Replies

I think the point is that the Apocrypha was long considered unacceptable for matters of doctrine. And even the Council of Trent didn’t care to open that can of worms. While it affirmed some of the Apocrypha as being ‘canon’, it didn’t tackle if the Apocrypha had authority “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness”.

The Council of Trent also screwed up its list of books, dropping 3 small parts that had long been considered canon - since they were part of the Apocrypha. That is why the term “deuterocanonical” was coined - to describe what was left of the Apocrypha after the Council of Trent dropped part of it out.

The Deuterocannicals are unacceptable? To whom? The Canon (of which they are a part) itself was formed from books used in Liturgy. The Bible of the early Church always included books now called Deuterocanonical (called that just to distinguish them from the books found in the Masoretic text, and other books that are clearly outside of the canon -- it doesn't mean "non" canonical, anymore than "deuter-onomy" means "not" law. It just means a second collection.) Their canonicity was not doubted in the Church until it was challenged by Jews in the ongoing polemics. You will notice that as a rule, the Jews who reject the LXX also reject the whole New Testament.

Just offhand, I know the Western Church uses Wisdom, Sirach, and Maccabees Liturgically in the Lectionary, as well as Daniel 3:24-90, the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Hebrew Children. Don't know about the Eastern Church. Maybe The_Reader_David will tell us about that.