This is in no way different from you as an individual making your own theology which differs from that of the other non-orthodox individuals on this thread
Opinion of whether your current pope is a valid one or not.
Your RULES say you MUST obey him; right?
Which is simply more parroting of a polemic which is refuted in principle. For your argument is really that since souls can come to the wrong conclusions based on what they see Scripture consisting of or meaning, then they need an infallible historically valid magisterium to surely tell them this. Catholic theology even holds that one cannot discover the contents of the Bible apart from faith in her, which must tell them.
Yet as said, the NT church began contrary to this, with souls both assuredly correctly ascertaining men and writings of God as being so, in dissent (as concerns men) from the historically valid authoritative magisterium. The latter implicitly affirmed the body of Scripture which manifestly been had established as authoritative and thus abundantly invoked by the Lord and His disciples, but they were not infallible.
However, based on your reasoning, since some souls interpreted Scripture differently, the they needed to submit to the historically valid authoritative magisterium, versus coming to such conclusions as that John the Baptist was "a prophet indeed." (Mark 11:32).
Also, if one cannot assuredly ascertain what is of God (such as what Scripture consists of and means) apart from submission to Rome, then one cannot convert to Rome until he first does. And while souls can come to manifestly wrong conclusions of Scripture, oneness Pentecostals are contend against by those who affirm the Triune nature of God and other fundamentals of which we both agree on, which the vast majority of evangelicals do, based on Scriptural substantiation, which is the very basis for ascertaining Truth that you attack.
Meanwhile, cults typically are based on the RC premise of leadership possessing a level of ensured veracity above that which it written about such. (1 Co. 4:6) And while this can result in greater unity if enforced (such as by the Watchtower Society), it is not the Scriptural means of unity.
And in reality, as said and ignored, the fact is that what the grand Interpreter says is itself subject to variant interpretations. Under a Moses or men as Peter and Paul, rebels can be executed, and otherwise disfellowship is to result from impenitent known sinning -which Rome is grossly negligent in - but the basis for assurance of Truth cannot be based on the ensured veracity of leadership, as it is to be in Rome.
It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
Therefore, you have unity as well as divisions under both models for ascertaining Truth, but only one is Scriptural, that of the validity of Truth claims being based on Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, which is how the church began.
This does means competing Truth claims can results, but rather than resting upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults), it requires overcoming error with Scriptural Truth. Which is why we concur with Catholics about many core Truths, and effectually contend against cults, more so than RCs./
As much as you want the assurance of the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, the reality is that you cannot escape the problem of the need for interpretation, and of personal judgment (which Catholicism depends on converts even making), and of the basis for such not being based on the above premise, by on the basis of evidential warrant. Which requires the magisterial office to be honest, versus pulling off scams like making belief in the Assumption required .
As a RC even stated.,
If we imagine Pius IX, as he promulgated the Immaculate Conception, as thinking in his own mind, “Boy, what a load of crap I’m putting over on these stooges!” I’d claim that if the proper criteria for infallibility were met, the doctrine is infallible, anyway, regardless of the Pope’s interior disposition, just as a sacrament is valid regardless of the status of the priest who celebrates it. http://vox-nova.com/2013/08/05/why-do-you-trust-the-magisterium/