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.
Good questions. First, I included those quotes from the earliest Christians not as an argument from authority (which they are, but not as Scripture is), but for historical purposes. When Christians speak this way in a unanimous fashion, historically speaking, we should recognize that this WAS the legitimate beliefs of those people. We believe that these writings are in perfect continuity with the writings of the Scriptures (and it was these same men who called those writings "Scriptures" and nothing more, nothing less. Let's not forget that).
So though a Church Father is not authoritative as Scriptures by themselves, they DO give us a sense of Christian belief in the time following the writing of Scriptures. One must come to one of two conclusions: Either this is legitimate continuity, or the ENTIRE Church of the Scriptures was lost to the world - all at one time. Each and every community founded by Paul and the rest of the Apostles. With nary a murmur of dissent. Considering that Christians willingly went to their death for refusing to worship the Caesar, a trifle of a thing to the Romans, I find it interesting that NO ONE even makes one protest against the scenario that Protestants propose: that the entire Church changed throughout the empire in one generation without a dissenting voice.
As to the Scriptures and their continuity with the Church Fathers...First, Christ sent out His own Apostles to preach and teach the Word of God, the Gospel, to the world:
"Then said Jesus to them again, Peace [be] unto you: as [my] Father hath sent me, even so send I you" john 20:21
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. " Mat 28:19-20
Note, in Matthew's Gospel, Jesus says He will be with the Church for ALL time until the end of the world. Thus, He is providing for a CONTINUOUS succession of Apostles. Certainly, Christ's mandate would not end with the death of these particular men! The Kingdom of God must go out to the entire world and for all time!
And that is exactly what we see the Apostles doing as they are approaching the end of their earthly lives:
"To Titus, [mine] own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee" Titus 1:4-5
"And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." 2 Tim 2:2
"I charge [thee] before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure." 1 Tim 5:21-22
"Confirming the souls of the disciples, [and] exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed." Acts 14:22-23
1 Tim also includes qualifications for bishops and deacons, offices of leadership within the Church. When Christ had not returned, it seemed to the first Apostles that it was time to pass on the role of leadership to other men. The Church was to exist for all time, said Christ. And so within the Scriptures, we begin to see that a new generation of men, such as Timothy and Titus, were being ordained, given the Traditions (teachings) of the Church to pass down and protect. This is in perfect harmony with the writings of the Church Fathers that I gave you, is it not?
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.
Again, another good question. Christ had shown through His ministry that man COULD have the power to forgive sins. Christ was God, but we must never forget that He also was man. Thus, what He did, we ALSO can do (with God's grace). AFTER His resurrection (and many people don't realize the significance of that), Jesus gave power to His Apostles to forgive sins in John 20:23. Earlier, He gave the Apostles the power to bind and loosen - which was the power to make binding decisions on the community (they were replacing the "chair of Moses" of Mt 23:3). The laying of hands has always been seen (in Scripture) as a passing of authority and power to another person. We see this in the OT and NT (Acts, especially, but also the Pastorals). The power of the Spirit is given THROUGH this visible "laying of hands". Again, this is right in line with what the later Church Fathers write. The continuity is quite amazing.
Regarding the Sacrament of Confession. The point of the sacrament is NOT to "earn" salvation - a hoop to jump through to obtain salvation. It is there for our spiritual good. It is there for post-Baptismal sins of serious account. We see even Paul has found that the reality of the matter is that Christians CONTINUE to sin AFTER Baptism and receiving the Spirit. He writes to SAVED Christians: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind" 1 Cor 6:9
Confession is a wonderful blessing that is similar in action to the story of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15. That is the meaning of Confession - a visible sign of forgiveness from Christ THROUGH the priest. WE cannot see or hear Christ say "I forgive you of your sins". Talk to any Catholic who practices Confession, and they will tell you it is soothing and comforting to the soul to HEAR that one has been forgiven. Through the power given by Christ to MEN, (Himself being the precedent) WE SEE and HEAR that we are forgiven. Today, psycologists say that this aids in closure and is instrumental in the healing process - to hear we are forgiven by the one we offended. Confession is a blessing to us, not a hoop or work to complete before we are saved. We are saved by the love we show others, done in faith, not by compiling a laundry list of things to do!
I don't think it is necessary to discard tradition, it just must be tested. For example, is not clerical celibacy a tradition?
You are correct in a sense. First, chronologically, Christ gave His Apostles a Body of teaching. Some they presented orally, others in letters. The letters became Scriptures. The oral teachings were ALSO written down, but are not Scriptures. It doesn't follow that the oral teachings originally given are of less value than the written epistles. They (the epistles) ARE treasured and considered inspired and inerrant. But properly understood, the OTHER teachings of the Apostles are ALSO "inspired". Thus, they BOTH have the same source. Today, we look at this body of teachings, the writings of the Fathers, the Liturgies, the Scriptures. They ALL must agree, correct? Those writings that do not agree, we cast out. The teachings must comply with each other. This means that Scripture INTERPRETATION must agree with Apostolic Tradition, and Apostolic Tradition must be at least IMPLIED or found within Scripture itself. But it is not necessary to be completely spelled out in its finished form.
An example. Intercessionary prayers to the saints in heaven. The Scripture does not EXPLICITLY mention it. But Apostolic Tradition DOES. Is it actually refuted in Scriptures? No. Is the practice implied? Yes. First, death does not separate us from Christ. Next, Paul himself asks for prayers, and he prays for other Christians. Finally, the prayers of a righteous man is effective. Certainly, those in heaven are righteous? So the concept is implied in the Scriptures, found in actual practice in early Christian history, and given a seal of approval by the leaders of the Church, who were charged to teach and protect correct doctrine (see the epistles of John and Jude for this idea of correct doctrine vs. heterodox teaching)
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
The priests of the OT had the exact same jobs. They, also, taught the people the "correct" way to come to God. Of course, the people must trust that God really did come to the prophets and patriarchs, just as WE must trust that God came to the Apostles! WE both do that with Scriptures! Really, don't we do that with the Bible? The Bible is NOT self-authenticating. The individual books, for the most part, don't SAY they are God's Word. WE know they are because SOMEONE TOLD US THEY ARE God's Word! Who? The Church did! If we don't believe the Church's witness, then why do we believe that the NT letters are God's Word? A final comment on this - the Jews do NOT believe the NT is the Word of God! Muslims believe on faith that the Koran was delivered by the Angel Gabriel as the literal Word of God. Thus, WE, MEN, rely on other men to tell us the Word of God. We either believe their word or not. This has been the way of things from the beginning (even the Jews had to make that choice - was Moses giving God's Commandments or his own?). So we ALL must trust God's messenger - and determine whether they really are God's messenger. We know this by their fruits and their works.
Regards
This is not a problem IF you believe that the Catholic Church was instituted by Christ, its continuity seen through the Scriptures and into the writings of the Church Fathers. If I didn't think the Church was a gift from God to guide us into the Kingdom, than I would totally agree with you.
Regards