Yes, this fallacy in logic is called "special pleading," using one set of standards for the things you don't care about, and a different set of standards for the things you do care about, with no rational basis for the difference in standards.
I hesitate to call it hypocrisy, though. It can be a very serious analytical error, to be sure, but unless it is done knowingly and deliberately, i.e., maliciously, as with the Pharisees, to me it remains simply an error.
But an error it remains. I read somewhere that there has been a recent concerted effort among leading Catholic apologists to use the "Sola Scriptura isn't identified in the Bible" strategy, and I think that's what we're seeing here. However, I agree with metmom that it amounts to a special pleading fallacy, because there are numerous doctrines that emerge from Scripture as taken from the totality of the evidence, yet such that no single passage states the doctrine in all it's contours.
Sola Scriptura is like that. First, remember that the name, like "Trinity" is artificial, a shorthand meant to embody a much larger set of ideas. Unlike "Trinity," there is an inherent ambiguity in the referent to the "Sola." It does not mean to exclude extra-biblical sources of information in thinking about faith and practice.
For example, we can look at the patristic writings, modern science, medical knowledge, legal concepts, philosophical constructs, confessions, creeds, history, archeology, linguistics, what have you, all as valuable sources of knowledge we can use to analyze matters of Christian faith and practice.
What we cannot do, under the meaning of this Sola, is give any human artifice of knowledge the same rank in importance as the revealed word of God. To us, this amount to idolatry. It is to put some human product in a place that only God can occupy. We would believe we were offending God Himself to put the words of any pope or council or Luther or Calvin or Bob Jones or Billy Graham or whoever on the same level of authority as Scripture.
And frankly, this isn't just a Catholic issue. I've been in Reformed fellowships that regarded their Heidelberg Confession as "virtually" equal to Scripture, the argument being it was based on Scripture, therefore carries the same authority. An argument I rejected then and still reject. Any secondary work of man is subject to scrutiny under the bright light of Scripture.
And here is a list of some of them and I seriously doubt that it's exhaustive. So far it's just what I could get off the top of my head.
catholic
pope
eucharist
sacraments
annulment
assumption
immaculate conception
mass
purgatory
magisterium
infallible
confirmation
crucifix
rosary
mortal sin
venial sin
perpetual virginity
apostolic succession
indulgences
hyperdulia
catechism
real presence
transubstantiation
liturgy
All in all, Catholics are in absolute no position to point fingers and cry *...but it's not mentioned by name in the Bible*.
Another thing I have noticed that Catholics do, is say *If God meant this, why didn't He say .... (fill in the blank) and if it's not in the exact words that they think He should have used, they reject it.
That's ridiculous, demanding that God write something the way they think He should just to satisfy them.
Cause you know what? Even if it were stated as plainly as they demand, they still wouldn't accept it.
We see this all the time with verses that are posted about salvation being by grace through faith, not of works so that no man can boast, and that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit who is our GUARANTEE of our inheritance. And Catholics still deny that one can be sure of their salvation.