“Do you really think i am asking for a list of all infallible decrees that ever will be made?”
Not at all. You can’t add anything to an infalliable doctrine. It cannot be changed in any way shape or form.
Ergo, it is a consequence of said ‘infalliable list’, that it would be complete. I am not arguing that you are requesting this, I am merely arguing that this is the unintended consequence of making such a list infalliable.
“Do you really think i am asking for a list of all infallible decrees that ever will be made?”
Not at all.
That is worse, for then you must have understood what i denied (that an infallible list exists), and yet responded, “Actually, there is a list,” when all you could come up with was an attempt at a homemade list, which i could have quickly gotten in a couple minutes or so online.
You can’t add anything to an infalliable doctrine. It cannot be changed in any way shape or form.
Now are making a list out to be a doctrinal teaching that itself cannot be changed, such as what constitutes an infallible statement, but instead an irreformable list would be the product of the doctrine of infallibility. And again, there is nothing in principle which would prevent the infallible magisterium from providing a list that cannot be in error, being understood as simply assuring its list is only that of all infallible teachings to present.
And i see your interpretation of that here as unique, as i have never seen any Roman Catholic apologists who also have dealt with that question come up with that as a reason. A technical response is that the agent or a process of such would be infallible while the product is inerrant or irreformable, but it amounts to the same thing.