Certainly, and i did not suggest the church acts that way, but stated it as fact. And only those usually referred to as "cult" operate that way, as no Protestant declares that he is infallible whenever he speaks to all on faith and morals, as the pope presumes, nor can he otherwise claim that his interpretation is and will be right in any conflict, so the history is whatever he says it is.
A Prot may assert he is right, but only on the basis of the weight of Scriptural substantiation, by which the Lord and the church established their claims in dissent from those who, like Rome, presumed for themselves above that which was written. Thus Westminster, while upholding the office of the magisterium, yet makes its truth claims subject to demonstrable evidences from Scripture.
Only by listening to a straw man version of SS can Prots be charged with being little popes, and the pope is the epitome of the supremacy of the individual. Who can oppose him when he speaks infallibly?
And as for
Does any Protestant act differently then you just suggested the Church acts? Look at [any Protestant’s] posts [ever]. [They] insist Peter is not the Rock...
Sure, there are plenty who deny Peter was the rock referred to in Mt. 16:18, based on not only on scholarly analysis of Scripture, but of history, and in which we find Catholic scholar of substance concurring.
Let me know when you want them, but RCs are not encouraged to enage in subjective examination to ascertain the truth, as they believe Rome's version, and that (as said) the corporate entity that was the instrument of Divine revelation and steward of it, and inheritor of Divine promises of God's presence and preservation, and having historical descent, is necessarily the infallible interpreter of it. But which is not the case.
“And only those usually referred to as “cult” operate that way, as no Protestant declares that he is infallible...”
I see plenty of Protestants here insisting that what isn’t true is true merely on their claims of correctly interpreting the scriptures. There is no substantiation from scripture. It is simply whatever the Protestant wants it to be. There was a Protestant once who insisted Mary was not at the foot of the cross. When I pointed out that John says otherwise in his gospel, the Protestant insisted he didn’t have to believe that because John is but one witness and scripture demands two for the sake of proof. That’s Protestantism - make it up and claim you got it from scripture.
“Sure, there are plenty who deny Peter was the rock referred to in Mt. 16:18, based on not only on scholarly analysis of Scripture, but of history, and in which we find Catholic scholar of substance concurring.”
No. First, there is no scriptural evidence that Peter is not the Rock. Only those who wish to deny the authority of the papacy deny that Peter is the Rock. There are no arguments from history that Peter is not the Rock. And about Catholic scholars denying Peter is the Rock - I would be happy to see the evidence of that as soon as you deal with the Protestants scholars about which I posted earlier. Something tells me I might never see anything about those Catholic scholars.
“Let me know when you want them, but RCs are not encouraged to enage in subjective examination to ascertain the truth,”
We are encouraged to make objective examinations. What would be the point of any subjective examinations since that could never rise above opinion?
“as they believe Rome’s version, and that (as said) the corporate entity that was the instrument of Divine revelation and steward of it, and inheritor of Divine promises of God’s presence and preservation, and having historical descent, is necessarily the infallible interpreter of it. But which is not the case.”
Actually it is the case. You keep proving it.