"If" God divinely guided the RC (and we must be specific as the EOs differ with Rome on many substantial things, even on the canon - if only slightly in this case) church is a question which Rome herself settles based upon her premise of assured veracity.
And which would seem to be based on her being the historical steward of Divine writings (thus the "we-gave-you-the-Bible" polemic).
And likewise based upon that then she is the the infallible interpreter of scripture, dissent from which is rebellion against God.
Is this what the argument is?
Mistake: I meant to address my last post to you.
The question of the (physical) origins of Scripture is an interesting one. It’s one of the points that led me back to the Church actually.
When I first started to believe in God again (and Jesus his Son) I found myself wondering the best way to interpret Scripture (since there were/are many different interpretations out there). So I thought, “Well, where did the Bible come from?” (Because I had no idea at the time). I thought, “if I can find out where it came from, or really who had the Bible from the beginning, then that’s where I want to go for my Bible questions. Because if I can find such a church, then they obviously must know the Bible!”
This is essentially what you said above, I think, just in different words.
So what’s wrong with that line of reasoning? I mean, who wouldn’t want to go to the same group of people who had the Bible since Jesus’ time?