ummmm, basically yes.
Thanks for your honesty, but you (among others) - and Rome - have effectively nuked the church under that premise .
For the fact is that under the aforementioned premise for Rome's authrity then 1st century souls should have submitted themselves to the Scribes and Pharisees who sat in the seat of Moses, ( Mt. 23:2) having historical descent over Israel, the instruments and stewards of Scripture and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation, (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34) "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans 9:4-5)
And thus they confronted the Lord with the fundamental question, "By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?" (Mark 11:28)
But whose answer was more than they could handle, that of asking, "The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer Me, " (Mark 11:30) for like Rome, they presumed of themselves a level of veracity above that of Scripture, yet the common people had more discernment than they did, "for all counted John, that he was a prophet indeed." (Mk. 11:32)
And rather than needing a perpetual assuredly (if conditional) infallible magisterium in order to have assurance of Truth - and for both men and writings to be established as being so - not only were writings recognized as Scripture long before Rome would presume she alone was the authority for that, but the Lord Himself reproved both the devil and the Scribes and Pharisees with Scripture. And established His claims upon upon Scriptural substantiation, in word 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.)
In contrast, like the Scribes and Pharisees but worse, Rome presumes herself to be the supreme and infallible authority, not Scripture, which is only what she says it is and means, and thus she autocratically defines Tradition, Scripture and history as supporting her.
For according to her interpretation, or decree, only her interpretation is authoritatively correct in any conflict.
However, the greater the claim, then the greater the corresponding evidential warrant is required, yet Rome is not even close (nor do i) to the apostolic manifestation of the Truth, with the manner in which in all things they commended themselves as the ministers of God, "By pureness,...by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left," (2 Corinthians 6:6-7; cf. 2Cor. 4:2; 6:2-10) And yet they did not even claim Rome's perpetual assured infallibility.
Thus rather than the Inquisitors and their means, or today's inclusiveness, the apostles rod was a spiritual one to be feared. "For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?" (1 Corinthians 4:20-21)
And it was largely due to their level of manifest attestation that the prima NT church had the limited unity that they overall had (amidst much diversity), like Israel in the beginning. And every true believer would want to follow a Peter or a Paul today, not men titled "priests" with its phylacteries and perversions, dispensing human flesh to gain spiritual life, akin to endocannibals, and pointing souls to a supreme infallible head in Rome. Etc.