And neither do non-Catholics.
That's just a tired, over used canard that CATHOLICS keep repeating claiming that that's what *Prots* believe about sola.
Methinks you're listening to the wrong people.
Here. Posted before and several of us non-Catholics have agreed with it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3059418/posts?page=828#828
Here is a good definition of what is meant by Sola Scriptura.
“First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.
And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
What then is sola scriptura?
The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.
To be more specific, I provide the following definition:
The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.
And if a Catholic, having been given the explanation, keeps misstating the Protestant view, then I agree that's a strawman argument and disingenuous.
But Protestants start with a term that literally means "scripture only," then put forth a 5-paragraph explanation hat starts out by saying in effect, "OK, 'sola' doesn't mean 'only.'"
I can see why many Catholics might get confused, even if you don't want to acknowledge the inconsistent use of "sola" by Protestants is part of the problem.
Catholics agree in what is called the "material sufficiency of Scripture." Or, as it's sometimes phrased, that the Bible contains all revealed Truth, either explicitly or implicitly. We just disagree that the Scriptures are formally sufficient, in that a) reason and experience demonstrate that the Bible is not self-interpreting, b) the Bible demonstrates there is a church granted teaching authority, and c) the Bible warns about divisions in teaching and understanding.
So the Bible is materially sufficient and formally insufficient.
Where is that in Scripture?