Catholic - What are the best arguments for Mark 16:9-20 being Inspired scripture?

As a Catholic, I have to take it as a dogmatic tenet of faith that everything in the Latin Vulgate during the council of Trent was inspired by the Holy Sprit. That being said, I am seeing good arguments for Mark 16:9-20 being later additions, for example, it is missing from both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. What would be the best arguments in favor of Mark 16:9-20 being part of the original text? Edit: I found this (very long) article very helpful in answering this question for myself. I realize now looking back that this question deserves a small book as an answer and is therefore not appropriate for this medium. If you are also asking this question I recommend you read the article linked to below. God bless! https://www.bereanpatriot.com/majority-text-vs-critical-text-vs-textus-receptus-textual-criticism-101/