Trent, therefore, merely dogmatised the anathema that was given at Carthage and subsequently adopted by the seventh ecumenical council.
Yes, it did. But the vote wasn’t even a majority. There were more nays and abstentions than yeas. Must be that some of the assembled bishops and theologians, all Catholic by the way, didn’t think the matter was anywhere near so clear as seems to be the assertion nowadays.
My personal opinion is that the vote was made primarily as a matter of perception than necessity. The perception among Catholic theologians was that Luther had given the deuterocanon a far lesser place than had been historically so. In one way I agree. That Luther placed the deuterocanon in a section separate from the rest of scripture by default gave the appearance of a secondary status that had not previously existed. On the other hand, Luther spoke of the deuterocanon in much the same way as theologians prior to him. Indeed, even Cardinal Cajetan, Luther's questioner, recognizes that the deuterocanon holds something of a secondary status, yet he still refers to them as canonical:
For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose.
This language is similar to the language that Luther uses, but I believe his setting the books apart from the rest if scripture reduced them to a status that is not in keeping with the historical canonicity of the books. Long and short, I believe the deuterocanon was and is canon, even as it is not as authoritative as Jerome's canon. Perhaps that's the reason there wasn't a hard "yea" vote.