I am not accusing Luther of anything. I am only providing the background to the Canon.
However, you should reconsider establishing any firm theological or historical position based only on the Wikipedia or Ernst von Dobschütz.
In 1912 Dobschütz gave his historical rationale for doubting that Damasus made a decree on the canon at Rome in 382 by pointing out that in the Gelasian decree is a quotation from St. Augustine dating from 416. He therefore declares that no other part of the decree could have originally been from Damasus in 382 concludes that the entirety of Damasus' decree has "no historical value." We see, of course, that this is specious reasoning.
In reality Pope Damasus declared a canonical list in 382, and Gelasius in the 5th/6th century added to that a quote from Augustine when he added a list of prohibited books. That would not invalidate Damasus' original declaration.
What you are not addressing is that St. Jerome produced his Vulgate in 405, matching the Canon declared in Rome the same Canon was affirmed in the at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage.
Peace be with you.
“In reality Pope Damasus declared a canonical list in 382, and Gelasius in the 5th/6th century added to that a quote from Augustine when he added a list of prohibited books. That would not invalidate Damasus’ original declaration.”
Even if your assessment were true, if this “canonical list” wasn’t proposed to be an authoritative pronouncement on canon until 1794, then what does it have to do with the matter under discussion? Clearly, it could have held no weight prior to the Council of Trent, as at that time nobody had ever heard of the notion that the Council of Rome pronounced a body of canonical works!
That what should be properly canonical, and what should not in regards to Apochrypa, was still debated up to and finally at Trent (for the Latin church) is strong evidence that either; the Apochrypa was still properly considered open to debate as to deserving being on equal footing with the Hebrew books of the law and prophets or else a great many in the Latin church, including those whom had been made Cardinals, never got the memo that the canon had been closed prior to Trent. Which seriously weakens the argument you bring --- or shows that a great many Cardinals were themselves haphazardly instructed.
Similar to how things progressed in the East, having accessed those books for liturgical purposes was a large factor. Admission such had been even possibly a mistake was unthinkable for many, much like today there are those whom invoke all sorts of special pleadings to show the "church" (one branch in particular) has never erred.