You mean Jerome? You know, the guy who's Latin translation of the Scriptures is the only official Bible of the RCC (according to *some* Roman Catholic freepers).
Himself and more than a few other highly educated individuals looked upon the "seven books" which you just alluded to, not as Scripture or equal to that, but instead viewed those as ecclesiastical writings not to be confused with, or taken entirely as holy writ, as his prologues and introductory notes make plain.
I am certain that you have been shown that previously, on this very forum, although exactly what specious Romanist nonsense you may or may not have brought in futile effort to make it all go away (to deny the underlying truths which can be found within Jerome's prologues) I do not at this time remember.
Or do you truly not know what that man wrote -- also in more than one place, at more than one juncture, concerning those 'seven books'???
It matters not that in his own writings otherwise, he also quoted from or lifted passages from those writings when emphasizing this or that point --- as long as he did so without being fully reliant upon those 'seven books' as you have termed them, for establishment of doctrines, which latter thing he did (more than once) warn against doing.
So please, I do ask that yourself and others leave the dueterocanon (second? secondary?) aside, whilst otherwise engaged in bashing persons around here upside the head with communion loaves wafers, gently(?) threatening them with down-elevator Hell itself, if they do not subscribe to your own views regarding what the Anglicans term Holy communion, and the Church of Rome calls Eucharist.
Question;
When Anglican congregations are swallowed up whole and entire (title to buildings and properties, included, even required to be included, in order for those Anglicans be allowed to convert to the Roman church, en masse) and are also told more or less;
are any of the oh, so slight, possible changes to the liturgy of the Mass forced upon them by the Church of Rome, needful in order to make their (Anglican) Mass effectual?
Or was the high-Church Anglican style (not to be confused with low-church Anglican mass & practice, perhaps) sufficiently effectual in powers of consecration shall we say, to -- in effect -- make the bread and the wine into being or becoming the body and blood of Christ?
YES, or NO.
It simply must be one way or another.
It must be answered, yes, or no.
Has the Anglican mass, as those congregations have for long centuries now practiced, been technically VALID (albeit possibly illicit from Roman Catholic point of view) all along,
OR
will those Anglicans congregations whom have converted to Roman Catholicism en masse, now be celebrating and enjoying the actual body of Christ for the very first time -- once they have a priest from the Church of Rome presiding over them and invoking the nearly precise & same words of consecration as did the Anglicans priests, before?
Do the Anglicans (and/or did those whom have now converted) have a valid Mass -- Yes, or No.
Remember too, as towards this question --- I did just supply reminder of an 'out' for the Romanist, in mentioning difference between there being only question of valid/invalid, and there being possibility for distinction for the difference being more one of that between licit/illicit, but still valid, albeit from official RCC perspective illicit, but yet still valid -- if you can excuse me here for belaboring the point. I did desire to make it be clear...
Pick one, and only one, (valid, or not) although to find out what "official" Roman Catholic Church view on this could be, a person would need to go ask a priest(?) or possibly a Bishop --- woops, maybe a Cardinal --- but ruh-roh, i sense a disturbance in the force --- for when we get up to level of Cardinal, the lots-of-talk double-talking which studiously avoids ever nailing anything potentially controversial down precisely (like actually answering this particular question!) is a wonder to behold,
for it does and will leave a person still wondering!
Again, has the Anglican Mass not been previously (officially, according to the RCC) effectual, as in sufficient in powers of consecration to "effect" the transubstantiation (of the bread and the wine)?
If that has been the real and actual view of the RCC all along, in regards to Anglican Mass -- then they should come right out and say so, openly, for they HAVE led those particular Anglican souls whom have converted to have believed differently, as in those Anglicans believing that the RCC had accepted them as true brethren, having had in their own Anglican experience enjoyed a valid Mass, etc., with those souls voting to convert (and turn over their church buildings and associated properties to the Roman Catholic Church, while they were at it) doing so not for reasons they themselves had viewed their own Mass as insufficient or deficient, but doing so (converting) for reasons of being discomforted by other Anglican Church considerations -- and who could blame them?
