Dogmatic facts and the issue of infallibility

i read here that if one rejects the doctrine that the pope is infallible it is not heretical, but just impairs one’s standing with the catholic church. this is wikipedia so it could be wrong.

is this true?
is this how the catholic church remains in communion even with some eastern catholics who reject the idea of the infallibility of rome?

i looked at the citation, and i didn’t see how they drew that conclusion from that text. the text and specific pages are available as a preview on amazon.

Fundamentals of Catholic dogma by Ludwig Ott, 1964, Herder, ASIN: B002BZOUAI pages 9-10

"These Church teachings or Catholic truths (veritates catholicae) are not a part of divine revelation, yet are intimately related to it. The rejection of these “secondary” teachings is not heretical, but involves the impairment of full communion with the Catholic Church.[23]

There are three categories of these “secondary” teachings (Fides ecclesiastica):

Theological conclusions: (conclusiones theologicae) religious truths, deduced from divine revelation and reason.
Dogmatic facts (facta dogmatica) historical facts, not part of revelation but clearly related to it. For example the legitimacy of the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI, and the Petrine office
Philosophical truths, such as existence of the soul, "freedom of will", philosophical definitions used in dogmas such as transubstantiation"

now adays we don’t call material heretics heretics

well i didn’t get it from reading the citation of the quoted text, but it might be that they aren’t heretics, rather they are ‘schismatics’.

think this could be it?

afterall, the eastern orthodox had the great schism, not the great heresy or somehting.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit