Catholic apologists frequently claim that "Protestant" views were non-existent for the first 1500 years since Christ allegedly set up the Catholic Church. To do this, they constantly wave off the Bible, instead appealing to the writings of the so-called "Church Fathers", whom they frequently quote and misquote as if theirs was the only Christian voice in their eras, and as if none of them ever contradicted each other, changed their views, or disagreed with the Catholic Church. It is claimed that Luther is the origin for most, if not all "Protestant" views, and in their dismissal of Scripture, they often even claim "you won't find anything in Scripture that no one ever has before".
Of course, no one is claiming that either they, or even Luther, has found anything that wasn't previously seen. At least, no one sensible. All things being equal, up to and including motivation, two people studying the Scriptures will draw similar conclusions. This includes Christians today and Christians in the past. It is of note that the Reformers were quite adept at citing the Church "Fathers", a tradition that many "Protestant" historians maintain to this day, and it is equally of note that many things "Protestants" say today, many Church "Fathers" said in the past. "Protestant" views existed way back in history, even as early as the first and second centuries. Nevertheless, Catholic apologists act as if they are novel inventions.
Their evidence for these false claims, as we have already mentioned, is to cite the Church "Fathers". The most common example is Ignatius of Antioch's claim that "They abstain from Eucharist and prayer because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by his goodness raised up." (1) This quote, taken from chapter 7 of the Epistle to the Smyrnians, is constantly cited as evidence that the Church has always been unanimous against the "Protestant" view of the Eucharist. Here's the contradiction: Ignatius cannot have been referring to the "Protestant" view (not that there is one single Protestant view), and Catholic apologists know it. It's just that they know it for different reasons.
"Protestants" know that Ignatius was not attacking the "Protestant" view for two main reasons. The first is the general historical background of the Catholic view of the Eucharist. Even as late as the 9th century, Catholics debated the topic. In what is known as "The First Eucharistic Controversy" (2), two Catholic monks, Radbertus and Ratramnus, debated the nature of the Eucharist in their two books. Whereas Radbertus held a similar view of the Eucharist to what Catholics do today, and may even be credited with being the first to formulate it (3), Ratramnus strongly disagreed, declaring "The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense". (4).
The second way "Protestants" know that Ignatius was not addressing us is to simply check the context. In the same epistle as the often misquoted statement from Ignatius, we also read "For he suffered all these things for our sakes, in order that we might be saved; and he truly suffered just as he truly raised himself— not, as certain unbelievers say, that he suffered in appearance only". (5) This gives us our context. Ignatius was not addressing Protestants saying the Eucharist is not literal, but Gnostic Docetists, who claimed that Christ was only a phantom, having the appearance of flesh, yet in reality having no flesh at all. Thus, Ignatius' problem wasn't that they don't believe the bread and wine are literally Christ's flesh and blood, but that the heretics he was addressing did not believe Christ even had flesh and blood to symbolise!
At this point, a Catholic might object, saying that Ignatius' words only make sense if the Eucharist does involve the literal consumption of Christ's body. In reality, however, it makes perfect sense, simply because this very powerful symbol requires a corresponding reality. You cannot have bread representing Christ's broken body if Christ had no body to break! You cannot drink wine in remembrance of Christ's blood, spilled for us, if indeed Christ had no blood to spill.
On top of this, other Church "Fathers" used similar statements in similar contexts. Tertullian, for example, claimed "Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh" (6).
Catholics know Ignatius was not addressing "Protestants" for a very different reason. They may not know, or maybe even will not acknowledge, the historical background of the Eucharist, or the context of the Ignatius quote, but they must still acknowledge that Ignatius was not addressing "Protestants", simply because they do not acknowledge that "Protestant" views existed in history.
Therefore, Catholics are faced with a choice. On the one hand, they must stick to the claim that all "Protestant" views originated during the Reformation. Whether they pin it squarely on Martin Luther, or spread it out across all the Reformers, this claim is contrary to both actual history, and to the Catholic revisionist version of history. You cannot claim the "Fathers" dealt with Protestantism if you don't also believe Protestantism existed. You also cannot claim that Luther made anything up when he, himself, drew on the writings and teachings of previous Reformers, and even the Church "Fathers".
