Protestants: how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one?

[orange_man]

Elevated Mary. What about what the bible says. Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.

she was blessed among women, and the fruit of her womb (Jeses) is Lord (so obviously He’s blessed). Nowhere in these words will you derive any support for venerating Mary though

 

[orange_man]

If she is not a queen then why does she need a crown?

where do you derive the idea that Mary has a crown? Is it Revelation 12???

 

[orange_man]

What The Apostles taught by word of mouth. The Bible wasn’t even written until hundreds of years after Christ. The Apostles taught us the N.T. That is what Jesus told them to do.

Paul wrote his letters by around 65 AD (and John around the same time, or soon thereafter). Moreover Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written around that same period (scholars now think Mark was written first & Matthew and Luke referred to the Gospel of Mark when writing their Gospels). You’re referring to the oldest manuscripts we have in our possession, but not original authorship.

You also have to remember, copies of the Gospels and Paul’s letters began circulating almost immediately after they were written. Just because we haven’t found any of these very early manuscripts doesn’t mean they didn’t exist (in fact we know they did because we find evidence of their circulation in other writings).

 

[christian1]

Josiel:

Jesus promised that he would lead his apostles into all truth through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

But this promise was specifically directed to the apostles,

*But was it LIMITED to the apostles?

Luk 11:13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him? *

Joh 7:38 He who believes on Me, as the Scripture has said, “Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.”
Joh 7:39 (But He spoke this about the Spirit, which they who believed on Him should receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Joh 14:21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me. And he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will reveal Myself to him.
Joh 14:22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, Lord, how is it that You will reveal Yourself to us and not to the world?
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, If a man loves Me, he will keep My Word. And My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.
Joh 14:24 He who does not love Me does not keep My Words, and the Word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me.
Joh 14:25 I have spoken these things to you, being present with you.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said to you.

Will you listen to the plain words of your Lord??? His truth is simple and not complicated. But you are cluttering the straight path to Him with these many unbiblical doctrines about my sister Mary.
that is why when we say the Nicene creed we state "I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic (not everyone in the body of Christ) church. Therefore that very Church which has apostolic roots, is the one, holy and Catholic Church that will be preserved from all error. The first Pope was such an apostle, and as such when Jesus spoke to him and the other 10 he meant what he meant, all truth means no error for the apostles and their successors.

 

[orange_man]

she was blessed among women, and the fruit of her womb (Jesus) is Lord (so obviously He’s blessed). Nowhere in these words will you derive any support for venerating Mary though

 

[Always_For_Him]

Do you think I follow a man or religion?

You are espousing new, less than 500 years-old teaching that is not and has never been part of Jesus’ Deposit of Faith as has been taught by the Church for 2,000 years. So, it seems that you are following some one or some Church that is separated from Apostolic Truth.

You think what we are trying to teach you is error, but it is what the Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught for at least 1500 years before the ushering in of each man his own pope through the reformation. Every piece of information you have came from the Catholic Church. At some point, if you are going to continue to use our information, you are going to have to admit the authority of the Church that provided it.

I believe in Christ’s Church. He only founded ONE! I believe what the Catholic Church has always taught. We don’t have anything else to go on. The Church protected Christ’s Deposit of Faith from many heresies over the centuries. But, when Luther and the other reformers broke away to found their own churches, there was no protecting them from their error. You can’t know either. ALL WE HAVE is what the Catholic Church was given by Christ Himself, and that is what we follow. Just because you have been taught or come to believe something else, doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church is wrong. It means that the protestant tradition of sola scriptura and churches founded by men who have separated themselves from Apostolic Truth are teaching errant interpretation and heresy.

Perhaps you thought I was faithful to the protestant movement? I am not. I was born and raised Catholic.

I am sad to hear that you have left the Church. I have a lot of protestant influence on me, and it has been VERY difficult for me to get past that influence, humble myself and open my heart to the Truth as only the Catholic Church has always taught. It is hard to get past myself, my pride and ego. I can tell in your posts that you are very knowledgable and have a beautiful faith. Somewhere along the way, you have been misinformed. Research these things more before you leave Christ’s Church forever.

