You actually miss my point. Yes, there are plenty of writings down through history by authors who where Church fathers or studied them. But they are all human, and therefore fallible and liable to bias.
They give a testimony to what was believed and practiced, which you don't accept. Individual Fathers were fallible and liable to bias at times, but the final ruling of the Church was not. And none of them rebelled.
The best way...indeed the only truly factual account about the Apostles, is found only in scripture.
Rejecting everything because it is not in scripture is sticking your head in the sand.
We certainly read the other things, a lot are highly beneficial, but we do not base Church doctrine on these other writings...unless they are directly backed up by scripture...which basically means our doctrine comes from scripture.
Which basically means your doctrine comes from your opinion of scripture, and I see no resemblance of sola scriptura or sola fide in scripture, nor does it exist in the early Church. The 'doctrine' that everything must come from scripture alone is not in scripture.
My point was not that Paul is greater than Peter. I was merely trying to point out that saying the Catholic Church was the only true church because of Peter did not really follow through.In fact I would say that there are quite a few things the RCC say about Peter that don't make sense, especially in line with your claim that Church Tradition holds as much authority as scripture does. Take, for example, the call for Priests to be single, and yet we know Peter, who you claim was your first 'Pope' was married...the bible clearly mentions his mother in law, and then later when Paul is talking about his own singleness, he also mentions Peters married state. Many Catholics believe (even if it is not stated directly) that Peter was single. If such a theory has come about, it's come about from an source outside the Bible...tradition perhaps? And clearly it is wrong...it makes you wonder at what else that comes from tradition is erroneous.
Also (and I feel it helps highlight my point)...at some point someone in the RCC Church has said or proclaimed at one point that Peter was the first 'Pope', and from there on in you feel entitled to claim the rest of us are not the 'true Church'...which is basically relegating us to blasphemous heretics.
Celibacy is not a doctrine, it is a discipline. There are married priests. The Church does not relegate you to blasphemous heretics, I've repeated the official position the Church has towards Protestants too many times. If you feel that inferior to the Truth, then maybe God is calling you to become a Catholic.
You forget all biblical teaching on what 'being the leader' actually means, on how the gospel breaks down walls, not raises them. Peter would not have given himself a throne to sit on, or royal robes and have people bow down and kiss his ring. He knew that to be a Christ like leader, he needed to serve, put himself last. He also knew, as did all the other apostles, that being 'elect' was about receiving Christ as Saviour and having the Holy Spirit come to reside within you. To say that the RCC is the 'only true Church' you are basically saying that no Protestants have the Spirit or follow and love Jesus. All this, from maybe only one man making a statement about Peter that the Bible simply doesn't back. This....this is why making ALL doctrines based only on scripture is essential.
You are repeating yourself with the same argument about customs and rubrics. You refuse to accept the Church's official peace offering, and want to stoke the dying flames of the reformation to keep division intact. Your divisiveness is counterproductive to the mission of this forum and you are a moderator.
No, but that is hows your read "profitable".
We don't ban everything apart from the bible. It's just that as the Word of God, it is the highest authority.
The Bible says the Church together with Tradition and the Bible is the highest authority. Nowhere in the bible does "Word of God" mean the written word alone. Bible alone theology is a man made tradition manufactured in Switzerland and Germany in the 15th century. Before that your 'infallible' doctrine of sola scriptura, which allows you to form any opinion you wish, did not exist.
We must hold to this, because as God's direct word to us, it is the only thing in the world we can guarantee is true and without fault. No matter how much a person or Church may love Jesus and be true disciples, striving to live as Jesus told them too, there is always the possibility they are mistaken or biased. If you can show me a Church or single person in the world apart from Christ who hasn't made a mistake, then perhaps I may consider your approach. But as I know that no such person exists, I think my case is safe. The bible must be the highest authority.
For the third time, infallibility has nothing to do with impeccability. If anything doesn't make any sense it's a book that testifies to itself.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.
Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).
Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.
Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also,
there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”
Matt. 16:18-19 - in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter's leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).
Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.
more here
But as the passions of the Reformation era have cooled, and Protestant scholars have taken a more dispassionate look at this text, they have come to agree more and more that Jesus was referring to Peter himself as the rock. Of course, they disagree with the Catholic interpretation of what this
means, but many now agree that the Catholic explanation of the grammar of the text is correct.
The following quotations, all of which are from Protestant Bible scholars, are taken from the book
Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy (Scott Butler et al., (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing), 1996).
William Hendriksen Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary says Peter is the Rock
Gerhard Maier Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian says Peter is the Rock.
Donald A. Carson III Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary says Peter is the Rock
John Peter Lange German, Protestant scholar says Peter is the Rock
John A. Broadus Baptist author says Peter is the Rock
J. Knox Chamblin Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary says Peter is the Rock
Craig L. Blomberg Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary says Peter is the Rock
David Hill Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England says Peter is the Rock
Suzanne de Dietrich Presbyterian theologian says Peter is the Rock
Donald A. Hagner Fuller Theological Seminary says Peter is the Rock 
