“Anti-Catholics lie.”
So do Catholics. And Catholics do not like to admit that the Apocrypha was not considered useful for doctrine by many leading Catholic theologians until Trent, and technically even Trent didn’t answer that question.
Since Protestants believe “All [notice ALL] Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...”, we reject the idea that scripture can be useless for doctrine.
The Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures was at the 4th Session of Trent in 1546. Twenty years passed before the term “Deuterocanonical” was invented and replaced “Apocrypha” in Roman Catholic usage. Why?
“After the Reformation, when the Catholic Church strove to counter the attacks and refute the doctrines of Protestantism, the Vulgate was reaffirmed in the Council of Trent as the sole, authorized Latin text of the Bible...
...The Sixtine edition was soon replaced by Clement VIII (1592–1605)...
The Clementine differed from the manuscripts on which it was ultimately based in that it grouped the various prefaces of St. Jerome together at the beginning, and it removed 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses from the Old Testament and placed them as Apocrypha into an appendix following the New Testament.
The Psalter of the Clementine Vulgate, like that of almost all earlier printed editions, is the Gallicanum, omitting Psalm 151. It follows the Greek numbering of the Psalms, which differs from that in versions translated directly from the Hebrew.
The Clementine Vulgate of 1592 became the standard Bible text of the Roman Rite of the Roman Catholic Church until 1979, when the Nova Vulgata was promulgated.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate#Clementine_Vulgate
Notice: Done in response to the Council of Trent, 4th session, 1546, the Clementine Vulgate “removed 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses from the Old Testament and placed them as Apocrypha into an appendix following the New Testament.”
So what word would distinguish the “Apocrypha”, used for 1000 years, from the list Trent approved? Thus the word “Deuterocanonical” was invented to describe those passages that were listed by Trent, in contrast to the Apocrypha that had been accepted by the Catholic church for edification, at least, for many centuries.
And in rejecting the Apocrypha and/or Deuterocanonical books as being authoritative for doctrine, we are merely doing what many in the Catholic Church did from the time of Jerome, and which the Catholic Church still allows - although the Catholic Church believes a canonical book can be one that is good for edification, but not doctrine...a stance the Apostles would have been confused by.
“So do Catholics.”
No. I have never once seen a Catholic lie here. I have seen Catholics make mistakes, post erroneous information, etc. I have only seen anti-Catholics lie. One or two have even admitted that they lied when pressed to do so.
“And Catholics do not like to admit that the Apocrypha was not considered useful for doctrine by many leading Catholic theologians until Trent, and technically even Trent didn’t answer that question.”
There was no question to answer.
“… we reject the idea that scripture can be useless for doctrine.”
So do we.
“The Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures was at the 4th Session of Trent in 1546. Twenty years passed before the term “Deuterocanonical” was invented and replaced “Apocrypha” in Roman Catholic usage. Why?”
No other term was needed previously because Protestantism, the new heresy, was challenging what had not been challenged in hundreds of years.
“Notice: Done in response to the Council of Trent, 4th session, 1546, the Clementine Vulgate “removed 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses from the Old Testament and placed them as Apocrypha into an appendix following the New Testament.”
And?
“So what word would distinguish the “Apocrypha”, used for 1000 years, from the list Trent approved? Thus the word “Deuterocanonical” was invented to describe those passages that were listed by Trent, in contrast to the Apocrypha that had been accepted by the Catholic church for edification, at least, for many centuries.”
And? Previously the books were simply referred to by their names. And?
“And in rejecting the Apocrypha and/or Deuterocanonical books as being authoritative for doctrine, we are merely doing what many in the Catholic Church did from the time of Jerome, and which the Catholic Church still allows - although the Catholic Church believes a canonical book can be one that is good for edification, but not doctrine...a stance the Apostles would have been confused by.”
Your assertion is false.
Do they grasp inferior and provably erroneous works as from God because they have been convinced by their extraordinary attributes or because their leaders have deemed them so and they dare not reject it? I almost believe they cling to these books solely because they NEED them to be connected to the word of God just as they are and by which they can claim ALL of sacred Scripture is only as authoritative as their religion deems them so. Instead of the church being governed by God's infallible word, they turn it around and make God's word submit to their governance. I do NOT imagine God is pleased.