My dearly beloved Catholic brethren - would you agree that (a) Eastern Catholics in communion with the Church in Rome and Pope Leo XIV are Catholics in the same way that Roman Catholics are, and (b) that their Septuagint-based Bibles, which have slight variations from your mostly Vulgate-influenced Bible, and include a small amount of additional material, as well as differences in wording, can be considered Catholic Bibles, and thus that the idea that the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (and the Coptic Orthodox, whose historic Bible was a Coptic translation of the Greek Bible) have different Bibles is fundamentally flawed? Or for that matter, that the historically Syriac-speaking Catholic churches that regard the Peshitta as their official Bible translation, such as the Maronite Catholics, Syriac Catholics, Malankara Catholics, Chaldean Catholics and Syro Malabar Catholics, likewise have the same Bibles, and are fully Catholic? And likewise for the Armenians?
It seems to me the only place where there might be validity to the idea of an Orthodox church having a different Bible from a Catholic church would be in the case of the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Church, whose ancient Ge’ez Bibles contain several books which are no longer extant in other languages, such as 1 Enoch and Jubilees, and an alternate set of books about the Maccabees, among other oddities, however, in that case, since there is an Ethiopian Catholic Church using the Ethiopian liturgy, its really a question as to whether or not that church uses the same Bible as the Ethiopian Orthodox, and I haven’t been able to find this out, since information about that particular Eastern Catholic Church is hard to comeby, but I also daresay it wouldn’t matter, since the difference in the contents of the Ethiopian Old Testament does not influence their doctrine, since these extra books have not altered in any respect their doctrine, which remains identical to that of the Coptic Orthodox Church of which they were until the 20th century a part, and it has also not produced any controversies in the course of Roman Catholic-Oriental Orthodox dialogue.
In general, the variations between the Old Testaments of the bibles used by the Orthodox, and those used by the Catholics are so small as to be basically irrelevant. Indeed the Septuagint was the source for the Psalter in the Vulgate, which was translated directly for the Challoner Douai Rheims (St. Jerome also did a translation of the Psalter from the Hebrew, but due to differences in versification between the surviving Hebrew text and the Septuagint text which would have broken the recitation of the Psalter, and perhaps a preference for the LXX Psalter, for example Psalm 95 v. 5 is clearer than the Hebraic equivalent 96 v. 5, although both are correct, Pope St. Damasus widely chose to keep the Septuagint Psalter as the offiical version, and that is the Psalter one will find in the Challoner Douai-Rheims (minus Psalm 151, which the Eastern Orthodox do not use liturgically, and presumably the Romans decided to remove to save space, since the Roman Rite at that time favored brevity, and the idea of including a psalm that was never prayed in the Psalter would have gone against that ethos of concise elegance that is the historical style of the Roman Rite as opposed to the longer and more flowery nature of the Mozarabic, Gallican, Byzantine, Coptic and West Syriac Rites (with the Ambrosian Rite, which has the Roman Canon but a Gallican Liturgy of the Word, is kind of in between the two extremes).