It took some time, but I finally looked up the section, and I don't see any such "context" there.
"That again leads me to the question I asked..what doctrines NOT found in scripture but are essential to salvation are found tradition only?? If there aren’t any then all that is needed for salvation was written down....
There are several. The ones I recall quickly from memory are the "perpetual virginity of Mary", and the "Assumption of Mary into Heaven".
"In regard to unwritten traditions that you bind the conscience of believers to what are they???. Marian doctrines?? Where are they in the early fathers??
I don't have time to do any exhaustive comments. When I was studying before converting to Catholicism, I looked up and checked out several.....and they ARE found in the early fathers.
"And I mean the apostolic fathers and second century fathers that are closer to apostolic teaching....it is interesting to see that in stromata Book 7 written by clement of Alexandria chapter 16....he denies the perpetual virginity of Mary....so I guess unwritten tradition didn't extend to him.
Clement was free to follow his thoughts when he made them, as the Church hadn't made a definitive pronouncement as to whether that specific teaching was to be considered dogmatic by believing Catholics. And a number of "early fathers" believed a number of erroneous things. Some got thrown out as heretics because of them.
You wrote: “It took some time, but I finally looked up the section, and I don’t see any such “context” there.”
I mentioned it several times in previous posts that ALL that we need for salvation IS found in scripture
You wrote: “There are several. The ones I recall quickly from memory are the “perpetual virginity of Mary”, and the “Assumption of Mary into Heaven”.
So if one denies Mary’s perpetual virginity or bodily assumption they are lost??? Even though they are nowhere taught in scripture???
You wrote: “I don’t have time to do any exhaustive comments. When I was studying before converting to Catholicism, I looked up and checked out several.....and they ARE found in the early fathers.”
They actually are not....Not found in clement of rome, Ignatius. Polycarp etc... And to followup with your next statement about Clement of Alexandria being free to follow his thoughts since a definitive pronouncement was not made yet then that actually destroys wyour argument about yradition since NO definitive pronouncement would HAVE to be made since these were “traditions” already handed down.
Also if you look at pope Gelasius 494-496 in some of his writings he DENOUNCES the writings found in the apocryphal gospel Transitus Beatae Mariae as heretical.They were also denounced by another pope Hormisdus around 520. What do those writings speak of??? The assumption of Mary.. As a matter of fact roman catholic historians acknowledge that the doctrine has no basis in history or tradition BUT now the church says it did??? Again where is the proof. That is why sola scriptora is so important because if one cant prove it from scripture then a christians conscience CANNOT be bound to believe it. a pope can say that under the declaration of anathema that one MUST believe the assumption of Mary when it is NOT found in scripture but claims in is in “sacred tradition”. But even then upon closer scrutiny we see that not even the case. The link below is a good resource to start.
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/assumption.html
It is because of items such as this that i left the RCC so many years ago since the RCC was holding onto doctrines, especially the Marian ones, that run counter to scripture. and church history and are totally blasphemous and damning to the soul. It may sound harsh but i direct you to two writings pf roman catholic saint, and one who was even declared a doctor of the church alongside Augustine, Aquinas etc... They are Alphonsus Di Ligouri Who wrote Glories of Mary. and Louis De Montfort who wrote a true devotion ti Mary. They both have the sanction and imprimater of the church so their works are recognized as “true doctrine” of the RCC and many popes John Paul 2 as an example looked to those writings as being a true description of RCC towards Mary. If you ever read it, i have, and it if doesn’t make your blood boil as to the praise to Mary where those words should be going to Christ alone then it just shows how far gone RCC theology has gone where it comes to Mary and shows why Sola scriptora is so important since those authors rely greatly on supposed tradition...
This is just a smattering of what is written: This part is from the Glories of Mary by di Ligouri in the opening section:
TO JESUS AND MARY
And now I turn to thee, O my most sweet Lady and Mother Marry. Thou well knowest that, after Jesus, I have placed my entire hope of salvation in thee; for I acknowledge that everything good—my conversion, my vocation to renounce the world and all the other graces that I have received from God—all were given me through thy means.
Where in tradition, never mind scripture, are we told that our hope of salvation is also found in Mary?? That all we have comes thru Mary from her means? What apostolic father wrote this? what 2-6th century church father wrote this way??? NONE so if it wasnt mentioned by them HOW could it come thru “sacred tradition”. Surely they would have mentioned it IF it was so important for us to believe dont you think???
OR (Glories of Mary)
St. Bonaventure says that those who make a point of announcing to others the glories of Mary are certain of heaven; and this opinion is confirmed by Richard of St. Laurence, who declares “that to honor this Queen of Angels is to gain eternal life”(”Honorare Mariam, thesaurizare est sibi vitam aeternam.”—De Loud. B.M.V. l.2, p.1); and he adds, “that this most gracious Lady will honor in the next world those who honor her in this” (”Glorificabit in futuro honorificantes se in praesenti.”—Ib.). And who is ignorant of the promise made by Mary herself, in the words of Ecclesiastes, to those who endeavor to make her known and loved here below, they that explain me shall have life everlasting;(”Qui elucidant me, vitam aeternam habebunt.”—Ecclus. xxiv. 31) for this passage is applied to her by the Church, in the office of the Immaculate Conception
OR (Glories of Mary)
Our Queen cannot deceive, and can obtain all that she wills for her clients. Moreover, “our Lord has given her so benign and compassionate a heart,” says Lanspergius, “that she cannot send away any one dissatisfied who prays to her” (”Ita benigna est, ut neminem a se redire tristem sinat.”—Alloq. l. 1, p. 4. can. 12). But how, to use the words of St. Bonaventure, canst thou, O Mary, who art the Queen of Mercy, refuse to succor the miserable? And “who,” asks the saint, “are the subjects for mercy, if not the miserable? And since thou art the Queen of Mercy,” he continues, “and I am the most miserable of sinners, it follows that I am the first of thy subjects. How, then, O Lady, canst thou do otherwise than exercise thy mercy on me?” (Tue es Regina misericordiae, et qui misericordiae subditi nisi miseri? Tu Regina misericordiae es, et ego miserrimus peccatorum, subditorum maximum; rege nos ergo, o Regina misericordiae!”—Paciucch. In Salve Reg. exc. 2.) Have pity on us, then, O Queen of Mercy, and take charge of our salvation
or (last 0ne Glories of Mary)
The second occasion on which Mary became our spiritual Mother, and brought us forth to the life of grace, was when she offered to the Eternal Father the life of her beloved Son on Mount Calvary, with so bitter sorrow and suffering
There are many more examples i could give. These are examples of what happens when one forgoes the Sola scriptora and relies on “tradition” which really is no tradition at all. Because if it was the true tradition of the church THEN it would be found in scripture and convoluted to say what the above sections from the glories of Mary purport as tradition handed down from the apostles. Rather than it being believed it should be thrown in the dung pile. Harsh words but when one gives the glory to a mere human that should go to Christ alone then it is righteous anger and indignation that i will espouse.