That is all to obvious, as Rome can decree something as being binding Truth even if it is not in Scripture, and contrary to what is written, as she is the autocratic judge of that.
Thus despite the Assumption of Mary being absent from Scripture, nor foretold, and the crowning of saints only being at His return, and lacking valid early testimony of that event , Rome claims to "remember" what was "forgotten" and dam those who do not believe it! But Rome can "remember" what is needed when lacking actual warrant for from where it should be found.
Ratzinger writes (emp. mine), Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.
But,
subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously [meaning the needed evidence was absent] and was already handed down in the original Word” [via amorphous oral tradition] - J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.
For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
“the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
Indeed lack of Scriptural evidence mean nothing to RCs, as the weight of Scriptural substantiation it not the basis for the veracity of her teaching, while doctrinally Scripture is abused as a servant compelled to support Roman traditions, extrapolating when is needed but is not there. As often shown here.
That is because these letters were not addressed to us but to certain living and breathing persons who were known and loved by him, concerning matters whose significance often escapes us. He was indeed, like the prophets of all addressing us as well, and our descendents without knowing it. But he did speak as a man among other men and women at a point of time in history. So we must accept that there is much we don’t “get”.
That is quite creative, but the reality is that Scripture can show a universal address, (Jn. 20:31; Rv. 22:18) while the fact that a record of early church history was written to a man, or that letters were written to churches etc, does not mean that somehow the many traditions that are not in Scripture were somehow simply invisible to us.
The reason there was only one manifest successor to an apostle, and none for the martyred James or any manifest preparations for Peter etc., or such things as the absence of even one prayer addressed to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, or in instructions on who to address prayer to Heaven to, or even one exhortation to the churches to submit to Peter as their singular supreme head, etc, while telling us of the one successor, and which was by the non-political methods of casting lots, and over 200 prayers in all of Scripture, and who to address them to, and of the street-level leadership role of Peter as one of the pillars, as well as his public rebuke, is not because Acts was written to an individual or the letters to individual churches, and so somehow we just don’t “get it.” The Holy Spirit is not negligent as Cath doctrine implicitly makes Him.
Esp. when the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
“Rome,” which is to say the papacy, rests its authority on Peter’s commission’s in Matthew and In John.
Rather, she invokes this but which is interpretive as referring to Peter being the rock upon which the church is built, and lacks the often “claimed “unanimous consent” of the fathers .
And thus as with other texts out of which she egregiously extrapolates her perpetuate Petrine papacy and magisterial infallibility, the veracity of her interpretation rests upon the premise of her perpetual magisterial infallibility, and reasons that there can be no contradiction since they both have the same source-author.
Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. .(Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)
And even history only means what she says in any conflict, as the aforementioned recourse of Manning expressed,
The way that authority has been exercised was a not fixed and has taken different shapes over the centuries.
Which "different shape" is a most manifest deformation which cannot be justified. Even the EOs are partly right in rejecting "the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory," etc.
The life of the Church like the life of the Jewish people has been shaped by concrete decisions, including many mistakes. What endures are the promises. God will not break his covenant with the Jews, so in that respect that people are infallible and the Torah as an everlasting statement of God’s will....He promises that the Church not fail despite all appearances, that we shall endure to the Last Days.
Your parallel applies to the whole body of Christ but fails under the Roman model, as under the latter a perpetual infallible magisterium is essential to even know what Scripture consists of, and for preservation and assurance of Truth. However, the church began with fallible souls having assuredly discerned both men and writings as being of God.
And with God having provided and preserved Truth with a perpetual infallible magisterium, sometimes by raising up men from without the mag. in order to reprove it. And thus the church began and thus faith has been preserved.
The papacy is an instrument in his hands and that “Rome” has endured, even as the other patriarches have been so diminished, ought to be considered as a sign that there ought to be a place where the oneness of he Church is displayed.
Rather, the devil himself has endured, as has ancient religions, thus by your logic they also must be considered true, but the idea of a perpetually infallible papacy is of the devil, which and whom God allows as a test as to who will follow Him versus them.
Meanwhile "unbroken succession" includes an absence of up to 3 years with no pope, plus competing popes, and confusion and failure to lead.
Referring to the schism of the 14th and 15th centuries, Cardinal Ratzinger observed,
"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. "It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/) Again, it cabe be read that way only because we don’t know for sure who its audience was, but some scholars surmise it was the priests given that speaks of Christ as priest. "Some scholars indeed." Which is wishful thinking. In any case, unless a text is officially defined then it has no authoritative meaning even for RCs, but is just private interpretation which they censure us for. But Christ is our high priest forever. That means that his Sacrifice is always “lit” for our behalf before the Father. Actually, rather than simply being a memorial, Rome teaches that in "that the sacrifice of the Mass is one and the same sacrifice with that of the cross...a sacrifice of propitiation, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious," that in the Mass "no less than on Calvary, Jesus really offers his life to his heavenly Father," "only the manner of offering is different," "in an unbloody way [Christ] offers himself a most acceptable Victim to the eternal Father, as he did upon the Cross," as the priest "places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man." Which is consumed to obtain spiritual life,. Which is all heretical endocannibalism. The “Breaking of the Bread” was an allusion to the Eucharist. But never as transubstantiation. The lack of any order of service in the Bible makes it all he most impressive to me that the formula of institution was repeated in the three synoptic gospel and more liturgically by Paul. But which is simply breaking and eating bread and drinking wine which corresponds to Christ being broken and poured out, (Ps. 22:14; 31:12; 38:8) which manner of figurative language the apostles were all familiar with, even as the "leaven of the Pharisees," though they could be slow on the uptake. You pass over what comes before, which is an exhortation not to eat the food at pagan sacrifices. So his remarks about the Lord’s Supper are freighted by this reference to the eating of the flesh of sacrificed animals. Indeed, which actually is clearly contrary to the idea of transubstantiation. For 1Cor. 10 actually teaches what i said, that the "body of Christ" as the church is the focus, and that they show union with Christ by their communal sharing in that meal: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. (1 Corinthians 10:16-17) Believers show fellowship with Christ in His death for the body by their communal sharing in that meal which is done in remembrance of Him, and which is to declare, proclaim it. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:26) Moving on in 1Cor. 10. But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:20,21) And how would they have fellowship with devils? Not by consuming the transsubstantiated flesh of devils, but by taking part in a feast done in dedication to demons. For they which eat of the sacrifices are partakers of the altar, showing union with the object of this feast and each other, but not because the food has been transsubstantiated into that of the entity it is offered to. Nor is the Lord's supper a sacrifice for sin, any more than praise is. Thus while one may buy and eat food which is offered in sacrificed to idols, if not offending a brother with scruples about it, as i could eat a RC host, they were not to take part in religious feasts.
If, as you agree, the Holy Spirit, continues to guide the Church, the question is HOW? The Lord did not choose to send down the Gospel in the way he did the Torah, written by his hand on the tablets of the law. The only Scriptures that the Apostles and disciples had in hand when they began their mission were the same as the Rabbis had access to. Indeed, the New Testament is, as much anything else, an interpretation, interpretations, really of those scriptures in the light of the career of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Furthermore, the surety we have of the inspiration of the canon, is pretty much the same as that of the Jewish canon, which is by tradition. The Jews never at any time listed true books of the Canon, nor did the Church. Your assumption seems to be that we should look at the Scriptures pretty much as some schools of Islam look at their, that the Koran alone is divine.