As I was taught in the Catholic denomination...
But what I was also taught is that it's the Catholic denomination ALONE that is the SOLE arbitrater as to which little snippet from here and there IS "infallible Apostolic Tradition" and which isn't. Thus, it is WHATEVER the Catholic denomination itself, alone, says it is. BUT, this is something ONLY the Catholic denomination can do. It's circular, self-authenticating and very dangerous of ANY other teacher (person, congregation or denomination) does this, but infallible and inerrant when the Catholic denomination does it.
An outsider from Christianity can say the same thing about Christianity as a whole. "Why is that you Christians reject what Confucious said and accept what Paul says?" Would you fall into a circular, self-authenticating argument?
Also, the Catholic Church also teached that we can be certain what the apostles taught if the Early Church Fathers are unanymous on a partcular doctrine. But sometimes the Early Church Fathers had difference of opinions. For instance, some ecf say that the Book of Hebrews is part of the authentic Word of God. Other ecf say it is not. Since it there is no unanymous opinion among the ecf, this is where the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has to step in. Which itn did, and pope approved the canon of scripture in AD 405, which included the Book of Hebrews.
But since you do not accept the Catholic Magisterium, on what criteria do you accept the Book of Hebrews as part of the Word of God? Is it because the "inner witness of the Holy Spirit" has testified to you that it is part of the Word of God? Then what do you say to the Mormon when he says that the "inner witness of the Spirit" has testified to him that the Book of Mormon is part of the Word of God?
Furthermore, I was taught in the Catholic denomination (perhaps you weren't) that it's the Catholic denomination ALONE that is the SOLE interpreter of this misc. assortment of snippets that the Catholic denomination has labeled "infallible Apostolic Tradition" so that these snippets mean whatever the Catholic denomination infallibly says they mean. Such, I discovered repeatedly, may be significantly different than what the man actually wrote but quickly learned that what he wrote is not authoritative it's what the Catholic denomination itself that infallibly states that the man MEANT to write (whether he did or did not seems rather moot).
As I have tried to show on the forum on every single Catholic doctrine, whether it be Mary the mother of God, Mary the Queen of Heaven, the Eucharist, the priestly Confession, justification by faith and works, that the Catholic position is just as credible as the Protestant position. The Protestants have Bible verses on their side, and so do we. Unfortunattely, that is how far that Protestantism can go. And at the at the end of my Protestant, I became a doctrinal agnostic. I heard all the arguments of all different Protestant positionss, and they ALL seemed credbile from looking at the Bible alone. The Calvinist had some very stromg Biblical arguments for predestination, But Arminians had just as strong Biblical aruments for theirs. Baptists had strong verses for their position on believers' only baptism. But Lutherans and Presbyterians have strong verses for infant baptism as well.
I went to an evangelical seminary that prided itself in giving differing, evangelical viewpoints. When I graduated, I felt like my head was like mush. I did not know what I believed. It took my last year in seminary to finally commit to a denomination. They all made good point for their doctrines. I arbitrarily chose one denonimation, but I had know idea that their statement of faith was any better than others. I preached the Word and said "This is the truth. This is the way it is". But deep down, I had no idea if this was right anymore than someone else's position. Everybody could argue their postion from the Bible. I understood why Fundementalists refused to dialogue with anybody who sees things differently. Ignorance is bliss. How I envied the Fundementalists in their dogmatic ignorance.
I started to have doubt about whether Christianity be true. If the Bible is God's revelation, why did God make the Bible so complicated? Before I went to seminary, I used to preach that interpreting the Bible was simple. I used to think that those who disagreed with me were just not open to God's truth. But then I went to seminary, and I found many well-meaning student and teachers who saw the Bible differently than I did.
If I had continued as a Protestant, I would have eventually become an agnostic. I did not know what I believed. When I left my pastorate, I had no idea what was true. I just knew too much. I remember a friend asking me why I did not pursue another ministry. I told him I no longer kew what I believed. I did not know why I felt that way at that time, but I realized now it was that I was fully exposed to just about every Protestant position that I did not know what end was up.
