No, I did not miss it. If you read the entire section, it was on infallibity.
Here is the context of his statement:
"If you do not claim to be infallibly certain that your interpretation of the whole Bible is correct, then of what value is it to have an infallible Bible without an infallible interpreter? In either case, your statement crumbles (this is a statement to a Protestant who said that the Bible is the only infallible interpreter he needs). The plain fact is that an infallible Bible without an infallible living interpreter is futile. Infallibility never gets from the printed page to the one place where it is needed: the mind of the reader. The myriad divisions within Protestantism offer ample evidence of the proof of this statement."
He was illustrating the flaw in the logic of Protestants who claim the Bible is infallible but they are not.
Hmmm, and why is this a convincing argument? Let's take a quick look at it:
The plain fact is that an infallible Bible without an infallible living interpreter is futile.1. So, the Jews labored for centuries with Scripture but no infallible interpreter.This was futile. Okay.
2. How do we ascertain - infallibly - who the infallible interpreter is in the New Covenant era?
Infallibility never gets from the printed page to the one place where it is needed: the mind of the reader.This would, of course, apply equally as well to the Roman Catholic if true. Even if the interpreter is "infallible" (the Church and its teachers, who convey its teaching) it's infallibility would never get from the printed page or the audible words to where it is needed, the mind of the interpreter.
Every interpreter is a reader/hearer too, and vice versa. So, the problem isn't related to the necessity of an infallible interpreter (teaching office), it's the necessity of an infallible hearer/reader (person in the pew, reader, etc.).
The Roman Catholic solution only puts the question back one step or more. So, it's on epistemic par with the Protestant rule of faith, which is precisely our argument - and the very argument you provided here has proven it for us. Moreover, since you apparently agree with it, you have done our work for us. That's a real timesaver.
The myriad divisions within Protestantism offer ample evidence of the proof of this statement.
Of course, this is a non-sequitur. The divisions within the receivers of teaching say nothing about the fallibility or infallibility of the teaching itself or the text itself. That's a category error.
He was illustrating the flaw in the logic of Protestants who claim the Bible is infallible but they are not.And it does a miserable job of illustrating it, for if valid, it applies equally to the Roman Catholic.