I am sure the answer would be that the Council of Trent was not an Ecumenical Council, and by Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox points of view, it was not. It did not represent the entire church, only the portion of the church attached to the Bishop of Rome. I mean, the Reformation had already happened. Why would someone who rejects Roman authority then go ahead and believe in a council that was convened specifically to shore up the Roman church to meet the Protestant challenge?
But more to the point, there is no "within Protestantism". Protestantism is like the equator. It has no address. Protestants are notably fractious and divisive. Anglican, Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental churches are far more inclined toward apostolic unity than are Protestants.
I am an Anglican and I am inclined toward accepting the authority of the see of Peter, in principle. There are kinks to be worked out, both in my own thinking, and in the attitudes of Rome toward the other churches, but there has been movement on both sides, and for that I rejoice.
[quote="AveChriste11, post:2, topic:310280"]
Even though I'm not Protestant, I have an idea as to your answer: "What is the criteria for determining the validity of a Catholic Church Ecumenical Council in the Protestant sphere?
Also, shouldn't there be a way, ecumenically speaking, within Protestantism, to settle doctrinal disputes, in the same way it was done during those early Catholic Ecumenical Councils? Why jettison a workable paradigm? "
My guess is that they would say they only agree with an Ecumenical Council, to the extent that the Council agrees with Scripture. I have seen at least one Evangelical Christian say he does not recognize the Nicene Creed as authoritative by itself either unless he sees that it agrees with Scripture.
When I was growing up Baptist, I never heard any talk about councils. I didn't even understand what a council was until I started learning about the apostolic churches.