We are not talking here about camels or noses. Quite simply, there are MANY things that Christ said and did that are not part of recorded Scripture. They were handed down by what we have come to know as the oral tradition from Peter and his apostles to his successors the Popes may of whom were the early Church Fathers and saints of the Church. This is the received tradition of Holy Scripture along with revelation that is the true deposit of the faith. There cannot be multiples truths. If that were so every street corner pastor in every FourSquare Church would claim to be to be teaching the Gospel of our Lord including Joel Osteen, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Mormons, the Church of Scientology...you get the point. This is why great thinkers, philosophers, scientists, essayists like GK Chesterton, including atheists and a former Chief Rabbi of Rome all converted to Catholicism. That the current Pope has been called the Theological Einstein of our times simply adds an exclamation point to all of this who has famously said that faith and reason are braided together to make for the compelling witness to Truth contained in the Catholic Credo. “The One True, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church...” The Church for the ages where the gates of hell shall not prevail against Her.
Oh yes we are!
This is the camel's nose;
They were handed down by what we have come to know as the oral tradition from Peter and his apostles to his successors the Popes may of whom were the early Church Fathers and saints of the Church.
Notice the "jump", the assumption that something crucial was passed down...but no definition of what that was in the slightest.
It IS THE SAME EXACT ARGUMENT some of the early gnostics made, except that there were being specific as to what information was explained much by;"Oh, we were told this by an apostle". "We were told these things, but not anyone else was told." Later gnostics, not having had much direct access to apostles, nor any records of some teaching or another having been given directly to them, claimed to have gotten things "through revelation".
When such departed from scripture, introducing new ideas, or adding to, distorting that which is contained in scripture, such was battled against by, as I made mention of "early church notables". In other places those can be seen to be referred to as "Early Church Fathers".
I've seen the argument you are trying to make here, be so thoroughly shredded it's not even funny. Yet it keeps coming back...because the same faulty premises keep getting repeated by folks whom should know better! (that might not be you).
Those that do know better, at least try to doll the argument up, by calling it "unpacking". The trouble with that is, once some of the stuff is unfolded, it's so far off track of the original message (as can be found in the scriptures) that it is opposition to scripture itself (and many times in opposition to the writings of "Early Church Fathers too!) being as it either adds new themes, or undoes old ones by changing definitions, sometimes in mid-sentence, adding requirements which makes grace itself (the unmerited favor of God) something one must "do works" to obtain.
Thank God for the Reformation. The approaches found there, towards "grace' and justification (this latter one of those things which can be seen to be redefined in mid-sentence in RCC pronouncements) which were pressed by the Reformers, have positively (for the good) affected RCC teachings, at least in some quarters. That it may be said that such as is now taught of in the RCC (at times and places), aligns much with that which the Reformers stressed as being of primary importance, which also can be found to be supported by "early church fathers", buttresses the case that either and both groups are on the right track when they do also stress the same "primary" principles.
So what is it exactly that was passed down from the ORIGINAL apostles, what theme or set of ideas that we cannot otherwise find CLEAR evidence of in what scripture we have? If you cannot show me that, then what is left but to fall back on the the later arising "traditions"?
We can in many ways show and reasonably track items like "papal supremacy" not being an early tenet of the church (and much resisted even within the Latin church when first being strongly pressed, somewhere around the sixth century, if memory serves) and so on.
I realize my having said so will invite someone to bring an out-of-context quote from some 3rd or 4th century "church father", but even those in context in which they are found, seldom if ever cut the mustard, besides being a bit too late to get under the wire (edge of the tent? haha) of being able to be plausible as "oral tradition" "passed by Christ" "to the Apostles" as is the case which is being presented.
So tell me;
WHEN exactly was this information, this otherwise unrecorded "oral tradition from Christ" first incorporated? Hundreds of years later? That's usually the case. If not --- please feel free to prove otherwise. Or drop the empty claim. Your choice.
To repeat myself for sake of clarity, WHAT was in this "oral tradition" not otherwise found in scripture?
Important stuff, themes pressed as being somehow crucial. not directly addressed in scripture, not present in the law (Torah), nor touched upon or addressed by the prophets of Israel (books of the prophets) nor addressed by Christ nor His own Apostles' written works speaking specifically of events and the words of Christ? Let us include Paul's numerous Epistles, his extensive writings towards both "Law" and prophesy which Christ came to fulfill, including also that which is significant to the Gospel record found in the book of Luke (along with the other Gospels, themselves regarded to have been written directly by Apostles themselves, of course).
As towards things not found therein, but much pressed in later centuries, somehow... we are supposed to accept, "oh, this is the way it's always been from the beginning".??? This was handed down by Christ? For that IS what you are more or less advocating is "truth".
What indication (beyond the oft repeated assumptions you repeat here) is there that this unspecified, unwritten, unrecorded "oral" information, popping up centuries later "came from/through Peter" who recieved it directly from Christ? If you are trying to tie the "oral tradition" to words alleged to have been spoken of by Christ, to things which can be seen to have developed over time--- that argument is a both a loser and the very "camel's nose" I speak of.
Egads, what a load. The "camel" has dropped a pile. To those whom have grown up surrounded by the "smell", perhaps it is not as noticable? For myself, I'll accept no such uncouth creatures in my own dwelling place, temporary as that dwelling may be...
The bleating denials are just that. Just so much empty bleatings. Your argument lacks coherence (just like I said). Having high up muckyty-mucks in the RCC state the same doesn't make it into "truth", either. Just a "version" ... and one far from being unimpeachable.