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.
