cul-de-sac. I just went into how that one came about. We both had a hand in it, but you led the way when restating what I HAD said giving it meaning you ascribed to the situation, not I, for what I was hoping to communicate was as I said --- not a thing of simple yes/no on/off dichotomy.
Which renders what "you get" as to what I recognize or not, far wide of the marks, other than for myself to have pointed towards infallibility being not a thing guaranteed to men, even the original ekklesia we see formed in the NT.
If that not be true, (to engage in some of the 'ol "if this-then that" logic exercise) then Paul would not have written as he did; Galatians 1
Do you see there, reading in between the lines of scripture (if other biblical derived principles can come to mind also even as relating to the above) that Paul is pointing towards the possibility he may go off-track?
He absolutely did not say, "unreservedly trust always those who come after both Peter and myself and the rest of the Apostles and original disciples".
Nor did anyone even hint that to say "I am of Peter" and/or "I am a bishop which succeeded the original bishop 300 hundred or nineteen hundred years later" then Paul's own words of warning to not listen to EVEN AN ANGEL OF HEAVEN if they did what again --- preached any other Gospel would in this latter condition be rendered void.
The rest of this double-standards stuff does seem stuck in your own head due in part to the "fallible dogma" mistake. I just outlined how that all arose --- by your own hand more than mine, and then in part by my own, but then SHOVED UNDER THE NOSES of everyone else present on this thread. So avoid them yourself and spare me further lecture concerning it.
You can hardly be appealing to "fairness" in regards to the questions which have been put to you, attempting to force those onto myself when it is not ME who is claiming that the "church" I belong to possesses infallible authority.
The question does not arise in the same form, though issues of authority and how that be exercised and how it can be abused can arise. But we are speaking of things such as dogmas, now. Doctrines too, if you wish.
The question asked as to what teachings are are required to be regarded as infallible (amid the Roman Catholic church) AS I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED is one which can be asked neutrally.
Is the answer -- all of them? Ok, if that was so, then what are the "them" as to the teachings?
So answer or not. No more games.
As to general topic and link to Jimmy Akin -- who is he but a guy with opinions? He may be a pretty good guy all in all, and from what little I know of him seems to be, but he is not "the teaching magesterium" is he? Who and what that "teaching Magesterium" is, is still yet to be defined, now that I mention it. ;^')
Could you be a bit more precise?
Define "church". What is this church. WHO EXACTLY is this church when you say church.
Authority? I *think* I know what church you are talking about... and I may have to guess what you mean by authority.
Authority to do what --- over what?
How far does that extend?
Please allow myself to define my own positions for myself (which I very much have) rather than the continual corner-cutting and re-wording labeling of them which you have engaged in here without stopping such as saying "I get that you don't recognize the Church..." etc.
These are not always yes/no answers, even as the identity of the capital "C" church -- and who or what is to have authority over it, and within it.
Your own saying
assumes much which is not in evidence.
How many times have you been asked to supply what MUST be believed by this "church" you speak of? Would that not be a rational place to begin?
Here, I'll start if off. I don't believe there was intention for there to be singular papacy, as in one bishop over all. If there are to be vicars[of Christ], functionally speaking, there were originally more than a few, theologically and historically speaking.
Particular aspects of what is called "Marionism" I also have some significant disagreements with.
A bit more generally, I am not persuaded that the [Roman] Catholic church has "no" authority (though there is some question as what could have been more ideal but has now been somewhat forfeited) along with myself "holding" more that it (the RCC) errs most often when speaking of itself and it's own "authority", even if the only real error at particular junctions of stating that claim is to the extent which the claim is extended solely towards itself, and none others but amid a particular hierarchy composed of it's own members.
Now that that is hopefully somewhat out of the way, perhaps you could answer the question of the title of this thread.
But meanwhile, don't expect me to go fishing around in Akin's writing looking for the answers, when it seems to me that you are not willing to go fishing around in what I write DIRECTLY TO YOU for answers you may be looking for.
Besides, if I was to go there and take Akin's words as your side of things, I would need do all the work of transplanting/transporting his own words here to then discuss those if any further discussion was called for, after which--since he's no bonafide authority, if anything was to turn up amiss in his own discourse towards the issue, any further aspect I may single out as a "here --right here much relies upon as foundation -- but is amiss, invalid, only goes so far and here are the reasons, etc.," could just be swept aside, because just what is a Jimmy Akin anyway? IS he "the church" which you speak of? Is he the "teaching magesterium"?
Then where do you get your dogma and is it infallible or not?
Again, double standard.