Catholics don't "proof-text," generally. Not the way Protestants do.
Steps 3 and 4 are not logically necessary. As arguments there is NO WAY they're self-sufficient.
Should we just accept anything we hear in church as the truth?
Catholic teaching IN NO WAY says you should accept anything you hear in church. We argue with our priests and with our bishops. We write letters to Rome complaining about false teaching in our local pulpits or in our dioceses.
(Sometimes Rome actually responds. A very heterodox bishop in Virginia had his chain severely yanked.)
We write papers, start periodicals, give lectures, start prayer and study groups -- yes, yes, INCLUDING Scripture study.
And we have been known to remind our Popes of Peter's behavior.
Big
Fat
Straw
Man!
as usual.
Keep on shadow boxing. At least it keeps y'all off our backs.
True, but they key word is "anything," for i think what it meant is "Should we just accept anything we hear in church as the truth without examining it for Scriptural conformity and warrant?"
And the difference is that while our basis for veracity must rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the ensured magisterial veracity of Rome by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth.
Also, understand that are re 1Tim. 3:15, we are dealing with the interpretation of RC apologists, to which the author the blog is responding to.
In which, faced with Scriptural argumentation to the contrary of Rome, then besides telling us Rome gave us the Bible, and thus we are to follow her (which logic has an contrary conclusion), the typical recourse is to quote 1Tim. 3:15 as if settling the matter, the premise being that this text means that Rome settles the question of what the Truth is, and thus disallows the private interpretation of Scripture by us to the contrary of Rome. I emphasize that much weight is laid upon this text by RCs.
Yet that text does not provide what RCs extrapolate from it in their private interpretation (unless Rome has officially settled that text), while RCs themselves freely engage in interpretation of Scripture, and of Rome.