I don't deny that they are included in what are called "canons", but I would deny that they have ever held the same status as other mutually-agreed divinely inspired Scripture. From the link http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/orthodoxbibles?noredir=1:, the Orthodox Church seems to view these differently than the Roman Catholics do:
In terms of "canon," the Orthodox Old Testament includes the 39 universally received ("canonical") books as well as the books found in the Septuagint which have always been read, used or explicitely quoted by the early Christians (Letter to the Hebrews, St. Polycarp of Smyrna. These books are part of the Orthodox Bible and lectionary but not with full canonical status; they are often called "deuterocanonical" or "to be read" (Anagignoskomena (αναγιγνωσκόμενα)). As a result, it can be said that the canon of the Old Testament is somewhat "open" with degrees of witnessing authority.
The East has always viewed the Apocalypse of John to be, well, lesser, as well. That does not mean that they do not consider them Scripture. That means that they consider them 'deutero', or 'second', versus 'proto', or 'first'.
Scripture is Scripture. However, there are varying degrees of Scripture, with the Gospels remaining first amongst the rest. That is the way of Christianity from the beginning. And that is the way that Kosta and I first started understanding each other when I first arrived on FR lo these many years ago.
Plenty of theologians did not consider the Apocryphal books as equal to all the other mutually agreed upon Scripture. Since we are speaking of books the Catholic Church appended to the Old Testament canon - books which the Jewish religion NEVER accepted as such - the onus is on them to qualify the status of those books. It's one thing to have a section set aside that you call books of interest and encouragement - much like letters from Clement or Ignatius - but quite another to include them as equal to divinely-inspired Scripture. What has been repeatedly stressed throughout this thread is that these books were always seen as inferior to the books of Moses and the Prophets.
The original post starting this tread was about a supposed former Protestant who converted to Roman Catholicism BECAUSE of the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books. Something I have a hard time believing would be an adequate reason to leave ones heritage faith. What I appreciated about this thread, though, is that is allowed the opposing views to be posted so that people can make up their own minds about these books. I have read them and I can honestly say they do not speak to my heart like other Scripture does. The Holy Spirit within me does not illuminate those words at all to me and I do NOT sense God's hand in their creation. And that's not even getting into the issue of their easily provable errors in geography, history and doctrine.
But, hey, you guys believe what you want. Just don't presume to demand all other Christians MUST follow your lead. We have higher standards, apparently.