Religion or Church

I recently saw an interesting quote from G.K Chesterton: "Christianity is not a religion; it is a Church." Coupled with this I've also been reading a book by Jimmy Akin, a Catholic apologist, called "The Bible is a Catholic Book." He makes the argument, quite convincingly, that the Bible and its canon is something that wouldn't be with us today if it weren't for the Catholic Church. A standard Protestant response to this would be to argue that it was the guiding power of the Holy Spirit, not the Catholic Church, that has preserved Scripture for us. That is true, although God does use means to accomplish His purposes, but there is another leg to the argument that Jimmy Akin makes that does require serious consideration. It is this: the notion of Sola Scriptura was not possible before the 16th century. 

There are several reasons for this:

1. The printing press had not been invented, and copies of the Bible took a long time and a lot of money to produce. 
2. Even after the printing press was invented, only relatively wealthy people could afford a copy of the Bible.
3. Most people were still illiterate. 

The argument put forward by Protestants during the Reformation and up to this day as well is that the Scriptures are the main source of God's grace to us. This is obviously a response to the Sacramental system that was developed and defined by the Catholic Church. But, before the 16th Century, how was this possible? This is the very reason that visual signs, the liturgy, and prayers were created: so that people could learn the Christian Faith even without being able to read. 

So, the question you need to ask yourself is: would God have established His Church and not have been explicit in defining which Scriptures were to be canonized etc.? It is clear that God sovereignly ordained the timing of Christ's birth. Not only was it in the fullness of time from a prophetic perspective, but it was also the perfect timing anthropologically. The Roman Empire and influence of Greek culture and language made the conditions perfect for the Apostles to travel and spread the Gospel. So, if God did this, why did He not clearly establish the Scriptures so that the Church would be protected under Sola Scriptura? The evidence of Scripture is clear that it was not Christ's concern to establish the written Word. He ordained Apostles, gave them authority, and established the Church. Not a church, the Church. 

The arguments for and against Sola Scriptura are multi-faceted, but in my opinion the one discussed above is often overlooked. Maybe this is because it's hard for us to imagine a world where the Bible isn't available in every language, accessible in every format, and almost everyone can read it. Or maybe it's because Catholic apologists are trying, fairly, I might add, to argue from the common ground shared by both parties; namely, Scripture. This is good but even Protestants will appeal to extra-biblical sources when looking for the historical context of books in the Bible, and this does impact their interpretation of those books. So why should Catholic Apologists not do the same when arguing against Sola Scriptura?