It is true that not all of sacred scripture was canonized. Therefore, we do not have everything which was considered Sacred Tradition in our Bibles.
What authority canonized scripture, and if you believe they failed, why do you believe they succeeded, i.e., why use the Bible at all?
That reminds me, can you explain to me why the Catechisms delete the second of the Ten Commandments, and then split the tenth commandment into two separate commandments in order to keep the same number of ten commandments?
What? Lol. I had to google that one. here you go....http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/bobs10c.html
Okay, back to responding to your comments..... The Hebrews did not write down a great deal of their sacred oral traditions until after Christianity was established. One example is the Kabbalah. Before the Kabbalah was written, few Jews were taught the esoteric doctrines contained in this tradition. Only the learned and those who have gained a spiritual perception of their beliefs are taught from the Kabbalah. Within the Zohar, which is part of the Kabbalah, you can find the following quote:
"The souls must re-enter the Absolute, from whence they have emerged. But to accomplish this end they must develop the perfections; the germ of which is planted in them. And if they have not developed these traits in this one life, then they must commence another, a third, and so forth. They must go on like this until they acquire the condition that allows them to associate again with God."
Gives you some idea about the Kabbalah then, doesn't it.
As you can see, the Jews had secret teachings which were not taught to everyone.
No, a group of people claiming secret knowledge arose separately.
Also, the above quote indicates that this portion of the secret knowledge was a belief in reincarnation. There are sections in the NT which allude to the Apostles and the Pharisees having this same knowledge, which Jesus never corrected anyone on. Yet the RCC does not believe in reincarnation; in fact, you cannot find a section for reincarnation in the Catholic Encyclopedia which explains why the RCC does not believe in it. When books and epistles were being considered for canonization, the Bishops carefully withheld anything written which indicated that reincarnation was actually something many of the Early Church Fathers believed in.
It is not unusual for us to find in the NT that Jesus taught knowledge to the Apostles which they were not allowed to teach to all members of the church. Paul specifically taught the church in Corinth that they were not yet ready to be taught "meat". I think he could have been referring to the secret knowledge which the Apostles had been taught. Indeed, Jesus told the Apostles that He had not revealed everything He knew to them; but only that which His Father had told Him to reveal. It would be the Holy Ghost who would reveal Truth to individuals once Father deemed that the individual was ready for more Truth. So, neither the OT or the NT reveal all Truth.
I know this is a Mormon favorite thing, I've seen it plenty of times. When a child is sitting at his/her mother's breast, is meat hidden from them because they aren't able to eat it yet? Are they unaware that meat exists? Do we hide meat from infants?
I believe Jesus when He said, "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you".
Yet, Jesus was not actually cutting off pieces of His flesh, nor draining His blood for man to eat and drink -
No one says he was.
even though He was with them when He taught them about the Sacrament. In fact, we know that the Paschal Lamb was symbolic of the Christ who was to come. The Hebrews had always been taught, since they received the Law from Moses, that they were NEVER to drink the blood. Why would God change and decide that it would be necessary for mankind to drink blood once Jesus had finally come in the flesh, been crucified, and Resurrected? It is SYMBOLIC!!!
You believe that many disciples stopped following Jesus because a symbol of eating was to hard to accept?
Jesus' blood is not the blood of an animal.
I beg to differ with you here, as well. One of the core issues of the Great Schism of 1054 AD between the Eastern Orthodox churches and the church of Rome was over this very concept. The Leader of the Eastern Orthodox churches even excommunicated the Pope in Rome; and the Pope excommunicated the Leader of the Eastern Orthodox churches. Today this issue still divides them.
You should check your history, and what the Orthodox churches believe and teach. The great schism was over the Bishop of Rome claiming primacy, and the Filioque.
The idea that the bread and wine actually become the flesh and blood of Christ was NOT a sacred tradition. It "became" sacred tradition when the Pope decided to call it such - which, as you can see, was long after Jesus and the Apostles walked the earth.
Again, check your history.
Therefore, without the personal witness and confirmation of Truth from the Holy Ghost, I am not quick to believe that sacred written or oral tradition which is taught to us automatically means that the tradition is correct, or that we understand those traditions correctly.
No one is asking you to accept anything "automatically". Either you believe Jesus has guided His Church, as He promised, or you don't. I believe He has, and still does. I don't hold a belief that the Holy Spirit stopped guiding Christ's Church. I don't automatically accept the myth of a "great apostasy", really don't see any evidence for it.
The Jews in Jesus' day, knew their written traditions. I do not doubt that the Pharisees, scribes, and the Sadducees knew their oral traditions. Yet they crucified our Savior. Their knowledge of both written and oral traditions failed them in much the same way as I see that written and oral traditions have failed you.
This isn't logical. It is people, humans, who crucified Jesus Christ. Not their knowledge (or lack thereof). Many Jews converted to Christianity. Jews certainly know the Messianic prophecies. What was not accepted by some, or many Jews, of Christ's time (and today), is that He is the Messiah.
Certainly they had all the knowledge available to them about the Messiah, including Jesus Christ Himself, in person. He was a Jew, and Jewish scripture is referenced many times (particularly in the Gospel of Luke and the letter to the Hebrews) in order to show very specifically the prophecies that Jesus fulfills. What meaning would this have to Jews if they hadn't been first taught, and knew, about the prophecies to begin with? Or didn't find them to be important?
Some people believe, some do not. Still the same today, for anyone, Jew or not. If you think it is knowledge that saves, then all you have to do is say "Jesus is Lord and Savior" to someone. There, they have the knowledge. Done.
Inasmuch as I do believe that the Gospels are sacred to the believer, I place my dependence for being guided to the Truth held within them to the Holy Ghost. He is the witness on the physical earth of all spiritual Truth. God does not "exist" in a book; He is a living God, Jesus is our living Savior, and the Holy Ghost is living to witness and confirm Truth to us today....here and now.
God's Word is Jesus Christ. Present in many ways. Scripture, Eucharist, His Church, prayer, the baptized. The Holy Spirit is not something separate from God. God is: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They testify of each other. The Holy Spirit bestows gifts of God, giving them, but what is given is not something separate from the Word of God.