Ping!
The explanation of tradition is technically correct (see Strong’s G3862 paradosis) but glosses over Catholic traditions that directly contradict or have contradicted or have no basis in the black and red letter word of Scripture.
Wanted to post a photo, but I couldn’t remember how, and couldn’t find that HTML primer that used to be on here.
Christ was always talking to the Pharisees about the folly of their human traditions, washing up to the elbows before eating; eating with sinners, for instance.
A Return to Tradition: A new interest in old ways takes root in Catholicism and many other faiths
The Importance of Tradition Today
The Place of Custom and Tradition
Early Church Fathers on (Oral) Tradition - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
Holy Tradition: The Road That Leads Home
On Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition
Recovering the Catholic Moral Tradition: The notion of happiness
APOSTOLIC TRADITION: Consistency or Contradiction?
Can Vatican II be interpreted in the light of Tradition?
The New Mass: A Return to Tradition???
Pope praises Ukrainian-Catholic Church for upholding Sacred Tradition, communion with Seat of Peter
The Shadow Tradition - Magisterium vs Murk
[Catholic] Tradition catching on with Baptists [Ecumenical Ash Wed. Service]
Pope will preside at Ash Wednesday Mass, procession; act will renew ancient tradition
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
Papal Supremacy Is Against Tradition
"In Light Of Tradition"... The Society Of St. Pius X And Vatican II
The traditions taught to the apostles have been changed. In other words, subsequent generations didn't "hold fast" to those traditions. Some of these tradition no longer held by the majority of "traditional" Christians include observing Jesus Christ's holy days and his sabbath.
Christ taught from a foundation of scripture. His beef was with those whose tradition supplanted or replaced the scriptures he inspired to be written.
I don't have time, this morning, to do much more typing. But the upshot is that the custom was to dedicate one's inheritance to the temple, thus placing it off limits for caring for parents. This custom ended up violating the 4th Commandment of the Decalogue.
Thus, in the context of what was written, we should acknowledge that people who obey the traditions of men OVER AND ABOVE the Word of God are in error and sin against God.
The same holds true to this day: little "T" traditions that go against the Word of God are in error and bring people to sin.
However, what is identified as big "T" Sacred Tradition, being the orally passed-down Word of God, can not contradict Scripture, the written Word of God. I challenge somebody to show where it does.
The United Methodist Book of Discipline states that "Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture, however, is primary, revealing the Word of God so far as it is necessary for our salvation." Some scholars have called this the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, though that term could lead you to think that each "leg" of the quadrilateral is equal, where in fact, what Wesleyans believe is that Scripture is the centerpiece of belief. Here is a quote from Wesley: "Do not undervalue traditional evidence. Let it have its place and its due honour. It is highly serviceable in its kind, and in its degree" (Works, X, 75). Wesley believed that Christians should be aware of the full force of Christian tradition, for it supplies a link through history with Jesus and the apostles, drawing us into fellowship with those who have finished the race, fought the fight, and who now reign with God.
Of course, as a child of the Reformation, Wesley was also sometimes suspicious of tradition, and again, always believed it should not replace or supplant, but instead, help our understanding of Scripture, which is the primary source of our knowledge of Christian faith.
In my own life as a Christian, I see traditions influencing me all the time. But I always try to compare these to Scripture. (I understand the idea of Scripture being part of Christian tradition.) Not all traditions seem to withstand a Biblical test. (I won't go into particular ones here, for I don't wish to be argumentative.) I think where I would part from the Catholic view of tradition is that though I see it as important, I don't believe in a centralized interpretation of them. I believe that it is possible for the church to have erred in some ways. But there you have it. My Protestant roots are showing! I do indeed believe Christians can, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, interpret Scripture. But this shouldn't be divorced from the influence of the rich history of Christianity. (I hope this all made some sense. My thoughts have been a bit scattered lately.)
This viewpoint is probably where this old joke came from: Catholics aren't too sure about Methodists because they seem too Baptist; Baptists are suspicious of Methodists because they're, well, too Catholic. :)