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?
Trent condemned abuses of indulgences. I don't think that the decree was directly aimed at the indulgence for St. Peter's basilica - the council would not have wished to criticize the Pope in such a manner. Pius V was right to get rid of indulgences involving money as they led to endless abuses; however, I don't believe that it's correct to refer to the papal indulgence for, e.g., donations to the construction of St. Peter's as selling indulgences, as this would imply the sin of simony, the selling of sacred things.