Tradition of men and catholic dogma

In the NT many times Jesus says to people he is speaking with, you have herd it said but I tell you it is written, or you follow the traditions of men added rules regulations as Catholics do etc] than quotes the bible.

My question to Catholics is is not the catholic church a great example of mans traditions? many outside see the church see Catholicisms as far removed from biblical doctrine, quoting popes/bishops as authoritative instead of scripture. Having saints and men as leaders with little focus on god and bible, no bibles for the laity just what is read by priest. relying on traditions of men.

what would the catholic response be thanks.

jjsmity, you are mixing up scripture. Jesus does not speak of tradition many times. Jesus speaks of traditions exactly once.

The formula “You have heard that it was said” followed by “But I say you” is only in Matthew 5. Jesus says this five times. Each time he is taking some point of the mosaic law and elevating it, raising the bar for Christians. This has nothing to do with traditions but about the Law of Moses.

Jesus speaks about tradition exactly one time. This is recounted in Matthew 15 and Mark 7. Here he is speaking of the hypocritical tradition of dedicating money to the temple when it was supposed to be for the care of your elderly parents. Money dedicated to the temple was called corban. People did this to avoid spending money on their parents and later withdrew the money from the temple after their parents died. Jesus is talking about the tradition of corban and of tithing small sums to the temple but neglecting to care for the poor.

The other time tradition is spoken of negatively is Colossians 2:8. Tradition is spoken of positively in 2 Thessalonians.

No mention of tradition in the Bible can be traced to anything Catholics do.

-Tim-

Is’nt the Passover festival a combo of Jewish law and tradition?

The Bible speaks of tradition both negatively (e.g. Mark 7:9, Col. 2:8) and positively (e.g. 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thes. 2:15). Therefore, the mere existence of tradition in Catholic understanding does not automatically make Catholics agents of “bad” tradition.

many outside see the church see Catholicisms as far removed from biblical doctrine, quoting popes/bishops as authoritative instead of scripture. Having saints and men as leaders with little focus on god and bible, no bibles for the laity just what is read by priest. relying on traditions of men.

There is not an accusation you make here that is not soundly answerable. Your first premise above is already addressed about assumption that tradition=bad. Secondly, no Catholic should be quoting a Pope as authoritative instead of Scripture. To place a dichotomy between the two is not an authentic Catholic means of interpreting, and therefore requires no rebuttal. The laity have Bibles, so no problem there. If you mean in some historical contexts, one must acknowledge that Bibles were rare prior to the printing press and the laity were often illiterate, so it is hardly a sound assertion to accuse a priest of reading from Scripture as some form of deviance. It is likewise fallacious to criticize the Church for having “men as leaders,” for in order to do so, one must accuse Paul of the same error when he appointed Timothy and Titus, for example, and likewise instructed them to appoint others in succession in the future (2 Tim. 2:2) as well as Christ who appointed the Apostles and the 70 disciples as well! Finally, the statement “little focus on god and the bible” is false and suffers from the fallacy of gratuitous assertion. Those who practice Catholicism have the utmost emphasis on both.

Jesus started one Church, and only one.

Jesus put men in charge of the Church.

Jesus appointed Peter to be “shepherd” of the whole Church - the overall leader of the whole thing. Today, we call his successor “the Pope.”

It was human beings who deviated from the Catholic Church and started creating their own religions based on their own personal interpretations of the Bible, instead of the teachings of the Apostles on what the Bible really means.

For example, the Baptist Church got started when a group of recovering alcoholics met at the home of William Smyth to support each other in their recovery efforts. When they started reading the Bible together, they came up with some ideas that no one had ever thought of before - not even Jesus and the Apostles - talk about a man-made religion!

That happened in Holland during 1609.

The Catholic Church, by contrast, was established in Jerusalem on Pentecost Sunday in 33 AD. :slight_smile:

Things to note:

The church Jesus founded did have bishops.

