Okay, David. I'm going to respond and tell you what I really think. And I'm going to say it honestly and openly because I trust that you know that I love and respect you as a brother in Christ. And I feel I have to speak the truth in love.
To offer my own paltry £0.02 in that case: the thread seems to have branched off on to a desire to discuss the Lord's Supper on the one hand and accretions on the other (though perhaps the eucharistic teachings are intended to be included among the accretions). I wrote a long time ago that I was very reluctant to enter into a discussion, which could well turn into an argument in the pejorative sense, about the Lord's Supper, as it is, or points us to, the very heart of our faith and our relationship with Christ, and as such is sacred and not a suitable locus for wrangling. You know the range of Protestant theology regarding the Supper; I know your theology about it. There is nowhere further to go on this, and argumentation would not edify either you or me, nor enhance our devotion at the Table itself.
With all due respect and love, personally, I think this is a cop-out. I'm certainly capable of having a respectful discussion about the Eucharist without losing my temper or being disrespectful. I don't need someone else to patronizingly make that determination for me. And if someone else on the board is incapable, forget them! Don't respond!
Regarding other accretions, there are some which, to my mind, are of no deep significance, having no affect on the content of the Faith: styles of worship are one such.
So interpretive dance, praise bands, and fake healings are okay in worship? I don't think so. But I'd love to hear more of why you think this.
There are others which distort the Faith, either by having been added to it or (from your angle) having been pared away from it. Such matters would include Purgatory (on the part of the Roman Catholics), prayer to the saints, prayer for the dead, the whole concept of priesthood as understood by Orthodox and Catholic, infant baptism. Most or all of these are part of Holy Tradition but are not specifically found in the scriptures. It boils down to whether one takes the scriptures as the final and sufficient authority for all matters of faith and practice, or whether one holds to a wider Tradition: for which, see the appropriate threads.
Around and around we go, where we stop, nobody knows...
I'll try again though, in the hopes that someday one of us may say something that "clicks," so that you finally truly hear and understand what we are saying. Because thus far, it doesn't seem to have penetrated, which indicates that there is still more to discuss.
These things are found in the Scriptures. You simply choose not to see them.
Further, you have eliminated the historical context of the Scriptures (meaning the support found in the contemporary Christian writers of the time-- the writers which were accepted by the Christian community-- like our good friend Ignatius, whose icon now resides on the wall above my desk, thanks to our discussions about him. I pray that he intercedes and enlightens us). It's like praising Hitler for whatever scientific discoveries he may have made regarding the human body and ignoring the fact that they were made via experiments done on Jews whom he also killed during that little event known as the HOLOCAUST! Historical context. Important. By eliminating it, you are left to interpret the Scriptures as you see fit, as your "heart" guides you, or as any writer whom you feeel is inspiring guides you. This is the path that leads to error and heresy.
Put it this way. Even after the almost two years we have been discussing, I still simply don't understand. I don't understand how one can just flat out deny the historical teachings of the Church as if they don't exist! I don't understand how one can just ignore what the Church taught in the first millenium of Her existence as though it doesn't matter, and just make up what one wants to follow instead and call it Christianity! I simply don't understand how one can deny the words of a writer who has been historically proven to be a student of one of the twelve (not to mention a leader in the early Church who everyone back then accepted as knowing what the blazes he was talking about), and just pretend that he was a crackpot who didn't know what he was talking about, and instead follow someone who came 1500 years later and had NO connection with the apostles who teaches something RADICALLY different! I just don't get it. I just don't understand how one can willlingly follow a methodology of doing theology which leads to the likes of Mormons and JW's (please note, I said the METHODOLOGY, I'm not comparing the actual theology of Protestants to that of Mormon's and JW's). The methodology is the same-- discard the historical, traditional teachings of the Church which are proven to go back all the way to the apostles themselves, in favor of another interpretation, a novel interpretation, your own interpretation, your own way. Same methodology. And bad methodology equals bad results.
So I guess for me, there's still lots to discuss. Cause I just don't get it. Sorry if I sound so cynical. My husband is out of town and there has been little sleep in our house the past two nights. My nice filters are down today.