This is just such a cunningly devised fable--a big lump of absolutely invalid eisegesis wrongly being presented as exegesis--that it makes any other justified and justifiable rejection of Romanism (and there are many more) pale in comparison. Based on this blatantly wrong supposition of interpretive authority, your doctrine has not only no standing to make your point, but is worthy of condemnation as to the insoucience with which it is presented.
The tradition brought into question here is exactly the same kind of "tradition" that you have learned from fallible Platonistic-tainted "patristics" and their uninspired writings, a misinterpretation of the Scripture just like those of the spiritually blind Pharisees and copyists that Jesus condemned. It is not one "handed down by the Apostles." It certainly is not one handed down by Simon bar Jonah (2 Pet.1:20-21,2:1-2, 3:15-17, the Apostle to the Jews; or by Paul (Acts 17:10-12; 1 Cor. 2:1-2,5); or by John (1 Jn. 4:1, Rev. 2:6 hating the clergy/laity scheme).
As clearly demonstrated by the Risen Jesus to Cleophas and his companion, and by Paul in the case of Timothy, and by Philip in the case of the Ethiopian eunuch, the existing Scriptures were sufficient grounds for knowledge of the Messiah Jesus to effect salvation through faith in Him alone.
Your case demeaning the effectuality of the Scriptures available to Timothy is unfounded. The Spirit-recorded words of the Apostle Paul confirmed that they had the power to save when their pre-Cross mysteries were spiritually discerned and displayed; which gift of discernment, though thoroughly trained in the Tanach by Gamaliel, Saul did not have before his miraculous rebirth.
It seems to me that your argumentation shows the same blindness of your Roman masters, not one of a spirit-filled regenerated child of The God who looks at things with the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:12-16, Phil. 2:2,5,8,15).
I have no confidence that your religious organization has preserved the Word of God faithfully throughout the ages, nor that y'all have the Spirit-guided mind to interpret such remnants of The Truth as it yet has. It has had to be restored (Erasmus), translated into our vernacular (Tyndall et alii), and made the Bible of the English Crown (James I, Stuart) for the global reign of Brittania in its greatest reach as a mission-minded nation.
It is clear that the LORD has raised a remnant that has continued to fulfill His desire to that they persistently follow the Christ of the Bible and see His Word preserved, proclaimed, planted, and pursued as He wishes.
They will not permit your line of credibility through supposed apostolic succession to prevail over and persuade them away from their personal daily experience with the Living God, and His Son as personal Friend and Master. The only ones from their midst who can come under your sway are those whose full and irrevocable committed trust in Christ was never recognized by them as His condition of reconciliation with The Father.
(Also, the idea that translations of the Old and New Testaments into the vernacular language was opposed by the Catholic Church as some sort of power ploy over the laity is mythical, to put it mildly.)
You speak of the Tyndale Bible as though it was the first to be translated into the English vernacular, even though English versions of Scriptures existed from before even Wycliffe, by centuries. You laud William Tyndale's translation, even though his avowed anti-Catholic beliefs would hardly make him an unbiased translator.
You berate and mock the teachings of the Apostolic successors, stating that their interpretation of Scripture and the teachings of Christ and His Apostles are incorrect. You even go so far as to make the outlandish claim that the only way a modern-day Christian would fall 'sway' to Catholicism is that they don't recognize their trust in Christ as 'His condition for reconciliation', as you say. (To which I and many other converts to Catholicism would say that, of course we trust in Christ; for what better reason would we convert to Catholicism if we did not trust in Him?)
Ultimately, however, that is only your opinion, your interpretation. And you end back up in the same place as before for those who subscribe to Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide: an interpretation that can only be called yours, separated from the history of the Church and her teaching.
"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." - John Henry Cardinal Newman, Anglican priest who converted to Catholicism
I will leave these two debates on Sola Scriptura and retire from this thread. But I will say that it has been invigorating.
God bless!
I've always wondered how today's Catholics have been convinced to throw out EARLIER Catholic teaching on the subject...
• Augustine, sermon:
"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. — John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327
Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18). — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.
• Augustine, sermon:
For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)
• Augustine, sermon:
And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16)...And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289
• Augustine, sermon:
Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18)...Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95
• Augustine, sermon:
...because on this rock, he said, I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not overcome it (Mt. 16:18). Now the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Hold on to these texts, love these texts, repeat them in a fraternal and peaceful manner. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1995), Sermons, Volume III/10, Sermon 358.5, p. 193
• Augustine, Psalm LXI:
Let us call to mind the Gospel: 'Upon this Rock I will build My Church.' Therefore She crieth from the ends of the earth, whom He hath willed to build upon a Rock. But in order that the Church might be builded upon the Rock, who was made the Rock? Hear Paul saying: 'But the Rock was Christ.' On Him therefore builded we have been. — Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VIII, Saint Augustin, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXI.3, p. 249. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXI.html)
• Augustine, in “Retractions,”
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.