[RegulatorCountry]

My goodness, what a bee in your bonnet. So, was a Pope infallible only when speaking ex cathedra prior to Vatican I, or was there reason for the bureaucracy to step in and "define" the matter?

Bring me up to your "flipping league," I bid you please kind superior person of very elaborately complex yet oddly immoral in practice religion.

[Claud]

I’m not expecting you to be an expert in infallibility, but don’t go tossing around ridiculous notions that a few minutes of reading would dispel you of.

Here. Read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Basically, from the beginning till now, when a Pope solemnly officially defines something as a dogma, it’s infallible. When he just says what his opinion is as a person, *even if it’s theological*, then it’s not.

Peter was the head of the Apostles with the power to bind and loose and the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, but that didn’t mean that Paul—who had none of those things—couldn’t correct him. Same principle here.