Even among RCs, and some ambiguity. But i do not think l am operating out of a misconceptions about this dogma.
But I think the way to illustrate the problem of your position is to ask you: Can you list the dogma/doctrine that you hold to that are fallible?
You first, since its your claim to assured infallibility, while a list of fallible doctrines would be that which is not included as infallible.
You see such things as your infallible church infallibly teaching such a thing as the Assumption of Mary, though not recorded or foretold in Scripture, and lacking even early support in tradition. But which is held as assuredly true based upon the premise of the assured infallibility of Rome.
Meanwhile, not that even a donkey can speak infallible truth, but what is at issue is the gift of infallibility that is assured under a scope and subject-based criteria.
I do see the infallible Scriptures teaching they are the infallible rule and supreme standard for faith, as literally wholly being the assured word of God.
And thus as teaching (minimum)
the literal nature of historical accounts
the truths expressed by the Apostle's Creed, including God as creator consisting of Father, Son and Spirit all possessing the same Divine nature,
the reality of biblical miracles
the virgin birth of Jesus Christ
his sinless lift and vicarious atonement for sin
his bodily resurrection from the dead
his judgment of the elect as well as the lost, and the eternal bliss of believers and eternal punishment of the wicked.
salvation by faith (albeit a faith that effects obedience) versus formal justification by ones own holiness and salvation obtained on the basis of works meriting it.
baptism in confessing faith in the risen Lord Jesus
prayer to Heaven being to the Lord alone, not Mary, etc.
I did. See previous.
What is your list?
This is a good example of your doctrine. Is it a fallible or infallible doctrine?