Good job, daniel. Obviously not able to be refuted based on the response.
I never claimed to be infallible in my interpretations. Scripture is inerrant and infallible, a claim Catholicism makes so I don’t see why MY also acknowledging that should be an issue.
Of course you didn't. That has been my point from the beginning.
Maybe it would be easier for you to understand if I use an analogy.
You know what an analogy is, right?
What you are saying is:
I know this car runs, even if it's not running right now. (the bible is infallible)
I don't know everything there is to know about cars. (I am not infallible.)
YOU don't know everything there is to know about cars. (the Catholic Church is not infallible)
Now this is where you go off the rails: in order for you to be able to honestly say I don't know all there is to know about cars, you really DO have to know all there is to know about cars.
You are demonstrating the same well known (and admitted by honest ones) flaw of atheist thought. They assert there is no God, but readily admit they are not omniscient. But by admitting they are not omniscient, they admit they can't say with 100% confidence there is no God, because he could be hiding behind any of those things the atheist doesn't know.
This is all such well travelled ground in religious discussion, to deny it is to mark oneself a functional illiterate on the subject.