The fallacy here is to assume that the Protestant doctrine of "faith alone" is true in the first place. Even without recourse to Catholic teaching I find the Protestant position ridiculous and contrary to the Scripture.
Another fallacy is that Catholics do not honestly derive their teaching from Scripture. Any familiarity with Catholic theology would show that this untrue. So when faced with a Catholic interpretation of Scripture and a Protestant one, each claiming to be derived from Scripture, how is one to know the truth? Without the charism of infallibility granted to the Church by Christ himself, we would be hopelessly left with conflicting interpretation that could never claim greater authority than the other.
Then would you please show us from scripture proof of the bodily assumption of Mary? Maybe you could show us any positive comments from scripture about a “vicar” or “substitute” of Christ.
The fallacy here is to assume that the Protestant doctrine of "faith alone" is true in the first place.
Are you aware that this doctrine historically did not mean a faith that was alone, but that the kind of faith that is counted for righteousness (Rm. 4:1-5ff) is one that effects obedience towards its Object, the Lord Jesus? See http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Reformation_faith_works.html And which faith-works “justify” one as having saving, complete faith?
“Another fallacy is that Catholics do not honestly derive their teaching from Scripture.” "Without the charism of infallibility granted to the Church by Christ himself, we would be hopelessly left with conflicting interpretation that could never claim greater authority than the other."
Questions for your consideration:
1. Are infallible decrees dependent upon the weight of Scriptural warrant for their veracity?
2. Upon what basis do you have assurance for the veracity of such a teaching as the Assumption of Mary?
3. If an assuredly infallible magisterium is necessary for the authority of truth claims, how were writings established as Scripture, and truth preserved, before there was an assuredly infallible magisterium of men?
4. Does being the magisterium with historical decent over the people of God, who were the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, and recipient of Divine promises of presence and preservation, render them assured infallible?
5. Did you make an infallible decision to submit to the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome?
6. Do you have assured infallibility to interpret the teachings of the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome?
7. Can you tell me for sure how many infallible decrees there are in total?
8. How many texts of Scripture has Rome infallible defined?
9. Outside core essentials, if the Roman magisterium prevents different interpretations, why is it that Roman Catholics can and do disagree about many things, especially as to what Scripture texts mean?
10. Under the Catholic model of sola ecclesia, in which the Church is effectively the supreme authority (defining sources of Truth and their meaning), why is it that there are multiple divisions, even as to something so basic as papal infallibility, though they otherwise share a substantial unity?
11. How is it that SS-type evangelicals who are “hopelessly left with conflicting interpretations,” overall hold to core essentials, manifesting a common front against those who deny them (cults), and also testify to a substantial unity in moral views (in many things more than most Catholics), while enjoying a essential spiritual unity based upon a shared Scripture-base conversion and relationship with the Lord Jesus that transcends denominations, though they disagree about many things?
12. Why is it that under sola ecclesia, which model Rome shares with cults, and in which men, not Scripture, is really the supreme authority (as infallibly defining evidence as supporting their claim to be the the one true Church), you have the most critical salvific deviations?