[what's up]

who made this 16th century decision to de-canonize books of the Bible.

Actually, the catholic church didn't officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent.

[Mrs. Don-o]

OK, extra point to you for "canonize" as a particularly formal declaratory process. But the unbroken practice of the Church East and West for 1000+ years included the books now called deuterocanonical. It's usually only the spur of dissent or the pressure of controversy that motivates the forensic "defining" of something that was previously regarded as settled for a millennium. (Analogously: did Blackstone invent Common Law?) Quod ubique and all that. :o)

Jaroslav Peliken writes knowledgeably on this.

[cothrige]

Incorrect. As a very quick way to see how wrong your supposition is one need look no further than the bibles of the Orthodox churches. These all include the Deuterocanon, and many contain a few books beyond this, and yet they separated from the Latin Church roughly a thousand years ago. They certainly have no love for the Church in Rome and would hardly have felt bound to obey Trent some five centuries after the schism.

Your position also simply ignores the overwhelming history of the biblical canon in the West, from councils in Hippo, Orange and Rome to the commissioning of the Vulgate itself.