The idea that all that is to be believed, is in the Bible, is a man made tradition, that is not taught in the Bible. The Bible teaches that all Scripture is useful for teaching, but not only Scripture. Big difference.

The Church is pillar and foundation of the truth. Not anybody’s private interpretation of Holy Scripture. see 1 Timothy 3:15

Thanks for dropping by jjsmity.
Peace to you.

Little focus on the Bible? Many verses of Scripture are read at every Mass. Every day. There is also that bit of history of the Church compiling the Bible and protecting its integrity over the centuries. Take a look at the Cathecism to see how seriously we take the Word of God.

No Bibles for the laity? The Church GAVE me a Bible.

Having saints and men as leaders? Were there not leaders in the early Church? What about the Apostles, and all those disciples, priests, and deacons that the Bible mentions?

I think the best church to interpret the bible would be the church who put it together, not a church that was founded over a millennium afterwards.
Men are leaders in baptist churches. The preacher and deacons.
You haven’t been to Mass have you? Maybe swing by there before you say that we don’t focus on God or read scriptures. There are 3 bibles in my home, so much for laity not allowed to have bibles. Lol. :shrug:

You equate “traditions of men” with “added rules regulations as Catholics do etc” above. That’s your fatal error.

How do we respond? Easy. We do not follow “traditions of men”. We follow the Traditions of God, called Sacred Tradition. It is Protestants who follow “traditions of men”. The two that spring immediately to mind, of course, are Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. Protestants believe these man-made traditions, and they are false, being from man, and not God. The “men” referred to here are Martin Luther and the other early so-called “Reformers”. For example, Martin Luther was a Catholic Augustinian priest who fell away into heresy. John Calvin was a Catholic lawyer who fell away into heresy. Huldrych Zwingli was a Catholic priest who fell away into heresy. They abandoned the “[FONT=Arial]faith which was ONCE for ALL delivered to the saints,” [/FONT]and came up with their own man-made, competing, conflicting, and clashing doctrines.

Anytime a Protestant denies some point of Catholic Dogma, he follows a tradition of man, and the Truth, as far as that goes, is not in him.

God bless

Here is some Scripture they would have done well to have heeded:

[FONT=Times New Roman]So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any incentive of love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

  • Phil 2:1-2
    [/FONT]
    May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
  • Romans 15:5-6

I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

  • 1 Cor 1:10
    [FONT=Georgia]

And especially these:

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Georgia][FONT=Times New Roman][size=3]He who hears you [my Apostles, and those who you will anoint after you as your successors to bring my salvation to the ends of the earth until I return in glory] hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.

  • Luke 10:16

[/FONT][/FONT]Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

  • Gal 5:20 (KJV)[/size]

[/FONT]They are idolaters because they placed themselves above God.

Here’s some Scripture that those who heard them preaching should have always kept in mind. Some did, some didn’t. Even today, we can read these Scriptures to evaluate them:

For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

  • 1 Cor 11: 18-19

I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties,** in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught**; AVOID THEM. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.

  • Rom 16:17-18

God bless

We were able to put the canon of the Bible together, rejecting many of the dozens (if not hundreds) of apocryphal texts that were floating around, many claiming to have been written by Apostles, and knowing just what exactly to include, because we know what we believe:

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

  • Gal 1: 11-12

[FONT=Times New Roman]And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us [notice “heard”, not “read”], you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God, which is at work in you believers.

  • 1 Cor 2:13

[FONT=Georgia]The Holy Spirit guided us to recognize the books that were to be included in the Bible and to reject those to be excluded. The content of all the manuscripts floating around either agreed with the Faith of the Church, that is, Sacred Tradition, given through the oral teaching of Jesus and the oral and/or written teaching of Paul, Timothy, Titus, the Apostles, and others who “handed on what was given to them” or it didn’t. If it didn’t, it was excluded. How else could the canon of Scripture have come together? Think about it. It is because we knew (and know) what it is that we believed. Jesus promised this:

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman]But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

  • John 14:26

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman]When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.

