What i see as absurd is an RC inferring that they could somehow qualify as holding to sola scriptura. Esp. as RC apologists most typically but erroneously define SS as “solo scriptura, as if all but a few extremist hold that nothing else can be used except the Bible, rather than the Scriptures being the judge of all truth claims, and formally providing the truth needed for salvation and growth toward perfection. (2Tim. 3:15-17)
While there is some room for disagreement as to the difference btwn formal sufficiency and material sufficiency, sola Scriptura is a historical term, and it is clearly contrary to sola ecclesia, which is effectively the RC position. In which Scripture is held to come from Tradition, with the Magisterium coming from both, but as it presumes to define what both mean and the limits of the latter (not the former), then it is effectively the supreme authority.*
SS materially provides for the teaching magisterium, but holds that the Scriptures alone are the supreme objective authority, that being the only such that are wholly inspired of God. And which issue we have recently debated much.
As for the Sola Scriptura Caucus being a nonsensical designation due to what it may include/exclude, and the originators being the judge, it is a given that this does not refer to Vedic literature, just as it is a given that Catholic caucus does not include all who simply claim to be part of the universal church.
As for the likening it to “Whites Only” club, RCs do the same in their caucus, while the insistence to be part of something one opposes can be too much like a liberal rant, which shows the need for caucus type threads.
Moreover, the “alarming trend” seems to have been one thread, in which (if i recall) an RC objected to the RM’s exclusion of RCs, insolently inferring it was not valid because the RM referenced Wikipedia.
Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church. - PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, (On the Study of Holy Scripture), Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII dated
The Protestant goes directly to the Word of God for instruction, and to the throne of grace in his devotions; whilst the pious Roman Catholic consults the teaching of his church, and prefers to offer his prayers through the medium of the Virgin Mary and the saints. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm
The forum, the internet and Roman Catholic libraries are filled with links like this one which state clearly that Roman Catholics believe in at least 21 REASONS TO REJECT SOLA SCRIPTURA
As a quick antidote to the above link, let me quickly add...