I have two main points.
First, as a matter of fact, the Church preceded the writing of the NT.
Immediately after Pentecost, the Church spread the gospel and taught authoritatively both “by word of mouth or by letter.” The Church later recognized particular Christian writings as inspired, formally canonizing these writings centuries later.
There is simply no historical evidence of the doctrine of “the Bible alone,” as the sole rule of faith, in the early Church, nor could the doctrine have even been possible, since the Bible as we know it did not exist in the early Church.
The following point regarding the Church is also VERY important.
If Jesus is Truth Itself, how could He create a Church that would propose false doctrines as true?
It’s impossible, which is why the Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth,” and why Jesus COMMANDS his followers to take their disputes “to THE Church,” not A church, or to Scripture (!).
Secondly, the doctrine of “the Bible ALONE” is self-refuting, because it isn’t in the Bible (!).
Additionally, the rejection of an infallible Church necessarily invalidates the doctrine of “the Bible alone,” because a fallible Church could have written, copied, and canonized writings errantly, making the Biblical writings and canon unreliable. R.C. Sproul tried to resolve this problem by calling the Bible “a fallible collection of infallible books.”
You are making yourself clear enough. Again, are you arguing that,
1. SS means that only the Bible can be used in determining faith and practice, and,
2. that because Rome is the instrument and stewards of Holy Writ (which promises guidance to the church) then the Roman Catholic church is uniquely the assuredly infallible interpreter of it, and supreme authority on Truth (versus the Scriptures) and that,
3. she is necessary for assurance of truth?