What doctrines are you actually referring to? Please elaborate more on the reasons you have left the Church. Let’s discuss those. There are many more on this forum that have so much more knowledge than me, but maybe together, we can provide more information on the history and Truth of everything. People can get out of hand, but the Deposit of Faith that Christ gave the Church is pure and reflects what Christ taught for all. Men who have split from Her to found their own Churches, only have partial truths and a lot of self ideology.

The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary is divine. Only God is. Mary is the Mother of God. The Church has always maintained their teachings of her. She is the greatest saint. Since saints are more alive in heaven than we are here on earth, that just makes Mary available to all of us.

I supposed I could have just went along and kept my mouth shut. But the idolatry is very prevelant and the church is very quiet about it.

No, don’t keep your mouth shut. Let’s work this out. How can you actually “tell” that someone is idolizing and not praying, honoring or venerating? Only God can tell that person’s heart. If someone is idolizing Mary, they are wrong. That is not accepted, condoned or taught by the Church. You know that humans can and will take things to the extremes. You don’t have to participate in that. Both my mother and my father had beautiful devotions to the Blessed Mother. It was not worship. Some people have beautiful devotions to other saints. It is ALL for the glory of God and only God.

My church is defiled and she refused to be clean.

I am so sorry to hear that. Men in churches can error. Have you tried to take this to your diocese?

But who am I? But a mere small member of the body of Christ. To the church, I have lost salvation though I have committed no sin against Christ’s teachings.

Why are you saying that you have lost salvation? You can still be Catholic if you follow the path that Christ set for us. STAY IN HIM, in His grace and free from sin. Truly and honestly examine your conscience and be completely sorry for your sins and desire to never repeat them. Desire for your heart and will to be for God and to do God’s Will, and not for your own selfish desires and wants. That is so hard to do in this world. It is so difficult to get out of self and just be an open and humble servant. Don’t leave Christ’s Church for some man-made church though. This is a difficult time for you, I am so sorry. I will pray for you. Please stand strong against this adversity. Speak for Christ. Speak for His Church. Speak what is right. Someone more informed than me is going to have to step in here!!

when we place traditions and man made doctrines ahead of the Word or equal to it

The Catholic Church does NOT place traditions above the Word and does not have man-made doctrines. They go together. They had to be realized over time. All the understanding wasn’t just “there” at Pentecost. Christ promised to protect and guide His Church in to all Truth and He has and He is. He didn’t say “you have all the Truth now.” He said, “I will guide you to all Truth.” That takes time. But you make it sound like most of the Church’s teachings were JUST made up. MOST have been a part of the Church from the time of the Apostles.

The Church teaches Christ’s Truth as He entrusted it to Her. Catholic teaching does NOT contradict Scripture, it supports it. Church doctrines do not contradict Christ’s Truth or Scripture, they encompass it and are part of it.

 

[elvisman]

Paul wrote his letters by around 65 AD (and John around the same time, or soon thereafter). Moreover Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written around that same period (scholars now think Mark was written first & Matthew and Luke referred to the Gospel of Mark when writing their Gospels). You’re referring to the oldest manuscripts we have in our possession, but not original authorship.

You also have to remember, copies of the Gospels and Paul’s letters began circulating almost immediately after they were written. Just because we haven’t found any of these very early manuscripts doesn’t mean they didn’t exist (in fact we know they did because we find evidence of their circulation in other writings).

I think what rinnie meant is that the canon of the New Testament wasn’t declared until several hundred years later. We must remember also that there were a great many non-inspired writings during this time and ALL were debated as having been inspired or not all the way up to the councils of Carthage and Hippo at the beginning of the 5th century.

This has been discussed ad nauseam on this thread already and not a shred of evidence has been shown that there was THE undisputed collection of books in the 1st century that we have now - because it’s just not so.

\Moreover - not every community was in possession of all of the letters. This is why Oral Tradition was so important. The onus is on the Protestant to prove that every community was in possession of all the letters and that Oral Tradition didn’t exist.

 

[rinnie]

Paul wrote his letters by around 65 AD (and John around the same time, or soon thereafter). Moreover Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written around that same period (scholars now think Mark was written first & Matthew and Luke referred to the Gospel of Mark when writing their Gospels). You’re referring to the oldest manuscripts we have in our possession, but not original authorship.

You also have to remember, copies of the Gospels and Paul’s letters began circulating almost immediately after they were written. Just because we haven’t found any of these very early manuscripts doesn’t mean they didn’t exist (in fact we know they did because we find evidence of their circulation in other writings).

