People “rehabilitated” Luther’s “sola fide” so far they came to a position that the Catholic church couldn’t dispute, resulting in a concordant between many Lutheran synods and the Catholic Church. Careful with this notion of “prima scriptura” of yours; the Catholic church holds the notion that scripture must be a test of the authenticity of any intepretation of Tradition or private revelation. I wrote a whole article last week explaining the harmony of tradition and scripture.
What was rejected was Luther’s argument that certain doctrines were not scriptural, and therefore they were inherently wrong. (To come to his conclusion that they weren’t scriptural, by the way, Luther argued against the canonicity of 14 books of the bible, 7 of which came to be accepted into mainstream Protestantism anyway.)
St. Jude cites Enoch as a prophet, a position which is untenable from the canonical books of the bible. It’s quite possible he refers to a sacred tradition, which is merely reflected by the book now known as the book of Enoch.
Most Catholics believe that Protestants will only follow what is in scripture and do not allow for any other form of inspiration. That has not been the case with the Protestants that I have met. They allow for other inspiration and the moving of the Holy Spirit but also require that recognition of HOLY inspiration be in alignment with scripture.
Likewise, many Protestants think that Catholics only follow the church and what the church leaders say is tradition (sola ecclesia). And just like before, the phrase does not represent the basis of Catholic thought.
But to say that because Jude cites Enoch as a prophet, and then to make an assumption as to the validity of sola scritura, the same arguments can be made against sola ecclesia because it was the church that ruled on the status of the book.