You make a complete case, given your premises; that is, of Sola Scriptura.
That is one of several biggie differences between the Catholics and the Protties.
Part of this difference is that the Catholics all along insisted on hewing to the teachings and history of the Church; the Protestants, as far as I can tell, jumped ship so hard over indulgences, that they decided it was less risky to throw out ALL traditions and reports of visions or visitations, and much of the accrued practices and devotional artwork, in addition to the formalism and (for a time) administrative overhead.
Rome; herself; 'throws out' most of them!
Golly!
I wonder why??
Hebrews 12:1 ... let us throw off everything that hinders ...
That's refreshing, considering the source!
That is one of several biggie differences between the Catholics and the Protties. Part of this difference is that the Catholics all along insisted on hewing to the teachings and history of the Church; the Protestants, as far as I can tell, jumped ship so hard over indulgences, that they decided it was less risky to throw out ALL traditions and reports of visions or visitations, and much of the accrued practices and devotional artwork, in addition to the formalism and (for a time) administrative overhead.
No: instead the reason they reacted against indulgences was due to the regard of Scripture as supreme. Thus why should not they ascertain the validity of what is preached by that source, as noble truth-loving Bereans did? And seeing as Catholic distinctives are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive record of what the NT church believed, then the only inconsistency is that they kept some of the Catholic errors, including the use of the sword of men to deal with theological errors.
Now if you want to equate Cath oral tradition with that of apostolic preaching, then you need to do what they could do, which is to speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, neither which even Rome presumes pope do.
If you want to argue that oral transmission can be the word of God, then the question becomes on what basis do we know this. We know something like it was Jannes and Jambres who withstood Moses (2 Timothy 3:8) but its inclusion in Scripture, but how do we know what Scripture consists of, and means, andalso that something not recorded therein is the word of God?
And even if want to argue that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth. And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus whatever she officially teaches is the word of God, then do so, so we might see where this leads.
But at least you seem to be doing what i have advised Caths to do, which is give up trying to make a case for PTCBIH based on Scripture, since it has become an argument against them, and admit (implicitly or not) it comes from to tradition
However, considering that we are not dealing with something like an event like the Assumption (which actually lacks evidence from early tradition) or some marginal issue, but a most basic common spiritual practice, to argue for PTCBIH by believers, esp. the NT church, despite the utter absence of any prayer in Scripture among over 200 addressed to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, actually impugns that source. If it will not even attest to this then it opens up the door for many other aberrations