The compilatory "Glossa Ordinaria" was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion. And yet these doubts must be regarded as more or less academic. The countless manuscript copies of the Vulgate produced by these ages, with a slight, probably accidental, exception, uniformly embrace the complete Old Testament. Ecclesiastical usage and Roman tradition held firmly to the canonical equality of all parts of the Old Testament. There is no lack of evidence that during this long period the deuteros were read in the churches of Western Christendom. As to Roman authority, the catalogue of Innocent I appears in the collection of ecclesiastical canons sent by Pope Adrian I to Charlemagne, and adopted in 802 as the law of the Church in the Frankish Empire; Nicholas I, writing in 865 to the bishops of France, appeals to the same decree of Innocent as the ground on which all the sacred books are to be received.For an understanding of the Ordinary Magisterium you need to look beyond the disputes of academics and look at the day-to-day teachings and practices of the Church. These show that the Deuterocanonical books were received by the Church on an equal basis as the Protocanonical.
Even if we were to accept your premise, all you could show is that there was no consensus on the status the the Deuterocanonical books. So while you might object to the charge that Luther removed these books from the Bible, you would also have to admit that Trent did not add them. All that could be said that they were disputed and that the Protestants fell on one side of this dispute, and that Catholics fell on the other. But here Protestants still have a dilemma. While Catholics can appeal to the authority of the Church to settle this dispute, Protestants can appeal to no authority to support their position. Even an appeal to the consensus of the faithful does not work since, compared to Catholics and the Orthodox, Protestants are in the minority among the Christian faithful.
Are there any of them that point to any of the books found in the apocrypha?
I could find none here-—> https://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm
That's just it, we don't need to appeal to any church authority to know what writings are from God! The authority of the Word of God is intrinsic because it IS the word of God. The Holy Spirit leads believers into all truth and God's sheep hear His voice in the Holy Scriptures. They have power, for example:
Romans 10:17 ESV
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Romans 1:16 ESV
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Acts 20:32 ESV
And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
1 Peter 1:23 ESV
Since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;
2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
James 1:22 ESV
But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.
1 Thessalonians 2:13 ESV
And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.
Jeremiah 15:16 ESV
Your words were found, and I ate them, and your words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart, for I am called by your name, O Lord, God of hosts.
Psalm 119:105 ESV
Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
John 17:17 ESV
Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
Psalm 119:11 ESV
I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.
Matthew 4:4 ESV
But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Joshua 1:8 ESV
This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.
1 Corinthians 2:14
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
So what you’re telling me is that everything Roman Catholicism says is true solely because it comes from Roman Catholicism?
It is interesting where you end your quotation from the Catholic Encyclopedia. The author continues:...Ecclesiastical usage and Roman tradition held firmly to the canonical equality of all parts of the Old Testament. There is no lack of evidence that during this long period the deuteros were read in the churches of Western Christendom....
So just how does that "interesting" section contradict what I said, since what you do not include is that the Greeks "about the beginning of the twelfth century they possessed a canon identical with that of the Latins, except that it took in the apocryphal III Machabees?"
The issue here has been the fact that, as said, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.
Which contradicts the standard Cath. propaganda that Luther was no maverick but had substantial RC support for his non-binding canon.
The countless manuscript copies of the Vulgate produced by these ages, with a slight, probably accidental, exception, uniformly embrace the complete Old Testament.
And then some.
1 Esdras (Greek: Ἔσδρας Αʹ), also First Esdras, Greek Esdras, Greek Ezra, or 3 Esdras, is an ancient Greek version of the biblical Book of Ezra in use among the early church, and many modern Christians with varying degrees of canonicity..As part of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, it is now regarded as canonical in the churches of the East, but apocryphal in the West;..
According to Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, Augustine of Hippo considered it canonical, citing 1 Esdras as canonical 'Ezra' in 'The City of God' at 18:36. [11] Bogaert maintains that under Augustine's influence, it was one of the 'two books of Ezra' (alongside Ezra–Nehemiah) listed in the Biblical canon lists of the Synod of Hippo of 393, and the Council of Carthage of 397.[12][13] Jerome however, considered it as one of the "variety of versions" (exemplaria varietas)[14] of Hebrew 'Ezra' found in the Septuagint, and did not translate it separately from Ezra–Nehemiah.[15][16] Hence, as Jerome's Vulgate version of the bible gradually achieved dominance in Western Christianity, so 1 Esdras no longer circulated, and ceased to be considered canonical in the West. From the 13th century onwards, Vulgate bibles produced in Paris reintroduced a Latin text of 1 Esdras, in response to commercial demand; but the Council of Trent excluded it from its authoritative definition of the canon of the Western Church. Clement VIII placed it in an appendix to the Vulgate along with 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh "lest they perish entirely".[17] However, the use of the book continued in the Eastern Church, and it remains a part of the Eastern Orthodox canon. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Esdras
All of which further testifies to an unsettled canon, as well as a lack of uniformity of the Vulgate (which, while Trent affirmed it as the official RC Bible, yet it could not say which version: " if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic," thus resulting in the scandal of the fanatical papal translator, Pope Sixtus V, with his the Sistine Vulgate, while other differing versions would follow.
