The office of the Pope is infallible. However, there's a lot of misconception over what that means.
Here's a link talking about what it is, and what it isn't.
Papal Infallibility
While it's a subject of debate obviously, for clarity, one should know what the concept really entails in order to best discuss it. Else we'll end up with people arguing over a version of Papal infallibility that doesn't really reflect the actual teachings on the concept.
Now, I
haven't studied church history to the full extent that I could (and should), but I feel that I can still respond to these statements from the article:
A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.
Now, I'm probably making a mistake by saying this...but doesn't what you "solemnly define to be infallible teaching" come from your private study? "Oh, he's so sincere about it!" Does that make it right? No, and I don't believe the pope would believe that either. Hopefully...
What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.
"Certain advantages" because what he says goes if he defines it to be infallible teaching. But, what keeps him from teaching error? Well...
It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.
And yet, you have no way of determining what is correct teaching. You can't say that the Holy Spirit just keeps the pope from teaching infallible doctrine (not saying that he couldn't), because you have no standard to go back to...but wait, there's the Scriptures, aren't there? Well, no, you don't even really need that, do you? You have the pope.
The rejection of papal infallibility by "Bible Christians" stems from their view of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible Church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope.
I do not "think" that because that wasn't what Christ meant by it.
Obviously it was meant to be physical in some way (people?), but He wasn't talking about a physical building.
This is no place to give an elaborate demonstration of the establishment of a visible Church. But it is simple enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after their Master’s instructions, a visible organization, and that every Christian writer in the early centuries—in fact, nearly all Christians until the Reformation—fully recognized that Christ set up an ongoing organization.
You can't give this "elaborate demonstration" because there's nothing to demonstrate except, well, what the pope has determined the Biblical text means.
Yes, the Apostles set up a visible organization. The people didn't become invisible, did they? (I know he's saying a physical building of a church, but this isn't presented anywhere in Scripture.)
There is an ongoing organization of
believers. Nothing about a physical church though (I don't reject going to a church building, but it's simply not presented in Scripture. If it was so important it seems the NT writers would have presented some structure more than "bishops and deacons." You have to also understand that Christians were not being tolerated in the Roman Empire nor many other places at this time, so they couldn't just build a church on a lot. They had to meet secretly much of the time.
All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops, and the preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly through its Christ-appointed leaders, the bishops (as a whole) and the pope (as an individual).
Notice there's nothing about a Pope in the Bible. Peter was a bishop. Nowhere does it say he had the infallibility as the modern Catholic Church proclaims of the pope.
But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists.
Yes, and for men to be saved, they have to join and be baptized into the Holy Catholic Church. That's what's been determined now (even on the website that was linked).
The rock is not Jesus. It is the pope. Peter was called the rock, but he wasn't
the Rock of our salvation! Our foundation is Jesus Christ, and not the pope. Did he ever say you had to be baptized into the church to be saved? No. He said to believe in Him, the ONLY Way, and the ONLY Truth, and the ONLY Life. No one comes to the Father except through the Holy Catholic Chur ---- uh, I mean, Jesus Christ!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grace and Love