Am I to assume that you don't and wouldn't ask another Christian to pray for you... even though Sacred Scripture recommends doing so?
That is not the issue, and it is deceptive to make it so, for the issue is that of praying, including mentally, to unseen beings in the spiritual world of Heaven - which only God is the immediate object of in Scripture - and of presuming that created beings have both the function and power to hear virtually unlimited prayers from earth that are addressed to them, and respond to, which position and power only God is show to have in Scripture.
Elders and angels offering up prayers as a memorial before the final judgements will not provide what you can only wish Scripture did, it, and two-way communication btwn created beings in Scripture required both to somehow be in the same realm, versus praying to invisible beings in Heaven.
And thus it is arrogant and supremely presumptuous to presume prayer to created beings in Heaven is of God, and a practice of at least the NT church, when the Holy Spirit only provides approx 200
prayers in Scripture to God in Heaven, and none to anyone else except by pagans, and instructs believers to pray God in Heaven, and never to anyone else.
In addition to which is the manner which such prayer can extend to.
One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods).
Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing
word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.
Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her.
Can't you tell the difference?
Also, it's a bit hard to believe that the Church Fathers universally fell into error the instant the final surviving apostle breathed his last.
Which is another misrepresentation of the argument, for i never argued this, but that errors can grow in a short time is easily seen, as the apostles themselves reacted to such. Paul did not affirm ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility but warned that after his departing, even among the pastors, men would arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:29-30)
As regards universality, we have nothing remotely close to what all so-called early "Church Fathers' universally believed, especially in early 2nd century, including on the Lord's supper. And from the maybe 3 early 2nd century ECFS which Caths invoke on this we also have other errors. Martyr being one who even taught contrary to Catholicism, while that the Didache spoke of they held to was Eucharistic thelogy is subject to dispute.
And thus what we must do is what the noble Bereans did, that of ascertaining the veracity of Truth claims in the light of the only wholly inspired substantive body of Truth, the Scriptures. And the fact that nowhere in the life of the NT church you do not find what these so-called church fathers distinctively said about the Lord's supper, despite is central and critical importance in Catholic theology, and in contrast to how the apostles taught on issues of central and critical importance, testifies to the Cath Eucharist being a latter development, which is easily a result of a literalistic (as opposes to purely literal) interpretation by the natural man.
Seriously? NOBODY held onto right doctrine starting late in the first century??
Seriously? NOBODY held onto right doctrine? That is simply more misrepresentation and presumption, for we are not dealing with such Truths as the Apostles Creed professes, but one belief among others which a person may hold and yet have saving faith, while we do not know what everyone believed.
Because they all believed the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Our Lord. So if that belief is in error, it must have come into the Church very early on and been accepted by everyone.
We do not know what all believed, but that post-apostolic principal figures erroneously held to a literalistic interpretation is not in dispute.
Inspired or not, the writings of the Church Fathers show us what was normative practice and doctrine in their time. Rejecting those things because it doesn't seem to line up with your abbreviated Bible seems a bit presumptuous.
What? You mean that you subject the Scriptures to uninspired men who could differ with each other, and with Scripture, and even with Catholicism? And you think I am presumptuous? Orthodox Judaism does the like. Comparing Catholicism with the NT church does reveal that deformation did progressively become normative practice and doctrine as the former went on, though not to the degree that souls could ot be saved, if if be a relative remnant.
But as the church began with God raising up itinerant preachers follow a Preacher, whom the historical magisterium rejected, so the Lord preserved Truth by doing so later, if not a perfectly as the original.
