This type of thing, though part and parcel of how the issue is frequently spoken of by apologists of Rome;
is patently illogical, for there must be overlap at least when what is perceived to be "infallible" is "authoritatively" proclaimed.
As I have shown, and as you also indicate, what they say (when speaking towards faith and morals, of course, according to RC theology) must be believed, taken as 'authoritative' as that has been put.
If not infallibly true -- then what? A person can second guess what they have been told, and take it to mean whatever they best think or understand it to mean, or how it may best fit into overall framework of understanding.
Uh, huh. So-called "Protestants" can do the same evaluating in regards to that which they are told in their own congregational and educational settings also.
What did the Apostle Paul write concerning this sort of thing? Do you recall? Here are two portions which can and do fairly well interact with one another, the written word confirming and establishing itself;
From Acts 17
2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.”
... 10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
And from Galatians 1
6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.
In spite of what such scriptures can help reveal to us, you say;
That slip-slides towards being a form of double-talk.
The real test is -- does what they say agree with the scriptures, in both spirit and truth.
One must submit that all to Spirit also -- yet one does need be acquainted with and yielded to the Spirit of the Lord in order to best do so.
It is you who confuses yourself, following the confusion amid Roman Catholicism concerning it's own identity, and how such things as we are discussing are described to be.
Leave me out of the torturous pretzel logic, all the jumping through specialized hoops just so (saying just the 'right' words in order to control all dialogue) action which must be engaged in order to keep up appearances -- and retain hold on the fantasy of infallibility for the Church of Rome, for when speaking of concepts of infallibility -- focusing merely and only upon the "Papal" sort (and what is said about that) is something of a red herring/purposeful distraction -- to which you have here added additional insult of sorts, alleging I am confused, etc.
No -- I can see it all plain enough, for I can "see" many things -- and how those interact, and what the apparent results of all that activity have produced -- for both good -- AND ill.
...for there must be overlap at least when what is perceived to be "infallible" is "authoritatively" proclaimed.
Yes, there is overlap, but that doesn't mean that any teaching about authority is automatically applicable to infallibility. When a pope talks about authority as a concept, and generally, what he says is not automatically a teaching on infallibility specifically. As I have said, popes are always authoritative, but rarely infallible. What is said infallibly is therefore authoritative, but not all authoritative statements are also infallible. The statements you were quoting and applying to infallibility as a means of suggesting that popes are infallible more often than commonly thought (which by the way I don't actually deny as a concept) are simply not what you suggest. They were directed to the concept of authority generally, and not infallibility specifically except in one brief portion.
If not infallibly true -- then what? A person can second guess what they have been told, and take it to mean whatever they best think or understand it to mean, or how it may best fit into overall framework of understanding.
Popes say and teach a great deal, and most of the time they are no more protected by supernatural intervention than any pastor or churchman. When they preach homilies, or answer questions, or speak to people or give advice or whatever, then they are as subject to their skills and capabilities as anyone. If a pope misspeaks or gets facts wrong, and they have in the past, then we are free to know better. Errors are errors, regardless of the source. But, when pope's teach in formal ways about formally defined topics invoking specifically their infallible authority then we cannot freely doubt what they say is true.
Uh, huh. So-called "Protestants" can do the same evaluating in regards to that which they are told in their own congregational and educational settings also.
Yes, and it is myth that we don't have that same right in most instances. We simply cannot use our "consciences" to question de fide teachings, i.e. those things which are infallibly laid out by Holy Mother Church whether it be via a pope, council or Sacred Tradition. And, like our Protestant brethren, we too can doubt our often misinformed and misled parish pastors.
The real test is -- does what they say agree with the scriptures, in both spirit and truth.
Sorry, but this is something else entirely and involves questions of the legitimacy of Church authority at all, and that is just an argument which never ends. Either you accept it or your do not. As such I see no reason to enter into that morass of endless sniping.