-What is it?Depends on whether Papal Infallibility is even pre-Schism. I don't see anything wrong with it in theory, though.
-Are council's infallible?
-What makes them infallible?
-If many people together can be infallible, why not one person? Does this limit the Holy Spirit? Why/why not?
I've just been thinking, though I trend in many areas toward the Orthodox, I wonder it is hypocritical to accept concilliar infallibility due to the Holy Spirit, yet not accept the infallibility of the bishop-presiding-in-love, pope, or whatever scenario you choose. Does reflect upon our distrust in humanity or in the lack of trust in God?
I'm open to all opinions and instruction. Just thinking out loud.
Contemporary church historians argue there is not so much of a hint of papal infallibility in the first Christian millennium.
As Roman Catholic priest Father Hans Kung candidly admits:
"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible." Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History
(2001), p. 61.
Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages
affirms "There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it" (p. 281).
Vatican I (convened by Pope Pius IX in 1868) claimed papal infallibility was the faith of the church all along - a judgment at obvious odds with what later became mainstream scholarly rejection -including rejection by major Roman Catholic scholars like Yves Congar (cf. also Bernhard Hasler, How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion
(trans. from the German addition in 1981; Hasler, a Catholic priest, should not be overlooked). Hans Kung's book Infallible? An Investigation
is also very good. Fr. Kung, expert adviser at Vatican II, got into a bit of trouble for publishing that book, which explicitly repudiates papal infallibility.
Vatican I also anathamatized anyone who rejects papal infallibility. Some have suggested Aquinas's doctrine of "false testes" may come into play here -i.e. if the pope proclaimed a doctrine on the basis of having received false or misleading information.
A complete lack of historical evidence for papal infallibility in the first Christian millennium, of course, does not rule out infallibility from a Roman Catholic perspective, however if the historical basis is utterly removed it would have to rest upon a more or less radical developmental model e.g. ala Hegelian dialectic; Newman's idea of development required at least some form of and Aristotelian "seed." Hegelian development is pretty much standard fare in the Documents of Vatican II,
which, if memory serves, Pope John Paul descriptively/revealingly called "Newman's Council."