They would not have recognized the Roman Catholic Mary.
They would not recognize the apparitions claiming to be Mary and promising avoidance of the hell-fire by wearing a piece of cloth or being "devoted" to it.
They would not recognize the papacy and all of the ostentatious outfits and processions of Rome.
There are plenty more examples but these suffice to illustrate my point that Roman Catholicism was not practiced in the early church.
I refer you to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts: "It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us . . ."
Yes....the Spirit leading individuals....just as noted.
>> It's basically the same question I asked you earlier about how can you read Scripture and begin to understand it unless Rome tells you what it means....and that will only involve a handful of verses.<<
What nonsense! Accepting the authority of Church teaching does not mean that one must put aside one's own reasoning.
Yet that is the sense I have gathered from your fellow Roman Catholics on these issues....that you can only go with what "mother church" has ruled upon.
How often do you refer to another verse in the Bible to help you understand it?
Yes...in Bible study that is part of exegesis.
It is the same with our use of Tradition. Just as I would rely on other verses in the Bible to help understand a passage, I accept Church teaching in aiding my understanding of the Bible. This does not mean, as you have implied, that I must wait for a church definition of each and every verse before I can know what it means.
Yet your problem arises from the many contradictory writings of the fallible ECFs.
Which one(s) are the one(s) you're supposed to lean upon?
How do you personally know....unless your denomination tells you?
Roman Catholics have long accused us Christians of YOPIOS....there was even one of your members who used to post a cereal box with that as the title.
Yet here you admit to doing the very thing Roman Catholics condemn us for. Do you see the irony on this?
I'll post more of a reply on Justin later tonight.
There you go and show your misunderstanding of the relationship of Tradition to the early Church Fathers. It is the Church that is infallible, not the individual Fathers. Yes, individual Fathers can disagree with one another, but when seeking what the early church believed, the rule is to look for the consensus of the Fathers.
Yes....the Spirit leading individuals....just as noted.
No, it was not just individuals but the gathered apostles and presbyters, i.e. the pastors in council teaching in the name of the Church. That same Holy Spirit remains with the Church, just as our Lord promised.