1)Most Catholic/Orthodox opponents of "sola scriptura" reject Biblical inerrancy. Thus inerrancy and sufficiency get become blended in the minds of both parties to the argument, either accepted or rejected in tandem. And since Fundamentalist Protestants refuse to ascribe errancy to the Word of G-d, they feel compelled to reject Divine Tradition as well.
2)Catholicism and Orthodoxy condemn the observance of the Torah, insisting that J*sus put an end to all that. Protestants quite logically conclude that if J*sus put an end to Biblical law, he sure as shootin' didn't intend to institute a post-Biblical law in its place. Thus their reading of J*sus' and Paul's condemnation of Torah observance and tradition is interpreted in a more consistent way as a condemnation of chr*stian tradition as well. That Paul is condemning G-d's Torah but not "apostolic tradition" would be to make him a hypocrite . . . wouldn't it?
What possible reason would you have to place an asterisk in the name Jesus?
I'm not sure that is accurate. Many of the things condemned in the Torah are also condemned in the New Testament. Some Christians subscribe to the idea that the new abolishes the old completely but I think that's a Protestant perspective. Some might subscribe to the idea that what is Not Explicitly changed or condemned in the NT still holds, others might say that whatever the NT reconfirms from the OT still holds. I honestly could not tell you the official RC or Orthodox position on the OT is.
Paul did not condemn the Torah... As the Torah was NEVER the vehicle to salvation, rather it was the 'Divine' system by which a 'freed' people would be blessed and protected when they 'at least' sought to adhere. All but the blood sacrifices still hold "IF" an individual or a nation expects those blessings Moses described.