Q&A with the Pont. Comm. Ecclesia Dei about SSPX, schism and sacraments

[GerardP]

If the Pope’s agreement with the opinion that there isn’t a crisis in the Church doesn’t matter, according to your second quote, then why are you using the Pope’s opinion as proof that there is a crisis in the first quote? Granted, in calling your statement a tautology, I’m assuming you wouldn’t change your opinion if the Pope changed his, but I don’t feel I’m assuming too much in that regard.

If the Pope changed his mind about a crisis in the Church it would be a good sign, since there is a crisis in the Church and a Pope would be admitting the truth about it. It would be sign of an eventual turn-around.

If a Pope didn’t change his mind about a crisis in the Church it would be a bad sign , since there is a crisis in the Church and the Pope would be refusing to address it.

Whether the Pope admits the truth or not doesn’t change THE FACT of the existence of the crisis.

Generally, and by generally I mean always, the burden of proof is on the party trying to prove a postive (e.g., there is a crisis in the Church), and not on the other party to prove a negative, because that is generally impossible.

You must obviously know that the Church is in a crisis. Pedophile scandals, rampant homosexuality in the clergy (several books have been published on this along with examples in the news like Archbishop Weakland’s scandal for one.)

Liturgical ruins throughout the Church.

Believe in the real presence at a severe low.

Sacrilege everywhere.

Heterodoxy running rampant.

Vocations in free fall.

Fr. Pfleger.

Catholic Universities railing against the Church’s teaching.

False Ecumenism engaged in by the Popes.

Persecution of traditionalists for 40 years.

Popes refusing to condemn heterodoxy and heresy.

You’d be correct, except I believe the Pope was elected with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit would never let the Pope or the Church do anything that would endanger a great number of souls.

Unfortunately what you believe has no basis in Catholic doctrine. The Pope is elected. He’s protected by the Holy Ghost only under particular and stringent circumstances. The rest is purely up to the man and the Holy Ghost. Not the office. Alexander VI had all the graces of office that St. Pius X had. The difference was in the men, not the office.

This doesn’t mean the Pope or the Church are always right in everything they do, but it would include matters concerning the validity of sacraments.

Popes can’t change the form of Baptism and the Eucharist at least in their essentials. They can however loosen the form in order to cast doubt on the intention or make it easy for a priest to do the form incorrectly. (I’m not accusing any Pope of that. I’m just stating it as a possibility that falls within the framework of the promises of Christ.)

I am really sympathetic to the SSPX in many regards, and I do believe there are some problems in the Church, but I can’t understand how some people want totally to write off the Hierarchy of the Church as “modernist” and then pretend they have a monopoly on the objective truth.

No one can have a monopoly on the truth. The truth doesn’t “belong” to anyone. It simply IS. When one’s mind corresponds to that objective reality is knowing the truth.

This letter from the PCED was drafted to clear up confusion and was issued with the authority of the Pope. I know it’s unpopular with a lot of people but maybe, just maybe, God is guiding the Church in her actions, and maybe, just maybe, instead of only appealing solely to our own reason and logic as the final arbiter of whether we should act as this letter commands, we should have a little faith and trust in God that Hell will never prevail against the Gates of the Church.

First, God it not guiding that document because it is not true.

Second, Christ made no promise that Hell wouldn’t prevail against the gates of the Church. The Gates of the Church have already fallen. As Paul VI, noted and then did nothing, “Through some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the Church around the sanctuary and is in the highest levels of the hierarchy.”

Hell’s gates will prevail as long as the Church continues on this course of auto-demolition. It will not prevail when the Church gets off it’s knees and starts fighting evil again for what it is. And that will happen. And it won’t happen because of 'dialogue" and “religious liberty” and bizarre, slippery philosophies that ultimately are foolish and naive in there attempts to transmit the faith.

 

[GerardP]

OK, I’ll play along. Suppose I said the following:

“Chocolate is the best tasting ice cream in the world and anyone who says it isn’t PROVES that it is.”

Using your logic (or lack of) there is no way you can refute my statement. Chocolate is the best tasting ice cream in the world. Therefore, it is “objectively” true.

