He must be right because of the Roman Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility according to dogma prescribed in Pastor aeternus.
Even if not infallible in all matters, he’s supposed to be the Vicar of Christ, representing Christ to the world.
Some head of a church.
If a non-Catholic were doing these things, the Catholics would be the first to accuse that it’s typical of Protestantism and what you get for not being Catholic.
Well, they are Catholic and this is what they have. The very thing they condemn in others.
Would it be fair to say that you've not actually read Pastor Aeternus?
It never directly uses the term "Papal Infallibility". Here is the money quote (and also the only instance of the term "infallibility" in the document).
... we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, **1** in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, **2** in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he **3** defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals **4** to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
I helpfully noted the FOUR conditions required for a Papal **teaching** to be infallible: **1** **2** ... so on.
That infallibility belongs to the Pope only when he proclaims a doctrine meeting all four conditions; it doesn't somehow inhere in him personally on a continuous basis.