Your logic, once again, is fallacious, as simply because the NT became correctly established - as testified to by its enduring near universal acceptance - does not support the premise that all else that is attributed to tradition - as magisterially defined by Rome - is correct. If so then we must concur with all Jewish tradition that was held by those who sat in the seat of Moses. Such traditions of Rome as you list are invalid like as so many Jewish ones are.
Moreover, "the sense of the faithful" for Rome can mean making a binding belief out of something that is so critically lacking evidence that it was an early belief of tradition that her own scholars opposed it as being apostolic tradition, but which presumption, over 1700 years after the alleged even occurred, is justified under the premise that Rome can remember what history "forgot" to record and preserve.
Thus once again, your attempts to promote Rome are an argument against her. Repent.
Neither you nor any other FReeper has been able to demonstrate the formation of the NT canon by means of any process or authority other than Sacred Tradition. Meaniing, the preservation of Apostolic Truths in the actual practice of the Apostolic Churches, long before they were collected codified and confirmed by Synods and Councils (though such codification was a necessary part of the process.)
The texts used as suitable for the Liturgy in the churches became, ipso facto, canonized. That’s it, tout court.
Wrangle on without me. I am in the midst of the Triduum and, for the most part, outta here until after Easter. Repent I must. Pray for me.