LOL!!!
Most obviously, you all post the Fathers to us ALL the time, knowing full well that they are not authority for us. Yet, NONE of you very learned Apostolics (no sarcasm), none, zip, zero, nada, quotes from any of the OT Deuts, that I have seen, except on the RAREST of occasions.
Absolutely correct. I find it interesting that our Catholic/Orthodox friends will pick and choose their quotes from the fathers that support their cause and ignore other text that doesn't. Protestants don't mind hearing quotes from the fathers because to us it's no different than any other writings. We may or may not agree with it. But then they accuse you of citing sources when it suits YOUR purpose!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
The same is with the creeds handed down from the "Chair of Peter". Keep in mind the Nicene Creed was developed well before the great Orthodox/Roman schism of 1000AD (give or take a few centuries) in which they excommunicated each other. Yet ask the Orthodox if they agree with the Nicene Creed and watch the fur fly.
(Digression-In fact, I wonder who would consider themselves in schism. Do the Orthodox feel the Catholics are wrong or visa versa?)
Fact is, this argument on the Dueterocanonicals is nothing more than a joke IMHO. The early fathers rarely quoted from them or used them in their writings. Frankly I have been reading through the very early writings and have yet to come across one. (I know they're out there, just haven't hit one yet.) They were never part of the LEGITIMATE Hebrew text.
While I have not followed this entire conversation, I never saw a response to the Latin Vulgate which was translated from the Hebrew, nor have I seen any non-bias sources validating the Dueterocanonicals. I'd like to know why the Orthodox don't use the Latin Vulgate but I haven't received an answer on that. There is nothing that supports the contention of the Dueterocanonicals except Trent 1500 years after the fact. That's like saying the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception developed in 1950 was believed by the early church fathers. They just never got around to writing about it.
A bit of an overstatement...
The first is the so-called "Decretal of Gelasius", de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent. The African Church, always a staunch supporter of the contested books, found itself in entire accord with Rome on this question. Its ancient version, the Vetus Latina (less correctly the Itala), had admitted all the Old Testament Scriptures. St. Augustine seems to theoretically recognize degrees of inspiration; in practice he employs protos and deuteros without any discrimination whatsoever. Moreover in his "De Doctrinâ Christianâ" he enumerates the components of the complete Old Testament. The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded. These councils base their canon on tradition and liturgical usage.
From Catholic Encyclopedia "Canon of the Old Testament"
Fact is, this argument on the Dueterocanonicals is nothing more than a joke IMHO.
Perhaps you are right. Actually, any religious conversation here should be a joke to you, since you apparently believe that some are elected for heaven and others are elected for hell before they are born without regard to their lives and can do nothing to change that - so what's the point of all of this, anyway? What's your reason for even entering into these conversations? A person is "saved" no matter what they think about God, salvation, Jesus Christ or the Deuterocanonicals anyways....
Regards
"The same is with the creeds handed down from the "Chair of Peter". Keep in mind the Nicene Creed was developed well before the great Orthodox/Roman schism of 1000AD (give or take a few centuries) in which they excommunicated each other.
The Creed was established a the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople, not by any pope.
"Yet ask the Orthodox if they agree with the Nicene Creed and watch the fur fly."
Of course we agree with it. Eastern Bishops wrote it. If you mean the filioque innovation, no, we don't agree with the traditional Latin Church explanation of that clause nor with the actions of that church in inserting it in a council decreed Creed. Theologically, things have changed and the Agreed Statement on the Filioque seems to have put the issue to rest. The Creed without the filioque is "normative".
"I find it interesting that our Catholic/Orthodox friends will pick and choose their quotes from the fathers that support their cause and ignore other text that doesn't."
I can't count the number of times I have cautioned everyone not to "proof text" the Fathers. The Fathers were not infallible. Quoting the Fathers like you Protestants quote the scriptures is misleading and improper. What is important from a theological pov is the consensus patrum, not random texts here and there. Blessed Augustine's writings are a classic example of this. He can be quoted in isolation as being a sort of proto-Calvinist. Whether he was or wasn't is beside the point. Those various writings are outside the consensus patrum. The West is fond of quoting Origen, yet one could also quote Origen in support of Gnosticism. The same goes for Tertullian and Montanism or +John Chrysostomos and the perpetual sinlessness of The Theotokos.
" I'd like to know why the Orthodox don't use the Latin Vulgate but I haven't received an answer on that."
Because we have the Septuagint and the Greek NT. Why would we need a Latin Bible?
The Orthodox don't use the Latin Vulgate because since the schism of the Patriarchate of Rome from the Church (c. 1009 when the Pope of Rome caved on the filioque and got removed from the diptychs of Constantinople, though conventionally dated to 1054 the Latins seem to have noticed due to a row over Eucharistic bread in 1054) there haven't been any Latin speaking Orthodox Christians. Back when the Patriarchate of Rome was Orthodox, Orthodox Christians used the Vulgate.
It's a fine translation into Latin, despite St. Jerome's erroneous belief that the Masorete was an ur-text.
Amen. Your findings do not surprise me at all. For debating purposes, this is a tempest in a teapot. They treat the Deuts and the Fathers as having equal authority, and we treat them as having equal authority. :)