St. Jerome was not infallible, that is reserved collectively to the Episcopacy (Magisterium) and the Pope.
Jerome did not say the Deuterocanonicals were not Scripture, he only said that the rabbinical Jews of Jerusalem said they were not. In fact, St. Jerome wound up strenuously defended the Deuterocanonicals as inspired Scripture, writing in Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]; "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" The overwhelming majority of those that comprised the early Magisterium, the Church Fathers and other early Christian bishops regarded the deuterocanonical books as having exactly the same inspired, scriptural status as the other Old Testament books that Protestantism accepts. A few examples of this acceptance can be found in the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Third Council of Carthage, the African Code, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the writings of Pope St. Clement I (Epistle to the Corinthians), St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Hippolytus, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Pope St. Damasus I, St. Augustine, and Pope St. Innocent I.
Since you are dealing with translations of translations of translations you cannot establish that the passages from the Deuterocanonicals that are thematically the same as the Gospels did not arise as quotes. Jesus actually paraphrased much of his references to the Old Testament that you accept.
Over the 12 years and 25 sessions the Council made many decrees on nearly every aspect of Catholicism, reaffirming dogma and doctrine challenged by the Reformation and rebutting the heresies. How many of these have you studied to conclude that a pronouncement was issued ex nihilo (from nothing) to fill a gap in Catholic teaching? I would also like to know where you studied them and in what language.
Quite correct. As an armchair quarterback, I'd simply compare each heresy of Protestantism to the teachings of Simon Magus and go from there.
“Since you are dealing with translations of translations of translations you cannot establish that the passages from the Deuterocanonicals that are thematically the same as the Gospels did not arise as quotes. “
No. You do not find, “It is written...”, or, “As the Prophets spoke...” and then a quote from the Apocrypha. Doesn’t happen.
And most Protestants use translations from the Greek, not translations of translations of translations. We aren’t the ones who say a translation (the Vulgate) is better than the original...
“In fact, St. Jerome wound up strenuously defended the Deuterocanonicals as inspired Scripture, writing in Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]; “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches?”
Taken out of context.
“Contextually, the “judgment of the churches” refers to Theodotion’s translation of Daniel which the churches were using instead of the Septuagint version. To add to this, he couldn’t have followed Carthage considering they met 17 years after Jerome penned the above. Both Hippo and Carthage were regional councils, didn’t speak for the entire church, thus it wasn’t mandated that Jerome submit to their decisions. Yet, it was Theodotion’s version Jerome refers to when he mentions the “judgment of the churches” and not their decision on canon:
“In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us.”
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search/label/Apocrypha
“How many of these have you studied to conclude that a pronouncement was issued ex nihilo (from nothing) to fill a gap in Catholic teaching?”
I did not say Trent discussed the canon with nothing before it. However, there had been no Ecumenical Council giving official judgment on the subject. Had there been, then no one would have written the Pope to tell him the Apocrypha wasn’t good for doctrine...
Although maybe they could have. Arguably, the Council of Trent left open the idea of a dual-track canon, with some scripture good for doctrine, and other scriptures that are not. And that is why I pointed out that scripture says ALL scripture is good for training and teaching and correction...