That is a large concern of mine as well. I asked about it earler, but the question was treated as a joke, rather than seriously answered.
I'm sure I'm not the only Catholic on FR who has had to explain the difference between true papal infallibility and the false notion of papal impeccability to Protestants (and some atheists). It is frustrating to explain over and over that not every word from the Pope's mouth, nor every action he takes is considered infallible.
I have a hard time seeing where you draw the line between the true notion of a Council's infallibility - which relates specifically to the definitions and decrees issued by the councils - and the false notion of a Council's impeccability, which would presumably relate to everything else a Council says or does.
This is not to say that statments and teachings which are not infallible are not important. It is also not to say that a Council exercizes no authority other than infallibility. Both of those notions are clearly false. But to casually treat the infallibility of a Council is to invite the same error (i.e. equating infallibility and impeccability) which we so frequently see applied to the pope.
<> Do you think Ecumenical Councils are impeccable and that is an intrinsic characteristic of them?<>
When legitimately concerned Catholics are denounced as heretics and schismatics for asking questions in good faith?
<> They are not asking questions in good faith. They are granting themselves liberty to reject, in part or in whole, an Ecumenical Council.<>
Such actions only reinforce the most ill-informed misconceptions of obedience of Papal authority as submission to a tyrant, not following a shepherd.
<> The Pope is a Shepherd and he apears to be a tryant to those opposed to him. We, to continue the metaphor, ought to be trusting and obedient sheep, not Lone Traditional Wolves.<>