I was reading Msgr. Clifford Fenton's article on The Local Church of Rome, and he quotes the following: Actually the infallibility of the Roman Church is much more than a mere theological opinion. The proposition that "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" is one of the theses of Peter de Osma, formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy.
.
This condemnation is obviously highly relevant to our current situation, so I try to look it up. The footnote refers to Denzinger 730. Lo and behold, it isn't there! Denzinger doesn't have a 730 at all, but goes from 729 directly to 731. Am I going crazy or something? But then that canon is put in the footnote instead, with no explanation for why it was removed. Does anyone have any idea about this? https://archive.org/details/DenzingerTheSourcesOfCatholicDogma/page/n265/mode/2up

Interesting, thank you! I suspected something as much. But why would he remove that condemnation? You would think he would want that in there if he thought the powers of Rome (however you define them) were going to start teaching error soon, no?
.
And I have been searching the internet for more about this Peter Martinez of Osma. He seems to be almost unknown. He did get involved in the debate about how to reform the calendar and how to calculate the date of Easter each year, according to a paper I found about him: https://www.ehumanista.ucsb.edu/sites/secure.lsit.ucsb.edu.span.d7_eh/files/sitefiles/ehumanista/volume23/7%20ehumanista23.nothaft.pdf
.
I'm wondering if Peter had a disagreement with the pope about the correct way to restore the calendar (this being before the 10 days were suppressed from October in the 1500s), and that's all the pope was talking about when he condemned Peter Martinez's assertion that the Church of Rome could err. You would think the pope would have been a little more specific if that were the case, so this seems unlikely, but I can't find any more information about this online. The full text of this Bull of Sixtus IV doesn't seem to exist online except in the Denzinger that Rahner fooled with, and there is precious little, anywhere on the internet, about Peter Martinez of Osma.

Karl Rahner - the Durin's Bane of Catholic theology

No doubt he tried to fit things in with his Transcendental Thomist apostasy. I studied this arch-heretic in great depth. Part of my Masters thesis was a critique of his Mariology, and his theology in general.

Talk about the Rhine flowing into the Tiber. Rahner would be that nasty little dwarf Albrecht who swiped the gold from the flighty and likely immodest Rhinemaidens, metaphorically speaking.

Thank you for your insight, Kasimierz. Do you have any idea why he would have deleted this condemnation from the Denzinger? I'm baffled by this whole thing.

Which edition/year of the Denzinger is it missing from?

Below is the link to the 1911 publication of the Enchiridion symbolorum.

https://archive.org/details/enchiridionsymbo00denz/page/252/mode/2up


On page 253, you will find the (omitted from the 1954 onward editions) error of Petri De Osma, #730 "Ecclesia urbis Romae errare potest."

As far as I can surmise, Karl Rahner omitted this from the Denzinger because of his ecuмenistic tendencies.  His theological works testify to this possibility. More than likely he saw the possibility of the Roman Catholic Church as never erring to be problematic to the Vatican II council which posits religious liberty, a reorientation of Protestants and other previously deemed heretics to be separated brethren, and the like. If the Roman Church can never err then what was already said cannot be changed and thus Vatican II becomes much more problematic.

Also on a side note, the Protestant Johann Gieseler in his Compendium of Ecclesiastical History, Vol I Pg. 434, mentions this condemned error of De Osma and says the following: "in other countries the same fate befel the opposite doctrines of the Gallican system."

So it seems that the idea of the Roman Church possibly falling into error was understood as Gallican even by Protestant historians, which was condemned by the Holy See on numerous occasions for its theological issues.

As far as "Ecclesia urbis Romae errare potest" means in Roman Catholic Doctrine is a much deeper subject. Most of the works dealing with are in Latin and hard to get a hold of, but I'll see if I can find anything that addresses the subject directly.

I seem to remember that the 1965 edition(?) that was handed out for reference at VII had removed Pius IX's Quanta Cura removed so Religious Liberty could be pushed through.

The Denzinger was edited heavily during the period leading up to and after Vatican II. Many things were removed, added, etc.
Some teachings were removed because of their explicit incompatibility with the council and some implicitly.

Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner also inserted the dubious/spurious letter Suprema Haec ... citing only the American Ecclesiastical Review (edited by Cushing) ... as if it were a source of "dogma".

Which edition?