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?
It has to do with comprehension, or a tendency to fail to read carefully, and supposes that nothing was said regarding as to why some things Rome says can be considered as infallible truth, while we both allow some disagreement in other things, and on what tends to characterizes those who deny the core truths we both agree on. But at least you showed you read some.