It is interesting where you end your quotation from the Catholic Encyclopedia. The author continues:...Ecclesiastical usage and Roman tradition held firmly to the canonical equality of all parts of the Old Testament. There is no lack of evidence that during this long period the deuteros were read in the churches of Western Christendom....
So just how does that "interesting" section contradict what I said, since what you do not include is that the Greeks "about the beginning of the twelfth century they possessed a canon identical with that of the Latins, except that it took in the apocryphal III Machabees?"
The issue here has been the fact that, as said, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.
Which contradicts the standard Cath. propaganda that Luther was no maverick but had substantial RC support for his non-binding canon.
The countless manuscript copies of the Vulgate produced by these ages, with a slight, probably accidental, exception, uniformly embrace the complete Old Testament.
And then some.
1 Esdras (Greek: Ἔσδρας Αʹ), also First Esdras, Greek Esdras, Greek Ezra, or 3 Esdras, is an ancient Greek version of the biblical Book of Ezra in use among the early church, and many modern Christians with varying degrees of canonicity..As part of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, it is now regarded as canonical in the churches of the East, but apocryphal in the West;..
According to Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, Augustine of Hippo considered it canonical, citing 1 Esdras as canonical 'Ezra' in 'The City of God' at 18:36. [11] Bogaert maintains that under Augustine's influence, it was one of the 'two books of Ezra' (alongside Ezra–Nehemiah) listed in the Biblical canon lists of the Synod of Hippo of 393, and the Council of Carthage of 397.[12][13] Jerome however, considered it as one of the "variety of versions" (exemplaria varietas)[14] of Hebrew 'Ezra' found in the Septuagint, and did not translate it separately from Ezra–Nehemiah.[15][16] Hence, as Jerome's Vulgate version of the bible gradually achieved dominance in Western Christianity, so 1 Esdras no longer circulated, and ceased to be considered canonical in the West. From the 13th century onwards, Vulgate bibles produced in Paris reintroduced a Latin text of 1 Esdras, in response to commercial demand; but the Council of Trent excluded it from its authoritative definition of the canon of the Western Church. Clement VIII placed it in an appendix to the Vulgate along with 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh "lest they perish entirely".[17] However, the use of the book continued in the Eastern Church, and it remains a part of the Eastern Orthodox canon. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Esdras
All of which further testifies to an unsettled canon, as well as a lack of uniformity of the Vulgate (which, while Trent affirmed it as the official RC Bible, yet it could not say which version: " if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic," thus resulting in the scandal of the fanatical papal translator, Pope Sixtus V, with his the Sistine Vulgate, while other differing versions would follow.
The Gutenberg Bible (also known as the 42-line Bible, the Mazarin Bible or the B42) , an edition of the Vulgate printed in the 1450s in Latin by Johannes Gutenberg, mixes the apocrypha into the Old Testament, with the Prayer of Manasses following 2 Paralipomenon, and 3 and 4 Esdras following 1 Esdras and Nehemias. The Prayer of Solomon follows Ecclesiasticus. It thus has 50 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New, for a total of 77 books.
Meanwhile i also read that Jerome's prologues were typically included in medieval copies of the Vulgate. And in his Prologue to the Books of the Kings he states,
“This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees is found in Hebrew, but the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style.
In his preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs he also states, “As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.” (Shaff, Henry Wace, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, p. 492)
For an understanding of the Ordinary Magisterium you need to look beyond the disputes of academics and look at the day-to-day teachings and practices of the Church. These show that the Deuterocanonical books were received by the Church on an equal basis as the Protocanonical.
Which also means you are anachronistically reading later detailed legislation on the differences btwn magisterial levels and required assent, or wrongly assuming the canon was officially settled and making making the likes of Athanasius of Alexandria (bishop of Alexandria; Cath. church "father;" c. 367), Cyril of Jerusalem (bishop of Jerusalem; doctor of the Cath church; d. circa. 385 AD), Council of Laodicea (363), bishop Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 310–320 – 403), Gregory of Nazianzus (330 – 390; bishop of Nazianzus), Hilary of Poitiers, (c. 310 – c. 367; bishop of Poitiers and a doctor of the Cath church), John of Damascus (patriarch of Constantinople, 9th century), Melito of Sardis (bishop of Sardis, 4th c.) and Origen (Cath. church "father" and thelogian; c. 184 – c. 253), Rufinus (344/345–411; historian, and theologian), Cardinals Seripando, Caietan, Ximenes, (16th c.) etc. with being in dissent, not rendering the required religious assent of intellect and will.
