No salvation outside the catholic church
No salvation of unbaptized people and infants
No usury
Death penalty is inherently moral
Slavery is permissible. Notably newborns automatically become slaves if the mother was a slave
I know this ain't much of a catholic hangout but I thought id toss this out there
Africa and South America has the largest Catholic population in the world. Imagine if access to the Catholic Church was limited to these countries.
Yes, the highly successful Italian based business empire known as RC.Inc, has made a fortune selling nonsense to the gullible.
And so, for as long as the gullible keep breeding like rabbits and brainwashing their kids, then RC.Inc. will keep raking it in.
There are also, other similar highly successful business models.
Which keeps Chinese and other far eastern trinket manufactures very busy...
Yep if you are lucky and buy enough plastic Mary's you might not develop terminal cancer.
China produced 75% of the world’s bibles. Only God could convince China to promote Christianity.
Yes, the GOD of capitalism.
They didn't take much persuading.
To them it's just paper, ink and profit.
Examples?
I know interpreting papal statements involves a lot of deeper theology but at least on the surface this stuff looks pretty damning to papal claims
---
# 1. No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church
## Earlier teaching
### Pope Boniface VIII, *Unam Sanctam* (1302)
> "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
---
### Pope Eugene IV, *Cantate Domino* (Council of Florence, 1442)
> "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church... pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics... can become sharers in eternal life... unless before death they are joined with her."
---
## Later teaching
### Pope Paul VI promulgating *Lumen Gentium* §16 (1964)
> "Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God..."
---
### Pope John Paul II
> "Salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which... does not make them formally part of the Church."
---
# 2. No Salvation for the Unbaptized (Including Infants)
This one is more complicated than many realize.
## Earlier
### Council of Florence (1439)
> "The souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, **or in original sin only**, immediately descend into hell, to be punished, though with different punishments."
Since infants who died unbaptized were thought to die with original sin alone, this was traditionally understood to refer to them.
---
### Pope Innocent III
> "The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God."
This became the basis for the medieval idea of Limbo.
---
## Later
### Pope John Paul II, *Evangelium Vitae*
Encouraging women after abortion:
> "You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost."
This has often been read as expressing hope for the salvation of unborn children.
---
### Catechism (1992, revised)
> "The Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God."
> "There is hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism."
This is a significant shift in emphasis from earlier centuries, though the Church says it has not defined that such infants are saved.
---
# 3. Usury
## Earlier
### Third Lateran Council (1179)
Denied Christian burial to unrepentant usurers.
---
### Pope Clement V
> "If anyone shall fall into the error of pertinaciously presuming to affirm that usury is not sinful, we decree that he shall be punished as a heretic."
For many medieval theologians, "usury" effectively meant taking profit from a simple loan.
---
### Pope Benedict XIV, *Vix Pervenit* (1745)
> "The sin called usury has its proper place... whenever one demands more than has been received."
---
## Later
The Church now permits interest on loans under many circumstances, distinguishing legitimate interest from exploitative usury. Modern Catholic banks, dioceses, and the Vatican itself engage in financial investments consistent with this understanding.
---
# 4. Death Penalty
## Earlier
### Pope Innocent III
Required converts to affirm:
> "The secular power can, without mortal sin, exercise judgment of blood."
---
### Pope Pius XII (1952)
> "It is reserved to the public authority to deprive the condemned person of the good of life."
He explicitly taught that the state possesses the authority to execute criminals under appropriate conditions.
---
## Later
### Pope Francis (Catechism revision, 2018)
> "The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person."
Many Catholics debate whether "inadmissible" means intrinsically immoral or morally impermissible under current conditions. Pope Francis did not use the phrase "intrinsically evil," and the Vatican has argued that this is a development of doctrine rather than a reversal.
---
# 5. Slavery
This is perhaps the most historically difficult issue.
## Earlier
### Pope Nicholas V, *Dum Diversas* (1452)
Authorized Portugal
> "to invade... capture... and reduce their persons to perpetual slavery."
---
### Pope Nicholas V, *Romanus Pontifex* (1455)
Repeated authorization concerning conquered non-Christians.
---
### Roman law and canon law
For many centuries, Church law recognized forms of slavery inherited from Roman law. One such principle was **partus sequitur ventrem** ("the child follows the womb"), under which a child born to an enslaved mother was legally enslaved at birth. The Church generally accepted this civil legal framework in many places rather than rejecting it outright.
