Such as Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura? We don't find those in Scripture, but they are the pillars of Protestantism. We BOTH rely on a particular concept, a paradigm, of what the Scriptures say. We admit this and call it "Apostolic Tradition". The Scriptures are read in a certain way. Coupled with the writings of the first Christians, we piece together what they believed and what they practiced, realizing that it was based on the Apostolic teachings given, both orally and written. Protestants, on the other hand, think that the Bible needs no outside authority - that the Bible can interpret itself. This is ludicrous.
Are we to believe that the US Government is wiser than God? The US Constitution is the basis of our Government, a document. This document can be widely interpreted to mean a variety of things on many issues. Thus, fortunately for the unity of our nation, the Founding Fathers came up with a Supreme Court, which would give authoritative judgments on interpretations of this Constitution. Without the Courts, people would pick and choose what the Constitution says and there would be no real unity and sense to the original meaning of the Constitution. What shape would our country be if people decided independently to judge what the Constitution says for the running of our Government or society in general? And that is exactly the mess we are in regarding Protestantism and Christianity.
Purgatory, the Mass, transubstantiation, indulgences, the treasury of merit, penance, the rosary, prayers to Mary, holy water, the papacy, immaculate conception are all based on extra Biblical sources, or your "oral tradition".
Some of these things are not dogmatic teachings. The rest are our understanding of what Scriptures and the Apostles taught. Much of this is witnessed to in the first Christians' writings. The Sacrifice of the Mass is discussed in the Didache, written about the time of John's Gospel. Christians were certainly practicing the Real Presence of Christ. These practices are found in the Bible, although not as clearly as we would like to see. But should we expect more clarity? Not necessarily, because the Bible is NOT a Catechism, but a compilation of letters put together ad hoc. The Church itself is the pillar and foundation of the truth, not the Bible. The Bible is one source that the Church uses, but certainly not the only one, in determining Christian practice. We realize that dogma develops - our understanding of the Scriptures and Apostolic teachings comes to a more clear understanding over time.
If oral traditions and written words are equivalent once those oral teachings from the Apostles were written down isn't it much more reliable to stand with the written word? Also, the Apostles who were the only ones granted supernatural power are all gone so we can no longer receive these oral teachings directly from them.
Yes, oral teachings that are written down are more reliable. When we discuss "oral teachings", we don't mean that these teachings STILL are "oral"! For example, infant baptism is an example of an orally given Tradition of the Apostles. It is not EXPLICIT in the Bible, nor is it DENIED. Scripture is silent on the issue. However, in the writings of early Christians, we find the basis for infant baptism and the claim that it was an "ancient teaching of the Apostles". Thus, when we discover an orally given teaching of the Apostles not found explicitly in the Bible - perhaps only implicitly so - it holds the same force as the written Scriptures in that BOTH have the same source - GOD.
We don't receive teachings directly from the Apostles, but it is passed down by the men appointed to be successors BY the Apostles, men such as Timothy and Titus. We believe that the Holy Spirit will continue to guard against error, since the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. This is not meant only for 50 AD, but for all time, as God's presence will continue to guide His Body.
Regards