Then I became a Catholic. As a Catholic, I knew the truth. Jesus said that we shall know the truth and the truth shall set us truth. It is not that there are different truths out there and we can pick one that suits our tastes. No way! Being Catholic, my belief is like a Fundementalist but my attitude is like a liberal. Like a Fundementalist, I know the truth. I no longer look at a passage of scripture and see 5 different ways of interpreting it, depending on your presuppositions. But unlike a Fundementalist, I do not judge those that disagree with me. I do not presume anyone is going to Hell. Not only that, but unlike the Fundementalist, I do not hide in my church away from anyone who may challenge my beliefs. I know the truth, so there is no fear in talking to anyone. There is a quet assurance. I can listen to other beliefs and be threatened, because I know the truth.
I did not feel that way as an Evangelical.
Your point, IMHO, is critical. There is no ecumencially embraced corpus of this "Tradition." The Catholic denomination may look at a work from Origen for example. It will declare one sentence to be "Infallible Apostolic Tradition" but the next sentence is heresy - and so on.
Does this mean that you agree with Origen that Stan will eventually go to heaven? That is what the Catholic Church condemned as heresy.
Well, the epistemology you are defending is that we allow the teacher to be the sole teaching authority, the sole interpreter, the sole arbiter - and to predeclare himself infallible and therefore unaccountable even before the evaluation begins. If it's infallible when the Catholic denomination chooses snippets from here and there and declares it "Infallible Apostolic Tradition" as it alone so defines and interprets, why can it condemn another for doing exactly what it itself insists is infallible and the correct thing to do? Ah, Protestants would say you are BOTH accountable for your self-claims and unique teachings - we give NEITHER the RCC or LDS a "pass." (Or ourselves). We'd say you are BOTH, equally, accountable to God's holy inerrant written Word - a Rule outside you both, above you both. Written so that neither of you can altar it and so that it's knowable to both of you. And since you both agree that your self chosen snippets are not inerrant per se, we Protestants would hold them all (Catholic and Mormon) up to the INERRANT light of God's Holy Word. We ask you to do the same with us.
I want to give you an illustration.
A Protestant friend of mine once preached about absolute truth, and compared it to baseball. Imagine playing a professional baseball game with an umpire. Each person will then make up the rules to suit himself. This is why we need someone outside the game to call the shots. We need an Umpire, which is God.
But his ananlogy was wrong. God was not the Umpire. God was just the ultimate Baseball Commisioner in the sky. And one day He dropped a book that had all the rules for baseball. It explained what is a strike, what is a ball, what is a foul ball.etc. He dropped it from the sky and said "OK boys! Here is the book in all the rules. Read it. Figure it out. And play ball!". That is the Protestant view. The baseball players are playing ball based on their reading of this book. Does it work? Of course not! Although each player will not make his own rules to suit him, but he will interpret those rules to suit him. Although all the players can agree on what is a strike, they cannot agree on which balls were strike. The batter will say that every pitched ball is outside the strike zone. The pitch will see every ball in the strike zone.
In order to play a serious baseball game, we need an umpire on the field, not just a Baseball Commissioner dropping a book from the sky. This umpire will be on the field. He will take those rules in the book and apply the rule partcularly to each pitch. It is not enough to just have book, we need to have God give us an umpire to call the balls and strikes.
So why are they equal or above God's inerrant Word in authority and normative function?
God's inerrant, written word of God call the church the pillar and foundation of truth.
The Bible's ultimate source is God. But God brought about the Bible through the Church. The Bible was written by thev apostles, who were members of the Church. The Bible was written to members of the Church. We have no original documents of the Bible. All the OT and NT originals are decayed away. The only way we have the Bible is because monks within the Church constantly made new copies once the old copies started to decay.
It was the Church that canonized the Bible. In the first few centuries, there were 19 different gospels. The Church reject all of then expect for four - the gospels we have today in the Bible. In AD 405, this was approved by the Pope, with these 4 gospels. If you believe that the Catholic Church, with its Pope, fallible. Then be consistent. Accept the possibilty than some or all of the gospels should not be in the Bible. Accept the possibilty that some of the 16 gospels should have been in the Bible. Maybe the Gospel of Thomas should be in the Bible! Or maybe the Gospel of Mary Magdeline! How do you know? Have you ever read these gospels?
With all due respect, you want it both ways. You want to reject the Church, but you want to accept the Bible that came from the Church.
See your first comments in your post above . . . 
