The claim that the Council of Rome (382) approved an infallible canon is contrary to Roman Catholic statements which point to Trent, and depends upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. In addition the Council of Rome found many opponents in Africa.” More: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm
(405). From this point on there was universal acceptance of the Deuterocanonical books in the West.
Which is more propaganda that is contrary to even RC sources such as the The Catholic Encyclopedia. See above, by the grace of God.
The Roman Catholic really begins to run into trouble IF they are pointing to this as "evidence" for the apocrypha.
Th DC rejected a whole bunch of other books and considered them to be damned; one of which was the Gospel of James, or The Protoevangelium of James.
It is from this rejected source Rome derives it's error prone history of Joseph and Mary.
So which is it going to be for the Roman Catholic?
Accepting the all of the ruling or just part of the ruling of the DC?
Either way, it leaves the Roman Catholic in a quandary.
I made no such claim. The Council of Rome was a local council, and as such, like the North African councils, does not have the charism of infallibility. It does, however, give evidence to the acceptance of the Deuterocanonical books in the West. I did not intend to say that any of those citations were formal infallible decrees of the Church. Rather, they are evidence of what was the generally accepted teaching. This day to day teaching of the Church is Ordinary Magisterium, or Teaching Authority, and enjoys the same infallibility as those formal decrees of ecumenical councils or proclamations of popes. It is typical of the legalistic mentality of Protestants to discount anything other than formal legal decrees.
…and depends upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent.
Disputed, yes, but not conclusively denied. But even if it were to be agreed that this is a work of the 6th century rather than that of the of 4th, it would still show that the Deuterocanonical books were accepted then.