OK, so Sola Scriptura doesn't mean Sola Scriptura, riiiiiiigghht. Can you elaborate on what the definition of is is?
While there is not universally precise statement as to what SS means (nor is there an infallible list of all infallible defined texts, but which are few) it basically entails what i said, that the Scriptures are the supreme and only infallible authority for doctrine, versus “sola ecclesia,” which places an assuredly infallible magisterium as supreme.
In addition, the Scriptures, being able to make the wise unto salvation, are normally formally sufficient for that, so one could read a sermon in Acts and be saved, and that the Scriptures also materially provide for the teaching office, and for God “speaking” to a believers heart, as well as using secular sources, but the key is all are subject the only objective authority we have, that being the Scriptures. And which has the testimony to prove its inspiration.
The obvious problem here is that this method makes obedience subject to the qualified assent of each believer, thus promoting disunity, versus a unity by “assent of faith,” by implicit confidence in an assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM). However, unity itself is not a goal of Godliness, and division because of truth is necessary and better than unity in error. (Ex. 23:2; Lk. 12:51-53; 1Cor. 11:19) And the quality of the unity resulting from Berean type hearts and its method is greater in quality, (Acts 4:32) even if not in quantity, than that which is based upon confidence in men.
Meanwhile, it is those who do not hold the Scriptures as supreme who deviate the most from core foundational truths which SS churches contend for, or they hold to such Scripturally unwarranted doctrines such as praying to the departed.
For more see the link i posted.