CathInfo.com

I wouldn't spent too much time arguing with Stubborn.  I've done it in the past but learned from my mistake.  He makes principles up out of thin air and dismisses all theological texts cited as the entirely unreliable theologians of the (at first just 20th -- and then later 19th and 20th) centuries.  He contradicts himself on a regular basis, redefines well-known theological terms to suit his needs, and has absolutely no comprehension of distinctions.  It's an exercise in futility.  I've stopped debating him.  It's pointless.  Stubborn (as is the logical consequence of R&R) has become his own rule of faith and has invented his own religion.

Your "highest principle," namely that Tradition is the proximate rule and interpreter of faith (something also promoted by that Drew character) is nothing more than a slight variation of Protestantism, the difference being that the Prots only have one source of Revelation (Scripture) and the Trad-Prots have two (Scripture and Tradition).

As with Scripture, the issue with Tradition is its interpretation and application, and there's only one authority permitted to interpret Tradition, the living Magisterium.  As St. Thomas said, by rejecting the Magisterium as the proximate rule for interpretation, you effectively make yourself the rule.  You replace the Magisterium with your own private judgment.  If Stubborn decides something is Traditional, then it's Traditional.  This effectively makes you your own doctrinal authority.