---
## Later
### Pope Leo XIII, *In Plurimis* (1888)
Condemned slavery and praised its abolition.
---
### Pope John Paul II, *Veritatis Splendor* (1993)
Lists
> "slavery"
among acts that are "intrinsically evil."
That proves popes are heavily involved in the direction of salvation.
1) Outside the Church there is no Salvation "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus"
It seems, as with almost all who aren't Catholic, you have a misunderstanding of this dogma. What it seems you think we mean by it is Feeneyism, which is a heresy. The problem is there are many exceptions to the rule that have always been believed. The Church has and continues to teach that She is necessary for the salvation, however, as you can see in the Pope St. John Paul II quote when you read the whole thing, there are instances where involuntary lack of knowledge (ignorance) is forgivable and with the grace of God you are still saved. The Church cannot put a limit on whom God saves, but She cannot teach that She isn't necessary. If you want me to go in deeper, I definitely can.
2) No Salvation of the Unbaptized
Again, here you cite without understanding what's being said. If this is to be taken in all cases, then the Church is rejecting baptism by blood and desire, which She doesn't deny. If what you said were true, in your own little note you add "limbo" which isn't hell. The truth is that the Church has never dogmatically declared what happens to unbaptized infants. Hence, in the latter quotes, you have this idea of hoping that the child is granted a pass into heaven.
3) Usury
Usury and Interest are not synonyms. A good short read is "The Perennial Teaching of the Church on Usury". Even in the Fifth Lateran Council, you have the Church declare that "montes pietatis", which many accused of usury, as not being usurious. They asked for interest.
4) Death Penalty
The State does have the overall authority. The Church doesn't deny this. What the Church is questioning, which I'll show from the pre-2018 Catechism, is to what extent is it permissible. "2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent” (John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56)." Even here in 1997, you see a development of doctrine where the need for a death penalty is deemed rare. Pope Francis claiming it to be "inadmissible" is dependent on what he said here, "Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption", as being true. If this is true, then your grounds for using the death penalty are shaky.
5) Slavery
Conflating two different ideas of the time. Unjust and just servitude. Slavery/servitude is the same word in Latin, i.e. Servus Dei can mean "servant/slave of God". Dum Diversas refers to captives in war, which servitude from a war was considered just at the time, same with Romanus Pontifex.
Sicut Dudum (1535), Sublimus Dei (1537), Cum Sicuti (1591), Commissum Nobis (1639) all condemn the enslavement of Indians and Africans (not as a part of war). This would have been considered unjust servitude. Earlier than all of these mentioned enslaving fellow Christians was already frowned upon, in general, and by the 17th century Europeans basically stopped enslaving war prisoners. You also haven't shown where the Church said it was okay and then said it wasn't (like you allegedly did in the other sections).
In none of these is there any "contradiction" as you put it.
ServusDei wrote:
1) Outside the Church there is no Salvation "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus"
It seems, as with almost all who aren't Catholic, you have a misunderstanding of this dogma. What it seems you think we mean by it is Feeneyism, which is a heresy. The problem is there are many exceptions to the rule that have always been believed. The Church has and continues to teach that She is necessary for the salvation, however, as you can see in the Pope St. John Paul II quote when you read the whole thing, there are instances where involuntary lack of knowledge (ignorance) is forgivable and with the grace of God you are still saved. The Church cannot put a limit on whom God saves, but She cannot teach that She isn't necessary. If you want me to go in deeper, I definitely can.
The way those strict quotes are worded makes it look like no one outside the visible church is saved. That's bolstered by the way the teaching was taught and understood for centuries.
2) No Salvation of the Unbaptized
Again, here you cite without understanding what's being said. If this is to be taken in all cases, then the Church is rejecting baptism by blood and desire, which She doesn't deny. If what you said were true, in your own little note you add "limbo" which isn't hell. The truth is that the Church has never dogmatically declared what happens to unbaptized infants. Hence, in the latter quotes, you have this idea of hoping that the child is granted a pass into heaven.
As I quoted, the council of Florence dogmatically defined that those with original sin go to hell. The Church teaches babies are born with original sin. Also you have to consider the way this was taught and understood.
3) Usury
Usury and Interest are not synonyms. A good short read is "The Perennial Teaching of the Church on Usury". Even in the Fifth Lateran Council, you have the Church declare that "montes pietatis", which many accused of usury, as not being usurious. They asked for interest.
