One of the most amusing things about Catholicism is its view of the Apocrypha. In 1548, the Council of Trent officially canonised the Deuterocanon, a portion of the Apocrypha which is now included in the Catholic canon, before which time even the New Catholic Encyclopedia admits this had not been done. Despite the fact that the Deuterocanon was never actually in the canon, Catholics insist that Luther removed it in order to support his theology.
The first reason this argument is laughable is that I have never actually heard a Catholic make an argument from the Deuterocanon in defence of their theology. I have seen Matt Slick from the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry respond to one argument made from the Deuterocanon, but to this day, I have never seen a Catholic actually make an argument from it. This makes me wonder what exactly they think is in the Deuterocanon that's so powerful it would affect one's view of the Catholic Church. If you could convince me the Deuterocanon is scripture, would I convert? Would I even be slightly more open to the possibility that the Catholic Church is true? If the Deuterocanon is so obviously Catholic, why don't more Catholics argue from it? I certainly haven't seen anything in there that makes me think of Catholicism.
Adding to this is the following question: if Luther really was in the practice of removing books he didn't like, why would he leave the entire traditional canon alone? He didn't touch Genesis - Malachi, neither did he alter Matthew - Revelation. You're telling me these books are so ineffective at defending Catholicism that Luther saw fit to not only leave them in the canon, but to swear so heavily by them as to allegedly invent the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?
Catholics can add to the hilarity of this situation by claiming that it was just easier for Luther to remove these books. Answer: of course it was! Not even the Catholic Church had a settled opinion of them in his day. In fact, for all of Judeo-Christian history, the Apocrypha has been of doubtful status. Jerome noted that its inspiration was disputable, Pope Gregory the Great and Pope Leo X both rejected them as scripture, even Jesus implicitly rejected them as scripture. The only reason it was so easy for Luther to "remove" the Deuterocanon as scripture is because not even the Catholic Church officially accepted them as scripture until he started stirring the pot. One might even say, ironically, the Council of Trent added them to protest him, making the Catholic Church the true Protestants.
The truth, of course, is that the Deuterocanon is no more scriptural today than it was when the Jews first produced it. Luther didn't remove it, and certainly not in the hope of supporting his theological views. If anything, the fact that the Catholic Church so vehemently defends the canonical status of the Deuterocanon is proof that it is heretical, as the Deuterocanon contains such blatant errors that it is just unforgivable to attribute them to the omniscient God (or at least it would be if Jesus hadn't died in order to forgive the unforgivable). The traditional canon, to which Luther swore allegiance*, lends no credibility to the Catholic Church, which they effectively admit by claiming Luther only removed the Deuterocanon because then the Bible would fit his theology. Indeed, the traditional canon utterly refutes the Catholic Church by contradicting its major doctrines. It is safe to say that for all his flaws, Martin Luther had a more Biblical view than the Catholic Church has ever had, and by accusing him of removing books that didn't fit his views, Catholics practically admit this.
*After this article was originally published as a Facebook post, I heard it claimed that Luther did attempt to remove James from the canon. At this time, I have neither verified or rejected this claim. However, if it was true, it would only add to my point. If Luther did try to remove James from the canon, it either reinforces the point that the Deuterocanon was easier to "remove", or that Luther didn't have the power or influence to alter the canon in the first place. Or it could mean both. Either way, the fact that Catholics think their additional books were removed to make the Bible "sound" more Protestant is more proof that the Bible sounds quite "Protestant".