Then at least 1700 years of Christians around the globe all got it wrong
Closer to 1600 years, and being the some form of baptist has existed for the last 500 years, and you have 1100 years of 99% paedo-baptism, closer to half the history of the church. But nice job exaggerating!
...and God allowed his entire Church to be plunged into error regarding the central sacrament by which we enter into the fellowship of the Church.
I know you say this with sarcasm, but you have a serious underriding presumption: that God would protect the institutional Church from all error for all time. However, this is not true, and if your underriding presumption is wrong it throws everything built upon it into question.
For example, for the first full 200 years of the church, all we have recorded is either the baptism of believers, or warning against baptizing children. We even have a list of baptism instructions (the Didache) that goes into detail what to do if there isn't enough "running water," yet contains no such directions about handling infants. Plus, we have doctors of the Church for the first 400 years, who had Christian parents, yet they were unbaptized as children.
So, we have the first 200 years where there is only an argument of silence in favor of paedobaptism, while there is
actual historical evidence that it was not practiced and discouraged.
Then, we have the next 200 or even 300 years where the practice was in question as it grew increasingly widespread.
So, for the first four, or even five centuries of Christianity, where every essential Christological and soteriological doctrine was expounded upon, they just happened to have baptism all wrong?
What's easier to believe, that the early church had it wrong for 400 years or so when it got all the important stuff right, or that baptism was got all wrong with a bunch of other stuff that didn't exist for the first 400 years (Mariology, icon worship, purgatory, and other widespread unbiblical doctrines.)
There's a very compelling historical argument here. I just can't ignore it.
Which would be a major victory for God's guidance over his people, except that just as he was recovering truth about one sacrament, God simultaneously allowed the Baptists to get their doctrine of the Eucharist completely wrong.
Yes, but GOd allowed his church by your own definition to get baptism wrong for over 400 years. Why wouldn't that be just as jaw dropping?
Then what I just said above still applies.
Actually, it doesn't, it has to do with tolerance. Christians shouldn't be breaking communion over doctrines that don't save people. You can argue that the Real Presence is one of them, but baptism is definitely not, or the whole early church is in jeopardy by your standards.
Now, if it happens that paedobaptism
is the correct practice, then the same Church that was right on the real presence, the Trinity, Christology and a host of other key issues, also was right about the central rite by which one becomes Christian at all? What are the odds?
If it is, but the more compelling argument from the Bible and tradition is that it's not. Then, we have other doctrines which by your own admission don't make a ton of sense, but because the other stuff is right they gotta be right. Now, if you think certain doctrines are clearly wrong and opposed to tradition (i.e. baptism) it is easy to see how the idea that the institution is always right all the time just doesn't fly, especially when by your own admission the institution got things wrong.
The basis is God's promise to guide his Church into truth and not to let it fall away.
God, in His wisdom, just let the true Church to screw up baptism for its first few centuries of existence, meaning 20 generations or so of people died with this central doctrine messed up.
Maybe, the way God guides His church is not as neat and tidy as you would like it to be, and the way He does it holds a lot more mystery than you may be comfortable with.
Combined with the basis that there is no notable opposition to such things as real presence
True.
False. Tertullian opposed it in one of his orthodox works AND the practice was not wide spread for centuries, by your own admission.
prayers for the dead, prayers to saints,
Find an earl;y prayer for the dead from the first five centuries of the church that is akin o the prayers to Saints, Mary and etcetera.
liturgical calendars, observance of holy days, and the like
You mean the same church that was split over the day to celebrate Easter?
Wow, your statement about the Church having
no disagreement about aq list of stuff only to find only one thing on that list actually applies, is pretty sad. I don't want to be disrespectful, but you need to withdraw this point.
So I'll ask again, can you give me the rough date and time when the Church ceased to be the Church?
I already answered this, there wasn't a date, though I would say by the seventh or eigth century you can probably make an argument for it, I just don't know enough about the history of ancestor veneration and such. It could very well be almost 1,000 years if not deeper into the Middle Ages.
And if that didn't happen, why NOT be in communion with the same Church today?
Because they would reject us.
And explain also, how are you NOT setting yourself up as the standard against which all of the Church, ancient and modern, is to be judged for its orthodoxy?
This is your best argument and I don't have a good answer. All I can say is if reasonable people can agree about the obvious (what the church teaches now is not what they taught then), then it wouldn't be just me in this conversation.
Then again, this is a thread on Calvinism and Orthodox in dialogue, and it appears that we agree that ultimately God has control over the measure of faith each of us have. So, we may strive, but apart from grace we are in error. God guides us all in the truth, but not perfect truth.