You wrote:
“You’re confused.”
Not in the least.
“Your question to which I was responding had nothing to do with Pelagianism.”
Your earlier comment did. You said: “Clearly it is. Augustine would not teach a Pelagian doctrine like the IC.”
Thus, according to you, the Immaculate Conception as a doctrine is Pelagian. You then relied upon a Jansenist for your information to attempt to refute the Immaculate Conception. Thus, you relied upon a Jansenist for what you believe to be proof of Pelagianism. I clearly am not confused in the least. You apparently are.
That was not the context of your question. I'll draw you a map.
The content of your question was:
Uh, if you can’t tell me who EXACTLY said it, then I don’t see why I should take the quote at face value to begin with.Your claim, “ if you can’t tell me who EXACTLY said it,” was with reference to the citation of “7. John XXII (or Benedict XII)”. See here. Launoy was the one who expressed some ambiguity on John vs. Benedict. He had nothing to say about the IC/Pelagianism as far as I know.This is the way it was reported by the Jansenist Launoy as quoted in various sources.
Now do you get it?
Nevertheless, I stand by the statement that the IC is basically a Pelagian doctrine, having to do with the sinlessness of person born of normal generation. Something not taught in the Bible or by the (true catholic) church fathers.