The doctrine of “sola scriptura” is - in fact - a doctrine. And it avoids the question of differing interpretations of scripture by various denominations. Who decides which interpretation is correct? In Catholicism and Orthodoxy, it is the Councils and the Fathers. In Protestantism, every man is his own Pope, hence the multiplicity of denominations.
Like one pope over everyone is a better deal?
Like that guy you have inhabiting the Vatican at the moment?
Explain to me again how your system of one pope is better than that of allegedly many.
If your reasoning were applied to politics, then by your thinking, it would be better to live under a dictatorship than a representative republic where the individual is free to make their own life choices.
Your argument would be equivalent to claiming living under a dictatorship is better because if people were allowed to make their own decisions, they might do something the powers that be don’t approve of, or might even make a wrong decision or bad choice, therefore we have to have a dictator decide for us what is best for us. After all, how can we be trusted to do what’s *right* without external compulsion?
Gotta protect people from themselves at all costs.
But don’t dare ask how we should be protecting the people from those moral busybodies.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” C.S. Lewis
Thus Catholicism demonstrates that those within it don’t trust others to make wise, intelligent, moral decisions on their own, basically revealing the moral depravity of their own souls, through their projection.
Which suffers from both strawmen of what it basically means as well as unreasonable understandings of it.
"And it avoids the question of differing interpretations of scripture by various denominations."
Which ignorance is part of one of the strawmen of it. Rather than SS meaning only the Bible is to be used as clearly formally providing everything needful for the Christian, the classic document on SS, the Westminster Confession explains it means sufficient so that a person can know and grow in Christ, but with sufficiency not restricted to what is explicitly and formally provided, but that in a due use of the ordinary means one may attain unto a sufficient understanding of those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, and that "by good and necessary consequence what is not expressly set down in Scripture may be (not necessarily will be by all) deduced from Scripture." Yet Scripture also provides that "there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature..." and that Scripture also provides for "synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God," (https://westminsterstandards.org/westminster-confession-of-faith) but with veracity based upon manifest conformity with Scripture, versus the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).
" In Protestantism, every man is his own Pope, hence the multiplicity of denominations."
Not so, as beside liberal Protestantism, and aside from cults and those who act as members of such, rather than presuming a charism of ensured conditional infallibility, the veracity of an evangelical argument must rest upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation, which is how the NT church began, following itinerant preachers (and Preacher) who so, in dissent from the historical magisterium and stewards of Scripture.
Meanwhile even under the premise of ensured magisterial veracity (which beyond so-called infallible teachings, extends to presumed preservation of error in salvific matters in all that the ordinary magisterium teaches and requires submission to, and which is the basis for assurance of doctrine for a faithful RC) you cannot escape the problem of interpretation.
Thus as well-evidenced even daily on FR here, you have Catholics who essentially operate as evangelicals in determining the validity of modern RC teaching based upon their judgment of what past church teaching is and means, rather than submitting to the judgment of their "living magisterium" which interprets past teaching - which paradoxically is what so much past papal teaching overall requires - regardless of how contradictory that may seem to either Scripture or past RC teaching, including her heretical Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Roman Catholic church there is no salvation) teaching.
With the result being such threads as
Is Catholicism about to break into three?
And, Pope Says he Prays U.S.-Led Schism Can Be Thwarted
Archbishop Viganò: We Are Witnessing Creation of a ‘New Church ’
The SSPX's Relationship with Francis: Is it Traditional?
Is the Catholic Church in De Facto Schism?
Finally in anticipation of typical RC objections, here are 14 questions as regards sola scriptura versus sola ecclesia