Denzinger, H. The Sources of Catholic Dogma. Loreto: 1957 (ed 2002).
The above is the best source I have seen.
The way that "Big T" Tradition actually works is that we have dogma, handed down from the apostles through their teaching. If you think about it, the original churches established by the apostles had no Sacred Scripture. They had what they were taught by an apostle or an evangelist. These churches passed on what they were taught from generation to generation. In some cases, an apostle would write a letter to a particular church. The letter would provide additional information, would talk about some error in practice or in doctrine that had crept into that church, or provide some encouragement in times of trouble. The writings of the apostles were so highly revered that these letters would be passed among the various churches. Prior to the end of their lives, we are aware of two accounts of Jesus' life that were penned by apostles, to preserve key events in His life for future generations. Those two apostles were +Matthew and +John. The other two gospels were written by men accompanying the apostles +Peter and +Paul. We know that the gospels are not a complete record of Christ's life: +John, in fact, says as much in his gospel account.
So do we know what all the apostles taught the Church in the beginning? What we do know is what was recorded by Luke in the Acts and what was communicated to the various particular churches in the epistles. That's all we know from Scripture. Do we KNOW, based on Scripture, how the apostles baptized? We just know that they baptized people with the Lord's baptism.
The point I am trying to get at was that it was ALL Tradition in the beginning. When the apostles decided to write, or have somebody write, the Gospel account, a portion of that Tradition got captured into writing and became Scripture. When an apostle decided to write a letter to a particular church, either teaching something new, amplifying something that had already been taught, to reprove the church for some inappropriate behavior, to encourage the church in times of trouble, etc., those letters, in time, became Scripture.
So we know Christ was born, He lived, had His ministry, went through His Passion, He Died, and was raised primarily from Tradition, because that's what the early Church had.
The same thing with all of the dogma of the Faith.
Thanks be to God, the majority of the apostles' teaching is captured in Sacred Scripture. Thanks be to God, the majority of that which is not explicitly captured is supported by Scripture. Thanks be to God, the minority that is not caputured or supported in at least in harmony with the Scriptures. So that 2,000 years after it happened, I can go back and look for myself and see.
I know that this is a big long dissertation for a simple answer, but I wanted to take the time to convey the above.
There are a few examples of things that we believe that are not contained in Scriptures. It is that kind of belief that we will say "is in Sacred Tradition, not Sacred Scripture..." but it's really a misnomer, as it ALL was in Sacred Tradition originally.
One example of a Big "T" only belief is the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. We know from Scripture, that it could happen (see Enoch and Elijah for examples), therefore, it is not offensive to Scripture. But we know from Tradition that it did happen. (If you think about it, it couldn't, in fact, be contained in Scripture, as the historical accounts of the apostles closed out prior to the death of the Blessed Virgin. In fact, historical accounts of the apostles, at large, really closed out just after the Council of Jerusalem, when Mary would have been only in her mid forties to early fifties, hardly in her ancient of days. The remainder of the Acts of the Apostles was really just a narrative of +Paul's evangelistic journeys)
I hope the overly long answer gave you what you were looking for.