I am always amazed that Catholics think that non-Catholics only trust Catholic sources as if "That is a given".
What is up with that?
------==============================
Turns out - that after the reformation was getting started - there was a Council of Trent meeting where the RCC tried to shore up the holes in the leaky Catholic confederation - so the ship could right-itself and prevent more hemorrhaging. They made some good changes but one of the interesting exchanges at that council was one where a majority vote was going in a direction that favored sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and not giving tradition equal or greater weight than the Bible.
The argument was that the protesting Catholics probably had this right - and the church could put a stop to the protest - simply by adopting a sola scriptura model instead of an almost sola-tradition one that was currently driving the ship into left field.
They apparently were about to "Do the deal" in favor of "sola scriptura" when the archbishop of Reggio reminded them that the protesting Catholics themselves had already rejected "Sola Scriptura" in practice. His proof was that the Protestants in their Augsburg Confession bring up the subject of the RCC (the confession calls them "Romanists") changing one of the Ten Commandments solely based on tradition -- no matter what the Bible said to the contrary. It was pointed out that the Augsburg Confession freely admitted that to instance of tossing out the Bible in favor of "tradition-instead" and yet chose to side with tradition and not the Bible. It was tantamount to a confession by Protestants that sola scriptura was not to be fully adopted not even by the protesting Catholics.
On that point - the entire council of Trent abandoned the sola scriptura proposal and in fact united against it.
===========
I am talking about historic facts - public documents
Augsburg Confession Article 28 - as pointed out by Archbishop of Reggio -
Part 2 - The Bishop’s Power to Introduce New Ceremonies
Lines 30-33: The Romanist arguments concerning the right of bishops to introduce new ceremonies and regulations. As evidence that bishops do have such power the Romanist offer the matter of the Sabbath, which they say, the church changed from Saturday to Sunday.
The Faith Explained - (Commentary on the Baltimore Catechism - after Vatican II)
http://www.bible-sabbath.com 3
(from "The Faith Explained" page 243
"we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day- which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident
...
The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...
..
nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church
=============== Archbiship Reggio's argument =================
, G.E. Fifield, D.D., in his incomparable tract, Origin of Sunday as a Christian (?) Festival (Published by American Sabbath Tract Society, Seventh Day Baptist Church). To quote Dr. Fifield: "At the council of Trent, called by the Roman Church to deal with questions arising out of the reformation, it was at first an apparent possibility that the Council would declare in favor of the reformed doctrines instead of against them, so profound was the impression made thus far by the teachings of Luther and other reformers."The Pope’s legate actually wrote to him that there was "strong tendency to set aside tradition altogether, and to make the Scriptures the sole standard of appeal."
The question was debated day by day, until it was fairly brought to a standstill. Finally the Archbishop of Reggio turned the Council against the Reformation by the following argument:
"The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only: they profess to hold the Scriptures alone as the standard of faith. They justify their revolt by the plea that the Church has apostatized from the written word and follows tradition. Now the Protestant’s claim that they stand upon the written word alone is not true."
Their profession of holding the Scriptures alone as the standard of faith is false. Proof: The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they truly hold the Scriptures alone as the standard, they would be observing the seventh day as it is enjoined in the Scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath as enjoined in the written word, but they have adopted, and do practice, the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the (Catholic) Church."Consequently, the claim of Scripture alone as the standard fails and the doctrine of ‘Scripture and tradition as essential’ is fully established., the Protestants themselves being judges.
"See the Proceedings of the Council of Trent, Augsburg confession, and Encyclopedia Britannica, article "Trent, Council of." At this argument, the party that had stood for the Scripture alone surrendered, and the Council at once unanimously condemned Protestantism, and the whole Reformation. It at once proceeded to enact stringent decrees to arrest its progress
============================== added explanation per post below ===============
