But the truth of the matter is that Roman Catholics are a doctrinally diverse group. There are just as many divisions within the Roman Catholic Church as there are Roman Catholics themselves. Catholics disagree on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Catholics disagree on the number of ex-cathedral pronouncements. Catholics disagree on the number of teachings which should be considered infallible, and even what they are. Catholics disagree as to the meaning of several passages in the Bible. Many contemporary Catholic Scripture scholars do not even uphold the inerrancy of Scripture. There has even been a threat of schism within the Church of Rome with the more traditionalist folks on the issue of homosexuality. The Catholic teaching on the death penalty is subject to change. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches uphold contradictory doctrine, which is significant because both make identical claims of possessing the fullness of God given truth. Consider this excerpt from a Roman Catholic website called Ignitum Today on the issue of Catholics being divided on the dogma of transubstantiation:
He further asserts, “The basic objection to the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence is not that it is against Scripture, but that it is against reason.” Theologian and professor at Virginia Seminary, Charles P. Price similarly believes that “most Catholics, without realizing it or perhaps considering it, actually believe in Consubstantiation,” as did Luther, and even a Catholic would be hard-pressed to refute the allegation."
Notice how the author has to misrepresent Sola Scriptura in order to make her case. There are divisions within the Protestant realm, which is truly unfortunate. However, the Roman Catholic Church also has numerous problems of its own. This is true of all denominations. If Sola Scriptura is invalidated due to the existence of divisions, then the same must also be true of "Sacred Tradition" and the Magisterium. Having some sort of a referee available to settle disputes does not amount to having no disputes of any type. The pope has been very ineffective in resolving theological problems.
Now, a Catholic apologist may inquire, "But who's interpretation of Scripture should we side with?" My reply would be, "With those who have the correct interpretation." Truth is not unknowable. Truth is not indiscernible. Truth is not subjective, but objective. Whatever the scenario may be, we must examine the evidence and follow where it leads. Roman Catholic apologists must independently examine evidence in order to argue the truthfulness of the Roman Catholic Church. In other words, they must judge the validity of the Roman Catholic Church in order to argue their position. Private interpretation is inevitable. Fundamental doctrines such as the incarnation, virgin birth, inerrancy, and the deity of Christ can clearly be derived from Scripture.
Most of the time, false doctrine can easily be exposed by consulting context. Scripture gives us certainty in the midst of spurious teaching (Proverbs 22:17-21; Luke 1:1-4). The author of the article being critiqued may believe that personal Bible reading has resulted in the church becoming doctrinally fractured, but the text itself emphatically disagrees with her. The real problem is the serious ignorance of Scripture prevalent amongst professing Christians. The problem is not with the inspired text itself, but a willfully sinful condition of the human heart. The author's attacks on the integrity of God's Word are remarkably cultish. In a certain respect, this argumentation places the Catholic apologist alongside with the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons. Only the cults demand blind, unquestioning submission to an earthly organization. There is no objectivity about that. In fact, such can be rather dangerous. One of several things that us "Bible only Christians" can unanimously agree on is that Rome preaches heresy.