Quite incorrect, now evidently don't you realise that the Orthodox and Oriental Churches also have the books of the Maccabees for instance and that Luther's first Bible had it as well?
Rather than pick out a piece of my post to criticize, why not give us your answer for what I really asked:
I wonder what it is in these "other" books that some Catholics think excluding them from the other books EVERYONE agrees are Divinely-inspired presents this "roadblock" between themselves and the grace Christ wants to pour out on them? I think the REAL point is not at all that they really care about these extra books but that they can pull their "Luther card" to try to make ALL non-Catholics out to be missing a "fuller" faith that they alone think they have as well as "their" church having the only authority TO decide what is and is not Scripture.
I'll bet if you asked one to tell you what deep theological truth is contained in these books that are not also found in the mutually acknowledged ones, no one could name even one thing. The ONLY one I have ever heard attempted is the idea of "Purgatory" possibly being discussed in the book of Maccabees, but even that one is questionable because it never uses the word (nor is it found in any others) and it speaks of idolaters being prayed for - hardly jiving with Purgatory being a place to cleanse "venal" sins. Pretty sure worshiping false gods is a "mortal" no-no.
So, do you have anything to add that helps to answer what these "extra" books add to the Christian faith that others can accuse those who do not recognize them as Divinely-inspired are missing out in the "fullness" of the faith? The question is not who did and who didn't accept them, but what they contained that made them so SURE they came from the Holy Spirit.