What? An RC who has no interest in the magisterium? And you ask questions that challenge an argument without having an alternative to how one is to know what is Scripture? So your argument is not that if the consensus of the church is invoked then it must be an affirmation of the church of Rome via its magisterium, and that this means it is to be followed in all things?
Instead, it seems obvious to me that you are avoiding my questions because they challenge that alternative. If you have none, say so, if you do, tell me what it is.
Why must "church" refer to an invisible body, versus Godly people of God which are within the visible body progressively showing general consensus as to what and who is of God. Which the powers that be are to affirm, though it remains that what and who is of God is so regardless of magisterial rejection, as it can be wrong. Or does being the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ mean they are the infallible judges of what and who is of God, and thus they must be followed?
Unless you answer my questions then you are simply a protester that has no real argument, like liberals.
I am an Orthodox Christian.