[OneWingedShark]

No, you're just not thinking far enough. The usual sequence is "spoken word"-->tradition (via. use over a long period of time)-->written. And in fact, that is precisely the sequence by with the New Testament scriptures were arrived at. For some variablly recognized period of time, Christians had ONLY tradition and the Old Testament scripture....the New Testament did not exist.

No, it's really not.
The Epistles (Paul's letters, John's letters, Peter's letters, James) which comprise most of the New Testament were written, and distributed, among the early churches -- there wasn't any need for an oral tradition there. The Gospel of John and Revelation were also written by that disciple.

Not misleading at all. Jesus's overall point was that SOME traditions are valid (those from which he taught) and some were not (those of the Pharisee/scribes).

So then, let me ask this: is any tradition which makes the law of God to no effect a valid tradition?
Is it possible, in any way, that in the totality of the Catholic Church's traditions there is one which likewise runs counter to the scripture?

[Wonder Warthog]

"The Epistles (Paul's letters, John's letters, Peter's letters, James) which comprise most of the New Testament were written, and distributed, among the early churches -- there wasn't any need for an oral tradition there. The Gospel of John and Revelation were also written by that disciple."

No, actually they were not. The New Testament AT THE EARLIEST was only completed with the death of the Apostle John, ninety years after Christ died.

Yes, there were writings of all sorts circulating during that time...and later...not only the genuine "eventually recognized as Scriptural" writings but many "close but no cigar" writings. There was no definitive teaching as to which of all of those writings were "really Scripture"

At some point after 100AD the Church had sorted things out a bit, and the Canon was more or less stable. But that Canon itself was only arrived at by the Church's Tradition.

"So then, let me ask this: is any tradition which makes the law of God to no effect a valid tradition?

I have no idea what you mean by this.

"Is it possible, in any way, that in the totality of the Catholic Church's traditions there is one which likewise runs counter to the scripture?

No.

[Wonder Warthog]

"The Epistles (Paul's letters, John's letters, Peter's letters, James) which comprise most of the New Testament were written, and distributed, among the early churches -- there wasn't any need for an oral tradition there. The Gospel of John and Revelation were also written by that disciple."

No, actually they were not. The New Testament AT THE EARLIEST was only completed with the death of the Apostle John, ninety years after Christ died.

Yes, there were writings of all sorts circulating during that time...and later...not only the genuine "eventually recognized as Scriptural" writings but many "close but no cigar" writings. There was no definitive teaching as to which of all of those writings were "really Scripture"

At some point after 100AD the Church had sorted things out a bit, and the Canon was more or less stable. But that Canon itself was only arrived at by the Church's Tradition.

"So then, let me ask this: is any tradition which makes the law of God to no effect a valid tradition?

I have no idea what you mean by this.

"Is it possible, in any way, that in the totality of the Catholic Church's traditions there is one which likewise runs counter to the scripture?

No.