The Catholic Church no more created the New Testament Canon than Newton created the basic principles of physics.
To be included in the Bible, each book had to pass two standards. First, it had to have a history of continuous and widespread approval amongst Christians. Second, it was expected to demonstrate that it had either been written by an apostle or specifically approved by the apostles.
Can the oral tradition you speak of pass either of these two tests? I follow an Apostolic Church. A Church founded by the Apostles. The only information that I know the Apostles wrote or approved of can be found in the Bible.
Has there ever been an attempt to verify your oral tradition can withstand the two tests required for the Bible? I doubt it. Just a pronouncement from the Catholic Church.
Let's take your first examples from scripture to support oral tradition: 2 Thessalonians 2:15. If you read the start of 2 Thessalonians, you will find the letter is from Paul, Silas and Timothy. Now let's read the verse in context... 2 Thessalonians 2: 14-15
14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
The letter was written from Paul, Silas and Timothy; not from the Church. If I could hear the words or Paul, Silas or Timothy; I would stand firm to those words. But all I have is what they wrote, so I will stand firm in Sola Scriptura.
Your next example is even more obvious. The letter is from Paul. He uses the phrases "remember me" and "I delivered". Does the Catholic Church actually think that this means we should follow them in whatever they say?
1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.
I will remember Paul and maintain the traditions that he has delivered to me. Unfortunately, Paul is in Heaven, so the only traditions Paul has delivered to me are in written form. Sola Scriptura.
2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
His teachings in the presence of many witnesses. So that excludes secret oral traditions. How can you ask me to believe that key aspects required for salvation can not be found in the Bible? The books of the Bible were written by Apostles or approved of by Apostles. And yet whole beliefs and traditions required for salvation are somehow missing? The only teachings I know came from Paul are found in the Bible. Unless you can trace obscure Catholic Dogma to Paul, this verse does nothing for me. And you can't simple say "Just believe us, we're the Catholic Church."
About Romans 10:17, verse 14 can clear that up.
Romans 10:14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
So people have to hear about Christ before they believe. And someone needs to preach so that the people can hear. How in any way does this support the authoritarian position of the Catholic Church?
1 Peter 1 25 "but the word of the Lord remains forever." And this word is the good news that was preached to you.
Let's read the good news shall we? Straight from Peter's mouth.
Acts 10 34-43
34 So Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. 36 As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), 37 you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. 39 And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, 40 but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, 41 not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. 43 To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."
Not one thing about the Catholic Church. Not one thing about the primacy of Peter. Not one thing about passing down authority through the Catholic Church alone. Not one thing about Mary or praying to the Saints. I am not impressed.
Sorry about the hostility, but I'm really annoyed with the Catholic Church trying to coop the Christian religion. Since I reject the authority of the Pope, I'm not even sure if the Catholic Church acknowledges my salvation. I'm not sure if the Vatican II changed that opinion. Talk about confusing.
And finally,
2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
Again, the only tradition I have from the Apostles is contained in the Bible: books written by the Apostles or approved by the Apostles. Unless you can show that the traditions of the Catholic Church are directly from the Apostles (or supported by the Apostles), I guess I need to keep away from you.
The Bible Itself never states that It is the sole and only authority of Christianity. The word "Bible" is not even mentioned in Scripture. However, I totally agree that It is one of the authorities in Christianity, but where does It state that It alone is the only authority?
Unless you can show that the traditions of the Catholic Church are directly from the Apostles (or supported by the Apostles), I guess I need to keep away from you.
Not only is tradition endorsed by scripture, but it is simply common sense. All non-Catholic Christians believe it; though, to be sure, they won’t admit it. No Protestant, if he sat down and thought about it, would affirm that he believes something completely different from the earliest Christians that heard the gospel directly from the mouth of an apostle. One may immediately say that that is because he has scripture and has nothing to do with tradition. But that doesn’t work because I’m talking about advocates of sola scriptura that have diametrically opposing interpretations of scripture.
For example: Baptists believe in adult only baptism; Presbyterians affirm infant baptism. Lutherans top them both by believing in baptismal regeneration. Yet, which of them would say that the earliest Christians believed the other denominations’ position? Can one seriously imagine that the apostle Peter went about teaching adult only baptism, and the apostle John went about teaching infant baptism, and the apostle James went about teaching baptismal regeneration?
Contradictory teachings cannot both be "guided by the Spirit". For example, some Protestant groups will tell me that I must speak in tongues in order to prove I’m saved. Others will tell me that speaking in tongues was a phenomenon relegated to past ages but not legitimate today; anyone who does speak in tongues is following the devil. Can both of those opinions be "guided by the Spirit?" How do we know which, if either, is true? Both groups claim guidance by the Spirit and that they are "Biblical."
No Protestant approaches the scriptures in a vacuum. He brings his presumptions – i.e. traditions – to the scriptures. If I am a Calvinist, I will interpret everything in a way consistent with my Calvinist tradition. Thus, 1 Peter 3:21 will not be referring to baptismal regeneration but will be making a point consistent with my presuppositions. Protestant practice is therefore a proof that tradition is an authoritative interpreter of scripture. Protestants assume what they claim is impossible to believe. Catholics believe in sacred Tradition and admit it; Protestants believe in sacred Tradition and don’t admit it.