Here's a worthy read: Ratzinger, Material Sufficiency?
And [Geiselmann] further concludes that consequently even a Catholic theologian can argue the material sufficiency of Scripture and can also, as a Catholic, hold the opinion that Holy Scripture transmits a material sola scriptura thoroughly acceptable even for a Catholic—indeed, he believes he can show that this has much the stronger tradition in its favor and that the Council of Trent, likewise, intended to point us in this direction.
The Romanist theologian does indeed argue this or that. For all their talk about certainty, when it comes right down to the essential nature of God's revelation, it all becomes a bit foggy in Romanism. Ironically, this ambiguity speaks loudly and clearly to how far the sect of Romanism has strayed from the truth, in that, it can't even consistently explain the nature of revelation. Depending on which Romanist one is in conversation with, one will get different explanations on the interaction of Tradition and Scripture, as well as the meaning of Tradition. If one thing is clear about Romanism's view of God's revelation, it's that it isn't clear.
Does Romanism, by and large, care? No, I don't think so. Even her most zealous self-appointed apologists have balked about doing in-person debates on the nature and meaning of Tradition. Sure, they've jumped all over sola scriptura over the years, but when Tradition is mentioned, they back away as fast as possible. This has happened time after time in Dr. White's debates with Roman apologists. It would be interesting to listen back to these debates as a whole, and isolate each Roman apologist's response and definition of Tradition. They can tear down that which they despise, but they can't (or won't) provide a meaningful explanation as to what their position is. They won't subject themselves to the same scrutiny that they go after sola scriptura with.