A comparison may be made with orthodox, rabbinic Judaism. Obviously, Judaism rejects Jesus of Nazareth as being the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament as far back as Genesis 3:15, and by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other prophets. After the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem and the ending of the Jewish commonwealth, the authoritative oral tradition of the rabbis dating back for centuries began to be reduced to writing, forming the basis for the Talmud, which was developed in Jerusalem and Babylon in the 4th and 5th Centuries AD. In turn, the Talmud and the Old Testament (Torah) were authoritatively interpreted by medieval Jewish scholars such as Solomon ben Isaac and Gershom of Mainz.
Orthodox rabbinical Judaism thus has a group of authoritative writings structured similarly to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (although, like Eastern Orthodoxy and unlike Catholicism, there is no one individual considered to be the visible head of God's people on earth given the authority to "bind and loose."). In terms of time frames and antiquity, the Jewish tradition predates that of the Christian religion by centuries. As with Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, traditional Jews state that there is consistency between the Torah, Talmud, and the commentaries. Excluded from this camp are Karaites (Jewish believers who are "Sola Torah") and Reform and Conservative Jews (essentially theological liberals with a Jewish veneer). If your standard of objective fact are antiquity, consensus, and consistency, then orthodox, rabbinical Judaism would relegate Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy to the status of superstition.
Why orthodox Christians reject the authority of the Talmud and the rabbinical commentaries is based on their acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Messiah predicted in the Torah/Old Testament. Given that Jesus Christ Himself condemned the oral traditions of the Pharisees, the Jewish faction that was the progenitor of rabbinic Judaism, the Talmud and the subsequent rabbinic commentators are regarded by all orthodox Christians as invalid with respect to the Christian faith. In other words, the starting points for all orthodox Christian belief are the acceptance of the Old Testament as being the revealed Word of God and the view that Jesus Christ is the anticipated Messiah predicted in the Old Testament.
It is incorrect to say that sola Scriptura is superstition, even though the predominant belief of the pre-Reformation church was that of Scripture and tradition as authoritatively interpreted by the church through its councils and theologians. By the same standard applied to this Protestant doctrine, orthodox, rabbinical Judaism would have grounds to claim that the entire Christian religion is superstition. Ultimately, Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, and other religions are constructed on metaphysical presuppositions that are accepted on the basis of faith.
The teaching authority of the Catholic Church does not come from Scripture; Scripture comes from the Catholic Church. The teaching authority of the Catholic Church comes directly from Christ, who gave authority to the Twelve Apostles (including the keys to Peter), who then gave authority to the bishops whom they ordained.
-A8
It is true that to a scientific naturalist mind any belief in the supernatural is superstition. In my discussion with the Protestants, however, neither side starts with that presumption, as we all believe in the supernatural life after death, Incarnation (although, we discover, we put somewhat different meaning in the word), and Resurrection. Starting with these fundamental axiomatic believes, plus the historical fact of the existence and teachings of the Early Church, we see if we can rationally arrive at a given belief.
There are some beliefs of (some of) the Protestants that I disagree with as Catholic, but I do not find them superstitious. For example the belief in the other four "solas" while contradicting the totality of the deposit if faith given to us by Christ, has internal consistency. (Some of the solas, moreover, are not incorrect as slogans, but their Protestant interpretation is flawed). I understand that reasonable people can hold these beliefs. Likewise, many non-Christian beliefs are internally consistent. The belief in the Sola Scriptura is not internally consistent because it is not itself contained in the scripture. Besides, it is a belief in a created object, the Scripture, having supernatural power outside of the body of human divinely inspired writers who wrote it. This resonates with the deification of objects that is commonly associated with superstitions.
Is my usage of the word polemical rather than strictly by the dictionary? Yes, it is polemical. But I can defend it. Better still, why don't the Protestant defend Sola Scriptura scripturally?
Your description of the edifice of the Catholic dogma is a bit incorrect, although I am sure many would describe it exactly like you did. We would not say that the Church authority is derived from certain scriptural passages. Rather, we say that these scriptural passages are evidence of the authority of the Church. The basis is Christ and His sending of the Apostles. The fact that they found it expedient to write the books of the New Testament in order to fulfill the commission is secondary. They did other things beside it, for example, developed the Trinitarian christology and the basic form of Christian liturgy that remained largely outside of the canonical scripture. The scripture is like a badge given a policeman: it is not itself the authority but it is a signal of authority.
*Peter and the Apostles (Pope and Bishops) are all given the authority to bind and loose. However, only Peter is given the Keys.
Reading Isaias 22 helps others to understand what we Teach about The Keys. I'll post a link for you.