Something that most people would read through without putting any real thought into

I have been reading this book for a long time as I take notes and look things up and thoroughly enjoy the time I'm spending in it when I came across the quotation I'm going to share. This is an obvious argument against the rejection of the authority and perspicuity of Scripture that, I believe, is a detrimental argument. The thing is, Roman Catholics will most likely be satisfied to give it a quick read and criticize it without putting any real thought into it. I could be wrong about that, so I invite an honest, thinking Roman Catholic to respond to this argument with some seriously thought through responses.

This is taken from this book, but it is an actual quotation from a book by Richard Hanson and Reginald Fuller called The Church of Rome: A Dissuasive. You can check out the first link and buy the book(s) to get the rest of the info. Here's the goods:

"Indeed Roman Catholics often grossly overstate the incoherence and obscurity of the Bible, and even of the New Testament. The Bible can stand as a tradition by itself, as far as coherence and consistency of thought are concerned. The Church in no sense completes the Bible. It is indeed a stupid insult to the memory of the four evangelists and of St. Paul and the other apostolic writers to suggest that they failed in the first aim of their writings, which was to convey the meaning of the Christian Gospel to their hearers. We cannot imagine that the Christians at Corinth to whom Paul wrote, or that the Christians in Rome whom Mark probably had in view when he wrote his Gospel, were not expected to understand what was written for them until the writings were re-interpreted or explained to them by the Church. And if the Church were to undertake to complete the Bible, there is no source of doctrine from which it could legitimately do so except--the Bible." [bolnesses mine]