I would like to ask a Serious Question to a Protestant about the Reformation

[Sunflake9]

I don’t think you will ever hear a serious Catholic say that the Popes infallibility is total. He is just infallible when teaching on faith and morals Ex Cathedra, (from the chair of St. Peter) this doesn’t happen very often at all. So very rarely is any Pope infallible. I hope that helps with Papal infallibility. It’s a rare situation.

So yes he’s just a man and can commit sin just like any other person. Which is why he, just like the rest of us goes to confession. I’ve never heard anyone say he was perfect and sinless. He is Christ’s (imperfect) representative on earth (Vicar).

 

[Memaw]

I don’t think you will ever hear a serious Catholic say that the Popes infallibility is total. He is just infallible when teaching on faith and morals Ex Cathedra, (from the chair of St. Peter) this doesn’t happen very often at all. So very rarely is any Pope infallible. I hope that helps with Papal infallibility. It’s a rare situation.

So yes he’s just a man and can commit sin just like any other person. Which is why he, just like the rest of us goes to confession. I’ve never heard anyone say he was perfect and sinless. He is Christ’s (imperfect) representative on earth (Vicar).

Did you ever ask a ‘serious’ Catholic what Papal Infallibility really means? It means a lot more than just Ex Cathedra. If it’s sooo rare, then what do we need a Pope for??? Believe me, its not nearly as ‘rare’ as you think. Study up on it! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Godspells]

I don’t think you will ever hear a serious Catholic say that the Popes infallibility is total. He is just infallible when teaching on faith and morals Ex Cathedra, (from the chair of St. Peter) this doesn’t happen very often at all. So very rarely is any Pope infallible. I hope that helps with Papal infallibility. It’s a rare situation.

So yes he’s just a man and can commit sin just like any other person. Which is why he, just like the rest of us goes to confession. I’ve never heard anyone say he was perfect and sinless. He is Christ’s (imperfect) representative on earth (Vicar).

I understand what you mean and honestly I agree many protestants are completely ignorant on what ‘ex cathedra’ actually means.

That being said, we are all ‘vicars of Christ’ in that we are emissaries of the Christian nation. The pope holds an honor in that he heads an important episcopal see, in fact the most important one. But that honor is given by God and it can be taken away, and this is where I deviate from Catholic dogma.

 

[guanophore]

That said it was thrown out by many because of the evils that were being fostered in it.

Are you saying that excommunication was “thrown out”?

unfortunately the Church has made it difficult for itself to admit the sins of individuals because they have historically taught that such people are appointed by God.

I guess I am not following you here. We believe that Peter was appointed by Christ to be His vicar, and yet, he was imperfect.

We believe David was appointed by God, but sinned.

People being appointed by God does not make them perfect.

As I see it, the Pope is a man, nothing more and can make mistakes and can in fact choose to abdicate his honor by choosing to serve sin instead of God.

Did you think Catholics believed differently?

As a protestant I believe that the gates of hades does not mean that the pope is infallible, but that the apostolic faith will never die.

This is true, but you have confused infallibility with impeccability. The gift of infallibility protects the Apostolic faith. It prevents the teaching of error, since error is what will cause the faithful to pass through the gates of hell.

Peter taught infallibly, but when he failed to live according to his own teaching, he was not impeccable.

 

[guanophore]

That being said, we are all ‘vicars of Christ’ in that we are emissaries of the Christian nation. The pope holds an honor in that he heads an important episcopal see, in fact the most important one. But that honor is given by God and it can be taken away, and this is where I deviate from Catholic dogma.

It is true that we are all disciples of Christ and have a responsibility to represent the Kingdom with dignity. But a vicar is one who has been left in a position of authority, one who runs the house - holds the keys - on behalf of the owner.

Jesus promised that He would lead the Church into “all truth”, and that he would never abandon His Holy Bride. So yes, though any Bishop {disciple of Christ) can fall into sin, He will not deny Himself, and go back on His promises.

It is also important to separate the person from the office he occupies. The office was intended to be permanent (until He comes again) and the office carries dignity, even if the person occupying it does not.

 

[Godspells]

Are you saying that excommunication was “thrown out”?

