The key problem for the Catholic Church goes beyond this because the transmitted teachings (as she teaches), come unsupported by either the Bible or history.
Of course, we disagree with you on both points.
That is the common understanding of what tradition is meant as.
"Common understanding" among whom? Catholics? Not in the least!! Our view is that all teachings find some Scriptural support; and "Tradition" reflecting the "Deposit of Faith" transmitted forward through each generation is historical by definition. "Teachings that come unsupported by either the Bible or history" may be a common "definition" among Protestants; but (as I noted in my prior post), such is NOT the meaning of Tradition among Catholics.
I should have been a little more specific by attaching these two demands where the Early Church actually characterized tradition as something that can be taught infallibly without the support of either history or scripture.
Since no where in the early church was "Tradition" described or defined as "something that can be taught infallibly without the support of either history or scripture," I have no obligation to "prove" such from any Church Father. You're here just working off one rather large strawman of a definition of "Tradition."
You're right; the Church does not specifically define tradition as such explicitly, but much of its teachings are considered so vitally important that they are regarded often as something that equal weight.
And I quoted Basil who noted in the 4th Century that there are "unwritten" teachings delivered "by the tradition of the Apostles" that have the "same force" as the Scriptural teachings. So the present understanding in that regard is reflected in the historical record.
The problem I have is that the Church does not specify which teachings are and are not 'orally transmitted.'
Of course it doesn't, as most all teachings bear the imprint of both Scripture (to varying degrees of explicitness) and Tradition. Even the Encyclical dogmatically defining the Assumption makes reference to Scripture, and that teaching probably has the least direct Scriptural support. A doctrine such as the Trinity finds much support in Scripture, though various aspects of the teaching (for example, the term "Trinity" itself and the "homoousios" of Jesus Christ and the Father) are revealed more explicitly through Tradition. So it's pretty much a pointless exercise for the Church to create a list of teachings that were transmitted orally versus those that come via Scripture. Tradition and Scripture overlap far too much to make that exercise meaningful.
You see, for most Protestants, Catholics have not come up with a concise list that shows which teachings were part of the original Scripture and which are not.
That is not a problem that concerns us Catholics. For Protestants to act like it's such a big deal always smacks of disingenuous argumentation.
Furthermore, it does not specify if tradition is allowed to have no foundations in either scripture or history.
In our view, all teachings have foundation in Scripture and history. This has been pointed out to you before.
Again, the issue is not the definition of tradition;
When at the outset you phrase the question as "Where in either history or the scriptures do we find a description of tradition the way the Catholic Church defines it
," you make the definition of tradition central to the inquiry. (Do you that easily lose track of what you've asked?)
the issue is if tradition was ever used in the same way Catholics have defined it now.
And we DON'T define it now as "something that lacks basis in Scripture or history." Though for some reason you keep suggesting we do. Again, it's your challenge to produce a definition (definitions usually take the form "Tradition is ____" or "Tradition means _____") or a discussion of Tradition that employs words to the effect that it encompasses "things that lack basis in Scripture or history." Either produce that, or else cease this line in inquiry.
I think your problem here is that what you're asking and the point you're trying to make are different things. ISTM that when you refer to a "basis in history," what you're looking for is not something in the historical record at some point (which is what "basis in history" usually means); rather what you mean is a continuous, documented pattern of belief or practicefrom the immediate post-Apostolic period onward
. But the ECF's in appealing to "Apostolic tradition" rarely, if ever, purport to trace the lineage of a teaching in such precise terms. I'll refer to my exerpt from Basil: he speaks of an authoritative, unwritten apostolic tradition on the matter at issue before him, but he doesn't attempt to trace it historically backwards in time. Rather, he refers to this rather matter-of-factly, as if this is a something that would be known and not a matter of dispute among his readers. For Basil, the matter has "basis in history" even though he doesn't purport to document the historical evidence. I contend his attitude toward Tradition is reflective of many of his contemporaries and predecessors.