Well, I would be simple if that was her position. And I suppose that if Rome also considers Prots to be part of the body of Christ, (though Dominus Iesus relegates Protestant churches as not being worthy to be called churches "in the proper sense) it would need to have their consent to have a true ecumenical council.
But again, if we are going to answer when the RCC first infallibly defined the apocrypha then we must allow her to define it, and for which i have proved substantial sources pointng to Trent as fulfilling her criteria for infallible affirmation of the apocrypha, and what it consists of in total, though you can disagree with her and me on this based on your reasons.
Their decisions are infallible because they are councils of the infallible Church Universal.
Rome also uses the term "univeral" to refer to itself as well as its jurisdiction (whether those without agree to it or not). You need not read the block quotes but
In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*)
This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff...
This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ.
The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith when "from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" (8*) they show universal [loosely defined] agreement in matters of faith and morals.
The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council.
23. This collegial union is apparent also m the mutual relations of the individual bishops with particular churches and with the universal Church.
The individual bishops, however, are the visible principle and foundation of unity in their particular churches, (31*) fashioned after the model of the universal Church, in and from which churches comes into being the one and only Catholic Church.(32*) For this reason the individual bishops represent each his own church, but all of them together and with the Pope represent the entire Church in the bond of peace, love and unity. - DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH LUMEN GENTIUM POPE PAUL VI ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
THE ROMAN CURIA - In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.
And I suppose that if Rome also considers Prots to be part of the body of Christy, (though Dominus Iesus relegates Protestant churches as not being worthy to be called churches "in the proper sense) it would need to have their consent to have a true ecumenical council.
The Prots left the Church. Ecumenical Councils are gatherings of the bishops validly ordained, which exlcused the Protestants.
Dominus Iesu only recognizes the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church as "true" churches, with the latter "lacking" in fullness because of the non-communion with the Bishop of Rome.
Ecumenical councils are the gathering of the "true Church," and true Church only. Therefore the Prots are not needed.
i have proved substantial sources pointng to Trent as fulfilling her criteria for infallible affirmation of the apocrypha
Your work is much appreciated and well documented but lacks, in my opinion, to understand that Trent only made the canon legally binding, such that if someone refused it one could be anathematized (condemned).
I realize that some Catholic individuals made statements calling it "infallible" (which it is, but no more than any other proclamation of the Church, or the Church itself of which the Council is a part).
The difference is that some proclamations have greater canonical (legal) weight, and nothing has a greater canonical weight than the Ecumenical (General) Councils.
Rome also uses the term "univeral" to refer to itself as well as its jurisdiction
Yes, of course it does, that's what catholic means. But so does the Orthodox Church. The official Orthodox Church title is not "Eastern" but Orthodox Catholic Church.
As far as the Dogmatic Constitutions, this is an ecclesial issue. The Latin Church is not ecclesially structured as the Undivided Church of the 1st millennium, whereas the Orthodox Church is.
PS The new Advent Catholic Encyclopedia is a document from aground the beginning of the 1900s and is somewhat outdated. It is also not the official publication of the Roman Catholic Church, nor is it endorsed by it. It is actually manged by a single individual. And It's title is misleading.
I am not saying that what you copied form it is wrong, just that it's comments and attitudes reflect a schismatic viewpoint as compared to more recent ones. Remember that the anathemas of 1054 were mutually withdrawn in 1964 and "committed to oblivion."