The Gutenberg Bible (also known as the 42-line Bible, the Mazarin Bible or the B42) , an edition of the Vulgate printed in the 1450s in Latin by Johannes Gutenberg, mixes the apocrypha into the Old Testament, with the Prayer of Manasses following 2 Paralipomenon, and 3 and 4 Esdras following 1 Esdras and Nehemias. The Prayer of Solomon follows Ecclesiasticus. It thus has 50 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New, for a total of 77 books.
Meanwhile i also read that Jerome's prologues were typically included in medieval copies of the Vulgate. And in his Prologue to the Books of the Kings he states,
“This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees is found in Hebrew, but the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style.
In his preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs he also states, “As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.” (Shaff, Henry Wace, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, p. 492)
For an understanding of the Ordinary Magisterium you need to look beyond the disputes of academics and look at the day-to-day teachings and practices of the Church. These show that the Deuterocanonical books were received by the Church on an equal basis as the Protocanonical.
Which also means you are anachronistically reading later detailed legislation on the differences btwn magisterial levels and required assent, or wrongly assuming the canon was officially settled and making making the likes of Athanasius of Alexandria (bishop of Alexandria; Cath. church "father;" c. 367), Cyril of Jerusalem (bishop of Jerusalem; doctor of the Cath church; d. circa. 385 AD), Council of Laodicea (363), bishop Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 310–320 – 403), Gregory of Nazianzus (330 – 390; bishop of Nazianzus), Hilary of Poitiers, (c. 310 – c. 367; bishop of Poitiers and a doctor of the Cath church), John of Damascus (patriarch of Constantinople, 9th century), Melito of Sardis (bishop of Sardis, 4th c.) and Origen (Cath. church "father" and thelogian; c. 184 – c. 253), Rufinus (344/345–411; historian, and theologian), Cardinals Seripando, Caietan, Ximenes, (16th c.) etc. with being in dissent, not rendering the required religious assent of intellect and will.
Meanwhile if you want to go by past official RC teaching then you cannot be debating RC doctrine here.
Even if we were to accept your premise, all you could show is that there was no consensus on the status the the Deuterocanonical books. So while you might object to the charge that Luther removed these books from the Bible, you would also have to admit that Trent did not add them.
Rather, as argued, there was no settled, indisputable canon until after the death of Luther, who had substantial and even current scholarly and historical support for his own opinion in that regard, contrary to the standard Cath. propaganda, as seen earlier here.
But here Protestants still have a dilemma. While Catholics can appeal to the authority of the Church to settle this dispute, Protestants can appeal to no authority to support their position.
This indeed is the real argument, yet one that was tried upstream already, but the fact remains that since distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation (which shows how they understood the OT and gospels), then she has no infallible authority (though as said, even secular powers can make rules for those under it).
And of course, the very premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is itself novel and unScriptural, nowhere seen or promised or essential for authority and preserving faith.
However, I understand that the Catholic premise is that Scripture (and valid tradition and history) only consist of and mean what she says, for which it is argued that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical corporate instruments and magisterial stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Would you agree with that, and so that any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God, and thus damned as Florence etc. states?
Even an appeal to the consensus of the faithful does not work since, compared to Catholics and the Orthodox, Protestants are in the minority among the Christian faithful.
That is a contradiction in terms, re. "Christian faithful," and the numbers are claim, and since the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive definitive source and description of what constitutes a christian is the New Testament, which excludes most Catholics as well as liberals Prots. And the reported the numbers for both (1.3 billion Catholics out of 2.4 billing "Christian") include multitudes who are not faithful, unless you want to Teddy K RCs and Jimmy C as such.
But if you want to invoke consensus of the faithful based upon the members counted as Catholic, then since the majority whom Rome manifestly considers to be members in life and in death testify to being liberal, then you have a real problem if you are one of the conservative class.