Indeed they do, as you have made clear. According to your ecclesiology, rejection of those who are the instruments and stewards of Scripture and Divine revelation, and have historical descent means one has no authority to interpret Scripture and is to be rejected.
Thus you also have nuked the church.
Seeing as the church began in dissent from those who were the stewards of Holy Writ and the official teachers of it, and those who sat in the seat of Moses (Rm. 3:2; 9:4; Mt. 23:2) having historical descent and being the inheritor of the promises of God. (Rm. 3:2; 9:4; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6)
And who followed a itinerant Preacher, who reproved them by Scripture for teaching as doctrines mere tradition of the elders, (Mk. 7:3-16) and established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation, in text and in power, as did the apostles and early church. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Under the Roman model souls would be told to reject this itinerant Preacher as a renegade, as in response to their demand, "By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?," He invoked the baptism of a holy man in the desert eating insects, who also did not have the sanction of the magisterium.
But like Rome, they presumed a level of assured veracity and authority above what is written., (cf. 1Cor. 4:6)
But as Rome has infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, this renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
And wherein is your full assurance.
RCs argue that the church came before the Bible, meaning the entire Bible, but which does not establish an assuredly infallible church as supreme over any Scripture, which preceded it, any more than it did for Israel, which came before any Scripture was written (first by Moses).
And which writings, like true men of God, were progressively established as being of God due to their Divine qualities and attestation in conformity to what was prior established as from God.
And which the positional powers that be were to recognize and confirm, but as Scripture testifies, often they did not, but which did not change who or what they were, while judging the error of those who sat in power. Thus the church began in dissent and often by such faith is preserved.
The issue is that both the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ are inferior to it, neither being wholly inspired of God in all such say, and as written, Scripture was the transcendent standard for obedience and testing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced . And thus it was upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power that the church was established as being of God, and further complementary and confirmatory writings were established as being of God.
I have lot of packing etc. to do as we must move (someplace!), so i cannot get to the rest of your post till later.
I realized that you were attempting to construct a case, but what you have just presented is a confused jumble.
Your premise that the Church began as a dissent movement is of course fatally flawed.
The “Roman model” urges us to embrace this Itinerant Preacher as you style the Lord. His authority is his own, which he receives and shares with the Father.
Saying that the Church is the authentic interpreter of Divine Revelation is not to declare her supreme over it. So let’s discard that straw man right away.
You need to read more church history. Real history, including the fathers. Not quack history.
Best wishes with your move. I too expect to be very busy the next couple of days.