The Church does not teach anything that contradicts the Apostolic consensus teaching of the Early Church, so no. would you really say that a lost person given a Bible without the Dueterocanonicals would be worse off than with no Bible at all?
The question was, do we support giving people truncated Bibles when complete canon is available; the answer to that is, -- Why should we?
God has done amazing things with tribal groups and ONE Gospel such as Matthew or John or Luke.
Acts and Romans are also rather powerful on their own.
And then there's Samuel Morris in his MARCH OF FAITH who initially didn't have a Bible or any info that there was God Almighty and His Son Jesus The Christ.
Jesus still led him through the jungle for 2-3 weeks with dialogue and light until Christ left him at a mission wall compound with the instruction: In there you will learn of me.
NO MAGICSTERICAL
NO CHURCH FATHERS
NO CHURCH AT ALL INITIALLY
NO BUREAUCRACY
NO APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
etc.
etc.
and etc.
The Church does not teach anything that contradicts the Apostolic consensus teaching of the Early Church,
= = =
Oh, I've not found the Mary-olatry stuff even close to the early consensus you folks try and make it out to be.
But the "complete" canon is not available. You could only say that if the RCC gave away zillions of free Bibles every year, but to my knowledge that does not happen. I'm sure there are well over a billion people who have no access at all to a Bible of any kind, until met by a missionary. I don't have the numbers to back it up, but I'd be willing to bet that Protestant churches and organizations give away many, many more free Bibles to lost people than does the RCC. These people do not have a choice between a Protestant or a Catholic Bible. They are blessed to see one of any kind. This is why I would have thought you would be fine with a Protestant Bible vs. no Bible at all.