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).
(Al wrote) And the infallibility does not apply to them personally. Only regarding the Church.
This is parsing it quite a bit. Only God is infallible. To ascribe this characteristic to any man is biblically unsound, and I would argue a contradiction of one of God’s key commands... to place no gods before Him.
Does God guide His children? Absolutely. Does this mean that even in matters of faith and morals they are always correct? Certainly not.
You mentioned some who have cited Papal personal sinfulness, and your sources state
Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability.
I would say both infallibility and impeccability are attributes we can only assign to God. No man can be 'perfect' in either sense of the word.
The very fact that there have been 'bad Popes' goes against one of the key arguments for Papal infallibility; namely that they have been given a special 'charism' by God.
Yet we are clearly told that faith without actions is dead (James 2:14-24), and even within Catholicism (please correct me if I'm misinformed) you hold that if a man is inwardly saved by grace, that this salvation is made complete and is shown outwardly by his actions.
Most certainly a 'mature' believer, one who is chosen to be a leader or elder within the church, is to be able to distinguish between good and evil (Heb 5:13-14), to put off their corruption, falsehood and unwholesome talk (Eph4:17-32). If the 'bad Popes' fell away or never had the Spirit of God, please look at what Hebrews tells us about this in chapter 6.
If you hold that the Pope is infallible, even only in matters of faith and morals, then I would respectfully ask you to consider... have you not made a man or a 'church' into your God?
I do not question whether you are a believer and follower of Jesus Christ, or whether any particular Pope was or is. Rather, as one Brother in Christ to another, I ask you to look upon what God tells us in His Word, and ask whether you and your church are in obedience to it.
May His Spirit be a guide to all those who call upon His name.
I’ve had more comments about ‘Protestant’ on this forum than I’ve ever seen any place else. What exactly do you think a ‘Protestant’ is?