As an Orthodox Christian, I’m not going to argue the case of paradosis and its role as Christian Tradition (as opposed to tradition with a small “t”). I’m on your side with that, since the only ones who’d argue the issue would be Protestants or Evangelicals. My only concern here is the use of the term “Catholic”, and whether you mean “Roman” or not. The Jerusalem Council was conciliar and not strictly Roman. It was held in Jerusalem, not Rome, so it would be perhaps best to call it “catholic” (i.e. whole/complete) in the sense that it was held as infallible by the Church as a whole. What I think is a little unfair is to gloss over the fact that the Christian Church was a unified whole for 1000 years, before the Schism. I don’t think the Eastern Orthodox would appreciate themselves being called Roman Catholic. Not trying to argue, just stating a point. Peace.
All this being said, what I’m more interested in is discussing why the non-liturgical branches of Christianity reject paradosis, and how many of the English translations deliberately mistranslate the Greek word to suit their sola scriptura dogma. I can provide examples, if anyone’s interested in that, but it’ll have to be tomorrow. It’s very late here.