Believe and disbelieve what? Scripture vs Tradition? Since you claim the witness of the *Church* is must be tradition.
We believe Scripture and keep referring back to it. Catholics keep telling us it's wrong and appealing to Tradition, and the *church fathers* and any other extra-Biblical evidence they can find to support their unbiblical teachings.
Who's doing the disbelieving here? We believe God in His word. Catholics believe everyone else BUT God.
Catholics would never do that. Where did I say the Scripture is wrong? The Church teaches that the Holy Scripture is inerrant in its entirety:
all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: "The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author."Leo XIII on the inerrancy of scripture (from Providentissimus Deus) [ecum.]
It is usually a good idea to know something about the subject matter you wish to opine.