Refine Infallibility column to distinguish definitive vs non-definitive teachings

[JohnRDOrazio]

Context

The current table has an "Infallability" column with values "Infallable" or "-". This binary approach is theologically imprecise per Sullivan, Ratzinger, and Dulles.

Problem

1. Spelling: "Infallable" should be "Infallible" and "Infallability" should be "Infallibility"
2. Theological imprecision: The binary infallible/not-infallible framing misses Sullivan's key distinction between:
   • Definitive teachings (irreformable) — which may or may not have been taught infallibly
   • Non-definitive teachings (authoritative but reformable) — which still require religiosum obsequium (religious submission of intellect and will)
3. Missing nuance on Ecumenical Council documents: Not all Ecumenical Council documents are necessarily extraordinary Magisterium. Decrees and Declarations from councils may carry different levels of authority depending on intent and formulation.

Proposed Changes

• Fix spelling: "Infallable" → "Infallible", "Infallability" → "Infallibility"
• Consider replacing or supplementing the Infallibility column with a "Binding Force" column (Irreformable / Reformable) and/or a "Required Assent" column
• Review whether each document type's infallibility status is correctly assigned (e.g., not all Council Decrees or Declarations are necessarily infallible)

References

• Sullivan draws sharp boundaries: infallibility is rare and tightly defined
• Sullivan distinguishes definitive teachings (irreformable) from non-definitive teachings (authoritative but reformable)
• Ratzinger stresses continuity of truth across all levels but agrees formally on the rarity of infallibility