The numerous appeals to "it is written" are not inference.
As noted before regarding the immaculate conception...No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.
The RCC couldn't even appeal to the Scriptures for this!!!! And it is admitted by catholicism's own encyclopedia.
Again, that is eisegesis resulting in bad theology.
In your beloved scriptures,...
Wow. I see the high regard you have for the Bible. That says a lot.
Are you supposing that God is not able to likewise provide for future questions that may arise not encountered before, which the Church, vested with God’s authority, may discover the answer to and then proceed with clear definition even if the Scriptures do not already define it, where the decision of the Church, as always does not contradict Holy Scripture?
God can and has provided for future questions by giving us His word.
What you're attempting to defend is the proclamations of new dogmas regarding Mary which cannot be defended nor found in the texts. Nor can any of the Marian dogmas be defended by Scripture.
You also presuppose there is new revelation since the apostles.
We have no evidence there is new revelation nor is new revelation needed.
The Bible contains the means to know God and have salvation.
Is God also incapable then of giving the authority of a priest to forgive sins, as inferred in the Scriptures and carried out faithfully by the Catholic Church?
God did give the authority to forgive sins as illustrated by the preaching of Peter, John, Paul and the other apostles.
You presuppose a priesthood was to be established who would offer a re-sacrifice of Christ via the Eucharist.
This is not supported by Scripture. Christ was a one-time sacrifice and need not be offered up again and again and again. Christ is not brought down from Heaven by the command of the priest as noted by O'Brien in "Faith of Millions".
John O'Brien notes this in "Faith of Millions".
Or is it only Protestants who are capable of defining Dogma by inferences found in Holy Scripture?
No. There are those who believe women can be pastors. That is not supported by the Bible.
There are those who believe the prosperity Gospel which is not supported by the Bible.
There are those who believe in Liberation Theology...including catholics. I've seen some suggest Frances is stepped in this line of thinking.
Again, all of these can be determined to be true or false by the appeal to the Scriptures. Catholicism, as already illustrated, cannot make that claim with its dogmas.
You are wrong on so many points in a multitude of aspects. Ealgeone reminds me of a lawyer who is paid by the state to defend someone who the lawyer knows is guilty, but defends the crook anyway using every lawyer’s trick of persuasion.
I have discovered that ealgeone has made a dozen remarks in other threads besides this one today, and I do not possess the liberty to continue engaging another forum member who has that level of leisure, due to other God given responsibilities.
So, I have made the defence of the Catholic Church in numerous angles, and if you go back and review them you will find a more logical and powerful argument than yours, with the authority of Jesus Christ and His bride, the Church (of which Francis has no part - he is an anti-pope, an enemy of Christ and His beloved bride; he is not even a Catholic).
On the other hand there are many other compelling arguments and historical references including as spoken by highly virtuous and impeccable saints, far holier than you or I that improve upon what I have written, that have convinced many of the truths which I have defended in this thread.
Also, a reliable source for true Catholicism is available at
http://novusordowatch.org/wire/
Ealgeone must repent of the rebellion to which he adheres with the Protestant heretics, as with any other sins to which he adheres, and believe the good news of Jesus Christ to forgive and heal him as He did Paul who also persecuted Jesus Christ through harm to the Church.
You are in my prayers for the same.