If scripture is considered good for correction and reproof, then many in the Roman Catholic church held that the Apocrypha was not scripture.
Writing prior to the canon decision at the Council of Trent, Cajetan wrote:
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned 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. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”
-Cardinal Cajetan (16th century)
However, the author of the posted article would have done well to point that out, rather than just assert that the Apocrypha was “not included in Scripture by any body of Christians until the Church of Rome arbitrarily decided to include them at the Council of Trent”.
They were considered important works on various subjects such as history, and that is why the KJB had them between the testaments as being non-Canonical.
The Cardinal is simply broadening the word 'Canonical' to make it mean something it doesn't mean.
The Canon refers to those books that define Christian doctrine and are directly given by God.
The Apocrypha books are not part of the Canon.
The author errs in asserting that “the Apocrypha was ‘not included in Scripture by any body of Christians until the Church of Rome arbitrarily decided to include them at the Council of Trent.’” Though you are correct that the mistake of shortening the Old Testament originated with St. Jerome.
The Holy Orthodox Church, which regards the Council of Trent as an heretical conventicle of the Latin church having no authority whatsoever, has always regarded the books protestants slander as “the Apocrypha” as an integral part of the Old Testament canon, since the canon was fixed in 692. They were included in the canon of Scripture by the local Council of Carthage (of 419), whose canons were given ecumenical force by the Sixth Ecumenical Council at its disciplinary session in 692 (or some would argue by the Fourth in 451, though the Chalcedonian canon cited is an general acceptance of “the ancient canons” and hardly seems to apply to a council which took place a mere 32 years earlier, while the canons of the Sixth explicitly accept as binding on the whole church the canons of Carthage).
The Latins, of course, regard the Council of Carthage as having sufficed, since under their (erroneous) theory of ecclesiology, the papal assent it received as a local council of the Patriarchate of Rome sufficed to render its canons universal.
Orthodox usage confines the reading of the Old Testament Scriptures to Vespers and the lesser daily offices, but all of the books of the Old Testament, including those rejected by protestants, are read in the context of Vespers from time to time throughout the annual cycle. As a particularly striking example, during Great Lent at Great Compline, we read the Prayer of Manasseh (which the Latins do not include in their canon).
Jerome’s error in thinking the Masorete represented an “ur-text”, was ignored in the East, rejected by the Latins, and embraced by the protestants. It is now unsupportable given the fact that the (also Hebrew) Dead Sea Scrolls, when there is a disagreement between the Masorete and the LXX support the reading in the LXX much more often than they agree with the Masorete.