No, it merely follows your argument, which was that since God showed grace in renting the veil in the temple then it allows for the possibility of God providing other channels for His Grace=PTCBIH. In short, since God could do it, then it supports Catholicism saying He did it.
Likewise, since God's grace abounds, and will seat overcomers in His throne, (Rv. 3:21) and He has all power in Heaven, then believers could inhabit other planets, one of which could be called Kolob, thus supporting Mormonic literature which teaches of it being "nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets..." (Abraham 3:1-9)
Mormons could argue there is nothing that would forbid this in Scripture, and while the whole thing is absurd, it illustrates what extrapolation out of your single principle (God has and can give more grace) might do. Other Catholic also extrapolate PTCBIH us being blessed with all spiritual blessings in heaven. (Eph. 1:3) Read into that what you need, despite the evidence (or lack thereof) to the contrary, or stop Catholics from putting words in Scripture's mouth. That's dishonest.
The problem is that you are accepting Sola Scriptura not only as axiomatic, but exclusive.
Oh I see: so after vainly appealing to Scripture yourself by being met with the incongruent utter absence of even one example of this most basic common practice, you must attack the premise that substantiation from Scripture is requires, and instead must do what I basically told you to do, just admit this is received by tradition from your fathers.
Yet my argument need not rest on SS, but on what is manifestly reasonable. For even it you do not hold to SS, yet seeing how much attention that the Holy Spirit of God gives to prayer, and even instruction on who to address, and how basic and common PTCBIH is for Catholics, which they imagine the NT church was, and how many beings were available to pray to, and occasions of need wherein it would be expected, and how much the NT relies upon Scriptural substantiation, then the utter absence among over 200 prayers of it is highly incongruous, and it is hardly reasonable to dismiss this with, "well, not everything is written down."
That is, apparently you think that "if it's necessary for salvation, it's in Scripture" implies that ONLY those things explicitly in Scripture have any validity;
That is not what i said or inferred, but argued for a manifest example in the light of this basic common practice for which there are multitudinous examples but none of PTCBIH. If someone wanted to argue that born again believers in the Bible could also communicate telepathically ("all spiritual blessings...) they would have the same problem is multitudes of examples of oral or written communication, but none of telepathy (outside of a rare vision from God). And this is not a matter of whether or not there will be pets in Heaven.
And thus i also argued at length from principle, of what we would expect from Hebrews in particular, and how instead it is Christ whom the believer is directed to as intercessor, and by whom the believer has immediate direct access with boldness into the holy of holies by Him. In addition, unlike a doctrine like the Trinity which is supported by clear statements as well as what is implied and demanded in the face of otherwise contradictions, there is no need for belief in PTCBIH, besides the lack of explicit or actual implied references to PTCBIH.
it then *appears* (from what you write) that you think 1) if someone denies Sola Scriptura, they must be open to any and all outside-of-Scripture ideas
No, but your argument based on God giving more grace does not help. Yet the reality is that writing is God's chosen most-reliable means of preservation. ( Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)
And as abundantly evidenced , 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. Thus the veracity of oral preaching subject to testing by Scripture, and not vice versa. It was not because oral tradition preserved the Word of God that brought about a national revival, but because of the wholly inspired-of-God written word:
2 Chronicles 34:30-31) And thus even the veracity of apostolic preaching was subject to examination by Scripture as supreme, unlike Rome presumes.
2) They believe all these things are "supposed" to be given equal weight with Scripture.
No, I argued to the contrary, that a most basic common practice for which there is abundant examples would expect to have at least one of the kind of basic common practice Catholics engage in. This is not like arguing if a form of cannibalism can ever be allowed.
I find it singularly difficult to decry anything about this image, or the accompanying explanation, as heretical, or leading people away from salvation.
Saying something is expressly the words of Christ as a public revelation need not be heretical in what is says in order to be wrong, while the kind of promises given to ongoing veneration of a painting is contrary to what Scripture says and shows, in which victory is not by looking at what is seen, though illustrations van be helpful, but by faith in what is not seen. (2 Corinthians 4:6,18; Heb. 12:2) ) Moreover, this private but public revelation" is not that of a officially sanctioned pervasive Catholic practice. .
Before I reply, I couldn't figure out specifically what that acronym PTCBIH means. Can you write out out explicitly?