Actually, historically those who held to SS overall did not reject any all tradition, history, commentary, and rules of exegesis, etc. in making informed exegesis and providing parameters, but recognized that only Scripture is assuredly infallible and supreme. And while RCs hold that their magisterium is assuredly infallible and supreme, they lack an infallible interpreter of it, and engage in much personal interpretation, even though they also have some basic parameters (which is also subject to interpretation), as they
1. make their own personal interpretation of information in seeking warrant to submit to Rome, and which itself is a fallible human decision.
2. they often must make their own personal interpretation of what parts of larger proclamations fulfills the criteria for infallible pronouncements, judging btwn opinions, and it is undecided on how many there are.
3. they often make their own personal interpretation of what such fully means, judging between varying interpretations by non-infallible interpreters of the supreme magisterium.
4 they even more so often make their own personal interpretation of what scripture means, even if it means differing with their compatriots, as long as it supports Rome, and must judge whether it does or not.
5. likewise, having personally judged what class teachings fall into, and what exactly is an official teaching, they must personally judge how much they can differ with non-fallible teachings of the Ordinary magisterium,, which is held to constitute the majority of what RCS believe and practice.
6. they must also engage in personal interpretation in the many things which Rome has not taught on.
7 finally, RCs can engage in personal interpretation which most apparently extends beyond what may be allowed, without any real or consistent censure from Rome, and even defense from interpretive bishops against such*, as our liberal RC politicians regularly have shown.
Thus despite its much vaunted assuredly infallible magisterium, relative little is thus infallibly defined, and Catholics have need of much use of fallible human reasoning (which they condemn Protestants for) in deciding what class things are in and what they mean, etc., and can and do disagree extensively with each other, even among those of the magisterium.
I should be back tomorrow God willing.
*"...there's a question about whether this canon'' – the relevant church law – "was ever intended to be used'' to bring politicians to heel. He thinks not. "I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way.'' -- from the thread [Archbishop] Wuerl: Why I Won't Deny Pelosi Communion
Albany Bishop Howard Hubbard says it is "unfair and imprudent" to conclude that Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his girlfriend, Sandra Lee, shouldn't receive Communion simply because they're living together. -- from the thread Bishop: None of your business (Hubbard rejects Catholic expert's criticism of Gov. Cuomo)
[Archbishop Timothy Dolan] also does not outright deny the sacrament to dissenting Catholic lawmakers, yet he is seen as an outspoken defender of church orthodoxy in a style favored by many theological conservatives.
-- from the thread US bishops elect NYC archbishop as head in upset (Catholic bloggers blamed) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2711746/posts?page=289#289
Since there is no official RCC Bible commentary, each individual Catholic is free, or rather has no choice, but to interpret Scripture themselves.
Sure there are some passages where the RCC has taken a position on the interpretation, but for the most part, the individual Catholic is left to his own devices, making his own personal Catholic interpretation of the Bible.
That makes it what? 1.2 BILLION personal interpretations of Scripture?
Since the pope has not made an official pronouncement about the entire Bible verse by verse, each Catholic then becomes their own pope in the matter of interpreting Scripture the RCC is silent on.
But the difference is that Protestant will not readily accept the fallibility of their understanding of the Bible. That is quite evident on these boards where Protestant posters routinely dodge questions about their interpretation of the Bible.
The answer always is other scripture verses that dodge the question and where the poster pretends that he or she is God by posting verses without context in a very SUBJECTIVE fashion.
But a Catholic can with great confidence embrace the teaching of the Church on matters of UNIVERSAL importance.
Even the number of ecumenical councils post-1054 is open to debate because councils like Trent and Vatican I were really only councils of the Western Church without participation of the Christian East.
Nontheless the Council of Trent’s anathemas against Protestantism stand as infallible because the Orthodox subsequently held their own synods that stated the same thing as Trent about Protestant beliefs.
Details such as the canonicity of 3 Maccabees could be dealt with at a future reunion council with the Orthodox.
St. Vincent of Lerins succinctly describes how a Catholic should search for the truth in his Commonitorium on the Catholic Faith, which was written around 430 AD.
[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.
Those matters that fall outside of this consensus are open to debate and discussion because the above is the criteria for deciding what is infallible and what isn’t.
Even the Pope is himself subject to this dicta. The acts of the undisputed ecumenical councils with the Orthodox show the Pope speaking definitively with the rest of the Church.
So Papal infallibility is inseparable from ecclesiastical infallibility. The Universal Church is a standing council even when it isn’t formally convoked. The Orthodox believe the latter.