I will following your numbering:
1. direct quotes have never been a criteria for canonicity. these books were not “hidden”, therefore calling them Apocrypha is inaccurate. quite the contrary, they were in the Greek OT used by Paul and the Church from day one.
did Paul ever warn the Church these books were not Scripture?
2. some Church Fathers expressed doubt, but the large majority did not. Jerome included them in the Latin Vulgate despite his doubts. He did not substitute his personal judgement for the Holy Spirit working thru the Church.
3. Christians don’t look to non Christians for truth. truth comes from the Holy Spirit guiding the Church.
4. same answer as #1
5. this is the same specious thinking that leads Jehovah Witnesses to say no Church council proclaimed the divinity of Jesus for 300 years, so up until then, no one believed Jesus was divine. WRONG! Church councils convened to resolve some dispute or controversy, such as circumcision in the 1st century. The Catholic Church had always read these books at Mass and they teach the Apostolic Faith, therefore they met the two part test for Scripture. when the Council of Carthage in 397 gave us the complete canon of Scripture, where was the opposition? where were the “protestants” to oppose these 7 books? there was universal acceptance of the canon by both the Latins and Greeks in the Catholic Church. don’t you think the author of the scriptures, the Holy Spirit would also protect the true canon?
finally, why argue over these books? same reason if someone said that Revelation or Philemon are not canonical. No doctrine of the Church would change if these books were dropped from the canon, but it would be wrong not to have the full scriptures inspired by the Holy Spirit in the Bible.
the other reason of course is we are commanded to be “one”, and those outside of the historical Christian Faith violate this command by attacking the Church over the Scriptures.
Your point that the lack of direct quotes is not a criteria against canonity would have some merit except for the fact that the Old Testament books had already been accepted into the canon by the Jews—where the Apocrypha had not. The Jews recognized the Old Testament canon, and they did not include the Apocrypha in it. This is significant because of what Paul says:
“”Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.” (Rom. 3:1-2).
A point I did not touch on in my last post to you is this:
Jesus referenced the Jewish Old Testament canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the Apocrypha in his reference. “From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.” (Luke 11:51).
The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order—placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah,” which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (Jeremiah 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr of which we read in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers.
This means that the same Old Testament canon, according to the Jewish tradition, is arranged differently than how we have it in the Protestant Bible today. This was the arrangement to which Jesus was referring when he referenced Abel and Zechariah, the first and last people to have their blood shed—as listed in the Old Testament Jewish canon. Obviously, Jesus knew of the Apocrypha and was not including it in his reference.
Related to this point is also Jesus’ reference to the scriptures as a whole in Luke 24:44.
“Now He said to them, ‘These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
I have read where Catholic apologists say that the Old Testament is referred to, by the Jews, in three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings - which is true, and it is also true that it is within these writings that are sometimes found books of the Apocrypha. But this designation is not used by Jesus. On the contrary, as you just read, Jesus referenced the Old Testament and designated its three parts as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms—not as the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. It looks like a deliberate omission by Jesus of any reference to the Apocyrpha.
I think you are way too casual in glossing over the fact that many of the Church Fathers strongly objected to the Apocrypha as being scripture. Jerome only included it in his translation because he was forced to over his objections. He rejected it because he believed the Jews established and recognized the proper canon of the Old Testament.
I disagree with you that omitting Revelation would have no bearing on the doctrine of the Bible. As to Philemon, possibly, except for the fact that we KNOW Paul wrote the letter and his writings have been considered scripture within a few years of their being written.
Look, if Catholics want to consider the Apocyrpha as scripture, that’s your affair. Go for it.