Papal Infallibility is a charism, a divinely-conferred gift; and in this case, a papal charism is a gift to the Pope, for the purpose of securing the salvation of the faithful in the Church.
Vatican II, the Roman Pontiff is “the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present”
Vatican I, each Pope has the “charism of truth and never failing faith”
So the question is, how many papal charisms are there, and what are they? I don’t have a complete answer. Here are some examples of what I think qualify as papal charisms. I could be wrong. There are probably more charisms than the ones listed.
1. Supreme Authority
2. Judged by God alone
3. Absence of Appeal
4. Principle of Unity
5. Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head of the one Church
6. Head of the body of Bishops
7. Charism of Truth and of Never-failing faith
8. The Apostolic See is unblemished by grave error
9. Free from all heresy, he judges heretics
10. Papal Infallibility
11. Perpetually assisted by the Holy Spirit
12. Subjection to him is from the necessity of salvation
the reproach of Christ 
In his latest video, Dr. Marshall flatly states that Pope John XXII taught a heresy, and that Catholics have a duty to resist in such circumstances. 31,000 views! You must feel like a voice crying in the wilderness!
Keep up the good work, someone has to speak the truth even in the wilderness of the Internet.
I’m consoled by the fact that most of Marshall’s viewers are not listening to him at all. If he were to repent and begin supporting the Pope, most (not all) of them would probably abandon him.
The case against John 22 is quite weak. He expressed his opinion, which was an error contrary to a future dogma, defined by his successor. Should God protect Popes from contradicting future dogmas when the Popes are speaking opinion, not teaching even non-infallibly? No, that is not even something that would be good for the Church, as then Popes would be like crystal balls for predicting future dogmas. That’s not even useful or good. John 22 was very clear that he was expressing opinion, priests and theologians were free to disagree, he stated he was working towards a decision under the magisterium, he changed his opinion to the correct position, and his successor gave us the definition. There’s just nothing to criticize there. He was a good example for future Popes regarding opinion versus doctrine.