So just what are the logical and historical contradictions of sola scriptura?
That is easy: You begin with the premise that since men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby (2 Thessalonians 2:15) and that Christ did far more things than what is written, (John 21:25) and never commanded them to be written, and founded a church, not a book, then this supports Catholic oral tradition (or traditions, seeing as the RC and the EOs have disagreements on it).
And that since Scripture needs defining and authoritative explanation, and there is no verse that teaches SS, and few people could read or access the Bible for most of history, then SS is both unscriptural and non-historical.
Of course, the facts are that while men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, yet popes and ecumenical councils do not speak or write as wholly inspired of God in declaring what the word of God is
And that SS does not require widespread literacy or access to the Bible, otherwise SS preachers could hardly evangelical unreached people groups. Nor does SS hold that it contains all that can be known from Christ. But the Cath argument ignores is that God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. And that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims And which provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the gospel and thus the church. And Scripture formally and materially provides what is needed for salvation and growth in grace, and which includes helps, and councils, the Spirit's illumination of Scripture and gifts, etc.
And what is not provided is the Cath alternative of sola ecclesia, with its novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).