You are ignoring that the pope I quoted said asking for more than was lent is usury. You also have to consider the way this teaching was taught and understood
4) Death Penalty
The State does have the overall authority. The Church doesn't deny this. What the Church is questioning, which I'll show from the pre-2018 Catechism, is to what extent is it permissible. "2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent” (John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56)." Even here in 1997, you see a development of doctrine where the need for a death penalty is deemed rare. Pope Francis claiming it to be "inadmissible" is dependent on what he said here, "Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption", as being true. If this is true, then your grounds for using the death penalty are shaky.
You have a plausible point here but its still not was taught or understood for hundreds of years
5) Slavery
Conflating two different ideas of the time. Unjust and just servitude. Slavery/servitude is the same word in Latin, i.e. Servus Dei can mean "servant/slave of God". Dum Diversas refers to captives in war, which servitude from a war was considered just at the time, same with Romanus Pontifex.
Sicut Dudum (1535), Sublimus Dei (1537), Cum Sicuti (1591), Commissum Nobis (1639) all condemn the enslavement of Indians and Africans (not as a part of war). This would have been considered unjust servitude. Earlier than all of these mentioned enslaving fellow Christians was already frowned upon, in general, and by the 17th century Europeans basically stopped enslaving war prisoners. You also haven't shown where the Church said it was okay and then said it wasn't (like you allegedly did in the other sections).
The modern church teaches slavery is intrinsically immoral. Thats not compatible even with the distinction that some slaves were prisoners of war and its even less compatible with all offspring in perpetuity can be slaves.
In none of these is there any "contradiction" as you put it.
I think you'd find better wiggle room in your arguments by arguing many of these statements I quoted dont rise to the level of authoritative statements as defined by Vatican I
On the salvation outside the catholic church point, what's the most straightforward way of interpreting this? The text and context around the text historically shows they taught those outside the visible church cant be saved. How could we interpret it otherwise? Just 'trust me bro"? That sounds pretty anachronistic to me if we have to contort ourselves to make it fit
1) Church and Salvation
The way those strict quotes are worded makes it look like no one outside the visible church is saved. That's bolstered by the way the teaching was taught and understood for centuries.
As it was taught and understood is what I just told you. How you are understanding it is called Fenneyism, which is a heresy. You can see this as early as St. Augustine in his work On Grace and Free Will. Even Romas 2, St. Paul, mentions how Gentiles are judged differently from the Jews. The idea of "invincible ignorance" has always existed; it complements the teaching and does not contradict it.
2) Unbaptized Infants
As I quoted, the council of Florence dogmatically defined that those with original sin go to hell. The Church teaches babies are born with original sin. Also you have to consider the way this was taught and understood.
Yet you also claimed that the quote by Pope Innocent III was the basis for limbo, which isn't hell. Again, the Church never gave an official teaching on unbaptized infants. You may apply it to unbaptized infants, if you want, but the council wasn't referring to them. The destination of unbaptized infants has not been made dogma (nor will it ever be). Even St. Thomas Aquinas, who predated the council, questioned the idea of unbaptized infants going to hell. The statements of the council would apply generally to those beyond age of reason.
3) Usury
You are ignoring that the pope I quoted said asking for more than was lent is usury. You also have to consider the way this teaching was taught and understood
I ignored nothing. You are ignoring there is a difference between usuria and interesse. You, allegedly, read these entire documents that you quoted but can't read like
4-5 pages on the teaching of usury.
4) Death Penalty
Mercy wasn't taught and understood for 2000 years?
5) Slavery
The modern church teaches slavery is intrinsically immoral. Thats not compatible even with the distinction that some slaves were prisoners of war and its even less compatible with all offspring in perpetuity can be slaves.
Again, there are two types of slavery/servitude (being the same word in Latin) in Catholic teaching. One is considered just, and the other unjust. So, yes, unjust slavery/servitude is intrinsically evil. Examples of when it is just, forced labor of prisoners, and voluntary labor for a debt (just conditions being met of course). He is not referring to either of these when talking about the intrinsic evil that is slavery, nor was the Church at Vatican II which he was referencing.
You like to talk about what was "taught and understood at the time" and then when it's brought up you ignore it.
Jesus said he was the only way into heaven. And that has kept him busy.
Debby, and I am asking with total sincerity, are you okay? Every time you have said something to me in these forums it has nothing to do with what is being discussed.
Salvation has to do with heaven and Jesus.
