[ealgeone]

The claim that the Council of Rome (382) approved an infallible canon is contrary to Roman Catholic statements which point to Trent, and depends upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. In addition the Council of Rome found many opponents in Africa.” More: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm

The Roman Catholic really begins to run into trouble IF they are pointing to this as "evidence" for the apocrypha.

Th DC rejected a whole bunch of other books and considered them to be damned; one of which was the Gospel of James, or The Protoevangelium of James.

It is from this rejected source Rome derives it's error prone history of Joseph and Mary.

So which is it going to be for the Roman Catholic?

Accepting the all of the ruling or just part of the ruling of the DC?

Either way, it leaves the Roman Catholic in a quandary.

[Campion]

Rejecting a book from the canon is not the same as rejecting everything written in it.

Are John MacArthur's writings canonical scripture? Of course not. Do you therefore reject everything he says? The logic is precisely the same.