They didn't pronounce the apocrypha as officially part of the canon for the entire church until Trent.
As far as the orthodox church I think this is more or less their position:
The Russian edition of the Old Testament published by the Moscow Patriarchate in 2000 includes among the other books the following books marked with stars: 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Letter of Jeremiah, Baruch, 3 books of the Maccabees and 3 Esdras. These books are seen as being edifying but not of the authority of the other Old Testament books.
I was speaking of the catholics.They didn't pronounce the apocrypha as officially part of the canon for the entire church until Trent.
But, they were Catholics and they had a canon before they split with the West. Your approach ignores that the East and West were one Church for a thousand years, and ceased to be such, administratively speaking anyway, five centuries before Trent. For this reason the witness of the East is a very telling evidence that Trent is not when this became definitive.
And, let me add that, regarding more purely Western modes of thought, the assertion so common that a teaching only became definitive, or "official," when a Pope wrote it in a bull or a council issued an anathema about it is a fallacy. The Church doesn't work that way, and such a point of view is to almost entirely miss the mark of what councils and popes do. Just as the Assumption didn't become "official" with Munificentissimus Deus, neither did the canon become official with Trent. If that were so then the Gospel of John and Genesis would also only "officially" enter the canon then. Sorry, but not quite.
As far as the orthodox church I think this is more or less their position:The Russian edition of the Old Testament published by the Moscow Patriarchate in 2000 includes among the other books the following books marked with stars: 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Letter of Jeremiah, Baruch, 3 books of the Maccabees and 3 Esdras. These books are seen as being edifying but not of the authority of the other Old Testament books.
Yes, they don't view them as all being equal, but that doesn't demonstrate what you seem to think. For one thing, Catholics certainly don't view all biblical texts as equal and we never have. Just look at how we treat the Gospels during Mass and compare that to what we do regarding the epistles. Quite a different level of authority. And historically you would never get any argument from any Catholic about whether the books of Moses outranked Tobias. It is obvious.
However, what is most interesting is that you overlooked the most telling part of that quote of yours. These books are seen as being edifying but not of the authority of the other Old Testament books. These books are in fact Old Testament books, and the Old Testament is most definitively the Bible. These are not in an appendix attached to the Bible, but are in the Bible itself. And they are so not because of Trent, but because the Orthodox Church already believed this for at least five centuries before the schism, and a thousand years before that council. And to reiterate, the Church that believed that for all that time was not the Eastern Church, but the Catholic Church throughout the world.