I take your point re: the difference between saying “it is true” and saying “I believe it is true.” However, the point only has force in the context of a misguided, modern, positivistic hermeneutic that separates “truth” from “belief.” Augustine would never have allowed that.

This is a side discussion, however, and for the purposes of my primary point, I am fine with substituting Augustine’s formulation of belief because of the church’s testimony.

And you should realize that your view of the church is, in fact, pretty much that of Rome’s at the time of the Reformation. The opponents of the reformers were greatly concerned with “the right order and smooth function of the tradition,” especially “in the minds of the laity.” And “It is true because the church says it is” is even stronger than Augustine’s dictum that he believed in the Scriptures because the church testified to their truth. Yes, the testimony of the church often is a strong persuader to belief, but it is not the reason the truth is true. To take a legal analogy, is a fact true because a witness says it is? No, the fact in itself is either true or not. But the court believes it because of the credibility of the witness. There is an important categorical, modal difference between “I believe because the church says it is true” and “It is true because the church says so.” It is on the basis of the latter principle that Rome has established its dogmas of Mary and the saints, which are above question because the church says so.

And again, I’m writing this more for catharsis, since clearly the moderators are not interested in posting any of the challenges I am trying to present to the critics.