So your answer is that the basis for your assurance of truth is by examination of the above? That is good to know, as for RCs their basis for assurance of Truth is the church with its (conditionally!) infallible magisterium, as fallible human reasoning cannot provide assurance and results in disagreements.
But since it seems you claim to have assurance by objectively examining the evidence, then we can discuss the merits of the evidence, without having to defend Rome.
Thus, unless you want to recant from reasoning like an evangelical, the first question has to do with the rank of evidence. Would you say Scripture must be the supreme authority since it alone is wholly inspired of God?
All the sheer absurdity that flows from...
I would agree that it is absurd to render implicit trust to men who presume infallibility, as well as to invoke uninspired men who did also. I can find them in cults.
you may as well open up your own “Protestant” church and follow an Al Sharpton;
You sure have a fondness for logical fallacies, supposing that since there are quacks who also dissent from an entity that presumes of itself more than is written, based upon the premise of historical descent and stewardship of Scripture, then all who do so must be the same.
There was another certain church who also did so, following an itinerant preacher who was rejected by a valid magisterium, but who established his claims upon persuasive Scriptural substantiation, though this resulted in divisions. It comes as no surprise that you must reject that also as being invalid, based upon your premise, and instead follow a cultic model. Which is defended as if it were a god.
I will leave you to it if you continue to evidence you so desire.
Look, it was left to Peter and His disciples to write down and TEACH the words of God. Thus an authoritative structure was established. It had to be ONE truth, and Christ as far as we can tell established ONE Church to deliver his Great Commission until the end of times. He instituted the Eucharist for this purpose as confirmed by Scripture, and early and unbroken Church tradition and revelation. Saints, scholars, theologians from Augustine to Aquinas to Newman to Benedict confirm all of this.
From the very inception, this was all about authority and how it was handed down, by interpretation and tradition. This was not left to Luther, to you, me, or to the David Koresh’s and Billy Graham’s or Jim Jones’s of this world. When Christ says one must forgive 70 x7, that’s an expression and it doesn’t mean one forgives upto 490 times. Words require interpretation by not only text but by context, design, purpose, and traditions. For example, Christ used a number of parables relate to farming because this is how his audience could relate to.
Thus it is the ridiculous nature of you Scripturalists that have brought about a scandalous a flurry of heresies leading to several thousands of Protestants sects including a Church of God where serpent worship rituals are found in Kentucky. This sheer and manifest folly doesn’t seem to open up your mind when scores if not hundreds of theologians form a variety of denominations have seen the light and converted to the Catholic Faith.
But then again, low-information Christians think they can crack open the pages of Scripture, select some quotes from here and there, and give it any interpretation they believe comports with “their” idea of what is in Scripture. Hence the prosperity Gospel of the Joel Osteen and the revolutionary Gospel of Jeremiah Wrights.
The Catholic Church is the mustard tree, it is the Rock of Peter, its Catechism is the infallible teaching of the Christ founded on the four pillars of scripture, tradition, revelation and faith.