I have been thinking about the idea of Solla Scriptura and was last night reading an article on another website (not catholic) which agreed with the principle. The basic idea was that the Bible being the inerrant word of God is the source to turn to when discerning whether something is true or not…biblical or unbiblical. The author explained that the idea wasn’t against traditions per se (ie ones that had been passed down through the generations orally etc) more, the bible should be the final word on whether or not to follow said traditions.
Sure in some sense this means that the Catholic Church believe in sola Scriptura, comparing everything to the Bible to check whether its biblical or not (note I am not saying it has to be IN the bible specifically just not to go against the Bible). Obviously if indeed the Catholic Church is Christs one true church and is therefore protected against the evils of hell, I can’t imagine the following happening but just for the sake of illustration say something was “taught” that was completely against the Bible - I am guessing catholics would know this was the case and not believe it. Thereby in someway following sola Scriptura.
Take converts for example, they join the Catholic Church based on their understanding of the bible and belief that the Catholic Church is the only church to follow the true biblical traditions…?
So maybe the difference is not in sola Scriptura per se…but interpretation of the bible/understanding. For example Protestants say praying to Mary is unbiblical, catholics say it is biblical. Both are basing their beliefs and understanding on the Bible…