Which again reveals your reliance upon a miscontruance of SS as if it requires an explicit statement or verse, and your double standard as to what is required for a belief to be Scriptural. What I showed you was that God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;
And as is abundantly evidenced as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
And thus it was Scripture that provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the church, therefore the Lord Himself invoked Scripture, from defeating the devil (Mt. 4) to correcting Jewish leaders (Mt. 22) to substantiating His messiahship and ministry ("in all the Scriptures") and opened the minds of the disciples to them, who did the same. (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 1828, etc.).
And thus since Scripture alone was the supreme standard then even the veracity of the oral preaching of apostles was subject to testing by it. (Acts 17:11)
Thus you have no case as to the supremacy of Scripture, and can only attack the sufficiency aspect as not providing all "things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation." However, God has always provided that, from the garden of Eden onward, yet He gives more grace. And here you could argue that Scripture does not provide all that God wants souls to know. However, the sufficiency of Scripture is not to be restricted to what it formally or explicitly provides, but it must include that which is materially provides, from reasoning and the illumination of the Spirit by which truths may be "by good and necessary consequence may [not necessarily will be by all] be deduced from Scripture" including with "a due use of the ordinary means," to "synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith..."
In addition to which are the abundant commentaries that SS believers have provided, which refutes the "Bible alone is to be read" strawman.
It is here that you could attempt to assert that this would include what the RC (if not all the EO magisterium) provides in declaring something from the (amorphous insubstantive) oral word of God. However, this is countered by the fact that men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, neither which even Rome presumes its popes and ecumenical councils do in declaring what the word of God is.
Thus while inspired preachers and writers did provide more revelation as part of the greater grace of God, yet Rome does not speak or write as wholly God-inspired preachers, and what she does provide must be subject to testing by the established word of God, that being Scripture, as is the case with preaching one hears from SS ministers.
Meanwhile it is not enough for your to deny that SS is Scriptural, for you must substantiate your alternative. But which you cannot do by invoking Scripture, for non-Catholics are not supposed to be able to discerns which writings as of God apart from faith in her.
And as to your double standard as to what is required for a belief to be Scriptural, there are many things that Catholics believe that not one single verse shows, yet by egregious eisegetical extrapolation Catholics argue they are Scriptural.
Time now to sleep.
Did you post a verse that shows sola scriptura or not?