Oh come on........ You think this represents the protestant arguments? No wonder you're a confused Catholic!
First, let's deal head on with the fact that Catholics ignore scripture in order to apply "sola ecclesia" with a twist of misunderstanding of sola scripture thrown in.
The bible makes this absolutely clear and plain....
"For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."
...hmm there's a verse Catholics don't like to use....with those horrible little words "alive and active".
I'm yet to find a Catholic who can explain why "apostolic succession" or church authority is necessary when God Himself tells us His word is "alive and active"? Moreover, just to make sure we didn't get this wrong, God says ""This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."
Now if you want to be pedantic about "sola scripture" meaning that scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice then you misunderstand protestantism either through ignorance or deceit. Irrespective such a literal application actually is an oxymoron because the very scriptures tell us that we cannot find truth without the Holy Spirit.... even Catholics accept that it is the HOLY SPIRIT that leads into truth.. they just claim He only leads their priests (note not in the bible!)
So the spiritual application of sola scriptura is that the scriptures are the ONLY physical definitive infallible source of truth but that is God Himself who opens the truths within those scriptures to whom He wills.
Naturally at this point Catholics like to jump on the argument of many minds / many doctrines as if this defeats the truth in it. The fact that some listen and obey the "living and active" word and some say they do but don't doesn't change anything.
The idea that there MUST be definitive doctrine is a Catholic invention not born out by the evidence of Christian or Jewish history (even Catholicism) nor by the bible examples we are given. Ironically enough even when God's word was not living and active and we had no personal relationship (because His rules were written in stone), men argued as to the application, interpretation and meaning of scriptures. Only fools would ignore this reality and claim it's different now!
Secondly, Catholics often take scripture then claim secret understanding which in effect negates or undermines the scripture. A good example here is in this kind of debate Catholics try to claim UNITY as a sign of Christs church. To do so they rely almost exclusively on " I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one" and claim this is PROMISE or PROPHECY. It's quite plainly nothing of the sort. It's a prayer by Christ to His Father... a request. Nothing more nothing less. Claiming it's more in order to gain authority is at best ridiculous and at worst blasphemy. Furthermore Christ ask the Father for things in His life and were not granted ("Take this cup from me..")
This is a great example of confused Catholicism or shall we say "sola ecclessia" where the church applies it's ultimate authority to contradict the "living and active" word. There are MANY others.
Thirdly, the idea that without the church Christianity is nothing less than usurping the authority of God. God does not need the church. The church needs God and that's a problem for Catholics since in their view the church is an organisation with authority and power. The brutal reality is that the ONLY example of church the bible gives is off people collectively operating as "church"..not a formal organisation (note the major differences and squabbling in the bible). This is where Catholics try to ride two horses and get caught in the middle!
On the one hand they say that God has protected the purity and truth of His word through the bishops that represent His church but in doing so they have to admit that such bishops and Pope's lost their freewill to operate as sinfilled men (at least in some measure). Not only is this not biblical (no instruction, definition or examples of it but many to the contrary) but that it flies in the face of the obvious reality that through many parts of Catholic history the very men who righteously protected the truth of God were flagerantly disobeying it's instruction. It's astounding !
Fourthly, Catholic doctrine and biblie interpretation has flip and flopped in some areas, evolve in other areas and be conspicious by absence in others. If God and indeed God's people are totally reliant on the authority of the church then God and His people are in trouble! Frankly, Catholicism is full of "make it up as we go" theology which is even examplified in the original posting...
2 Timothy 3:16-17, clearly says that scripture is sufficient! Materially sufficient, not formally sufficient. Huh? It's accepted that scripture is sufficient but sufficiency is divided into material and formal! Come on you're making that up! It's not in the bible and certainly wasn't taught by the apostles! Sufficient is sufficient. The key word key is "aritos" as in made perfect. The bible is clearly saying that men can be made PERFECT through God's word... not through the church, a priest, a bishop or even a Pope... through HIS word.
I've written enough........
