Hebrew was the language of the Jewish Scripture as it is today.
http://www.fisheaters.com/septuagint.html says that:
"The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" (also called "LXX" or "The Seventy") and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).
It was a standard Jewish version of the Old Testament, used by the writers of the New Testament, as is evidenced by the fact that Old Testament references found in the New Testament refer to the Septuagint over other versions of the Old Testament. Let me reiterate: the then 300+ year old Septuagint version of Scripture was good enough for Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, etc., which is evident in their referencing it over 300 times (out of 350 Old Testament references!) in their New Testament writings -- and the Septuagint includes 7 books and parts of Esther and Daniel that were removed from Protestant Bibles some 1,500 years after the birth of Christ.
The Septuagint is the Old Testament referred to in the Didache or "Doctrine of the Apostles" (first century Christian writings) and by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and the vast majority of early Christians who referenced Scripture in their writings. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written in the first century, refers to the Books Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, analyzed the book of Judith, and quotes sections of the book of Esther that were removed from Protestant Bibles.
"Only those immediately connected with the temples knew anything of Hebrew."
Like the folks in the Qumran caves...
There was a large separation between the language of worship (Hebrew) and the lingua franca (Greek), just as there is now between the Latin of the Church and the vernacular. However, with that said, the scrolls were written in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. If Hebrew was the only language used, why include Aramaic and Greek?
Missals and entire Bibles are used by the congregation.
Missalettes. The only Bibles at a Catholic Mass are personal Bibles.
Our parish has both missals and missalettes. I am not aware of any parish that does not have Bibles within the church. Personal Bibles are welcome and often used. Bottom line: the Septuagint was the version of the Old Testament accepted by the very earliest Christians (and, yes, those 7 "extra" books were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls which date between 168 B.C. and A.D. 68, and which by the way, support both the Septuagint and the 6th - 10th c. A.D. Masoretic texts in various ways, but supporting the Septuagint on average. 3 ).
"http://www.fisheaters.com/septuagint.html says that:"
Nothing you posted from this link addresses the fact that the language of Jewish Scripture is Hebrew — then and now.
"The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint"...
There was no "text". There were books written in Hebrew, which were not unanamously accepted by the Jews as Jewish canon.
"and the Septuagint includes 7 books and parts of Esther and Daniel that were removed from Protestant Bibles some 1,500 years after the birth of Christ."
The OT belongs to the Jews. They never did accept them as Canon.
"Let me reiterate: the then 300+ year old Septuagint version of Scripture was good enough for Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, etc., which is evident in their referencing it over 300 times (out of 350 Old Testament references!)"
I think there's no real distinction, given that the writer's of the NT mos tlikely referred to the Greek texts of the LXX. The Hebrew just wasn't captured in the LXX. Here's an example:
Matt. 15:8-9; Mark 7:6-7(NIV) "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men."
Isaiah 29:13(NIV) The Lord says: “These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men.[b]
Isaiah 29:13(Hebrew, And the Lord said: Forasmuch as this people draw near, and with their mouth and with their lips do honour Me, but have removed their heart far from Me, and their fear of Me is a commandment of men learned by rote;
Isaiah 29:13(septuagint), "Then Jehovah said this: 'With their mouths, these people approach Me, and with their lips they offer Me praise; but in their hearts they are far away, so it's in vain that they bow before Me, since they're teaching the ideas and instructions of men!
Isaiah 29:13(Septuagint), "And the Lord hath said, This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, and with their lips with their lips do honour Me, but their heart is far from Me: howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching the precepts and doctrines of men.
Matt 15:8-9(NAB), " ‘This people honors me with their lips,* but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.’”
Isaiah 29:13(NAB), " The Lord said: Since this people draws near with words only and honors me with their lips alone, though their hearts are far from me, And fear of me has become mere precept of human teaching,"
Doctrines are rules. There is no real difference here to say Jesus preferred one term over another for the exact same concept. That means the distintion of 300/350 is non-existent.
"The Septuagint is the Old Testament referred to in the Didache or "Doctrine of the Apostles" (first century Christian writings) and by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and the vast majority of early Christians who referenced Scripture in their writings.
The OT belongs to the Jews, the folks you mentioned do not have the authority to determine what belongs in their Scripture. They can add those Books to their Canon, but it is not the OT according to the folks of the Old Covenant. As I noted, the distinctions are non-existent for the most part.
"The Epistle of Pope Clement, written in the first century, refers to the Books Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, analyzed the book of Judith, and quotes sections of the book of Esther that were removed from Protestant Bibles."
Nevertheless, they can not overrule the Jews and claim that they were mistaken, or wrong when they chose the Books that are their Canon. They alone have the authority and right to determine the canon of their own Scripture that belongs to them and is rightly The OT.
"If Hebrew was the only language used, why include Aramaic and Greek?"
The claim is, "Only those immediately connected with the temples knew anything of Hebrew." The use of Aramaic and Greek at Qumron is irrelevant. The use of Hebrew there is not. It shows the claim is false.
"I am not aware of any parish that does not have Bibles within the church."
That's anecdotal non-evidence.