Let us not forget 2 Timothy 1:13-14 and 2:1-2. And 1 Timothy 4:11 and 6:20. And there are others.
The RCC entire case for tradition therefore lies in Paul's three favorable references. Only one problem: Paul was obviously speaking of things that either he or the other apostles had already PERSONALLY taught.
Wrong. There are many more. And, if one creates an office, one ensures succession. Paul very adequately demonstrated succession throughout his epistles.
None of the verses you gave me have references to "tradition" or "traditions" in them. But they DO have something that will give you an "Ah-HAH..Of COURSE" moment if you THINK about it.
1 Tim.4:11 and 6:20: He was exhorting Tim. and giving him instructions IN THIS LETTER. It's the letter that is giving Timothy the "THESE THINGS COMMAND" of v.11 and "Keep that which is committed to thy trust" of 6:20. There was no tradition to be referenced.
As to 2 Tim. 1:13-14; and 2:1-2: We know that Timothy had more than just the Old Testament. 2 Tim. was written about 66 AD. This is Paul's SECOND epistle to him. So he has at least two epistles from Paul in addition to the OT. Paul states in 2 Tim. 4:6-8 that he is about to be martyred, making 2 Tim. the last epistle Paul wrote. So Timothy, OBVIOUSLY, has ALL of Paul's epistles. Because the date of this last epistle is about 66 AD, he also has the first three Gospels and most of the rest of the New Testament.
Whatever oral traditions were handed down, were WRITTEN DOWN by then. Don't forget 2 Peter 3:15-16, where he is speaking of Paul, in ALL his epistles. And saying that those epistles, like OTHER SCRIPTURES, are wrest by unlearned and unstable people unto their own destruction.