Post History

This question should rather focus on the concept or doctrine of Canon, a book or tradition that puts limits on revelation and divine authority, comparing it with the Apocrypha (larger number of books than the Hebrew Bible canon). The Protestants blindly follow the Sanhedrin Rabbinic Judaism canon of Hebrew Bible by banning the apocrypha. 

Though, initially Luther and all reformers included Apocrypha in the bible. It was only banned after Bible societies start removing them, and slowly that became an implicit tradition among them. It's more about following certainty which is only obtained by clinging to existing tradition, hence they follow the Masoretic Text, and the Rabbinic "canon", and proudly appeal to their authority. 

There is no logic in claiming the LXX is inspired just as it's useless to support Hebrew Text inspiration, because that term or doctrine is itself loaded with assumptions and limitations. How do you qualify such doctrine without limiting the range of books to form a "canon" of inspired text, and all other books non-inspired? That concept should be ignored. 

Perhaps the Catholics accept the LXX as inspired, but perhaps this is why the Protestants want to keep more restricted canon to be more certain in their views. I want both Catholics and Protestants to recognise the irrational limitations in the concept of Canon, and research the whole range of writings in late second temple period to understand New Testament.