Rome didn’t make a binding definition of the canon of scripture until the Council of Trent in the 1500s. And even then, it left open for debate the question “Is the Apocrypha just good reading, or is it good for determining doctrine?”
“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 Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus 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 (16th century)
“Rome didn’t make a binding definition of the canon of scripture until the Council of Trent in the 1500s.”
That is something of a half-truth. Someone reading your comments might come to the conclusion that the canon had not already been decided before Trent. It had. The canon was closed and preserved for well over a millennium before Trent. All Trent did was decide that no debate would any longer be tolerated within the Church on the issue. That’s why the canon was detailed.
“And even then, it left open for debate the question “Is the Apocrypha just good reading, or is it good for determining doctrine?””
False. First, why are you quoting Cajetan? He is not Trent. He was merely one man with views all his own. He also died a decade before Trent opened. His opinion is meaningless. Second, post for us the source where you got this Cajetan quote from. Why does it seem to appear only on anti-Catholic websites - especially on one banned here at FR?
Second, look at your claim, “Is the Apocrypha just good reading, or is it good for determining doctrine?” You’re actually claiming the Catholic Church would use the term “Apocrypha” in exactly the same way you do in regard to books we call Deuterocanonicals?
Yeah, but what does he know?