"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 Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus 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, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," cited by William Whitaker in "A Disputation on Holy Scripture," Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)
You found a Catholic cardinal who ascribed to Luther’s false history... and was branded a heretic, forced to recant, and had his book excised. So Cajetan fell for Luther’s take on Jerome. Big deal; he was unaware of St. Jerome’s own contradictions of those claims, wherein he claimed that anyone who believed that those who thought he intended to deny the scriptural authenticity and canonicity of the deuterocanonicals were “fools, and slanderers.”
St. Jerome, himself, was fooled by the Jews into believing that the Septuagint was chalk full of mistakes. 1,500 years later we discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls, and no know that the Septuagint was full of translational errors, but was translating a different text than the Masoretic ones. So even if St. Jerome did believe that the deuterocanonicals were apocryphal, what of it? What if we don’t believe St. Jerome’s apologia for his prefixes to the dueterocanonicals? What if the Protestant theory that St. Jerome only attested to the authenticity of the deuterocanonicals because he recanted under duress? What does that prove? That at the time of St. Jerome, the Church was so firm in its canon that it deemed a biblical researcher for denying the deuterocanonicals?