This is a very brief treatise of this critical subject – I am currently working on a much more substantial paper.
Non-Catholics who preach the doctrine of sola scripura (a 16th century “tradition of men” to be sure) are led into many errors by this erroneous (and illogical) basis for their theology. This doctrine, which is actually more of an assumption on the part of most of its adherents, states, of course, that the Bible is the sole rule of faith and sole authority. In reality, that is illogical and flatly contradicted by Scripture itself and the history of Christianity.
Let's start by looking at the early Church. In the first few decades after the Ascension, there was not even a single written gospel. Christ, of course, wrote nothing, nor was the early Church dependent upon books of any sort. Teaching was primarily oral (as is evident from the epistles, which will be discussed below). Christians were not only being baptized (and going to Mass) but were dying for the faith. Can one imagine one of these early martyrs being told that the Bible, which didn't exist when he was executed, is all any Christian needs and is the sole rule of faith?
This is not, of course, to say that Scripture is not important because of course it certainly is. I found Christ in a personal and deep way initially by reading the gospel on my own. Yet, clearly, it is not necessary for the Church, since the Church in fact existed for over three centuries without a New Testament canon, and for many decades with no written inspired documents at all.
Nor is it the case that the Bible is the sole rule of authority now but simply wasn't then because times were different. It would make no sense for the Church to change is such a complete and radical way (never minding that Scripture says no such thing whatsoever). In apostolic times, it was *the Church* that was the source of authority, Scripture itself says: the Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15). What was the case then is the case now.
The case for The-Bible-As-Sole-Authority is so thin that it isn't even one of those things that you can find verses, taken in isolation, that seem to support it; there are no verses at all that say anything of the kind. The verses that are normally trotted out as "proof-texts" say that Scripture is "profitable", etc. Of course it is - of course all inspired Scripture is holy and good. Anyone with the most basic understanding of logic understands that saying something is "good" or " necessary" does not mean that it is "sufficient".
John tells us in his gospel that there are many things Christ said and did that were not written down - one ought to consider those things important as well! Christ Himself taught or referred to Jewish concepts found nowhere in Old Testament Scripture, such as the Seat of Moses. That was part of the Oral Tradition of Judaism that He accepted.
It is probably reading the epistles where the necessity for oral Tradition and the plain fact what has been called "the occasional nature of Scripture" are made most clear. Paul exhorts his followers to obey and live what they were *told* by him and the other bishops. Clearly, neither Paul nor any of the other apostles or NT authors set out to write a comprehensive "faith manual". Almost every epistle (except for James and 1 & 2 Peter) was written specifically to individual congregations to clarify some doctrinal or moral matter on which there was confusion and/or disobedience. The epistles are reiterating and reinforcing parts of the oral teaching these congregations had already been given.
But we haven't even gotten to the biggest issue! The one that absolutely, positively requires one to rely on the authority and guidance of the Catholic Church: the definition of the canon! What books comprise the Bible? This simple question is one most Protestants never think about. The ones that do, who are honest and thorough, usually eventually become Catholic (as with Mark Shea, who I'll speak about below).
The fact is the canon is not at all self-attesting. Of course, it is illogical due to the circularity for one to even suspect it might be: The Bible defined the canon of the Bible? Some early Christians did not believe John's Revelation was inspired Scripture (likely because it was as confusing to them as it is to many today). Hebrews was also not widely accepted especially in the first century. On the other side, there were motions to include Pope Clement's letter to the Corinthians (written around 80 AD, and during which he as the bishop of Rome and fourth pope exercises authority over this remote church) as well as the Didache (“Teaching”, a manual of the faith written by the Apostles in Antioch in 90-100 AD).
Concerning Mr. Shea, I found his book By What Authority? (An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition) to be excellent. In one section, he describes in great detail the months of research, discovery, anguish, and finally joy he went through in trying to answer the question of how one can be certain that the canon is correct. He describes the various hypotheses he explores, most of them given to him by his evangelical associates:
http://www.amazon.com/What-Authority-Evangelical-Discovers-Tradition/dp/0879738510/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301759281&sr=8-1
I'm going to summarize some of Shea's thoughts here.
The inner witness of the Holy Spirit tells the Christian which books are inspired and which were not.
Shea has trouble with this for a couple reasons. First, there are some Christians he can think of offhand that respect a different canon than he but that he is pretty sure "have the Holy Spirit" too: he names Mother Teresa, St. Augustine, St. Francis of Assisi, and G.K. Chesterton (I guess Shea wasn't one of those evangelicals that doesn't even consider Catholics to be Christians). He isn't able to readily accept the idea that these people are wrong and he's right just because.
