I was not saying he did. It is the position and use that is the issue. See context.
however, Jesus Himself never said that the biblical books are sufficient. Nor does Paul Take 2 Timothy 3:16–17, for example...Look at 1 Timothy 1:10–11...So the “sound words” that Timothy and Titus are to hold to is the verbal transmission of the gospel that Paul had taught them. He calls them “the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me” (2 Tim. 1:13)
All such attempts to invoke the binding oral teaching of apostles as supporting Catholic oral tradition are utterly invalid due to the simple fact that men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils can nor claim to do in "infallibly" defining something to be the word of God.
Instead, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares, and presumes protection from at least salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching on faith and morals.
Contrary to the RC premise that an infallible magisterium - which she imagines herself to possesses - being essential to assuredly know what is of God - both men and writings - the establishment of an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings by the time of Christ also shows that both men and writings of God could be recognized without an infallible magisterium.
And which body of Scripture provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church. Which established its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God, and even the oral teaching of apostles could be subject to testing by noble hearers. (Acts 17:11)
Indeed, the church actually began in particular dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, to whom conditional obedience was enjoined, (Mt. 23:2; cf. Dt. 17:8-13) which judgments included which men and writings were of God and which were not, (Mk. 11:27-33) being the historical magisterial head over Israel which was the instrument and steward of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
Instead of Catholic submission to them, certain souls followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and which the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Yet the magisterial office of church is essential to settle disputes, in subjection of Scripture, and not as superior to it, contrary to the unscriptural Catholic premise of conditional ensured perpetual magisterial veracity. Upon which premise your argument for sola ecclesia rests, with Tradition, Scripture and history only authoritatively consisting of what the Roman Catholic supreme magisterium decrees.
As Cardinal Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning summed it up,
“It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... Historical evidence and biblical criticism are human after all, and amount to no more than opinion, probability, human judgment, human tradition. I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves... The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” pp. 227-228)