I see you are avoiding the main point of the argument and changing it to a tangential point (on which I will freely admit I was wrong). Oral tradition and written tradition can survive next to one another. But they are not the same. And Catholic tradition is not even in the same ballpark as "oral tradition" as it is usually understood (even in liberally slanted Wikipedia, which I have no idea what that has to do with anything).
So, is Catholic Tradition an Oral Tradition?
In the early Church, of course there was an oral tradition. St. Paul even talks about it, repeatedly, mentioning letters which were not part of the Bible and oral teachings he and others had given on earlier occasions. St. Peter was a very active teacher, as noted in Acts, but most of what he taught was not written down. And we know that all the Apostles evangelized and taught, but much of their material was not written down until much later.
Until the Canon was established by the early Church, miscellaneous writings (e.g. the Didache) and oral traditions were coexisting, just as written and oral traditions coexisted in Britain and the U.S. in relatively recent times. The early church fathers synthesized written and oral tradition and wrote it all down. So over time, the transmission from the Apostles ceased to be partly oral and became written only.
Just as Homer moved from the oral to written tradition as soon as the accepted version was written down.
Never mind my last post. I see that the subject has already been covered.