But you are missing the Point. My Point is we didn’t have gospels at the first. The Apostles were teaching the N.T. Long before it was written. The other post said that the Apostles taught the O.T.

 

[orange_man]

I think what rinnie meant is that the canon of the New Testament wasn’t declared until several hundred years later. We must remember also that there were a great many non-inspired writings during this time and ALL were debated as having been inspired or not all the way up to the councils of Carthage and Hippo at the beginning of the 5th century.

This has been discussed ad nauseam on this thread already and not a shred of evidence has been shown that there was THE undisputed collection of books in the 1st century that we have now - because it’s just not so.

\Moreover - not every community was in possession of all of the letters. This is why Oral Tradition was so important. The onus is on the Protestant to prove that every community was in possession of all the letters and that Oral Tradition didn’t exist.

A great number of first and early second century Christians were exposed to most of what eventually became the New Testament (i.e. Justin Martyr is one example that quickly comes to mind). However, that being said I don’t necessarily say that oral tradition is always bad, just that it’s not infallible.

For example, the idea of invocation to saints (and particularly saintly patronage) clearly finds its roots in pre-Christian pagan ritual. Each saint is assigned a sphere of influence, whether it be over an occupation, place, etc. The same methodology was used with invocations to Greco-Roman major and minor gods. In essence many elements of Roman paganism were simply transformed to Christian. Use of icons is another prominent example.

For the RCC and EOC these sorts of rituals constitute what it views as infallible tradition. First the obvious, there simply is no support for the idea that tradition (that is not apostolic or biblical) may be viewed as infallible. Secondly, not even any Catholic Church will try and say Paul was running around Asia minor advocating that Christians make invocations to icons resembling men we presume to be saints. Therefore, we simply understand there is no valid support for these sorts of practices.

 

[orange_man]

But you are missing the Point. My Point is we didn’t have gospels at the first. The Apostles were teaching the N.T. Long before it was written. The other post said that the Apostles taught the O.T.

I see (I guess I didn’t read far enough back in the thread). At anyrate yes of course the apostles first taught what was written (and we can probably assume some things that weren’t written, although I believe the tenor of Paul’s message to us is that God ensures the preservation of all things necessary for the salvation of the elect, throughout time).

 

[SteveGC]

**Josiel:**Jesus promised that he would lead his apostles into all truth through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But this promise was specifically directed to the apostles,

christian1: But was it LIMITED to the apostles?
The answer is…yes and no.

The gift of the Holy Spirit, which actually endows us with many spiritual gifts from God, is made available to any of those who come to Christ.

These “gifts”, however, are not the same for all of us. Individually, we all receive gifts according to our needs that God alone knows. This we probably can agree on.

The specific gift of TEACHING (and hence, earthly shepherding of) the Christian faithful, is NOT needed by anyone but a hand-select few whom Christ Himself ordained. The gift of teaching and shepherding houses within itself the authority to properly interpret the Word of God (both Scripture and Tradition) for all the followers of Christ.

I am sure you will disagree with this. But this is truth. None of us need worry about what Christ “meant” or “intended for us to do” for our salvation, or for our moral choices. We are not burdened with the need to discern this. It has been revealed, to His chosen few (Apostles - and their ordained successors).

So, the “gifts” of the Holy Spirit are available to all of us; Through faith and baptism, the Spirit is in us all…and His gifts, to name a few, are those of guidance, increased faith, good conscience, proper disposition, and understanding of Christ within the framework of The Church’s teaching and leadership, which were gifts to Her. The Spirit does help us through Scripture…but NOT help in discerning for ourselves the truths about faith and morals, and all the trappings that come with it. In other words, the need for baptism isn’t a matter of individual interpretation…it has been revealed because Christ’s Church was given the gift of knowledge of that fact. Abortion is murder not because I think it is, or you think it is, but because The Church declares it so…by virtue, again, of it’s protective shield and teaching gift from the Spirit of God.

We Christians enjoy many blessings from the Spirit of God within us. We must realize that the Holy Spirit comes to us through The Church. Christ breathed on the apostles, not us, initially. And He said to them, “receive the Holy Spirit”. We have to remember this is how the Spirit entered our world. Through these specific men. So the Holy Spirit doesn’t come to us directly. Our gift of revealed Truth comes from their teaching, and you can’t discern that Truth for yourselves by reading Scripture outside of The Church. You must come within her womb to do this.

