Yes, Romanists, indeed. If I recall, are you the fellow who is not actually in full communion with Rome, but merely one who really, really, likes them, yet unable to actually join them for "personal" reasons? I may have you confused with another.
Who I am, or what my story is, is beside the point here. My position is Catholic in my theology, just as yours is Reformed, and as others' here's Open Dispensationalism. Which school of theological thought one subscribes to, does not require membership in any particular ecclesial community tradition. Catholicism does 'come with' an ecclesial community tradition, it is true, but this does not bear on whether or not a Christian can hold to Catholicism, theologically.
fyi, I am a pastor of a small non-Catholic church, so my bodily conversion to Catholicism is not as simple for me, as it would be for most other Christians. I've done my duty as pastor of my small flock, and sought out the truth of our faith in order to teach the truth, and I've come up 'Catholic' in my quest. It's been through decades of prayerful Scripture study, theological study, and historical study, that I've arrived to where I have. Not that any of this bears on what we're talking about here, but just fyi.
We have but one infallible and final authority (Scripture) for life and faith, not the magisterium, nor the traditions claimed by Rome.
Bald assertion, nowhere found in the Bible. What Is found in the Bible, are the Church's authentic pastors, the bishops (the whole of them called the Church's Magisterium, the episcopal office, that office tasked specifically with teaching our faith). Perhaps you're frightened that we ascribe to them too much power, and that they could use that power to supersede the Scripture, but that has never happened, not once, and nor could or would it, given the specific job description of the bishops, which is to teach us what the Apostles themselves taught the earliest Church, before there was ever even the hint of a 'New Testament,' back when the only scriptures were the Old Testament, and the only Apostolic teachings were from their own tongues (which could speak many different languages, but I digress).
It was ancient bishops who finalized the New Testament, and in fact the canon of Sacred Scripture. They drew upon what they knew the Apostles taught, wrt specific doctrines, and also wrt which writings were authorized Scripture, and which were not.
All New Testament books present authentic Apostolic teachings unvarnished, that's why they're Scripture. And all Old Testament books (including the seven ones missing from the Protestant Bibles) are authorized as Scripture by the Apostles as well. The fact of the canon of Scripture testifies to the authority given to the Apostles by Christ Himself when He commissioned them.
Romanists advocate three authorities: Scripture, the teaching office of the church, and tradition.
And I've set out precisely how those three relate with each other. The ultimate authority is Christ Himself, and He gave His authority to administrate His Church directly to His Apostles. He handpicked each of them, including the Apostle Paul.
These men instituted Holy Orders, by which they ordained men as bishops, who are the Church's authentic 'senior' pastors, through the imposition of their own hands. The bishops hold the same office as the Apostles did as 'senior' pastors of the Church, and this is why we talk about 'Apostolic succession,' since all bishops were holding that same office.
The Apostles possessed Christ's pastoral and teaching authority, and they gave His authority to the bishops that they consecrated themselves. Furthermore, they instructed these bishops to continue Holy Orders, and to consecrate new bishops themselves. All Catholic (and Orthodox) bishops today are men who've been consecrated just as that 'second generation' of bishops were; by bishops who were previously consecrated. This line of bishops has continued from the beginning of the Church, unceasingly, until today.
Some famous ancient bishops: Timothy and Titus, Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Jerome, Augustine, Pope Gregory the Great, etc. All these bishops were Catholic in their theology.
The relationship between "Scripture, the teaching office of the church, and [Sacred] tradition," is that the bishops (the teaching office) confirmed what writings there are, that are Scripture, and Sacred Tradition are all the Apostolic teachings that are not found in Scripture, not through any design, but through happenstance. No matter what the New Testament wound up containing, does not change Sacred Tradition. In the earliest years of the Church, Scripture was just the Old Testament, just the Apostles were the teaching office, and just what they taught then through word-of-mouth, was Sacred Tradition.
The Catholic Catechism says, "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone." The faithful should receive all their teaching "with docility" (par. 85, 95). Tradition, Scripture "and the Magisterium of the Church" work together for "the salvation of souls."
Right.
Thus the Romanists affirms prima scripture, the primacy of Scripture.
I would say that Sacred Tradition is partially recorded in the New Testament, so Scripture is Sacred Tradition, just that portion of Sacred Tradition that was committed to writing, by either Apostles themselves, or by writers who composed writings that went on to be authorized as Scripture by the Apostles.
Scripture is the primary source for theology, but not the final source. Tradition and church teaching effectively limit Scripture's authority.
No, they don't. In fact, Scripture authenticates the teaching office of the Church, since its beginning is recorded there. I got that through following 'Sola Scriptura,' and I don't believe that 'Sola Scriptura' will lead astray an honest student of Scripture. It will lead them right to the bishops, who continue to be among us today.
The New Testament Was Sacred Tradition, before it was written down.
If a matter is uncertain in Scripture, and tradition has an authoritative interpretation, then tradition has the final word.
Nonsense abounds.
Where is this nonsense? Is it in these matters, which are uncertain in Scripture? Abortion, pornography, the Trinity, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Oops, that last one; the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, isn't uncertain at all in Scripture. Four times in Scripture, our Lord is quoted as saying, "This is My body," wrt 'this bread.' There is only a certain type of pastor who teaches this as plainly as it is taught in Scripture, and they are the Catholic (and Orthodox) bishops.
