I don't understand this statement. What is a "consensus of the Magisterium"? A "magisterium" is a teaching power, office, or authority, and thus the use of "consensus of" in reference to the ecclesiastical magisterium seems nonsensical. Perhaps you mean that no Pope has ever judged ex cathedra contrary to a consensus of the Church: this is certainly true, for to such a judgment by its very nature the consent of the Church must accrue, either before or after the definition.
Hermann has been banned from FR and therefore pinging him is rather pointless.
Leo X didn't approve of "paying for indulgences" but of granting an indulgence for a certain charitable work of almsgiving, specifically to the reconstruction of St. Peter's Basilica. As an indulgence for giving directly to the needy, for instance, wouldn't constitute the sale of an indulgence, neither it seems to me does the referred-to indulgence given by Leo X.
I expressed myself very poorly. What I meant was this. The doctrine of Infallibility is that the Pope may define infallible doctrine against the opposition of some, or even all, bishops. This is, he may rule when there is no consensus, although as soon as he rules, of course, that becomes magisterial teaching and the bishops unite with it. Is my understanding correct?
In this context, has there ever been an infallible doctrine established without prior consensus?
Hermann has been banned
This is really a shame. Very good and informed poster. Hope it is not a permanent ban.
As an indulgence for giving directly to the needy, for instance, wouldn't constitute the sale of an indulgence, neither it seems to me does the referred-to indulgence given by Leo X.
I thought that commonly, indulgences given for donations toward the building of St. Peter's, and similar, were considered "sold". Is the terminology incorrect? Regardless of how they are termed, the indulgences that involve money are forbidden by Trent, are they not?