“I believe that sola Scriptura is merely a convenient assumption made by Protestants for lack of any superior principle of authority, and in order to overcome the weight of Christian Tradition, apostolic succession, and an authoritative Church. It cannot be found in Scripture, nor deduced from it, whereas our views are readily observed in Scripture, and also in the early and late Fathers, who claimed to have preserved the apostolic deposit. Yet Protestants have made Bible Alone their foundational principle: making a document a final authority, even though that document makes no such claim, and in fact contradicts it.” (Page 13)
“Even in one night of preaching and teaching, Paul would have surpassed in numbers of words all his epistles. But you would have us believe that he possessed no authority till the Christian could read an epistle of his and figure out that it was part of the New Testament without the necessary aid of an authoritative Church that could declare what was Scripture and make the canon binding on all Christians.” (Page 54)
“C: It cannot, nor does the Catholic Church intend to. But authoritative interpretation remains the dilemma for the Bible Alone view.” (Page 18)
“That’s simply not true. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons know their Bibles quite well (of course they have horrendous hermeneutical principles) and they can’t even arrive at trinitarianism. Calvin and Luther both knew the Bible inside out, yet they disagreed on a host of things (baptismal regeneration, Eucharist, etc.). The argument doesn’t fly. We have to deal with history and the ugly reality of unbiblical sectarianism. I don’t think the disagreements are primarily due to a mere lack of knowledge, but rather, due to a lack of a biblical authority structure (Church, Bible, Tradition: the ‘three-legged stool’), and flawed premises (sola Scriptura, private judgment, supremacy of the individual conscience, competing ecclesiologies, etc.).” (Page 47)