Protestants removed certain books which belong to the canon established by the early Church.

That was an excellent rebuttal and I truly applaud you for it. It was well written and the arguments were both logical and cogent. I think you put your finger on the heart of the debate and that is: how can the Catholic Church say Protestants changed the canon when the canon wasn't determined infallibly until the Council of Trent. This is a legitimate question and one which Catholics must take seriously. I've wrestled with this question for several years, and here is what I have learned so far: It is true that some of the early Church fathers questioned the canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals, as you pointed out in the Encyclopedia, BUT, we have to keep in mind that when the Church Fathers used the term "canon", they didn't always mean what we meant by the term. Today, when we refer to the "canon", we speak of those books which are divinely inspired as Sacred Scripture. The Fathers used the term to refer to those books which should be read in the liturgy. These same Fathers who questioned their canonicity, that is, whether they can be read in the liturgy, explicitly quote the deuterocanonicals as Scripture. So, we must be careful not to import our definitions for the words that we use, into the words that they used. For a list of examples where the Fathers quoted the deuterocanonicals as Scripture, but questioned their "canonicity", read see the following. http://matt1618.freeyellow.com...For evidence that the Fathers were not using the term "canon" the same as we do today, here is also a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which you quoted earlier:"Following the precedent of Origen and the Alexandrian tradition, the saintly doctor recognized no other formal canon of the Old Testament than the Hebrew one; but also, faithful to the same tradition, he practically admitted the deutero books to a Scriptural dignity, as is evident from his general usage." For this reason, when Catholics today say that the early Church fathers accepted the Catholic canon, we are saying they accepted the books Catholics believe are inspired by God, not necessarily whether they believed they should be read in the liturgy. As far as St. Jerome, again, keep in mind the distinction by what we mean by canon and what they meant by canon. St. Jerome quotes the deuterocanonicals as are some quotes where he calls the deuterocanonicals "scripture": "Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power'" [SIRACH 13:2] (Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207)“still our merriment must not forget the limit set by Scripture, and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah,(Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.(Mt. 3:16)” (Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45)Additionally, with St. Jerome, we must always keep in mind that once the Church determined the matter at the council of Rome, he then accepted them as canonical, as he states: The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion [that is the version with the deuterocanonical parts]. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to he writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, "As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion." (Jerome's Apology for Himself Against the Books of Rufinus, Book II, 33)Thus, though it may have been legitimate to question whether the deuterocanonicals should be read during the liturgy before Trent, because this wasn't infallibly determined until Trent, the inspiration of the deuterocanonicals was determined before the Council of Trent. The same Catholic Encyclopedia that you quoted says:"In 1442, during the life, and with the approval, of this Council, Eugenius IV issued several Bulls, or decrees, with a view to restore the Oriental schismatic bodies to communion with Rome, and according to the common teaching of theologians these documents are infallible statements of doctrine The "Decretum pro Jacobitis" contains a complete list of the books received by the Church as inspired, but omits, perhaps advisedly, the terms canon and canonical. The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their canonicity." Thus, your claim that "Certainly it can be claimed that Protestants disagreed with the popular belief concerning the Canon and the "deuterocanonical" books, but it cannot be said that they removed books from the Canon, when such Canon had not been officially established by the Church in a universal and infallible delivery as per their doctrine" is false. The inspiration had already been infallibly determined, the use of the deuterocanonicals in the liturgy was still up for grabs until Trent. Again, we must distinguish between the two definitions of "canon" being used here.That being said, it is true the early Church didn't infallibly determine the inspiration of the deuterocanonicals, and this had to wait until Florence, but the Church Fathers were practically unanimous in their inspiration (I can only think of one who denied their inspiration, and that was before the Councils of Hippo, Carthage and Rome). In the same way that it would be gravely wrong to baptize someone without the Trinitarian formula, even without an infallible canon determining baptism must be done with a Trinitarian formula, the Protestants were wrong to go against the practically universal consensus of the Church Fathers on the inspriation of the deuterocanonicals, (not to mention the later Ecumenical council of Florence). Thus, it can legitimately be claimed "Protestants removed certain books which belong to the canon established by the early Church" because the Early Church established the canon (that is, their Divine inspiration) by councils and even consensus. Furthermore, they removed the deuterocanonicals after an Ecumenical council infallibly determined their inspiration.