But once you decide you submit to Rome, the RC is not to objectively examine the Scriptures and evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, but is to implicitly assent to infallible teaching with "assent of faith," and even those from the ordinary Magisterium cannot be disbelieved by a faithful RCs, but "a Catholic must maintain such beliefs as though they were true, granting them unadulterated intellectual assent." (http://www.academia.edu/1982786/Religious_Assent_in_Roman_Catholicism)
"He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason, like a lantern, at the door."
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children...to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers." — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”
“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]
St. Ignatius once said that should the Pope command him to undertake a voyage by sea in a ship without a mast, without oars or sails, he would blindly obey the precept. And when he was told that it would be imprudent to expose his life to danger, he answered that prudence is necessary in Superiors; but in subjects the perfection of prudence is to obey without prudence. - St. Alphonsus De Liguori, True Spouse of Christ, p. 68 http://wallmell.webs.com/LiguoriTrueSpouseChristVol1.pdf
Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.(Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)
“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.
This seems cultic to us who find assurance based upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation. The question is, did the church begin under the premise of the assured veracity of the magisterium that was the steward of Scripture, or on the basis of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and testifying to Scripture being the supreme transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God?
For as previously asked of you, it seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth 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 (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ??
That's IT! That's the quote I was looking for.
NO where in Scripture do we ever see any indication that faith is to be blind faith or that we are not to use our reason or intellect.
This kind of goes back to some of my previous posts. The basis for this common sense is experience. If there’s a disagreement between two parties then it obviously necessitates a third to resolve this difference.
I say as a Catholic, God the Holy Spirit choses (normally) to resolve such differences, to guide people to truth and protect them from error via other people. Via a tangible visible magisterium.
I don’t have much time to explain this as much as I probably should so I’ll leave it there. It just seems to me though there is no way to determine truth from Scripture alone as opinions are like noses, to use an old euphemism.
If one doesn’t accept as a matter of faith that not only has God chosen to use humanity to teach humanity, but that no one single individual is perfect all the time and therefore everyone needs correction...if one doesn’t accept these two as plainly obvious through reason and experience then there really isn’t much left to say anyway.