Here's my response to much of this:

http://www.builtonlove.com/whynot.html

At the Council of Trent (1546) the Roman Catholic religion pronounced the following apocryphal books sacred.

Catholics always included those books since the canon was declared in 382 AD at the council of Rome.

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D....

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.

The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.

It was also reaffirmed in the councils of Hippo (393), Carthage (397), Nicea (787), Florence (1442), Trent (1546), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965).

They asserted that the apocryphal books together with unwritten tradition are of God and are to be received and venerated as the Word of God. So now you have the Bible, the Apocrypha and Catholic Tradition as co-equal sources of truth for the Catholic.

A bit distorted.  This 'unwritten' tradition is oral tradition, and the written tradition is scripture (which includes the deuterocanonicals).  And both the written and spoken tradition are mentioned in 2 Thess 2:15.

In reality, the Bible is the last source of truth for Catholics.

More distortion.... I agree with St. Jerome whole-hearted when he said:

'Ignorance of Scriptures is Ignorance of Christ' 

Catholic doctrine comes primarily from tradition stuck together with a few Bible names.

More garbage...heh almost sounds funny :)

"You have to keep the Bible in perspective." Catholics do not believe that the Bible is God's complete revelation for man.

Again as mentioned before, Catholics believe that the Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition contains the entire rule of faith.  Both are mentioned in 2 Thess 2:15, teachings which are handed down both by the written word and the spoken word.  However, both are interpreted by the teaching hand of the Church, the Magisterium.  So Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium work in harmony with one another. 

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible:

Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language

None of the NT is in the Hebrew language either.

All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.

All of apostle Paul's letter are in Greek....and arguably 100% of the NT was in Greek.  Is this to say the NT should tossed out?

None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.

Books like Song of Songs, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah never laid claim to inspiration.

The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews

Actually some did.  Some Jews in Ethiopia even to this day still include them.  And even if the jews rejected the deuterocanonicals, does this means we are to reject the entire NT since they rejected that too?

custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament).

The kingdom was stripped from the Jews and given to the those who would bear fruit (i.e. the Church):  Matthew 21:43.  This means they no longer the custodians of the Hebrew Scriptures, rather the Church is.  If they are, then we must naturally forget about the entire NT since they rejected it, particularly everything about Jesus as Messiah, since Wisdom 2 is a prophetic statement about Matthew 27:41-43:

13 He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD.
14 To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us,
15 Because his life is not like other men's, and different are his ways.
16 He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.
17 Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him.
18 For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.

In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

heh, this is actually beginning to sound funnier and funnier.  If it was destroyed, then how is it that it still exists?

The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm not talking about the Catholic religion which is not consider Christian).

For 3 centuries after Christ, the canon wasn't declared.  Some thought the Shepherd of Hermas was scripture, and if I remember correctly MANY thought Revelation definitely wasn't scripture.  Much of what was scripture or not wasn't formally understood until the Catholic Church decided to declare it in 382 AD.  So up until then, no one was really sure what books were sacred or not, probably with the exception of the gospels.

The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.

Isaiah is written by 3 different authors, with the earlier being written before the exile, while the last author wrote during post-exile, so the time between the two spans about a 200 year period.  How can they all be Isaiah??  Quite a fabulous claim.  Matt 8 describes Jesus driving the pigs into a body of water.  But the Gerasenes have no such geographical body of water (Matt 8:28-32).  Historical contradictions exist in both the new and old testament.  Thankfully, the Bible wasn't intended to be a historically accurate book on every single claim.  It's not a historical textbook.

The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection

The simple reason protestants deny this doctrine is because they don't have it in their bible!  That's like Jews saying the trinity is unbiblical because Christians added the NT to it!  And so Catholics consider the doctrine legitimate because praying for the dead is mentioned in the deuterocanonicals (2 Maccabees 12)

Salvation by works:

Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.

Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

Justification is not by faith alone (James 2:24), rather justification is on faith that is evidenced in works (James 2:22), not that it denies God's grace (which enables believers to do good works).  Rehab was considered righteous for her actions (James 2:25)

Magic:

Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.

