I am not the one "tripped up." The RC argument against Prots and a fallible magisterium is than an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential to determine what Truth consists of and means, which premise is not Scriptural, while just all what RC teachings must be believed and their meaning finds disagreement due to lack of an infallible list of what magisterial level each teachings falls under, and the varying interpretative nature of such.
Catholic Faith is ascribed to those things which belong to the Sacred Deposit of Faith
Christian faith is that which cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, which Scripture uniuely assuredly is, as the wholly Divinely inspired transcendent tangible source. What the church teaches must be tested by and established upon substantiation of it.
Human faith is subjective, based upon a fallible assurance or feeling, and is subject to change when more information is forthcoming. For example, one could have human faith in a preacher, pastor, or priest, thinking that he is a good and holy man, only to find out years later that he was a fraud.
You made a fallible choice to submit to a infallible magisterium, wherein you have assurance, but which was not the basis for assurance upon which the church began.
The whole point of an infallible pronouncement is to clarify a point of doctrine...Usually, when a pope publishes such a document,..
You seem to restrict infallible pronouncements to the pope, while it again presumes an infallible magisterium is essential and Scriptural in order for for souls to have assurance of Truth.
Despite what you have said more than once, Denzinger’s compilation of infallible documents is complete,
That would only be your fallible opinion RC-wise, and other RCs disagree, and thus you need the infallible magisterium to issue an infallible list of all infallible teachings by which to determine if Denzinger only contains infallible teachings, or does not include all.
Looking for just one conciliar decree therein, what authority did Denzinger have for removing canon 3 from Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council? Or is the online version incomplete? http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma5.php vs. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp
Of course, on the practical level where it matters, faced with the variety of RCs teaching and lack of an infallible list, it remains that implicit assent of faith to all official teaching is what is exhorted, and the RC is to look to the "living magisterium" for the meaning of past teaching, and in so doing is clear that modern Rome teaches things contrary to past teaching.
You can quote moderns all day long about the supposed confusion surrounding infallible teachings, but hey, they have come to appreciate the various shades of gray. That you are confused by what is found in the documents of Vatican Council II, such as the concept of collegiality, and all of the ambiguous sections found inside, you are not alone. You will find lots of commentators struggling to understand it. The same might be said of the writings of the late Pope JPII, confusing to say the least.
That is an honest admission that reflects reality, and contrary to the typical RC argument that presents RCs as not having a real problem with reconciling past with present teaching, and of interpretation.
The church began with the common people having assurance than a holy man in the desert eating insects was a “prophet indeed,” and an itinerant Jewish Preacher was the Divine Son of God and Messiah. For the Lord established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) and in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation.
But which means that as then, unity depends upon the weight of upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not self-proclamation and boasting of historical descent.
Of course, any thing we do is fallible, any time we think or act, we can fail to be perfect. But in the matters of Faith, the gift precedes our action, and the gift of Faith is infallible.
The gift of final perseverance is that of the proper use of the gifts (think talents) of Faith, Hope, and Charity; all gifts given freely to us by God Himself first, before any merit, before any effort on our part.
He established His Church as another gift to us, an instrumental cause of our salvation, to administer the Graces and to safeguard revealed Truth of Jesus Christ, agent and final Cause of our salvation.
It is really very simple, as He said, His yoke is easy, and His burden is light. His government is upon His shoulder.