I guess I am not following you here. We believe that Peter was appointed by Christ to be His vicar, and yet, he was imperfect.

We believe David was appointed by God, but sinned.

People being appointed by God does not make them perfect.

Did you think Catholics believed differently?

This is true, but you have confused infallibility with impeccability. The gift of infallibility protects the Apostolic faith. It prevents the teaching of error, since error is what will cause the faithful to pass through the gates of hell.

Peter taught infallibly, but when he failed to live according to his own teaching, he was not impeccable.

The pope cannot be removed by any human authority. Catholics fail to accept the Popes ability to abdicate the honor of the office. No matter how evil a pope is, even a synod or the college of cardinals could not depose him or recognize him as having abdicated the chair.

To be sure, I don’t believe in scholasticism. So at that I believe the apostolic faith endures and does so by people not messing with it. I don’t believe we get new ‘revelations’ that we have to believe in or else we go to hell.

I don’t believe Catholics have apostocized like some protestants do, but I think they add things to the faith that are unnecessary and unuseful. Original sin and its successor the immaculate conception are two such examples. From this spawned others like limbo for unbaptized infants.

They still have all the essential articled of faith, but they dogmatize matters that ought to be left a mystery.

 

[Godspells]

It is true that we are all disciples of Christ and have a responsibility to represent the Kingdom with dignity. But a vicar is one who has been left in a position of authority, one who runs the house - holds the keys - on behalf of the owner.

Jesus promised that He would lead the Church into “all truth”, and that he would never abandon His Holy Bride. So yes, though any Bishop {disciple of Christ) can fall into sin, He will not deny Himself, and go back on His promises.

It is also important to separate the person from the office he occupies. The office was intended to be permanent (until He comes again) and the office carries dignity, even if the person occupying it does not.

I agree we must distinguish between the office and the man, but this is exactly why I think it is ridiculous that a pope cannot be deposed.

Also, there is not a clear correlation between Rome and ‘the Church’. At least not in scripture and I understand St. Peter was Bishop first of Antioch and then Rome.

 

[guanophore]

 The pope cannot be removed by any human authority.

Do you see a need to remove a pope?

Do you not think that God is perfectly capable of removing one if necessary?

Catholics fail to accept the Popes ability to abdicate the honor of the office.

Can you explain this? I don’t think I understand what you are trying to say.

Certainly there have been popes who disgrace the honor of their office (just as there are christians who disgrace the name of Christian.

But you are right that Catholics do not have the authority to reject or “undo” what God has provided. It is He who set up the Apostles, and guided them to pass on their responsibilities to their successors, the Bishops. We do not have the freedom to abandon what God has put into place.

For example, Judas abandoned his “office”, and it was filled by the Apostles. The “office” was not damaged by Judas’ faithlessness to it.

No matter how evil a pope is, even a synod or the college of cardinals could not depose him or recognize him as having abdicated the chair.

Well, no, because just like Judas occupied his office until his death (though he was not deserving of it) the faithlessness of the occupant does not set aside what God has put into place.

I think if you read any Catholic historians on the Popes, it will be clear to you that everyone close to a corrupt bishop recognizes that they have fallen from the faith. Their faithlessness, though, does not undo the office of bishop.

“…if we are faithless, he remains faithful— for he cannot deny himself.” (2 Ti 2:13).

To be sure, I don't believe in scholasticism. So at that I believe the apostolic faith endures and does so by people not messing with it.

And yet, you seem to want to “mess with” Jesus’ structure of the bishopric?

How do you think the apostolic faith should be kept intact? Are you suggesting those who do not walk the talk should be “deposed” or ejected?

I don’t believe we get new ‘revelations’ that we have to believe in or else we go to hell.

This is the Catholic position as well. We believe that public revelation was complete in Christ. Nothing can be added or subtracted to the once for all divine deposit of faith given to the Church.

I don't believe Catholics have apostocized like some protestants do, but I think they add things to the faith that are unnecessary and unuseful.

This is a common perception of those who have been separated from the Sacred Tradition. The difficulty is that these perceived “additions” are present in all those Churches founded by the Apostles. They are not a “Roman” invention.

