You asked a similar question earlier on this thread, and I answered then: the scripture does not contain its own table of content so that we know what books are inspired and what is not from the scripture itself; the scripture does not instruct us in proper liturgy; it leaves important for salvation doctrines stated in a way that allows for misinterpretation if the scripture is left as the only guidance. As one example I gave baptism of children.
More narrowly, this passage does not say anything about the perfection of the laity at all, and it does not mention either perspicuity or self-sufficiency of the scripture outside of the Holy Tradition and the magisterial teaching.
No where is Scriptures does it say that baptism is required before the Holy Spirit gives faith. Baptism is a sign and seal of the election of God and is a grace provided by the Holy Spirit. This is where the RC practice differs greatly from the Protestant understanding of infant baptism. To the RC, baptism is an actual removal of sin. To the Protestant, sin is not removed by baptism; instead it's a promise to us that our sin has been forgiven by God through Jesus Christ's work on the cross.
More narrowly, this passage does not say anything about the perfection of the laity at all, and it does not mention either perspicuity or self-sufficiency of the scripture outside of the Holy Tradition and the magisterial teaching.
Are we reading the same words?
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." -- 2 Timothy 3:16-17"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
In those verses there is no mention of "tradition" nor any "magisterial teaching." Only an assurance that we are to live by God's word in all things and that in doing so, we will more perfectly reflect the glory of God. As God wills.
We cannot serve two masters.