I realize that you are being true to form, and your recourse to blithe dismissal of what refutes you is typical, but i assure you i do far more than simply cutting and pasting of arguments, though i do tend to substantiate or supplement what i write, directly or by links, while your own argument is hardly original:
1) Do you deny that God chose otherwise ordinary men to record the infallible and inerrant written Word?
No: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21)
2) Do you deny God's ability to choose other otherwise ordinary men to defend and inerrantly and infallibly interpret His word?
No: "...our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased." (Psalms 115:3) Yet consistent with what is written, it does not assure infallible interpretations based upon Rome's criteria which renders whatever it speaks to be so, even though it may declare infallible truths, if Scriptural, and thus we agree on some core truths. But your question does not prove your particular premise, but must allow others to also defend and inerrantly and infallibly interpret His word. The issue is the basis for assurance.
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?
As canonized by Rome, like the Orthodox (at least in this regard), NO, but as 66 books being progressively manifest as God-breathed, yes, like as my affirmation of the existence of God does not rest upon Rome's say so but His manifestation of Himself.
Most of the Divine writings were established by the time of Christ as being such, and thus the references to the tripart Palestinian canon, (Lk. 24:44) and which was not the result of a formal action of men, but like true men of God, they were established as being from God due to their unique qualities and the attestation and witness God gave them. And which is the only way the rest of the writings of the 66 books of the Bible could be progressively established as such. The church can formally affirm things like Christ's Divinity, as well as the books of Scripture as being inspired by Him, but their enduring acceptance is due to them being what they are and effecting what faith in them does. The church which is of the living God, and consists of those begotten by His word of truth, (Ja. 1:18; 1Cor. 12:13) provides witness to the Divine inspiration of the 66 books of the Bible, partly by manifesting effects which correspond to its claims, not simply declaring it is.
As your argumentation for Rome being the infallible interpreter appeals to the omnipotence of God, so does the establishment of His writings by the aforementioned means, and is consistent with how He established men of God from Moses to John the Baptist as being just that.
However, Rome had no infallible canon until over 1400 years after the last book was written, with debate among scholars continuing right into Trent, and its canon was not exactly the same as Carthage, nor is it the same as that of the Orthodox. Thus your argument would not be valid prior to Trent, and that you had an infallible church without an infallible canon (argue as you might that it was) is telling.
4) Are you infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is infallible?
More than i can be certain that Rome is the infallible interpreter, and as much as i can certain its interpretations are infallible, insomuch as Scripture clearly declares such. And anyone who even affirms that there is a God could be declaring infallible truth.
5) If you are certain your interpretation of Scripture is infallible can you assert that this ability is reserved only to you?
NO, or for Rome; though as said, I even allow that Rome can teach infallible Truth. The issue is the basis for such a claim, demonstrable Scriptural substantiation and manifest warrant, or that one is assured infallibility when it speaks according to its infallibly defined (content and scope-based) formula. Such may claim Scriptural warrant but its claim to infallibility does not rest upon it.
6) If you are not certain that your interpretation is infallible what use to you is an infallible Bible without an infallible interpreter?
As much use as it was the Jews for centuries before Rome. And as regards interpretations i would not hold as infallible, which would be substantial, an infallible Bible provides me a source by which God can lead me into truth, and which source materially includes the magisterium of the body of Christ, but which they also must submit to, rather than presuming authority over all.
Meanwhile, although Scripture teaches one can know that they presently have eternal life based upon Scriptural criteria, (1Jn. 5:13) you claim an infallible magisterium which has defined very little, nor you cannot be sure that you are giving the required assent of faith to all that Rome has infallible spoken, as you cannot be sure how many times she has. More in post 36.
Moreover, you are allowed varying degrees of dissent in non-fallible teachings, as well as on things not taught on, and the things Catholics can legitimately disagree on is very substantial, while the prolixity of prelates adds more of a burden. “Alexander III is said to have issued thirty-nine hundred and thirty-nine decrees and Innocent II over five thousand." (General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law, p. 42), while the papal "Bulls" just from 540 to 1857 fills forty-one volumes.
You are going to have to do a lot better than that.
Indeed i have and did so again, by God's grace, though a Catholic who showed he could reasonably interact would have been preferable. But thanks (honestly) for the questions.
d12: No: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21)"
It's pretty telling that you omitted the preceding verse, 2 Peter 1:20, which provides the context for your quote. It states: "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation". The verse you then cited, 2 Peter 1:21, simply establishes that it is not the men talking, but the Holy Spirit, providing the interpretations.
Since the Holy Spirit is inerrant. Since you are not willing to state that your interpretations are inerrant and infallible, only that is less so in comparison to "Rome" (as determined by little old fallible you) then you are admitting that in every dispute of interpretation and doctrine between and among Protestants is proof that at least one of them is not being guided by the Holy Spirit. Since there are literally thousands of differing Protestant Interpretations and doctrines, which is the "Golden Denomination" to which all others should heed.
The rest of your prattle was simply an overly wordy regurgitation of "yes, but not Rome". I get that the basis of a fringe Protestant's doctrine is established by its contrast with Catholic doctrine, and the greater the differences the better, but if you are not even going to be honest about Scripture and won't address legitimate questions with cogent answers I really can't see any reason to continue discussing this with you.