I have no doubt you sincerely think you have a case here, but all you are doing is being like Jim Jones and other elitist sola ecclesia cults with their version of infallible pope, while criticizing those who rely on examining the Scriptures as the supreme authority, because that results in different interpretations.
And indeed, if unity itself is your goal, not Scriptural Truth, then sola ecclesia is the way to go, and then objective examination of evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of church teachings is discourage. But which model, as said, results in competing churches, each assuredly asserting they are the one true one.
You do make arguments for Rome being the OTC, as if looking as Scripture, etc. is the means that we determine and have assurance of Truth, but before i begin refuting your arguments i need to know what the basis for your assurance of Truth really is, and if an infallible magisterium is necessary for that, and under what basis did the church begin, but thus far you have steadfastly refused to my answer my questions.
Here you invoke Rome as the one who authorized the Bible, and thus it seems you are arguing that an infallible magisterium is necessary to recognize and establish which writings are of God, and thus a canon, and without which these books would not have authority. And i would presume the you would hold that Rome is that infallible magisterium because the Catholic church historically is the instrument (NT) and steward of Scripture, and inheritor of promises.
Is this what you are arguing? If not, explain. Further refusal to answer these basic question indicates you only want to make assertions, not engage in meaningful exchange.
Obviously, you need to go up and do some serious reasoning on Papal Infallibility.