Fine. I posted the link and the contents to article VI of the Church of England regarding hte Apocrypha which appeared in the separate section of the KJV between the OT and NT that contained the Apocrypha. It said that it was only to be used for instruction and NOT FOR DOCTRINE.
"In the calendar of readings for the service, the Old Testament reading (the First Reading of the service) for two months straight is taken from the deuterocanon. So I ask, why would the Protestant BCP replace canonical Old Testament service readings for months with supposedly non-Scriptural readings?"
I don't know what the murderous, adulterous clown king's cohorts were thinking and I don't care. What is relevant is that protestants do not believe the Apocrypha is scripture and the Article VI entry of the clown king's bishops show it was that way with them from the beginning.
spunkets:
You are correct, Protestants reject the Deuterocanonicals but now you all are being forced to realize that your polemics that use to be tossed at Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox for that matter, although you all did not go aftr them, that the Catholic Church “added the 7 Deuterocanonicals at the Council of Trent in 1563” is bull.
Even some of the Protestants in this thread are now forced to concede that the OT Canon of 46 books in the Catholic Bible was the position in the Roman Church by the end of the 4th century, and the same OT canon of the Catholic Church is in the OT canon of the Eastern Orthodox Church, although they have 3 more Deuterocanonicals, that the Catholics do not have.
In closing, it was the Protestants of the 16th century that were the “radicals” who departed from Apostolic Tradition and are the “usurpers” with respect to their ideas of what the OT canon should be for Christendom.