I told you I am not a theologian, a priest/minister, a teacher, a philosopher, or a scholar. If I have avoided questions, I lack the competence to answer them.
I have no ability to lay out a comprehensive argument against infallibility; but nothing I have ever read convinces me that the Pope - or any human being - is infallible on any subject.
Nevertheless, I am a reasonably intelligent person with the willingness and capability of reading the Bible and asking the Holy Spirit for guidance. My responsibility, my desire, and my joy is doing just that.
Although I respect the RCC, I do not wish to belong to an organization that makes such a claim. To me such a claim is dangerous. You may be willing to place your faith (and your soul) in the leaders of the RCC, but I am not. I will never allow someone I do not know to decide the truth of faith.
When I joined my current church, I promised that I would accept the guidance of the church. I made the promise but I did so with the reservation (which I communicated to the clergy) that I would listen to the teachings of the church and consider them prayerfully, carefully, and thoughtfully but would not accept them unless I could reconcile those teachings with those which I read to be the truth of Scripture.
If I am wrong - and I very well may be, as I am a very fallible human being - I will stand before Divine judgment and answer for my own errors. But those errors will be mine. I will not try to evade responsibility with the claim that I only believed what someone “taught” me.
The question of individual moral discernment and the primacy of “conscience” applies to dogma as much as to anything else. This means that, just as I would expect someone who thought representative republics to be evil would leave the US and renounce his citizenship, so someone who rejected some “de fide” proposition ought to leave the Catholic Church.
When I speak of “questions” I often mean the difficult issues that follow from a statement. E.g.: Catholics shuck and jive over grace and merit; a great many Protestants shuck and jive over the Letter of James. To me, taking a theological position sometimes seems to come down to where I'm the most comfortable shucking and jiving, hemming and hawing.
But of course, theology isn't everything. There's justice and there's devotion. These battles on FR necessarily neglect those things.
Here's an alleged thought: when our car doesn't work or our child is very ill, we do not balk at consulting experts. With a very sick child (BTDT) we'll consult many experts and consider many opinions.
What makes theology different? I'm a very mediocre scholar at best but I read in many theologians and consider not only Luther and Calvin but even atheists. I can't walk around every question or probe and explore the nooks and crannies of every issue. So I “take advice,” as we all do on big, complicated, lumpy issues. And finally I decide whose advice I will accept.
But, it seems, only in questions about God do people say that they haven't discussed the issues or read many other opinions and consider that a kind of confirmation of the sureness of their views.
It's especially interesting in the light of what we find in Acts, Corinthians, and Ephesians about teaching and teachers. Those who claim great conformity to Scripture seem to gloss over a clear sense of a teaching role and position and its implication of people whose role is to be taught.