Springing off of a claim from Dr. White in his recent commentary on Matt Slick’s debate with Robert Sungenis, I did a little digging into CCEL’s vast library of ancient documents. In short, Roman Catholics often claim that they posses some kind of authoritative tradition that is not contained within the pages of Scripture. It was pointed out that this is not the case. For instance the earliest recorded tradition which was claimed to have passed down from the apostles was made by Irenaeus (a 2nd century Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul). The claim, in short, was that Jesus lived out every age of life, and died well after his 50th birthday.

Source

So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be “the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence, the Prince of life, existing before all, and going before all. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2:22:4)

For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: “Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,” when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2:22:5)

To this last quote, a footnote succinctly comments:

With respect to this extraordinary assertion of Irenæus, Harvey remarks: “The reader may here perceive the unsatisfactory character of tradition, where a mere fact is concerned. From reasonings founded upon the evangelical history, as well as from a preponderance of external testimony, it is most certain that our Lord’s ministry extended but little over three years; yet here Irenæus states that it included more than ten years, and appeals to a tradition derived, as he says, from those who had conversed with an apostle”

Re-read the words from 2:22:5: “and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.” Irenaeus is saying that these elders testified that they heard these things from John the apostle. I have very strong reservations about accepting that John would say that. The point here is that if we know of a tradition passed on through a good “pedigree” (to borrow from Dr. Sungenis’ vocabulary) why doesn’t anyone accept it who accepts the Roman Catholic claims about the authority of Tradition? When the Catholic Church (or one of their apologists) tells you to believe in their traditions about Mary and claims that they were passed down from the apostles and taught in the early church, ask why that is dogma and this tradition from the 2nd century is not. After all, it has MUCH earlier attestation than the bodily assumption of Mary does.