No, no no. Phrase it this way. “This bowl of chocolate ice cream is melting and the melted and still melting chocolate ice cream in this bowl proves it.” It’s self-evident.

“Best” is an inaccurate word since it is a word with a moral meaning applied to an amoral substance.

“Crisis” and “melting” are both quantifiable descriptions.

You should be agreeing with me because a Pope must be in crisis if the Church is in Crisis and the Church can’t be in crisis if the Pope is not in Crisis.

A Pope not admittting there is a crisis when there is a crisis shows a manifest symptom of the crisis afflicting the Church in the Pope himself.

A Pope like St. Pius X admitting there is a crisis is indicative of a healthy papacy in crisis dealing with the crisis.

I wonder how old you are. To say that things are “self evident” and this preoccupation with things that are “objectively” true shows me that you don’t really have alot of real-world experience, though I could be wrong.

“I’m as old as my tongue and a little older than my teeth.”–Kris Kringle.

Ah…now the attempt is made to change the subject to me, personally. I don’t have a “pre-occupation” with what is objectively true. I just have to deal with people on this board who have a pre-occupation with what they think is true due to their lack of objectivity. If you say I’m pre-occupied with facts. That may be correct, but it’s better than being pre-occupied with fantasy, which is sadly something too many people on these boards are engaging in.

In regards to the “crisis” in the Church, I ask; can you show me a period in history when there hasn’t been some crisis in the Church?

There are always brushfires. Show me a crisis in the Church that is Global in scope and initiated by Rome. I’ll show you Vatican II and the post-conciliar period. It is unique in Church history. The Arian heresy is the only crisis that comes close and it doesn’t come that close.

If you read the histories of the Popes you will see that there has hardly ever been a time when there wasn’t something somewhere causing a Papal headache.

But for the last several decades we’ve had Popes giving orthodox and faithful Catholics headaches.

Lastly, the problem with the sspx is a very insignificant thing. Somehow people think that if they are ever reconciled Catholicism is going to flower like never before. I doubt 1 out of 100 Catholics ever heard of the sspx, let alone so called “traditionalism.”

God doesn’t always work with big numbers:

"With zeal have I been zealous for the Lord God of hosts: because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant: they have destroyed thy altars, they have slain thy prophets with the sword, and I alone am left, and they seek my life to take it away… And the Lord said to him: Go, and return on thy way through the desert to Damascus: and when thou art come thither, thou shalt anoint Hazael to be king over Syria.

And thou shalt anoint Jehu the son of Namsi to be king over Israel: and Eliseus the son of Saphat, of Abelmeula, thou shalt anoint to be prophet in thy room. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall escape the sword of Hazael, shall be slain by Jehu: and whosoever shall escape the sword of Jehu, shall be slain by Eliseus. And I will leave me seven thousand men in Israel, whose knees have not been bowed before Baal, and every mouth that hath not worshipped him kissing the hands."

 

[piojunbabia]

Thank you for posting this. This is very informative.

So no formal schism, because formal schism is not declared (rightly or wrongly). But their sacraments of Penance and Matrimony are invalid.

How come their sacraments of Penance and Matrimony are invalid? please cite me a qoute from above. Thank you.

Ave Maria!

 

[consumedconvert]

How come their sacraments of Penance and Matrimony are invalid? please cite me a qoute from above. Thank you.

Ave Maria!

They are invalid because these two Sacraments require faculties from either a Bishop or Religious Superior. For example, if a priest in my diocese was convicted of a serious crime (God forbid!), his faculties would be suspended and he could not validly hear confessions. The person would walk out of the confessional the same as he walked into it.

This does not apply to those of the Faithful who do not know that the priest’s faculties have been suspended. See second post, above.

Concretely, this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid.

This comes from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, i.e., the Vatican.

 

[GerardP]

This comes from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, i.e., the Vatican.

It comes from one person in an office and it is wrong.

