Not correct, actually - you've misunderstood me. I am arguing that God does not delegate His incommunicable attributes.
See - He communicated His attribute of infallibility when the writers of Scripture were inscribing the Holy Writ. Now, He didn't confer infallibility on them per se, but the Holy Spirit protected them from error - much as He protects the Magisterium.
God does not speak to His people through revelation after the death of Apostles because by the time the last of them died, He had already communicated to us, through the inspired writings of Scripture, all of the infallible teaching we would need to obtain salvation through His sacrifice on the cross and live lives of pleasing service to Him - the Word made flesh.
Public revelation is absolutely ended - I could not agree more. However, the Scripture does not speak to every issue we face today, or will face tomorrow; nor is it explicitly clear on each point it does contain. We need to interpret it and understand it, and to do both without error, lest we stray from the Truth. It is difficult to believe He would leave us each an island in understanding His Writ, relying solely upon ourselves to understand His will; Truth is Truth, and it does not vary. There cannot be a multitude of correct answers to a given question - like Him, there is only One. Thus, if He has given us an infallible book, why would He not give us an infallible teacher?
That Scripture, recognized as such in its own time and by the early church immediately after its composition, has been divinely preserved as the only infallible source of instruction and edification for God's people everywhere down through the centuries to the present day. Praise God!
Scripture used today by Protestants differs from the Scripture used by the early Church - I pray you understand that. Further, nowhere do I find in Scripture that it is the sole source for instruction. But, definitely Praise God! :-)
A discussion of the teachings of the Roman church and its tradition I believe to be contradiction of Holy Scripture would take many, many threads...and they would probably have to be "Open" ones, at that, not "Ecumenical" ones. On that note, out of deference to the spirit of the thread, I'll say no more on this matter, as the intention of my original post was merely to point out that the ecumenical nature of the thread was no excuse for equivocating or mincing words to camouflage fundamental differences in views.
Fair enough, and I appreciate your ecumenical tone in our discussion. I hope we can continue this conversation elsewhere!
I appreciate your taking up this question in such a clear and agreeable way. I’d gone to bed.