When you posted a question, I answered. When you post a lecture with some question marks here and there, I ignore it.
"A" question" Is this more evasiveness? Yes, I think might have actually answered one, but the problem is pertinent questions you have neglected to answer, or did not actually given an answer to, and have resorted falsely claiming a lack of perpetuity or being too prolix.
Thus I stated in 482:
Either answer the questions and answer fully and clearly or make it more obvious to us that you are avoiding them:
[annalex]: the Holy Scripture is itself the product of the Catholic Church.
Meaning, I assume, that that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination [of] writings and men [as] being of God;
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that it is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?
Or how else does the logic work that "we gave you the Scriptures, and therefore alone are the sure unreprovable standard on what it means/are a law unto ourselves?"
When you post a lecture with some question marks here and there, I ignore it.
There simply is no lecture here, and nor unintelligible prolixity for one schooled in Catholic apologetics, but pertinent questions in response to your assertion, and the premise and logic behind it, that basically asks whether you hold to the argumentation we often have seen expressed by other Catholics. And if not, then explain what polemical weight the "we gave you the Scriptures" has.
You were also plainly asked, "And again, just what is your basis for assurance that they the separate class of sacerdotal Catholic priests taught with the voice of Christ?"
To which you gave this non-answer, "That Christ sent them through the sacrament of the Holy Orders to do so."
For again, this simply ignores the issue/question as to your basis of assurance that what you say Christ said is true.
Recourse to claiming you cannot understand (or will not try to) or that is is too much of a read simply marginalizes you as a vain "argument by mere assertion" Catholic who is unfit for actual debate.