This is how Jews exorcised demons before Jesus was around.  It's not magic.  It's what Jews did in history.

Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):

This I won't get into....not enough time to deal with it....I'd recommend reading some of  this.

It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.

The OT also 'teaches' such things:

Hebrew midwives lie to Pharoah (Ex 1:19), and Jacob is rewarded for stealing Esau�s birthright (Gen. 25 and 27). Rahab lies to protect the Israelite spies (Josh. 2:4-6), and is said to be righteous before God for that very reason (James 2:25). Even God Himself sends a lying spirit to deceive King Ahab (1 Kings 22:20-22). In Judges 4:17-22, Jael, the wife of Heber, assassinates Sisera, the commander of the Canaanite army, by driving a tent peg through his head while he sleeps. For this she is praised: �Most blessed of women be Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, most blessed of tent-dwelling women� (Judges 5:24). In Judges 11:29-40, Jephthah, filled with �the Spirit of the Lord,� vows to offer in sacrifice whatever should come out of the door of his house, if the Lord grants him victory over his enemies. The Lord does, and when Jephthah returns home, his daughter is the first thing to come out of the house. After granting her two months to weep with her friends, he sacrifices her. In 1 Samuel 28, Saul has the spirit of the prophet Samuel conjured up by magic.

If the Apocryphal books are to be rejected because they allegedly teach immoral things, then some of the other books of the Bible are going to have to be rejected for exactly the same reasons.

No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.

I already mentioned Wisdom 2 and Matthew 27.  Anyway, here's a page that has an entire list of Deuterocanonical references/allusions:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm

When you compare them, some almost look like several NT authors were virtually quoting them.  By the way, Heb. 11:35's reference to a 'better resurrection' is a reference to 2 Macc. 7:1, 5-9.

Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.

I suppose that means the OT and the NT are 'only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East'.
 
As books of some historical value, the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material. This followed the format that Luther had used. Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a statement:

"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read."

Luther does not have the authority to take away the books of the Bible.  He isn't the Church.  And the 'apocrypha' actually wasn't sandwiched between the old and new testaments until after the reformers basically played around with them.

In 1599, TWELVE YEARS BEFORE the King James Bible was published, King James said this about the Apocrypha:

"As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist.

Is this a legit reason to not keep the books in??

Not only this, but the sixth article of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (1571 edition) states:

In the name of the Holy, we do understand those canonical books of the old and new Testament, of whose authoritie was never any doubt in the Church...

The Church of England broke away from Rome.  From what I recall, the Catholic Church has the rightful authority, not the Anglican Church. 

Now concerning the apocrypha it states,

And the other bookes, (as Hierome sayeth), the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not applie them to establish any doctrene [sic].
Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977, Vol. III, pp. 489-491.

One man's opinion like Jerome does not rule over an entire council, not even the pope.

From that time on, the Apocrypha has been eliminated from practically all English Bibles--Catholic Bibles and some pulpit Bibles excepted.

It was always in the Catholic Bible.  The English language didn't even exist during Jerome's day.

Not even all Catholic "Church Fathers" believed the Apocrypha was scripture.

Quite an extreme way of distorting the truth.  Virtually all of them did.  Jerome was an exception at first...but then he even later on he quotes a deuterocanonical book and specifically calls it scripture.

There are other spurious books.

These include the Pseudepigrapha which contains Enoch, Michael the Archangel, and Jannes and Jambres. Many of these books falsely claim to have been written by various Old Testament patriarchs. They were composed between 200 B.C. and 100 A.D. There are lots of these spurious books like The Assumption of Moses, Apocalypse of Elijah, and Ascension of Isaiah.

Which are of course not scripture....yet Enoch 1:9 is quoted in Jude 1:14-15...Jannes and Jambres are referred to in 2 Tim 3:8.  Apostle Paul quotes a non-biblical Greek philosopher (Acts 17:28).  Just because a book is quoted or not quoted doesn't mean the books aren't scripture.