Your question has already been answered, along with all the rest of your logical fallacies, misrepresentations, false assumptions, and just plain ignorance.
Not according to your routine misapplication of the term on this forum, for example the one that you desperately try to rationalize just below...
Now go ahead and cite the post number, and quote my exact words, in which I supposedly say anything whatsoever about your "motives" or "hating Catholics." (Wait for it...)
But not every organization can actually demonstrate---from Divine Revelation and the testimony of history---that it is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D. The Catholic Church, however, has done exactly that. Your chosen recently-invented man-made non-Catholic sect, by contrast, has not.
Ouch, "either" means you get a choice? I don't think that word means what you think it means. I think Paul was concerned here with truth, whether one had read them in scriptures or heard them first-hand before they were written. Traditions, conversely, survive and we can see what works and what doesn't. It is more like a law of averages, horse-sense, and sensibility but if you lack those or the equipment God gave some of us to figure it out...You might need a:
Quite a jump. That 'either' between scripture or what you think is different in tradition, left a loophole I believe an elephant could walk through. I'd love to see a verse that said 'sacred' and 'traditions' in the same breath
"Standing fast" to good horse sense and scriptural instructions seems both pertinent and practical for godliness. 
I'm sorry, I must have missed it. Please post the post number where you clearly laid the exact traditions Paul was referring to.
Maybe you should go look at the definition again.
Post 94 I believe. Full ad hominem response by you. If you disagree, by means, explain why it us not.
Yes, the Holy Spirit leads Christ's Church---the Magisterium, comprised of the apostles and bishops (Ac. 16:4; 1 Tim. 3:15)---"into all truth" (Jn. 16:13), and it is Christ's Church which delivers divine truth to the faithful (Mt. 28:18-20; Ac. 16:4; Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6), who are bound to affirm and follow it as Jesus' own teaching (Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15).
In fact, you think precisely what your chosen recently-invented man-made non-Catholic sect permits you to think, and has taught you to think, and little else. ("This message is approved by Lon's preferred man-made sectarian tradition."
)Of course, Paul makes no such statement in the text itself. Rather, you are simply reading your chosen sect's assumptions and opinions into the text, and have thereby refuted sola scriptura by appealing to something outside of "Scripture alone."
Not really, since it comports fully with the understanding of this text held and taught by the early Christian Church immediately following the Apostolic Era and throughout the first fifteen centuries of ecclesiastical history.
Not in an immediate sense, but it certainly did by extension, just as the Christian doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation (among various others) developed and were shaped over time in the Church.
Here you merely presume to comment on something of which you're virtually entirely ignorant. If you care to, you can begin to remedy your ignorance here.
Your ignorance is showing again. "Buying" indulgences has never been a formal teaching of the Catholic Church. So no, I don't engage in medieval abuses (no time machine, sorry), and neither do any other Catholics that I'm aware of. (Try knowing what you're talking about before you speak.)
Given that it was based upon an erroneous perception of Catholic doctrine (see just above), not nearly so "huge" as you thought. Try again.
Already answered (Post #136).
Given that I'm the one with the degree in philosophy, maybe you should look at the definition again. :think:
I already did, in that it points to your own posted statements, and does not mention your character or motives. As I've already challenged you:
See point #2 of the CM Syllogism (Post #95).
...and which is entirely irrelevant, since your preferred interpretations of the Bible carry no inherent doctrinal authority whatsoever, given that the chosen man-made non-Catholic sect from which you have derived them possesses no binding doctrinal authority either.
Your own posted statements to the contrary make you a liar (Ex. 20:16; Prov. 19:5).
The deliberate distortion and misrepresentation of Catholic belief and teachings hardly constitutes a "challenge." Get Catholic doctrine right, then you might actually attempt to challenge it, at least as far as your schismatic position might allow.
Just another CM lie (Prov. 19:5).
Already answered.
Already answered.
Well, we have learned two things. First, you have a poor education in philosophy and second, you have no idea what traditions Paul was actually referring to.
You are exactly right. I push him quite frequently on this point because I think it is important. He says that the Catechism contains all the traditions that Paul taught. If we do not know exactly what traditions Paul taught, how can we tell if the Catechism is correct? What do we compare it to? If you do not know what Paul was referring to, how can you say that the traditions regarding Mary are correct? Given that Mary was likely alive when Paul wrote that letter, how could Paul possibly have taught the Catholic tradition that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven? If we don't have an objective source to check traditions against then great error can enter our teachings. For the record, I do not consider the RCC an objective source for matters regarding Catholic traditions. Go figure.
Then so does Joseph Gerard Brennan, professor of Philosophy at Columbia University (Post #169), right? You're willfully and hopelessly ignorant.
Sure I do. He was referring to all of them. (See Posts #136 and #139.)
If he taught you and if your participation here is representative of what he taught you, then yes, he also has a poor education in philosophy. Don't feel bad. Tradition is also a Catholic with a major in philosophy and his skills in reasoning and debate are identical to yours.
Not logically possible. There is no possible way that Paul could be referring to traditions that would not exist until a thousand years after his death.
I quoted from a standard textbook on logic written by a prominent professor of Philosophy at a major university. Your sole basis for ignorantly dismissing his definition is your own personal subjective bias and self-interest, rather than any genuine knowledge of the subject. Again, you are willfully and hopelessly ignorant---just as you are about the Catholic faith itself.
Already answered---and corrected---in a previous post.
I gave you a definition and used it. You seem to take umbrage with the definition I used it makes you look bad. You choose a different definition that you think makes you look better. In practice, what you did fits either definition as the discussion was about what Paul taught and you ultimately replied by calling me a liar. Ad hominem by any definition you choose.
For one who claims to be educated in logic, it escapes me how you can say with a straight face that Paul taught traditions that would not exist for a thousand years (literally) after his death as tradition.
Again, my definition came from a reliable source, a prominent professor of Philosophy who is an accepted expert in the subject under discussion. Your charge of an ad hominem on my part simply falls flat. Case closed.
Once again, you simply cannot seem to state the situation correctly. I certainly did not say that Paul himself taught Traditions that would not exist for a thousand years (this is merely another Straw Man on your part), but that Paul's reference to "traditions" in 2 Thess. 2:15 includes by extension all of the Traditional teachings of the Church for all time. Big difference there. Try again.
I note that you ignore most of my original response and then declare victory and run away. Okay.
But it is not logically possible for Paul to teach that ALL traditions for ALL time. Paul was not omniscient so he would never have blessed a blanket approval for anything that would come after him. We know this because Paul had to correct Peter. You are free to quibble over exactly what the correction was but the fact remains, Peter made an error and had to be corrected by Paul. Who corrects your magisterium's error now? Nobody. So error is free to enter Catholic teachings. And it has.
