Anyone who has studied the New Testament knows that possibly the greatest offense that the Jewish leaders had against Christ was that he did not respect their traditions. Jews at that time put the traditions of the synagogue and their leaders as equal to, if not more important than, the scriptures themselves. In the same way the Catholic church has placed its traditions on "equally authoritative" with scriptures as declared by its council of Trent.
One conflict of holy tradition of the Rabbinic synagogue Fathers and Jesus was recorded here:
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? (NIV Matthew 15:1-3)
Interestingly there are many Catholic traditions which most reasonable persons would understand as opposed to the love of Christ and even common sense. For example many councils, starting with the council of Elvira (305AD) forbid Christians sharing meals with Jews! I guess the Jews had become the new tax collectors! Not only did this council create this tradition but many councils afterwards maintained the tradition .
For example, the prohibition against sharing a meal with Jews was repeated at Vannes (465), Epaon (517), Orleans III (538), and Mâcon (583) (Jewish Virtual Library)
Here is the factual non-disputed canon in question:
canon 50 forbade the sharing of meals by Christians and Jews. (Wiki Article)
What is a tradition if not that which is repeatedly maintained by church councils?
The question therefore is if Catholic tradition is said to be equal with scripture, just like Rabbinic Tradition was, and if Jesus rejected Rabbinic Tradition because 'it broke the command of God' just like forbidding Christians to eat a meal with a Jew does, what is the difference between Roman Catholic Tradition and Rabbinic Tradition, in terms of its spirit?
I ask the question because I have encountered many accusations from both Protestants and Catholics where clearly they are both guilty of great sins. For example burning bible translations they do not like, burning heretics, etc. The difference however is that Protestants can repent of these sins and say, 'yes those people sinned terribly,' but Catholics seems trapped because it is part of their tradition approved by its councils that could not be wrong but were infallible and equal to scripture. All of this seems to be indefensible and only plain rebuke of its hypocrisy would be Christlike. Therefore this one example of banning a simple meal with a Jew, how is this tradition of church councils equal with scripture?
Maybe I am confused and maybe there is a way to say tradition is equal with scripture and still somehow repent of one's own tradition? Someone please explain this seeming unexplainable thing.