My experience has been that the argument that everything not found explicitly in Scripture is fraudulent is made again and again and again, yet the moment sola Scriptura is questioned, on the basis that it is not found in Scripture, I am told: “That’s not what sola Scriptura means.”
In Catholic apologetics, the claim of infallibility is never used as the basis for believing in the authority of the Church, because that would be a circular argument.
Once it is established, by other evidence, that Jesus promised his Church infallibility, then obviously, all those Christian bodies that do NOT claim infallibility must be excluded.
The non-circular evidence for the authenticity of the Catholic Church is primarily historical, both as to its hierarchical continuity with the early Church, its doctrinal continuity with the New Testament and the early Church, the miracles of healing and other gifts with which it has been accompanied through the centuries, and the extraordinary holiness of many saints.
Those who propagandize against the Catholic Church therefore concoct accusations of forgeries and frauds, attempt to demonstrate that various Catholic beliefs are absent from the New Testament and/or incompatible with it, and studiously ignore the miracles of healing, and miracles of holiness that have accompanied the Church through history.
Anti-Catholic propagandists also make much of the presence of sinners in the Catholic Church, although what that is supposed to prove is impossible to determine. They never identify the Protestant church that has no sinners in it.
Even the most well-documented, aggressively-investigated miracles, such as those at Lourdes, are dismissed with a wave of the hand. Those who have been propagandized NEVER actually look into such incidents. Never mind that the medical examiners are all atheists or agnostics. The propagandized Protestant assumes that they are all priests and nuns.
There’s another characteristic I’m noted among propagandized Protestants: a refusal to answer yes-or-no questions, even when the question is exceedingly simple and totally transparent.
For example, I had about six different Protestants respond to the following question with rants. But not one of them responded with a “yes” or a “no.”
+++++++++++++++++++
Is the following a formally valid syllogism or a formally invalid syllogism?
Emily is the mother of Sam.
Sam is a fireman.
Emily is the mother of a fireman.
Doctrinal continuity with the New Testament...Surely you jest...Assumption of Mary??? Sinlessness of Mary??? Calling clergy father??? The bible condemns your religion...There is no doctrinal continuity...
Those who propagandize against the Catholic Church therefore concoct accusations of forgeries and frauds, attempt to demonstrate that various Catholic beliefs are absent from the New Testament and/or incompatible with it, and studiously ignore the miracles of healing, and miracles of holiness that have accompanied the Church through history.
Sorry Charlie...Those forgeries are proven and a matter of history...
Your religion or no church has ever healed anyone...Ever...
There’s another characteristic I’m noted among propagandized Protestants: a refusal to answer yes-or-no questions, even when the question is exceedingly simple and totally transparent.
Here's the answer to your question then::: NO...
“Is the following a formally valid syllogism or a formally invalid syllogism?
Emily is the mother of Sam.
Sam is a fireman.
Emily is the mother of a fireman.”
Seems valid, if silly. To wrangle the Firstborn and the mystery of godliness into a syllogism and pretend it applies to Him? Nonsense....on stilts.
“Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.” (1 Tim. 3:16)