Replies

As promised (by God's grace). Let me know of more of such.

Re Catholics, Protestants and the Bible

Note that the author of this exceedingly poor polemic is evidently a lay women, “Pauline Zingleman,” a wannebe apologist whose 2 books have no Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, and she seems to have given up writing books after 1995. Or perhaps finding a publisher.

• The individual Catholic frequently does not recognize the profound implications of the invitation. What is being proposed is a grave sin against faith, apostasy, exceeding in moral weight adultery, because faith is a gift received directly from God Himself...The process cannot be set in motion without the Catholic's cooperation.

Yet the Vatican's DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM states, 108. “Where appropriate, Catholics should be encouraged, in accordance with the Church's norms, to join in prayer with Christians of other Churches and ecclesial Communities.” 118. “In liturgical celebrations taking place in other Churches and ecclesial Communities, Catholics are encouraged to take part in the psalms, responses, hymns and common actions of the Church in which they are guests..” .”..Before the whole world, let all Christians profess their faith in God, one and three, in the incarnate Son of God, our Redeemer and Lord.” 161 “When Christians live and pray together in the way described in Chapter IV, they are giving witness to the faith which they share and to their baptism,.. "In this unity in mission, which is decided principally by Christ himself, all Christians must find what already unites them even before their full communion is achieved." And thus Fr. John Trigilio on 6/11/2005 states, Catholics MAY attend Protestant services and may sing, pray, etc. but they CANNOT and SHOULD NOT ever receive communion in a non-Catholic church. — http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=441348&Pg=Forum2&Pgnu=1&recnu=2

Yet the author Pauline here treats all Protestants with scornful contempt. Thus she has a house divided, and preaches a church which itself has different versions claiming to represent one true faith, while her apologists use a definition of Protestantism which is so broad that you can drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Episcopalian 747 through it. Yet evangelicals, who yet are far more unified in core values and beliefs than the overall fruit of Rome, do not promote a particular church as the one true one — while not holding that all churches are valid or equally good — but generally for a basic faith and unity due to a shared Scriptural supernatural conversion and relationship with the one Lord God and Father by the one Spirit through faith in the one gospel, which is greater than their differences among those who walk in that Spirit.

For the RC alternative to the most fundamental distinctive of the Reformation, that of Scripture being the supreme standard for Truth as the wholly inspired and accurate and sufficient (in formal and material aspects combined) Word of God, is sola ecclesia, that the Roman Church is the supreme autocratic authority, as Scripture, tradition and history only validly consists of and means what she says. But which means that, unlike Scripture, with men having the last word then she can essentially reinvent herself via interpretation, and which also fosters uncritically following exalted men. For RCs are not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences, as evangelicals are to, for to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth. Under which "It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906),

Which in one century this can mean being compelled to exterminate all those whom Rome judges to be “heretics,” and being forbidden to engage in public debate with the same, while in another it can mean affirming such as brethren, and with leaders taking part in Protestant services.

Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure,..that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church... — Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council, 1215; http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp

“We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”

“...when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defence of it to the clergy.” [who themselves needed due authorization].” - www.newadvent.org/cathen/05034a.htm

Rome, Italy, Feb 19, 2010 / 02:03 pm (CNA).- The president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Walter Kasper, announced this week that Pope Benedict XVI will visit the Evangelical Lutheran Church located in Rome on March 14 for an ecumenical celebration.

• "Exchange Christ, for Luther?

Which is an absurd false dilemma, as Luther did not deny the Trinity, while Protestants hardly can be said to follow him as if were a pope (most are quite ignorant of him), and in fact Luther was far more Catholic even after his break with Rome than most Protestants and especially evangelicals are. Even as to rejecting his doubts on James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation (which were ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible, which also contained the apocryphal books, if separately.

• the response is going to be, "But the Church is all believers in every church!"

Which, rather than being unScriptural, is clear teaching in Scripture, as only the body of Christ 100% consists of true believers, which is not the case with its visible bodies in which these believers express their faith as do tares. When the Spirit tells us that “Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it,” (Ephesians 5:25) and “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit,” (1 Corinthians 12:13) then it is not only referring to one particular church. Yet which is not opposed to the visible bodies in which these believers are to exist. As in the OT, the true people of God existed as a general body, under leaders but not an infallible magisterium. By just presuming the latter, let alone what flowed from it, Rome has disqualified herself as being the one true church, and compelled division. (1Co. 11:19)

Christianity exists as one general nation, with various tribes but manifest by general core beliefs, resulting in evangelicals being most targeted as a problem by the liberal world. Meanwhile Catholicism with Rome and her sects, and the EOs (with her significant dissent) compete with each other, as well as with sola ecclesia cults, for the title of one true church.