You make a good point about certain aspects being “unuseful” (Is that a word?). The Truth is that none of us are in a position to determine what is “useful” or not. We have preserved what Jesus gave to the Apostles, even when we could not see the usefulness of it. Now as time has passed, it has become clear why certain things exist that we may not have understood before. For example, the doctrines around the Holy Theotokos that took centuries to promulgate turned out to be a necessary part of clarifying Christology.
There are many mysteries in our faith, but we are not at liberty to jettison those that don’t make sense to us.

Original sin and its successor the immaculate conception are two such examples. From this spawned others like limbo for unbaptized infants.

Do you imagine that the concept of original sin is some kind of Catholic addition?

   5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
  and in sin did my mother conceive me.    (Ps 51:5)

What do you think the Jews believed about it?

Limbo was/is not a teaching of the Church. It was a pious speculation (theological opinion) that is no longer used.

They still have all the essential articled of faith, but they dogmatize matters that ought to be left a mystery.

The once for all Divine Deposit of faith is dogmatized when there is a need. You are right, that things can be left in mystery form (as can be seen by the Eastern Churches where some of these things are not dogmatized, yet still believed). Dogma is a response to heresy.

 

[Sunflake9]

Did you ever ask a ‘serious’ Catholic what Papal Infallibility really means? It means a lot more than just Ex Cathedra. If it’s sooo rare, then what do we need a Pope for??? Believe me, its not nearly as ‘rare’ as you think. Study up on it! God Bless, Memaw

I’m a serious Catholic so let me give you a lesson on this since you don’t seem to understand yourself.

" The dogma of infallibility was formally proclaimed at the First Vatican Council in 1870. There are several requirements for a dogmatic, papal infallible pronouncement: (1) The pronouncement must be made by the lawful successor to Peter. (2) The subject matter must be in the area of faith and morals. (3) The pope must be speaking ex cathedra, that is from the very seat and office of Peter. In this way he must be specifically intending to proclaim a doctrine, binding the entire Church to its assent. If one or more of these elements is missing, there is no infallible pronouncement. Most “examples” of papal “errors” emerge when critics ignore the necessity of these three points. (Madrid, pp. 135-136, Pope Fiction)

There is no set list of ex cathedra teachings, but that’s because there are only two, and both are about Mary: her Immaculate Conception (declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854 and grandfathered in after the First Vatican Council’s declaration of papal infallibility in 1870) and her bodily Assumption into heaven (declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950)

So yes they are very rare. Faith and morals are all he is infallible on.
If you don’t believe me I would suggest asking Patrick Madrid, Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin. I have heard all of them explain this and it’s always the same. Look it up you should really know this stuff.

 

[SteveVH]

I’m a serious Catholic so let me give you a lesson on this since you don’t seem to understand yourself.

" The dogma of infallibility was formally proclaimed at the First Vatican Council in 1870. There are several requirements for a dogmatic, papal infallible pronouncement: (1) The pronouncement must be made by the lawful successor to Peter. (2) The subject matter must be in the area of faith and morals. (3) The pope must be speaking ex cathedra, that is from the very seat and office of Peter. In this way he must be specifically intending to proclaim a doctrine, binding the entire Church to its assent. If one or more of these elements is missing, there is no infallible pronouncement. Most “examples” of papal “errors” emerge when critics ignore the necessity of these three points. (Madrid, pp. 135-136, Pope Fiction)

There is no set list of ex cathedra teachings, but that’s because there are only two, and both are about Mary: her Immaculate Conception (declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854 and grandfathered in after the First Vatican Council’s declaration of papal infallibility in 1870) and her bodily Assumption into heaven (declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950)

So yes they are very rare. Faith and morals are all he is infallible on.
If you don’t believe me I would suggest asking Patrick Madrid, Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin. I have heard all of them explain this and it’s always the same. Look it up you should really know this stuff.

As should you. You have only spoken of infallible Papal Pronouncements.

There is another way in which infallible pronouncements are made as well and that is when
the Pope, together with the bishops in union with him, define a particular teaching at an ecumenical or general council. When any teaching is binding on the whole Church it is an infallible teaching (i.e. solemn definitions made at the Council of Trent on the Mass and the sacraments, as well other important matters).