  • John 16:13

In exactly the same way, the Holy Spirit enabled us to recognize the errors of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. by comparing what they were teaching with the Faith of the Church handed on and contained in Sacred Tradition.

Why?

So we would know what is True, infallibly - “we” being the human race. Jesus came to us to reveal the Father to us, so we would KNOW the Truth that would set us free. So is Baptism a sacrament that removes sins and makes us children of the Father, fellow co-heirs with Christ, or is it just an optional symbolic act, to take one out of many examples? Uh-oh. That’s a problem. What is a Hindu, for instance, who is thinking of becoming a Christian to believe when he starts investigating what Christians believe and finds a multiplicity of conflicting doctrines? He would naturally be confused and turned off, possibly deciding to remain a Hindu. He might very well say to himself, “So what is this ‘Truth’ Jesus speaks of that will set me free? Is it what the Catholics say or what the Baptists say?” Well, isn’t it just what the Bible says? Well, yes and no. It’s what the Bible says, but correctly interpreted.

con’t
[/FONT]

All Protestants believe in at least some variation of Sola Fide and look to the “God-breathed Word of God” in attempts to settle disputes and to know what to believe, and all claim to be led to the Holy Spirit when they read the Bible. And yet, groups of them have believed in every variation of the meaning, purpose, and form of baptism that could possibly be imagined, from “it saves the person, making them a child of God” to “it’s a meaningless ‘work’ that comes from the devil that Catholics and other ‘unbiblical’ Protestants do.” So what’s the problem? Is one interpreter not a true “Bible-believing” Christian? No. Is one insincere or unintelligent? No. Is the Holy Spirit not with one of them? Possibly not, depending on if they are in a state of grace or not. But maybe He is with them both. Then what’s the problem? Obviously, the man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura. An individual doesn’t have ability to personally and infallibly interpret the Word of God. It seems obvious enough, since people read the same Bible but contradict others as to what it means. [FONT=Georgia]Books don’t interpret themselves. Every book, even the Bible, is just words on a page (or computer screen). Interpretation happens in the mind of the reader. Certainly, one can and should read the Word of God for personal prayer and spiritual enrichment, but “[/FONT][FONT=Georgia]personal prayer and spiritual enrichment” doesn’t make one an infallible interpreter of the Word of God, no matter how smart one is or how many degrees one has or how well one knows Biblical Hebrew and Greek. Many things that one learns and thinks the Bible says through personal reading and study are quite possibly just wrong. The problem isn’t with the Bible, of course, it’s with the people reading it. Two people who have opposing views can’t both be right. Either one is wrong or both are wrong. If one group of Protestants believes something different from another group, the other group is being “unbiblical”. If the pastor starts preaching something different than the congregant believes, he is being “unbiblical” and the person may “church-shop” do find true “Bible-believing Christians” that believe what he or she believes. If enough of the congregation believes the preacher is being “unbiblical” he may very well be fired. Is it not so? Is this what God wants? Does this discord come from God, or from the devil? Read above what St. Paul had to say about discord. I think everyone knows the answer. This is exactly why Jesus prayed, “E[/FONT][FONT=Georgia]ven as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” The sadly-obscured truth of the matter is that Christians do know exactly what they believe, and they are unified in that belief. It’s contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And then there’s the heretics. Unfortunately, humans do not always cooperate in the plans of God, so there have always been heresies and schisms, Protestantism being the second-most persistent one, and yet we still know what we believe. There’s no question of what we believe. Anybody can pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church and know what we believe. How could it be otherwise? Is not God One? Isn’t God the One who can “neither deceive nor be deceived?” Doesn’t He have the power to work through men to achieve His ends? Yes, yes, and yes. The Faith of the Church has never and can never change, and it has for 2,000 years been preached and available to all who would listen.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][FONT=Times New Roman]For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

  • 2 Tim 4:3-4
    [/FONT]

God Bless
[/FONT]

That is pretty much it, right there: demonstrating that someone follows a tradition is easy enough; demonstrating that their tradition is or is not divinely-ordained is another matter entirely.

