Well if you are referring to Sacred Tradition as that term is understood by the Catholic Church I can understand your sentiment. If you thought otherwise you would be Catholic. But I think you can see good reasons why there might be an oral tradition that is inspired and guarded by God in a general sense.
There is no reason to think that. He gave us his word in Scripture; Scripture doesn't hint at anything else being its equal; and the Bible is timeless.
The idea you are suggesting is more like a mental exercise or one of those "what ifs" that we sometimes contemplate, and not necessarily just about divine revelation.
I think if you are honest you can see that you have such traditions within your own church (infant baptism and the canon being examples).
Whoa. That might be called a tradition of sorts, but by the word all you mean there is that it is
custom, not a second stream of divine revelation, etc. which is what the Catholic churches say Holy Tradition is.
As for the baptism of infants, that's based on Scripture. And the canonization of Scripture was not because of Sacred Tradition. The books were all in use in the Christian churches before canonization and the process simply put a stamp of approval on them and assembled them into a single package (which we now refer to as "The Bible")
Is your belief that Sacred Scripture is the revealed word of God not also based on faith?
It is based on the Scriptures having proved themselves. Had we been in possession of some sacred writings like the Hindus have or some other religions--essentially a disconnected series of tales of celestial going-ons and related admonitions about how to live a full life, etc.....then perhaps. But as you know, the Bible is not that way, and although it has been called the most challenged book ever written, it has stood up to the doubters remarkably well.
But that is only part of the answer. All the branches of Christianity accept the Bible for what it claims to be. There is no division between Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, or even the cults when it comes to this. So, if I am to accept Christianity at all, acceptance of the Bible is automatic.
Of course God gave us minds and we use reason to assist ourselves in reaching conclusions, but do you think that you came to the conclusion that Sacred Scripture is the revealed word of God purely as a matter of rational deduction? By highlighting my words above you seem to imply that you have done something different with respect to Sacred Scripture, but that cannot be the case.
The highlighting was of a statement you made that you accept what you do simply because you have decided to go with whatever one of the churches tells you. That's why people accept Sacred Tradition, not because it has proven itself.
It is not as though someone presented you with a scientific proof that the Scriptures are God breathed. You believe that because you cooperated with the faith that God put in your heart enabling you to believe it.
Well, that probably is fair to say, but it also is the case that there is a significant element of the Bible having proved itself in addition. Faith in the theological sense of the word does not mean to take as true something that is nonsense on its face.
Well as I am sure you know we do not all agree on the Bible as divine revelation. There are books that I believe are divinely revealed that you do not. I do not think the fact that there is disagreement as to what constitutes "Sacred Tradition" is a valid argument against the concept itself.
Sacred Tradition is not in any way a solid, persuasive concept. It doesn't even agree with its own supposed rules. There is nothing persuasive in the concept, not from logic, history, or from Scripture. It's totally speculation; and the doctrines derived in that way are different in every one of the Catholic communions. How can that be? If Tradition is what it supposed to be, the RC, EO, OO,Old Catholics, and the other Catholic-style churches that say they go by Tradition would not be picking out
different items from history and saying that these are dogmas, let alone divinely-sent.
Christians disagree as to which books are inspired.
Yes, but that is a rather minor disagreement, not at all like what I was referring to with Sacred Tradition. Seriously, when arguments about this get going, it always seems to be the case that the two sides make a mountain out of the differences whereas they really are small and inconsequential. Really.
Christians also disagree as to the extent to which the books are infallible.
Sure, but that mainly relates to how accurately they have been translated. That is important, but it doesn't mean that the revelation was in error itself.
But the fact that there is disagreement as to the content of Sacred Scripture does not mean that there is any problem with the concept that God inspired a particular set of writings. So it is with Sacred Tradition.
Certainly it does. Tradition is supposed, for one thing, to be based upon actual beliefs, ones that have been part of the church since the beginning, and not just in one corner of the Christian world. Hardly any of the dogmas that are supposedly based on Sacred Tradition even come close to meeting the standard.
Some idea catches fire within the church's leadership, or sometimes it's popular with the laity, and then when it is decided to make it a doctrine, voila, it is said to be because of "Sacred Tradition," that's all. Some of these, such as Papal Infallibility, are so obviously defective that it should embarrass every Catholic.
I so happen to believe that the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church is authored and preserved by God....
Of course you do. That's what you've been taught to think. I was, too.
I wrote that you cannot prove that Sacred Scriptures are the inspired word of God to demonstrate to you that at foundational level your belief in that is based on faith, as is mine. If your belief that Sacred Scripture is the inspired word of God is not based on faith, then you should be able to logically, scientifically, or historically prove it to an atheist.
Well, I don't know that I
cannot do that. I just don't think that particular exercise proves anything.