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.
Maybe, then, you have no disagreement with the Catholic Church on the issue of sola scriptura. The debate with Luther was because he denied the belief in purgation (after-life cleansing of sins before entering Heaven), praying for the dead, the efficicacy of works and the saints praying for us, arguing that they were nowhere in the bible.
Of course, the part no-one remembers is that at the Diet of Worms (not an appetizing name; “Diet” means “Congress” and Worms is a city in Germany), the Catholic cardinal pointed out references in:
1 Peter (”the disobedient shall survive, but as one passing through fire”),
Revelations (the firstfruits watching the events below, and offering the prayers of those below as incense to the Lamb, while they join in the prayers),
James (”faith, if it hath not works is dead”),
2 Maccabees (where the prophet points out the effectiveness of the righteous warriors contributing their loot to the temple for the remission of the sins of their fallen comrades, who had taken charms into battle),
Daniel (where the three saints in the furnace give praise that the LORD thus removes their sins from them),
and more passages from Jude, Sirach, Tobit, and the Wisdom of Solomon.
Luther’s only response was to assert that those books, or the portions of them pointed out by the cardinal, weren’t really scripture, and that the Church tradition of regarding them as scripture was 100% null and meaningless. (The New Testament books cited were later added back into the Lutheran canon, due to the influence of the other reformation traditions.)
Now, even if you don’t agree with the Catholic Church on those theological issues, the point I’m making is that the Catholic Church never responded to Luther by merely asserting Sola Ecclesia. There has never been such a doctrine uttered. Even on the three occasions when the pope has proclaimed something infallible ex cathedra, he has argued that such was the unanimous opinion of bishops. Rather, the Catholic Church responded to Luther by pointing out where in Holy Scripture it had gotten such doctrines.