Oh, and btw, I accept the authority of the NT based on it's consistency with Old testament scripture and Spiritual continuity among other things. The Apostles did a Good job in giving us something trustworthy to rely upon.
Now, I know where you're intending to go because I've been there many times. So, I'll head you off at the pass as I do with others. You now wish to say that Rome got the NT canon somewhat right, so their version of the OT canon must be right
reflexively. That is fallacy and aptly demonstratable as it calls their judegement into question.. judgement which can be shown to be anything but trustworthy. And I would offer Pseudo Ignatius and Psuedo Clement, among others, as example. Of the more than 15 volumes attributed to Ignatius and accepted at some time by Rome, at least half are known in modern times to be frauds. If Catholicism can't be trusted to get them right, how can they be trusted to get the other right? As with carbon dating, if you can't trust it when it's wrong on a known - how can you ever hope to trust it when it deals with anything else?
Pretty simple isn't it. The early church knew what canon was well before Rome stepped in to decide canon. If it weren't for that, I don't think Rome would have had the first clue what to involve.
The Catholic Church determined the 73 book canon of the New Testament and the Old Testament, that's also a fact. The canon was definitively closed by Pope St. Innocent I in 405 AD. Even Luther admitted that.
"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists(sic) - that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it." Commentary on St. John, ch. 16