to support people like these, that we may be fellow workers for the truth.

On the flip side he tells us in 2 John 9-11

Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

In 3 John, he teaches us that to aid the godly is to share in their ministry and that it is a faithful thing to do so. In 2 John we are told that to show this same kindness to heretics is an evil thing. What do we have here except another explication of what it means to love our neighbor and hate our enemy, to fulfill the injunction that we “give to the godly man, but do not help the sinner”? And so, this teaching from John also reflects the verses from Sirach and helps to clarify when and in what way we should both love and “hate” our enemies.

Jesus is the One Who will love His enemies: “while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son” (Rom 5:10). And yet He also tells His disciple to “hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters” in order to be worthy of Him (Luke 14:26; cf. Matt 10:37). And how would the carnally minded receive His injunction to “Leave the dead to bury their own dead” (Luke 9:60), except to think of it as a form of hatred? Jesus is not eliminating hatred for our enemies, but purifying it so that we can truly love them self-sacrificially and at the same time not allow them to advance their evil cause by aiding them materially while engaged in this purpose.

The Book of Sirach shows itself to be consistent on this point with both the Old and the New Testaments, and helps us in this instance to see in what way we aught to both love and hate our enemies, and how it is that Jesus is “making all things new” (Rev 21:5).

 

[ac_claire]

I have to say, this modern idea of trying to force the faith down someone’s throat is most un-appealing, imo. Catholics here, while showing a great deal of knowledge (and I applaud them for that), showed very little wisdom in how they handled Ginger, imo. Frankly, Ginger won this debate, she walked away having made all her points many, many times, and she refused to concede any ground and in the end she gave comfort to those who might be leaning away from the faith.

Jesus never relentlessly pounded His truths into anyone’s mind. We are told to be prepared for the hope we have in Christ, yet we are not told to bear with an anti-Catholic person’s message over so many posts…it makes us look weak to have to repeat ourselves so many times.

It’s just a matter of correcting error. As many times as a lie is posted, it has to be refuted. The truth will stand on it’s own, and I think it has on this thread. It doesn’t matter how persistent or stubborn certain posters have been…Disingenuousness reveals itself in those posts.

 

[irishpatrick]

It’s just a matter of correcting error. As many times as a lie is posted, it has to be refuted. The truth will stand on it’s own, and I think it has on this thread. It doesn’t matter how persistent or stubborn certain posters have been…Disingenuousness reveals itself in those posts. Don’t give those posters too much credit.

I do not agree. Correct the lie, then leave the topic alone so that it dies a quick death. Example: Catholics who screamed the loudest about the Da Vinci Code just caused more people to see the Da Vinci Code, that is a fact, not a guess.

However, I feel that I am also wandering into the same territory of which I am being critical. Therefore, if my posts have not swayed you or convinced you that stubborn and prideful tactics are not at all wise, then for me to re-state them again-and-again is simply a waste of time and energy and it becomes counter-productive.

God Bless.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Augustine wrote,

The judgment of the book of Wisdom ought not to be repudiated, since for so long a course of years that book has deserved to be read in the Church of Christ from the station of the readers of the Church of Christ, and to be heard by all Christians, from bishops downwards, even to the lowest lay believers, penitents, and catechumens, with the veneration paid to divine authority. – Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints

I was on Singing In The Reign the other day and I stumbled across an interesting thought that Michael Barber had about Jesus’ birth. “And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger” (Luke 2:12). The question he was asking himself was, Why are the swaddling cloths worth mentioning and in what way are they a “sign”? The English Standard Version Study Bible says that “*n ancient times strips of cloth were used to wrap babies to keep them warm and secure.” The fact that He would be lying in a manger is unusual and so would serve as a sign in and of itself, but not so the swaddling cloths. Their common usage seems to fail in being a sign since it would have been expected for all babies to be so wrapped. So why this detail? What Professor Barber suggests is that it is a sign in that it is a fulfillment of a Messianic prophecy found in the Wisdom of Solomon:

