IMO, this is not sound practice. If your church has had heretical popes in its history, who is to say your current pope couln't be heretical? I am not saying he is at all. I am simply asking why do you blindly trust any man simply because of the title bestowed upon him when history records those bearing the same title have been blatantly out of line with scriptural teaching?
Well, first, consider that we believe the Holy Spirit guides the papacy in matters of faith and morals. You say we have heretical popes, but we say we don't. Your basis for this is that the brand of Christianity you adhere to has different beliefs. That's understandable, but consider, too, that your viewpoint stems precisely from these differences. How do you know that YOUR confessional group is not heretical. It's a "frame of reference" problem, isn't it? "You say he's blatantly out of line with scriptural teaching," we say he is not. Prove that he is outside of your own authority, or that of your own pastor's.
The papacy, from a simply human viewpoint, has been remarkably consistent over the centuries. That should say something. We don't "blindly trust" the pope, we trust his doctrinal teaching because we know it is guided by the Holy Spirit. Why do you wonder at this, when you feel that you yourself, indeed, all believers, are so guided? How is it blind, lockstep trust to have allegiance to one man following the Spirit, and perfectly okay for you to say that the Spirit leads you, and thus you can automatically follow your OWN inner voice?
The fact that millions of people believe that, and suffer the consequences of massive division and chaos of belief, speaks volumes and should tell you a great deal.
I suppose we could argue all day on whether a pope HAS taught heresy. I don't believe any have given an incorrect official teaching that was intended to be taught as an eternal truth. Sure, Popes have made poor political decisions, personal decisions, theological statements that were poorly contrived. But when speaking from his official capacity in the Chair of Peter, we believe the Spirit protects the Pope's utterances from error on the faith and morals that Christ taught.
Are we to "test" everything we are given? Sure. But we don't second-guess the Magesterium. We seek to find out "why" they teach something, but faith comes first, then understanding. IF we believe that Christ has promised to guide and guard the truth given to His people through the Apostles' successors, then we put our trust in God that He is doing just that.
history records those bearing the same title have been blatantly out of line with scriptural teaching?
Blatantly? That is a matter of opinion, I believe. The Scripture is subject to interpretation. To me, John 6 is pretty darn clear that we must eat, chew, the flesh of the Son of Man to have eternal life. Would you say Christ could have made that any clearer? But yet, we are told that we are blatantly teacing out of line with Scriptures?
Regards