Never denied that, Debby.
How can you say the Catholic Church contradicts itself on these issues when it is fundamentally what the Catholic Church teaches that salvation has to do with Jesus and heaven.
I don't believe that the Catholic Church has contradicted itself on these issues. That's why I am defending Her.
You admitted you have nothing to do with what is being discussed
I said that you make comments to me that have nothing to do with what is being discussed. You should probably reread. But I'll help you...
Every time you have said something to me in these forums it has nothing to do with what is being discussed.
No one else has complained. The discussions are productive.
You literally posited that I believe that the Church contradicts Herself when I am the one defending her. How is that productive?
Defending the Catholic Church is productive.
I know it is. How is telling me that I am not doing that, when I am, productive? Or did you not understand the first time I asked you?
ServusDei wrote:
1) Church and Salvation
The way those strict quotes are worded makes it look like no one outside the visible church is saved. That's bolstered by the way the teaching was taught and understood for centuries.
As it was taught and understood is what I just told you. How you are understanding it is called Fenneyism, which is a heresy. You can see this as early as St. Augustine in his work On Grace and Free Will. Even Romas 2, St. Paul, mentions how Gentiles are judged differently from the Jews. The idea of "invincible ignorance" has always existed; it complements the teaching and does not contradict it.
Yeah but your argument still 'trust me bro' when the text and contextual evidence is more on my side. How can you cite exceptions to the rule when the exceptions are stated scattered throughout 2000 years and not said around or the same time as the quotes that say spilling your blood even doesn't save non Catholics? Plus ai says the understanding of lay Catholics was a strict rule. Feenyism didn't arise from nothing. I acknowledge you could be right be wed have to not trust what's right in front of our nose
2) Unbaptized Infants
As I quoted, the council of Florence dogmatically defined that those with original sin go to hell. The Church teaches babies are born with original sin. Also you have to consider the way this was taught and understood.
Yet you also claimed that the quote by Pope Innocent III was the basis for limbo, which isn't hell. Again, the Church never gave an official teaching on unbaptized infants. You may apply it to unbaptized infants, if you want, but the council wasn't referring to them. The destination of unbaptized infants has not been made dogma (nor will it ever be). Even St. Thomas Aquinas, who predated the council, questioned the idea of unbaptized infants going to hell. The statements of the council would apply generally to those beyond age of reason.
So hasn't the catholic church always taught that infants are born into original sin? Doesn't Florence say those who have only original sin go to hell? Then you are ignoring the historical context, there's tons of qoutes even if they aren't authoritative of popes teaching unbaptized go to hell. One pope called it stupid to think upbaptized babies dont go to hell.
3) Usury
You are ignoring that the pope I quoted said asking for more than was lent is usury. You also have to consider the way this teaching was taught and understood
I ignored nothing. You are ignoring there is a difference between usuria and interesse. You, allegedly, read these entire documents that you quoted but can't read like
4-5 pages on the teaching of usury.
I showed you the quote. You do nothing to deny it. "The sin called usury has its proper place... whenever one demands more than has been received."
. It said asking for anything other than what was lent is immoral. I agree its plausible to allow cost of doing business expenses on a loan but once you get into profit for the sake of profit its historically considered immoral
4) Death Penalty
Mercy wasn't taught and understood for 2000 years?
5) Slavery
The modern church teaches slavery is intrinsically immoral. Thats not compatible even with the distinction that some slaves were prisoners of war and its even less compatible with all offspring in perpetuity can be slaves.
Again, there are two types of slavery/servitude (being the same word in Latin) in Catholic teaching. One is considered just, and the other unjust. So, yes, unjust slavery/servitude is intrinsically evil. Examples of when it is just, forced labor of prisoners, and voluntary labor for a debt (just conditions being met of course). He is not referring to either of these when talking about the intrinsic evil that is slavery, nor was the Church at Vatican II which he was referencing.
So according to you it should still be moral to take slaves from war? Perpetual slaves of all offspring isnt immoral? Thats not intrinsically immoral?
You like to talk about what was "taught and understood at the time" and then when it's brought up you ignore it.
You dont make any or many arguments based on whether certain papal authoritative yet its probably your only real resort if you want to wiggle out of these clear teachings
Council of Florence Session 11 (Bull Cantate Domino): Archived at the Wayback Machine "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time"
“Babies dead without baptism go to Limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but neither do they suffer, because, having original sin alone, they do not deserve paradise, but neither do they merit hell or purgatory.” ~1905 Catechism of Pope Pius X,
Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.” - Condemned
Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.” (Denz. 102, authentic addition to canon 2.)
