He said flat out that they were not accepted as canonical. He believed that they were good for edification but not for doctrine. Re-read his statement. It wasn't a hesitation.
How it is relevant is we have 1st century Jewish canon saying what is canonical - a canon that the church accepted. You then have 4th Century Jerome saying that the books were useful for edification but were not accepted by the church as canonical. Then, Luther comes along and says they weren't canonical and the almighty council, as a part of their collective hissy fit, suddenly anathematizes anyone who says they aren't canonical.
Council of Trent:
"If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts [the 66 books of the Bible plus 12 apocryphal books, being two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Sophonias, two of Macabees], as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA."
"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."
Jerome
Excuse me Houston, doesn't anyone see a problem here?
Jerome's opinion is just that, his opinion. The mind of the church as a whole was that they are canonical and this is why they were included in Jerome's Vulgate and canonized at Hippo/Carthage. See detailed Bornacatholic's post above.
It is not true that the Church accepted the Hebrew canon of Jamnia because, again, no Bible appeared without the Deuterocanons, East or West, prior to the Reformation.
Amen! A hissy fit that has yet to be rescinded.