My first comment on this thread was to the thread’s author. I did not engage the committed catholics to debate, because it is worthless to do so.
I find it amazing that non-Catholics argue that the doctrine that the Holy Spirit guides one individual infallibly in certain circumstances is unbiblical and undermines Christ, and then confidentally assert that they themselves are guided by the Holy Spirit without error in many wider circumstances. To each his own Pope.
It's no different.
Actually it is not to be disallowed that Rome or others can be led of God, and that they may speak infallible truths (Paul quoted a pagan prophet who did so in once instance).
Instead, the real contention is that Rome’s claims to be right based upon her claim of assured infallibility, in which she has infallibly claimed to be infallible when speaking in accordance with her infallible defined scope and subject based criteria.
Rome does claim to believe the Bible, as do other groups which hold to sola ecclesia (the church is the sole supreme doctrinal authority on earth), but it is the basis for her conclusions that are in contention.
Evangelicals manifest a common consent in core truths we basically agree on with you, and contend against those who deny them, as well as against teachings which are really based upon Tradition than Scripture, which is not the supreme authority of Catholics.
Although attempts are made to enlist support for these Traditions (such as praying to departed saints, purgatory, etc.) the authority for such is really the self-proclaimed supreme magisterium.