"Sola Scriptura" is typically viewed as a PROTESTANT praxis, often associated with Lutherans, and so perhaps, as a Lutheran, I may poke my nose here?
Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with hermeneutics (the interpretation and application of Scripture). Protestants have some commonly embraced tools and approaches to hermeneutics (not very different from Catholic ones, I don't know about Orthodox). Sola Scripture has solely and only to do with NORMING - the issue of evaluating if a position (especially a doctrine) is correct. Sola Scriptura is the PRAXIS of our embracing Scripture as the "rule" (straight edge)/ "canon" (measuring stick)/ or as it is called in epistemology, the "norma normans" (the norms that norms).
Let's say you and I are neighbors. We desire to have a fence built on our property line that is 6 feet tall. So, we hire Bob the Builder to do just that. The work is now done, and Bob the Builder invites us to inspect and approve the fence, which he says is, in fact, six feet tall. THAT (the fence is 6 feet tall) becomes the position under review; is it? Bob SAYS so, of course, but is it? The FIRST issue in norming is the embrace of a common rule/canon, WHAT will WE use as the standard, the rule, the measuring stick (this is called the "canon" - a 'canon' is what is looked to as the standard, measuring stick, norm, standard, the determining thing). The more objective, the more knowable (and less alterable and subjective), the more embraced by all as reliable for this purpose - the better. Perhaps you, me and Bob all decided to use a standard Sears measuring tape. We all have one, we all agree it's sufficiently accurate for this purpose. In THAT case, that standard Sears measuring tape would be the rule/canon/norma normans. Follow?
Over and over and over, Scripture warns us of false teachers, of false prophets, of antichrists, of those that lead many astray. Sadly, our Christian history has been peppered with heretics. All this causes Protestants to believe that it is, at least theoretically POSSIBLE, that a teacher COULD be wrong, and thus should be regarded as accountable. It is not sufficient that self alone says that self alone is correct in a position that self alone presents as doctrine, it is accountable. Thus, it is sound to ask, "is it correct?" This, of course, means NORMING has just been embraced. And what is the first requirement in the norming process? The choice of a rule/canon/norma normans, the WHAT we will use as the standard, rule, measuring stick. In Sola Scriptura, that is, primarily and above others, Scripture. We embrace that this is objective (OUTSIDE all of us, ABOVE all of us), knowable (the written words of Scripture are knowable to all and alterable by none), embraced by all as reliable (in fact, the inerrant inscripturated words of God Himself). We see it as the most sound norm. The RCC rejects this praxis NOT because it has a better alternative (it doesn't) but because it rejects all norming by any norm in the exclusive, sole, singular case of it itself alone since it insists that it is INCAPABLE of error and thus exempt from accountability (to WHAT is moot, thus Sola Scriptura is moot in the singular case of itself). The fundamental disagreement between the RCC and Protestants on this issue is not Scripture but whether the RCC should be accountable to anything - we say yes, it insists no.
I hope that helps!