The source did not say that those books were not in the Bibles, but that they were placed in separate sections apart from the other Scriptures. Those books did not become "officially" part of the whole canon until Trent as a counter to the Reformation's charges of some Catholic doctrine not being validated by Holy Scripture. Councils before Trent, where the canon was addressed, were not in unison concerning the questionable books. Some were accepted and some weren't. Even today, the Eastern Orthdox canon differs from the Roman Catholic one. From the link http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/BooksOfTheBible.html#Apocrypha:
The Apocrypha refers to extra books included in Roman Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, though their lists are not quite the same, but which are not contained in the Protestant (and most popular) canon of inspired Scripture, as they are manifested to be of an inferior quality, although for most of Protestant history they were typically printed in a separate section of their Bibles. The Roman Catholic books are: Tobit; Judith; Additions to Esther (Vulgate: Esther 10:4-16:24); Wisdom; Sirach (also called Ben Sira or Ecclesiasticus); Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint); Additions to Daniel, which are the Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (which in the Vulgate was Daniel 3:24-90) and Susanna (Vulgate: Daniel 13, Septuagint: prologue) as well as Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate: Daniel 14, Septuagint: epilogue); 1 Maccabees; 2 Maccabees. The Greek Orthodox adds 1 Esdras, 3 +4 Maccabees and Psalm 151.
While Roman Catholic apologists infer or assert that the canon was indisputably settled from the 4th century onward until Luther changed it, and that this is why the Protestant canon only has 66 books, this is based on ignorance of deception.
Luther was not alone in questioning or rejecting certain books, and the Protestant canon of inspired Scripture is not the same as that of Luther's canon of inspired books, although he contained the disputed books, including the apocrypha, in his Bible, but separately and with notes explaining his conclusion on their Divine inspiration, which was a historical practice. The 66 book Protestant canon is more ancient than that of Rome's, as its 39 book O.T. canon is seen as being held by Palestinian Jews around the time of Christ, while it contains the 27 book N.T. canon which was overall settled very early in church history. However, within Roman Catholicism substantial dissent existed among scholars through the centuries and right into Trent over the apocryphal books, and a few N.T. books. (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent: St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947; pp. 278, 281-282.)
Despite decrees by early councils such as Hippo, Carthage and Florence, the decision of Trent in 1546 was the first “infallible” and final definition of the Roman Catholic canon, (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent : Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17) apparently after an informal vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it. This definition, coming over 1400 hundreds years after the last book was written, was issued in reaction to Martin Luther and the Reformation. And in so doing, it went against a tradition of substantial weight in pronouncing the apocryphal books to be uninspired, while there is confusion over whether canon of Trent is exactly the same as that of Carthage and Hippo. In addition, Roman Catholic liberal scholarship impugns the integrity of the Word of God by its adherence to the discredited JEDP theory, and relegates* numerous historical accounts in the Bible to being fables or folk tales. (*as seen in St. Joseph’s medium size, NAB, Catholic publishing co., copyright 1970; in “Literary Genres,” etc.)
Do you actually have that edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia in front of you, or are you relying on the research of others?
the source is simply wrong. Luther put them in a separate section, but they were always in their correct places in Catholic Editions from 400 up to the time of Luther.
Like I said check out the Gutenberg Bible.
http://molcat1.bl.uk/treasures/gutenberg/search.asp
This is from a Britsh site, with no connection tothe Catholic Church. You will see all of the Deutrocanonicals (Several have different names, but the tezxt is all there. 100 years before Trent.Your source is simply wrong.