We partly agree and partly disagree.
I used to be a Prottie.
So I get the idea of faith in Christ alone, no idols, etc.
But there is a difference in attitudes towards relics.
Some might believe actual power resides in the relic itself.
Recall Elijah’s staff, Peter’s shadow, or handkerchief/clothes/whatever Peter had touched.
Or the woman with a flow of blood touching the hem of Jesus’s garment.
The power is ultimately from God.
Do we know the mechanism by which the object acquires/retains the power to heal?
In some cases, it is the faith of the sick person; other times it is instructions by the prophet with the recipient not knowing.
Or,considered as an aid to faith.
The problem is English is a sloppy language. Does “aid to faith” mean, “I’m such a wuss I can’t believe all those old stories without attendant historical artifacts surviving until the present day” or might it mean, it makes it more relatable, or a present reminder, like a photo of the wife and kids on your desk, “till I can come home and see them again?”
Or is it yet a third thing, just as a baseball glove used by Nolan Ryan, gaining status from association with someone so great, only in this case much more so?
Only in the first of these cases can I see being attracted to a relic as a sign of weak faith.
It all boils down to the individual. What is one man’s sacred relic may be another man’s toothpick. Both are valuable to the respective beholder, for their respective reasons, and neither is more right — or more wrong — than the other.
Another example:
There are some cultures that see cows as being sacred, and the reincarnation of, say, their grandmother. I see that cow, and what I see is steak on the hoof.
Now, if I’m wrong, I’ll get my ears boxed in the afterlife. But, if he’s wrong, he can starve in this one.
Who is right? As a belief, both.