Moreover, as seen in the Lord's word to the churches in Rv. 2 and 3, the churches were quite diverse, and no mention is made of a pope to them. Nor does Scripture teach that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme infallible heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church. Or record any apostolic successors, like for James (Acts 12:1,2) after Judas, who was elected to maintain the original 12. (Rv. 21:14) Nor did they elect any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

The Catholic has just collided with an invisible force: Protestant oral tradition.

Here the sophist Pauline resorts to diverting attention away from the material basis for unScriptural teaching of his church, by going on the offensive in charging Protestantism with the fallacious charge of being based upon the “invisible force” of “oral tradition.” It is indeed basically an invisible force, for while there are “traditions” in Protestantism (weddings, etc.) the basis for any doctrines of required assent must be that of manifest Scriptural warrant. The established 66 book canon of Scripture is consistent with souls recognizing both men and writings as being of God, as is manifest in Scripture.

Other Roman Catholic apologists themselves attest to this, for when they are not vainly charging Protestants with following Luther as a pope, they charge them with division because their faith is based upon what they individually see in Scripture, and as excluding the magisterial office, and of requiring that all doctrine must be explicitly taught in Scripture, and that this is the only source they are to use. All which are strawmen which testify to the ignorance or desperation of dishonestly of such RC apologists.

• This provisional answer-which the Protestant does not even believe himself, although, while he is saying it, he thinks he does-is a dogmatic decree from this infallible Protestant magisterium, which furnishes whatever is needed at any given moment to attack Catholic teaching.

Which is increasingly ludicrous, as no Protestant can claim to possess the charism of infallibility, which is cultic for man, while the veracity of their claims must rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, or evidence as regards what they claim outside Scripture.

• This oral tradition is a manufactured, unbiblical body of teaching, and it is passed on from one generation to the next...whatever "denomination," a euphemism for "sect;" claims him at the moment

Which is more Roman recourse to argument by assertion, as in reality those who hold most strongly to the most basic distinctive Truth of the Reformation described above have overall been the strongest defenders of core Truths, including ones they hold in common with Catholics. Moreover, it is churches who are closest to Rome that are the most changeable and liberal in doctrine.

• The control over the Protestant exercised by that tradition is a secret, even to him. Its operation is protective and wholly negative. It protects Protestant dogma by preventing the Protestant from believing anything the Reformers denied. It is wholly negative in that while the Protestant Bible reader is indoctrinated and remains immersed in error, he is systematically trained to reject only one thing: the truth.

It is secret because it is a figment of Pauline's imagination or a product of her dishonest creative writing, as in fact, consistent with the fundamental premise of the supremacy of Scripture, evangelicals overall both affirm core Scriptural truths which Rome also professes, while rejecting things which Reformers held, as reformation is not the work of one day or two, but must continue. And RC apologists actually criticize Protestants for not being trained/indoctrinated, and appeal to them since they are not but can be persuaded by evidence, as RCs are not to be. But poor Pauline is much a papist by herself in her scornful extremism.

• He is free to accept only those few doctrines left after the ravages of the Reformation, e.g., the divinity of Christ, the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth of Christ.

Which is more absurdity, as not only does the Apostle' Creed see overall assent in historical Protestantism, but many more Truths, while one of the most typical charges by Roman Catholic apologists that the Protestant is free to believe anything!

• the Protestant speaks only of what he does not believe, and why

More lying or inexcusable ignorance, as the evangelical world far more abounds with classic commentaries supporting what is historically believed, as well as how to live it out. Concerning practical application, the extensive classic Matthew Henry's complete commentary is alone enough to refute the claims

• He does not believe what all Christendom believed for fifteen centuries: the divine institution of a visible Church founded on Peter and his successors, who, acting in his official capacity as head of the Church, is guaranteed not to mislead us, with a separate, sacrificing priesthood and seven sacraments, through which flows the sanctifying grace which enables us to share in the life of God, and eventually, enter heaven.

Rather, because the basis for Truth for the evangelical is not oral tradition as charged, but is instead the weight of Scriptural substantiation, then it rejects the accretions of tradition lists above. For in FACT there simply is no perpetually infallible papal office in Scripture (which even the tradition-intensive EOs reject), nor is ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility seen or promised or necessary in Scripture for the discernment and preservation of Truth and faith. With Scripture being the supreme standard, as is <a href="http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/2Tim_3.html#Partial ">abundantly evidenced.</a>

And which does not teach an infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy, or a separate, sacrificing priesthood, as instead what were ordained were presbuteros (senior/elder)/episkopos (superintendent/overseer), these denoting one office, (Titus 1:5-7) and which are NEVER called “hiereus” (priests) by the Holy Spirit, with the only sacrificing priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church being that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). See here.

