RCC SACRED TRADITION THEORY

There are some times in the Bible where -paradosis (tradition) is used in a positive light & sometimes in a neg. In the gospels tradition is always bad, human sayings which were wrongly exalted above Bible. Peter also bad-mouths vain traditions. A few times in the epistles of Paul, tradition is used for teachings of prophets, particularly by Paul himself, who says in Gal 1-2 that he got his gospel direct from Christ, not from human tradition or even prophets.

Based on what Paul says about receiving prophetic tradition one cannot derive a theory that the sayings of the "Ch Fathers"/RCC saints are the Word of God or even authoritative. None of these "saints" existed & the Paul-sayings are not reference to future revelation. Neither is a guarantee that what Paul said would be perfectly remembered over the coming centuries & that Ch Fathers would write them down.
So the attempt to grab hold of Paul's coat-tails & shoe-horn in an approval of Ch Father sayings, is phony.

The only saints in the NT are all believers -- never any special class of persons called "saints." You are either a saint or an ain't.
It seems to me that the RCC has a major problem with syncretistic idolatry; it has statues & saints who are worshipped. Their words are raised to the status of "Sacred Tradition." This seems to be more of idolatry; since it is making the words of saints like God's word.

It seems that no one has had the guts to try to bind saints' references to apostolic sayings into the Bible. I have read about the earliest stuff u can find after the NT, & I don't recall any of the "Apostolic Fathers" quoting apostolic sayings outside the Bible & calling it the Word of God.