In light of the above italicized, as a test exercise, in order to better clarify if there are "two sets of rules", try the following question on for size;
while checking the context in which that question was put, as a response.
Of course it isn't. But that is not the point. This one sola which Romanist keep hating on was never intended to be the "be all end all of revelation" as you put it.
The way in which you wrote out it to be, describing it as you just did, is not the way it is worded by those whom understand that one sola (in how that fits with the other solas) nor is the way sola scriptura is best understood, and then applied.
That some may get it wrong, and misapply it -- does not mean the principle itself is in error.
In the Scriptures themselves there is place for revelation (to be received, from God, by way of the Spirit).
A prime (no pun intended) example;
Even though Peter had been told by his brother Andrew -- "we have found the Christ", some time later when Jesus asked them, "who do you say that I am?" and then when Jesus turned to Peter and asked Peter the same question more directly, Peter answered that Jesus was the Messiah.
Jesus responded to Peter then -- "flesh and blood did not reveal that to you", even though previously, Peter's own flesh and blood brother Andrew, had done very much that exact same thing (reveal that Jesus was the Messiah, using human speech to convey that concept).
Upon that revelation (as Peter received it, by spirit) the Church is built upon, and must be renewed in each and every soul. Only the Father who is in heaven can initiate --- and finish that renewal, thru Christ, as author and finisher of our faith.
Words alone, human speech, reading what others have to say, listening to and even following to the best of one's ability to whatever Church 'authority' has to say, all of that put together is not enough, and will still *always* fall woefully short, leaving behind newly created Pharisees ---->if one is not born (again, from above) by the spirit. (John 3:5).
Yet the Scriptures still are supra over and above revelation, must be returned to, and cannot be overpowered by revelation. They most certainly were not overpowered when Peter was given that particular revelation in Matthew 16, and Christ Himself did return to reliance upon as it is written rather than stand only upon His own authority, although that authority He did establish by time and again, over and over, performing the miraculous. (John 4:39-54, John 6:30)
Rather than 'sola scriptura' if that is what you are attempting to criticize here, it could serve everyone well today to see that principle expressed as 'prima' scriptura -- the Scriptures being unbreakable Word --->according to Jesus anyway.
That said, forgive me if you will, for going over Scripture passages which you are likely well enough acquainted with (or so I would assume), but it did come to mind here as I was forming this comment, that we never know when some lurker may happen upon comments made on this forum --- including possibly some Muslim seeking the truth of Isa, Isa al Masih, the man in white.
What RC's are railing against isn't really sola Scriptura. It's a strawman version of it that they erect and knock down.
When they state what they think it is, you won't find any believers accepting that definition either.
They have been corrected many times and yet, as evidenced by their persistence in repeating the same error, have not accepted the correction.
Indoctrination does not tend to leave a person with a teachable spirit.
Read this twice and I still can’t see what you are trying to get at, but at least it is shorter, please stop rambling.
That is a very interesting point. Very interesting, worthy of more Scripture study, prayer and meditation.