

Sorry, I put my foot in my mouth, concerning the church's history.
It is correct to say that the Council of Hippo 393 listed the 
deuterocanonical books among those accepted for use in the
church, and that this was ratified by the Council of Carthage,
and by Pope Innoent I and Gelasius I (414 AD).


"At the end of the fourth century views still differed in regard to
the extent of the canon, or the number of the books which should
be acknowledged as divine and authoritative.

   The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew bible, was universally 
received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version
of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books
suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between
canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings.
And justly; for those books, while they have great historical
value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New,
all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and the cannot
be therefore regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited
by Christ or the aposteles."

"In the Western church the canon of both Testaments was closed
at the end of the fourth century through the authority of
Jerome (who wavered, however, between critical doubts and the
principle of tradition), and more especially of Augustine,
who firmly followed the Alexandrian canon of the Septuagint,
and the preponderant tradition in reference to the Catholic
Epistles and the Revelation; though he himself, in some
places, inclines to consider the Old Testament Apocrypha
as *deutero* canonical, bearing a subordinate authority."

This history goes on to say that Augustine attended both the
Council of Hippo and of Carthage.

It is interesting to note, however, the following footnote to
the fourth session of the Council of Trent.  The footnote 
lists various Synods which endorsed lists of canonical 
books, but then says "The Tridentine list or decree was the
first *infallible* and effectually promulgated declaration
on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures."

Which leads one to think that the RC canon was not official
until Trent.  Thus my previous erroneous statement was
not entirely groundless.

It is also interesting to note that the Council of Trent
went on to uphold "the old Latin Vulgate Edition" of 
the Scriptures as authentic.  Which, I would suppose, 
today's Catholic scholars wish the Council had never said.
Also the council made no distinction between deutero-canonical
and canonical books--in contrast to (Eerdman's statement of) the
fourth century views.