Seems like your anger toward me is displaced.
Why do you, a devout Catholic, fail to go along with what Rome puts out?
You are confused. My pointing out calmly why some of your arguments are stupid (like citing to Vatican I when you're trying to argue there isn't support for my view on the Papacy) isn't anger. It's just showing why you're off the mark.
Why do you, a devout Catholic, fail to go along with what Rome puts out?
I do go along. Conduct isn't always perfect, but then again we all fall short of the ideal mark as to what we profess, no? (Let she who is without sin . . . ). Vatican I defined the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. I agree with the theory, which is grounded on a long line of thought relating to the historic orthodoxy of the Roman See. Augustine is exemplary on this point:
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
Here Augustine affirms the doctrine of the infallibility of the church and in particular cites to the succession of bishops from Peter ("Apostolic Succession") to support his argument about the historic orthodoxy of the Roman See.
What Vatican I said in the 19th Century makes more explicit what what Augustine said in the 5th Century.
What are you contending I'm not following?