You know Daniel, I’ve seen you post this same question over and over. I have to admit I have absolutely no idea what you’re saying. Maybe it is just me but I think that this question you pose to everyone is too full of clauses and presuppositions to be answered adequately. Quite frankly I don’t trust it. Perhaps there is too much deconstruction that must take place in order to answer it.
It could be me. As for my assurance of Truth well isn’t that obvious. It’s the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which is free from error by the power of the Holy Spirit as promised by our Lord Jesus Christ.
You have to make a leap of faith at some point.
That is not surprising. We are very often given assertions in response to Scripture-based challenges to RC traditions such as that "the Catholic church gave you the Bible," thus she knows what it means.
Along with that are the assertions that private interpretation cannot provide assurance and an infallible magisterium is needed, as Christ promised to lead the apostles into all Truth and preserve the church, etc. This is supposed to be a refutation to our challenges. But which reasoning must have presuppositions, which these RCs never seem to consider. They just parrot the "we gave you the Bible," "God established a church" polemic as if that was a refutation. Thus my questions must be asked.
Maybe it is just me but I think that this question you pose to everyone is too full of clauses and presuppositions to be answered adequately.
It is not any more full of clauses and presuppositions than the reasoning behind the bare polemical assertions that necessitate my questions.
Quite frankly I don’t trust it.
I do not trust RC assertions or necessarily the reasoning behind them.
As for my assurance of Truth well isn’t that obvious. It’s the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which is free from error by the power of the Holy Spirit as promised by our Lord Jesus Christ.
Now that wasn't so hard. In a word, your basis for assurance of Truth is the premise of the assured veracity of the Latin church, which provides teachings that are free from error thru her assuredly infallible magisterium (teachings from the Ordinary magisterium may contain non-salvific error, but a faithful RC is to grant them unadulterated intellectual assent).
But which "assurance of Truth" question must be asked, as many RCs try to argue as if Scriptural substantiation was the basis for their assurance of Truth, but which would make them as an evangelical.
However, your answer is simply an assertion, which must have some presuppositional reasoning behind it. Thus my questions:
If the basis for your assurance of Truth is the assured veracity of the Latin church, then it would seem that the RC argument is that an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth, since without it how you say the basis for your assurance of Truth are the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which is free from error?
And that this magisterium is essential to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith. (Jn. 14:16; 16:13; Mt. 16:18, etc.) which corresponds to the Roman Catholic Church being free from error
Thus i have simply stated clauses and presuppositions which it seems are foundational to your assertion.
Which reasoning behind the "we gave you the Bible" type makes it meaningful.
You have to make a leap of faith at some point.
Indeed, as in getting married, but the issue is the basis for this and what manner of faith this is.