**Really? You mean “breaking bread” meant the Catholic Eucharist in Acts? Where?**
Silly you. ‘Tradition’ brings out these unrecorded teachings. It is unlimited in rule making. Kinda like the 0bummer machine.
An amorphous source, out of which Rome channels doctrine, even "remembering" fables which lacks early testimony.
Ratzinger writes (emp. mine),
Ratzinger writes (emp. mine), Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.
This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts [or actual ancient reliable records] …But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously [meaning the needed evidence was absent] and was already handed down in the original Word.” [invisibly but per Rome's say so, via amorphous oral tradition]- J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), pp. 58-59.