Fair response. And, you are correct about me believing the Scriptures do not support the view that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Christ. But, it is very interesting to me that you (and most Catholics) hold to what you believe is in the Scriptures when you wish to contest what is coming from your organization. That is, you point to “...on this rock...” as the proof positive that Rome is the “church”, but now dislike what is publicly being promulgated and reject the “Vicar of Christ’s” opinions. A novel idea and probably useful if this pope begins to wander as far from Scripture as, say, John XII.
Ah, but the Pope's "opinions" are not in any way privileged in terms of what the faithful must or must not think. There have been stupid popes. Stupid popes spout stupid opinions. There have been corrupt popes. Corrupt popes spout corrupt opinions. The Holy Spirit neither annihilates their personalities, nor guarantees their whims, nor deprives them of their free will, when they become popes. Thus they are as subject to error as Dutchboy88 or Mrs. Don-o Her! Very! Self! :o/
In matters disciplinary, they are to be obeyed--- and why? Beause they are lawful superiors--- and as with any legitimate superior, that means, in commands which do not constitute sin. They may constitute foolishness --- or wisdom for that matter --- but if it's mere foolish in our opinion, they are still to be obeyed. They may be based on faulty information --- or on wonderfully complete and accurate information. But if it's just a matter of different assessments of "information," (prudential judgment),they are to be obeyed.
This is simply because they have lawful authority --- an analogy would be a military commander in relation to the enlisted men--- to be obeyed for the sake of unity and good order, BUT NOT IN SIN. If a Pope were to command what God precisely forbids, or forbid what God precisely commands, then it's obviously a no-go.
Example: Pope says to Cardinal Burke: leave your job as Top Canonical Judge, I'm gong to make you chaplain of an old folks' home at Our Lady of the Mudhole in Lower Slobovia. It would be a stupid move on the Pope's part, but Burke would obey because it's not a sin to be a chaplain for the geriatric faithful.
However if the Pope were to say, "Burke, I want you to write up an interpretation of Canon Law that says divorced people can form subsequent, adulterous unions with new partners, and that's no detriment to Communion," Burke would be morally obliged to say, in a word, "NO." "No, Holy Father. Neither you nor I, nor anyone on earth has the authority to do that."
However, the Pope will not command --- in a fully authoritative sense, explicitly intended as binding on the whole Church --- any error. Why? Because God would stop him, maybe by giving him wondrous miraculous laryngitis like poor old Zachariah, maybe by stopping him dead.
That's what "infallibility" consists of. It is not positive inspiration (like the Holy Spirit telling Matthew, Mark, Luke and John what to say.) It is a strictly negative safeguard. It is the way God protects His beloved Church from the worst possible effects of bad popes.
Have you seen "How to Explain Papal Infallibility in Under Two Minutes"? (LINK)
Let me recommend it. It's worth your 2 minutes. Have a chuckle. Zany but true.