In matters of the faith and of morals, the pope is infallible.
Why do you ascribe to the Pope infallibility, when you do not ascribe it even to Peter? If we look at the Apostles, they were far from perfect in matters of faith. They lacked the faith to walk on water, they ran from Christ when he was arrested, they denied him when questioned... so where does the idea that the Pope is infallible come from? Historically, there have been many Popes of poor and even depraved morality. I do not say this to condemn any Pope or Catholic believer, but to affirm that the Pope is just a man, subject to human failures... and must be accounted as one. There is only one who is perfect, and we should not credit men with the qualities that belong to God. To do so merely builds false idols.
But God’s word is not limited to the Bible.
Absolutely... but we use to scriptures to test whether something conforms to God’s Word.
His peace be with us all.
Regarding the Churh in matters of faith and morals, I do. Does that mean that Peter was perfect? Does that mean the popes are perfect? No ... they're sinners just like you and me and in need of a savior. It does not mean they can walk on water. And the infallibility does not apply to them personally. Only regarding the Church.
Up until now I've given you only my opinions. Now I am going to refer you to another source. Please follow this link to read more of the following snippet regarding papal infallibility.
The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.
The following is also part of the linked article.
As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.
.
.
.
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).