The veneration of Mary started in the 4th century. Lighting candles for the dead started in the 4th-5th century. Cardinals came about in the 8th century. Holy water started in the 9th century. Vernation of saints started in the 10th century. Confessing to a priest started in the 11th century. The belief in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist started in the 12th century. Roseries started in the 13th century. That's just the few things I know of off the top of my head and looked up.
I supported my positions primarily with Scripture-and
also mentioned that historical church teachings, conciliar decrees, and ECFs support them as well. I believe you agreed that Scripture could be used in support of both sides of the issues brought up on this thread but still thought it appropriate to show variant translations of
one passage I’ve referred to even though it didn’t serve to demonstrate your point very well at the end of the day IMO. But it did help to highlight one important truth: Scripture, alone (me and my bible), is not a reliable means by which to know the Christian faith or God’s will, IOW, in its fullness. There will always be an argument against virtually any position based on Scripture alone, and often times the varying arguments are quite
plausible. This thread, itself, testifies to this fact with Sola Scriptura adherents in sharp disagreement on relevant matters.
When I mentioned the fact that both the eastern and western ancient churches also rely in one manner or another on the tradition that was handed down from the beginning you’ve sought to denigrate that idea, although you also acknowledge that many Protestants continue to value at least certain teachings coming from the historical legacy of the church: the creeds, the canon of Scripture (the NT, at least), the doctrine of the Trinity, the continued obligation to obey the commandments, baptismal regeneration etc, might be some common examples. Some of the examples you listed in post #1128 have to do with
practices, which are subject to change, and not with dogma or doctrine concerning faith and morals and therefore nothing to do with salvation or the doctrine of infallibility. Others, OTOH,
do pertain, and I’d admit that one or two may even be imperfectly settled for me. Either way you've managed to cast doubt on both, Scripture and Tradition, it seems.
And while I understand the Reformer’s need or desire in any case to disassociate the authority to know and proclaim the true faith from the hands of the Church -so they might propose their own Scripture only-based alternatives, the lack of anchoring to the past that this opens the door to has caused more confusion within Christianity than anything else-and I gradually came to see the fault with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and at some point could no longer depend on the bible, alone, to speak clearly on all relevant matters of the faith. The church was necessary to fill that role, understanding the faith from the perspective of both Scripture and her Tradition. Otherwise, we can’t really know.
And this means that my semi-peasant, semi-literate grandmother, long deceased, from the foothills of the Italian Alps could have one of the simplest and most beautiful faiths I’ve witnessed, based on the teachings of the church. Some people have heard and believed and acted well on those beliefs, producing fruit, while others have not. And the majority of people have arguably been illiterate during most of the centuries since Christ, let alone not being fervent bible students.
Anyway, if you wish to address specific aspects of the doctrine on Tradition and/or infallibility I'd recommend starting a new thread-were straying far off topic and it could end up with another 1000+ posts of its own.