Well i am due to be received into the Catholic Church this Easter and i was given a free and beautiful Bible by the Church last Sunday and through the classes i go to each week we are encouraged to read it. When i started to really research the Catholic Church from my Baptist background i was very surprised at how my previous view of Catholicism (which was much like the OP) was completely wrong. The doctrines are biblical, the tradition does not replace God with men and the early Church was Catholic in my opinion. It’s the ancient Church, not a Church but THE Church.

Without going into depth about the filial, cooperative nature of Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, my personal Catholic answer to your questions would be: The type of Christianity that you seem to presuppose to be the purest form or expression of Christianity–each man his own church, no tradition, no inspired authority, Scripture alone–tends, because of original sin, human frailty, human pride and human wisdom alone, to foster a kind of religio-spiritual anarchy, perhaps even a pious anarchy–if such a thing can exist–but anarchy/disorder nonetheless. The fruits of this very same type of priesthood of the individual believer, devoid or antipathetical to the Church, and built upon the Bible alone and personal faith/interpretation alone is unmistakably evident in the Christian world today and has been for some handful of centuries.

We need not only look at the state of Christianity, as it tends to exist and proliferate outside of the Church, today but we can learn much from ancient times. The Sadducees possessed the Scriptures, but embraced the Torah alone, and so, according to their wisdom, denied the bodily Resurrection and ultimately the Messiah. The Pharisees possessed the Scriptures and looked for the Messiah but could not, en masse, discern Him when He stood before them, preaching, teaching, casting out demons and performing miracles–they too denied the Gospel. The various heretical sects and movements of the early Church possessed most, or all, of the Scriptures of the New and Everlasting Covenant, still they fell, guided by their own interpretations of Sacred Scripture (among other things) into great error–errors that the Church has declared heretical. Sacred Tradition is the shield that protects the sword arm of the Church, Sacred Scripture–it is the inspired weapon that defeats heresies and declare the profundity and depth of public revelation to the world. It (Sacred Tradition) has declared and formulated the philosophical treatises that have defended and proclaimed, as dogma, the full and unadulterated divinity of Christ, the fullness of the humanity of Christ, the truth and Mystery of the Holy Trinity, the blessedness and sanctity of the Holy Theotokos etc. etc. The Magisterium (the Bishop of Rome in communion with the college of Bishops) act as the successors of the Apostles, carrying forward the Tradition of the Apostolic preaching, they are the shepherds of the Church, with the Pope as the Vicar or Representative of Christ, who is the Head, Heart and Bridegroom of His Church. These three (Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium) act as a triple lock, a three-fold defense against the machinations of the Enemy and the devices of worldly men. Christ declared that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church and He has thusly supplied us with the fullness of armor against our enemies and the task of baptizing all nations and proclaiming the Law of His Gospel, abiding by Grace in Faith and Love, with all Truth in the advocacy of the Holy Spirit until He comes again to claim His Bride. I guess I did go into some depth, sorry. I hope this helps a little. Peace be with you.

jjsmity. You asked:

(Why) Having saints and men as leaders with little focus on god and bible, no bibles for the laity just what is read by priest. relying on traditions of men . . . .

These misinformed assumptions aren’t true jjsmity. Ask your minister to . . .

[LIST]
*]Why do these saints “with little focus on god and bible” give their lives up for prayer? Ask your minister to tell you about all the Baptist monasteries where peoples whole lives are devoted to prayer for others.
[/LIST]

[LIST]
*]Ask your minister to tell you why these saints “with little focus on god and bible” gave and give their lives for the poor and infirm. Tell me about all the Baptists that founded hospitals due to TB, Leprosy, and other chronic incurable diseases before profits were to be made off of this as today.
[/LIST]

[LIST]
*]Ask him (or her-depending on which Baptist tradition you belong to) why do these saints “with little focus on god and bible” give their lives for education for the betterment of others. Tell me about all the Baptist Universities that helped build society upon what it is today.
[/LIST]

many outside see the church see Catholicisms as far removed from biblical doctrine, quoting popes/bishops as authoritative instead of scripture.

