Since I wrote the majority of links in the opening post, I guess I should explain the point.
As far as I know, it was Patrick Madrid who popularized the description "blueprint for anarchy" in describing sola scriptura. It was a little over ten years ago that a group of Catholic apologists contributed chapters to the 600+ page book, Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing, 1997]. Patrick Madrid was responsible for the first chapter: Sola Scriptura, A Blueprint for Anarchy.
Sola scriptura means that the Bible is the ultimate and only infallible sufficient source of authority for a Christian. There are lower authorities, like Church leaders and teachers (these must always though be judged by sacred Scripture).
The counter charge (from Roman Catholics) seems to be that one needs to include an infallible tradition or infallible Church hierarchy as the ultimate and sufficient source as an authority. This must be so because Protestants disagree with one another, so obviously sola scriptura is a failure. Without an infallible interpreter and authority like the Roman Catholic Church, one has doctrinal chaos. Sola scriptura is a blueprint for anarchy.
Roman Catholics and Protestants agree that apostolic teaching previous to New Testament inscripturation was an infallible, sufficient source for doctrine. But yet we find that those who heard apostolic teaching previous to New Testament inscripturation disagreed among themselves on the teaching they heard at times. In other words, there was error present in the early church while the apostles were teaching. Because those who directly heard the apostles teaching got it wrong and disagreed among themselves at times, does this mean that the apostles were insufficient sources as an infallible authority for the early church? Those who heard the very voices of infallibility in the first century made errors, but it does not follow that the apostles were insufficient as authorities.
Similarly, that some people misinterpret or twist the Bible is not the fault of the Bible, hence not a proof against sola scriptura. In the same way, that I may possibly configure my computer incorrectly is not the fault of the owner’s manual that comes with it. The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient source.
Again, The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient source. This same principle applies to Romanism. That some Romanists misuse and abuse their source of authority doesn't negate that infallible source of authority. What this means as well is the argument that sola scriptura is a blueprint for anarchy fails as well. If the argument you're using works just as well against your own position, it's an invalid argument. Shall we conclude that an infallible interpreter + infallible tradition + infallible scripture = harmony? The facts speak for themselves. The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity or authority of that sufficient source.
Here's one of the responses to the above:
By your argument, it seems Jesus was wrong in sending a Church to make disciples, teaching them to observe all that He commanded them, because they were incompetent and unable to do it, even with the promised Holy Spirit that He sent to insure that they would be reminded of all He taught, and would further lead them into coming things. Was the Father also mistaken, then, in sending Jesus to an impossible task? If the Church was not to do what He sent them to do, what He empowered them to do, and what He prayed for, why should anyone today believe or follow Him? The faith you advocate seems a futile one.
I responded: The pope recently said, "The Eucharist is like the beating heart that gives life to the whole mystical body of the Church: a social organism entirely founded on the spiritual but concrete link with Christ." In one of the links above, one of the apologists at Catholic Answers stated that 70% of Roman Catholics do not understand the Eucharist. Is the Roman Magisterium incompetent? Is it their fault for a 70% failure? When Peter, who walked daily with the Lord Jesus Christ, faced correction by Paul because of error (Galatians 2:11-21), was it because Jesus failed as teacher?
The irony is I'm actually helping Romanism with the argument I presented. I'm arguing disunity or confusion in Romanists doesn't necessarily refute Romanism. The corollary though is that disunity or confusion doesn't necessarily refute sola scriptura either.