OK, let's take Tradition-with-a-capital-T 101. Truths that we have from Apostolic times, which are not, themselves, found in print in the Scriptures.
Why would I mention more --- Worshiping together on Sunday. The basic form of Divine Liturgy. Monogamy. Getting married in church, with a priest/deacon as witness. The other Sacraments understood as such: Baptism, the Eucharist, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Penance, Anointing of the Sick. The special loving regard for the "Theotokos, Panagia" and ever-virgin Mary,"Beata Maria Semper Virgine" --- if you don't even see that the written Scriptures themselves depend on MUCH WIDER* oral or unwritten sources for their composition, compilation, preservation, transmission, translation, interpretation, and distribution?
What was the Rule of Faith, what was the Standard of Belief, during the decades before even the first of the Four Gospels were even written? during the 6 or 7 decades before the canon was closed? During the literal centuries when almost nobody would have possessed the entire canon of Sacred Scripture in writing?
Your own (and our own)precious, indispensable, inerrant written authority --- the Bible --- rests on the underlying, wider authority of Tradition; and the whole shebang rests on Christ's promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church on Her pilgrimage through history.
I can only thank the Holy Spirit, Divine Author of Scripture and Guardian of Apostolic Tradition.
MUCH WIDER *
John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
And again, *tradition* does not give anyone license to make things up that are not found or even supported in Scripture and pass them off as truth and teach them as truth.
Nor does it give anyone the authority to make believing in something that can’t be found or substantiated in Scripture as binding on the believer.
Also, extrapolating the justification for *sacred tradition* (teaching that something not found or substantiated in Scripture) from the claim that acceptance of Scripture as authoritative is wholly based on tradition, is not a valid argument for it.
Scripture is NEVER subservient to tradition, no matter how that tradition is packaged.
Nor is the Holy Spirit ever credited or named in Scripture as the *Guardian of Apostolic Tradition*.
That’s a total fabrication by the Catholic church.
At every turn, the Catholic church seeks to diminish the integrity and validity of the very God breathed Holy Spirit inspired word of God.
Whether it’s by putting it under the authority of tradition, or the claims that it’s merely written tradition, it’s diminishing God’s word.
Has God REALLY said.....????
Let's not confuse O.T. tradition and Apostolic tradition with Catholic tradition, okay? The names of the authors of the Torah?? The Catholics are claiming credit for that?? Please.
The authors for the N.T.?? #1 Known BEFORE the RCC and #2 Nice to know but have nothing to do with doctrine. The RCC gets real sticky when it comes to credit and not so much when it comes to (a multitude of) blame.
Now THAT is not entirely true. And to the extent it hold element of truth, molehills are being made into a veritable mountain range...
Centuries? Almost nobody have the entire?
Not unless we consider how it was frequent enough for a few to be missing one or more of the minor "catholic" epistles, or say, the Epistle to the Hebrews, as that was a bit late, later yet to gain widest acceptance...possibly due in part to gain actual acceptance by all whom knew of it, for reason the actual original may well have been written in Hebrew language(?) and then delayed yet additionally in being spread earlier and further by events in AD 70? No one now living perhaps truly knows, now, unless the Lord has revealed the details to them.
Where is the "oral tradition" to explain that-- other than the writing itself as that has come down to us...although there are some writings concerning it, which those who know the languages and enough of the literature have themselves read, and then written in English about it --so I myself could know a little bit about it.
Some of the foot dragging in regards to acceptance for that one -- was due to it not being known of as early and as widely for almost all the rest? Something like that...but most of the rest not known by ANY for literally centuries? Even Revelation became fairly widely known of in the early 2nd century, so you could be correct only marginally so - IF THAT, and that not enough to make the case which you appear to me to be attempting to make.
When it came to defining what was and what was not actually apostolic -- the measure was whether or not many either had a copy (from earliest times) or else some real and primary accounting of such amongst the oldest apostolically founded churches whom had the autographs themselves, or knew of the ones which they may not for a time had possessed having been told of them or written to including mention etc,.. .with the writings themselves being also ratified as authentic by Apostles themselves and other 1st generation witness to them, if those witnesses not witness to Christ also (being that many in Israel did see Him with their own eyes, even possibly be among the five hundred or so who Paul later wrote of whom personally witnessed the Risen Christ.