God Bless

 

[rinnie]

Here is what People don’t understand. The CHurch wrote the bible only they can explain it, heres why.

There is a great book out called where we got the bible. Our debt to the Catholic Church.

Here is what People do not understand. Yes the Bible was inspired by the Holy SPirit. But a human wrote it. There is bound to be mistakes. Let me explain:

Me and my kids are chillen at the pool. You guys understand what I mean, we are relaxing sitting around. Now a hundred years ago, it would be said we were sitting at the pool and it was cold out. Do you understand.

Here is anyother example

My Mother died at the factory.
My Mother dyed at the factory.

Do you understand what I am saying?

The Church wrote it, taught it, and can explain it. Yes God inspired it, but Man used his words. Can you understand what I am saying?

 

[orange_man]

Here is what People don’t understand. The CHurch wrote the bible only they can explain it, heres why.

There is a great book out called where we got the bible. Our debt to the Catholic Church.

few would argue the early church wasn’t good. Most protestants believe the Catholic Church slowly moved off track, and almost all acknowledge the Catholic Churches role in canonizing scripture. However, we must also realize this was God’s work (not some physical insitution).

Here is what People do not understand. Yes the Bible was inspired by the Holy SPirit. But a human wrote it. There is bound to be mistakes. Let me explain:

not even the Catholic Church would say scripture is fallible. It simply believes its own tradition is also infallible (so your position is not consistent with Catholic doctrine).

 

[christian1]

Alwaysforhim: Catholics worship God alone. We do not mistake a creature - even God’s greatest creater - for the Creator. We HONOR Mary. Why? Because of the gifts that God has given her. By making her His mother, God honored Mary more than we ever could. Scripture calls Mary “blessed” and promiss that ALL generations will do likewise (Luke 1:42, 48). We honor Mary because Jesus honored her (perfectly obeying the 4th commandment) and we are called to imitate Christ.

*They bow before her statue and look upon it as though it were she. When the disciple fell down before the feet of the angel he QUICKLY told him ‘do it not’ worship God only.

MANY, a very LARGE MANY of catholics show this type of devotion. Never does the Bible say, BE DEVOTED TO MARY. If she should say anything, it would be what Paul said, 'follow me as I follow Christ." Mary’s deeds WHILE ON EARTH are to be immitated when it coomes to following Christ. *

ALL prayer has God as its object. When we “pray to Mary” as you say, we are really praying TO God THROUGH Mary. We are asking Mary to intercede and present our petitions to God. Recall how Solomon promised not to refuse any request of Bathsheba, the Queen Mother (1 Kings 2:19-20).

Recall how Solomon and Bathsheba were alive? Did anybody ever ask Solomon for ANYTHING once he was in Heaven?

you said: Mary’s intercession is completely subordinate to, and dependent upon Jesus’ intercession. In 1 Timothy 2:1-8, St. Paul COMMANDS Christians to intercede for one another.

While on earth. Never does he reference intercession once we go to Heaven.

you said: Becuase Jesus is the one mediator between earth and heaven, we as members of Christ’s body are able to cooperate with Him as mediators.

While on Earth as earthly Christians.

you said: We single out Mary’s intercession because she is God’s most righteous

and what scripture did you discern this from??? Once again, you’ve added this and it’s concept is contrary to the scirpture. It does not indicate in anyway that Mary is God’s most righteous. Another added doctrine that is unscitpural and contradicting to the word where Jesus declared the place of His mother. Those who obey Him are His mother, brother and sister. See, God is not concerned in the least with Mary’s physical relationship to Jesus, but her spiritual one. Jesus made that plain in the above scripture. To say she is God’s most righteous is elevating her beyond what the scriptures do.

you said: saing and “the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (James 5:16). I know this brings up the non belief in intercessory prayer for you, but for that I am sorry.

I never said intercessory prayer was wrong. I’m saying that making Mary somebody that she is not is. I still however do not see when in any scripture did anybody ever ask one who has gone to heaven to pray for them except Christ. Our intercessory prayers were to be done by those alive on Earth not in Heaven.

you said: Your church somehow didn’t take that teaching that came through the Reformation, so you have never been exposed to it.