As was very nicely posted on Fr. Z’s website:

In common error of fact OR OF LAW (Monsignor Perl fails to refer to common error of LAW, an omission which obviously arises from his pre-New Code studies)… the Church supplies executive power of governance both for the external and for the internal forum. (Canon 144)

Error communis de iure est qui fundatur in facto per se apto ad inducendum omnes in errore de existentia iurisdictionis, licet forte de facto pauci prorsus vel nullus erraverit. Ut si sacerdos publice sedeat in confessionali, quasi spectans poenitentes. (Coronata)

If a censure prohibits the celebration of the Sacraments or Sacramentals or the placing of an act of jurisdiction, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to take care of the faithful who are in danger of death; and if an automatic censure is not a declared one, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a Sacrament, a Sacramental or an act of jurisdiction; this request can be made for any just cause whatsoever. (Canon 1335)

Whenever necessity requires **or genuine spiritual advantage **suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for the faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid. (Canon 844, #2)

Without prejudice to the rule of #3 of this Canon, **the faithful may for any just reason ask the Sacraments and Sacramentals from an excommunicated person **especially if there is no other minister available, and the excommunicated person at their request may minister to them without any obligation to inquire into the reason for the request. (Canon 2261, #2)

…in positive and **probable doubt **about law or about fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance both for the external and for the internal forum. (Canon 144)

 

[consumedconvert]

It comes from one person in an office and it is wrong.

As was very nicely posted on Fr. Z’s website:

In common error of fact OR OF LAW (Monsignor Perl fails to refer to common error of LAW, an omission which obviously arises from his pre-New Code studies)… the Church supplies executive power of governance both for the external and for the internal forum. (Canon 144)

Error communis de iure est qui fundatur in facto per se apto ad inducendum omnes in errore de existentia iurisdictionis, licet forte de facto pauci prorsus vel nullus erraverit. Ut si sacerdos publice sedeat in confessionali, quasi spectans poenitentes. (Coronata)

If a censure prohibits the celebration of the Sacraments or Sacramentals or the placing of an act of jurisdiction, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to take care of the faithful who are in danger of death; and if an automatic censure is not a declared one, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a Sacrament, a Sacramental or an act of jurisdiction; this request can be made for any just cause whatsoever. (Canon 1335)

Whenever necessity requires **or genuine spiritual advantage **suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for the faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid. (Canon 844, #2)

Without prejudice to the rule of #3 of this Canon, **the faithful may for any just reason ask the Sacraments and Sacramentals from an excommunicated person **especially if there is no other minister available, and the excommunicated person at their request may minister to them without any obligation to inquire into the reason for the request. (Canon 2261, #2)

…in positive and **probable doubt **about law or about fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance both for the external and for the internal forum. (Canon 144)

The Comission speaks for the Pope. Your post shows circular reasoning–the Church contradicting the Church. And don’t forget, the Pope is the supreme interpreter of Canon Law. Please see my post above.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Without prejudice to the rule of #3 of this Canon, **the faithful may for any just reason ask the Sacraments and Sacramentals from an excommunicated person **especially if there is no other minister available, and the excommunicated person at their request may minister to them without any obligation to inquire into the reason for the request. (Canon 2261, #2)

Why would anyone today care what the old 1917 code had to say about this issue?

 

[consumedconvert]

Why would anyone today care what the old 1917 code had to say about this issue?

Hm, sorry I didn’t pick up on that first. I’m certainly no canonist!

Sharp eyes you’ve got there.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Hm, sorry I didn’t pick up on that first. I’m certainly no canonist!

Sharp eyes you’ve got there.

More like tedious leg work. I went to look up all the canons cited, but I couldn’t find the last one, since the 1983 code ends at canon 1752.

Not that my opinion matters, but canon 1335 seems not to apply to the present situation, because the excommunications against the SSPX bishops have been declared, and ecclesiastical censure is not reason that the SSPX priests lack jurisdiction.

 

[consumedconvert]

More like tedious leg work. I went to look up all the canons cited, but I couldn’t find the last one, since the 1983 code ends at canon 1752.

Not that my opinion matters, but canon 1335 seems not to apply to the present situation, because the excommunications against the SSPX bishops have been declared, and ecclesiastical censure is not reason that the SSPX priests lack jurisdiction.

I really just don’t get why people try using Canon Law against the Pope, or the Pope’s rulings, since the CCL playingly says that the authoritative interpreter of Canon Law is the legislator. That would be…the Pope.

