Thanks for making my point about the intellectual dishonesty of Protestant apologists. Even in discussions about Jerome apparently changing his mind about the canon, there is no mention of the prefaces to Judith and to Tobit. None! How is that possible?
Also, you add another half history in the second post. It is true that the Council deferred over the objections of Cardinal Cajetan on the doctrinal authoritativeness of the deuterocanonical books. But they deferred for reasons your source does not present, and, in fact, misleads on.
The final verdict of the Council of Trent found Seven books were absolutely required for doctrine, and anathematized anyone who found otherwise. The tricky cases were those of the third Book of Maccabees, and the Greek Book of Esdras. These books had NOT been consistently regarded as scriptural throughout history, but many Christian communities, including among the Orthodox and Oriental churches, did include them in their bibles. The Council concluded that the third Book of Maccabees, although read in some masses by some Christian communities, was not used historically to establish any doctrine; while the Council declined to denounce their ecclesiastical use, it found no reason to include it in their list of books which all Christians were obliged to defend as scriptural. Similarly, Greek Esdras, being little other than a condensation of Esra and Nehemiah into a single work, was found to be in no way objectionable, but not necessary.
(Some people also mistakenly believe that there was controversy over a “Letter of Jeremiah,” since this is found in Protestant bibles which include the “apocrypha.” In fact, Catholics regard the Letter of Jeremiah as part of the Book of Baruch, and did include it in their bibles; some Oriental and Orthodox churches treat it as a separate work, since the Letter is about Baruch, not by him.)
The Council of Trent punted on the use of the Apocrypha for doctrine.
“This question was not only a matter of controversy between Catholics and Protestants: it was also the subject of a lively discussion even between Catholic theologians. St Jerome, that great authority in all scriptural questions, had accepted the Jewish canon of the Old Testament. Thc books of Judith, Esther, Tobias, Machabees, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which the majority of the Fathers, on the authority of the Septuagint, treated as canonical, Jerome described as apocryphal, that is, as not included in the canon though suitable for the edification of the faithful…The general of the Franciscans Observant, Calvus, dealt thoroughly with the problems raised by Cajetan in a tract drawn up for the purposes of the Counci1. He defended the wider canon, and in particular the canonicity of the book of Baruch, the story of Susanna, that of Bel and the dragon, and the canticle of the three children (Benedicite). On the other hand, he refused to accept the oft-quoted Apostolic Canons as authoritative for the canonicity of the third book of Machabees. The general of the Augustinians, Seripando, on the contrary, was in sympathy with Erasmus and Cajetan and sought to harmonise their views with the Florentine decree on the ground that the protocanonical books of the Old Testament, as "canonical and authentic", belong the the canon fidei, while the deuterocanonical ones, as "canonical and ecclesiastical books", belong to the canon morum. Seripando, accordingly, follows the tendency which had made itself felt elsewhere also in pre-Tridentine Catholic theology, which was not to withhold the epithet "canonical" from the deuterocanonical books, yet to use it with certain restrictions.
The tracts of the two generals of Orders show that opinions diverged widely even within the Council. The prestige of the Augustinian general and that of the Bishop of Fano who sided with him, may have prompted Cervini to discuss the whole complex question in his class. It became evident that no one supported the subtle distinction between a canon fidei and a canon morum, though it met with a somewhat more favourable reception in the general congregation of 12 February when several of the Fathers deemed it useful, though not necessary. The majority agreed with the opinion of the general of the Servites, that controverted theological questions, which had already been the subject of discussion between Augustine and Jerome, should not be decided by the Council but should be allowed to remain open questions. The result of the above-mentioned vote of the general congregation of 15 February committed the Council to the wider canon, but inasmuch as it abstained from a theological discussion, the question of differences between books within the canon was left as it had been.”
History of the Council of Trent, pgs 56-57
>> “ Even in discussions about Jerome apparently changing his mind about the canon, there is no mention of the prefaces to Judith and to Tobit. None! How is that possible?” <<
.
Seriously, who, having a grip on their senses, gives a hoot about Judith or Tobit?
.