Well, that's the challenge. How do we know the difference?
We know the difference because they are different concepts, although theologians have borrowed the name of one and affixed it to the other...in order to suggest that their religious innovations actually do have a track record. If they had called the collection of opinions that we know as "Tradition" something else--"prophesy," for example--would that make it actually divine revelation? I'd hope we would know the difference, despite the name similarity.
l know For my part, since we do not know oral tradition from Paul's time and we don't view his comment as a bishopric blank check, what are we left with?
Yes, but you are working on two things at once here.
First, there is the question of whether or not the collection of opinions, legends, and folklore that is called "Holy Tradition," "Sacred Tradition," or just "Tradition" actually has the "paper trail" that is claimed for it and which is necessary for it to be genuine. For most doctrines that are based upon "Tradition" that continuity that is so essential and is alleged by Catholics is actually lacking. What exists are snippets from here and there, from one "Early Church Father" or another, and often from men who are separated by many years. There is no continuity, and so the claims are false.
Second, However, even if doctrine X could be shown to have been taught by the whole church, continuously since the Apostles, the next question arises. DOES that make it somehow a second stream of Divine Revelation (alongside Scripture)?
NO! Of course not. What it makes such ideas is custom at best. And it's usually not even that.
Scripture of course, but how about scripture first, then tradition?
The prioritizing makes sense, but my point is that there is no reason to include "Tradition" in any case.
It doesn't follow its own rules (continuity, whole church, Apostolic) and even if it did, we have no warrant whatsoever to follow it. The idea that there is some hand of God in the legends and customs of Christians through the years, that this thing defines doctrine and is infallible, is completely illogical as well as unscriptural. It's carefully-manufactured nonsense that has no more credibility than saying that the Angel Moroni wrote Scripture on plates of gold and hid them in New York.
Sculleywr will say scripture came from tradition.
He's wrong. Worse, he's playing a trick on you with wording--or doesn't understand the concept that is Tradition himself. "Tradition" that defines doctrine is NOT the same as "traditions." What's more, he has no evidence whatsoever for the claims of the Apostles having taught the ideas that are claimed. You've made that point yourself, but it's only a part of the deception.
So what? Again, that is not to open the door to some bishop blank check.
Personally, I think you damage your own argument by constantly harping on your own ideas about the history of the episcopate.
Right or wrong, it diverts attention from the real problems, which are that 1) Tradition is a myth, and 2) there's no reason to think "it" is Divine Revelation anyway.