10th to 15th century discord

Here's a quote from from a Roman Catholic book on the Canon of Scripture, once again highlighting that the apocryphal/detuerocanonical books were not accepted by everyone in the church, even before the arrival of the Reform and Martin Luther.

The author gives a selection of writers from the 10th to the 15 centuries who did not accept these extra books as Scripture. He tries to imply that the position of each of them is due to what Jerome himself said. But no proof is given of this statement. The author also comments on some of the names, to indicate why their point of view need not be accepted, but again without giving any reference for proof. What we have here then is a list of Christians who did not accept these books, for a variety of reasons. Of particular interest is the last name, who I believe was an opponent of Luther, and was maybe even on the Concile de Trent. (Need to check that out.)

One other point is that although the following Christians rejected as Scripture the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books, they maintained that they were useful books and chose to keep them in the same book which contained Scripture, as did Luther by placing the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books together in a separate section of his translation of the Bible.

Ecrivains du Xème au XVème siècle - La plupart admettent simplement et sans distinction tous les livres de l'Ancien testament . . . Quelques-uns cependant, sous l'influence de ce qu'avait dit saint Jérôme, semblent attacher trop d'importance aux distinctions de ce Père. L'auteur de la célèbre Historia scholastica, Pierre Comestor (+.1178), appelle "apocrpyhes" les livres de la Sagesse, de l'Ecclésiastique, de Judith, de Tobie et des Machabées ; mais que c'est "parce qu'on ignore quels en sont les auteurs", - ce qui est inexact pour l'Ecclésiastique, - et que "l'Eglise les reçoit parce qu'il n'ya pas de doute sur leur véracité". . . Rupert de Deutz (+ 1135) . . . Hugues de Saint-Victor (+1141) . . . Pierre le Vénérable, abbé de Cluny (+1185), s'expriment avec peu d'exactitude. Jean de Salisbury (1110-1180) . . . Hugues de Saint-Cher (+1263) . . . rappelle les disctinctions de saint Jérôme, mais il admet néanmoins les deuteréocanoniques comme vrais, quoiqu'il les place hors du canon : . . . Nicolas de Lyra (vers 1270-1340) partage la même opinion, de même que Saint Antonin, archevêque de Florence (1389-1459) . . . Alphonse Tostat, évêque d'Avila (1412-1455) . . . le cardinal Cajetan (1469-1534).
Encyclopédie de la Bible Catholique, Canon des Ecritures, p161-162

Interesting in that it proves there were others similar to Martin Luther who were not prepared to accept the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books as Scripture.

And although the author goes on to describe these men as the "rare" occurences of discord, it's a significant number all the same given that it was mainly the clergy who had access to the Bible, and also given the position in the church of some of those quoted.

The author goes on to mention Luther stating that in rejecting the apoc./deutero. books he separated himself from the tradition of the church, and that the Council of Trent simply reaffirmed, despite the reticence of certain Christians, what had always been believed in the church, (i.e. the tradition of the church), in it's Canon of Holy Books which was published the 8th April 1546.

Luther, en rejetant ces livres, se sépara donc de la tradition, et le concile de Trente ne fit qu'affirmer ce qu'on avait toujours cru dans l'Eglise, malgré l'hésitation de quelques-uns, dans la promulgation de son Canon des Livres Saints, qui eut lieu le 8 avril 1546.
Encyclopédie de la Bible Catholique, Canon des Ecritures, p162 (Emhpasis mine)