No, the "authorities" were the hierarchy over the "Church as a whole" wherein the church in question was only that which was not already excluded.
The Church does not err (and to clarify, my usage of The Church indicates the community of believers, the common priesthood of believers, not just the magisterium or some council of bishops or presbyters/priests)
Not to promote rancor, but again, I must rigorously disagree.
Ok -- then why not include Maccabbees which is mostly historical or the Didache which, written in 70 AD approx is a Syriac manual, or the Acts of Paul and Theda which do not contradict (to my knowledge) what we consider canon?
Oh, I am not as insistent as my brethren in the disallowing of the Apocrypha. That it means "the hidden" is enough to garner my attention... Off hand, The Maccabees, Baruch, The Epistle of Jeremiah (Probably part of Baruch to you), and the Esdras all have great value to me, as well as other books from the psuedepigrapha - Enoch, Jasher, The Book of Jubilees (another from the Ethiopian canon I believe)...
As I said, I believe the signature of prophecy to be of the highest importance. The books I mentioned contain that signature, IMHO. It is their quality and provenance which cause me to deny them. Of the Apocrypha, particularly and over all, my main criticism is to do with the unquestionable "Hellenization" of the texts... The same reason the Hebrews refuse them, by and large.
There is truly no dispute -- why was there utter silence for 1500 years until Luther?
The death of one's opponents, and the burning of their works as heresy tends toward that effect. It is that silence which is so damning.