Hi zerinus,
I am afraid you probably can’t locate such a sourcebook. Tradition mostly takes the form of actions than writing. I’ll try to explain.
Sacred Tradition would be mostly found in practices of the Church that were handed down from generation to generation. This becomes important in the area of doctrine when one can see by a particular ancient practice, the corresponding doctrine. For instance, we see that Tertullian objected to the practice of infant baptism shortly before he became a Montanist. This would imply that infant baptism has its origin before this time, and Catholics would say it goes back to the Apostolic times. The liturgy is another good source of Sacred Tradition. One can discover a lot about what the Church taught from what the Church prayed corporately.
But I don’t believe the Church divides doctrines which are known through Sacred Tradition versus those which are known through Sacred Scripture. That is why I think you will vainly search for a Catholic reference such as you are thinking about. It is my opinion that Sacred Scripture contains implicitly what becomes explicit by pondering Sacred Tradition and vice versa. Both sources supplement each other and do not stand alone. (Two witnesses?)
It is reasonable that others preceded him with this idea, but St. Irenaeus is the first of the Fathers of the Church to have a documented appeal to Apostolic Tradition as an authority for determining right doctrine and practice:—Against Heresies 3:4:1
It thus became a source of authority for the local churches to consult with the Apostolic churches, and particularly the church at Rome (since both Sts. Peter and Paul ministered and were martyred there) to see what Rome taught or did if a dispute should arise. Eventually the churches of the west almost all adopted the same liturgy used by the Roman church even to the point of invoking the Roman martyrs during the prayers of the Mass.
Thank you Roy for your interesting reply. That however raises more puzzling questions for me. From what I hear, in Catholicism Sacred Tradition has an
equal place with Sacred Scripture in determining Catholic doctrine; yet is has the vaguest, the most indefinable and indeterminate definition of what constitutes Sacred Tradition.
All the major Abrahamic religions have a tradition as well as a scripture. The Jews and Muslims have it too. But there are two main differences between their Traditions and the Catholic one. Firstly, their Traditions are something that is
written. There are books you can consult to find out what it is. In Judaism if I am not mistaken it is in the Talmud. Our Jewish friends can correct me if I am wrong. So there is a place you can go to, to find out what it is. The same is true of Islam. Their Tradition is called the Sunnah, and it consists of the recorded sayings and practices of the Prophet Mohamed and his immediate followers. There are books that can be consulted to find out what it is. From what I gather, some of those “traditions” are of doubtful authenticity. But many of them are probably genuine. But the main thing is that it is recorded. There are sources you can go to, to find out what it is.
The other difference between them is that in both cases, Scripture takes
precedence over Tradition in determining doctrine. In the New Testament, although Jesus accepted Jewish Scripture unreservedly, He did not give equal place to their traditions. When they criticized him for not following the “tradition of the elders,” His reply was,
“Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3). In Islam too Scripture takes precedence over Tradition. An Islamic jurist who wants to determine Islamic law on a particular subject, his first point of reference is the Koran. If he cannot find his answer in that source, then he turns to Tradition.
Even Mormonism has a “tradition” of sorts—although we don’t call it by that name. The writings and sermons of past presidents and General Authorities of the Church can be regarded as part of the Mormon “tradition”. But the same distinction applies here too. Firstly, it is something that is
written. There are sources you can consult to fund out what it is. Secondly, scripture always takes precedence over tradition. If there is a discrepancy between the two, for us scripture always wins. But in the Catholic Church, Sacred Tradition is the most vague, indefinable, indeterminate thing ever. It is like pulling rabbits out of a hat!
And it is afforded
equal place with Sacred Scripture in determining Catholic doctrine! That is what I find most puzzling.
The only difference is you learn Tradition where else but in Gods House. Church!