 

[Timothysis]

You should be agreeing with me because a Pope must be in crisis if the Church is in Crisis and the Church can’t be in crisis if the Pope is not in Crisis.

A Pope not admittting there is a crisis when there is a crisis shows a manifest symptom of the crisis afflicting the Church in the Pope himself.

Okay, you win the prize with those two. Waiter, a gallon of your finest vodka! :banghead:

 

[GerardP]

I really just don’t get why people try using Canon Law against the Pope, or the Pope’s rulings, since the CCL playingly says that the authoritative interpreter of Canon Law is the legislator. That would be…the Pope.

So you’re saying that no one is protected by the laws of the Church if the Pope says so? If the Pope wants to persecute someone, and he says he’s not doing it, it therefore must not be occurring? If that’s the case then, Canon law is a joke. It provides nothing and should be ignored by everyone.

The principal is one of justice. Unequal distribution of the law is an abuse of power and resistance is justified.

 

[consumedconvert]

So you’re saying that no one is protected by the laws of the Church if the Pope says so? If the Pope wants to persecute someone, and he says he’s not doing it, it therefore must not be occurring? If that’s the case then, Canon law is a joke. It provides nothing and should be ignored by everyone.

The principal is one of justice. Unequal distribution of the law is an abuse of power and resistance is justified.

The legislator is the chief interpreter of Canon Law. That’s in the first section, don’t remember which Canon. Do you deny this? It’s in the CCL!

Just make sure you look in the right edition. That would be the one currently in force, the 1983 CCL.

 

[GerardP]

The legislator is the chief interpreter of Canon Law. That’s in the first section, don’t remember which Canon. Do you deny this? It’s in the CCL!

Just make sure you look in the right edition. That would be the one currently in force, the 1983 CCL.

I realize that some people here have the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority as their only argument but let’s make this real clear.

Say there is a Canon Law that says, 2+2=4

The Pope comes along and says that 2+2 does not equal 4.

You’re saying that the Pope is correct because he’s the “chief interpretor.” 2+2=4 no longer is true because the Pope says so and he’s somehow the bestest and wisest and never wrongest person to ever trod the soil of the earth.

Talk about the Emperor’s New Clothes!

At what point does reason, common sense and plain facts come into the picture instead of the popular “Pope is Pharoah” concept that has suspended the sensibilities of a good number of the posters here?

 

[consumedconvert]

I realize that some people here have the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority as their only argument but let’s make this real clear.

Say there is a Canon Law that says, 2+2=4

The Pope comes along and says that 2+2 does not equal 4.

You’re saying that the Pope is correct because he’s the “chief interpretor.” 2+2=4 no longer is true because the Pope says so and he’s somehow the bestest and wisest and never wrongest person to ever trod the soil of the earth.

Talk about the Emperor’s New Clothes!

At what point does reason, common sense and plain facts come into the picture instead of the popular “Pope is Pharoah” concept that has suspended the sensibilities of a good number of the posters here?

Oh good grief.

Here:

Can. 16 §1. The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.

§2. An authentic interpretation put forth in the form of law has the same force as the law itself and must be promulgated. If it only declares the words of the law which are certain in themselves, it is retroactive; if it restricts or extends the law, or if it explains a doubtful law, it is not retroactive.

The PCED would be “the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.” That’s what the CCL says. The CCL is binding on all Latin Rite Catholics.

You are using an absolutely false analogy. Canon Law never delves into mathmatics or physics. It never seeks to bind scientific or mathmatical laws.

The question is, does the SSPX have faculties to absolve? The PCED says “no.” The CCL says " The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting." That would be the PCED.

 

[consumedconvert]

So you’re saying that no one is protected by the laws of the Church if the Pope says so? If the Pope wants to persecute someone, and he says he’s not doing it, it therefore must not be occurring? If that’s the case then, Canon law is a joke. It provides nothing and should be ignored by everyone.

The principal is one of justice. Unequal distribution of the law is an abuse of power and resistance is justified.

