Appeals to pedigree are invalidated by the first two hundred and fifty years - Both Paul and John declare that iniquity was already entering the Church in their time, so traditions forming even then were heretical. Your 'catalogue approach' merely demonstrates that adoption of the Eucharist was a very early addition, from before the various splits which define the liturgical churches which you would endorse. That there is so very little evidence before 300AD (extant, in situ, and really before 400AD) defies any proofs after the fact.
[...] who don't understand why the German and English-speaking innovators just don't get it.
Again, a matter of little consequence, because one cannot omit the Hebrews - The undoubted authors of the text - who, even in their Messianic strains, find no solace at all in the theory of the Eucharist... The vast majority of whom, btw, believe it (rightly in my mind) to be a syncretism from Mithraism, whose rite is closely related, and whose root runs far deeper than Christianity in Egypt and Persia. And without a chain of evidence dating all_the_way_back, an adaption from paganism seems very likely.
Yet even if there were inescapable and perfect evidence of an early date, without sure linkage into Judaism, from which Christianity undoubtedly came, There can still be no legitimacy.
Thus, a simpleton such as I, who would question such things (rightly and in good conscience), must necessarily return to the originating contract, where no such uncertainty exists. Having found no authorized agent proffering authorized change (which is literally impossible), I will be content to stick with the original terms. Hence sola-scriptura.
Catholics do no want to admit that even in the NT church false teaching and false doctrine were present.. their own church fathers held differing views on some things ..
Even Augustine felt John 6 was a metaphor ...What the early church chose to believe on this were up to the individual conscience ...it was not a Roman doctrine demanding belief until 1215