Then he talks about Martin Luther. Luther, and the other Reformers removed the "deuterocanonical" books from their canon. That is common knowledge (although one of the common anti-Catholic myths is that the Catholic Church *added* these books even though they were part of the Christian canon from the very moment it was defined in the 4th century, and even though Christ Himself used the Septuagint Old Testament which includes them).
This disturbed Shea, but what disturbed him more was Luther's de-facto rejection of books in the New Testament that had always been part of the canon, such as James. About that book Luther had this to say: "James wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task. He tried to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplished by stimulating people to love. Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books." And Luther did put James and some other books he did not care for in their own section! (Imagine the arrogance this took. Yet, this is private interpretation of Scripture taken to one more level - private interpretation of the canon.)
Shea read a great many of the books that were rejected and notes that even to someone like him who knows the Holy Spirit there is no mark of certainty as to what is inspired and what is not. He comments that the referenced letter of Clement and the Didache are completely orthodox and have more doctrinal content than, say, Numbers or Philemon.
Quotation = Canonicity
Some of his friends and colleagues told Shea that the books that Christ and the apostles quote from comprise the canon. (To start with, even if this were true it only works for the Old Testament!)
But Shea discovered that many OT books are never quoted in the New Testament. Worse, there are a number of cases of NT authors quoting from non-canonical OT books: Jude quotes from The Assumption of Moses and Enoch, for example.
"Congruence" with other books determines canonicity
I bet you've figured out the answer is "no" on this one too. A number of examples could be cited. Shea talks about Ecclesiastes- "totally ignored by the rest of Scripture and its nihilistic vision of life conflicts mightily with Christian hope". According to this book, "The dead know nothing, they have no further reward"! (Of course, the point of the book is to show what life might be like without God. Shea's point in citing it is just to refute the argument that all inspired books are "congruent". Also, it is never quoted in the NT.) Shea concludes, again, that by no means, despite knowing the Holy Spirit, is he able as an individual to decide with certainty that this book belongs in the canon (whilst the Didache does not).
The myth of "ignored" deuterocanonical books
Protestants are led to believe that the deuterocanonical books were ignored by the New Testament authors but discovers that that is quite false. Wisdom 2:12-20 obviously heavily influenced Mt 27:41-43. Several other examples from Wisdom and Sirach are given. Hebrews 11:35 alludes to 2 Maccabees 7, the only place people "tortured and refused to be released" were mentioned in the OT. And - John 10:22-36 has Christ celebrating Hanukkah, a feast which is established in Maccabees! Furthermore, He even uses an analogy drawn from Maccabees to describe Himself, noting that the Father "set Him apart" just as Judas Macabees "set apart" the Temple. (It is an established fact that Christ quoted from the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament, which contained all the deuterocanonical books.)
These are some of the things that led Shea on his journey to Rome. I recommend the book highly.
The New Testament canon was first defined by the Council of Rome in 382, ratified again at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397, respectively, and ratified again at Trent (as a response to the “Reformers” who saw fit to remove books from the canon on their own authority). The Catholic Church chose the list of inspired books to comprise the canon from many competing, some which were clearly unorthodox and uninspired (gnostic "gospels", for example) but some which were completely orthodox and holy but not, according to the infallible judgment of the Church, divinely inspired. As when Matthias was chosen in Jerusalem as described in Acts, the Church acted on its authority, guided by the Holy Spirit as it always is in official actions (and official teachings on faith and morals).
Knowing the Holy Spirit does not equate to an infallible inner guide about the canon of Scripture. To assert so is really an emotional argument - a cop-out that cannot be proved or disproved. Well, the results of relying on it exclusively can be disproved. Of course, there are no examples in the Old or New Covenant of individuals interpreting Scripture – authoritatively, when there are matters of dispute – on their own authority. In the Old Covenant, the authority God put in place was the “Seat of Moses”, that is, the Pharisees (whom Christ ordered the Jews to obey), and, in the New, it is, of course, Christ’s Church – the Apostles, bishops, and priests that litter those pages. See these passages:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html
Augustine said, "I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church". He had thought about this question quite a bit. Any Christian who believes in the gospel does accept the authority of the Church to tell him what the Bible is. If you need the Church to give you the Bible, why do you not need Her for anything else?
Sources
Salza, John scripturecatholic.com
Shea, Mark Evangelical Is Not Enough