Christ never taught apostolic succession, He never told the apostles they could select replacements or pass on any of the gifts that were for the foundation of the church...apostolic succession doctrine is made of whole cloth..
2) Papal Infallibility is not a carte blanche and has only been exercised twice. To present it as anything else is completely disingenuous.
That is twice more than the Scriptures permit
4) The Church does recognize the Letters of Paul as both inspired and infallible, but not your interpretations of them. The interpretation is valid ONLY when it supports and affirms the Gospels. Any other interpretation is false, heretical and possibly blasphemous.
How interesting that the Roman church teaches Paul is inspired, but only the parts we like that support our doctrine..
Not sure whether to point out that this a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black or to point out that the "we" cannot grammatically refer back to "the Roman church" but has to stand as "we" -- Freudian slip?
THERE IS NO CATHOLIC TEACHING WHICH DOCUMENTS THE NUMBER OF DECLARATIONS EXERCISING PAPAL INFALLIBILITY!
The conflict between Catholic and Calvinist dogma with respect to the teachings of Paul is not in Catholics selectively choosing some of the Scripture and ignoring others, it is in the context in which we interpret Scripture.
Paul was given a very clear and simple mission; to spread the Word of God to the Gentiles. His mission was to teach, it was not to revise, redact, modify, extend or add new revelation. Catholics interpret everything Paul writes in the context of supporting the Synoptic Gospels. For Catholics the words spoken directly from Christ these Gospels can stand alone, Paul's letters cannot.
I am not going to try to tell you what to believe. Its just that if you choose to follow a Paulian theology you will find some very fundamental areas where it is incompatible with Christianity.