My church is the teachings of Christ and the first apostles. Any man…ANY MAN that tries to add, or change this are heretics, I don’t care what denomination they represent.

you said: The concept of the trinity can plainly be found in scripture.

• What they are currently doing today is another matter altogether*.

you said: Likewise, the Immaculate Conception, Mary Ever-Virgin, and the Assumption belong the the Deposit of Faith. They are taught implicitly through OT typology and explicitly by the ECF’s.

*Then why are they not prevelent in the current Word of God and letters from the disciples??? Why, more importantly, does the concepts CONFLICT with the Word of God and the letters of the disciples? (Refer to the scriptures about mary’s position from the words of her savior) *

you said: Scripture does not record the Assumption of Mary, so we depend on APOSTOLIC TRADITION for our belief. However, the Assumption is NOT anti-scriptural. In fact, Scripture gives every indication that such a think could occur.

COULD OCCUR??? Are you kidding me??? It is possible THEREFORE, IT MUST BE!
She could have also died like other normal Christians and gone straight to heaven. That’s not good enough? Why insist on an event that scriptures do not mention or support??? Maybe because if it HAD BEEN IMPORTANT enough to mention, THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN.
Consider the unusual ends of certain righteous people: Enoch was taken to heaven without dying (Heb 11:5); and Elijah was whisked into heaven by a fiery chariot (2 King 2;11). Matthew 27:52 suggests a bodily assumption before the Second Coming and many Protestants believe in the “rapture” based on 1 Thess 4:17 and 1 Cor 15:52. Mary is simply the first to be “raptured.”

Wow. So herein lies the proofs of your doctrine. It happened before, why not again? why not to Mary? Yea!

For those who know Mary as she is in the Bible, will forever honor her name and call her blessed just as the scriptures say. But we will not make her co-redemptrix with her savior.

The end is surely upon us for the deceptions are steadily increasing accompanied with strong delusion. And just as He said in the old testament about His people. “They love it so.”

 

[christian1]

elvisman:“How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”

Now your getting to what was difficult. They are voicing the difficulty right here. They thought that he meant they would have to eat his literal flesh and drink his literal blood.

What a kooky concept they thought.

Of course, they did not have ears to hear, just like all the other parables he spoke they didn’t have ears to hear.

If it were not then why did Jesus refer to what you claim was his actual blood as ‘the fruit of the vine’ right after drinking it? Mark 14:25 and the other gospel accounts of this.

And of course you have claimed God only for yourself in saying only your priests have the power to do this. The veil was ripped in two representing that the way to God was open to all men and no need of a priest to offer sacrifice in behalf of the people’s sin was necessary. All those who called upon the name of the Lord could be saved and ALL those who were saved had the Holy Spirit and the right to all of God’s power. And you arrogantly stand in between me and God forbidding my partaking in this commanded observance, unless I partake in your church. All because I believe that the bread was a symbol of the real thing??? What must God think of this?

 

[DavidCatechumen]

Are you playing dumb with me?

I never admitted my position was not biblical. I said my position is NOT SOLA SCRIPTURA.

Try to not play games about this, it’s serious to me.

No, I was not playing dumb with you. And if you took offense by anything that I said, I apologize.

You, like many others on this forum, have been very helpful to me in strengthening my faith. As you can probably tell from my name and listed religion, I am about to convert to Catholicism. I came to these forums to hear the counter-arguments from Protestants, one last time, before I take the plunge on Easter Vigil.

I, personally, have decided that the evidence in favor of the teachings of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is overwhelming. That does not mean that I am absolutely right or that you are absolutely wrong. The one who determines that, ultimately, is God.

Personally, I feel that many of the Protestant churches have a foundation in the Truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This is also the opinion of the Catholic Church–but the Church also notes that these elements of truth are calls to unity. We can debate about whether that means unity under the Pope, unity under the bishops, or unity in teaching the Deposit of Faith handed down from the Apostles, or whether any one of these can be had without the other(s). But I have decided that the best place for me to seek that Truth is in the Church of Rome.

You are right–this is not a game. It has been a great learning experience for me and I hope that this has been mutual.

God bless you.

