For the benefit of those who do not know, would you be so kind as to define Papal Infallibility. Thank you.
With all due respect I doubt you are asking me to define it for others. I suspect your motivation lies in hopefully exposing my ignorance and therefore discrediting my hypothesis. I can assure you I am quite familiar with papal infallibility and knowingly used the term outside of its strict Catholic definition. It was used to highlight the potential severity of the problem of a Pope advocating positions that are anathema to God and the RCC. IMO that is what is coming. The reverence/deference that is given to the man that holds the office will be a huge problem in countering such a travesty.
In focusing on an error in terminology, I think you (and others) make a distinction without a difference. It is sophistry, on the order of “ it depends on what the definition of is is. “ The hierarchy of the Church combined with two thousand years of tradition and habit make the Pope “infallible” in all things, not just when he is speaking on doctrine of faith or morals. They do not have to claim it infallible for it to be seen as so. When that happens, it will be a horrific situation for devout Catholics.