The real controversy is not a war of names
You will ask: what, then, is the real state of the controversy on Scripture's authority? In the heads reviewed so far the Orthodox and the Pontificii seem to agree. Is the fight only about a name? Not at all. The rift between the two sides is large and of the highest moment.
To see it clearly, note first that some revelations become known to us only through another revelation, and they borrow their authority for us from that other. Balaam's old revelation reached us through the revelation given to Moses. The same holds for that scrap of Enoch's prophecy to which Jude's letter lends authority.
Yet there cannot be an infinite regress here, and a circle — one revelation proved by another, and that other by the first — must not be allowed. So some revelation must be first for us: one that wins our faith by itself and for its own sake, not by help from a better-known revelation.
Latin
XIX. At, inquies, quis ergo tandem est status controversiae de Scripturae authoritate? nam in capitibus hucusque recensitis videtur esse consensus inter Orthodoxos et Pontificios. An forte hic est tantum de nomine certamen? minime certe. Hic magnum et maximi momenti dissidium est inter utrosque. Ad cujus intelligentiam notandum est, 1. quasdam esse revelationes quae non nisi per aliam revelationem nobis innotescunt, unde suam quoad nos authoritatem mutuantur. Ita verbi gratia, revelatio facta olim Balaam, per revelationem Mosi factam nobis innotuit. Idemque dico de fragmento illo prophetiae Enochi, cui Epistola Judae authoritatem conciliat. Sed cum hac in re non possit dari progressus in infinitum, nec debeat admitti circulus, quo una revelatio per aliam probetur, et haec vicissim per alteram illam: necesse est, ut detur revelatio quaedam, respectu nostri prima, quae per se, et propter se fidem apud nos obtineat, non autem beneficio revelationis cujusdam notioris.