Yep
You make the same mistakes as the jews
You reject scripture alone because with scripture alone your doctrines fail.
When you have to relay on uninspired men, uninspired history. And uninspired teachers. And reject the ONLY inspired or God breathed word of God as soul authority on things of God. You do exactly what they jews did. The truth comes. You reject it because you cant see it. And the truth leaves. Sand your left wanting.
Scripture does not support "scripture alone". There is not one single verse that says the written word alone is the soul authority on things of God. "Scripture alone" is a man made tradition. We accept the material sufficiency of Scripture, but not "Scripture alone". The Trinity can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always been trinitarian. The Arians could not appeal to any such tradition because their christology was a heretical innovation of the 4th century.
The Arians thus appealed to Scripture Alone. And that is the point Catholics make about this. The Arian formal principle was deficient, so that they could appeal to the Bible Alone and come up with Arianism (just like Jehovah's Witnesses do today). If they had held also to an authoritative Sacred Tradition, this could not have happened because the "tradition of Arianism" was non-existent.
Read more:
https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/sola-scriptura/material-vs-formal-sufficiency-of-scripture-by-mark-shea/
see also
Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura
You reject scripture alone because with scripture alone your doctrines fail.
If scripture alone were true, their would only be one branch of Protestantism, not thousands. But the topic is not "scripture alone", it's whether or not history can serve as a viable witness to authentic beliefs and practices.
But how to we check to be sure, if we do not have the faith to trust God's Magisterium? Well, the same way that we can know for sure that the Bible we read today is the what was actually written in the First Century -- by comparing what we have today with the written record of history.
In the case of the Bible, we compare what we have today with extant manuscripts from as close to the first century as possible.
In the case of the Oral Tradition, the same is true. We look to extant manuscripts of sermons, essays, Church documents, etc. from the Church Fathers that affirm that what we believe today is the same things that they believed then.
There is NO doctrine of the Catholic Church that cannot be traced to the early Church. Over the centuries our understanding of doctrine has matured from that of the infant Church, but the doctrine remains unchanged. We know this because we can prove it with documentary evidence.
When Protestants posit a theological belief that is contrary to what the Catholics believe, I ask that person to show me where any of the Church Fathers believed has he believes. If the early Christians believed as the Protestants do today there would be some evidence of this -- essays, sermons, writings of some sort.
But there are none. The Catholic Church, however, can produce truckloads of extant manuscripts from the First, Second, and Third Centuries that show the foundation for ALL that the Catholic Church believes.
This evidence is overwhelming and sure. There are no other works of antiquity that we are as sure about as we are about the teachings of the Catholic Church.
One of the rules of historical documentary evidence is that a manuscript that was written or copied 50 years after the actual event or after the original autograph is most likely to be more accurate than a copy made 500 years late.
Well the oldest extant manuscript we have of Plato was a copy made 900 years after Plato's death. In actuality we cannot possible know for sure if those writings are actually Plato's.
But with the New Testament writings we have extant copies only a few decades from the original autographs. This is POWERFUL evidence that the Bible we have today is indeed the accurate writings of the Apostles.
In similar manner, we have extant copies of the thinking and teachings of the Church Fathers that we can compare to prove that the Oral Tradition we teach today had its foundations and beginnings in the early Church.
If a person is to believe that the Platonic Dialogues are actually written by Plato, then one should have no problems believing that the Oral Tradition of the Church is intact for the evidence for the Church is nearly absolute, the evidence for Plato is essentially speculative.
Sadly, you have no rules for documentary evidence, just the man made tradition of "sola scriptura" that has failed Protestantism from it's beginning.