Thanks for making that clear. I was indeed attacking the position of infallible dogma, as in the premise upon which this is based, but which is not a dbl standard. There is no objection in principle to holding that something is Truth, without error, and we can even agree with Muslims on some things .
But the issue is the basis for Truth and interpretation of it. And my criticism of Rome is that of her basis for declaring things infallible, which is the premise of assured perpetual infallibility of office.
And which presumes this is promised as being necessary for the providence and assurance of Truth and preservation of the faith, and that this status is manifested by historical descent as being the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation.
...There is no objection in principle to holding that something is Truth, without error… And my criticism of Rome is that of her basis for declaring things infallible, which is the premise of assured perpetual infallibility of office.
Am I correct in reading this that you don't have a problem with 'someone' declaring things infallible, but only on what basis it is done so?
If so, who would be acceptable to you and on what basis? Notice, I assume there must always be a 'who.' I think that is true infallibly. :)