>>protecting Apostolic Tradition, as handed down “by word of mouth or by letter.”<<
You can't prove that what the Catholic Church teaches is exactly what the apostles taught. Show where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary for instance.
What I find most interesting about this whole debate about sola Scriptura is that Catholics claim that the Catholic church is responsible for giving us the Bible, that they spent all kinds of time agonizing and poring over documents and fragments of Scripture, etc to determine what should be in the canon, that they WROTE the NT, yada, yada, yada.
And yet when someone wants to take it as authoritative, they blow a gasket and begin with the questions, challenges, mockery, accusations, etc.
Now why it should be an issue that someone would want to take the document that they claim their church gave the world that seriously is beyond me.
Additionally, if the Bible that they claim their church gave us is that inadequate for thoroughly preparing the believer that sacred tradition, the magisterium, the pope, etc, is necessary for the fullness of faith, just WHY should we take anything like that seriously?
I mean, really, if they were incapable of doing an adequate job in giving us the Scripture, what would lead anyone to believe that they’ve improved any? That anything else they teach or decree is of any better substance or value?
If they can’t be trusted to have doe the job properly the first time around, why should I expect them to get it right the second, or third, or how ever many times it takes?