Terzel comment was that if you pay your money you would get them out of purgatory. I'd have to look back through my posts to see if I stated "hell" but I don't have time at the present. If I did I was technically inaccurate. It doesn't change the fact Terzel stated you could get your love ones out of a very nasty place by coughing up some bucks and the Church would sign off on it.
Well, to me the difference is NOT merely technical. Yes your generalization is accurate. (And you did say, "Hell." If you'd said Purgatory, I wouldn't have disagreed) but there is, again to me, a HUGE difference between on the one hand, reversing someone's damnation and, on the other, speeding the time they spend in purgation. Like it or not (and the whole indulgence thing personally is a part of theology I find weird, so I don't like it much) there is a whole framework of theology which deals with the remission of "The temporal penalty of sin", while there is none to support working one's way out of Hell.
So when you wrote "Hell," of course I went off!
And maybe this is technical., It's be said lots and lots of times. To say the Church or the Pope is infallible is NOT to say that every "they" or he says is true. AS far as Papal infallibility is concerned, it's got to be in the "Declare and define" category, not just the "signed off on it" category.
This is another case where the appearance of seeking to misunderstand raises its head, even if it turns out to be faulty. Purgatory is MAJORLY different from Hell. Everyone in Purgatory knows s/he is going to Heaven.Of BXVI's latest book on Jesus he specifically says that it is not infallible, thus showing the distinction.
Some time, for a less heated consideration of the mess, you might want to take a peek at C.S. Lewis's account. But in any event, it was seen to be a totally dumb move and the Church learned from it. WE don't hide that AND it doesn't interfere with our understanding of infallibility.