It’s never been the promise of the Church to say her leadership wouldn’t disappoint....
But the doctrine of infallibility assures men will not disappoint under certain conditions. The problem is that this formulaic assured infallibility is neither taught nor required in Scripture. But you believe it, based upon the premise of the assured 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 only promise they keep is that they, as a body (not as individuals) would never teach, corporately and cooperatively, error on faith or morals.
No, Rome does indeed promise individuals would never teach, corporately and cooperatively, error on faith or morals, that being the pope under the said conditions. Yet which is not what Scripture teaches, but which is extrapolated based upon false premises referred to in my last post to you.
You demand Scriptural proof of an infallible magisterium but when given to you by other Catholics you reject it because you don’t agree with it. You don’t agree with it because you reject the idea of an infallible magisterium to begin with.
I can see no further reason to go around in this circle with you. Either you accept from your own experience that human beings need a final tangible authority to settle matters of dispute, and that Jesus knows this need which is why he established the church the way he did, or you don’t. You don’t agree that God uses humans to teach humans. You don’t agree that Tradition actually generated Scripture, (both new and old testaments) you don’t agree that there is any need for a teaching authority despite your protestations (no pun intended) to the contrary.
What function does a teaching authority serve if, at a certain point in a study of Scripture you come to a point where you disagree with your teachers? Your elders? You may submit to them or you might not, citing the Bible as your reason to disagree. And then you leave that church to find or found another and the process starts all over again.
Your teachers are mere figureheads, at the mercy and whim of their flock. The pastor doesn’t fulfill his role of Shepard in that scenario, he’s a man of popularity. Trying to please as many as possible in his congregation so they don’t all leave or throw him out. After all, it’s their right to do so, if the pastor doesn’t follow the Bible (ie, do what the congregation THINKS the Bible says).
There’s no real submission there. There’s no real authority. There’s no vulnerability on the part of the people who are unwilling to say, “You know what, I might just be wrong and can’t see it. I may never be able to see how I’m wrong but I’m willing to trust in my elders over my own opinion”.
There’s none of that. And there should be. Or else tradition and history and a teacher, all appointed and given by God, have no meaning.
The Bible can’t be the sole rule on matters of faith, all of human history proves all this does is not only allow, but encourage individuals to ignore history and tradition whenever it suits them, eventually citing Scripture as the reason for fragmentation. As I’ve said to another if that kind of disorder and rebelliousness is what you believe God intends for his “invisible church” so be it. It just doesn’t work for me, as a believer who’s also a human being.