As for the prayer thing, we don't consider prayer to explicitly be worship. It's just spiritual communion (communication). So there you go. That's why we pray to Saints. To us saying "you only pray to God" is like saying "you only talk to God" like you literally don't talk to any other human beings, your mom, your sister, your brothers. But trying to portray it as if we believe in worshipping people is disingenuous. The Roman Catholic Church is essentially a malformed version of the Orthodox Church. Literally, if you go back you will see changes here, a few edicts there, over time it becomes what it is now. Strip away all of that and you'll have the Orthodox Church. Much of it is still similar, I think they would agree with my statements on excommunication. The breaking of bread all throughout the Bible is always in reference to Jesus or something quite similar to our Sunday worship. Even explicitly stated in Luke 24 >30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. >31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. . . >35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread. Jesus was literally identified by the breaking of bread. That was their moment of realization. I think that says a lot that it's not just about eating. The entire divine liturgy is centered around breaking bread. It's what we go to Church every Sunday for. It also wasn't 500 years after his death, it's found in patristic writings throughout the 2nd century, and officially declared at the council of Nicaea, 325 ad. When you're talking about second century writings that's pretty close to when the Apostles walked the Earth, many of these patristic figures had either direct or secondhand experience with the Apostles. I think this is the chasm in Protestant theology, where it involves throwing out tradition and writings from people who learned and preached directly under the Apostles, the people who are the most likely to have the correct beliefs on the matter, since they learned directly or a few generations removed from the people who wrote the Bible. The New Testament is pretty short (80% of the Bible is the old testament) and a lot of it is basically just eavesdropping on conversations the Apostles had. It's not like they wrote entire volumes about theology. It's still useful but trying to extract entire ideological belief systems from one or two sentences is not the most pragmatic way of going about things. I see New Agers quote John 10:34 to support the idea of "Christ Consciousness". How do protestants debunk it? By adding historical context. Tradition. Just that fact alone is proof that it isn't enough to just pick out a random sentence and call it dogma.