I believe Albion's reference to sameness for the reasons he accepts books of Scripture is referring to the evidential basis for them doing so, while you are referring to the basis of authority.
Which brings us back to the unanswered questions asked of you. For no matter how many times you list "prayer, faith, and to a lesser extent, reason" as the basis for believing in Scripture, what a RC believes is that Sacred Scripture and and Sacred Tradition are what the Catholic Church teaches, and thus you have the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is the basis for your position on Oral T and the canon, etc.
And thus faith in the magisterial authority it must be dealt with. And thus you were
faced with the problem of the Catholic denial that a soul "cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities," and thus in seeking to convert souls the appeal cannot be made to Scripture in order to provide support for submission to Rome, but the appeal is made to Scripture "merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration," by which the convert (hopefully) will place submissive faith in the church of Rome as God's supreme instrument on earth to lead and guide him/her.
Meaning the seeker is unable to know the Bible is of God but he can know Rome is by appeal to Scripture merely as a reliable historical document. After which, as
shown you, all the convert is to basically do is submit his judgment and conform his beliefs "to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”
But which presents a problem when there is appeal to those who actually do believe in Scripture as the word of God but who do not see Catholic distinctives of oral traditions in
manifest in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels) Scripture, but critical contrast with the NT church. Thus the often argument by RCs then we need to let Rome tell us what Scripture is since she was the magisterial steward of and authority on it. But which argument effectively invalidates the NT church.
And since what Catholicism says on the Lord Jesus, Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition is all authoritative and important, then it is important to know the scope and details of this, and thus you were
faced with the answered questions regarding this.
A SS type Bible Christian is just as free, or typically less free too accept or reject any book as Sacred Scripture according to his own judgment as a typical Catholic is. Meaning since hardly any Protestant churches hold to a different one than the
66 book canon if much less in evangelical ones, then nonconformists on this will typically face rejection from his brethren and church, though this is less likely in your typical RC church, along with other variant beliefs. Liberals - which Trad. RCs consider even your pope to be - are far more likely to feel at home as a Catholic than in what RC apologists call evangelical, Bible Christians or Fundamentalists. By their own
attestation.
I do not know if Ted Kennedy-type RCs hold to all 73 Catholic books as Scripture, but it is certain they do not hold them as overall authoritative for all their beliefs, but whom Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death anyway.
But the 66 book Prot. canon has been established as authoritative like as a smaller canon had been by the time of Christ, as seen by the
abundant appeal to writings of it as authoritative.
