Exhibit number 1 is an excerpt from Cardinal Thomas Cajetan's writings (Cajetan is a particularly relevant figure to cite on this question, since he was Luther's interrogator at Augsburg in 1518):
“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.”From Cardinal Cajetan's commentary upon the historical books of the Old Testament.
Cajetan (Thomas de Vio, 1469-1534) was the papal representative who interrogated Luther at Augsburg in 1518. That famous meeting crystallised the differences between Thomistic Catholicism and the incipient Lutheran Reformation. Cajetan was a moderate Thomist himself, and in this quote we can see that his views on the Old Testament canon were not dissimilar to Luther's. Following Jerome, Cajetan regards Judith, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, as well as portions of other books, as not forming part of the scriptural canon or rule of faith (note the assumption that scripture is the rule of faith here), but as suitable for reading for purposes of edification.* In short, Cajetan believed books listed by Jerome as apocryphal should not be used as a source of doctrine. The Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563), the official Roman response to the Reformation, included the writings mentioned here by Cajetan in their canon, although by giving them the name deuterocanonical (of the second canon) it acknowledged that they were not included in the protocanon of the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible that Jesus knew. Does it matter? Well, consider that the chief scriptural proof text (Latin: dicta probantia) for the Roman doctrine of purgatory is found in 2 Maccabees.
* At one time Protestant bibles used to invariably include the Old Testament apocrypha, usually in a separate section between the OT and the NT. This reflected Luther's view that the apocryphal writings were beneficial to read, but did not belong to the official canon.
An extract from Cajetan on the New Testament canon will follow shortly.