Canon Law was never meant to “protect” the faithful from the Pope. The Pope is the chief Executive, Legislator, and Judge of the Roman Catholic Church. This is no democracy, and this is no republic. There is a real presumption that the Faithful will never need to be protected from the Pope. (I wonder why that is?) He is not bound by our interpretations of Canon Law. Canon Law is Canon Law only by his approval. He may abrogate it at any time he wishes to do so.

This is a monarchy. Christ is the King, the Pope is his Vicar, reigning in Christ’s name. He may make mistakes in matters of prudence, and a Pope may be a scoundrel in his personal life (thank God, this century has seen a succession of great popes!). But he is infallible in his official teaching in matters of faith and morals.

The oldest monarchy currently on the earth is the Roman Catholic Church.

The highest “protection” you and I have in the RCC is the right as Catholics to appeal our case to the Pope in Rome. There is no further appeal. The buck stops there.

If you don’t like the way the RCC is governed, or the fact that you have no “bill of rights” that “protects” you from the Pope, or the fact that the successor of Peter holds the keys, I don’t suggest you take it up with the Pope.

I suggest you take it up with God.

 

[GerardP]

The PCED would be “the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.” That’s what the CCL says. The CCL is binding on all Latin Rite Catholics.

That’s all well and good, but what about the truth?

You are using an absolutely false analogy. Canon Law never delves into mathmatics or physics. It never seeks to bind scientific or mathmatical laws.

Now it’s my turn. Oh Good Grief.

Does Canon Law deal with facts? Do facts have any bearing on the realities that Canon Law is supposed to address?

The question is, does the SSPX have faculties to absolve? The PCED says “no.” The CCL says " The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting." That would be the PCED.

Once again. The SSPX does not claim that they have faculties. The Church supplies faculties by virtue of the faithful requesting the sacraments from the priests for their spiritual well-being.

 

[Hijikata]

Canon Law was never meant to “protect” the faithful from the Pope. The Pope is the chief Executive, Legislator, and Judge of the Roman Catholic Church. This is no democracy, and this is no republic. There is a real presumption that the Faithful will never need to be protected from the Pope. (I wonder why that is?) He is not bound by our interpretations of Canon Law. Canon Law is Canon Law only by his approval. He may abrogate it at any time he wishes to do so.

This is a monarchy. Christ is the King, the Pope is his Vicar, reigning in Christ’s name. He may make mistakes in matters of prudence, and a Pope may be a scoundrel in his personal life (thank God, this century has seen a succession of great popes!). But he is infallible in his official teaching in matters of faith and morals.

The oldest monarchy currently on the earth is the Roman Catholic Church.

The highest “protection” you and I have in the RCC is the right as Catholics to appeal our case to the Pope in Rome. There is no further appeal. The buck stops there.

If you don’t like the way the RCC is governed, or the fact that you have no “bill of rights” that “protects” you from the Pope, or the fact that the successor of Peter holds the keys, I don’t suggest you take it up with the Pope.

I suggest you take it up with God.

Nicely said! You have way more patience then I do ConsumedConvert.

 

[consumedconvert]

That’s all well and good, but what about the truth?

Now it’s my turn. Oh Good Grief.

Does Canon Law deal with facts? Do facts have any bearing on the realities that Canon Law is supposed to address?

Once again. The SSPX does not claim that they have faculties. The Church supplies faculties by virtue of the faithful requesting the sacraments from the priests for their spiritual well-being.

Are you suggesting that the Church grants the SSPX faculties to hear confession outside of Canon Law, the Hierarchy, etc.? It would seem you are suggestion that God bypasses his agents to directly grant them faculties?

Since the agency appointed by the Head of the Church–chief Legislator, Executive, and Judge–has stated that they do not have faculties to hear confessions, that would seem to be the thing you’re driving at.

Else, what is “the Church” you are referring to? The one not headed by the Pope on earth?

You will say the Church is headed by Christ. Very good, that’s true. Are you suggesting that Christ directly grants them faculties to absolve sin?

One thing is for sure. You have no basis in canon law for arguing that the SSPX can validly hear confessions in their current irregular standing, with suspended priests.

The PCED has stated that the Church grants faculties in situations of true emergency (don’t forget the Pope decides what can be interpreted as an emergency and what can’t, according to Canon Law of the Latin Rite of the Church) and in cases of ignorance.

