Actually your historical understanding of Petrine authority and the role of the early Church fathers is misplaced. I say this respectfully. The short answer is that is through Petrine authority that both the books in the Bible and interpretation of key scriptural passages were understood.
One of the earliest Christian documents is the Didache, known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which probably dates from the 1st century. Sections 9 and 10 deal with the Eucharist [Gk.Eucharistias] and prayers of thanks that allude to the Mass.
Here are examples of early Church fathers. St. Clement of Rome was the third successor of Peter the Apostle as bishop of Rome, our fourth Pope. St. Irenaeus (Book III, iii) tells us that Clement “saw the blessed Apostles and conversed with them, and had yet ringing in his ears the preaching of the Apostles and had their tradition before his eyes, and not he only for many were then surviving who had been taught by the Apostles. “ Similarly Epiphanius tells us that Clement was a contemporary of Peter and Paul. There is a tradition that he was ordained by St. Peter and acted as a kind of auxiliary bishop to Linus and Anacletus, his predecessors in the papal chair. His letter to the Corinthians was written between 70-96 A.D.
For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch was a pagan by birth and a Syrian. He became the third bishop of Antioch and may be considered an apostolic Father in the sense that he heard the Apostle John preach. About 110 A.D. he was sentenced to a martyr’s death in the arena by the Emperor Trajan, who also put Pope Clement to death.
He makes an unforgettable reference when he urges Christians to assemble in common and obey the bishop, “breaking one bread that is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against dying that offers life for all in Jesus Christ.” These beautiful words sum up Jesus’ own teaching in John 6 and St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. Notice also that he refers to the Eucharist as a sacrifice as did the authors of the Didache. Eucharistic theology seems almost complete in St. Ignatius.
Take the case of St. Irenaeus. He heard the preaching of Bishop Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John, writing a famous tract Against Heresies between 180 and 190 A.D. is the first to provide explicit mention of the change that takes place in the bread and wine when they become the Eucharist. The earthly creation (bread and wine) are raised to a heavenly dignity after they “receive the word of God” [at the epiclesis of the Mass or the invocation to the Holy Spirit] and become the food and drink of Christians. So how then can we doubt that, “Our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible but have the hope of resurrection to eternal life.”
What all this means is that we cannot simply open the pages of the Bible and read it like a newspaper and therefore we must rely on authoritative interpretations.
No. it is not. And I can honestly say after yourself having made that accusation towards myself, that each and every thing which you from there on out delved into -- I am well acquainted with, yet for the time being simply must set aside other than to remark that those things do not accomplish that which you have laid them out as establishing -- namely -- this "Petrine authority" as I perceive that to be understood by Roman Catholics, to belong only to the bishopric of Rome.
Yet also you moved the goal posts so to speak, moving away from how the NT canon itself was established from fairly early on.
Rather than the NT having been established singularly through the bishopric of Rome, one could say --- at the time of reception of those writings among the various ekklesia, coming to themselves from the Apostles and those most closely associated with them, --- the writings and letters were then cherished as being inerrant, fundamental truths of the Gospel (good news).
Interpretation of those same writings is yet again something of a separate issue.
By your own words it has been well enough established(?) you yourself lack authority in this area (of interpretation) so must rely upon others, who then yet again evaluate or pass judgment upon yet more issues, with most all of those (if they pertain to the Gospel itself -- which is what the Apostles were commissioned to preach) must ultimately rely upon the Scriptures themselves, or else they lack the authority (and power of God's own Word, as it is written).
Being that by your own admission -- you yourself lack actual authority, again I ask -- how is it that you could determine if anyone was properly (enough) understanding the Scriptures --- without yourself having to rely upon some one else to make the determination?
And then --- after having entirely surrendered your own judgements to be simply an adoption of the judgements of others ---- by what measure can you assure yourself that you have made the proper determinations in this surrender?
For it does appear to myself that a central-most theological tenet of the RCC is for all to surrender all --- to themselves, and to their claims made as for their own singular authority --- which you just established that you yourself personally have none of.
Send me those whom have this alleged authority, so we may be settled and done with this dispute, once and for all.