[quote="Gorgias, post:8, topic:281666"]
Hmm... that's what I would've thought Lumen gentium was getting to (#25): "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith."
So, it's "clearly verified" that bishops "proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly", when "gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church". How does that not mean that statements of faith and morals from a council aren't guarded by infallibility?
This criteria is no different than that established for Papal infallibility by Vatican I. The Pope CAN speak infallibly, but the Church has only recognized THREE instances when a Pope has actually done so. Popes speak about faith and morals all the time, but the Church has not recognized any of these teachings (except these three) as infallible.
It is not "clearly verified" by you or I - but by the Magesterium of the Church.
Are there any references you can provide, that would help shed some light on your interpretation, in light of LG 25?
Sure. I can provide Canon Law. You cited Vatican II LG 25, which is a kinda like a summary of Canon 749, paragraph 2 of the 1983 (current) Code of Canon Law:
Canon 749 §2 The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical Council and exercising their magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals; likewise, when the Bishops, dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same Roman Pontiff authentically teach matters of faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is definitively to be held.
But paragraph 3 (the last paragraph of Canon 749) goes on to say:
Canon 749 §3 No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident. [emphasis mine]
Who has the authority to declare if a particular teaching of the Catholic Church is "manifestly evident" as infallible? Do you have that authority? Do I have that authority? Can you or I get out our Vatican I checklists and authoritatively conclude that this or that teaching is infallible, simply because (in our personal opinion) this or that teaching meets all the criteria?
When the Church says that a teaching must be "manifestly evident" to be authoritatively considered infallible, I guarantee that the Church does not care about our checklists - the Church reserves to Herself alone the authority to make this known.
The ONLY way that we can know FOR SURE if any Catholic Doctrine has been infallibly defined is if the Church tells us so - making this definition manifestly (plainly and obvioulsy) evident (no Vatican I decoder rings required).
As I have already said, it does not matter a fig to the Faithful if a Pope or Council's teaching is recognized as infallible or not. ALL teachings of the Magesterium (including simple rules which are clearly subject to change) are authoritative and binding upon all Catholics.