Early Christians did, though, in all the churches founded by Apostles. It’s part of the Apostolic teaching. St. Paul told St. Timothy that all of Scripture is useful for instruction, and the Septuagint -—their Scripture -—made it clear to them that those in heaven prayed for them.
As well, St Paul exhorted his converts frequently to hold fast to the traditions (not any-old-traditions, but Apostolic Traditions -— we’d give them a capital “T”) and to follow their oral teaching, as well as their practical example. As you know, the Church had liturgies (approved forms of public prayer), creeds, catechisms like the Didache, and bishops’ homilies to draw upon, for many generations before they had winnowed out all the extant writings and approved the canon of the New Testament.
So it was obvious to them that they should go the successors of their Apostolic founders for guidance. Logically and chronologically, the practice of the Church preceded the canonization of the texts.
They knew, too, that Jesus had promised this authority to the Church, against which the gates of hell would not prevail.
No...they did not pray to departed believers.
If that had been part of the "Tradition" Roman Catholicism claims was passed on Paul would have written that in at least one of his writings. That he didn't is telling.
But I do agree with the appeal to Scripture as authority!
As well, St Paul exhorted his converts frequently to hold fast to the traditions (not any-old-traditions, but Apostolic Traditions -— we’d give them a capital “T”) and to follow their oral teaching, as well as their practical example.
Paul used the word tradition three times in the affirmative and two were in 2 Thessalonians. I wouldn't call that frequently.
The entire NT uses it only 13 times with 10 in the negative.
A word study of tradition shows the historical traditions of the Jews were discarded by Jesus and Paul.
As you know, the Church had liturgies (approved forms of public prayer), creeds, catechisms like the Didache, and bishops’ homilies to draw upon, for many generations before they had winnowed out all the extant writings and approved the canon of the New Testament.
The NT church had no such "approved prayers" as seen in Roman Catholicism today. Certainly no prayers to Mary or the departed saints. No prayers to Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, etc.
The Didache is so riddled with contrary teachings of the NT it is almost laughable it is appealed to.
What the Roman Catholic cannot produce, though it has been requested, are the exact things Paul or the other Apostles are said to have "passed down".
We know it wasn't the Assumption of Mary.
We know it wasn't the papacy for that didn't come into existence until the 4th century...some suggest the 5th.
It wasn't the Mass as practiced by Roman Catholicism today as Rome's own sources admit they don't know how it originated.
Roman Catholicism cannot claim what they are doing today is what the Apostles did ...or for that matter was "handed down".
The origin of the Roman Mass, on the other hand, is a most difficult question, We have here two fixed and certain data: the Liturgy in Greek described by St. Justin Martyr (d. c. 165), which is that of the Church of Rome in the second century, and, at the other end of the development, the Liturgy of the first Roman Sacramentaries in Latin, in about the sixth century.
The two are very different.
Justin's account represents a rite of what we should now call an Eastern type, corresponding with remarkable exactness to that of the Apostolic Constitutions (see LITURGY). The Leonine and Gelasian Sacramentaries show us what is practically our present Roman Mass.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09790b.htm
How did the service change from the one to the other if it were "handed down" from one Apostle to another????
Kinda wipes out your appeal to "Tradition".
Like many other thing that have been shown you in refutation yet you simply ignore and post your propaganda again, nowhere in Scripture did anyone but pagans pray to anyone else in Heaven except God, despite the Holy Spirit's descriptiveness, and inspiring approx. 200 prayers in Scripture, and despite teaching much about access to God and intercession (as in Hebrews) and despite instruction on who to pray to, and despite there always being plenty of heavenly beings to pray to.
Nor does Scripture actually teach that those in heaven prayed for those on earth, though even doing so does not translate into them being prayed to.
As well, St Paul exhorted his converts frequently to hold fast to the traditions
Out of which Caths imagine they can extrapolate a basis for Rome teaching all sorts of traditions not seen in Scripture. However there is nothing in such admonitions to keep traditions that even infers that these traditions refer to teachings that were not written elsewhere or would be, and the manifest fact that writing was God's chosen means of sure preservation (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Ps. 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Lk. 24:44,45; Acts 17:11) indicates such would be.
Moreover, SS preachers can also enjoin obedience to oral teaching under the premise that it be Scriptural, as was the case with apostolic preaching. Yet men such as the apostles could also speak as wholly inspired of God, and provide new revelation, which neither SS preachers nor pope claim to do.
Requiring submission to wholly inspired preaching which is even subject to testing by Scripture is simply not the same thing as ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility whereby something like the Assumption must be believed, even though it was so lacking in even early historical testimony that (Ratzingers attested) Roman scholars disallowed it as being apostolic tradition .
As you also have been showed. But Catholicism uses "tradition" to support her tradition that tradition is the word of God whenever she says it is. But which is no more true than it is for Judaism, which also invokes it.
So it was obvious to them that they should go the successors of their Apostolic founders for guidance.
here were no manifest apostolic successors voted for after Matthias was chosen for Judas (even though James was martyred: Acts 12:1,2), which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33)
Rome's so-called apostolic successors even fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12)
They knew, too, that Jesus had promised this authority to the Church, against which the gates of hell would not prevail.
The Lord nowhere promised the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, and thus that whatever she declares is the word of God out of her amorphous oral tradition is so.
We assuredly know what public revelation was from God by it being recorded in wholly inspired Scripture, which exposes the Catholic deformation of the NT church.
Make it CLEAR to me.