Wrong; propaganda. As said with substantiation but ignored, it was generally settled but not definitely, indisputably until after Luther died, and thus doubts continued about some books right into Trent, and which was not unanimous that those who dissent from it should be cut off.
Besides apocryphal books,
On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture." Erasmus likewise expressed doubts concerning Revelation as well as the apostolicity of James, Hebrews and 2 Peter. - http://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament#P136_48836
The Catholic Encyclopedia states that “he seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude...”— http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm
Not propaganda at all. That fact that one here or one there, even a Catholic Cardinal such as Cajetan questioned the Canon in terms of whether the Church in the 4th century defined it accurately is no surprise. Luther, an ordained Catholic priest did the same thing.
Trent only defined, in the “most definitive terms” the NT Canon. Even before Trent, at the Council of Basle-Ferrera 1435 to 1442, Session of 11 spoke of the same canon stating these are the books that are accepted and venerated by the Roman Church. That canon is no different from the 1 defined at the end of the 4th century and the same one that would be defined “most definitively” at Trent
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum17.
At the 4th Session of the Council of Trent, we see the decree on the Canon. The language is much more “dogmatic”
Note And it is thought that it meet that a list of sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in anyone’s mind as to which books are received at this synod..they are.....
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html
Same list as drawn up by Pope Damasus in 382, same one drawn up by the Regional Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397, respectively, same one in Pope Innocent’s Letter to the Bishops in Gaul in 405AD, same one again reaffirmed by the Council of Carthage in 419, which directed that it be sent to the Bishop of Rome for affirmation. See Canon 24. Again, the context of the canon is what is to be read in Liturgy and this reflects the tradition of the Church in North Africa and they want confirmation from the Bishop of Rome [him specifically] and other Bishops to be confirmed to ensure that their Canon is Universally accepted. And this Canon was indeed the same one that Rome held to.
http://newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm
and again, same one that Jerome translated into his Latin Vulgate translation.
No propaganda at all!!! The fact that an individual, even Catholic may question the canon is not relevant, some theologians may question the notion of ordination is reserved only for men. Despite all these doubts on the canon, the Catholic Church in union with the Pope has had the same canon defined since the later part of the 4th century. With each progressively statement, the Church defined it more forcibly but the same canon was always being defined, more defined, more-more defined, definitively with dogmatic language defined.