After looking carefully at what I said, I think that my last sentence would be clearer if I say , “And pretty much everybody agrees that it (sola Scriptura) is a major issue underpinning all questions about Apostolic succession and any other similar problems. Catholics know well that Protestants do not look to tradition as a guide, and most Protestants know well that Catholics trust tradition, but many think that Catholics do not rely on Scripture in a meaningful way.”

Yeah, I’d have to ask Ron to restate his point as well. I don’t know what is being stated.

At this point, in this post, what I am mainly saying is simply that circular reasoning is involved in most of the arguments Protestants make for sola Scripture from NT passages. The texts that are typically brought forward as “evidence” of sola Scriptura only work when the assumption is made that there is no no authoritative Church. Once the assumption is made that the kind of Church we see functioning in the NT no longer exists then sure, any passage in the NT that talks about the inspiration or authority of Scripture APPEARS as evidence for sola Scriptura.

I don’t understand what you are saying here. Are you saying sola Scriptura is not the issue we should be talking about? If that’s not what you mean , are you saying that sola Scriptura is not about what most Protestant historians of Christianity as well as most Protestant theologians mean it is?