When those who interpret Scriptures to suit themselves come to a direct quote of Jesus Christ that doesn't agree with their own interpretation of Scriptures, is it the infallible opinion of the interpreter that Jesus Christ lied or that Jesus Christ was too stupid to say what He meant?
Among the infallible who interpret Scriptures to suit themselves are many churches that ordain queers and claim their own infallible interpretation of Scriptures proves that ordaining queers is a good thing. If an infallible interpreter of Scriptures has their own personal interpretation of Scriptures that doesn't approve of ordaining queers, why isn't the fact that such infallible interpreters of Scriptures insist that Jesus Christ couldn't make Himself clearly understood reason enough to admit that ordaining queers might be just fine since Christ couldn't say what he meant?
When an infallible interpreter of the Bible denies that Jesus Christ said what he meant, does that mean that Christ was stupid, that the interpreter has special secret knowledge, that the interpreter is so much smarter than Christ that the interpreter can divine the true meaning even though Christ misspoke, or that the Bible does contain errors but only those errors the infallible interpreter defines as they see fit based on their own personal interpretation of Scriptures?
That entire paragraph looks to impress on a person that somehow the magisterium is infallible which is totally illogical. There is none infallible but God. The Holy Spirit was promised to every believer. If anything anyone believes contradicts even one portion of scripture the interpretation must be considered in error. Just as the requirement for baptism for salvation contradicts much of scripture or unmarried leadership in churches contradicts scripture.