Why would I? They were long accepted books of the Jewish canon and are not in dispute.
They existed in the Septuagint 300 years before Christ.
Whereas the Apocryphal books ARE and for good reason. I wonder, if they didn't hint at prayers for the dead and Purgatory, would the Catholic Church have made such a big stink over them?
The Orthodox have them as well, and most of the great theologians and doctrinaries came out of the East in the first millennium. So did most of the great heretics, but they were dealt with in due fashion.
But it seems like it took the Reformation to get the "powers that be" to get around to demanding them be considered equal to Divinely-inspired Scripture. Somehow, I don't think the motive was holy.
Since the Orthodox are not under the authority of Trent and they most certainly include them, I do not think that your conclusion is valid.
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.