But otherwise there was a bit of rope-a-dope on your own part when it came to trying to assert that I was intending this notion of infallibility to apply casually.
I pointed at that -- for I have seen that very thing play out on these pages HUNDREDS of times, by which I mean, that if there is seemingly any excuse for a Romanist to portray his adversary as "ignorant", and at the same time distract away from the more generalized notion of infallibility as applied to Magesterium --- by focusing solely upon the narrowest qualification for ex cathedra statement -- then that is the way the conversation will go, since that is the safest and least challenging road for a Romanist to trod.
I've seen the stunt pulled so many times -- I'm a bit wee-wee'd up over the forum debating technique itself because it denies the elephant in the living room
It's all about how the RCC (not you, I wasn't talking about you necessarily --unless you are a priest and speaks for the church) wishes to influence and even control how it's members *think of* the 'authority' which the prelates claim is their own sole prerogative -- given to them by --- who?
...None other than God Almighty Himself. Or so "they" say.
It's one of the biggest subject matters repeatedly spoken of on the pages of the Free Republic religion forum.
Obviously, "they" must have taught more than a few of that churches adherents well; that it is "they" (and most certainly not the adherents) who God leads...with the both stated and much unstated but still asserted claim being that to not simply obey is tantamount to disobeying God Himself (even as these same prelates assert that it is they and they alone who get to set the rules for when there will be exceptions to that rule)
But otherwise there was a bit of rope-a-dope on your own part when it came to trying to assert that I was intending this notion of infallibility to apply casually.
Again your assumptions are showing. Perhaps this is a trend with you. You obviously assumed that any document addressing papal authority must be applicable throughout to infallibility, and now you are assuming that everything I am saying relates to some notion of "casual" speaking. No. That is you trying to deflect from the simple reality that you have stretched the focus of a text beyond its intent. Nothing more.
... and at the same time distract away from the more generalized notion of infallibility as applied to Magesterium
What generalized notion of infallibility? There is none. Infallibility is specifically defined, and applicable only in very constrained situations. I even quoted the very brief mention of it in the original text you excerpted. There is nothing generalized about it. You do realize that there is no secret Catholic teaching on infallibility, don't you? Just go look at Vatican I and see for yourself what it says. It is very short, and clear, and there is no generalization of it in any way.
Secondly, distract why? If infallibility were generalized why distract? And to what end? As I pointed out very clearly, no non-Catholic is comfortable with the specific notion of infallibility, and so what is gained by restricting it to that? As if you were going to be suddenly okay with Catholic dogma as it is and decide that the Immaculate Conception was infallible, but just not other things. It is just a ridiculous assumption on your part.