So yes, by oral tradition of that manner, and likely yet more little ways, oral tradition did indeed serve to help establish ---- what had been properly as from the Apostles and Luke, who was not an Apostle per se, but was obviously present with, or had gained significant in-depth knowledge (likely--as personal & direct) witness to the Apostles and earliest church years, in Jerusalem, himself mentioning also "how many had attempted to write accounts of the events" with himself writing to set the record straight, so to speak.
Then for the other latest arriving book --Revelation, being dated by most in-the-know concerning such things date that the year 90 AD.
Coming late, and also being quite different than the greater bulk of the remainder of the NT, and also possibly far too much resembling early Gnostic religious *fantasy* led many to long doubt that book -- which even if not everyone (every or *most all* churches) possessing full copies of the greater bulk, the main trunk of the NT Scriptures (the Gospels, most all Pauliine Epistles, 'twas enough when coupled with early oral traditions).
As far as I have so far been informed by the time of the writing of Revelation, most all of the churches near regional to the near Middle East, North Africa, Rome itself, were well enough aware of at least the existence of the rest (save for some not knowing this one or that among those small catholic epistles as I mentioned) with churches of any size and influence (and remember, there were not many at ALL which were not in fairly regular association with their parent churches, most acutely when less than many days travel away from one another) which those whom purposefully traveled from place to place among them (as spoken of in the Didache) would not have failed to bring -- at least spoken mention, at least, of whichever letters and writings flowed out over span a few decades (which a few here or there may have continued to lack for some decades-- but NOT centuries) from sources authenticated as apostolic from those whom had walked with Christ.
The writings were most certainly cherished, and then purposefully shared as they came about. That spurred the efforts to copy, and purposefully share what each a had received.
So no, dear it did not take "centuries" in order for most everyone to know what had been circulated.
The simple pointing toward OT AND NT canons as you did, and then waving the word "Tradition" over them, in no real way equates with those whom then later possessed the texts would adhere to them properly, and then, by their own "traditions" also, always then produce the perfect will, or desires of God spoken of by and through tradition; which must then be taken 'as Gospel truth' (as it is written, even infallibly inspired, coming down from on High through prophets, etc.) on the same level as that which the Jews had recognized as Scripture, and then later, in ways I have touched upon explaining, for the Christians, the NT texts -- as "Bible" or canon, the Jews possibly having been the ones who had invented the precept of canon-- certainly -- in regards to the One true God.
If not, and I if am wrong enough about this (as for no one being able to trust "tradition" unreservedly -- not in this day and age) and yourself instead entirely correct --- then we should all be Jews or convert-- and still follow the Sanhedrin in whichever form we can find them, even tossing aside Christ for reason He opposed them.
Yet even though the Jewish religious authorities of that era were not entirely correct (not beyond correction) and in fact were quite painfully wrong about some ideas or ways of thinking, even in how they taught the inerrant Law of God, He still used them to illuminate for all whom have eyes to see, man's inherent wickedness, even also as that can work itself into and quite near the very things of the One, true God.
But we do not reject Christ.
Christ rebuked these 'teachers' (I know the Scriptures and what they say) for *some* (but not all) of their traditions, yet previously you had remarked, somewhat massaging NT texts, that Christ had directed everyone to follow them, the teachers (He does appear to say such a thing -- but not quite as you had represented it) even as you had also linked to Oral Tradition wiki-link which there spoke of alleged 'rabbinical' writings which paralleled the books of the Law, etc.
Well let me tell you something extremely significant about that tradition, particularly now that you have linked and compared the traditions of those 'teachers' with the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church;
So there goes the instructions to follow *them* --- for to do so could lead one to be opposing His will in yet other ways.
Sorry, but I will NEVER trade Sola Ecclesia (do what we say) for having mind towards having always in ready reserve the very Word of God itself --- It is Written! Have these laws written upon your heart!
