You REALLY don't know what you're talking about do you?
No books were added by the Council of Trent, they were removed by Protestants. The Council of Carthage (393) and Athanasius' Festal Letter have the list of 73+ books as Orthodox and Catholic use. Anyway, the Book of Revelation was put into the Bible at the last minute because of how controversial it was.
Can you cite some of that controversy please?
I read it a while ago. Revelation was controversial in the West and Hebrews was controversial in the East... something like that. Eventually they agreed to compromise and put them both in at the last minute. I wish I could cite it, but I wouldn't know where to look honestly.
Edit: Never mind!
"While the ideas of a canon became more clear, only the core described previously was certain. Revelation in particular was attacked by many because Montanism had made apocalyptic material suspect. Gaius of Rome, an early third century churchman, attacked the inclusion of the Gospel of St. John, Hebrews, and Revelation on anti-Montanist grounds (he ascribed St. John's Gospel and Revelation to Cerinthus, a Gnostic heretic who was a contemporary of St. John). [Hans von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Canon, trans. J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972) pp. 238, Andrew Louth, "Who's Who in Eusebius" in The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine (New York: Penguin, 1989) pp. 369, Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, trans. G. A. Williamson (New York: Penguin, 1989) pp. 91]
In general, however, apocalyptic material, while treated with caution, was not considered as suspect in the West as in the East. The Shepherd was dropped from the Western canon; the Revelation of Peter and the Revelation of John were both challenged. However, in the East (the Greek speaking parts of the world and Egypt), there was nearly universal refusal to allow apocalyptic writings into the canon until Western influence began to sway the Eastern Christians in the fourth century. Moreover, Hebrews was rejected in the West because it was used by the Montanists to justify their harsh penetential system and because the West was not certain of its authorship. Hebrews was not accepted in the West until the fourth century under the influence of St. Athanasius." [von Campenhausen, pp. 232, 233, 235, 237. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988) p. 221]
All from here: orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ntcanon_emergence.aspx
Your source is a tertiary (von Campenhausen and Louth being his secondaries) who manages to cite only one primary, a writer who also supposedly cast doubt on St. John's Gospel and the letter to the Hebrews. I can't get any special controversy over the Revelation out of it.
One thing I'm reminded of while reading your quote is how much of the "making of the Canon" would be better understood as Fathers attempting to finger heretical works: something hardly the same as -- in the fundamentalist mind -- their setting aside all and only the writings the contents of which are "infallible" (and all that means).