And instead of dispensing bread or transubstantiated flesh and blood as part of their ordained function, which NT pastors are never described as doing in the life of the church, instead the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Act 6:3,4) "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:2) And which is what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Psalms 19:7; Acts 15:7-9)

Moreover, they are to baptize and take part in the Lord's supper, ordain pastors, anoint the sick, confess faults to each others, etc.

• Because of the barely-concealed but broad and enduring Gnostic streak in Protestantism, the Protestant recoils from the flesh, imagining that he receives his doctrines from what he calls "the Spirit," all the while obeying Luther,

Which is more absurd nonsense, as shown above. Pauline seems to think the more she can repeat her assertions then the more credibility they gain. Luther was actually closer to the Catholic conception of the Lord's Supper than Protestants overall today, while it is Rome which channels amorphous oral tradition into doctrine. Listen to Ratzinger explain the Assumption, which is lacking in early evidence:

Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative...Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared. This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts…

But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down in the original Word,” J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.

• Protestants consistently, habitually, and, wherever and whenever Protestant dogma is threatened, invariably allow their oral tradition to "supersede the Word."

Which is more vain repetitive Roman rhetoric, bombastic arguments by bare assertion, while the reality is that because the veracity of Protestant doctrine must rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, then the repetitive attacking the character of Luther has been in vain, and entire RC web sites have been devoted to compelling Scripture to support Rome in response to evangelicals. As that was the basis for RC doctrine, while in reality the goal of this appeal is to covert souls into implicitly assenting to what Rome promulgates as if she was Scripture.

• It is Luther's, and/or occasionally some other Reformer's, word which is living; where Protestant dogma is concerned, it is the Bible which is a dead letter.

Which is more ignorant or brainwashed nonsense or dishonesty, as explained before. No class of people personally reads the Bible more than evangelicals, those which hold most strongly to the most basic Protestant distinctive of the supremacy of Scripture, and which people show they are willing to seek to “prove all things” that are taught by that source. Which is what RC apologists criticize as a basis for assurance of Truth.

• The true role of the Bible in Protestantism remains a well kept secret It is a slave to the oral tradition.

More repetitive nonsense, no matter how comforting it is to Pauline and other papists.

• Those beliefs peculiar to Protestantism cannot be found in Holy Scripture. They are imparted solely by means of their oral tradition. The Bible is forced, whenever possible, to furnish support. It is never permitted to contradict the Reformers.

Another vain assertion, while instead the sad reality is more like, “those beliefs peculiar to Catholicism cannot be found in Holy Scripture. They are imparted solely by means of their oral tradition. The Bible is forced, whenever possible, to furnish support. It is never permitted to contradict the magisterium.” See here.

• The negative premise is sometimes disguised: "Faith alone" is a repudiation of everything else.

Another strawman, as sola fide refers to the faith itself which effects obedience is what actually appropriates justification, and thus one is accepted in the Beloved (Eph. 1:6) on His account, not his own merits. And thus Westminster (Chapter 11.2, Part Two) states, “faith is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces,” and like other reformers, in his Introduction to Romans, Luther stated that saving faith is, “a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!” [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]

• The "all sufficiency of Scripture for faith and life" is a repudiation of Christ's right to found a teaching Church and His right to delegate His own authority, plus a rejection of any authority but the hidden authority in Protestantism, perceived as the speaker's own.

Another strawman, as Westminster actually affirms: "It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm) For Scripture being supreme and sufficient as the standard for Truth and supplying it does not mean it alone is so formally sufficient so that it has a place in the believers life, but that is provides the Truth such as which validates and defines the teaching office, the use of reason, the witness of the Spirit, etc.

• It is a dismissal of the sacraments, a dismissal of sanctifying grace. It is a denial of man's need for sanctification. It is a rejection of all, in short, which the Reformers rejected.

But all of which the Reformers did not reject. Even after 1518 Luther was “quite clear that it is in and through the public performance of the sacramental signs in the visible Church that grace is bestowed on those who believe” — http://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/03/004-the-catholic-luther). Thus Protestants are not following “tradition” when they reject this means, and not all do. In addition, all are to uphold the need for grace and further sanctification, and exhortations to which abound in Protestantism.

