“You use Jerome when convenient and ignore when inconvenient. Here - he is arguing for the Septuagint text over Theodotion. Why on earth this rabbit hole is helpful for you puzzles me.”
Jerome never considered any of the apocrphal texts as anything but apocryphal, since he very clearly rejects them as being part of the canon with the division he gave to them in the first place. The very word “apocryphal” means of doubtful authorship.
“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” (Cardinal Cajetan, “Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament,” cited by William Whitaker in “A Disputation on Holy Scripture,” Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)
“Jerome, conscious of the difficulty of arguing with Jews on the basis of books they spurned and anyhow regarding the Hebrew original as authoritative, was adamant that anything not found in it was ‘to be classed among the apocrypha’, not in the canon; later he grudgingly conceded that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine.” [J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper, 1960), p. 55].
If what you just wrote is true, then Jerome would have accepted the apocrypha, since they’re all in the LXX. Which, of course, he didn’t, even calling it “apocrypha” in the first place. Your purpose of posting the quote from Jerome’s disagreement with the church in their acceptance of Theodotion’s works was originally designed to disprove my argument which said that Jerome did not accept the Apocrypha as inspired. Thus, the rabbit hole is yours.
“Jerome never considered any of the apocrphal texts as anything but apocryphal”
And where precisely did he say this?
“since he very clearly rejects them as being part of the canon with the division he gave to them in the first place.”
Was it Jerome’s decision and authority to divide scripture?
“The very word “apocryphal” means of doubtful authorship.”
Do you agree that Hebrews is canonical?
“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.”
Do you accept this to be true?
“Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose.”
Here - Catejan says they are Canonical. Are you arguing that Catejan was arguing for the division of scripture?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Norman_Davidson_Kelly
Are you aware he is an Anglican? He’s a protestant. So - thus, unreliable on Catholic doctrine and on this particular issue.
“If what you just wrote is true, then Jerome would have accepted the apocrypha, since they’re all in the LXX. Which, of course, he didn’t”
Was it his decision and authority to divide scripture?
Are you saying that it was Jerome’s decision and thus you obey?
Sorry, but that definition is a product of the Reformation. The original meaning is that of the Greek word "apokryphos" meaning hidden. It was used by St. Jerome to identify those books whose Hebrew versions were not available (hidden).
The attempt to revise history by claiming that, although the Deuterocanonicals were used and cited as Scripture by the Apostles they were really something other than that so as to conform to Reformation theology is disingenuous at best. That shtick may work to recruit the uneducated, but there are too many well educated Catholics on these threads for it to work.
Peace and blessings.