I believe the Church has a guarantee by the Holy Spirit that it cannot teach error regarding faith and morals. You believe in... your own infallibility?
I posted the canons from 382, 419, and 1542 and they all included the deuterocanonical books. Here are a few more quotes that disagree with your experts:
“The council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament.... The New Testament canon is the same as ours. This decision of the transmarine church however, was subject to ratification; and the concurrence of the Roman see it received when Innocent I and Gelasius I a.d. 414) repeated the same index of biblical books. This canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session.”
(Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, Ch 9)
“A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the ‘Gelasian Decree’ because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent.”
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed., edited by F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p.232
And again, from the Catholic Encyclopedia: “the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent.”
You made the "negative contention" for Rome- history speaks for Rome. For the umpteenth time, the only thing I misspoke about was incorrectly stating that Luther was the first to challenge it- I should have phrased it that Luther's challenge was serious enough that the Church infallibly defined it's canon.
I have not resorted to calling you any names and I resent the implication. You have your interpretation of scripture and history, and I have mine, as does everyone else.
“I believe the Church has a guarantee by the Holy Spirit that it cannot teach error regarding faith and morals. You believe in... your own infallibility?”
That is another typically unwarranted Catholic claim, as unlike Rome claiming she is infallible whenever she speaks according to her infallibly declared formula, I have provided evidence from Catholic as well as scholarly sources which refutes your primary contentions with me, as well as your remaining argument.
You have acknowledged Luther was not the first to challenge the list which Trent ratified, and that there was disagreement among Catholicism until Trent settled it, and thus there was not infallible definition prior to Trent.
Yet despite my showing you recent research that shows that the Tridentine canon was not exactly the same as Carthage (and the former ratified that of Florence), and that the Gelasian decree (Decretum Gelasianum) which the gives 382 date and list authority, is not historically authoritative, you still post old scholarship which is ignorant of these problems (if it was not, such encyclopedic sources could hardly have failed to mention them). As regards the latter,
In 1794 F. Arevalo, the editor of Sedulius, started the theory that the first three of these five chapters were really the decrees of a Roman Council held a century earlier than Gelasius, under Damasus, in 382 A.D...
It had been Professor v. Dobschütz’s intention to publish the Damasine and Gelasian forms side by side (i. e. I, II, III and III, IV, V, c. III being common to both), but in the course of his investigation he came to very different conclusions. According to v. Dobschütz all five chapters belong to the same original work, which is no genuine decree or letter either of Damasus or Gelasius, but a pseudonymous literary production of the first half of the sixth century (between 519 and 553).
There can, I think, be little doubt that v. Dobschütz has made out his case. The really decisive point is that in I 3, in the part most directly associated with Damasus, there is a quotation of some length from Augustine in Joh. ix 7 (Migne, xxxv 146l).1 As Augustine was writing about 416, it is evident that the Title Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei is of no historical value.
The proof that the document is not a real Decretal of Gelasius or any other Pope is almost as decisive, if not quite so startling... - http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm
As for being identical, Hippo and Carthage include a book as canonical that Trent did not. THE RC response is that Trent passed later passed over in silence (due to naming conventions the issue can be confusing). http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2505