Do Catholics do a poor job at explaining Sacred Tradition?

[simspt]

Do Catholics do a poor job at explaining Sacred Tradition?

Often on this forum Catholics debate a variety of issues and we use the early Church fathers, Bible, and magisterium documents to defend our position. But it seems like many of the positions can be properly explained if we could properly explain how Sacred Tradition works.

Debates I’m thinking of are Papacy, Sacraments, Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Conception, Eucharist (real presense vs Symbolic), etc.

I personally know I’m “horrible” at explaining Sacred Tradition and typically resort to other sources for proof. But typically the proofs I attempt to defend was confided to the Church as a deposit and not always explicitly written in a way that can be sufficiently explained using 1 or 2nd century documents.

Thoughts?

I have had many questions regarding the relationship between Scripture and Tradition as a new Catholic. I have found a couple of books very insightful including

The meaning of Tradition by Yves Congar OP
amazon.com/The-Meaning-Tradition-Yves-Congar/dp/158617021X

and

The Vindication of Tradition by Jaroslav Pelikan
amazon.com/The-Vindication-Tradition-Jefferson-Humanities/dp/0300036388/ref=la_B000APFCLW_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1346279799&sr=1-12

In Christ
JMS

 

[JaKael02]

I have had many questions regarding the relationship between Scripture and Tradition as a new Catholic. I have found a couple of books very insightful including

The meaning of Tradition by Yves Congar OP
amazon.com/The-Meaning-Tradition-Yves-Congar/dp/158617021X

and

The Vindication of Tradition by Jaroslav Pelikan
amazon.com/The-Vindication-Tradition-Jefferson-Humanities/dp/0300036388/ref=la_B000APFCLW_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1346279799&sr=1-12

Solid reviews. I’ll have to check them out. Do you feel you understand Sacred Tradition well now? Does it help you explain all the Catholic teachings better about Pope/Mary/etc?