I've seen that argument before, but it has serious flaws.
The "our acceptance" of what you refer to as "Sacred Tradition", as that could be conceptualized or understood to be includes more than a few considerations which cannot be found in, as you otherwise mentioned;
that would be old enough to make them undeniably "Apostolically" sourced, which in ending result leaves this same Sacred Tradition (which I assume you are referring to) not required by anyone really, to be taken as Gospel (good news & truth) in it's present-day entirety.
There are portions --- which are the New Testament texts themselves. What was that you just said about "no verbatim"?
Then say goodbye to prayers to departed saints, which seek the intercession of those.
Singular papacy for whomever it is who may gain office of bishop of Rome --- is even further away from "Apostolic times", fully including the first few centuries (at least), wherein there is also enough converging lines of evidence to fully dispute that so-called Apostolic succession included anything approaching concept of Peter's own most primary successors would by dint of geographical considerations be most chiefly (as in higher ranked over all others) to whomever it was at any one time who happened to be bishop of Rome. Scripture itself refutes the notion also -- which is most likely why the concept (singular "primacy", in effect equaling Supremacy for 'Rome') took so long to develop.
THAT sort of idea was entirely of later development -- with converging lines of evidence indicating that when that concept first began to be asserted (by those of Rome, alone) it was rebuked by many within the Church, although those of Rome were not regarded as having "no" perceived authority whatsoever. Quite the contrary (more particularly as centuries continued to pass) for that bishopric, being in the city having been once seat of Empire of Rome, and having enjoyed what came to be referred to among the wider church (only centuries after true apostolic age) as having double apostolicity for reason that church traditions placed both Paul & Peter there, leaving it be important for sake of unity to have that church's agreement, but not so important that early Roman church 'popes' were themselves beyond the correction of others, or could themselves unilaterally 'lay down the law'.
Otherwise, the Church at Antioch and at Jerusalem could be seen as "center" ---BUT--- when both of those churches were still flourishing (so to speak?) in the earliest centuries, there was no one particular church or bishopric regarded as center of all the Church.
This part ---> Tradition holds it to be inspired Scripture because it was regarded as suitable for use in the Liturgy in ancient churches comes across as rather convoluted, being that the primary, most fundamental reason that any of the writings which were "regarded as suitable for use in liturgy" in the first place was that the writings had been widely enough received & accepted as coming from Apostolic sources, although not all had to be written by the original 12 (and the first replacement?) to have been from the first generation of Church, ie., the Apostles themselves, and those most close to them from the most primitive beginnings...(not others whom never themselves witnessed Christ, or were not present among and under the direct tutelage of the undisputed, genuine Apostles in the first, most primitive decades).
That such writings as the book of Hebrews did eventually gain fullest acceptance a bit later than most all of the rest (I won't go into the details of other, late to be fully known of, and "accepted" texts) although bearing witness of the strength of early oral tradition in regards to such fundamental matters, does not equal that those who accept NT Scripture must then also unquestionably accept all which it can be reasonably enough shown --- arose and further developed only in centuries after those first few centuries.
I'm still waiting for clear evidences of "prayers TO departed saints" (rather than for, or about them) imploring them for their own intercession to be sourced from earlier than the 4th century.
Citing Paul requesting others still living upon earth pray for himself (as I have seen be part of RC apologetic) simply does not equal that earliest church traditions included PTDS.
So save the whales the breath?
Maybe I am thud-headed from my allergy, but this is the second sentence (one long sentence) of your reply, and I don't quite get what it means:
The "our acceptance" of what you refer to as "Sacred Tradition", as that could be conceptualized or understood to be includes more than a few considerations which cannot be found in, as you otherwise mentioned;
manuscripts, hymns, old lists, monuments and inscriptions, and above all, the actual customs and practices of the churches, and make reasonable inferences, usually from converging lines of evidence.that would be old enough to make them undeniably "Apostolically" sourced, which in ending result leaves this same Sacred Tradition (which I assume you are referring to) not required by anyone really, to be taken as Gospel (good news & truth) in it's present-day entirety.
|
Could you break that sentence down a little for a thud-headed, ignorant woman? Does this have something to do with the authorship of the Gospels? |