 

[christian1]

WayneLeyds: the scripture does does not implicate mary in anyway that she was or wasnt a virgin clearly.(we can both argue from scripture)

That is most untrue. If anyone read the account of the gospel where Mary is concerned they would discover that:

Joseph, whom the angel TOLD TO TAKE AS HIS WIFE did in fact have relations with her, the term KNOW HER was used which is the exact term used to represent intercourse througout all scripture and it was told by the writer that Joseph did in fact know her and at what time he knew her.

To deny this is to deny outright the plain word of God.

Explain to me how
“He did not know her UNTIL she gave birth to her son” could mean HE DID NOT KNOW HER???

You guys have come up with some amazing UNSCRIPTURAL explanations as to WHAT THE WRITER COULD HAVE POSSIBLY MEANT, when it was plain as day.

Problem was, it was plainly AGAINST the teaching of their doctrine on Mary.

 

[rinnie]

A great number of first and early second century Christians were exposed to most of what eventually became the New Testament (i.e. Justin Martyr is one example that quickly comes to mind). However, that being said I don’t necessarily say that oral tradition is always bad, just that it’s not infallible.

For example, the idea of invocation to saints (and particularly saintly patronage) clearly finds its roots in pre-Christian pagan ritual. Each saint is assigned a sphere of influence, whether it be over an occupation, place, etc. The same methodology was used with invocations to Greco-Roman major and minor gods. In essence many elements of Roman paganism were simply transformed to Christian. Use of icons is another prominent example.

For the RCC and EOC these sorts of rituals constitute what it views as infallible tradition. First the obvious, there simply is no support for the idea that tradition (that is not apostolic or biblical) may be viewed as infallible. Secondly, not even any Catholic Church will try and say Paul was running around Asia minor advocating that Christians make invocations to icons resembling men we presume to be saints. Therefore, we simply understand there is no valid support for these sorts of practices.

How do you figure that? Oral Tradition is just as much the word of God as the Bible Scripture. It tells you that in the bible.

 

[rinnie]

few would argue the early church wasn’t good. Most protestants believe the Catholic Church slowly moved off track, and almost all acknowledge the Catholic Churches role in canonizing scripture. However, we must also realize this was God’s work (not some physical insitution).

not even the Catholic Church would say scripture is fallible. It simply believes its own tradition is also infallible (so your position is not consistent with Catholic doctrine).

HuhYou are saying that the RCC says that the scripture is not the infallible word of God. I am sorry the Church teaches scripture is the infallible word of God, but only when taught within the Teachings of the Church. Its the people who take away from scripture when they turn it to say what they want it to say.

And I am sorry it was Gods words but he did not write them down. Again it was Mans work.

 

[elvisman]

A great number of first and early second century Christians were exposed to most of what eventually became the New Testament (i.e. Justin Martyr is one example that quickly comes to mind). However, that being said I don’t necessarily say that oral tradition is always bad, just that it’s not infallible.

For example, the idea of invocation to saints (and particularly saintly patronage) clearly finds its roots in pre-Christian pagan ritual. Each saint is assigned a sphere of influence, whether it be over an occupation, place, etc. The same methodology was used with invocations to Greco-Roman major and minor gods. In essence many elements of Roman paganism were simply transformed to Christian. Use of icons is another prominent example.

For the RCC and EOC these sorts of rituals constitute what it views as infallible tradition. First the obvious, there simply is no support for the idea that tradition (that is not apostolic or biblical) may be viewed as infallible. Secondly, not even any Catholic Church will try and say Paul was running around Asia minor advocating that Christians make invocations to icons resembling men we presume to be saints. Therefore, we simply understand there is no valid support for these sorts of practices.

**I would challenge your notion that Apostolic Tradition wasn’t infallible. **
What of the The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15? This is supposed to have taken place around the year 50 A.D. - about 16-17 years after Jesus ascended into Heaven. This was BEFORE much of the New Testament was written. The infallible decree was made that Jews needn’t be circumcised to be saved. There was no scripture called upon - only Apostolic decision led by the Holy Spirit.

Also - don’t forget that Paul instruct the early Christians several times to adhere to the Traditions taught by them (2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 12:14), even calling the church the “Pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). The Pillar and foundation of truth could hardly be fallible. Afterall - this is God’s truth we’re talking about.

PS - the Catholic Church nowhere teaches that you are to pray to an icon.
**The reason certain saints are chosen for various things is because they either struggled **with or solved the problems in question.