The canon of Scripture is determined according to a fixed system and a set of rules.
There are only two possibilities in the outcome. Either a Scripture is canon, or it is not.
I am curious to have you explain this "fixed system and a set of rules" ... since I assume you don't mean the leaders of the early Church.
My study of history led me to believe the canon was debated for the better part of 400 years - with even respected church fathers not in agreement on certain books (I gave a link to a good non-Catholic site) --- as an aside, ask super-fundie Catholics where the Pope was during this, the most critical period of our faith!!! Hardly evidence of Petrine primacy, but that's for another thread!
In contrast to canon, tradition is not determined according to a fixed system. If there is such a set of rules, I would be eager to know.
My understanding is that the same source settled both -- the Catholic Church... that's why I am so curious to hear about your "system".
If it was the same test, then traditions could be classified as canon.
It should be evident by now that it was the same test --- and that is why Christians for the first 1500 years of the faith viewed Scripture equal to Tradition and why RC's still do.
... and to clarify, "canon" describes a set of books. Even if I could show you they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, Traditions would never be part of the canon as they are not books. Hope you understand my point.
I don't hold worship on Saturday or Sunday to be a Sacred Tradition.
In my opinion there are only good, neutral and bad traditions.
Well said... but I am curious as to how you determine what is good/bad/neutral? Your personal opinion? And if others don't agree with your classification are they wrong - or is the individual believer free to worship any way he/she chooses just as long as they have a "good feeling" it is supported by Scripture?
What I am looking for is by what set of rules (or system) did the church do away with this tradition?
"Because the church says so" it not an answer, so let me rephrase.
I am now asking the church itself: By what set of rules did you determine that the above tradition was no longer to be kept?
To be clear, this is still a pious practice performed by Catholic women all over the world.... and something like this is not what we consider Sacred Tradition, but merely a small "t" tradition that is not a binding practice of the Church.
... but to answer your question, we believe that Christ did not abandon His Church to the subjective reading of the Bible.... that is not a "church", but a like-minded collection of people who each have their own version of Christianity. Instead we believe Christ entrusted his Church to the Apostles and those who followed in their office. We believe these teachers have continued in an unbroken line to the Bishops of today. These Bishops, in union with the Bishop of Rome, are the authentic teachers of the Christian faith and have the authority to develop certain teachings (like head covering) over time -- but are prevented from changing any aspect of the "deposit of faith" which is the dogmas or core teachings of the Christian faith.
I know you don't agree, but that is the Catholic answer to your question (God willing! I tried my best!).
If the difference between tradition and Sacred Tradition or any other part of this is unclear, you can google the Catechism of the Catholic Church or I would be happy to try to explain it further.
Your brother in Christ,
That's a lot of questions.
The canonization of the Scriptures were done long a set of criteria.
The most simple was inter reference.
Jesus many times referred to "The Law of Moses and the Prophets", so the Old Testament was accepted without much debate.
Then there is historical accuracy.
If a book is historically incorrect, it's authenticity can be doubted.
Then there is spreading.
If a book is only read in one church (for example Rome) but not in other churches, it's authenticity can be doubted.
Then there is scriptual accuracy.
If a book contradicts scripture, it's authenticity can be doubted
Then there is authority.
Books written by apostles themselves or by their authorisation are likely to be accepted.
Then there is quantity.
A book that has been copied many times, is more likely to be acceptable than a book that has been copied only a few times or never.
Then there is composition
How as the book written and what does it claim itself to be? A letter or a narration?
Then there is collection.
Some books were written together within the same scroll, thus carrying authenticiy towards each other.
Canonical books must have a satisfying amount of above mentioned properties to be accepted.
Note that most books were accepted by about 180 AD, that's not too long after they were written.
By about 360 AD the Bible was complete.
Anyway, a full study can be found here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon.html
How to determine a good/neutral/bad tradition?
Just take the teaching of the tradition and test it according to the Bible.
Of course its not a matter of "feeling good or bad".
You said "It should be evident by now that it was the same test --- and that is why Christians for the first 1500 years of the faith viewed Scripture equal to Tradition and why RC's still do."
This is something I do not agree upon. For the larger part of these 1500 years, people believed Scripture and Tradition to be equal, because they were told so by the church. Most people could not read or write, so no basis existed to doubt the church.
For a large part the church was also an economical and political power, hence there was no platform where objections could be ventilated.
For a large part of those 1500 years religion was not a personal choice, but an enforced nominaton by an emperor or king.
For a large part of those 1500 years there was also no choice. There was either the church...or nothing.
And believing in nothing was very dangerous and could cost you your life.
I would say that if you would be able to travel to the year 1200 and ask a peasant Catholic what he thought about the office of Pope, he would have serious problems to explain to you his personal opinions, as he most likely didn't have any. And if he had any, he would most likely held his mouth shut.
Now, a tradition that is enforced by an authority, is no longer tradition, but has become law.
I am of the opinion that in the first 1500 years many traditions went the way of enforcement, and not of free will.