 

[Contarini]

I suggest you read “Pope Fiction” by Patrick Madrid. Don’t know where you got your Church History but it’s sure different than mine!! Also glad you noted it is “just your personal opinion.” God Bless, Memaw

Perhaps you should read scholarship and not just apologetics.

The only error I saw in her summary was the claim about the Ottomans (I can’t think of a case where a pope personally led troops against the Ottomans, and the Ottomans weren’t at all like modern radical Muslims–they were imperial conquerors with all the arrogance and brutality that goes along with that, but they were hardly “crazy”). Pope Julius II led troops, but not against the Ottomans–mostly against local Italian rulers.

Edwin

 

[Porknpie]

So at that I believe the apostolic faith endures and does so by people not messing with it. I don’t believe we get new ‘revelations’ that we have to believe in …

Convincing reasons above to be Catholic and to have all seven sacraments that Christ gave His Church…and to have a bible with 73 books in it.

New revelations from man tore at apostolic faith ~1,500 years after the apostles faith was handed on to their descendants. Sacraments were reduced in number as were the number of books in the bible.

People messed with it as you rightly point out shouldn’t be done.

PnP

 

[Contarini]

How is my interpretation idolatrous and blasphemous? Accusing a person of blasphemy and idolatry is seriously insulting unless clear evidence is presented.

The view that Jesus was divvying up the universe between God and Caesar, so that people have some duties to God and others to Caesar, as if the two were independent and equal authorities sharing power, is obviously idolatrous and blasphemous. It is one of the most horrible and destructive errors in Christian history.

As for evidence–N.T. Wright and many other modern exegetes have argued (very persuasively in my view) that this interpretation can’t possibly be what Jesus meant, and that He much more likely meant “you belong to God, so what on earth are you doing with pagan Roman coins in the first place?”

Popes in the Middle Ages claimed to be above secular power, and have the right to judge both secular and religious authority, itself being the highest earthly secular and religious authority. This is seriously wrong and the reason why the papacy got so corrupt over the centuries. Thankfully the Roman Catholic Church has reigned in such teaching, this is to their credit.

The “two sword” claim to have temporal authority was a terrible error, I agree. But the basic problem with that was an overly high regard for temporal authority in the first place. It was a disordered response to idolatry.

The magisterial Reformers, on the other hand, went straight back to the idolatry.

Edwin

 

[House_Harkonnen]

The view that Jesus was divvying up the universe between God and Caesar, so that people have some duties to God and others to Caesar, as if the two were independent and equal authorities sharing power, is obviously idolatrous and blasphemous. It is one of the most horrible and destructive errors in Christian history.

As for evidence–N.T. Wright and many other modern exegetes have argued (very persuasively in my view) that this interpretation can’t possibly be what Jesus meant, and that He much more likely meant “you belong to God, so what on earth are you doing with pagan Roman coins in the first place?”

The “two sword” claim to have temporal authority was a terrible error, I agree. But the basic problem with that was an overly high regard for temporal authority in the first place. It was a disordered response to idolatry.

The magisterial Reformers, on the other hand, went straight back to the idolatry.

Edwin

The view that Jesus was divvying up the universe between God and Caesar, so that people have some duties to God and others to Caesar, as if the two were independent and equal authorities sharing power, is obviously idolatrous and blasphemous. It is one of the most horrible and destructive errors in Christian history.

I don’t hold to that view. Where did I say that Caesar and God are two equal authorities?

 

[Sunflake9]

A little better overview of infallibility, IIRC infallibility also applies when a Pope pronounces someone a Saint. Either way he is a whole lot less infallible. It’s just not a. On on set of circumstances.

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility was officially declared to be doctrine by the first Vatican Council (1869-70), but it was recognized from the very beginning of the Church. It’s not like popes run around the Vatican making infallible proclamations. In fact the most recent case of the Pope speaking infallibly, or ex cathedra (Latin for ‘from the chair’) was in 1950 when Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary to be an article of faith which must be believed by all Catholics.

Bishops can also speak ex cathedra, but not all by themselves. All the bishops, speaking in common with the Bishop of Rome may make infallible statements. The best example would be Church councils where the Church speaks with one voice. Infallibility only applies when the Church speaks on matters of faith and morals. When the Bishops are gathered in council and they all agree to order out for pizza, that’s not infallibility, it’s just a bunch of hungry guys.

