[daniel1212]

There is a strain of Protestantism that has it more or less correct, as the Joint Catholic-Lutheran Statement of Justification showed. With them I do not argue...

That is good, however, it places you at odds with other defenders of Rome, but that, along with multitude other examples, is part of the diverse fruit of Rome

Also, I do not defend fallible Catholics but the Holy Catholic Church.

And some you disagree with express the same in disallowing other interpretations of what Rome teaches.

>declared herself infallible<

Matthew 18:18, Acts 20:28.

Which ignores what i said, as this in an interpretation which only has authority because according to Rome's interpretation (decree) only her interpretation can be correct in any conflict. That is the basis for RC assurance, not Scripture, else they would be as Protestants.

> i see not even an acknowledgment of your error<

Because there is no error.

If you cannot see what your error was, plus continue to fight a straw man, then maybe you are too overwhelmed and this has gone on long enough, while the fraud remains that of Rome. I have other things waiting.

[annalex]

this in an interpretation which only has authority because according to Rome's interpretation (decree) only her interpretation can be correct in any conflict.

Well, read our Bear friend interpretation, posted nearby, and try not to laugh.