IIRC,
I’ve always owned my convictions as my own.
It’s the RC folk who have claimed the imprimateur of historical infallibility . . .
quite contrary to historical FACT.
Not so! Whenever you assert that "such-and-such" is or is not "Biblical" you're making your own personal, fallible interpretation of Scripture into Magisterial Teaching. Or not. But if not, if it really is just your own, personal, fallible interpretation of Scripture then it's no better than anyone else's. Under such circumstances, to dismiss the other guy's claim as "nonsense", and to do so with extreme derision is the height of hubris.
If that's where you're at, fine. Just sayin' ...
Now ... would you mind telling me what the Rock-Ola Company means by "historical infallibility"? I've never heard that term before.