Oh.
Can you talk about the difference between doctrine and deeds. May I assume you know very well that they are distinct?
Do you know very well that it appears that what you think we teach about papal infallibility and what we in fact teach are different?
I don't know much, very well or poorly. But I do know that when somebody says I think something I know I don't think, I find it hard to believe him. And when an argument is based on that shaky foundation, I know I find it hard to pay attention.
It sounds like you are right to reject what you think the Catholic Church teaches. But I'm hitting a wall on the "know very well," since what you know is so different from what I have learned in attending and giving classes and in studying the question. You are clearly rejecting something, but that something is not what I embrace.
You appear not to be as aware of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as I am. To help you understand it, I turn to where it was defined by the First Vatical Council in 1870:
“We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.”
Is that helpful?
FWIW, St. Augustine rejected an interpretation of Matthew 16:18 as saying that The Church was built upon Peter. He rightly recognized that Jesus was affirming that The Church was built upon Jesus Himself; the “rock” was Christ, not Peter.
Peter was a great man. He was often the first to bring the gospel to those who hadn’t heard it. He boldly preached Christ, whom he recognized as “the cornerstone” of the Christian faith. The thing is, the Church wasn’t built upon him, and he wasn’t the first Pope.
I conclude with the words of Paul, in 1 Cor. 1:12: “... each one of you says, I follow Paul, or I follow Apollos, or I follow Cephas [Peter], or I follow Christ.” You’re free to follow Peter and the Popes, Mad Dawg. As for me, I’ll follow Christ.