Except that the Scriptures are utterly authoritative, but they are not an authority. An authority would have to be a person*, capable of an exercise of will and judgement, who could come back to you and say:
I agree with you that the Magisterium is bound by the Scriptures (so does the Magisterium), but they are bound by the Church's interpretation of the Scriptures throughout her history (= tradition), not by my own or any individual's understanding of them.
*I'm using the word "person" in the metaphysical sense, not as a synonym for "human being". God is a person (in fact, he's Three Persons), and so He can be an authority, and in fact he is the ultimate authority.
Thank you for a serious reply. Better for me to say then that Scripture is the only objective (tangible) authoritative source which is assuredly inspired by God, so that SS supremely rests on “the authority of Holy Scriptures” and that men have not the same “authority as Scripture.”
I do know that the divine and infallible magisterium of the Church is said to rest also on the authority of Holy Scripture, but as the only assuredly infallible interpreter of it, and what its revelation consists of, the IM is effectively holding to sola ecclesia.
The question is, upon what basis is one to have assurance that the magisterium is assuredly infallible (according to its criteria), and thus cannot be wrong?