>>18106620
As a rule of thumb, if your question is this basic, then either some Catholic exegete has already given an admissible answer to it a good and long while ago, or you're forgetting some very basic information. You should still go and read but perhaps your assumptions of how Catholics treat canonization are wrong? Just a guess.

>>18106620
Nigga,
It's called Apocrypha precisely because it is neither quoted nor referenced in the authoritative gospels.
It's called Apocrypha if it isn't connected but also doesn't contradict. Whether you believe it or deny it, it won't affect the dogmas of the Church

Gnostics are for literal fanfics that are both unconnected and contradict

>>18106695
Right, but I think the larger problem is that I didn't even know that and I was able to guess that their definitions were fried somehow, based on the very simple assumption that 2,000 years of exegesis would have had at least one person notice and answer this question. So the issue isn't their ignorance but their approach to understanding things where they first assume that their rhetorical opponents are idiots. It's the same reason why people here don't bother reading about Christian or Muslim philosophy because running their mouth on whatever garbage shower thought they just had. It's pretty repulsive to see but I understand that this website does not have a culture of shaming people for this kind of behavior (and instead enables it), so it is what it is.