The Ecumenical Council of Trent has infallibly decreed the Holy Bible contains 73 books and their names, but the Holy Mother the Church teaches that there are Christians outside of full Communion with the visible sign of Church unity, his Holiness the Bishop of Rome, that still continue to have Apostolic foundation and valid Sacraments, also having more books in their Biblical canon than the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the interest of healing schism and reuniting the Body of Christ, I propose that the content of those extra books be added, but the number and names of the canonical books remain the same. This can be done by appending the extra content of those books to already established canonical books, taking the example of how the Prayer of Mannases is appended to the Second Book of Paralipomenon (or Chronicles) in many Eastern Ecclesial Communities. Furthermore, I recommend that the Third and Fourth Books of Esdras be appended to the First Book of Esdras (or Ezra) as the content is more similar than the Second Book of Esdras (or Nehemias) - the text of this amalgamation will not exceed the Book of Genesis - that the Third and Fourth Books of Machabees be appended to the Books of First and Second Machabees respectively because the latter of the former pair treats with the latter of the latter pair and the former of the former pair treats with an event on a later date that the latter of the former pair as the former of the latter pair covers more time and exceeds in time than the latter of the latter pair, and also the appending of the contents of Psalm 151 to Psalm 150 pursuant to the canonical decree that the Psalter possess 150 Psalms.What is your opinion of this proposal?
>>18510184>here are Christians outside of full Communion with the visible sign of Church unityThat is wrong, it was declared as heresy in the Council of Florence 400 years before the council of TrentAlso Paul IV Bull reinforce the idea that heretics aka non-Catholics are outside the Church
>>18510189Wasn’t Florence just around the Fall of Constantinople of 1453?
My opinion is that you are bolder than the pharisees, who did not so freely add to God’s word as you do
>>18510189The Catholic Church, to my knowledge, has never taught that the eastern Orthodox do not have the sacraments.In fact, St Augustine wrote about the Donatists who were not in communion with Rome that they had the sacraments.Your heresy of Feenyism is really out of step with the proper understanding of sacramental character and the indelible marks on the soul of those who receive them.If the east did not actually have apostolic succession, Florence would have been completely meaningless.You can't reconcile with those who are deprived of apostolic succession in the first place, schism exists definitionally within the framework of both parties being actually apostolic. Even if one of them only has licit jurisdiction, the validity of their sacraments isn't up for debate it you're trying to reconcile.This is why it's not proper to say Protestants are in "schism". They were never part of the apostolic church in the first place, do not have succession.
>>18510656What does the word “apostolic” mean when papists use it? Apparently, it does not mean that it has something to do with the apostles, and it is unnecessary for it to have any remote connection to them. Does it just mean that so and so has a tall funny hat? Is that what it means to be “apostolic” in the papist sense?
