The Church does not teach that an infallible Magesterium is “required” or “necessary” to know the things of God,
You are jumping in here while being ignorant of the premise i was refuting, which was that without an infallible magisterium then we could not know what was of God. Thus such questions like , "ince nobody is infallible, how do you know that's really true?" like that the Apostle John really explicitly wrote something.
While this may not be what you interpret Rome as teaching, yet as i had just provided , Cardinal Avery Dulles did claim ,
"People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high."
And the Catholic Encyclopedia asserted,
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..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
The whole argument is that the Cath magisterium has uniquely received the revelation from on high, only by which can we really know what Divine revelation consists of and means, thus we need faith in this intermediary authority to correctly know what the word of God is and means.
Since your take is contrary to what was being argued against by my response, then your claim of a strawman indicts fellow RCs, not me. But while you allow souls being correct without an infallible magisterium, other RCs would argue it is essential for authority and to really know Truth For if souls could be correct without the magisterium, then the censure of "private interpretation" and disallowance of dissent loses force, and some preachers may really be of God though not sanctioned by them as such. Which some RCs find intolerable and can quote RC teaching to support it.
What you need to provide is the basis for the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.
Many other RCs basically argue that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential 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.
While this may not be what you interpret Rome as teaching, yet as i had just provided , Cardinal Avery Dulles did claim ,
"People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high."
Let's be precise in our terminology. What the Catholic Church is indeed claiming is that, to discover ALL of the revelation God has revealed to mankind, all of it, not just a portion, then it is NOW necessary to have an infallible magisterium.
What I said before isn't inconsistent with this, as it is indeed possible for God to have:
A. Revealed Himself to whomever He chose in the OT, to fulfill his plan of Salvation for mankind, through mankind.
B. While He was here on Earth, in the flesh, obviously an "infallible magisterium" was NOT required since He was here. He was the source of infallibility then, since He is, even just by definition "infallible"
C. Now that He has ascended to heaven, and has revealed all there is to reveal to mankind (there is no more revelation to receive, the faith was "deposited" with the Apostles at Pentecost), *now* there exists a need for a magisterium to "know all things there is to know" about God, and thus we have statements like Cardinal Dulles'.
I hope this clarifies things.
What you need to provide is the basis for the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.
First of all, it's "unscriptural" in your opinion. You (among others) have been provided ample Scriptural evidence for the establishment of a visible Church government. You have simply rejected it, claiming it's unscriptural, because it contradicts Scripture elsewhere. Again, in your opinion.
The first part of your request (namely "provide...the basis for the NOVEL...premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility...", emphasis added) is reasonable however, and that basis is given, I believe, in post 34. I have not seen anyone refute the logic there in this thread. If you would like to have a go at it feel free.