I asked for a verifiable source for the teachings of Tradition. The Scriptural verses you cited are highly controversial (don’t clearly indicate Sacred Tradition) and even if they did, they don’t give us the teachings of Tradition.
Correct me if I am wrong, but is seems that wha you are looking for is a credible written record of what constitutes Catholic Tradition written before the death of St. John in 106 AD. Right? Let me save us all some time. No such comprehensive encyclopedia exists from the 1st century. And it would be an encyclopedia. Instead, that record was written on the collective hearts of the faithful and passed down by word and action through the generations. It was also written down in time, starting with scripture, the Didache, the letter of St. Clement to the Corinthians, the creeds, the writings of the Early Church fathers, the Papal bulls, the proceedings of the church councils, etc. If you study all these sources, Catholic Tradition becomes evident. Now it is equally true that in parallel to this, there were heretical works as well. How can someone tell the difference? By asking the magesterium.
I don’t see any reason to think Christians before the death of the last Apostle believed Mary was assumed in to heaven on the basis of scant documentation 400+ years after the alleged event. I don’t want to diver the topic on to the assumption, but I want to make the point that you can’t just assume that the Church has always practiced or believed (x) simply because at some point in the Church’s history it believed or practiced (x). You have to actually demonstrate.
The reason to believe that Mary was assumed into heaven is that the church says that this is true. You either believe the Church or you don’t. Consider for a minute what the church had to gain by saying that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven? Can you think of anything? I can’t. The only reason it says this is because it is true.
hmm, I think it’s demonstrably false that we need a magisterium but I’ll put that topic aside for now.
In fact, you words above clearly demonstate that a magesterium is needed. Otherwise. without an authoritative source, each man would be become his own, ineffective magesterium. I know thats what many people want - to be able to decide what is true on their own. but in fact,when they do this, they are only fooling themselves. Truth is eternal, it does not change because we don’t like it.
As to a source of Tradition, it seems you’re still saying there is no verifiable source. All we have is the magisterium’s claims. However, you make it a point to say the magisterium is reliable, and can be trusted because of ____. I understand you believe the magisterium is trustworthy in its declarations etc. For our purposes here, I just want to know whether there is a source of Tradition-teachings like there is a source of Scripture-teachings (the Bible).
Is there, or isn’t there?
The credibility of Tradition and the credibility of scripture are each derived from the credibility of the Catholic Magesterium which defined both. Remember, scripture wasn’t stabilized until Pope St. Damasus pronounced the Canon in 382AD. Up until that point, some churches considered St. Clement’s letter and the Didache to be scripture and others denied Hebrews, Jude, Peter 2, John 2, John 3 and Revelations. The criteria the Pope used was that what was accepted into the canon must be Apostolic in origin, suitable for liturgical and teaching purposes, and widely accepted by the churches. Clement was suitable for liturgical and teaching purposes and was widely accepted but not apostolic, so it was excluded. The didache, an apostolic catechism, was widely accepted and apostolic but not suitable for liturgical purposes. In a similar way, The magesterium defines what is and has been tradition for the Catholic Church. It is no different. In fact, Scripture is just a subset of Catholic Tradition.
