CathInfo.com

Theosist,

Go back to the beginning of the thread.  This has been covered multiple times.  You are not the first to make this claim.  It is made by everyone who holds the pope as their rule of faith.  If after reading the previous posts you have a problem then offer your objections.  There are those like Cantarella who would agree with you but not one Church Father held that a personal never-failing faith was promised to the successors of St. Peter.  The never-failing faith of the popes only means that they cannot engage the Magisterial power of the Church to bind doctrinal and/or moral error and this was dogmatically defined at Vatican I.
 
Rev. Cornelius a Lapide addresses this directly and explicitly in his Great Commentary.

Drew

That is not never-failing faith. Engaging the magisterial power of the Church to bind doctrine is not faith, nor even essentially an act of faith, for as you yourself would hold, even a pope without any faith in what he is defining can define infallibly! Therefore infallibility in this sense and never-failing faith cannot refer to one and the same thing (they can’t even refer to the same category of things; faith is faith, not an engaging of a power).

The excerpt from Innocent III’s sermon explicitly identifying the never-failing faith of Luke 22:32 belonging to the Papal office with his personal faith (“For unless I were solid in MY faith ...”) is here: 

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HK6oDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT294&lpg=PT294&dq=innocent+iii”+“for+unless+i+were+solid+in+my+faith”&source=bl&ots=Fp7c-1CHQf&sig=iT5yRXA7BNUPAaGhwN2RjZJtW-Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwig_9SZh-zaAhULZ8AKHf-lBBQQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=innocent%20iii”%20“for%20unless%20i%20were%20solid%20in%20my%20faith”&f=false
I really don’t care what non-conciliar, non-Papal “authorities” you want to cite to reject these facts (not constitutive of an argument, sorry, and I will disregard any non-argumentative responses)
And I’ll ask you one more time to provide an example of a true statement which is not true everywhere and for all time in its intended sense.

You are doing the same thing with the general councils that you do with the pope, that is, you are making the Attributes of the Church the personal attributes of Churchmen.  You are doing the same thing with the general councils that you do with the pope, that is, you are making the Attributes of the Church the personal attributes of Churchmen.  And since the attributes are divine powers it is a form of divinizing churchmen.  

The Attributes are powers that belong to the Church primarily and essentially.  They belong to churchmen only secondarily and accidentally. And since the attributes are divine powers it is a form of divinizing churchmen.  

You are doing the same thing with the general councils that you do with the pope, that is, you are making the Attributes of the Church the personal attributes of Churchmen.  And since the attributes are divine powers it is a form of divinizing churchmen.  

The Attributes are powers that belong to the Church primarily and essentially.  They belong to churchmen only secondarily and accidentally.

 Another sophistic trip off at a tangent. Notice how this distinction is never made part of a deductive argument to refute Cantarella; it’s simply stated as if the conclusion “Therefore you are wrong!” we’re to follow by magic.

Notice the bait-and-switch, though? It’s just wrong and idolatrous to make attributes like infallibility those of churchmen, in the first paragraph, but in the following it is stated that such attributes do in fact belong to to such men, secondarily and accidentally (as if that made any logical difference to Cantarella’s position).

Stubborn:  
Gosh, I'm in much more danger of losing my faith by following the sophistry on this particular thread than from "sedeism."  I've never experienced this much long windedness on any topic thus far presented on CI.  The bottomless pit of verbiage exhibited by the likes of you and Drew just defies all undestanding.  Why Matthew lets it go on defies all explanation. He's closed down other threads under far less provocation, imo.  He's banned many for far less offensive and ridiculous input.  Maybe the moderator is addicted to blowhards.  I can't think of any other reason.  This thread has itself become "iniquitous."

I feel for you - the solution to your dilemma is for you to go do something other than read this thread. Simple.