Do not ever again probe me or prod me towards allegedly being required to trade Scripture for some collection of jack-wagon's declarations that their church is "God on earth" and that depite what Scripture can informto the contrary, they and they alone have 'authority' of Sola Ecclesia.
Nope.
Do you not know -- that is how the most wicked cults operate?
Why can't Roman Catholic trust God Himself when He said "None can come unto Me unless the Father which have sent me draw them." and also recognize at the same moment that the written word, the word of God is more powerful than a two edged sword, dividing even the bone and marrow? And for this...only for those whom have the Holy Spirit present within themselves, that Spirit being sent from on High, and though possibly present within at least some of Roman Catholic faithful, is also simultaneously present within at least *some* so-called "protestants"?
Or is that too difficult to wrap one's mind around?
Did you or did you not here on these pages testify that you yourself experienced the inflowing or baptism of the spirit, in setting of a Pentecostal church? ding, ding ding, hello? is there anybody home in there?
This following which you wrote to me, I find to be extremely freighted with mistaken projections upon myself as to what I accept -- and what I do not.
although I understand how that apologetic came to be a part of Romanist thought.
Yet I say to you -- that simply that a thing or precept have or hold elements of that which can be well enough determined to be true (at least true in part, or better yet -- intent?) does not equate with those precepts as they are then further spoken of, applied and even enforced (as much as a church can enforce anything) make them into being entirely true, or on the same plane as that which we hold to be Scripture.
It did not for the Jews of old -- and THAT was part of their own traditions, for none of them would dare to broadcast to others that 'rabbinical writing' was anywhere nearly on par with that which they regarded as Scripture, even as they did at time err in allowing their own body of [ahem] traditional thinking and talking about Scriptures to perhaps too fully within their own minds substitute for the written Word of God, which written word Christ Himself came to fulfill, and did, to the utmost extent.
I could go on, including how as Origen is attributed to having noted --- that the idea of perpetual virginity for Mary, was not at all written of until some time after the pseudographical writing now referred to as the Protoevangelum of James came about.
I understand too, that many web pages featuring RCC apologetics, or writings concerning "Mary" try to place the date for that aforementioned pseudograph as early as 120 AD -- but the more scholarly take on that has solid reasons for determining no earlier than 160 AD to 180 AD.
Origen himself remarked that it seemed a pious idea to him, even if it was not supported in earlier writings (of which he had a significant amount -- many we likely have scarcely heard of or at all been able to read)
So that's one more thing in this capital "T" "tradition" which itself is apparently erroneous although also began to be widespread from quite early on -=- but not before that fake, phony pretender-to-be-written by James the brother of Christ book was for a time accepted by more than a few (but never by all) before after some 60-80 years? something like that was given enough of the rhetorical-mention BOOT that afterwards it not be regarded as genuine NT writing -- but only after it had introduced it's collection of erroneous information which still lives on to this day within "Catholic" tradition, for from time to time even on the pages of FR -- I see stuff from there which in regards to "Mary" otherwise has no earlier source (that I know of) beyond the simple change from hailing her as "blessed Virgin" to "Blessed Ever-virgin", etc.
Traditions in regards to Mary's alleged assumption I has studied somewhat also -- convincing me that Traditions are not always what they are cracked up to be. I am sorry, but I am a realist also -- and although I more than believe in God, and in Jesus as he is portrayed and written of in the Scriptures -- for I do not simply believe that God is real for I instead know (and that IS different then belief) for He has intervened in my life in ways so powerful I am not sure you could believe if I was able to explain -- but -- HE has made a believer out of me.
Men? Even the Church (and specially the Church) I do not entirely trust to get it right, or ever get it entirely, flawlessly, "right" regardless of all the hopeful talk represented as fact that among all ecclesia that there has ever been on earth --- the onliest one which has never erred -- is that one which has formally the bishop of Rome, as it's "pope".
You may continue to attempt to convert me if you so please -- but I have now abundant enough reason (going on for days) beyond what I have written, in this one single letter to you.