What I'm trying to do is demonstrate why we don't need (faith-wise) an infallible human body to give us Scripture.No Catholic would disagree with your last three sentences here. At all.
my faith rests not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
we walk by faith, not by sight.
faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
I won't comment on this again, because it's yet another example of different definitions.But - assuming for the moment the point that there are definitional differences - they cannot both be right. And consequently this is something that is entirely worth discussing. We may be unable to come to an accord, but we won't know if we do not try.
You appear to attack our trust in God's Word based on the fact that we have faith in what cannot be proven on this earth. Yet it is BECAUSE it cannot be proven on this earth that we call it "faith".Then you haven't yet understood what I'm saying (and not only me, but others as well). I will try again. The question has nothing to do with whether it is proper to have faith in Christ or not: obviously it is (and it is essential). The question has to do with the reason why we have that faith. The question for the Protestant is: why should the Bible be treated as the Word of God? If you get to the point that you can rationally explain this, then you can continue to where you address the consequences of the fact that the Bible is the Word of God. But how do you know that it is? On what grounds? If you can't come up with an answer to that question that isn't viciously circular, then it doesn't seem to me that you have much reason to believe that it is the Word of God at all.
A secondary problem is that - even if you somehow establish this, it remains that a book is not a judge. It's a book. It cannot and will not adjudicate between two (or more) conflicting positions for you. Instead, some person or other will do it. On what grounds do you say that this person's judgment as to the content of the Bible is even reliable?
Assuming that you can resolve these questions, then it may be reasonable to continue forward to faith in God, whom you cannot see. But to confuse that kind of faith - the faith that believes the things that God has revealed - things that we are not able to "see" on our own because we are unable to attain to them by our reason - with a "faith" that just blindly believes the Bible to be God's Word without a sound reason for it - is a mistake.
Again: this is not to say that the faith of Protestants in Christ is invalid if they can't answer these questions. It just means that they haven't thought through things to realize the inconsistency of their faith in Christ (which I certainly presume is genuine) with the sandy foundation of a belief in the Bible that has no rational grounds. By way of a trivial example: It's like a fat man who (correctly) believes that he ought to diet because he is convinced (incorrectly) that thin people get fewer traffic tickets. The real reason he ought to do it is that it's unhealthy to be overweight. He's doing the right thing, but his reasons are wrong. Very roughly speaking, the Protestant has faith in Christ - which is the right thing - but his reasons for doing so are mistaken, and do not really justify that faith, because he has no good reason to believe that the Bible is the Word of God.