If Scripture is the work of the Catholic church, then it only has whatever authority the Catholic church deems it has. It has no inherent authority in itself as the God breathed, Spirit inspired Word of God.
That places the Catholic church over Scripture in authority and makes Scripture subservient to Catholicism.
Therefore, there can be no appeal to Scripture as authoritative to give the Catholic church it's authority because at that point, the Catholic church is basically pulling itself up by its bootstraps.
But without any authority to both determine the canon or interpret it according to the faith given by Christ to His Apostles, you end up with.. well what we have outside the Church.
Which is what exactly? And why is it objectionable?
What the argument seems to be is that Rome alone is the infallible steward of Divine revelation, and who thus gives authority to Tradition, from whence she gives us Scripture (this effectively being a 3rd class authority), and thus all must submit to her.
But I cannot get it affirmed that being the instrument and steward of Divine revelation and inheritor of Divine promises, and having historical decent makes them the infallible interpreter of Scripture, and without whose sanction one cannot have authority.
The Church came first and determined the canon in accordance with the teaching of Christ to His Apostles, so in that sense yes. It is the teaching authority, so in that sense yes.
Both Holy Scriptures and the Church teach the same faith so it's not an either/or. It is when you take the Scriptures outside the Church and arrive at different beliefs - Holy Eucharist for example - that you see it as a power struggle between the two and competing interpretations. When you don't separate them, they are in harmony and part of the same deposit of faith.
Thanks for your reply.