I hold as true that the 66 books are Scripture based upon evidence, as did souls who held the Torah, and the prophets, and the psalms (Lk. 24:44), were Scripture in the time of Christ, and thus believed in Him, not because of an infallible magisterium. But which does not mean i am infallible any more than the centurion was who confessed "truly this was the Son of God," (Mt. 27:54)
Nowhere is perpetual assured infallibility of men taught. Even a non-Christian can express an absolutely true statement based on evidence (there is a Creator), but which does not mean he is infallible.
The very doctrine of assured infallibility of men is not Scriptural, as that is an attribute of God. Inspired writers of Scripture were infallible when writing Scripture, but which was not assured whenever they spoke at large on faith and morals, nor were they autocratic authorities on Truth as Rome effectively makes herself, being a law unto herself.
Moses came the closest to being the authority Rome claims, but who was established as speaking for God due to His manifest supernatural attestation and consistency with Abrahamic faith, not formal priestly descent. And having first penned Scripture, it became the transcendent standard for obedience and testing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced.
Assurance that Jesus was the Christ was based on Scriptural substantiation, and both men of God and the progressive establishment of writings of God were established as being of God due to this.
I'm going with the Church that Christ founded.
So according to your fallible opinion out of all the churches Rome alone is the one true infallible church. Thus you compete with the EOs, the Mormons, etc and all the sola ecclesia groups who make themselves the supreme authority on Truth. Moses and the apostles overcame the competition by supernatural manifestation of the truth, but Rome's gospel manifests spiritual deadness and overall liberalism, while the basis for assurance of truth for RCs is the premise of Rome's infallibility (versus the objective examination of Scriptural substantiation), which she has infallibly declared herself to be. Thus so many of her apologists engage in declaring truth by assertion, like their master.
Fair enough.
But this proves my point that your Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith, since someone, or something, outside of the Protestant canon of Scripture, must determine what does, or does not, constitute the true collection of Books (Books => Biblia => Bible).
For Catholics, our Authority is the Church of Christ, or the Catholic Church, as it is more commonly known.