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.
Which is hardly tenable. Cardinal Cajetan himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, had reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books based upon questionable apostolic authorship.
The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "It has been significantly said of Cajetan that his positive teaching was regarded as a guide for others and his silence as an implicit censure. His rectitude, candour, and moderation were praised even by his enemies. Always obedient, and submitting his works to ecclesiastical authority, he presented a striking contrast to the leaders of heresy and revolt, whom he strove to save from their folly." And that "It was the common opinion of his contemporaries that had he lived, he would have succeeded Clement VII on the papal throne.” — Catholic Encyclopedia>Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan