Defending Papal Infallibility

[_jesus_is_god]

A common argument against papal infallibility is the selling of indulgences:

“The first known use of plenary indulgences was in 1095 when Pope Urban II remitted all penance of persons who participated in the crusades and who confessed their sins. Later, the indulgences were also offered to those who couldn’t go on the Crusades but offered cash contributions to the effort instead.” -Questions and answers about indulgences, with special reference to Martin Luther's objections

Then apparently Pope Leo X authorized the selling of indulgences in 1515, later for Pope Pius V to condemn this practice in 1567. How can we defend papal infallibility to others when faced with this information?

 

[Fauken]

can we defend papal infallibility to others when faced with this information?

How is this an attack on Papal Infallibility, first of all? Because this seems to be attacking something which the Church does not put under Papal Infallibility. How is this an attack on it when it relies on a definition of something it’s not?

 

[ChristianVII]

gainst papal infallibility is the selling of indulgences:

“The first known use of plenary indulgences was in 1095 when Pope Urban II remitted all penance of persons who participated in the crusades and who confessed their sins. Later, the indulgences were also offered to those who couldn’t go on the Crusades but offered cash contributions to the effort instead.” -Questions and answers about indulgences, with special reference to Martin Luther's objections

Then apparently Pope Leo X authorized the selling of indulgences in 1515, later for Pope Pius V to condemn this practice in 1567. How can we defend papal infallibility to others when faced with this information?

Papal infallibility is used so rarely I think people think about it too much.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Neither of those were infallible acts.

 

[Genesis315]

I think the best way to think about this topic is to understand papal infallibility as a necessary consequence of the primacy being a constituent, permanent element of the Church. The particular church in primacy (the Church of Rome–the Apostolic See) cannot be separated from the universal Church nor the universal Church from it. The universal Church therefore must hold the same faith as the Church of Rome.

Should the Church of Rome require an error to be believed in order to have communion with it, either the Church of Rome would defect from the universal Church or the entire Church would defect into error following Rome–and both things are impossible.

Therefore, in as much as the bishop of Rome–the authorized teacher of the Church of Rome–provides a judgment as to a doctrine that must be held in order for all to maintain communion in the Church, it must be true, otherwise it would lead to one of the two impossible conditions above.

Popes do and say tons of stuff–good and evil–that has no bearing on what is necessary for communion in the universal Church.

While it would be irrelevant to papal infallibility either way, the examples in the OP were not selling indulgences per se, but were indulgences being offered for a charitable act (almsgiving or support of some work of the Church). There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this (it would be wrong if a Pope or bishop granted indulgences in exchange for a personal payment; some clergy did do this). However, indulgences be granted for a work involving money was clearly something that could be easily misinterpreted or abused, so it was abolished and forbidden.