Sorry, I should have put a smiley or halo emoticon. I disagree with all the point you made in what I quoted, but I think there's room for disagreement. I'm about burnt out on the Scripture canon debates though
Meh. The technical Jewish "canon" wasn't closed until
the Masoretic Text, and so the argument can be made that those books weren't technically part of the canon, since one didn't exist yet. However, they are included in many, many early manuscripts, and were found in most versions of the Septuagint, which was used by the Church from the beginning.
Perhaps you have disagreements beyond those semantics. I'll gladly talk about them, or not. I would agree that there probably is room for disagreement. We aren't sola scripturists, so we don't have to nitpick the canon. I just don't like that certain books are regulated to a secondary status, when they are included in the Scriptures and are read liturgically like any other book of the canon (which was the defining point between "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" books when the canon was being further defined).
But, I digress.