Here’s what Vatican I said: “Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

Like I said, you can count the number of ex cathedra statements made by all the Popes over the last 2,000 years on your fingers. Well maybe you’ll have to use a couple of toes, but the point stands. Examples of Popes speaking infallibly are few and far between. The last officially acknowledged example being the 1950 declaration of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin.

John Paul II made a pretty definitive statement on the all-male priesthood (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis). But the Church says that he was just restating something that everybody already knew.

This whole concept can get pretty deep, too deep for a short blog post. Suffice it to say that the Pope isn’t immune to making mistakes on every day things. He’s also not incapable of committing sin. But when he says something ex cathedra, we all have to believe it. But remember, it’s been more than 60 years since it happened so it’s not something that’s going to happen every day.

 

[Maranatha33]

The Reformation is not as complex as many have tried to make it seem. First it is important to differentiate between the “Catholic Church” and the “Roman Catholic church.” Catholic Church is better translated as Universal Congregation. In that sense adding “Roman” is actually contradictory in that it specifies a particular branch of followers for a Universal belief system. After the Roman church had Jerome translate the Bible into Latin, the church rules were given through the Magisterium. Over the years, the Roman Church admirably protected the Scriptures, but added and changed their rules, through their own rule book.

The schism took hold for good with Dr, John Wycliffe in the 14th century. “The Morning Star” of the reformation. Considered the greatest philosopher and academic of his day, his studies of the Scriptures led him to discover that the Roman Church had deviated from Biblical Truths. For example, Transubstantiation. It is not Biblical, but was introduced by Pope Innocent III at the 4th Lateran Council of 1215 A.D… Simply put the reformers wanted to live by the Scriptures, and the Roman Catholic Church wants to live by their rules in the Magisterium. The two books are at odds, so one must simply decide which one is God’s Truth.

Luther fanned the flames of the schism by his holding to the verse he found in Romans…

Romans 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”

See also…

Habakkuk 2:4 “Behold the proud, His soul is not upright in him; But the just shall live by his faith.

Galatians 3:11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.”

Hebrew 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith; But if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him.”

The Roman church requires works for salvation. The Bible refutes this…

Isaiah 64:6 All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; (righteous acts = works.)

Ephesians 2:8,9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

This is the real reason for the Reformation.

En Agape…

 

[guanophore]

The Reformation is not as complex as many have tried to make it seem.

Are you going to provide us with a “simple” explanation?

  First it is important to differentiate between the "Catholic Church" and the "Roman Catholic church."  Catholic Church is better translated as Universal Congregation.  In that sense adding "Roman" is actually contradictory in that it specifies a particular branch of followers for a Universal belief system.

While I agree with the point you are trying to make (the CC is not “Roman”) you are beginning from a false premise and arriving at a false conclusion. The whole point of the Apostolic use of the word is that there were no “particular branches”. There was One Church, One Faith. Those who were not Catholic were considered heretics.

After the Roman church had Jerome translate the Bible into Latin, the church rules were given through the Magisterium.

While this is a true statement, it is equally true to say that Church rules were given through the Magisterium BEFORE Jerome’s bible as well. The Church has been governed this way since the Ascension of Christ. We see this at work in the book of Acts with the Council of Jerusalem. The Church governance has functioned the same ever since that time.

Over the years, the Roman Church admirably protected the Scriptures, but added and changed their rules, through their own rule book.

Yes. We have followed the Apostolic command:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.(2 Th 2:15).

Contrary to popular belief, this commandment did not expire when the Holy Scriptures were penned.

The Church founded by Christ is not a “religion of the book”. We do not extract the faith from the pages of the book, we receive the faith from the successors of the Apostles, as we are commanded to do.

The schism took hold for good with Dr, John Wycliffe in the 14th century. “The Morning Star” of the reformation. Considered the greatest philosopher and academic of his day, his studies of the Scriptures led him to discover that the Roman Church had deviated from Biblical Truths. For example, Transubstantiation. It is not Biblical, but was introduced by Pope Innocent III at the 4th Lateran Council of 1215 A.D… Simply put the reformers wanted to live by the Scriptures, and the Roman Catholic Church wants to live by their rules in the Magisterium. The two books are at odds, so one must simply decide which one is God’s Truth.

