Without a living Magisterium protected by the Holy Spirit a Protestant cannot have an objective faith but only a private opinion.
So it seems to me that the RC argument is that the use of fallible human reasoning cannot obtain valid assurance of Truth based upon Scriptural substantiation, and or that an infallible magisterium is necessary for this and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith. (Jn. 14:16; 16:13; Mt. 16:18) And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation means that Rome is the assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. Does this fairly represent your argument?
Moving to a related statement further on,
A Protestant is free to say that this interpretation is false and that he does not share it, but he can only say that this is a matter of his opinion, not that it is a rejection of Scripture itself.
Thus it remains that according to this premise assurance of Truth cannot be obtained upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but requires an infallible magisterium.
The various Protestant denominations testify to the numerous conflicting opinions among them as to the meaning of Scripture.
So conflicting opinions about what one's infallible authority means disallows reliance upon that authority? Moreover, comparing one church with many under to a loosely defined definition of "Protestant" is not a valid comparison, unless you want Santeria to be classified as Roman Catholic. A valid comparison would be between sola ecclesia churches and those who most strongly hold to the most distinctive Prot doctrine, that of Scripture only being the infallible rule of faith as is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims. And as manifested by what they do and effect, not simply profess.
And you use "Catholics" too loosely, as the EOs substantially disagree with Rome on what Tradition, Scripture and history teaches.
An honest Protestant must acknowledge that Catholics do indeed derive their teaching from Scripture and sincerely believe that Catholicism offers a better interpretation of it.
Rather, Scripture can only assuredly authoritatively be and mean what the magisterium says it means, or can only support it, thus the RC can erroneously believe Rome derives their teaching from Scripture and sincerely believe that Catholicism offers a better interpretation of it.
However, RC position is not that the their teachings require actual Scriptural support, but only that they do not contradict it, nor is the veracity of RC teaching based upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.
Thus Keating,
Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. 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.[http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption]
..the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading. - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
Cardinal Newman affirms, “Christians have never gone to Scripture for proof of their doctrines until there was actual need, from the pressure of controversy ...” — Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey" contained in Newman's "Difficulties of Anglicans" Volume II, Dignity of Mary; http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newman-mary.asp
Thus an honest RC must acknowledge that RCs have assurance of Truth based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, thus Scripture must support her as her servant, and be made to as they use their great interpretive liberty to do so.
It always amazes me that Protestants will rail against Catholic claims of infallibility for the Church while expressing their own private opinions as if they were the infallible interpretation of Scripture.
So only Rome can make an infallible statement, versus possessing the gift of assured (conditional) infallibility? It is amazing that Catholics will rail against Protestants as if they were presuming the gift of personal infallibility, versus basing the veracity of their assertions on the weight of infallible Scripture, while RCs expresses their own understanding of Scripture and of their church if they were infallible interpretations.
Please consider carefully the above and respond.
More or less. The only corrections that I would make is that the claims of the Catholic Church are not based on historical usage but on divine institution. Furthermore, this authority is not exercise solely by the see of Rome but by the entire Catholic Church.
I think the disputes between Catholics and Protestants as well as those between Protestants themselves bear out the limits of human reasoning as a sure guide of the truth.
Thus it remains that according to this premise assurance of Truth cannot be obtained upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but requires an infallible magisterium.
Yes. Again I think the divisions in the church created after the introduction of sola Scriptura and the concept of private interpretation bear this out.
A valid comparison would be between sola ecclesia churches and those who most strongly hold to the most distinctive Prot doctrine, that of Scripture only being the infallible rule of faith as is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims.
I should have stipulated that this is what I mean when I use the term Protestant, those who hold to one of the classic Protestant schools of theology. These are the only ones who have the intellectual honesty with which to enter into a debate. Those so-called liberal "Protestants", despite the legacy names from the past that they might have, can hardly be called Protestant. Indeed, some are even questionably Christian. They have moved from sola Scriptura to quis est Scriptura?.
That being said, I do think that the skepticism of these liberal "Protestants" can be traced to the introduction of the concept of private interpretation of Scripture. The idea of "nobody is going to tell me what Scripture means" has lead to "nobody is going to tell me what the truth is." But no, I do not count these when I critique Protestant thought.
However, RC position is not that the their teachings require actual Scriptural support, but only that they do not contradict it, nor is the veracity of RC teaching based upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.
Yes, there are some teachings that go beyond Scripture. This is clearly acknowledged but the vast majority of what Catholics believe is derived from Scripture. It is not enough that Catholic teaching not contradict Scripture. Throughout the centuries the Catholic Church has seriously studied the Scriptures to learn the truth. Scripture is the font from which flows the vast majority of Catholic teaching. The use of Scripture by Catholics to explain and defend her teaching bears this out and this is what I insist that Protestants acknowledge. To harp on those instances in which Catholics turn to Sacred Tradition and then imply that Catholics do not accept the authority of Scripture at all is dishonest.
So only Rome can make an infallible statement, versus possessing the gift of assured (conditional) infallibility?
If it is conditional then it is not infallible. And who possess this gift? What assurance do you have that, as a Catholic, I do not have this gift rather than you?
Nor should the gift of infallibility be considered to be localize just to Rome, something that is foreign to you. It is exercised by the entire Catholic Church, all the bishops of the world in union with the pope, as established by Jesus Christ. The bishop of the local see of where ever you live is also a part of this Magisterium.
It is amazing that Catholics will rail against Protestants as if they were presuming the gift of personal infallibility, versus basing the veracity of their assertions on the weight of infallible Scripture, while RCs expresses their own understanding of Scripture and of their church if they were infallible interpretations.
The difference is that Catholics look at the Church as being established by Jesus Christ and charged by him to be the teaching authority guarded by the Holy Spirit. All that a Protestant can assert is his own private judgment.