Meanwhile if you want to go by past official RC teaching then you cannot be debating RC doctrine here.
Even if we were to accept your premise, all you could show is that there was no consensus on the status the the Deuterocanonical books. So while you might object to the charge that Luther removed these books from the Bible, you would also have to admit that Trent did not add them.
Rather, as argued, there was no settled, indisputable canon until after the death of Luther, who had substantial and even current scholarly and historical support for his own opinion in that regard, contrary to the standard Cath. propaganda, as seen earlier here.
But here Protestants still have a dilemma. While Catholics can appeal to the authority of the Church to settle this dispute, Protestants can appeal to no authority to support their position.
This indeed is the real argument, yet one that was tried upstream already, but the fact remains that since distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation (which shows how they understood the OT and gospels), then she has no infallible authority (though as said, even secular powers can make rules for those under it).
And of course, the very premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is itself novel and unScriptural, nowhere seen or promised or essential for authority and preserving faith.
However, I understand that the Catholic premise is that Scripture (and valid tradition and history) only consist of and mean what she says, for which it is argued that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical corporate instruments and magisterial stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Would you agree with that, and so that any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God, and thus damned as Florence etc. states?
Even an appeal to the consensus of the faithful does not work since, compared to Catholics and the Orthodox, Protestants are in the minority among the Christian faithful.
That is a contradiction in terms, re. "Christian faithful," and the numbers are claim, and since the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive definitive source and description of what constitutes a christian is the New Testament, which excludes most Catholics as well as liberals Prots. And the reported the numbers for both (1.3 billion Catholics out of 2.4 billing "Christian") include multitudes who are not faithful, unless you want to Teddy K RCs and Jimmy C as such.
But if you want to invoke consensus of the faithful based upon the members counted as Catholic, then since the majority whom Rome manifestly considers to be members in life and in death testify to being liberal, then you have a real problem if you are one of the conservative class.
Rather, as argued, there was no settled, indisputable canon until after the death of Luther, who had substantial and even current scholarly and historical support for his own opinion in that regard, contrary to the standard Cath. propaganda, as seen earlier here.
How does your statement radically differ from mine? So there is no settled canon until Luther and Trent. Thus while Luther could not be charged with removing books, Catholics could likewise not be charged with adding them; the question would be unsettled until then.
This indeed is the real argument, yet one that was tried upstream already, but the fact remains that since distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation (which shows how they understood the OT and gospels), then she has no infallible authority (though as said, even secular powers can make rules for those under it).
Since Catholics do not accept the premise of sola scriptura this argument does not hold. But it can also be shown the Protestants reject what is actually in the Bible in favor or their own non-Biblical sola fide: e.g. the Real Presence, apostolic succession, the forgiveness of sins, the exclusion from the Kingdom because of sin, and a Church which speaks with the authority of the Holy Spirit.
And of course, the very premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is itself novel and unScriptural, nowhere seen or promised or essential for authority and preserving faith.
The Council of Jerusalem in Acts shows the Church settling a dispute among the faithful through the decision of its pastors speaking with the authority of the Holy Spirit. When did this authority cease?
That is a contradiction in terms, re. "Christian faithful," and the numbers are claim, and since the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive definitive source and description of what constitutes a christian is the New Testament, which excludes most Catholics as well as liberals Prots.
And who is to judge who is in conformity with the New Testament?
But if you want to invoke consensus of the faithful …
I suggested this as the only appeal that Protestants could make, but one that would also fail. Regarding the question of the canon of the Bible, Protestants can in truth only say that it is still in dispute among Christians. They have no basis on which to dogmatically declare that the Deuterocanonical books are not part of the Bible.