Who said you were? (And what is putting "traditions" in quotes meant to convey?)
One of the problems in Sola Scriptura exegesis and interpretation is a kind of over-specificity which turns out to be -- surprise! -- a Protestant tradition.
For example. Our Lord says "vain repetitions." There are two ways to think of this: (1) some repetitions are 'vain', others aren't; (2)all repetition is vain.
So, modo Protestantium, let's interpret Scripture with Scripture: Psalm 136 has 26 repetitions of "for his mercy endures for ever." Therefore atleast one instance of repetition has Scripturall warrant. Therefore interpretation (2) must be false.
Similarly, our Lord and Paul refer to "traditions of men",more or less, which I guess is close to "human tradition". So, (a)are some traditions merely human while others are, well, respectable, or (2) are all traditions equally human and equally contemptible?
We haul out our Young's Analytical and find 2 Thess 2:15 and 2 Thess 3:6.
So it seems that not all traditions are "traditions of men", not all traditions are contemptible. Consequently the common Protestant supposition about tradition appears to draw on more than mere Scripture.
This is not a conclusive argument. It is intended to slow up the hasty and possibly thoughtless discarding of all tradition and to raise the question of discernment with respect to tradition. It's a baby step, not a capturing of the field.
“One of the problems in Sola Scriptura exegesis”
And that is the rub, catholics have serious problems with relying only on God’s words.
I’m not going to multi-quote your post, but Paul spoke out against following the traditions of men. Being a former Catholic, I know the “traditions of the church” are above the words of Christ and/or Paul.
In short, trusting God’s word and His son alone has the power to save. Traditions do not.
I really do not wish to debate any more catholics with Scripture.