The problem is which canon to use, the Catholic version or the Protestant version. Which canon is implicitly referred to in the passages that you cited?
My only problem with tradition being taught and practiced in addition to scripture is if it is contrary to scripture. Surely Catholics and non-Catholics can agree upon that point.
True. But there is good Tradition and bad tradition. Scripture refers to both.
How about a question to answer a question? Could you generalize for me the reason(s) that the Church chose to retain the Septuagint OT? It is interesting to me, the fact that the Jews themselves did not ultimately see fit to include those extra books in their Tanakh, yet the RCC did.
Also, an example of a specific verse that has always bothered me -
If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do.
And so ends 2 Maccabees. Well, there is one more verse after that, but my point is that the author hardly seems divinely inspired to me. Of course these were all men writing the scriptures, but God certainly would not have done anything poorly or mediocre and I find it surprising that such description found its way into inspired text.
True. But there is good Tradition and bad tradition. Scripture refers to both.
Sure, Jesus reprimanded the Jews of His time for placing too much emphasis on tradition, so much that they were distracted from scripture. And Paul, as aforementioned, instructs his readers to hold fast to that which they had been taught, either by word of mouth or the written word. And the word traditions used there means body of precepts, illustrations and expansions of the written law. This to me means just that - always grounded in scripture. Which goes back to what Jesus said in the first place - be careful about those traditions, make sure they always line up with scripture so that one isn't found to eventually be in error.