I don’t want to seem like I’m piling on,but I think a simple answer might be of benefit at this point.
Semper, you ask a question about 2 Thessalonians that you know is intended as a “gotcha” question because the way you formulate it, it is a nonsensical question. It is disingenuous. There is no written list containing all of the traditions because it was never meant to have been written (nor could it be)–the Apostle never wrote it for a reason.
What this passage does show is that there is Truth that is exceedingly important that is not recorded in Scripture. Truth that was explicitly entrusted to the Apostle’s ordained successors, and to the faithful. Is that not evidence enough that sola scriptura is false (Scripture itself pointing to the Church additionally)? Is that not evidence that there is apostolic tradition that is important?
Now, at least, you must consider what that tradition consisted of. In doing so, it becomes apparent why the early Christians cared so much about valid apostolic succession, and about the authority of the apostolic offices–it was a sign and safeguard as well as a vault of Truth not contained in other writings. The Lord knew of the many deficiencies of writing, not least of which was the simple problem of practicality back then, copying, translating, preserving, and transmitting written documents. That is why he made faith to come by hearing, why it was said that not all the books in the world could contain his doings while on earth, and why Christ made the Church his own Body and gave it his Spirit to establish and preserve the Deposit of Truth on earth.
Consider this: if we have an infinite God, we will never know all His Truths as finite creatures. Yet by becoming one of us, our infinite God revealed ALL of Himself to us in Christ. Could the Apostles ever possibly fully understand that infinite revelation? Obviously not.
And so we have Christ’s promise that the Spirit would lead us into the “remembrance of all things”–since he revealed all of himself already, but not all could be comprehended. This promise was to the Apostles. Could the Apostles transmit that “remembrance of all things” to the whole Church in their lifespan? No? Alright then, now you begin to see why they filled their numbers when they lost Judas, why Paul was numbered as an apostle, and why they then had successors. You also see that these successors bore the same gift Christ gave, so that his promise remained true. That gift is preserved in the apostolic office, as well as the action of the Spirit through all the faithful in general in the preservation of tradition. By this understanding you can also see that the Church now can have been lead into “remembrance of all things” to a degree greater than that possible in the even more finite earlier days (the younger Church, the fewer people). The Deposit of Truth has always been with us in its fullness since Christ came and instituted himself as the Church’s Body and Head and cornerstone (remember, the apostles are the foundation stones), and the Spirit has ensured that this Deposit is not squandered, lost, damaged, or died through lack of use or growth in understanding of it.
Do you have another explanation that clearly explains all the things (and plenty more) that I mentioned, all of which are easily explained by Catholic belief?
Peter’s confession is the rock but even if it was Peter, it’s a tremendous leap to get to the modern day papacy. Peterine primacy is not synonymous with the modern version of the papcy.
By what leap do you get “Peter’s confession” and then justify his name change? You know that this isn’t the only area where the Petrine office is referred in Scripture, right? How Jesus, the ultimate Davidic King, followed that tradition in passing the keys to a “prime minister;” how Peter was always named and always acted as first among the Apostles; how Jesus named him the primary shepherd while reversing Peter’s thrice betrayal?
C’mon, you don’t really believe it was 1500 years of smooth sailing do you? Go back to the NT and look what happened in the first few decades after the resurrection…ie. one needn’t look 1500 years after the resurrection to see stormy waters. The schism with the Orthodox…interesting that you overlook so much history. I guess to be deep in history is to cease being Catholic.
How do you explain the fractious history of Protestantism? Or are you waiting for a “restoration” and Protestantism is just the best attempt until then? If so, we can talk about why Joseph Smith is wrong, too.
Yes the early Church dealt with heresies. Satan has always assailed the Church, and man has always been a prideful fool ready to mislead himself and others. What distinguishing factor was there between the Church and the various heretical Christian groups other than the fact that the heresies relied on personal interpretation (of individuals or a leader) while the Church resorted to apostolic succession and tradition?
(sempre reformada - that’s me!)