For an example, there was a tradition that early Christians continued to honor the Sabbath day. They also met on the first day of the week to honor the resurrection of Jesus. When the Roman Emperor Constantine issued a decree making Sunday a day of rest from labor in 321 A.D. he did not forbid Saturday Sabbath observance, but said the empire should honor the "day of the sun" in order to satisfy both pagans and Christians. Even today, most Christian denominations conduct services on Sunday. Now this tradition developed after the Apostolic period and the day to meet was never demanded or commanded in Scripture as long as a day of rest was set aside - as Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made for the man and not man for the Sabbath.". Scripture DOES, however, state that "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."(Romans 14:5).
So we have a "tradition" that is not spelled out in Scripture but, since it does not contradict Scripture, it is acceptable. There are many other traditions that developed later within certain churches that are either optional or clearly contradicted by Scripture. For example, the tradition that women should not wear pants because Scripture says women should not dress like a man. We can clearly see from Scripture that there was a reason and a context for Paul stating women should not pretend to be men nor that men should dress as women. Its context had to do with homosexuality, and not a restriction like we think that has relevance today seeing as women wear pants who are NOT trying to look like men. Back in the first century, I'm sure even the men didn't wear "pants". But my point is that tradition certainly has a place but it must be judged against Scripture, which is our objective authority for the faith handed down to us from the Apostles.
Cyril was not the only "recognized" doctor of the church to say such things. The point is not that "tradition" has no place in the Christian faith, but that the Holy Scriptures must be the authority by which those traditions are judged to be relevant to the church today.Irenaeus is another ECF who practiced Sola Scriptura.
Irenaeus assesses the Gnostic position in these words:
When however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For they allege that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce (orally)...For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to &‘the perfect’ apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves.39
One must also be careful understand what is meant by tradition in the Fathers writings. Many times tradition just refers to the major tenets of the Faith as found in the scripture. Many times it is traditions such as facing the east or other liturgical proceedings. There has never been a major doctrine proved to originate from any apostle that is only ORAL in nature.
First, let me thank you and bkaycee for making this a reasonable discussion of doctrines and differences.
Your underlines the Catholic premise that there exists a hierarchy within the Revealed Word in which Scripture does indeed carry a higher weight than Tradition. We Catholics also believe that within Scripture there exists a similar hierarchy in which the actual words of Jesus hold a higher importance than do the letters and epistles of the Apostles and the laws and accounts of the Old Testament. However, all of Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture play an important role.
It is through this understanding of hierarchy that Catholic doctrines and dogma can be better understood.
If we parse the revealed Word and exclude Tradition can we then keep going and exclude everything except the Beatitudes and still be Christian?
There certainly are traditions that are not kept today, nor does Rome have unanimous consent of the fathers for all her doctrines, and the EOs also differ with Rome about what Tradition teaches in some things, primarily papal infallibility and power.
But i would have to differ regarding worship on Sunday being a result of a 4th cent, edit. Justin Martyr records this was practiced in the 2nd century, and the command to keep the 7 day Sabbath is the only one of the 10 commandments not reiterated under the New Cov., and i see it as falling into the class of typological laws. (Gal. 4:10; Heb. 4:309). But to save typing, i will just reference this which i first wrote a long time ago,
http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/lawandgrace.html
I also see a restriction against women in male clothing as not so much being against homosexuality, but in order to reflect the anatomical distinction God made btwn genders (thank God), and due to the Fall, and the attraction to female anatomical parts by normal males, beyond simply appreciating God-given beauty - the extent of which i think many women do not realize (while others seem to all too well).
No, there is NO excuse for us men taking that second look at a shapely female in revealing clothing, nor must we, and as there is a vast difference between women as regards how dress would affect this, one cannot make a dogmatic rule, yet i think women need to understand the command for modest apparel, and against unisex clothing, as having more of a purpose than preventing homosexuality.
And in a spiritual sense, God veils Himself, revealing enough so that souls should seek Him, but only to those who enter into covenant with Him will He the more fully reveal His glory. And true seeking prepares the heart for receiving with proper appreciation. But those scoffers who declare that God must explicitly show Himself to them on cue, if He expects them to believe, are spiritual rapists.