I would run as far away from the Archbishop of Canterbury (the last two of them, anyway) as I could get, myself. But not for reason that the Anglican Mass was not a valid communion with Him, in the eyes of the Creator of Heaven and earth...
For my own, "low church" and near-entirely receptionist views towards the Lord's Supper (as many refer to that), I cannot but recall that this one which we know of as Jesus in English parlance, this Messiah of Israel, did include reminding those whom He was speaking with in John 6 -- that it was not Moses whom provided to the children of Israel the manna, when that nation was yet in the wilderness.
Why now should any NOT stand far back from anyone 'standing upon' claim for themselves, or even their "Church", by powers of their own authority (regardless if they claim this authority itself having been given to them by God) to do that which Moses himself, as Christ did make a point of reminding us (in John 6), could not and did NOT do?
The Orthodox generally do not share views towards Eucharist identical to those of the Church of Rome, either. It does fairly well lean towards receptionist view, albeit one that still does highly value if not require (if at all possible) that this be done in communion with others, and fairly rigidly in wording and in word order -- and -- as close to original as they can agree upon among themselves is the traditional practice.
I will say here also that among Anglicans there were men such as John Jewel whom was quite kindly towards what was termed congregationalist in his own day (those persons holding view that Holy communion/Lord's Supper need not necessarily be presided over by organized State Church "authorities" or "priesthood") while a man whom was something of a protege' of Jewel, Richard Hooker, wrote rather extensively as towards what he termed 'polity', which considerations for included call and needfulness for there to be sober and deliberate order in the Church, which writings are much of the continuation of High Church view, which itself greatly mirrors Roman Catholic attitude & practice. So I ask you -- how well have you investigated those differences? I myself have searched high and low -- and in my own direct experience found Him first among the low and lowly...and I do mean this in regards to what early "Protestants" termed "Real Presence", themselves understanding that in the theoretical through both Luther (and his discussion of Christ being consubstantial with the bread and wine) and Calvin writing of there being a real and actual pneumatic, or spiritual "presence".
Try investigating this subject matter even yet again among those not Roman Catholic (if you already have) and do so while focusing strongly upon whichever difference of theological approach can be found in the most ancient of Anaphora which you may be able to find, comparing those also, all along the way with how Luther, Calvin, and hosts of others wrote or spoke of the Lord's Supper, without becoming entirely hung up upon what may possibly be perceived as Zwiglian views -- yet if you go there -- go all the way to that source most directly, instead of taking other's words for what Zwigli allegedly believed and/or was focusing upon.
Notice too, that much as many Orthodox still practice to this day -- they partake of this while all whom can do so are standing on their feet, just as they were also all standing when they all participated in the epiclesis (the invitation by all, directed towards the Lord, for His Spirit to inhabit/become the bread & the wine) which betrays to this very day -- sense of "priesthood of believers", rather than or opposed to there being a singular and sacerdotal class of individuals which themselves "confect" this mystery.
Standing upright, upon their own two legs and feet (if they have those) rather than or compared to the Medieval Romish practice of having everyone kneel before sacerdotalists and popping the bread into the people's mouths like they were infants, rather than have the bread handed to them, as Christ did so with own disciples.
Anything similar to...
There seems to be TWO types of Catholics on FR: those who like Francis, and those who don't.
Those on either side are obviously making judgment calls.
I wonder...
First, please read these resources for information about St. Jerome (who no Catholic claims was infallible in his various personal writings over time) and the "deuterocanonicals", if you are sincerely interested:
And please read this article, written by Dr. Taylor Marshall, a former Episcopalian priest who is now a Catholic layman, as I think he has a clearer picture of these matters than I do:
Regarding "standing" or "kneeling" to receive Holy Communion, I don't believe that is the key to the validity/invalidity of the Sacrament. Here is an interesting link you might want to take a look at that discusses the Last Supper:
(And, finally, for some brotherly advice, I also think that "shut up" never belongs in a Christian discussion. For some reason, that kind of talk seems to fit better in that garbage on youtube recorded by "Steven Jo" called "Just Shutup!", which I DO NOT recommend that anyone watch/listen to, due to it's vile nature and very foul language, and I will not provide a link for it.)