One is a logical fallacy; the other is a justified query. It is arrogance to equate the Lord, who is expressly and manifestly declared to be perfect, - righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works - (Dt. 32:4; Job. 34:10; Psa. 147:15) with an institution which declares itself infallible, based upon its own “infallible” interpretation, and by such has indeed sanctioned things which are contrary to the teachings of the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord.
While many early fathers upheld the supremacy of Scripture, in time tradition began to be used to include extraBiblcal beliefs and practices.
As stated before, one cannot justified praying to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, when that is all the Scriptures testify to, by command, exhortation and example, and which stood in in contrast to the pagans, nor can one justify a church law requiring that all the priests have the gift of celibacy (except Eastern converts). Of course, Bishops and Elders constituted one pastoral office, (Titus 1:5-7) and they were not ordained as a separate class of sacerdotal priests, but in this respect were part of the general priesthood of all believers, as Peter declares.
In arguing that such things are not contrary to the teachings of the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord, rather than relying on the only tangible source which is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, unspoken tradition is made equal with Scripture, while Rome’s magisterium effectively reigns supreme over both, if it does say so itself. Only by such an unprovable and extraBiblical basis can the Rome can claim it is not contradicting the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord.
In addition, rather than certain doctrines being rooted in historical continuity, the “unanimous consent of the fathers was a severe stretch for such.
Dominican priest, Patrologist and author Boniface Ramsey, confesses this difficulty:
“we look in vain in many of the Fathers for references to things that many Christians might believe in today. We do not find, for instance, some teachings on Mary or the papacy that were developed in medieval and modern times.” (Boniface Ramsey, Beginning to Read the Fathers: London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1986), p. 6)
This led to invoking an expansive concept of “the development of doctrine”, in which a germ of error from the past, such as some vague idea of suffering, or disadvantage, or punishment for believers after this life allows them to justify the unBiblical doctrine of purgatory.
That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. Scripture tells us God's church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. The teachings of the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord are true. Is it logical to you that God's church, being the bulwark of truth, would sanction an activity or teaching that is contrary to the teachings of the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord, which are true?
It is arrogance to equate the Lord, who is expressly and manifestly declared to be perfect, - righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works - (Dt. 32:4; Job. 34:10; Psa. 147:15) with an institution which declares itself infallible, based upon its own “infallible” interpretation, and by such has indeed sanctioned things which are contrary to the teachings of the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord.
It is arrogance to think God's word is wrong in teaching that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
As stated before, one cannot justified praying to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, when that is all the Scriptures testify to, by command, exhortation and example
That's assuming that the members of His Church are bound to the man-made tradition of Sola Scripture as applied to a truncated version of Scripture.
nor can one justify a church law requiring that all the priests have the gift of celibacy (except Eastern converts).
It's not a doctrine of the Church, it is a voluntary discipline. You are also misled on the "Eastern converts" restriction. Exceptions can also be made for those converting from Western religions, e.g. Anglicanism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, as long as they are already married.
Of course, Bishops and Elders constituted one pastoral office, (Titus 1:5-7) and they were not ordained as a separate class of sacerdotal priests, but in this respect were part of the general priesthood of all believers, as Peter declares.
That's your interpretation.
rather than relying on the only tangible source which is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, unspoken tradition is made equal with Scripture
The Church was and is inspired by God. Scripture is a tradition from that Church.
while Rome’s magisterium effectively reigns supreme over both, if it does say so itself.
It's not Rome's magisterium, but the Church's.
Only by such an unprovable and extraBiblical basis can the Rome can claim it is not contradicting the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord.
The Church is not contradicting the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord. Your may see the basis as extraBiblical but the vast majority of Christianity doesn't. Besides, extraBiblical is a constraint only for those abiding by the man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura.
Dominican priest, Patrologist and author Boniface Ramsey, confesses this difficulty:
There's no difficulty. Do you hold Boniface Ramsey as infallible?
This led to invoking an expansive concept of “the development of doctrine”, in which a germ of error from the past, such as some vague idea of suffering, or disadvantage, or punishment for believers after this life allows them to justify the unBiblical doctrine of purgatory.
The doctrine of Purgatory did not develop from some germ of error in the past. Even though you interpret it as unBiblical, we do not. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is what's unBiblical.