What are the practical implications of a two-sacrament view vs. a seven-sacrament view?
I find it a little strange that despite the vast amount of debate between Catholics and Protestants on this question, and of course the similarly vast amount of debate between Anglicans leaning towards the former and the latter, there doesn't seem to be a lot of ink spilled about why the argument even matters. Certainly I can understand the Protestant view, as put forth by the Articles, that sacraments (or at least, "sacraments of the Gospel") must have some "visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." And I can also understand the Catholic view, with a more expansive rubric for determining what counts as an appointed sign. But why does any of this matter?
I don't want to get distracted by discussions about Penance and Unction, since two-sacramenters will often have very different takes on these compared to seven-sacramenters, but it seems to me that the distinction becomes a lot finer when we come to the remaining three. Regarding these, I think we can find no shortage of High Church writers who would regard themselves as being staunchly Protestant, and would staunchly insist that there are only two sacraments and that Confirmation, Matrimony, and Orders are merely "ordinances," but would also agree with Rome on pretty much all the important points about them. In fact they would arguably have an even higher view of Confirmation than Rome does, as they would insist it can only ever be performed by a bishop.