Your failure to see that is consistent with the problem. Amazing so many stand in unity, affirming the same creed and singing the same songs that makes them an enemy of those who add to Scripture as well as who deny it, while allowing limited disagreement in other issues. But people dispute what the Constitutions means as well.
Big deal. The Mormon choir is spectacular as well. My point being that there are just as many who stand in unison to dispute the conclusions of the people of your creed, for example, the Protestsnts. Are they any less faithful? And compared to the Catholics, they have added and removed books from their bibles, too, just as the former chose by committee to do the same, centuries prior.
It is you who fail to see that the problem can be with humans, who will interpret things contrary to even the most obvious intent of the writers. Thus pornography and sodomy is held as constitutional.
My point being that there are just as many who stand in unison to dispute the conclusions of the people of your creed, for example, the Protestsnts.
Indeed there is dispute, as this is a test, for while in many things there can be limited disagreement, the real division in the major ones overall is usually due to the exaltation of men as incontestable authorities, and or another source held as equal to Scripture.
Do you really think prayer to departed saints is exampled or taught in Scripture? (You misinterpreted me as being a Catholic.) Or that God has wives?
And compared to the Catholics, they have added and removed books from their bibles, too, just as the former chose by committee to do the same, centuries prior.
While the canon was generally settled in Catholicism, it was only after Luther's death that it was indisputably settled, and he has ancient and current support for rejecting apocryphal books.
And which are relatively obscure, more so if they were not read in Mass, while the enduring popularity of our 66 books is due to their power among the living. Classics are not by decree.
Good night.