No. Sorry. You are rewriting history here. Trent is in a line of Councils. You make it sound like Catholic Church started at Trent, which is anachronistic.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.
Do you deny the Trinity is valid?You said "The 'T'rinity" which can only mean the RCC Trinity as philosophically formulated.
I grant that Christian thinkers grow in understanding on truths that were known in part by earlier Christians. A tree goes through different phases of growth, from acorn to fully grown tree. In all phases it is still a tree.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"?
I am explicitly stating that philosophical language was needed to help define orthodox concepts, like the the Trinity."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?
I have no issue with this. See my comments above. Justin was a trained philosopher who used his knowledge to assist in the development of a proper understanding of the nature of Jesus.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."
No, they had a faith, but not a fully actuate understanding of the Trinity and nature of God. Once this was defined in Nicaea and Constantinople, understanding was achieved and all discussions ceased.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'?
I deny this whole statement as anything near to what happened in the early Church. Where are your historical sources?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?
No. See the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and his condemnation of docetism.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.
“They [heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered four our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes” (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Symrnaeans Ch. VII).
Are you against philosophy?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.
But why should I buy your critique?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.
Again, why should I buy your view on these things?No
'Tis my aim but also God's will.
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.
The early Church disagrees with you.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.
Again, per the OP, why should I buy your views on this?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.