2. "the holy catholic and apostolic Church, the communion of saints, ..."
3, St Paul did not list (in writing) what he meant by the traditions he referred to, and yet he enjoined his disciples to cling to them and observe them. The rather clear inference is that it is not only writings which have authority, but primarily the preacher's words and example. What he says (oral preaching, teaching, advising, praying, conversing and counseling) and what he does. Writings followed later; sometimes decades later, sometimes generations.
How would we know what that Oral Tradition consisted of? By the actual practice of the oldest churches founded by the apostles and their first-generation disciples, across three continents, before ca. 300 AD:
Roman Enpire (Eastern): Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Asia Minor, Tiberias; Caesarea; Cyprus; Crete; Rhoades, Damascus, Greece, Libya
Roman Empire (Western): Rome; Italy outside Rome (Milan, Naples, Sicily, Syracuse); Carthage; Gaul (Marseilles, Lyon, Tours); Malta; parts of Spain (Cordova, Seville, Toledo)
Outside the Roman Empire: Ethiopia; Armenia (became a Christian kingdom in 300 AD, before Rome's Edict of Toleration); Georgia and the Caucasus region; Mesopotamia and Western Syria; Persia and Central Asia; Arabia (Red Sea coastal); Ethiopia.
Evangleized by the original Apostles and their disciples on three continents.
They had many language, cultural, and political differences. Here's what they had in common: they are ALL:
Some of the externals may look different, but the core is completely shared: e.g. the same 27 books of the New Testament; but in their various languages: Koine Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Old Slavonic, Geez, etc. and prayed, recited, chanted, proclaimed according to their cultural ways.
There's this remarkable continuity even though today some of them are now associated with the Roman Catholic Church; some with the Eastern Orthodox; some with the "Oriental" Orthodox (non-Chalcedonian) and other "Churches of the East." (These, BTW, founded in Apostolic times and severely conservative of their ancient traditions, are often stubborn survivors of a millennium+ of oppression by Islam, and have been almost wiped out by ISIS.)
Traditional practices faithfully observed across the continents, across the centuries, despite dislocations, displacements, and disruptions --- Biblical, Creedal, liturgical, hierarchical, sacramental, Eucharistic, praying always within the Communion of Saints including those on earth, in a state of Purgation, and in Heaven---
They didn't invent these basics. They learned them from their founders. This is what we mean by Apostolic Tradition.
He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Jesus) Matthew 15:3
Thanks for responding. Here are some comments about your statements.
1. Scripture itself depends on Tradition (which means (handing on.) Specifically, Scripture was sourced from Oral Tradition.
Scripture was God-breathed by the Holy Spirit, who moved men to write. That is what God says. Tradition informed the discussions, but did not decide the canon.
2. "the holy catholic and apostolic Church, the communion of saints, ..."
Scripture details the fellowship of saints in the Body of Christ. Admittedly, the RCC later expanded it's meaning to include talking with dead people and pretending they can hear.
3, St Paul did not list (in writing) what he meant by the traditions he referred to, and yet he enjoined his disciples to cling to them and observe them. The rather clear inference is that it is not only writings which have authority, but primarily the preacher's words and example. What he says (oral preaching, teaching, advising, praying, conversing and counseling) and what he does. Writings followed later; sometimes decades later, sometimes generations.
And today, we have not heard his teaching, advising, praying, conversing, etc. In the interim period, it served a purpose. God provided inspired Scripture that includes all a Christians needs for salvation and maturity. Paul did not say tradition was inspired or equal to Scripture.
How would we know what that Oral Tradition consisted of? By the actual practice of the oldest churches founded by the apostles and their first-generation disciples, across three continents, before ca. 300 AD:
Which contains a very large presupposition - that that is happening now, is exactly what happened then
"They had many language, cultural, and political differences. Here's what they had in common:"
AFTER 100 AD. No evidence that this occured during the lifetime of the Apostles.
praying always within the Communion of Saints including those on earth, in a state of Purgation, and in Heaven---
Except NEVER before 100 AD, during the lifetime of the Apostles.
They didn't invent these basics.
Another presupposition. Pagans brought many traditions into the Church, as written in the Catholic Encyclopedia. These are now called Apostolic Tradition, but were foreign to Paul.
They learned them from their founders.
Another presupposition without evidence.
This is what we mean by Apostolic Tradition.
I get that it means, "whatever non-Apostlic teachings and accretions we add throughout the millennia. Apostolic Tradition is the blank check of our faith. We get together and vote on what is currently accepted and it is now existing from the beginning - without proof that it occurred during the lives of the Apostles."
Izzat so?
I'm still waiting for the list of traditions that is going to trump all the verses about being WRITTEN.