Having some use for other books and considering them Scripture are two different things. Paul quoted from some pagan authors. He hardly considered their words Holy Scripture.
Now, you specifically have stated that in your research you have found that "Jerome was the only one." Considering Jerome's knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew and his translation of the very Bible your church uses, I would consider his word to be authoritative if I were a Catholic. But, since you eagerly dismiss him as the "only one", please read along. Some are mentioned at the Bible Researcher website which the folks on this thread seem to be avoiding like the plague.
Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (AD 350) wrote: "Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And read none of the apocryphal writings; for why do you, who know not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble yourself in vain about those which are disputed? Read the divine Scriptures, these twenty-two books of the Old Testament that were translated by the seventy-two translators . . . for the translation of the divine Scriptures that were spoken in the Holy Spirit was accomplished through the Holy Spirit. Read their twenty-two books but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study diligently only these that we also read with confident authority in the church. For much wiser and holier than you were the apostles and ancient bishops who led the church and handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, do not transgress its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if you desire to have learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nun, and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the historical writings. But those which are written in verse are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five prophetic books; of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle; then Ezekiel, and the book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament."
Athanasius of Alexandria says in his Thirty-ninth Festal Epistle: "7. But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded."
Gregory of Nazianzus wrote: Let not other books seduce your mind: for many malignant writings have been disseminated. The historical books are twelve in number by the Hebrew count, [then follow the names of the books of the Old Testament but Esther is omitted, one Esdras, and all the Deutero-Canonical books]. Thus there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament which correspond to the Hebrew letters. The number of the books of the New Mystery are Matthew, who wrote the Miracles of Christ for the Hebrews; Mark for Italy; Luke, for Greece; John, the enterer of heaven,602602 This seems to imply a knowledge of the Revelation, although it is not mentioned. was a preacher to all, then the Acts, the xiv. Epistles of Paul, the vii. Catholic Epistles, and so you have all the books. If there is any beside these, do not repute it genuine. (also found at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvii.xxii.html )
Amphocilus Bishop of Iconium- We should know that not every book which is called Scripture is to be received as a safe guide. For some are tolerably sound and others are more than doubtful. Therefore the books which the inspiration of God has given I will number. [Then follow the names of the Old Testament books as in Gregory of Nazianzus, but concluding with "some add Esther."] It is time for me to speak of the books of the New Testament. Receive only four evangelists: Matthew, then Mark, to whom, having added Luke as a third, count John as fourth in time, but first in height of his teachings, for I call this one rightly a son of thunder, sounding out most greatly with the word of God. And receive also the second book of Luke, that of the catholic Acts of the apostles. Add next the chosen vessel, the herald of the Gentiles, the apostle Paul, having written wisely to the churches twice seven epistles: to the Romans one, to which one must add two to the Corinthians, that to the Galatians, and that to the Ephesians, after which that in Philippi, then the one written to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, and to Titus and to Philemon, one each, and one to the Hebrews. But some say the one to the Hebrews is spurious, not saying well, for the grace is genuine. Well, what remains? Of the catholic epistles some say we must receive seven, but others say only three should be received that of James, one, and one of Peter, and those of John, one. And some receive three of John, and besides these, two of Peter, and that of Jude a seventh. And again the Revelation of John, some approve, but the most say it is spurious. This is perhaps the most reliable canon of the divinely inspired Scriptures.
Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers: There are twenty-two books of the Old Testament because this corresponds with the number of their [Hebrew] letters. They are counted thus according to old tradition: the books of Moses are five, Joshua son of Nun the sixth, Judges and Ruth the seventh, first and second Kings the eighth, third and fourth [Kings] the ninth, the two of Chronicles make ten . . . Ezra the eleventh, the book of Psalms twelfth, of Solomon the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs are thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth, the Twelve Prophets sixteenth, then Isaiah and Jeremiah (with Lamentations and the Epistle) and Daniel and Ezekiel and Job and Esther complete the number of the books at twenty-two. To this some add Tobit and Judith to make twenty-four books, according to the number of the Greek letters, which is the language used among Hebrews and Greeks gathered in Rome . . .
There are more. Some accepting of the Apocryphal books, some not, some with mixture. But this should suffice to answer your assertion that "Jerome was the ONLY one."
Regarding Jerome - you consider that authoritative? One person is to overthrow the entire rest of the Church's mind on this subject? Of course Jerome was biased towards the Hebrew Scriptures - it was he who was tasked with interpreting it. Naturally, he would feel that his work was more important than those looking to the Septuagint.
I have already explained Athanasius, and can provide similar quotes for Hilary and for Cyril. They use them when making theological statements, using the Word of God and interpreting it. If they consider Isaiah and Wisdom as equal and without distinction when making a theological statement, it would appear that these saints considered the writings in question as inspired by God, although NOT part of the canon. Remember, canon referred to the writings that were read during the Mass, not writings that were considered inspired by God. That is a relatively new definition.
There are more. Some accepting of the Apocryphal books, some not, some with mixture. But this should suffice to answer your assertion that "Jerome was the ONLY one."
As I said, you are assuming you know what I have found. I disagree with your presumptions, and continue to say that I have found ONLY Jerome as a Catholic saint of the era who was strongly against the idea of including the OT Deuterocanonicals into the Canon that was being formed at the turn of the 5th century... What you ALSO forget is that Jerome, unlike Luther, accepted the decision of the Church, understanding that GOD guides the Church as a whole, not as individual disembodied folks who have thousands of different opinions on an assundry of topics...
Regards