Whatever it is it's apparently inadequate. I always regret afterward stepping into these theological and/or religious discussions and I apologise in advance for being out of my depth.
But to answer your question more adequately, my understanding is mostly based on "hearsay" from Roman Catholic friends and classmates growing up of what they were taught in Catechism classes, and with former (i.e. brought up Catholic) Roman Catholics who are now members of the church I and my family chose years ago to belong to (Disciples of Christ).
But speaking as someone with a fairly solid education and degree in History, the structure of the Catholic Church has long struck me as the sole remaining example of rule by a King's divine right with the Pope in the position of unquestionable arbiter between Man and God. If you question the Bishop of Rome you are questioning God.
The immense trappings of Medieval wealth and power one sees in a place like St. Peter's make a Czarist palace look like a country shack in comparison. Having been in both places I think I am qualified to observe, compare, and comment. And I understand why the Church is this way. After all, it was in place to supplant, took on, and retain many of the forms and trappings of Imperial Rome. Some of that obscures the fact that Catholics and Protestants agree on nearly all the basics as outlined in scripture, most importantly that *Jesus the Christ was and is exactly Who He said He was*.
PS: I don't object to the "trappings". I'm as susceptible to a sense of awe and majesty as anyone. Bottom line is I don't need it. Accepting literally, and trying with a frail human brain, to come to grips with *this* fact is quite mind blowing enough for me.
Thank you, katana, for a refreshingly honest reply. Many catholics are also ignorant of what constitutes papal infallibility. Let's begin with what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).
An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics. What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.
It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.
Many of the individuals who oppose the doctrine of papal infallibility claim to receive special revelations from God. Most believe that they can privately interpret Scripture in direct violation of 2 Peter 1:20. They characterize the doctrine of papal infallibility as arrogant, while claiming for themselves authority that goes far beyond it. And what is the fruit of their claims? Thousands of denominations all claim the Bible as their authority and yet all disagreeing on what it teaches. To make matters worse, many of their teachings change from time to time. Those who object to the doctrine of papal infallibility are the greatest proof of its need.
As for the immense trappings of Medieval wealth and power one sees in a place like St. Peter's , you may recall the media's great surprise when the Last Will of deceased Pope John Paul II was read and they learned he had no personal wealth. There is a great misconception that the Catholic Church is wealthy, because some of its churches are elaborately constructed. The big beautiful traditional Churches that receive the most complaints were not built with big bucks. They were built with the sweat of the brow of volunteers who worked 'till 11 PM every night after a full day of working their regular day jobs. They would do this for years until their community Parish was built. For the big European Churches it would take many generations. The Cologne Cathedral took 700 years! Why? Out of love for Christ, who is present in the Eucharist.
A good example in the secular world, is the White House. The American people built a beautiful home for their President, out of pride and respect for his position. Imagine how Catholics feel about showing their great love for God! Those magnificent paintings, sculptures and carved wood, are all gifts from the people. They bear the names of the donors. And yet catholics also recognize that Christ is present in the simplest of churches or no church at all. Catholic chaplains celebrate the mass on the back of jeeps or in fields. Don't be deceived by the grandeur. Our greatest treasures are the people we serve - the poor, the indigent, the sick and dying. The Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world.
I hope this information will encourage you to learn more about the Catholic Church and dispel the myths of those who are ignorant. Thank you again, for your post and ping.
Ahhhh...the difference in the MAJESTY of St. Peter’s and the Czarist palaces....I too have seen both....are the GOD INSPIRED ART and CRAFTSMANSHIP of the CHURCH done so by GOD GIVEN TALENTS FOR THE GLORY of GOD, and God given talents for the glory of a Czar....maybe by slaves.....HUGE DIFFERENCE!!