Perhaps the crucial portions of the information need be found in associated supporting documents Like from pope Martin V in regards to Dom Henrique ..ah, that rings a bell. That pope was offered by Henry captured Africans as slaves following the success of the little war against the Moors to sieze Ceuta,and is said in various historical accounting to have authorized Henrique to take slaves in disruption of that same trade which had been plied by the Saracens. There is abundant evidence Henry did so. While head of a portion of what was it "The Orders of Christ"?
Regardless of some other pronouncement by this Eugenius IV opposing slavery...for that was limited to be in regards to the taking of slaves among baptized Christians among native peoples (*possibly including no taking of Christians by Christians period, for that too had occurred on occasion as kings and kingdom squabbled.) No taking of Christian slaves by other Christians, and no sale of them. But with some mention of "regret" that natives of some islands had been taken into servitude -=-- those referred to being the ones having been already baptized.
Yet you presented that in context of conversation here as to meaning it would prohibit the taking of slaves in Africa, which it most certainly would not (unless they had been baptized as Christians) and would in fact implicitly continue allowance of the then fairly recent developing practice of taking slaves in Africa and other locales.
Then there is a (somewhat distilled but accurate enough) explicit;
"We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slaveryfrom the Dum Diversas (translates as Until Different, right?) of Pope Nicholas V.
I do love how you seem to attempt to bluff and capitalize upon perceived ignorance which the googlesterium can make short work of. A fuller translation presented by an apparently honest Catholic, which can serve for now; http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/02/dum-diversas-english-translation.html
The undeniable emerges. For a time the RC church from it's highest levels supported/endorsed slavery within some limit, but lacking limit and having explicit endorsement for the taking of unconverted of the Saracen/Muslims into slavery, by Christians (the Muslims themselves at this time having themselves been slavers of many centuries standing, taking not only Africans, but many European Christians captive into slavery). The papal bulls were much in response to the that.
I could go on, and tackle much of the rest which you have written in my direction, but it's so full of tangles and snarls as to be little worth the effort, with offerings from "opposite land" like the below, galor;
Factually correct on some single plane here and there occasionally but not everywhere, while taken altogether so entirely misleading (deliberately?) to be completely incorrect in wider scope of conversation.
How much of the gold in Vatican City came from the sale of indulgences --- the Lord only knows, but I seriously doubt it be none or even "not all that much", which is just as good or better formed opinion than labeling all of it with the misleading "all donations".
You required I bring proof? Where's the accounting for the "all donations" claim beyond your own table pounding assertions? Even if from kings and other assorted nobles, it's still tainted, much of it.
Large donations from Monarchs? I covered that slightly, in pointing towards how the RC church of that time was "wedded" to the worldly kings, each deriving power or reflecting between them the subjugation and forced acceptance by all, of the powers and authority each laid claim to hold over other human beings. Wealth by subjugation. Not limited to full enslavement of others to bring the gain...for partial enslavement can be more profitable and easier to manage in the long run, but by wholesale subjugation of humans nonetheless.
Though there be reasons for everything, that sort of thing isn't exactly what the Lord had in mind, I take it, but in too many ways the RCC participated for long centuries, in such systems and profited from the participation.
The kings themselves didn't much get out there and tote barge or lift bale. No, they had serfs do pretty much all of it. And some of those "noblemen" of the time had gotten their lands through the murdering of previous owners and townsfolk for daring to preach (a form of) the Gospel without permission from the RC church, with the church itself receiving, being given some of (small) lands taken in that manner, directly, all having been conducted towards these "other than themselves" preachers with blessing from the RCC. Yes, the church blessed even murdering, said it was for the wider cause of Christ. Said it was neccassary (to stop those ignorant preachers from preaching it wrong!)
That too [the immediately above] is factual enough, with supporting links not too difficult to find.
I'm rather surprised you can't see it. Perhaps more distance from the subject matter is required for clearer appraisal. It matters little as to a "that's how they did it in those days" sort of defensive explanation. The church supported the kings and nobles (but not always and not every king and noble) and the nobles (irregularly but most typically) supported the powers of the RC church, with interplay of politics along the way. That much is undeniable by any. The little man was often (not always) all but enslaved by the system. He could scarcely speak out without risking deadly reprisal from the nobles in their own name, or from the nobles in the name of the church, of from an office of the church under the authority of a king on one level but simultaneously under the authority of the church, with "Inquisition" conducted in the name of the RC church...but still, here and there, speak out they did. Sometimes that would be tolerated, but other times that could get a guy killed. It's a mixed bag. In light of the overall oppressive practices, how could the money not be somewhat tainted in all the mix? Yet there it is, still on parade, still testimony of things other than "all by donation", still testimony of the sinfulness of man not being able to be neatly separated from "church", yet what else can be expected? That all sin or taint stop short of any church organizations walls?
I don't expect as much, nor say any church must be infallible, or "infallibly led" for who in the heck has much ever "infallibly followed?" Not the RCC, regardless of the frequently made claim, that they themselves out of all humaninty and among all other Christian organizations, has at all times been infallible. To believe otherwise is a form of sheer madness, in light of the available evidences.
Only by the grace of God and blood of Christ are any justified
When you read the Treaty of Tordesillas get back to me. Somehow I don’t think you’ll actually bother to read it.
you wrote:
“I don’t expect as much, nor say any church must be infallible, or “infallibly led” for who in the heck has much ever “infallibly followed?” Not the RCC, regardless of the frequently made claim, that they themselves out of all humaninty and among all other Christian organizations, has at all times been infallible. To believe otherwise is a form of sheer madness, in light of the available evidences.”
I don’t think you understand the doctrine of infallibility. What have you read about it?
From http://www.jimmyakin.org/2009/02/soups-reredux.html: One Pope out of 265 Popes condemns slavery as intrinsically evil in the ordinary magisterium and you call it Church Teaching without ever using your own brain to see if he might have overstepped in his late years... and you are prepared to throw God Himself and His estimation of slavery overboard. The Prots are not 100% wrong when they fault us for Pope worship. You just did it.
Your thoughts on torture and saving Pope Leo X's reputation from an obvious cruel belief is absolutely the same syndrome. I think you are important to the Church but you will spoil it if you think flattering Her when She really needs the opposite from you is the thing to do. Paul confronted Peter in Galatians and Peter grew....the Church now has no one with Paul's truthfulness.
The list of bulls against slavery occurred over a time span that included 44 Popes but only about 7 of them denounced slavery of sorts....one was against slavery in the Canaries but only of baptized natives....the next one by Paul III was against the enslavement of the Caribbean natives but not against that of blacks....another was against the trade, but not against the domestic slavery of blacks born to slave mothers and held by religious orders into the 19th century, with [the] Bishop [of] England who knew the Pope [was][ writing for domestic slavery after the bull and not being gainsaid by the Pope. The most complete one was finally at the end of the 19th century by a Pope...Leo XIII this time... who claimed that the Church was the great liberator from slavery, and he gave a papal list which left out the six Popes from 1452 til 1511 who literally turbocharged the slavery by Spain and Portugal that involved millions. And you can easily research the first words of that chain by going to Romanus Pontifex on line by Pope Nicholas V and go to the middle of the 4th paragraph. In the OT flattery was a sin. Why does no one say that anymore? Because Church speak is floating in it.