Think about it jjsmity. Authority is THE issue.

And when people are at odds, they can pull out their Scriptures (Scriptures that before the printing press, took three Catholic-monk years to transcribe a full Bible) to try to settle their differences.

But if they can’t settle their differences then what? They go with two or three others. Then if they can’t settle it then what?

**MATTHEW 18:16-18 ** 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

(Just listen to the degree of authority Jesus is giving [and protecting])

They take it to THE CHURCH. And if they don’t listen EVEN to the Church (just listen to that language Jesus uses). . . if these guys in error don’t listen EVEN to the CHURCH, let him be to you as an outsider and a tax collector.

Now you are going to say: “Well, I don’t think that is the Catholic Church.”

That’s fine (for now).

Notice there is a CHURCH that you can take it to, that gives authoritative God-protected answers.

If you are going to follow the Scriptures, you NEED to ask yourself, “WHERE is that Church with such God-given, God-protected authority throughout the ages?”

You might say it is not the Catholic Church (it is, but assuming you think it is NOT you still need to seek it as it is talked about in the Scriptures).

But then you NEED to look for that one Church who can give you the authoritative fullness of truth.

John Smyth and his inventing of the Baptist Church certainly isn’t going to be that Church jjsmity.

The Anabaptist traditions, are traditions of men jjsmity . . .

. . . .traditions of Men like the Zwickau “prophets” (principally Nicholas Storch, Thomas Dreschel and Markus Stübner) as well as the proto-Marxist politician Thomas Müntzer (1489-1525) in Germany, and “the Swiss Brethren” from 1525 (Felix Manz, Conrad Grebel, and ex-Catholic Priest George Blaurock) in Switzerland. Also ex-Catholic Priest Menno Simons (inventor of the Mennonite religion), or ex-Anglican Priest John Smyth (inventor of the “Baptist” religion).

Smyth was called a “Se Baptist” (short for self-baptist) because he was too arrogant to allow any one else the “privilege” of baptizing him so **Smyth “baptized” himself! ** This is the patrimony of the baptist tradition.

Smyth was eventually excommunicated from the tradition he himself invented as a protégé of himself, for getting too chummy with the (at the time) new-fangled Mennonite tradition.

I had a lot of years of Baptist evangelism (although I never left the Catholic faith and it is a long story as WHY I went to Baptist Sunday School for a time and participated in Baptist youth ministry also for a time). And there is a lot of things you will never be told about Catholicism there.

But if you are like me, you probably DID get a little “Are You Saved” card to write in the date (also a tradition of men) that you “accepted Jesus into your heart as personal Lord and Savior” (also not explicitly in Scripture and is also a tradition of men that has some partial truths and some erroneous assumptions).

Did you ever ask your minsters why the Apostles never had people sign a little “Are You Saved” sheepskin or vellum?

See Christianity Today (here) on the invention of the Baptist tradition:

John Smyth
The “Se-Baptist”

. . . “Baptism is not washing with water: but it is the baptism of the Spirit, the confession of the mouth, and the washing with water.”

When he was exiled to Amsterdam from his native England, John Smyth gathered three dozen of his followers around him. The former Anglican preacher and Cambridge fellow recited a confession of faith; then he baptized himself. . .

. . .But to this day, . . .he is remembered, . . . as the first Baptist. (bold mine, whole article here).

Hope this helps with your questions.

God bless.

Cathoholic

Jjsmity. One other tidbit regarding the proto-Marxist politician Thomas Müntzer (1489-1525) in Germany.

Müntzer had enough of a socialist mindset, that East Germany had paper money in his memory.

