I would like to discuss whether the Church believed in one or two Rules of Faith during its earliest existence and show that removing Tradition is inconsistent with that pattern.
First, what is Tradition? It is NOT unwritten teachings, only! It is ANY teaching that is NOT written in the Scriptures. Thus, Revelation from God has been given to us THROUGH the Apostles. We have this in two forms: Scripture, and everything else...This "everything else" is absolutely important, as it includes Liturgy (HOW we worship God), daily devotions and practices (HOW we act as Christians), and the INTERPRETATIONS of Scripture (found in creeds, councils, and writings of the later generations of Christians). The latter is VERY important, and the Church recognized that God gave us something called Apostolic Succession to guard the Teachings given by Christ:
"And He (Christ) Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" Ephesians 4: 11-13
THIS is the second rule of faith - the so-called Magesterium, the valid interpreters of Scriptures and other given teachings. The ancient Church constantly appealed to the continued succession of Bishops, to their common interpretation of Scriptures, to their unity and consent in matters of faith, and to their abhorence of novelty in doctrine. Ecclesiastical authority is the rule. On THIS depends the interpretation of Scriptures - even their FORMATION AND EXISTENCE. Left to themselves, the Scriptures cannot quicken. The Scriptures ARE because the Church APPROVED of them and vouched for them that they indeed contained Divine Revelation.
This authority does not mean that the Church is superior to Scriptures! It simply means that the Church alone has the right to tell us what is Scripture, and what is not Scripture, and what is true and infallible interpretation (since it is guided by the Spirit of Truth). Only AFTER they are approved and interpreted by the Church do the Scriptures become a Rule and Object of Faith.
Origen (mid 200's) writes: "Whenever they - the heretics - bring before us the Scriptures, every Christian approves and believes, they seem to say 'behold the words of truth in your homes' (Mat 24:26), but we must not believe them, NOR DO AWAY WITH THE FIRST AND ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION, nor believe otherwise than what has been handed over by succession to the Church of God" (Origen, Commentaries on Matthew)
Clement the Roman (mid 200's) writes :"I see that some clever men find in what they read many likelihoods; and yet, it must be diligently observed that in reading the law of God, we must not read it according to the intelligence of our own mind. For there are many words in Divine Scriptures which can be taken in whatsoever sense which every one of us may like or presume to give them. THIS SHOULD NOT BE DONE...hence, one must learn the knowledge of Scriptures from him who acquired it from the ancients, according to the truth delivered to them" (Clement the Roman, Book of Recognitions)
Scripture is interpreted according to received teachings - if we consider that Christianity is a revealed religion from God, can it be any other way?
Tertullian (200 AD) writes "no one should even use the Scriptures without belonging to the Catholic Church, because she is the only one who knows how to give proper interpretation of them. Therefore, we should not have recourse to the Scriptures, nor dispute about them....For where the true Christian discipline and docrine are shown to be, there will also be the truth of Scriptures, and of their interpretation, and of all Christian tradition" (Tertullian, Prescriptions)
Where is the Doctrine of Faith to be found? Tertullian again answers "In the succession of the Bishops".(Prescriptions). St. Irenaeus, living before Tertullian, warns us solemnly: "Where the charisms of the Lord are, there also we must learn the truth, because it is through them that the Apostolic Succession is found in the Church. They (the priests) watch our Faith and explain to us the Scriptures WITHOUT ERROR." (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies).
The first Christians, thus, placed the authority of the Church over the Scriptures, not as if the Chruch was superior to God's Word written, but as giving it to explain correctly and interpret "without error".
And finally, St. Vincent of Lerins adds: "because not all accept Sacred Scripture in the same sense, on account of their loftiness; but this one and that give the sayings of Scripture so many different significations that there are almost as many minds as there are men (something very close to what Luther would say 1000 years later)... Consequently, it is absolutely necessary that on account of so many errors, the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation must be drawn according to the direction of the Ecclesiastical and Catholic sense" (St. Vincent, Commonit.)
To summarize, the earliest writers of Christianity respected and valued Tradition as the Word of God. They based the two great columns of truth upon Scripture and Tradition. Man owes the same obligation to believe these infallible witnesses, the Apostles, who exhibit, keep and witness Revelation - written or unwritten (2 Thes 2:14). It depended on God alone to choose the way and manner of promulgating Revelation. If the Church recognized the need for both Tradition and Scripture to know this Revelation, we believe we are obedient to Him by continuing to follow the way He established His teachings to us - through the Church's Scriptures and Traditions validly passed down to us today.
My question is "Considering the earliest Christians wrote about the necessity of Tradition to interpret Scriptures, why has Tradition of late been discarded, when it was considered part of God's Word to us through His apostles?"
Regards
My question is "Considering the earliest Christians wrote about the necessity of Tradition to interpret Scriptures, why has Tradition of late been discarded, when it was considered part of God's Word to us through His apostles?"
All of your quotes from the earliest Christians were extra-biblical, so I'm not sure why they should be accorded authority. For some reason, none of these words or teachings appear to have made it into the Bible. All of these writers also appear to have a self interest in their views: "Do what I say because God gave me (not you) the authority". It is not surprising that men in authority held theological positions that kept them in authority. If God's intent really was to give only a very select few the power to interpret scripture (across all time) to the exclusion of the rest of us, why was this idea not unambiguously included in the Bible the Catholics put together? It would seem to me that the people who assembled the Bible would have been very interested in securing their own authority for all time in the Bible, unless that was not God's will.
This brings me to my main question about Apostolic Succession. Is this a Biblical idea, or was it instituted by early successors to assert authority? Your Ephesians verse clearly speaks of spiritual gifts. And, clearly God gave the apostles very special spiritual gifts. What says they had the authority to pass along those special gifts to others?
Honestly, one of the things that has always troubled me most about Catholicism is the belief that priests have the actual, literal power to forgive sin, and that this is necessary for the lay Catholic to achieve final salvation. Clearly, the apostles were given special powers, including the ability to physically heal, and perform other miracles. Why can't priests do that today, but they can forgive sin? Why does Apostolic Succession only include the transfer of some powers?
Getting back to your question, I don't think it is necessary to discard tradition, it just must be tested. For example, is not clerical celibacy a tradition? (Notwithstanding that Paul hinted at it, I am unaware that it is mandated Biblically.) Anyway, I have no problem with this requirement if Catholics believe it works for them. I can't point to the Bible and say priests SHOULD be married. So, I find that tradition unobjectionable spiritually.
Overall, I suppose that I am just very uncomfortable with the idea of so heavily relying on men instead of God. I know the early Christians might say "don't worry, trust us. God gave us, and only us, special power and authority". To me, this attitude is, ironically, anti-free-will thinking. You said before that Catholics are allowed to disagree within a "lens" hierarchal teaching, but how much freedom is there really? The idea seems to be that Catholics should approach clerics with their honest questions, and the clerics will relay Church teaching, and require the person to adopt it to remain in good standing. I don't mean this in any diabolical sense. I only mean that Catholics are required to follow Church teaching.