Do you think the canons of Nicaea bears a resemblance to 1 Cor 5?
The Canons of Nicea are to do with management of the early church. The RCC doesn't operate under those canons, but according to the doctrines in the Council of Trent and afterwards.
Are you stating that belief in the Trinity is a non-essential?
You said "The 'T'rinity" which can only mean the RCC Trinity as philosophically formulated.
Qualifications in philosophy were never essential. Trinity is philosophy. Did you know that the philosophical Trinity wasn't defended until 3rd century AD by Tertullian in "Against Praxeas"?
"Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" 1 Cor 1:20.
Are you implying you need qualifications in philosophy for faith?
DId you know that Justin Martyr in the second century AD was the first to describe the Son and Father as the same "being" (ousia) and yet are also distinct faces (prosopa), anticipating the three persons (hypostases) that come with Tertullian and later authors."
So by your reckoning every "Christian" in the first hundred years after Christ had no faith, or had an imperfect and heretical faith, just because they had never conceptually formulated the philosophical Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit resplendent in the same 'ousia'?
Tell me, why do you suppose the church grew fastest when unhindered by philosophy? And when it became hindered by its own philosophy, it then had to turn to Mahometan techniques of conversion by employing the sword?
I see no non-essential views that currently divide Protestants listed above. Where are the verses on church governance as a non-essential? Where are the verses on eschatology as non-essential? How about Calvinism vs Arminianism? As far as the Eucharist goes, the Church has had a consistent view on Christ's presence that does not allow for the denial of it to be a "personal belief."
As for Christ's presence: "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matt 18:20. What's that got to do with one's views on the Eucharist? Why is the RCC anathematizing those who take a different position? I tell you why: they detract from the sacremental power of the priest and his power to own his congregation rather than captivate them by the spirit.
Calvinism vs Arminianism is again an interminable philosophical dispute about how God operates: God is greater that either, because God is greater than human philosophy.
Again, Jewish ritual is not an issue among Protestants. Also, the Church since the beginning has viewed these days in light of the 4th Commandment.
So, by this reasoning I can pick any wealthy Protestant church and be just as uncharitable.... Also, are you familiar with the one greatest charitable institution on early? Here is a hint: the Catholic Church.
You can be as uncharitable as you like to Protestant denominations for Pro 26:2 "Like a fluttering sparrow or a darting swallow, an undeserved curse does not come to rest."
The point is whether the critique is justifiable. In this day, many large denominations are critiquable for many reasons.
Sorry, I think this was a typo on the part of the person I was originally replying to.
Do you consider it a crutch to ask your Christian friends and pastor to pray for you?
Do you think you will die holy?
'Tis my aim but also God's will.
God can make holy anything He wants, even you. 1 Corinthians 2:2.
Sure. But he doesn't do magic by virtue of fallacies like purgatory and prayers for the dead. It must happen in this life, even if only as the thief on the cross.
Second Council of Nicaea.
The phrase "bind and loose" is commonly misunderstood. Many suppose it is about sin. But in fact its Jewish legal phraseology meaning to declare something forbidden or to declare it allowed.
Unfortunately for the RCC, the Petrine keys were not delivered to it. There is no doctrine in the bible about that. The rules of the RCC are its own rules, and not the rules of Peter or of heaven.