Actually, rather than parroting a refuted RC polemic, if you had read and been able to comprehend what i wrote in this thread, then you might have understood how truth is established, which is not by Rome’s self-proclamation nor simply someone claiming they are infallible.
The modern-day Berean cannot claim either, but can only point them to the only material authority that is wholly inspired of God - which is not a perpetual promise that a pope will be - and seek to persuade them by manifestation of the truth.
Which is not the same as the implicit assent to your supreme magisterium you must require in order to have assurance of truth.
I read what you wrote and, while I agree it may make perfect sense to you, it is in fact laughable.
You are going to have to do a lot better than that. Snippets cut form websites and links to your own website stuffed with cut and paste arguments don't carry much weight. Merely declaring an argument refuted doesn't make it so. I will dumb it down so that even you can get it and give you another chance to refute it. (note: Your compatriots have already punted):
1) Do you deny that God chose otherwise ordinary men to record the infallible and inerrant written Word?
2) Do you deny God's ability to choose other otherwise ordinary men to defend and inerrantly and infallibly interpret His word?
3) Do you declare that the Bible, as canonized by men acting under the direction of the Holy Spirit, is an infallible collection of infallible works?
4) Are you infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is infallible?
5) If you are certain your interpretation of Scripture is infallible can you assert that this ability is reserved only to you?
6) If you are not certain that your interpretation is infallible what use to you is an infallible Bible without an infallible interpreter?
NL's statement make sense -- if you say that your interpretation is infallible, then why isn't the interpretation of the Church as a whole infallible?
And if your interpretation is infallible, then how come your interpretation on a fundamental belief like the Trinity differs from the Unitarians or the Oneness Pentecostals?
how come your interpretation on a fundamental belief like baptism for the remission of sins differs from the Lutherans?