On the other hand, Catholics can afford to drop their claim that Luther, or indeed anyone during the Reformation, made anything up. Maybe, they were just reviving old "heresies". In this case, the "Fathers" can still be cited, but they lose their validity. If you can prove that "Protestant" views existed early on, you are faced with the impossible task of proving the "Fathers" had the correct view. Why believe some early figures over others? Especially given that even the one/s you choose to believe must then, themselves, be interpreted.
This is where we come back to the Bible. As it is inspired by God, and declares its own sufficiency, the Bible is the highest authority in the entire Christian faith. Thus, any areas of dispute, no matter who disputes what, must be tested against it. Now, sometimes, you will come to "doubtful disputations". These disputes cannot be solved by the Bible (though the Bible does render them obsolete), but ultimately, they cannot be solved at all, since there is no right or wrong answer. But how do we solve the disputes that do have a right answer? Simply by reading!
This is where the Catholic will chime in by claiming that, since there are so many different interpretations of scripture, scripture is insufficient. There are an astronomical number of problems with this claim, the first of which being that they, themselves, do not solve the problem. "There are too many interpretations, therefore ours is right" is daft enough on its own, but when you consider that the Catholic Church is significantly divided at almost every level, it falls just short of being asinine. At both the popular and scholarly level, there are infinite numbers of disputes among Catholics. Pope Francis even steps out of line with Catholic theology so frequently that many Catholics wish he could be deposed (and some Catholics argue that this is actually a possibility). Especially over the last 1,000 years, Catholicism has evolved so drastically that most modern Catholics would have been excommunicated, and even burned at the stake, for their views.
But the main reason the interpretations argument doesn't work is that there are not multiple interpretations of the Bible. The actual state of affairs is:
There are not multiple interpretations of the entire Bible.
Among non-heretical denominations, there is mostly agreement, with minor disputes.
The majority of those disputes are on more nuanced issues.
Even many of those disputes are still caused by using man-made tradition to interpret Scripture, rather than Scripture to interpret tradition.
Even disputed passages rarely, if ever, have many valid interpretations. Personally, the most I've seen is 5.
The first step to figuring out which interpretation is correct is to figure out which interpretations are valid. God, being omniscient, isn't going to ramble at us like some drunk in the gutter. When He inspired the prophets and Apostles, He made them write intelligibly and coherently, more so even than I am now. Thus, if your interpretation is correct, it should at the very least fit the words. If it doesn't, it is invalid before it even enters the ring.
The example I am most fond of using is Isaiah 43:10, where God says "I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." So, how many gods are there? This is where the objective observer is forced to say "One". "Not so!" says the Mormon. Not only is the Mormon god one in an infinite lineage of gods, but good Mormons also have the privilege of becoming gods themselves. But again, any objective student of scripture would throw that interpretation out on principle. It doesn't fit the words.
We can do the same thing when the Catholic Church preaches invalid doctrines such as "the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix." (7). Scripture, of course, nowhere ascribes such blasphemous titles to Mary, and specifically refutes them in verses such as 1 Timothy 2:5 and 1 John 2:1. The former tells us that there is one Mediator between man and God; the Man Jesus Christ, and the latter, being the only place in most Bible translations that uses the title "Advocate" (and even translations that do use it elsewhere use it of the Holy Spirit, but never Mary), uses it, once again, of Christ. No natural interpretation of scripture supports any of the Marian dogmas, and frequently conflicts with Catholic teaching on Mary.
And in general. Catholic teaching just does not fit the Bible, and that is why they can so frequently be found dodging, dismissing, and even bashing it. Catholic Apologists even frequently make the claim that theirs is the Church that produced the Bible, and must naturally have the ultimate authority to interpret it. This claim is as obviously wrong as every other Catholic argument we've addressed in this article. Yet still, they make it.
Ultimately, the entire defence of the Catholic Church falls flat. They constantly appeal to history, even going so far as to repeat the slogan "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant", yet when their arguments are explored in any depth, they fall apart as swiftly as a cardboard box thrown into the ocean.
References
1. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnians, Chapter 7
2. Peters, Bosco - RADBERTUS VS RATRAMNUS, Liturgy, August 9th 2018 (link)
3. Mizzi, Joseph - Church Fathers and Transubstantiation, Just For Catholics (link)
4. Ratranmus - De corpore et sanguine Christi
5. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnians, Chapter 2
6. Tertullian of Carthage - Against Marcion, book 4, Chapter 40
7. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 969 (link)