Acts 15 (KJV)
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Pope spoke, all were kept silent.
Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.
Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14
SIMEON HATH DECLARED how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Remember that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. It says that Peter deferred to him in making the statement of policy, not that Peter reported to him. This was protocol and common courtesy among leaders, and still is today.
When one leader visits another leader and they come to some decision on a matter of policy, it is always the hosting leader who makes the statement about the decision. This is done because the leader who is hosting the meeting is the legitimate authority in his own land. James made a local and temporary ruling, not a ruling binding on all Christians in all places, as did Peter's teachings.
Here's something that I posted here almost two years ago on this topic.
The early-medieval church supported an unarticulated and undeveloped doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Consider the following:
Irenaeus (ca. 150)
Against Heresies 3.1.1
“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than
from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they
did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of
God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar
of our faith.”
Clement of Alexandria (d. 215)
The Stromata, 7:16
“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not
desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from
the Scriptures themselves.”
Gregory of Nyssa (d.ca, 395)
“On the Holy Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327
“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth
will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the
Divine words.”
Athanasius (c. 296–373)
Against the Heathen, 1:3
“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the
proclamation of the truth.”
Basil the Great (ca.329–379)
On the Holy Spirit, 7.16
“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers.
What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the
Scripture.”
Ambrose (340–397 A.D.)
On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102
“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy
Scriptures?”
St. Augustine (354–430)
De unitate ecclesiae, 10
“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in
anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical
Scriptures of God.”
Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)
Summa Theologiae, Question 1, art. 8
“For our faith rests on the revelation made to the Prophets and
Apostles who wrote the canonical books.”
MANY Protestants, including James White, have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.
Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need.
It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter .aspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.
French theologian Yves Congar states, "[W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians." . . .
...At Trent it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . We find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, `All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.' .. `Written' and `unwritten' indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge" (Tradition and Traditions [New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414).
This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it. In the debate James White apparently failed to grasp this point and was unable to come up with answers to the charge that his arguments were geared only toward proving material sufficiency.
source
Nolan's ECF quotes support material sufficiency, not formal sufficiency.