"How, in any way, does that statement make oral tradition more important then the written Word of God? Unless you don't believe that the NT is inspired, then I don't know as that we can carry on a discussion. My discussion is with Catholics who believe that the NT is inspired but believe in traditions not supported by the NT."
Catholics, if they are Catholics, believe that the Bible is part of the written Tradition of the Church, which, along with the Oral Tradition of the Church (much of which is also written, now) is inspired by God. The Bible tradition is not superior in authority to the rest of the traditions of the Church. The Church is the final authority which organizes and regulates the rest.
An analogy: the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The judicial decisions that interpret the Constitution and put it into force have the same authority as the Constitution - they ARE the Constitution for the purpose of that clause of the Constitution, for it is they: the judicial opinions (the "oral tradition") which tell everyone authoritatively what the Constitution MEANS.
The same is true for regulations issued by executive departments which interpret the Constitution and apply it to a set of facts.
It's ALL the Supreme Law of the land. The standard operation of the US Federal government, as understood by both major parties, is the equivalent of the "Catholic View" of the authority of the Bible and the rest of Tradition.
The "Protestant view" of the Constitution is that anybody can read it and understand what it means, and where that persons understanding contradicts what the Supreme Court (i.e.: the Vatican of the Constitution) has said, that the Supreme Court has violated the Constitution and in fact broken the Supreme Law of the Land, substituting its own judgment for the one TRUE supreme law, which is the written text of the Constitution itself.
The two approaches lead to radically different results in the organization of people. The former, "Catholic" approach to the Constitution leads us to the massive American empire and structure of law and governmental authority we have today. The "Protestant" approach to the Constitution results in a proliferation of different schools of thought about what the Constitution REALLY means, because different people read the words differently.
For example, when I read the Second Amendment, straight, strictly and fair, I see a clear authority of State government to regulate firearms possession written right into the Constitution itself. Others tell me, with increasing vehemence which ends up impugning my MOTIVES and my READING COMPREHENSION that there is no such power there, that the right to keep and bear arms is absolute. No, it is not. The first clause of the Second Amendment is "A WELL-REGULATED..." that, right there, gives Constitutional authority to pass law and regulate firearms. Period. Reading 101 as far as I can see. I don't even think it's debatable. And neither do my opponents. I understand that they are misreading the text, but sincere. They usually think I have a secret agenda and REALLY see the text as they do, and am hiding it to try and expand government. They are wrong. I really think it says in plain English that government can regulate firearms. So, what resolution?
Well, my Catholic mind sees the resolution of the issue in Courts and Congress and the States and Executive Agencies - all those things the rest of the Constution lays out. My "Constitutional Protestant" opponents see there being NO supreme authority other than the text itself...which means NO SUPREME AUTHORITY AT ALL, because we cannot agree on what the text says.
And that is why there are 6000 different branches of Protestantism that have formed in the past 500 years, but only one Catholic Church.
It is ultimately a question of authority.