I do this for a living. The absence of evidence of this teaching for 300 years is evidence that it was not taught for 300 years. It may not be conclusive evidence, but it is evidence, and in the absence of such evidence those with the burden of proof, i.e., those asserting that it was the teaching of the Church during those 300 years, must overcome that evidence or they have no evidence at all.
So the absence of evidence of this teaching is circumstantial evidence that it was not taught. Those are the rules of evidence. Deal with them.
The burden of proof lies with the one asserting the fact. You assert that this was Apostolic teaching, that this was doctrine from the time of the Apostles.
Prove it.
Well, then you would know that your evidence is incomplete, as we cannot bring forward witnesses who have not previously testified. We cannot say "something didn't happen" because it is not recorded in the very few writings that we DO have. The burden of proof lies with the one asserting the fact. You assert that this was Apostolic teaching, that this was doctrine from the time of the Apostles
I think it is up to you to prove that the Church is NOT the pillar and foundation of the truth. If the Church says something within its realm of infallible teaching is true, then it is true. If you can prove that is not the case, then do so.
Regards