Your article is lengthy, but presuming you are a reasonable person, i will seek to address the main issues here.
It is one thing to wrongly assert that Catholic Tradition (the beliefs and dogmas which the Church claims to have preserved intact passed down from Christ and the Apostles) is corrupt, excessive and unbiblical. It is quite another to think that the very concept of tradition is contrary to the outlook of the Bible and pure, essential Christianity. This is, broadly speaking, a popular and widespread variant of the distinctive Protestant viewpoint of "Sola Scriptura," or "Scripture Alone," which was one of the rallying cries of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century.
It is because of the former, that of Rome teaching for doctrines the “tradition of the elders” which do not have Scriptural warrant or are contrary to it, (Mk. 7:1-16) that you have the latter, a overreaction or misunderstanding by some that the very concept of tradition is contrary to the outlook of the Bible. And thus you have the typical Catholic strawman that Sola Scriptura excludes the use of any other source in understanding God's will, rather than Scripture being alone as the supreme and sufficient authority.
The supremacy of Scripture is supported by Scripture based upon the abundant evidence that as written, the Scripture was the transcendent standard for obedience and for testing truth claims, and which also provides for addition writings being given and recognized in attaining its sufficiency.
However, its sufficiency is not simply formal, that of providing salvific truths that are clear enough that normally a person could be saved by reading, for instance, Peter's sermon on Acts 10:36-43, but sufficiency also refers to material sufficiency (which some RCs affirm), which includes establishing the use of reason, the church and its offices, etc., and which provides for writings being recognized as Scripture (and thus for a canon), as most of them were before there was a church in Rome.
In this respect, after affirming the supremacy of Scripture and is sufficiency, Westminster (cp. 1) adds,
VI. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
CHAPTER XXXI.
III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
And as regards the use of tradition, Alister McGrath's [Irish theologian, pastor, intellectual historian and Christian apologist, currently Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London] states in “The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism:”
Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. — James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings;” http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/deliberate-fiction.html
To which can be added,
THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION - Page 2 (Heinrich Bullinger: Calvinist confession; adopted by the Reformed Church not only throughout Switzerland but in Scotland (1566), Hungary (1567), France (1571), Poland (1578), and next to the Heidelberg Catechism is the most generally recognized Confession of the Reformed Church.)
Interpretations of the Holy Fathers. Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred matters as far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures. Neither do we think that we do them any wrong in this matter; seeing that they all, with one consent, will not have their writings equated with the canonical Scriptures, but command us to prove how far they agree or disagree with them, and to accept what is in agreement and to reject what is in disagreement.
Evangelical authorities Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie state,
The perspicuity of Scripture does not mean that everything in the Bible is perfectly clear, but rather the essential teachings are. Popularly put, in the Bible the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things. This does not mean — as Catholics often assume — that Protestants obtain no help from the fathers and early Councils. Indeed, Protestants accept the great theological and Christological pronouncements of the first four ecumenical Councils. What is more, most Protestants have high regard for the teachings of the early fathers, though obviously they do not believe they are infallible. So this is not to say there is no usefulness to Christian tradition, but only that it is of secondary importance. http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf
Far from distinguishing tradition from the gospel, as evangelicals often contend, the Bible equates tradition with the gospel and other terms such as "word of God," "doctrine," "holy commandment," "faith," and "things believed among us."
It is true that some of Scripture was first oral, nor is all that could be known written, (Jn. 21:25; 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) yet the norm was that oral Divine revelation was subsequently written, and in fact, it is hard to find any place where specific oral (or in dreams, visions) revelation referred to as the “word of God/the Lord does not refer to something that was not subsequently written. Nor can it be proved that the “traditions of 1Thes. 2:15 were not, nor were they were oral stories passed through generations that could not be written, as per Rome's tradition. And it is also true that “the word of the Lord” can refer to preaching the general Scripturally-substantiated truths of the gospel, which all the church did, (Acts 8:4) and which SS-type preachers claim. While every time they have a wedding they are in some way upholding a tradition, though the cultural form is not to be made a doctrine.
St. Paul is here urging Timothy not only to "hold fast" his oral teaching "heard of me," but to also pass it on to others. Thus we find a clear picture of some sort of authentic historical continuity of Christian doctrine.
This is true, and historically SS-type churches engaged in such, but what Paul referred to was truths which were based upon Scriptural substantiation, as "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, " (Acts 17:2)
"And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. " (Acts 28:23)
And which substantiation was not simply in text but in power, that of the supernatural attestation which Scripture reveals God giving to His word, (Mk. 16:20) especially to new revelation.
"How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? " (Hebrews 2:3-4)
In contrast, Rome cannot claim to have new revelation, or the manifest credentials of apostolic authority. (Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12) And while she claims to be uniquely protected from error, that her formulaic infallibility, this is not promised in Scripture to any mortal (even the inspired writers of Holy Writ), nor is it necessary, as writings were recognized as Scripture and Truth was preserved without an assuredly infallible magisterium.
And in reality, the veracity of her Traditions and claims are not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, (if it were, she would accede primacy to that), nor are the reasons behind an infallible pronouncements necessarily infallible, but assurance of her veracity rest upon herself, as she has infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. And upon this premise the Catholic finds his assurance (though whether a pronouncement is infallible can be a matter of interpretation).
This is referred to as sola ecclesia, and which is shared by cults. And Roman Catholic apologists point to disagreements and divisions under SS as disallowing that, yet under sola ecclesia there are also disagreements divisions within Catholicism, in which Tradition, Scripture and history are interpreted differently.
However, the Lord appealed to Scripture in combating the devil's wresting of it, (Mt. 4), and His Truth and that of the church were established by Scriptural substantiation in text and in power, overcoming evil with Good. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
And thus the church began in dissent from those, who, like Rome, presumed a level of veracity beyond what Scripture promises mortals, apart from its teachings, and who thus rejected the Itinerant Preacher whose claims were Scripturally established. (Mk. 11:28-33)
There’s nothing wrong with tradition, small t, as long as it doesn’t supplant Scripture as Tradition, capital T, is known to do.