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)
Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 464)
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:
“26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. (Denz. 1526)
Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic… But those who defend this for them without rebirth seem to me to want to quash Baptism itself, when they preach that infants already have what is believed to be conferred on them only through Baptism.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)
St. Augustine, A.D. 415: “Anyone who would say that infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)
It us still upto God’s mercy to save those who were not baptized by understanding their situation.
Yeah but your argument still 'trust me bro' when the text and contextual evidence is more on my side. How can you cite exceptions to the rule when the exceptions are stated scattered throughout 2000 years and not said around or the same time as the quotes that say spilling your blood even doesn't save non Catholics? Plus ai says the understanding of lay Catholics was a strict rule. Feenyism didn't arise from nothing. I acknowledge you could be right be wed have to not trust what's right in front of our nose
It isn’t “trust me bro”. What good does it serve to show every exception to a rule? Let’s give this as an example. You must be baptized, right? Well, what if I am killed on the way to being baptized? That’s called “baptism by desire”. Does the Church now state that you don’t need normal baptism to be saved because there’s an exception? No. Man is bound by the sacraments and to the Church, God is not. So, the Church can state Her necessity and role in salvation, and at the same time recognize that the Almighty God can save whoever He pleases. Perfect example, God’s covenant was with who in the OT? Israel. Does that mean only Israelites could be saved? No. St. Paul states that Israelites had the Mosaic Law and were judged by that and the Gentiles were judged by the law written on their hearts. So even those who aren’t in a visible communion with Him are still fairly judged. God doesn’t cease to do this. However, it does no good for the Church to say “You do not have to be in visible communion with the Church so don’t worry about it”. That goes against what God wants of us.
Feeneyism arose through a strict personal interpretation of Church teaching which also led him to deny other teachings like the baptisms of desire and blood.
So hasn't the catholic church always taught that infants are born into original sin? Doesn't Florence say those who have only original sin go to hell? Then you are ignoring the historical context, there's tons of qoutes even if they aren't authoritative of popes teaching unbaptized go to hell. One pope called it stupid to think upbaptized babies dont go to hell.
You say this but at the same time want to cite Pope Innocent III (who predates the council by more than 200 years) for the basis of limbo, which isn’t hell. I am doing anything but ignoring the historical context. I recognize all the understandings of whether they go to hell, limbo, or the possibility of heaven. The fact of the matter is, the Church has never dogmatically defined where unbaptized infants go (if She did you wouldn’t have to deduce it would you?). We are subject to the sacraments, as I previously said, God is not. He can save whoever He pleases. “ 34. In the Church's tradition, the affirmation that children who died unbaptised are deprived of the beatific vision has for a long time been “common doctrine”. This common doctrine followed upon a certain way of reconciling the received principles of revelation, but it did not possess the certitude of a statement of faith, or the same certitude as other affirmations whose rejection would entail the denial of a divinely revealed dogma or of a teaching proclaimed by a definitive act of the magisterium… 37. c) In the documents of the magisterium in the Middle Ages, the mention of “different punishments” for those who die in actual mortal sin or with original sin only (“As for the souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, they go down immediately to hell, to be punished, however, with different punishments") must be interpreted according to the common teaching of the time. Historically, these affirmations have certainly been applied to unbaptised infants, with the conclusion that these infants suffer punishment for original sin. It must be observed however that, in a general way, the focus of these Church pronouncements was not on the lack of salvation for unbaptised infants, but on the immediacy of the particular judgment after death and the assignment of souls to heaven or hell. These magisterial statements do not oblige us to think that these infants necessarily die with original sin, so that there would be no way of salvation for them… 38. d) The Bull “Auctorem fidei” of Pope Pius VI is not a dogmatic definition of the existence of Limbo: the papal Bull confines itself to rejecting the Jansenist charge that the “Limbo” taught by scholastic theologians is identical with the “eternal life” promised to unbaptised infants by the ancient Pelagians. Pius VI did not condemn the Jansenists because they denied Limbo, but because they held that the defenders of Limbo were guilty of the heresy of Pelagius. By maintaining the freedom of the Catholic Schools to propose different solutions to the problem of the fate of unbaptised infants, the Holy See defended the common teaching as an acceptable and legitimate option, without endorsing it. 27. Prior to the First Vatican Council, and again prior to the Second Vatican Council, there was a strong interest in some quarters in defining Catholic doctrine on this matter. This interest was evident in the revised schema of the dogmatic constitution, De doctrina catholica, prepared for the First Vatican Council (but not voted upon by the Council)... (International Theological Commission, The Hope for the Salvation of Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized) ” It would seem that the Catholic Church never dogmatically defined the destination of unbaptized infants, according to the Catholic Church.