And I too, when born, inhaled the common air, and fell upon the kindred earth; wailing, I uttered that first sound common to all. In swaddling clothes and with constant care I was nurtured. For no king has any different origin or birth, but one is the entry into life for all; and in one same way they leave it. Therefore I prayed, and prudence was given me; I pleaded and the spirit of Wisdom came to me. I preferred her to scepter and throne, And deemed riches nothing in comparison with her, nor did I liken any priceless gem to her; Because all gold, in view of her, is a little sand, and before her, silver is to be accounted mire. Beyond health and comeliness I loved her, And I chose to have her rather than the light, because the splendor of her never yields to sleep. Yet all good things together came to me in her company, and countless riches at her hands; And I rejoiced in them all, because Wisdom is their leader, though I had not known that she is the mother of these. Simply I learned about her, and ungrudgingly do I share- her riches I do not hide away” (Wisdom of Solomon 7:3-13).

Augustine said that the book of Wisdom is “ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style” (On Christian Doctrine, Bk 2), and in this way we understand these words as thoughts flowing from Solomon, who ultimately failed in his adherence to the Wisdom of God. But the true Solomon, Jesus, “learned about her” as He “increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52), and ungrudgingly does He share Himself, “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col 2:3).

It is the specific mention of swaddling cloths that brings both texts together in Jesus and makes their mention in Luke’s gospel significant. I thought it was an interesting testimony to the inspired nature of the Wisdom of Solomon, if indeed Jesus was purposefully fulfilling this prophecy in Himself and Luke was trying to point this out to us.

Barber offers further insights on his post dated December 24, 2008, “The Meaning of Jesus’ Swaddling Clothes.”

By the way, it’s a great blog!

The Lord be with you!*

 

[Church_Militant]

I think you are correct although there may have been other issues as well. I haven’t really studied why ML rejected the deutero’s although since he chose the same canon as Jerome I am sure you are right that the Hebrew issue played a part in his decision.

Nonetheless, I haven’t ever heard anyone address why the Church would send out the Vulgate which included Jerome’s negative commentary as to the canonicity of the deuteros. I am not much of a student of history but as far as I know, the Church did this after the councils of Hippo and Carthage which, as we know, said that the deuteros were indeed part of the inspired list of scripture.

Have you any thoughts on this?

Jerome, smart as he was, was not infallible and was only being honest as to his difficulties, and says so in those same notes.

I have no problems with Jerome’s commentary. It’s honest and has been dealt with by subsequent discoveries. Keep in mind that it was St. Augustine who urged Jerome to include the DCs.

Both men wise enough to place their faith in the authority of the church.

 

[littleone]

It was a joke.

In matters conserning religion satan jokes around to and gets people thinking against leaving Gods path for them.
Be weary least you lead a person astray!
Jesus wrote
“do not lead your brother into temptation”.

peace
Godbless

 

[ac_claire]

I do not agree. Correct the lie, then leave the topic alone so that it dies a quick death. Example: Catholics who screamed the loudest about the Da Vinci Code just caused more people to see the Da Vinci Code, that is a fact, not a guess.

However, I feel that I am also wandering into the same territory of which I am being critical. Therefore, if my posts have not swayed you or convinced you that stubborn and prideful tactics are not at all wise, then for me to re-state them again-and-again is simply a waste of time and energy and it becomes counter-productive.

You make a good point about the Da Vinci Code. There does come a point in some discussions where dignifying the claims with a response just encourages the troublemaking posters to continue.

So I would agree with you to an extent…We definitely do have a duty to correct error or refute lies. I don’t think it’s wrong to repeat yourself if the same lie is being repeated over and over and over. I do a lot of online apologetics and I’ve found-- in my experience-- that short and sweet is the best way to go. Especially if you’re familiar with the person you’re debating and the thread (like this one) is already a million pages long. Just keep it simple, refute the error and don’t be distracted by diversion techniques or side arguments.

