And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. Which i assume is yours as well.
It is. I find the manic insistence against a binding religious authority to be repugnant to the Word of God and good common sens
Thank you for your honesty and willingness to confirm the foundational premise behind RC polemics, and note that you are not simply affirming the need for a binding religious authority, which would indeed be repugnant to the Word of God and good common sense, and which was not what i carefully articulated is the premise. But that of an assuredly infallible magisterium, which is essential for determination and assurance of Truth and that that being the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation means they are said magisterium.
However, in so doing you have effectively invalidated the NT church.
For the fact is that under the aforementioned premise for Rome's authority then 1st century souls should have submitted themselves to the Scribes and Pharisees who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel as the stewards of Holy Writ and the official teachers of it, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4; Mt. 23:2) having historical descent and being the inheritor of the promises of God. (Rm. 3:2; 9:4; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6)
And instead the church began in dissent from the historical magisterium, following preachers they rejected (like they did before them whom God raised up from without the magisterium to reprove it), one being a man in the desert who ate insects, and another being a itinerant preacher from Galilee.
But who reproved it by Scripture, including for teaching as doctrines mere tradition of the elders, (Mk. 7:3-16) and established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation, in text and in power, as did the apostles and early church. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
In addition, both men and writings of God were recognized as being so long before there was a church of Rome that would presume it was necessary for this. Which is why RCs constantly invoke "the Catholic church gave you the Bible, so it knows what it means" polemic.
Which specious premise is destroyed in the light of Scripture, while by your affirmation of the RC basis for determination of Truth then you have effectively nuked the NT church, but which in reality is that of your own church, as its basis for determination and assurance of Truth is foundationally contrary to how the NT church began.