This is false reasoning. The very reason the early fathers gave for creating the bible is that they understood how we would corrupt it. That is why they made a distinction between what is "inspired" by God and what is not inspired. The Church's position now is that everything the Church say is inspired. This doesn't elevate the scriptures as the final authority but it cheapens it to be no more that what Pope Fred and his group might have said. This is exactly the same issue that our Lord Jesus had with the Pharisees:
Mar 7:11 But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban"' (that is, given to God)—
Mar 7:12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother,
Mar 7:13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do."
...
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,
Mar 7:22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."
Protestants do not recognize the Gnostic gospels because the early fathers didn't. And the early fathers based their Old Testament version on what was handed down by the Hebrew fathers. The real struggled for the early fathers was what to include in the New Testament.
A better question is why do Catholics accept books 1000 years later that the early church fathers rejected as inspired?
I think you might be underestimating God. It’s His Word and He can and does certainly reveal it to whom He chooses...
In fact we as members of His Body, thru His Spirit, are told to confirm what is taught in the churches by searching the scriptures ourselves...and His Spirit will teach us.
..... you make the church body sound like it has to be subject to a ‘Government’ over it’s people...Church leadership does not ‘Govern’ the body...it’s members do...with Jesus Christ as the Head.
Furthermore...God Gave us the Scriptures...the church did not “create” the scriptures. They come from Him.
While Rome makes a distinction btwn the inspiration of the Scriptures and her (claimed) infallibility, the effect is to make the Roman church the supreme authority over the Scriptures .
. This is exactly the same issue that our Lord Jesus had with the Pharisees:
And according to the RC model, the people should have followed the magisterium which sat in Moses seat, having historical descent and being the stewards of Divine revelation, and thus rejected the anointed holy man in the desert who reproved them, and the Itinerant Preacher from Galilee who did the same based on Scripture. And indeed that is what Rome has done to those who corrected her, even murdering some (but as one RC said, for the Catholic Church cannot be wrong, as she defines what is right and wrong).
All men's hearts are corrupt and we will bend the scripture to this corruption.
RCs will argue that this is why you have divisions, and thus necessitates an infallible authority that defines what Scripture means.
However, this magnifies the problem of individual error to a executive level, for while the teaching office is needed, assured infallibility is not promised in Scripture (regardless if Rome "infallibly" defined that she is), and the presumption of assured veracity by leaders can result in corporate error and persecution of those who do speak truth to positional power. But by raising up true men of God from without the magisterium was often how God preserved truth. And thus the church began - being established (as often said) upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power - and thus it has been preserved as the body of Christ, and manifest as the salt of the earth, with shortcomings for sure.
This is what happened to the Pharisees. This is plainly illustrated in what has happened to Catholic teaching over the centuries. The early fathers recognized this and that is why we have the INSPIRED word of God.
Referencing the so-called "fathers" can have its place (as in establishing the Christians met on the first day of the week in the 1st century) but they were nor unified in all things, and could teach things that were wrong or skewed, and even engage in wresting Scripture for support, as seen here .
A better question is why do Catholics accept books 1000 years later that the early church fathers rejected as inspired?
Some, but not all, while it is clear Luther was not alone in questioning or rejecting some books, even within Trent, which provided the first indisputable canon for RCs - over Luther's dead body.