“Settled” must mean indisputable for it to be included here”
Sez who? You?
That the magisterium is in agreement doesn’t mean that there is no disagreement amongst the body.
And that takes care of your entire post. That was a bit disappointing. Yes, sure, there have been some in disagreement, but the point is that the Magisterium has consistantly taught that despite disagreement as to the contents of the Canon, that they were able to come to agreement on a standard.
No, you.
* “since the books were clearly in question for many centuries” No, they were not.
Thus you affirm a settled canon existed, as being without dispute prior to Trent.
* “until then there was no infallible, indisputable canon” Were they included in Gutenberg’s bible?
This response is only fitting if your contention is that there was an no infallible, indisputable canon.
* “Trent was the first infallible and indisputable list of the canon.” If you read Trent, Trent explicitly says that it is simply a confirmation of what already existed.
Once again, you are arguing for an infallible, indisputable canon before Trent.
That the magisterium is in agreement doesn’t mean that there is no disagreement amongst the body.
That is another one of your misleading responses, as disagreement amongst the body is not the same as sanctioned disagreement on a previously clearly and precisely defined infallible teaching (the canonical books), even by theologians in a major council, which is what an infallible teaching ends on that level. And thus Trent did, unlike before.
And that takes care of your entire post.