I showed you the quote. You do nothing to deny it. "The sin called usury has its proper place... whenever one demands more than has been received." It said asking for anything other than what was lent is immoral. I agree its plausible to allow cost of doing business expenses on a loan but once you get into profit for the sake of profit its historically considered immoral
Again, as one of my examples, the “montes pietatis” by your understanding would be usurious. According to the Fifth Lateran Council, they were deemed not to be usurious. You then say that it’s plausible for X but still want to hold the Church to a strict understanding of “whenever one demands more than has been received”, which would make X not plausible. Let’s look at the same pope you cited (Benedict XIV), “III. By these remarks, however, We do not deny that at times together with the loan contract certain other titles-which are not at all intrinsic to the contract-may run parallel with it. From these other titles, entirely just and legitimate reasons arise to demand something over and above the amount due on the contract. Nor is it denied that it is very often possible for someone, by means of contracts differing entirely from loans, to spend and invest money legitimately either to provide oneself with an annual income or to engage in legitimate trade and business. From these types of contracts honest gain may be made.” Is he contradicting himself now? Or is it your personal understanding of what is being said that makes it seem contradictory? John Noonan in his work The Scholastic Analysis of Usury stated, "This dogmatic teaching remains unchanged. What is a just title, what is technically to be treated as a loan, are matters of debate, positive law, and changing evolution. The development of these points is great. But the pure and narrow dogma is the same today as in 1200" (400). In other words, as society develops so does doctrine. Economies do not resemble that of those centuries ago and new systems are in place that haven’t been seen. They are judged accordingly to previous teachings.
So according to you it should still be moral to take slaves from war? Perpetual slaves of all offspring isnt immoral? Thats not intrinsically immoral?
To your first question, what God makes moral or immoral cannot change. Nor can I decide whether it should or shouldn’t be moral, for whatever God makes it it is. Whether it is moral to take slaves from war? It is. These are people who want to kill you. By capturing them they can no longer do so (although this didn’t always happen and captives were also ransomed). This reasoning isn’t unjust. The Geneva Convention also allows for the labor of prisoners of war (being nice enough to require a minimum pay of 31 cents per day). We’re starting to see a common trend. Systems that were in place originally were modified and not fully done away with. Here, captured combatants are treated like regular prisoners now. Is this wrong?
In regard to the capture of the civilian populace. They were viewed in the same light as actual combatants. According to jus gentium, just as the state had a right to kill all captured combatants, they also had the right to kill the combatant population as well. Along with combatants, Christians tended towards the enslavement of the civilian as it was preferable to execution. The enslavement of offspring also follows this concept through “partus sequitir ventrum”. At the end of the day, the enslavement during war follows suit of capital punishment. Are they immoral? No, not per se. Are they necessary? Not anymore, except for the capture of combatants of course. It falls out of practice because of a lack of necessity and reason.
If all forms of slavery are intrinsically immoral, as that seems to be what you posit, was St. Paul promoting an intrinsic immorality when telling Christian masters how to treat their slaves? If all forms of slavery are immoral, then emancipation is the only option that follows moral law, no? What about the other just forms of slavery/servitude, besides prisoners of war, i.e. punishment, debt, and voluntary? Are these immoral as well? Or do you see these as acceptable forms of slavery/servitude?
You dont make any or many arguments based on whether certain papal authoritative yet its probably your only real resort if you want to wiggle out of these clear teachings
The only mention of the authority of a teaching that you got wrong was with the destination of unbaptized infants. Other than that, our discussion has been about your lack of understanding of Catholic teachings and not the authority of said teachings.
You talk about me wanting to "wiggle out" yet you have already ceded ground on the varying issues from saying that there is a blatant contradiction to the Catholic understanding as being plausible.
As for the quotes on the destination of infants. Again, you cite quotes saying the destination is hell or limbo on the basis that it is dogmatically defined. As I showed above, according to the Church it is not dogmatically defined, so they are in the right to believe what they wish.
