Why is Sola Scriptura Greater/Superior to Sola Ecclesia?

Someone asked on Facebook, "Why is Sola Scriptura greater/superior to Sola Ecclesia?"

Here's may answer as a Calvinistic Continuationist Baptist:

Both views affirm the Scriptures and the authority of the church. Sola Scriptura explicitly states Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church. The church has authority, but it's not infallible. Sects like Catholicism and Orthodoxy deny they hold to Sola Ecclesia. In one sense they are correct, because they don't teach Sola Ecclesia. But in a deeper sense they actually do, because that's how it works out in practice. Since, for them it's the church that determines both the *content* of Scripture & Tradition, as well as the *meaning* of Scripture & Tradition. So, it's functionally Sola Ecclesia.

Sola Scriptura is superior because God's inspired and infallible Word/Revelation [God's very Speaking] is greater than non-Revelation. And both Catholicism and Orthodoxy affirm the giving of inspired Revelation on par with Scripture ceased with the death of the last Apostle. They claim some Revelation has been preserved and passed down through Tradition. But the provenance is uncertain. Even dubious. And even in the Old Testament and New Testament times Scripture was the highest authority and final court of appeal. And that was DURING Eras of ongoing production of inspired Revelation. How much more NOW that such Revelation has ceased being given?

BTW, as a charismatic I do believe God continues to give Revelation. But since the Canon of Scripture is closed, we don't add those Revelations to Scripture. So they are functionally NOT on par with Scripture's inspired authority. Even if any particular post-Biblical or modern Revelation were hypothetically fully inspired by God. And some may not be for various reasons. One example might be because it wasn't given fully inspired. Or even if given fully inspired, it is interpreted by the recipient(s) in a way filtered through their fallibility,fallible. relayed to others fallibly. Whereas God didn't do that with the Revelations give by God to the Old Testament Prophets and New Testament Apostles [despite being fallible in themselves].

The implication above being that God would know that such a [hypothetical] fully inspired post-Biblical Revelation was equally authoritative as the Bible, but humans wouldn't epistemically know that. Nor would God have required humans to know that. Since He expects us to know the Canon is closed, as per the teaching of the New Testament that the original Apostles + Paul would uniquely reveal Christ. And therefore they alone are qqualified and authorized to write Scripture. All subsequent prophets and "apostles" would not have that prerogative. That's why post-Apostolic Revelations are and must be subordinate to already recognized and established Scripture.