Just curious, no disrespect meant.
There's nothing wrong with traditions except where that tradition contradicts scripture. In that case the word of God is supreme.
The article you listed quoted ", "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15)" and other verses to make the case that church can make traditions that supersede the word of God. However scripture is clear that Christ and the early Christians authority rested in what the scriptures revealed to them.
Some examples:
Joh 5:45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. Joh 5:46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.
Joh 5:47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"
Act_28:23 So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening.
Paul used scripture, the same scripture that reveal God's holy days, to persuade people.
The Bereans as well didn't just swallow what Paul was saying, they wanted biblical proof:
Act 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
If the view of the Catholic church were correct Paul could have been preaching the flying spaghetti monster and no matter how much scripture contradicted it they would have to accept it if it was a tradition.
And finally:
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
How can one use scripture for "reproof, correction and instruction" if it is NOT supreme to tradition?