For example, plus "rightly divided." :-)
It's a good question, completely fair, in my POV, and very hard to answer.
Whether there are only 2 or as many as 20k different groups which claim sola scriptura as their basis for all that they teach, the multiplicity, to us, is sufficient to show that sola scriptura simply understood is not enough. And that's before we go into the Scriptures which, as I know you know, I think argue against sola scriptura. Reasonable people of good will disagree over where the right divisions are. Not all dispensationalists agree with one another, though all claim Scripture Alone.
But there's something more. We have in our congregation a guy whom some of us call (behind his back) "Trent Man". If somebody told me the only book he owned or ever read was the Constitutions of the Council of Trent, I'd believe it.
And he argues from them not so much like a lawyer as like a tub-thumping(whatever that is) street-corner preacher. (He has issues, poor guy, and once got into a shouting match in the parking lot over his obsession with Trent.)
It's as if he's trying to "do a corner" in Jesus, as if he feels that to have mastered Trent is to have mastered Jesus.
And that's the problem. Jesus is the Truth. He's not a book. He's not even a library. And the relationship, the right relationship, with Jesus is not one of mastery. It's not even one of "systematic" knowledge. That's why, though it would be strange to try to "make theology" out of what Catherine of Siena or Terese of Lisieux wrote, nevertheless they are honored with the title "Doctor [teacher] of the Church." They taught Jesus, not theology.
Theology and Dogma are not the be-all and end-all, for us-- despite appearances. Living the life of grace in Christ is the thing. And there are plenty of people who know all the answers and at least SEEM to be utterly ungraced (though that's not really for any of us to say). They know all the answers, but (it seems) not the Answer.
And that, perhaps, is why even going to the CCC is not going to be satisfactory. IMHO, while the CCC does frame the inquiry and give the terms most helpful for its prosecution, it still has (in MY view, and maybe no one agrees) a very great sense NOT of "Here's the answer, 'do this and you shall live,'" but rather of "Here's how to think about this question. Carry on and report back from time to time,okay?"
For me to invite someone to become a Catholic is not so very much about, "Think this stuff; it's true; do what we tell you. Shut up." Yes there are sacraments and devotions and whatnot. And there are dogmas and practices one is required to perform and others one is required to avoid.
But all that is peripheral, really. What I want to convey in RCIA (outside of the sheer fun and glory of it all) is that it's good to long for holiness, to pray for fervor, for the graces to give more and more so that one receives more and more, to be alive and sensitive to the voice of God, yes in the Word, but also in the angry mutterings of a derelict, or the grumblings of an old and malodorous woman. And above all, it is good to consider, to trust that everything God ever did was done with the goal of making you happy.
I think that is why when one asks which mountain must I climb or which sea must I cross to know what Catholics teach, the answer will never satisfy. The TRUE Answer is in the wondering that prompts your question, in the longing for truth which stirs this dialog. Seek Him, and all else will be added unto you.
The "Fathers" are not always notable for cool and rigorous argument. Sure, some are, but many are not. But what WE think we see, even in the angry tirades of Athanasius or Jerome, the meticulous arguments of Augustine, the expositions of John of Damascus or of Cyril of Alexandria, despite their apparent faults, are the footprints of Jesus, and the flickering glow of the Spirit's fire.
I am not writing about what the LDS folk call "testimonies." The adversary is perfectly (poor choice of words,, he does nothing well, much less perfectly) capable of strangely warming a heart. I am talking more about finding, over and over again, a damp fleece on a dry threshing floor, or a dry fleece on a wet one, and finally (switching allusions and) saying, "Surely the Lord is in this place."
At a much less exalted level, we don't really write our stuff to persuade those who disagree with us. So we don't write with their sensitivities in mind. When deMontfort writes about "worshipping" Mary, he's confident that Catholics will know what he means and probably doesn't think that non-Catholics will ever read his stuff. We're pretty relaxed that way.
We're relaxed because we're confident and because our eyes are, we think, on the prize, which is most definitely NOT a "protestant-proof" (no offense intended) articulation of faith, but Jesus Himself.
Okay. I gave it my best shot.
I remember the very first post we exchanged. It was about the TRUTH. And here we are today, discussing the TRUTH. It obviously means the greatest thing to both of us. As it does for all, I'm sure. There can be no ultimate TRUTH if there is nothing unchanging and everlasting by which to measure it. It cannot be trusted to man's opinions, which change, are limited, and finite. That leaves one place: God's Word. If A TRUTH is desired, look to man. Man intuitively knows a truth from a lie. Whether he chooses to believe it is another story. But THE TRUTH. The sum total of all God would have us know. And has given to us. That can only come from God.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. 3:16,17.
The sum total of all God would have us know, in order to have THE TRUTH which is for righteousness and perfection is to be found in God's Word. Plus nothing.