• As I set forth in the following pages texts from Holy Scripture in support of Catholic doctrine and practices, the question might well arise: How do we know that those in the Primitive Church read the Bible text the way the Catholic Church interprets it? The answer is that there was no text to read. First there was the belief, taught orally

Which is absolutely absurd, and testifies to either more Catholic ignorance or the superfluous status afforded Scripture in the foundation of the church, or careless apologetics. For in reality, contrary to the RC magisterial model, in which the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture and recipients of Divine promises are the infallible authority to be followed, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) </p><p>

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Thus the oral preaching was subject to examination by the established word of God, the Scriptures, as the noble Bereans exampled. (Acts 17:11)

• The Church, whose human representatives spoke for her, had the authority; they instructed and directed the faithful. The first statement below is Our Lord's: And if he will not hear them, tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican (Mt 18:17);

And which here actually refers to personal disputes, and is nothing new, as this binding and loosing was also given to the OT magisterial authority in cases brought to it for judgment, (Dt. 17:8-13; cf. Mt. 18:15-20) disobedience to which was a capital offense. And which in the NT church in temporal matters is to be a wise man among the brethren. (1Cor. 6:1-4) And fathers and husbands are given some binding and loosing power in regards to daughters and wives respectively. (Num 30:3-7) Even valid civil authorities have a power to bind and loose, physically. (Rm. 13:1-7) .

Moreover, in spiritual matters the power to bind and loose can also be exercised by the righteous laity of fervent prayer (lacking with me): “Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 18:19) “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.” (James 5:16-18)

James is teaching that any righteous man can be like Elias who bound the heavens from raining for 3.5 years, and then loosed them again.

• Obey your prelates, and be subject to them (Heb 13:17, falsified in the KJV).

Another bare assertion, while in fact there is no real difference between her DRB (Obey your prelates and be subject to them) and the KJV here (Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves). There is no distinctive word for “prelates” versus rulers” as the Greek actually just says “Obey rulers/governors [hēgeomai] you and submit for he/they watch for your souls.

• What do Catholics mean when they say, "the Church"? According to St Robert Bellarmine, the Church is the visible society of the validly baptized faithful, united together in one organic body by the profession of the same Christian faith, by the participation of the same Sacrifice, and the same seven sacraments, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him.

Which testifies to RCs being the ones following oral tradition, not Protestants. As again the NT manifestly was not as Bellarmine describes. No supreme infallible head whom all the church looked to in Rome; no separate class of believers distinctively titled “priests,” offering up transubstantiated flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sins, to be literally consumed to gain spiritual and eternal life, around which sacrament all else revolved. No distinction in titles between presbuteros and episkopos, etc.

• During the very time her bishops were committing to paper the writing which we call the New Testament, as confirmed by that handy history of the apostolic age, the New Testament itself, the Church was a functioning organism.

Which testifies against Rome, while the NT was not a project of the magisterium, as inferred here, as it was not until 1400 years after the last book was penned, and after the death of Luther, that Rome provided an infallible, indisputable canon of the Bible. See here.

• Surviving documents of historians and the Church Fathers testify to the one Church with one set of unchanging doctrines, identical to those which have continued up to our time in the Catholic Church, despite the fact that the truth is constantly under attack.

More propaganda that the willingly deceived reiterate, while in reality even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against this propaganda, which in time past included forgeries to say what Scripture will not. The often claimed and “vowed “unanimous consent” of the fathers is far from “unanimous,” while the EOs even deny papal infallibility and degree of power, among other things, and the sects and schism in Roman Catholicism testify to her redefinition of doctrines.

Then you have the one true identifiable church in times before the Reformation:

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196).

And behold the unifying modern magisterium. As one poster wryly commented,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

• How shall we respond to the well-meaning Protestant's declaration that "the Church is all believers in every church"? It demands, as an answer, a question: "Why, then, should I go to a Protestant sect of your choosing? I am a believer, and therefore, according to the Protestant definition, I am a member of the Church." The Protestant will now solemnly assure you that one church is as good as another. The logical answer here would be: "That being true, you surely will have no objection if I continue to attend my own?"

What an absurd argument. As said before, the Church as the body of Christ, which is the one the Lord bought with His own sinless shed blood, does indeed consist of all believers, and only believers, but which is not contrary to the visible church in which they express their faith, as do tares.

And it certainly does not mean all churches are equal, which is why the modern evangelical movement arose.

• ...his conviction that the Church is invisible, is made up of all believers in every Protestant church, and that it is actually one Protestant church which, in his estimation, is-more or less-as good as another,

More absurdity from a strawman.

• .And if you point out to him that no church founded by a creature can possibly be equal to one founded by the Son of God,

Which is simply begging the question again, which presumption is what this attempted polemic proceeds from. And itself proceeds from the RC basis for your assurance of truth, which is that of the ensured magisterial veracity of Rome. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

. The RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.

Which effectively nukes the church. All for now.