And this would include Catholics as well, I would think?
This
Tu Quoque fallacy always gets brought up whenever Catholics present the obscenity of the chaos and confusion that is wrought by using the Bible alone as the pillar and foundatio of truth.
Jimmy Akin responds to this fallacy quite adeptly
here:
Because of the difficulties with the “unity in essentials” argument, its advocates typically do not attempt to defend it on its merits. Instead, they commonly resort to a form of tu quoque (Latin, “You are also!”) argument in which they attempt to tar Catholics with similar disunity.
For example, they might say, “Look at the Dominicans and the Jesuits. They typically hold different views of predestination. This shows that Catholics as well as Protestants disagree on essentials, and thus are no more credible than Protestants.”
In response, a number of points may be made: First, Catholicism has a functioning magisterium that can decide that these matters are not essential differences. Second, the relevant schools adhere to the teachings of the magisterium and, if their views were reprobated, would accept the results (or cease to be faithful Catholics). Third, the differences between Catholic schools of thought have nowhere near the magnitude of the difference among Protestant schools. Compared to the differences among Protestant groups, differences among orthodox Catholic groups are trivial. Finally, the fact that the Catholic Church has a magisterium means that there can be—and on the most important theological matters there is—an official Catholic position. There is no parallel standard in Protestant circles that can speak for Protestantism.
Other times, advocates of the “unity in essentials” argument will attempt to construct a parallel argument against Catholics by pointing to the existence of ostensible Catholics who refuse to acknowledge the magisterium’s teachings.
In response, it should be pointed out that the difference among Catholic dissidents is frequently far less than among individuals in the sweep of Protestant belief. Furthermore, individuals’ refusal to accept the magisterium’s teachings does not challenge the Christ-given authority of the magisterium any more than the refusal to accept some of Paul’s teachings undermines Paul’s authority as an apostle. Moreover, Protestant churches also have individuals who refuse to honor the teachings of their denominations. The difference is that for Catholicism there is a body—the bishops teaching in union with the pope—who “speak for the Church” and who can articulate what “the Catholic position” is, while in Protestantism there is nothing comparable.
Take home message: when Catholics disagree there is an authority to decide what is indeed permissible, and where the Catholic has divorced herself from the truth given once for all to the saints.
When Protestants disagree, they simply move to another church or establish their own.
It presents this monstrous paradigm:
[SIGN1]When I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me,[/SIGN1]
absolutely false. There were more Greek speaking Jews than those in Palestine speaking Aramaic. Those speaking greek, ask well as the apostles, held to the Septuagint which included the Deutercanonicals.
All of us Christians believe that, but we then believe that truth is supported in different ways; for the RCC for example, this is seen in following the magisterium, who are responsible to follow the Spirit, for me it is seen in my responsibility in following the Spirit directly.