The pope can exercise an infallible office under very specific circumstances. He has to be speaking on matters of faith and morals, has to be addressing the entire Church specifically, and has to be teaching with the explicit statement that the teaching is doctrinal and to be believed by all the faithful. Obviously these conditions are not explicitly stated in Scripture, but hopefully after my above message you can appreciate how a Tradition, parallel with Scripture, could contain such elements, in addition to the consequences of a living and visible Church established with the temporal authority to "bind and loose" per Matthew 16. The point is not replacing God, but God choosing someone to serve as a *temporal* head or vicar, in Christ's place, deferrent to Christ, the true Head, and for Christ's sake - for the sake of maintaining unity and preserving the faith. Christ established a hierarchical structure to facilitate such unity and clarity in the faith; having one vicar above the other bishops for maximum clarity is Scripturally based and a sign of Christ's wisdom in providing for His Church, for as the Lord says, "What more is there to do for my vineyard, that I have not already done?" ([Isa 5:4](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isa+5%3A4&version=DRA) - in other words, Christ did not fail to provide a clear authority for preserving His faith and teachings throughout the ages, and infallibility under the right circumstances, and guided by the Holy Spirit, is a part of the provision. The matter that Peter was confronted by Paul for was not an infallible teaching. It is acceptable to resist the pontiff on non-infallible matters, for as a man, the pope is a sinner like any other, and can be mistaken - outside of his infallible office. Sometimes there are periods of confusion as to who the pope is at a given time of transition, though these instances are the vast minority of cases, and in retrospect the pontiff can always be recognized by virtue of his basically universal recognition. The reasons given for false pope claims can be analyzed, and it is almost always only a small sect that tends to support the false popes, for this reason. Yes, Mary was crowned Queen of Heaven by Jesus Christ. The Book of Revelation refers to Mary as crowned with twelve stars, so this dogma is not entirely without Scriptural basis. Further, we know how important Mary was in God's plan for our salvation - it was from her Jesus received the flesh that He offered up for us all, after all - and so to honour her whom He so loved by crowning her as Queen of Heaven is not so surprising a suggestion. Mary did not have other children. It was common among Jews to refer to cousins as kin, like brothers or sisters, and so when Scripture does so for Jesus, this is what it means. Remember that the disciples knew Mary and lived with her after Christ ascended into heaven - do you think they would have not asked her, or would have been mistaken about whether Jesus has literal brothers or sisters? James and John were sometimes referred to as Jesus' brothers, and they were instrumental in founding the Church. Do you think so early on this "fact" could have been forgotten by the Church, if it were the case? There are several historical sources from was early as the second century suggesting Mary's virginity - how could the Church have forgotten what James and John would have known, so soon, unless the Church never actually believed Mary had other children? Indulgences are only understandable in the context of Purgatory - *temporal* punishment for sin being remitted by pious actions in this life. It has nothing to do with salvation itself, since one has already been judged before entering Purgatory. As for burnings, this does not directly pertain to the truth or non-truth of the faith itself. It is a moral consideration, which can be defended or apologized for at different levels. There are sinners among all sects and faiths. The Catholic Church is large and its scandals are readily publicized. A pedo preacher in a small town in America with a congregation of 20 people will not get the same international coverage as a "coveted priest of the Catholic Church." That's one consideration. Second is the effect of the sexual revolution of the 60s on the clergy, and men instrumental to the sexual revolution specifically targetting clergy with the "new ideas" that were a part of that movement. The Church has invested more in the poor than any other organization. Hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens of all sorts throughout all ages and in all places - compare the quality of life among the poor in England prior to the Reformation, to after it. Before the Reformation, Church property was spent on feeding the poor, housing wanderers, and helping people in various ways. When the English Reformation took place, men like Henry VIII and other nobles stole Church wealth and used it to enrich themselves. Why not question why *they* didn't invest in the poor? And let's not forgot the groups like those started by Mother Theresa, dedicated to helping the poor. They exist all over the world. It is profoundly ignorant to suggest the Church invests nothing in the poor. And as for expensive cathedrals, honouring God is very important also. Remember the Scripture, recounted in *all four Gospels*, where the woman pours the expensive oil over Jesus' head, and the disciples complain that the oil could have been sold and given to the poor, but Jesus commends the women for honouring God? It is the same with building cathedrals and investing in making the faith as beautiful as it deserves to be. Yes, I believe in transubstantiation. I discussed the Scriptural basis for the Eucharist in John 6 in my reply above. All Christians believed in it for 15 centuries. I would be wary of anyone telling me to forsake such an old Christian doctrine - especially one as important as that.