If you confess to an SSPX Priest I would urge you to run to a diocesan or religious priest who has a regular standing with Rome. In all seriousness, this would be a grave situation. Don’t take your soul into your hands.

 

[GerardP]

Canon Law was never meant to “protect” the faithful from the Pope.

What does protect the faithful from the Pope then? Do you think Popes are irresistible?

The Papacy was never intended to persecute faithful Catholics, but lookee at what we have had. Popes persecuting faithful Catholics and Canon Laws serendipitously providing the jurisdictional missing ingredient that the faithful needed.

The Pope is the chief Executive, Legislator, and Judge of the Roman Catholic Church. This is no democracy, and this is no republic.

Obviously. And it’s not ancient Egypt either.

There is a real presumption that the Faithful will never need to be protected from the Pope. (I wonder why that is?) He is not bound by our interpretations of Canon Law. Canon Law is Canon Law only by his approval. He may abrogate it at any time he wishes to do so.

What if he abrogates it for an evil purpose? Just to make up an example, if the Pope legalizes committing sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament, do you think that is binding in any way?

Doesn’t moral law supercede that particular exercise of papal power?

You keep presenting this gnostic idea that laws must be “interpreted” beyond what they actually say. What exactly is required to “interpret” a law? The Pope’s rank just gives him carte blanche to lie or tell the truth and wait for a future Pope to straighten out the mess. He’s not smarter or more honest because he’s the Pope. It just means the books will say what he tells them to say. It doesn’t give the Pope any monopoly on the truth.

Is Ecclesia Supplet merely a Canon Law that can be used as a plaything of a Pope or does it touch on Sacramental Theology?

And next, do the Canon Laws envision every possibility for Ecclesia Supplet or merely certain circumstances that those that wrote the legislations could think of in which jurisdiction is definitely supplied?

This is a monarchy. Christ is the King, the Pope is his Vicar, reigning in Christ’s name. He may make mistakes in matters of prudence, and a Pope may be a scoundrel in his personal life (thank God, this century has seen a succession of great popes!). But he is infallible in his official teaching in matters of faith and morals.

His governance, his personal teachings on faith and morals are not protected. Just as he may make prudential “mistakes” he may sin grievously in the exercise of his duties. He may endanger souls and persecute the innocent. He may also be legitimately resisted for doing so.

In matters of faith and morals it depends on how he presents his position. Pope Benedict specifically said that his book “Jesus of Nazareth” is not to be treated as magisterial. It is only his personal opinions as a private theologian. It may be solid, or it may be way off base. But it is not protected by the Holy Ghost.

But it’s still sold under the name Pope Benedict and not Josef Ratzinger.

The oldest monarchy currently on the earth is the Roman Catholic Church. The highest “protection” you and I have in the RCC is the right as Catholics to appeal our case to the Pope in Rome. There is no further appeal. The buck stops there.

That does not give the Pope the right to play Catch 22 with his own laws.

On the one hand, he binds the faithful with his Canon Laws. When the Canon Laws favor and protect the faithful. He declares them unlawful.

When a Pope says that a state of emergency doesn’t exist when the city is burning around him, he is either lying or mad. In either case, moral law and Divine Law supercede Canon Law in those cases.

The Pope is both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of the Church. Luckily God is ultimately in charge of things.

If you don’t like the way the RCC is governed, or the fact that you have no “bill of rights” that “protects” you from the Pope, or the fact that the successor of Peter holds the keys, I don’t suggest you take it up with the Pope.
I suggest you take it up with God.

Someone already did that for me. God raised Archbishop LeFebvre and the SSPX and supplied what his Vicars were refusing to do.

The recent Popes promulgated laws and bound them to the faithful that unbeknownst to them, helped save the Church faithful from a persecution from within. The legislators wound up hoisted on their own petard.

The fact that Pope JPII decided to commit malfeasance and play Catch 22 with what the laws actually said is Pope JPII’s fault and he had to stand there in front of the judgement seat of God Himself and say, “hummana…hummana…hummana…” and hopefully he was absolved before he took that trip.