From Wikipedia (here):

Also the Communist regime in East Germany held Müntzer in high esteem. The Five East German Mark banknote from 1975 depicted Thomas Müntzer.

[INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][ATTACH]21476[/ATTACH][/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT]

Also a year before reunification with West Germany (1989), Communist East Germany minted a coin in Müntzer’s honor as well (see here).

[INDENT]
[INDENT][INDENT][ATTACH]21475[/ATTACH][/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT]

The Marxists, who seem to fawn all over Müntzer, stated Müntzer would carry out what they call “a tour of agitation”.

From Marxists.org (bold mine) . . .

That Münzer (sic), in the winter of 1524-5, made a tour of agitation through central and southern Germany, including those districts where the revolt earliest broke out, is undoubtedly true . . .

Remember. It is the “religious” progeny of men like Müntzer, that our unfortunate Baptist friends and family, are getting their “information” on Catholicism from.

And thus this “information” will always be filled with anti-Catholic partial truths, and sometimes flat-out inaccuracies against Catholicism.


Rweidn. You said (here):

Well i am due to be received into the Catholic Church this Easter and i was given a free and beautiful Bible by the Church last Sunday and through the classes i go to each week we are encouraged to read it. When i started to really research the Catholic Church from my Baptist background i was very surprised at how my previous view of Catholicism (which was much like the OP) was completely wrong. The doctrines are biblical . . .

That is great. Welcome home rweidn! Heartwarming.

My question to you, is "where does it say in the Bible, the infallible, unchangeable, inerrant word of God (which I do believe by the way), to say the Sinner’s prayer and you are saved? I am not undermining your question, and much more skilled Apologist than I might answer it, but the way you phrased your question was based on assumptions that we have “traditions of men”. Okay, I like Soccer. I play Soccer with my nieces. Soccer is not found in the Bible, therefore I should not play Soccer. The truth is, there are some traditions that are completely useless. But even religion, church, organisation, business etc., has traditions. Some of which can be called traditions of men. Where I live has a strong heritage of celebrating the American Civil War, and the American Revolution, is there anything wrong with this in and of itself? No, of course not. Jesus condemned traditions that directly contradicted the word of God. In our modern day and age, I would say that it is sects that don’t practice baptism or celebrate the Lord’s Supper, those are indeed traditions that void the word of God.

Good for you, I am a convert and was a Souther Baptist turn Catholic. Same here on previous biews and falsehoods

I post this list for you since I understand your desire to see it in the Bible and for you to make any kind of since of the subject. Remember that Jesus and the Apostles did not walk around with a Bible; the Gospels were not written yet nor the canon of the Bible had been set and compiled.

1Cor 11:2 - hold fast to traditions I handed on to you.
2Thess 2:15 - hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter.
2Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition.
Jn 21:25 - not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture.
Mk 13:31 - heaven & earth shall pass away, but my word won’t.
Acts 20;35 - Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels.
2Tim 1:13 - follow my sound words; guard the truth
2Tim2:2 - what you heard entrust to faithful men.
2Pet 1:20 - no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation.
2Pet 3:15-16 - Paul’s letters can be difficult to grasp & interpret.
1Pet 1:25 - God’s eternal word = word preached to you.
Rom 10:17 - faith come from what is heard.
1Cor 15:1-2 - being saved if you hold fast to the word I preached.
Mk 16:15 - go to the whole world, proclaim gospel to every creature
Mt 23:2-3 - chair of Moses; observe whatever they tell you Tradition Condemned?.
1Cor 11:2 - commends them for following Apostolic tradition.
2Thess 2:15 - commands them to keep traditions.
2Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition

The following is what you may focus on but needs to be in context to understand, which others here have provided the context to.

*Mt 15;3 - break commandment of God for your tradition
*Mk 7:9 - set aside God’s commandment to uphold tradition
*Col 2;8 - seductive philosophy according to human tradition

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.