First, let me thank you and bkaycee for making this a reasonable discussion of doctrines and differences.
Your underlines the Catholic premise that there exists a hierarchy within the Revealed Word in which Scripture does indeed carry a higher weight than Tradition. We Catholics also believe that within Scripture there exists a similar hierarchy in which the actual words of Jesus hold a higher importance than do the letters and epistles of the Apostles and the laws and accounts of the Old Testament. However, all of Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture play an important role.
It is through this understanding of hierarchy that Catholic doctrines and dogma can be better understood.
If we parse the revealed Word and exclude Tradition can we then keep going and exclude everything except the Beatitudes and still be Christian?
Thank you as well for the respectful discussion. I do have an objection to your statement about Catholics holding the "actual words of Jesus" having a higher authority than the rest of Scripture. My reasons for objection is because the words Jesus spoke while here on earth were retold by men specifically inspired by the Holy Spirit who brought to their remembrance all things that Jesus taught them. John, for example, not only wrote one of those retelling books (The Gospel According to John) but several other Scripture books. Are you implying that what the Gospel of John says Jesus said is more important than what John the Apostle said in his epistles as well as the book of Revelation? Are not ALL of the Holy Scriptures God's word? Are not Paul's writings as Peter said in his epistle that Paul's writings were inspired Scripture equally authoritative?
The reason I think that compels some to place the words of Jesus in higher importance than the rest of Scripture is that they see a disconnect in Jesus' teachings and what other Bible books (such as Paul's epistles) teach. I do not see any disconnect nor any contradictions. I do not think any Scripture contradicts any other Scripture as they were divinely inspired by the same (and only) Holy Spirit and he would not, could not contradict himself. This obviously calls for a proper hermeneutical understanding of Scripture that studies the Word in regard to context, audience, times, subject and consistent with the other revelations from God. So, why do you think your church needed to state such a distinction? What do they say is "troublesome" about holding ALL Scripture as revelation from God so that all is true and equally true?
I do not think this is "parsing" of Scripture nor is it discarding tradition, but is rather an understanding that tradition MUST be understood and judged by Scripture and not the other way around. Thanks for your input.