No matter who you are, no matter what you believe, and no matter what you reject, context is never optional. In a debate, it is just as wrong to misrepresent your opponent's religion as it is for them to misrepresent yours. Misrepresentation of a position is a strategy of the devil, and it is never one God repays him in kind, because the truth will never need a lie to defend it.
In the header image, you see a Catholic meme presenting and refuting three anti-Catholic lies: The Pope is sinless, the Pope is equal to God, and the Pope is correct in everything he says and does. These are things the Catholic Church does not teach, yet in an effort to dissuade others against the Catholic Church, anti-Catholics will apparently say it does.
What interests me about this particular meme is that it presents anti-Catholic lies I actually don't remember hearing, and certain haven't claimed myself. Not that I believe the meme is directed towards me, or that I should somehow be expected to know every last inch of the Catholic outreach effort, but it seems strange that these are the anti-Catholic lies the meme chooses to highlight. Why wouldn't it be the most common arguments against the Papacy?
Although I don't agree with the term, I am what Catholics would refer to as a very vocal "Protestant". I have studied Catholicism diligently, both in order to distinguish my faith from Catholicism in the eyes of atheists attacking the latter, and in order to bring the truth of Scripture to Catholics. Thus, while I of course do not know everything, I know a fair bit about what "Protestants", in particular, say about the Papacy.
What I note, and what I try to imitate, is that without fail, the best "Protestants" attempt to cite Catholic sources whenever they make a claim about what the Catholic Church teaches. Most commonly, they will cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which "...aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition." So, in summary, it's a summary, promulgated by... the Pope.
Of course, as the original meme specifically points out, the Catholic Church does not have a doctrine of Papal flawlessness. This allows Catholics to excuse him when he says silly things like Christians and Muslims worship the same God, or tells a little boy to pray to his dead atheist father. Nevertheless, although the Pope is not considered flawless in Catholicism, one would think, as the so-called "...visible head of the whole Church militant...", his word on the faith is at least semi-reliable...
The above red quote is a partial citation of First Vatican Council (1869-1870), which made a number of pronouncements regarding the Papacy, including its foundation, and the alleged historicity thereof (which, it turns out, was so demonstrably anti-historical that it caused many scholars to apostatise). The Catholic Church, therefore, does teach that the Pope is the head of the Church.
Of course, what they mean by that has changed over time, and is applied very differently by modern Catholics. This, I believe, may be the reason the original meme addresses some very different anti-Catholic lies than one would expect. Catholicism, and I would say religion in general, is like autism: If you know a Catholic, you know one Catholic. That Catholic doesn't necessarily know everything their Church teaches, nor how their Church came to teach it. In the same way, anti-Catholics do not always know what they're talking about.
This means we have two sides of a problematic coin. The Catholic Church does have a doctrine of Papal Infallibility, but on the one hand, not all Catholics know that, and on the other hand, not all anti-Catholics know what it means.
According to the aforementioned First Vatican Council, "...when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable."
In modern English, this means when the Pope, when he speaks "ex Cathedra", defines a doctrine in Christianity, the Church has no option but to believe him, as God Himself, as He supposedly promised Peter, has made him infallible in that regard.
Of course, even without believing the Pope is infallible in all he says and does, and even without ex Cathedra statements such as "All our hope do we repose in the most Blessed Virgin...", this is all reprehensible to anyone who knows their Bible. The Pope is not "the visible head of the whole Church militant", Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18). Neither is it ever promised that a man will be given the power to infallibly define doctrines, especially since the Christian faith is complete already (Jude 1:3).
The irony of the Papacy is that, given that Pontifex Maximus was still the title held by the Chief High Priest of the Roman College of Pontiffs at the time the New Testament was written, there was no Pope for any of the Apostles to speak about. Peter had no idea he would be hijacked in such a way after his dead. Paul, when he said he was behind the most eminent Apostles in nothing, was completely unaware someone would later say Peter was their prince, preferable to him and all the other Apostles put together. This nonsense wasn't in their minds, but more importantly, it isn't in their writings either.
See, although the Pope has no promise of infallibility what so ever, the Bible does. According to Paul, "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Peter, likewise, tells us "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 3:20-21). These are just two of the most obvious Scriptures which affirm their own divine origin.
Because the Bible is the word of God, a fact with which the Catholic Church officially agrees, we must accept and obey passages like 1 Corinthians 4:6, which tell us "I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written, so that none of you will be inflated with pride in favor of one person over against another."
I found it highly amusing when I debated one "highly Biblically educated" Catholic (his words, not mine), and he said this is one of the most confusing verses in Scripture. But when we check the context thereof, what we find is he is speaking against the sectarianism in the Corinthian church. For whatever reason, these were walking around claiming "...“I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”" (1 Corinthians 1:12). He then "downplays" himself and the other Apostles, telling them not to think of men beyond what is written of them.
I will note, I am making the weakest possible case for "Protestants" here. See, even here in the NABRE, a popular Catholic version, the translation says "not to go beyond what is written" ("it is written", of course, being Scripture's way of referring to itself). This is an excellent proof text for Sola Scriptura. However, the KJV, along with some other translations, apply it specifically to not thinking of men beyond what is written. With the former rendering, we can eliminate doctrines such as Purgatory, which is way beyond what is written. You will never find Purgatory in the Bible.
Instead, however, I have limited my interpretation to the ironically super-Protestant King James rendering: Do not think of men beyond what is written of them. Now, what is written about the Pope? It's like I said earlier, no one in the Bible ever had a concept of a Pope! So, purely by the fact the Bible tells us not to think of men beyond what is written of them, and literally nowhere writes of a Pope, we do not need to know a single Catholic teaching on the Pope other than that he claims authority he was not granted, status he was not given, honor he is not owed, when we study the word of God.
With that in mind, I issue a simple challenge to any and all Catholics reading: According to the Bible, which both my religion and yours acknowledge as the word of the Living God, what should I think of your Pope? When you answer that question, you will see that we do not need a single lie about the Pope in order to be anti-Catholic.