What you’ve said, that stubborn and prideful tactics aren’t productive…that is 100% true. It’s just that you can’t label every attempt to refute error as stubborn or prideful. There’s a fine line between doing your duty as a confirmed Catholic at an apologetics website and just encouraging trolls. If we pray for wisdom and humility before coming to these sites, it’ll surely help us to see the line more clearly.

 

[irishpatrick]

You make a good point about the Da Vinci Code. There does come a point in some discussions where dignifying the claims with a response just encourages the troublemaking posters to continue.

So I would agree with you to an extent…We definitely do have a duty to correct error or refute lies. I don’t think it’s wrong to repeat yourself if the same lie is being repeated over and over and over. I do a lot of online apologetics and I’ve found-- in my experience-- that short and sweet is the best way to go. Especially if you’re familiar with the person you’re debating and the thread (like this one) is already a million pages long. Just keep it simple, refute the error and don’t be distracted by diversion techniques or side arguments.

What you’ve said, that stubborn and prideful tactics aren’t productive…that is 100% true. It’s just that you can’t label every attempt to refute error as stubborn or prideful. There’s a fine line between doing your duty as a confirmed Catholic at an apologetics website and just encouraging trolls. If we pray for wisdom and humility before coming to these sites, it’ll surely help us to see the line more clearly.

I agree, thank you for the response.

 

[Apryl]

I meant newcomer to the thread, and perhaps to Ginger2. If you go back and read her early posts, it is clear that the pattern you recognized has been there.

Oh, yeah.

No. Not new to Ginger. I’ve seen her(?) on other threads. And yes, my question was based upon my earlier encounters.

Hmmm… Did she ever answer my question

 

[twb1621]

Since no one wants to move forward and discuss the new information Pwrlftr introduced, I will provide a final summation before departing:

Catholic claim 1: Martin Luther removed 7 books from the Bible.
Fact:
Martin Luther did exactly what Jerome had done.
Luther separated the deuteros from the protocanicals. He appended the deuteros at the end of the OT with this comment, “These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”
Jerome stated, " the Church reads the books ….but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads …for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine." - Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon.

Catholic Claim 2: The Deuteros have always been part of the inspired Scriptures.
FACT:

• 1. The earliest canons do not include the Deuteros - and no one has found any disagreement from the same time period.
• 1. In contrast, there was disagreement found within the same time period as Hippo and Carthage.
     False - As attested to previously, the seat of Peter, Rome, consistantly practiced and taught the Catholic Faith with the inclusion of the Deuteros and it was the east that caused the confusion in their own region without the authority of Rome until it was later resolved. Refer to the following;
     Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.
     Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.
     If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.”

americancatholictruthsoci…ENT/trent4.htm

• 1. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits:
     "[The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose **Scriptural character was contested in some quarters,

"
The Catholic Church admits the deuteros were not always universally accepted,- at first they were disputed. Disputes would not occur if they were not in use. However, disputes do not render canon law and Rome never discounted them.
.

 

[twb1621]

Ginger2 - RE post 524 your conclusions are False
Synods of Carthage“…while eminent scholars and theorists were thus depreciating the additional writings, the official attitude of the Latin Church, always favourable to them, kept the majestic tenor of its way. Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent. The African Church, always a staunch supporter of the contested books, found itself in entire accord with Rome on this question. Its ancient version, the Vetus Latina (less correctly the Itala), had admitted all the Old Testament Scriptures. St. Augustine seems to theoretically recognize degrees of inspiration; in practice he employs protos and deuteros without any discrimination whatsoever. Moreover in his “De Doctrinâ Christianâ” he enumerates the components of the complete Old Testament. The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded. These councils base their canon on tradition and liturgical usage.”

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

Council of Trent
Decree Concerning The Canonical Scriptures

The holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding, keeps this constantly in view, namely, that the purity of the Gospel may be preserved in the Church after the errors have been removed.
This [Gospel], of old promised through the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures,[1] our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, promulgated first with His own mouth, and then commanded it to be preached by His Apostles to every creature[2] as the source at once of all saving truth and rules of conduct.
It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.
Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession.
It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.[4]