They were completely rejected and damned as anathema by the the DC.
YET, Rome continues to appeal to writings damned for some of its beliefs on Mary.
Bad theology based on books considered to be anathema.
These and those similar ones, which Simon Magus, Nicolaus, Cerinthus, Marcion, Basilides, Ebion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus and Bonosus, who suffered from similar error, also Montanus with his obscene followers, Apollinaris, Valentinus the Manichaean, Faustus the African, Sabellius, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Novatus, Sabbatius, Calistus, Donatus, Eustasius, Jovianus, Pelagius, Julian of Eclanum, Caelestius, Maximian, Priscillian from Spain, Nestorius of Constantinople, Maximus the Cynic, Lampetius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, Peter and the other Peter, of whom one disgraced Alexandria and the other Antioch, Acacius of Constantinople with his associates, and what also all disciples of heresy and of the heretics and schismatics, whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but eliminated from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with their authors and the followers of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever.
Are John MacArthur's writings canonical scripture? Of course not. Do you therefore reject everything he says? The logic is precisely the same.
No one has claimed any of MacArthur's writings to be canon.
None of his writings have been so categorically denied as was the Protoevangelium of James was.
For you to argue otherwise shows how weak your position is on this topic.
I have my OWN theology; now let's see what writings I can find to uphold my position.