Just because your church, according to you, "esteems" some Scripture less than others doesn't mean it is a truthful or wise position to take. Jesus sure seemed to esteem the Old Testament Scriptures pretty highly as he often quoted passages verbatim and he established HIS authority from them. They had and have an intrinsic authority because ALL Scripture is God-breathed - HOLY SPIRIT revealed all the way from Genesis to Revelation. The fact that the Bible contains the very word of God qualifies it ALL as fully authoritative to the believer regardless of what any religion thinks about it.
The Deuterocanonicals/Apocryphal books have NEVER been considered as Divinely-revealed, God-breathed sacred Scripture regardless of whose canon they appeared in. That IS the difference.
Catholics like to accuse Luther of removing books he didn't think agreed with his theology - even though it is a solid FACT that he did not take out those books in his German translation - but do not seem to see the hypocrisy in the Council of Trent ADDING those books to the canon and esteeming them as inspired Scripture along side all the other books of the Bible because one of them alluded to a possibility of another place between earth and heaven/hell. Of the meager number of verses that they use to somehow prove a place called "Purgatory", they NEEDED one obscure sentance in a book - which never really comes close to the doctrine of Purgatory - to bolster their case against the Reformation. Didn't work then, STILL won't work now.
The Pauline Epistles held in less esteem than the synoptic Gospels? By whom? And if so, to what extent? It seemed another of those manufactured arguments. They just keep coming.
In comparison, those OT books Luther moved to appendix did have some long (albeit not entirely universal) history of being held in much lesser regard. We do not see the same for Paul's letters, well, until perhaps by papal decree Paul became declared to be subservient to Peter? -- and if any disagrees with that, then anathema upon them.
To cover that sort of thing with the "this church among all others alone, has never erred" thinking, is just so much after-the-fact justification or cover-up.
Let us all return to the more and most original articles (of faith) please...
The so-called council of Jamnia?
You?
Who?
It's clear that you reject the authority of the Catholic Church to do so, so we need an alternative.
What is that authority?