That is not, and never was, my claim! My statement is you must be protected from error to claim someone else's interpretation IS in error.
Why is it so hard for you to get the fact you can't say someone else is wrong without saying you yourself are right?
I affirm that, but why can't you see that your statement was not only that the person is claiming inerrancy, but which you equated with what Rome engages in, which is claiming they are right based upon her claim of assured infallibility?
Such a person commits the same act they criticize the Catholic Church for, but simply isn't smart enough to recognize that fact.
We do not claim Rome is in error simply because saying someone else is wrong means saying they are right(!), but because she presumes a special charism of infallibility which precludes that she can be wrong, regardless of the evidence, esp from the assuredly infallible authority of Scripture.
The Scriptures require believers to make moral reprove error, (Eph. 4:11) but it is the bases for it that is the issue.
And again, it is accepted that saying someone is wrong means saying you are right, but it is not the same thing as claiming inerrancy after the manner of Rome. However, if you want to imagine we simply object to the former and not the latter, and not deal with that, then no further exchange seems unnecessary.
Simple. The Church has a scriptural mandate that the individual does not. It's no more complicated than that.