The Canon Argument from Preservation

One of the calls of the Reformation was ad fontes: a call to go back to the authoritative originals of the Old and New Testaments.  At the time, Rome refused, insisting that the Latin Vulgate was the authentic text.  The Council of Trent stated: 

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. ... Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

By contrast, the Reformed churches stated (Westminster Confession, Chapter 1, Section 8):

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the church is finally to appeal unto them.

Over time, thankfully, Roman Catholics have quietly abandoned this Tridentine error.  The Vatican website's version of the New American Bible (link) has this explanation (emphasis mine):

On September 30, 1943, His Holiness Pope Pius XII issued his now famous encyclical on scripture studies, Divino afflante Spiritu. He wrote: "We ought to explain the original text which was written by the inspired author himself and has more authority and greater weight than any, even the very best, translation whether ancient or modern. This can be done all the more easily and fruitfully if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text."

This led, naturally (same source, emphasis mine) to:

Early in 1944, in conformity with the spirit of the encyclical, and with the encouragement of Archbishop Cicognani, Apostolic Delegate to the United States, the Bishops' Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine requested members of The Catholic Biblical Association of America to translate the sacred scriptures from the original languages or from the oldest extant form of the text, and to present the sense of the biblical text in as correct a form as possible.

On the one hand, the move from using the Clementine Vulgate as the authoritative text to using the Hebrew and Greek in the canonical books is a positive move.  On the other hand, however, now Roman Catholics are left without an ultimately authoritative text.

Cynically, one might say that they are perfectly happy with this, because they do not want Scripture to be their authority.

One might ask why an ancient translation cannot be just as good as the original.  The Prologue to Sirach (as translated by the KJV translators) puts it this way:

Wherefore let me intreat you to read it with favour and attention, and to pardon us, wherein we may seem to come short of some words, which we have laboured to interpret. For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. 

The NAB translates it thus (source):

You therefore are now invited to read it in a spirit of attentive good will, with indulgence for any apparent failure on our part, despite earnest efforts, in the interpretation of particular passages. For words spoken originally in Hebrew are not as effective when they are translated into another language. That is true not only of this book but of the law itself, the prophets and the rest of the books, which differ no little when they are read in the original.

This problem of something being "lost in translation" is a well known phenomenon, certainly not unique to the grandson of Sirach's grandson, who apparently wrote that prologue.  Translating from one language to another is not like expressing something in rectangular vs. polar coordinates, where one can go from one way of expressing something to another way of expressing the same thing, without loss of information (or inadvertent gain of information not present in the original).

This problem seems, at present, to be insurmountable for advocates of the Apocrypha.  For example, this argument was raised in a debate with William Albrecht and Dávid Száraz, and then again in more detail in a debate with David "SoCal" Preston.  What response did they offer?  If you, the reader, can find a coherent response from them, please let me know in the comments here.