I think you are right BB. Being as it has been DECADES since I was a catholic, I don’t recall if anyone actually, verbally said it in those words, but the implication was clearly there. Since I am no longer a catholic, I certainly don’t buy it now, but I did way back then.
By the way, I wonder what would have happened, if there had been some sort of 2nd Amendment, during the inquisition? 😁👍😱
Of course that is the position. RC or EO.
Scripture owes its authority to the Church. (Alkiviadis C. Calivas – 2002; Theology: The Conscience of the Church) - Page 123
“Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. (Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)
In Catholic theology you cannot even known what Scripture consists of unless you put faith in her:
It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth....no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading. - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
Thus, appeal is to be made to Scripture merely as a reliable historical document, by which the souls which cannot discern Scriptre as being of God, are somehow able to see the Catholic Church as being from God, and thus know what writings are of God.
In order to prevent misconception and thereby to anticipate a common popular objection which is wholly based on a misconception it should be premised that when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration. (Catholic Encyclopedia > Infallibility)
However, when one sees that Catholic distinctives are not manifest in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels), then Catholics often argue the historical absurdity, "we gave you the Bible...we know what it means, not you.
Which would mean that 1st century souls should have submitted to all the judgments of those who sat in the seat of Moses.
But of course, in response it is effectively argued that history, tradition and Scripture only authoritatively mean what she says:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...
I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. - The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: pp. 227-228.
The rejection by the official magisterium of John the baptist who the common people rightly discerned was "a prophet indeed" (Mark 11:32) was based upon like presumption, as was the reaction to the common people who rightly discerned Christ:
Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:47-49)