My dear Maranatha. The NT is a collection of Sacred writings, penned by, for, and about Catholics. Since it was produced by the faith of the Catholic Church, and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, there is nothing in it that contradicts the One Faith handed down to us
from the Apostles. There is nothing about Transubstantiation that is “unbiblical”.

It is commendable when anyone wants to “live by the Scriptures”, but in order to understand them properly they need to be read with the mind of the Church. Reading them apart from the faith that produced them causes errors of interpretation.

Luther fanned the flames of the schism by his holding to the verse he found in Romans…

Romans 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”

See also…

Habakkuk 2:4 “Behold the proud, His soul is not upright in him; But the just shall live by his faith.

Galatians 3:11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.”

Hebrew 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith; But if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him.”

Yes! This is the Catholic faith.

The Roman church requires works for salvation. The Bible refutes this…

Can you show us where you found this in Catholic Teaching? Or is this something your Pastor taught you?

This is the real reason for the Reformation.

En Agape…

It seems that you have a very little understanding of the Reformation, but that is ok. Welcome to the thread.

Perhaps if you hang out here for a while, you will be able to correct the misinformation you have been given about the Catholic faith.

 

[Vanez]

Okay, now changing the subject.

Now how the Protestantism made a continuation of the Early Christian church once today protestant churches disagree in many things?

There are protestant churches who support abortion, others differ in the divinity of Christ, the existence of Hell, salvation and etc. They all claim to interpret the bible correctly and many of them seem faithful christians to me. I mean, they differ not only in secondary points, but I think they differ Which one of the protestants denominations truly continued the Early Christian Church?

Actually, It is not that the church supports abortion and it’s not about the church. You’re responsible of your own acts. The church can forbid this and that because the Bible says this and that, but if the person still wants abortion, it is the church’s fault?? It means the church supports it? It’s that responsible person who sins, anyway.

Well, i dont know what is going on in the USA. Lately i’ve heard there are yet another new denominations, false teachings happen there. I had never heard of those denominations, here in my country. Those new denominations, like watered down Gospel, don’t exist here. Also not Mormonism, Anna-Baptism, Etc i think these things only happen in the usa.

 

[Vanez]

Can you show us where you found this in Catholic Teaching? Or is this something your Pastor taught you?

Hi there,

Salvation is by faith and good deeds. Imagine someone saying “i believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior”, but this person murders, steals, lies, etc.

Lately, i talked to my mom, who is a cradle Protestant, about salvation. She was shocked to know that in Protestantism, salvation is by faith only. She believes that good acts show obedience to whom we all believe (Jesus Christ), the church she goes to, Pentecostal church, believes in salvation by faith and good deeds.

(My mother doesn’t object me entering Catholic church, which i’m glad for).

God bless!

 

[Godspells]

Convincing reasons above to be Catholic and to have all seven sacraments that Christ gave His Church…and to have a bible with 73 books in it.

New revelations from man tore at apostolic faith ~1,500 years after the apostles faith was handed on to their descendants. Sacraments were reduced in number as were the number of books in the bible.

People messed with it as you rightly point out shouldn’t be done.

PnP

To be sure, I believe in the seven sacraments, albeit in a different way than the RCC. As I see it, sacraments are ordinary acts of God, as opposed to extraordinary acts which are miracles. But, as I see it, the sacraments are instituted and ratified by God, not by men. Which is why I believe marriage and baptism need not necessarily be in the Church, and by that line, the other five can also take place outside of the Roman Communion.

However, I also understand the Anglican line of reasoning, that the five sacraments known as ordination, confirmation, marriage, unction and confession were added later into the Church, and even Catholics admit most of these have developed in some capacity over the last 2,000 years.

As with the 73 books, I agree with you, it was a sin of scholasticism to remove the deuterocanon. But, to be sure that was inherited from the Magestrium. In order to replace the Pope, Protestants needed to read the Bible literally, which required them to remove those books in which inspiration was questionable. The thing about the OT is that 39 books is the minimum, but there isn’t a consensus on what the maximum number is.

As you can probably see, I have a bit of an orthodox bias on this matter.