Nope. Catholicism isnt the authority. The Word is the authority, being both scripture and Spirit teacher.
Which -as always - is a non answer to the various statmenets I made.
And the words of scripture are not the word of God unless you have the true meaning.And the true meaning comes from tradition.
I can only suggest you study early church history of the catholic church (small c) the ONLY church
You will see Jesus did not tell apostles to write he said "do this" he did not say "write this"
He appointed apostles to hand on the true faith.
And you will see the disciples of the apostles were clear. John taught polycarp, ignatius, and from them to iraneus. Now read what they all have to say, that true doctrine lies with appointed bishops in succession, with primacy at Rome.
And the reason they say that is faith was passed by tradition, "handing down" so it mattered who you took the faith from, to get authentic truth. which is why it says "how can they teach if they are not sent?"
We see - also - the keys of the kingdom (role of prime minister) given to Peter , which we see as fulfillment of the keys of David in isaiah (incidentally calling that title "father". We jesus give the head pastor job to Peter "tend my sheep" he saod - and to him and apostles jointly the power to "bind and loose" which meant at the time "give definitive interpretation of law and doctrine". Which is why the "foundation of truth" is the church (it doesnt say scripture) and disputes are to be taken to the church.
The church pronounced on many heresies and false canons as a result. How do we know the creed and trinitarian belief? The early church fathers. Why is the protoevangelium of James not scripture? The church said so. Why was marcions canon (the first) heretical? The catholic church decreed it. Why are the books you now have in the NT? The church finally decided at Hippo..
So the Word delegated the role of teaching to apostles headed by Peter, who handed it on to succession bishops. Jesus did not say here is a manual "read it". not is the NT a manual of belief. Nor was it avaialble to most for over a millenium. The canon was a collection authoritatively decided in council centuries later, weeding out a lot of other similar works.
Study history and you can no longer believe sola scriptura. The fact that you try to use a verse of a letter to prove or disprove sola scriptura, shows you do not understand history, or indeed the fact that the letters all had context, which you needed to understand them. So any interpretation will not do.
You also fail to see the logical falasy.
If "all truth is in scripture" and you hold that as truth, it must be in scripture or you have invalidated your own premise. Scripture nowhwere claims that. QED the proposition is false. Basic logic. Worse scripture identifies truth outside itself, both as tradition and authority of church "the pillar of truth"
I will say no more, because I know in my heart of hearts, I am wasting my breath , and you will still echo the same easily disprovable falsehoods next year. Sad.
Meanwhile THOUSANDS of protestant theologians and pastors have returned home, from every walk of protestantism . because as they all discover protestantism and sola scriptura is incompatibel with early church. She addresses that as one of the steps on her journey.
Suggest you watch this... I just found today, one womans journey,
There are hundreds more on such as coming home network
She thought as you did. Once.
SO DID I . Till i studied the early church.