The word “pseudo” is often used to qualify instances of unstated authorship in order to distingush them from literal authroship. We have, for example, “Pseudo-Chrysostom”. That is someone whose writings were attributed to St. John Chrysostom but he was not him. This in no way diminishes the value of the writing itself; Pseudo-Chrysostom, despite his unknown identity, is frequently and admiringly excerpted in Caten Aurea, for example. You can ascertain that for yourself by reading at random at the URL which is near my signature.
If you wish to defend pious lies as "truth" that is your prerogative. I prefer facts.
It helps to be familiar with the terminology of the field in which you attempt to opine.
On this we agree. You can begin with learning the vast difference between "The Code Of Canon Law" and the Canons, real or fake, of a Church Council and/or the imaginary "Apostolic Canons".
If you have in mind some distinction between a council promulgating canons for people to obey and Canon Law, please explain what the distinction is. As you see from the documents I showed you, interference across bishoprics was against the canons in the Early Church.
The Code Of Canon Law Code Of Canon Law is a legal set of laws binding (though confusing and often misinterpreted) on the entire Church.
Some Canons of recognized Ecumenical Councils are accepted as "Infallible" while others, especially of local and obscure Councils are possibly interesting but certainly not binding on the entire Church.
The single thing the two have in common is the word "Canon".
There is no "lie". The word "pseudo" is an indication that the "Apostolic" in the title needs to be understood "In the spirit of the Apostles", just like recent "Apostolic constitution" is to be understood, and just like quite ancient "Apostolic Creed" is to be understood. In either case there is no attempt to pretend the "apostolic" document is written by the apostles, and so no fraud and no lie.
Looking for lies? Look no further than the evil products of the so-called reformation, starting with the two idiotic solas, sola fide and sola scriptura. To pretend that they exist in the gospel would really constitute a lie.
Some Canons of recognized Ecumenical Councils are accepted as "Infallible" while others, especially of local and obscure Councils are possibly interesting but certainly not binding on the entire Church
Well, of note here is that those canons that are binding can be referred to as canon law even though the current Canon Law was codified (on the basis of pre-existing laws) not that long ago. Second, it is the practice of the Church to promulgate canons when a controversy exists, and otherwise stick to already established custom. So, episcopal sovereignty does not start when a canon is promulgated, but rather if there is a canon about it then it is a reflection of the earlier custom. And so a letter from one bishop to another urging a bishop to reinstate some priests he defrocked would be ordinarily a violation of episcopal sovereignty and not possible as a "pastoral letter" as you claimed. It is therefore, an evidence of papal authority exercised by Pope St. Clement.