Rather than interacting with what i wrote, your reply is another rant that ignores the very points i first made in response to you (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2831799/posts?page=1410#1410), which refutes the premise that SS renders one assuming infallibility, while pointing out that the Catholic himself “makes a fallible decision to submit to Rome, which use of fallible human reasoning he also engages in when interpreting what Rome has taught, including which teachings are indeed infallible in which was are not, in which he cannot be absolutely sure.” Thus we both claim infallible authorities as supreme, but not assuredly infallible interpretations of them.
Instead you want to me to deal with the posts of individuals, which solves nothing, as the real issue is the premise you rage against. If you you want to engage in reasoned exchange on that, than do so, if not, your broadbrushed immature run ons warrant no more of a response than those of atheists may.
After that portion, everything is simply more noise to pretend that discussion is being attempted. Let's try one very simple question at a time. Do you believe that the Pope of the Catholic Church is now or at some point in the future will be either the prophet of the AntiChrist or the AntiChrist? I don't see how it's the least bit unreasonable for any Catholic to know at least that much about what an obvious anti-Catholic believes prior to discussing anything with them.
If someone won't answer some very simple questions prior to engaging in conversation there is no reason to believe they want to have a conversation or that they are in fact a reasonable person worthy of engaging in conversation. Those who will not answer such simple questions are in reality saying, "yes, birds of a feather flock together, but I like to pretend I'm not really one of the vultures".