In that Scripture proceeded from the Tradition that preceded it, and that both share the same author, it cannot be in a different or higher class than its antecedent unless you are granting to the Church a power to revise the Tradition that it does not claim for itself. The Church and its Magisterium is a servant of the deposit of faith, not its creator or master.
Domisus Vobiscum.
“In that Scripture proceeded from the Tradition that preceded it, and that both share the same author, it cannot be in a different or higher class than its antecedent.”
The problem is defining what one means by “Tradition” and how Scripture came to be established as being Divine.
Tradition as the oral form of Scripture before it was written would not be in a different or higher class in essence, but as the supernaturally established Word of God existing in a material expression it judges other claimed revelation.
Besides the fact that only part of Scripture first existed orally, tradition as an oral form of revelation in addition to the Scriptures, is amorphous, existing in a form along with uninspired revelation, without a known end or defined canon, and is supremely susceptible to undetectable corruption, while Scripture is the part of oral tradition that has been established as the Word of God, versus “tares’ which come from the same ground as wheat.
The Church and its Magisterium is a servant of the deposit of faith, not its creator or master.
Not in reality, as making her Tradition (out of the larger field of oral tradition) equal to Scripture is based upon Rome infallibly defining what the deposit of faith consists of and means, both in what revelation is of God and its meaning, thus infallibly defining that she is the assuredly infallible OTC.
Concerning which see my other recent posts relative to this.