“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
You are more than welcome to have your opinion as to what is warranted or unwarranted, as am I.
"You have acknowledged Luther was not the first to challenge the list which Trent ratified..."
There is discussion, debate, disagreement on many things. We've been over the lists and at this point are beating a dead horse. At any rate, I will agree, that "Trent ratified" the canon of scripture that the Church had previously defined.
I hesitate to post a link, but will; matt16.18.freeyellow.com; I just skimmed it but seems to get into the kinds of things you enjoy; most of it is way more detail than I want or need.