Christianity, yes....Roman Catholicism....no.
The Roman Catholic cannot point to much of Roman Catholicism in the Bible. That's why ya'll tell us you have "Sacred Tradition".
Do not neglect to distinguish between different kinds of tradition. You will note that the Apostle Paul disparages some kinds of tradition, and praises -— insists upon -— other kinds. (He can’t be disparaging and insisting upon, the selfsame thing, so there must be at least two kinds.) The kind called Sacred Tradition has exactly the same origin (the teaching of Our Lord and of His Apostles) whether it is conveyed by preaching, or teaching, or example, or the texts of letters and Gospels.
St Paul taught exactly that: that Sacred Tradition has the same authority whether oral or written:
(2 These 2:15)
“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, whether by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”>p> So either the historically recent (in the last 500 years) man-made tradition called "Sola Scriptura," or the apostle Paul, must be very much mistaken.
It may seem paradoxical, but since the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura, and does teach adherence to Paul's kind of Sacred Tradition, Bible+Tradition is the more Biblically-faithful approach.
OK. So Catholics claim both Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Correct. But Bodleian Girl is claiming Scripture is her "source", as if that solves all disputes. It does not. Every disputant on this Forum will quote Scripture, and even if there were no Catholics here, all the rest of the usual disputants would still be going after each other, hammer and tongs, over interpretation.
Is such controversy endemic within the many denominations of Christians? Of course. That's the very reason there are many denominations.
Just like Mormons can’t Point too much Mormon Doctrine in the Book of Mormon they must point to the doctrines and Covenants manual