Church doesn't err when teaching something to the Universal Church. But the Church can err in permitting various positions to be held? So, the Church positively condemned heliocentrism as HERESY, and that condemnation had papal approval. Then the Church allowed heliocentrism. These two contradict one another, so the Church had "erred" either the first time or the second time. So, the error would be the second time, since it's a prudential judgment and not a teaching. Unfortunatley, dogmatic SVism have absurdly exaggerated the scope of infallibility in overreacting to the errors of R&R, which excessively minimize it. They exaggerate infallibility to absurd lengths that NO THEOLOGIAN writing after Vatican I and before Vatican II ever held.
Church condemned usury, and then stopped condeming it.
Church permitted both Thomism and Molinism, where each group accused the other of heresy, and both cannot be true, so in permitting them both, it permitted something incorrect.
Pius XII permitted DISCUSSION of evolution ... not even adherence to it, much less did he teach it. That was an unmitigated disaster, along with a number of his other decisions.
Dodgmatic SVism has indeed trended toward the papolatry that many R&R accuse all SVs of, where Popes are these divine oracles that are infallible every time they pass wind ... or even infallible in never being able to fail to condemn error.
Honorius was anathematized by Third Constantinople for failing to condemn various propostiions related to monothelitism, so either Honorius erroed or III Constantinople (and Pope Stephen II who ratified it) did.
Stuff like this tends to turn Catholic teaching regarding papal infallibility into a laughing stock.
Your pass wind comments sounds just like Luther! No, YOU tend to turn Catholic teaching into a laughing stock. You don't understand that the Church can condemn something for EXTRINSIC reasons, and then later approve of the same because the extrinsic reasons change. Sometimes at first the danger is looked at as possibly intrinsic and later found to only be dangerous for extrinsic reasons.
Topic: A bit of Jesuit history (Read 5942 times)