It never ceases to amaze, and sadden me how so many Christian ecclesial assemblies and Protestant preachers and lay people disdain any interpretive authority when it comes to scripture above themselves. I have met very few Protestants, at least educated ones, who reject the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, yet:
"Sacred tradition is the very Church; without the Sacred Tradition the Church does not exist. Those who deny the Sacred Tradition deny the Church and the preaching of the Apostles.
Before the writing of the Holy Scriptures, that is, of the sacred texts of the Gospels, the Acts and the Epistles of the Apostles, and before they were spread to the churches of the world, the Church was based on Sacred Tradition…. The holy texts are in relation to Sacred Tradition what the part is to the whole.
The Church Fathers regard Sacred Tradition as the safe guide in the interpretation of Holy Scripture and absolutely necessary for understanding the truths contained in the Holy Scripture. The Church received many traditions from the Apostles…. The constitution of the church services, especially of the Divine Liturgy, the holy Mysteria themselves and the manner of performing them, certain prayers and other institutions of the Church go back to the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles.
In their conferences, the Holy Synods draw not only from Holy Scriptures, but also from Sacred Tradition as from a pure fount. Thus, the Seventh Ecumenical Synod says in the 8th Decree: “If one violates any part of the Church Tradition, either written or unwritten, let him be anathema.”" +Nektarios of Aegina
Thus:
"Also, always ask the Church, and she, with her great experience and her victory over falsehood, will tell you what is the truth. For you are of yesterday, but the Church is from time immemorial. Your understanding is less than that of the Church" St. Nicolai Velimirovic
I have a question...repespectfully asked I want to add:
How is it possible that all oral traditions throughout time were consistently delivered as they were passed over many geographic areas and thru multiple different sources?
I am not contending that the Apostles themselves were ever inconsistent, but rather that there certainly could have been differences going on all over the place after the Apostles formed the local churches across the nations. It seems that is why the epistles of Paul/Peter/John were written so that oral traditions that were being abused or misconstrued would have a definitive document to refer to...
I am not naive enough to say that tradition does not have some value, but it certainly seems that sacred scripture holds a very special place in the doctrine formulations of the church, after all, the true Gospel, which is the message of salvation is present in the written word...also, the epistles of Paul/Peter/John were in commission and circulation during the formation of the early church even though they were not yet combined into the canon of the Bible until later...The teachings contained in those writings clearly would have been spread throughout the churches and thus any oral tradition had to be consistent with the writings of the Apostles such as Paul, Peter and John...
Anyway, not looking to get into any big debate, just wanted to post a perspective...
It is awesome to see so many people proclaim their devotion to Christ by "not being ashamed of the Gospel"...God's Blessings to all