According to the Roman Catholic Church what happens if you reject the Deuterocanonical books ?
We can find the answer to this question by looking at the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent. After listing the books of the Bible including the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books in that list the Church declares:
But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.
Anathema is an interesting word. It is a transliteration of a Greek word that is found a number of times in Scripture. In the KJV it is usually translated by the word curse or accursed. In Strong’s we find this definition “a thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and if an animal, to be slain; therefore a person or thing doomed to destruction. a) a curse b) a man accursed, devoted to the direst of woes.”
Webster says this about anathema:
1 a : one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority b : someone or something intensely disliked or loathed -- usually used as a predicate nominative.
2 a : a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication b : the denunciation of something as accursed c : a vigorous denunciation.
So at the Council of Trent the Roman Catholic Church said all who disagree with her on this matter can (and will) go to hell.
Well that was almost five hundred years ago. But we have to remember this is an infallible statement on doctrine from the church’s Magisterium. So it must remain valid today.
But let's say there is a 300 year time limit on something like this (there is no time limit on infallible pronouncements but lets pretend there is.) We are all still going to hell because the Roman Catholic Church repeated the Anathema at the Vatican I. In Chapter 2 from this council we read:
Further, this supernatural revelation, according to the universal belief of the Church, declared by the sacred Synod of Trent, is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions which have come down to us, having been received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself; or from the Apostles themselves, by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, have been transmitted, as it were, from hand to hand. And these books of the Old and New Testament are to be received as sacred and canonical, in their integrity, with all their parts, as they are enumerated in the decree of the said Council, and are contained in the ancient Latin edition of the Vulgate. These the Church holds to be sacred and canonical, not because, having been carefully composed by mere human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation, with no admixture of error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been delivered as such to the Church herself. And as the things which the holy Synod of Trent decreed for the good of souls concerning the interpretation of Divine Scripture…we, renewing the said decree, declare this to be their sense, that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our holy Mother Church hath held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scripture; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
So in 1870 Vatican I reaffirmed the anathemas of Trent. Vatican II plays all this down and I think contradicts Vatican I and Trent (one this and other subjects), but how can Vatican II overturn infallible pronouncements made earlier. It can, and did, make more infallible pronouncements that contradicted the earlier infallible pronouncements.
Hummm, I still think Rome over reacted at Trent, but how can she back off an infallible statement like the one she made at Trent. She has (IMHO) painted herself in a box.
Ps. I am currently reading a good deal in the Church Fathers. The language at Vatican I of "unanimous consent of the Fathers" is a bit much. The Fathers agree on some things and disagree on many things. There is no "unanimous consent of the Fathers" on this subject.