Yes.
Another example of contradiction between Catholics, and of your supremacy:
Cardinal Belarmine, one of the most learned, able, and famous of Roman Catholic divines (canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1930, and declared a Doctor of the Universal Church in 1931), disagrees:
"No one can be certain, with the certainty of faith, that he receives a true sacrament, because the sacrament cannot be valid without the intention of the minister, and no man can see another's intention " (" Disput. Controv. De Justine." III. Viii. 5).
"More than i can be certain that Rome is the infallible interpreter..."
How? What makes your interpretations more accurate than 90%+ of Protestantism and 100% of Catholicism?
If you read you should know i claimed infallibility on a very basic level which Rome could exercise as well. To again explain, whatever certitude i have of my infallibility is based upon clear attestation, by God's grace, such as in that God is real and has communicated to certain souls in the Bible. Or that Jesus Christ died and rose again, and other like basic truths based upon clear Scriptural attestation. And which ability is not exclusive to me, but if Rome or whoever affirms such then they are speaking infallibly, being exempt from the possibility of error in this. We hold these truths to be self-evident.
However, i find no such Scriptural assurance that perpetually whatever the Roman Catholic magisterium speaks on faith and morals will always be infallible when she speaks in accordance with her content and scope-based criteria. Instead, i see God preserving the faith by raising up men to reprove by Scripture those who sat in Moses seat who presumed to teach doctrines that did not rest on Scriptural warrant and conflation. (Mk. 7:6-13) And that apostolic authority in the kingdom of God was not established by self-declaration but by demonstrable Scriptural conformity and attestation, and who persuaded souls by “manifestation of the truth.” (Acts 17:2,11; 28:23; 2Cor. 4:2; 6:1-10; 12:12)
Your premise is that an infallible book is little to no use without an infallible interpreter, though Scripture affirms those who subjected apostolic teaching to the test of it to determine its veracity, but you failed to answer if your understandings of Rome's infallible definitions are infallible, while your judgment on which parts of Rome's pronouncements are infallible, as well as how many there are, apparently is not.
Also, how many and which Bible verses have been infallibly interpreted?
Is your assent of faith to the magisterium's infallible teachings based upon an infallible judgment concerning her worthiness of this?
Is not your level of certitude in these things dependent upon interpretation, as is what the Bible means for us?
"And if you have certainty that the Pope has only spoken ex cathedra twice, do you claim greater ability than Roman Catholic apologists and clergy who disagree with you?"
Infallibility only applies to issues of faith and morals, not Church history so the Catholic apologists and clergy you are referring are inherently fallible> I cannot speak for them, I can only cite actual Church history.
A pope has only spoken "ex cathedra" two times. It was first formally invoked in 1854 by Pope Pius IX with the declaration of the Immaculate Conception. The second time was by Pope Pius XII when he affirmed the Assumption of Mary into Heaven in 1950.
This has something to do with faith and morals, as despite an infallible interpreter you are not infallibly certain in your understanding of her, which is what you charge is the problem with us as regards the Scriptures, most of which you have extensive liberty to interpret yourself using your own judgment.
More questions:
Is your understanding of infallibility infallible?
Do you deny we can have certitude, excluding all real doubt of a truth, by holding to the supremacy of Scripture (and which does not negate the need for the magisterium).
Does 1Jn. 5:13 offers knowing that you presently have eternal life, based upon Scriptural criteria? Can you affirm that the basic truth of the existence of God may be known with certainty apart from Rome?
Is assent to PI necessary to be a Christian, and saved?
How can a non-infallible Catholic have certitude that what Rome said is infallible in order to render the required assent of faith to all her definitions, when your own judgment as to how many instances the pope exercised PI disagrees with the judgment of men such as Cardinals Ratzinger and Bertone, Catholic theologian, church historian Klaus Schatz, Roman Catholic apologists such as Jimmy Akin and Phil Vaz, or Roman Catholic priest Leslie Rumble, among others who disagree with you in your interpretation of church history and pronouncements, which they also cite.
Therefore Rome's infallible interpreter does not solve the problem of varying interpretations, and of some uncertainty, nor is it necessary for certitude or salvation, even though cultic implicit faith in her is trumpeted as superior to any qualified certainty and assent, based on clear evidence, to certain truths explicitly expressed on Scripture.
If you are going to continue to cut and paste your responses you need to cite the sources. Copyright infringement is a form of theft.
I find your claim of limited infallibility complete disingenuous. Infallibility is a binary property; you are either infallible or you are not, and clearly are not.
You continue to tell me that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be conferred on the Catholic Church, yet you demand that I concede that ability to you as a condition of your preaching to me. While I will concede your motives may be inerrant your message isn't.
Catholics believe that when Jesus founded His Church he endowed it with the ability and the mission to compile canon, preserve, defend, and teach the Revealed Word. God, in former times, clothed his Apostles with power far more exalted. They were endowed with gifts of working miracles, of prophecy, and inspiration; they were the mouthpiece communicating God's revelation, of which the Church is merely the custodian. God made men the instrument of his revealed Word just as he made other the Church its infallible guardian and interpreter. So let's just agree to disagree.
Now go in peace to love and serve the Lord.