Infallibility is being promoted as an essential part of Catholicism after nearly being abandoned a few decades ago.

There are two types of infallibility in Catholicism, and they are contradictory. The pope is supposedly infallible in issuing official decrees. But no pope has issued such a decree since the early fifties.

Popes don't really need to, because everything two or more bishops say is also supposed to be infallible. (The pope is also a bishop.) Their combined infallibility is called "magisterium," defined as teaching authority.

The net effect is that all theology produced by Catholic bishops, and anything guessed at by their supporters, is supposed to be infallible.

The basic reason why infallible reality is a self-contradictory concept is because no realities are absolutely definable, knowable or stable. The inability to agree upon the meaning of quotes demonstrates the point.

For this reason, the claim of infallibility is a ruse used to impose someone's corrupt opinions onto someone else as being unquestionable.

Christ's words can be figuratively said to be an infallible source of truth, because he used super-human communication to teach in relation to the objective realities which we can observe in life, and he had the authority and wisdom of God. Even then, he taught instead of decreed reality which involves continuous improvement rather than fixed realities. He decreed commands and taught realities. Teaching requires a lot more explaining that the corrupters do.

The primary example proving infallibility to be a sham in extremist versions of Catholicism is the historical claim that only Catholics get saved. That claim was thoroughly imbedded in Catholic theology for several centuries. It became so absurd in recent times that it had to be repudiated at the Second Vatican Council (1963-65). Changing that point demonstrates that infallibility is absurd.

A related point which conservatives have been hyping a lot is absolute truth. Conservatives claim they promote an absolute truth.

The same arguments apply to both concepts. No one can define absolutes even in science, let alone religion. The difference is that in science you can test and measure, but in religion, you just get someone's decreed fact.

By absolute truth, corrupters mean objective reality (Humans didn't create it, and they can't change it.), but the say "absolute" instead of "objective" so they can tack on an infallibility element to their corrupt opinions.

The arguers use simple examples that seem unquestionable. Abortion is their favorite. All rational and moral persons know that abortion is wrong, so it must be an absolute. But guess what, the Catholic Church allows abortion to save the life of the mother. That's what conservatives consider an absolute to be.

Why not say that every abortion has the purpose of saving the life of the mother? It reduces expenses, etc. Someone has to evaluate the realities to determine when an abortion is good and when it is bad.

The same is true of all realities which are capable of entering minds. Every mind has different realities in it. The human challenge is to improve reality in the mind as understanding. It is an unlimited challenge for every person.

Therefore, infallibility is a wrench thrown into the process of evaluation and improvement of understanding in minds. The so-called infallible reality will never have the exact same meaning in different minds.

It's impossible to say what version of reality is infallible when it cannot be absolutely defined. The most impossible realities to define are in the theological muddle which is supposed to be infallible.