Question about The Society of Saint Pius X

[JKirkLVNV]

Here’s the whole thing to which Bear refers:

Pontificia Commissio “Ecclesia Dei” January 18, 2003
Greetings in the Hearts of Jesus & Mary! There have been several inquiries about our letter of 27 September 2002. In order to clarify things, Msgr. Perl has made the following response.
Oremus pro invicem.
In cordibus Jesu et Mariæ,
Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins
**Msgr. Camille Perl’s response: **
Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us. What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel. Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.
In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here.
1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.
2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.
Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was “Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass” and our response was:
“1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X.”
His second question was “Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass” and we responded stating:
“2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”
His third question was: “Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass” to which we responded:
“3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.”
Further, the correspondent took the Commission to task for not doing its job properly and we responded thus:
"This Pontifical Commission does not have the authority to coerce Bishops to provide for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. Nonetheless, we are frequently in contact with Bishops and do all that we can to see that this provision is made. However, this provision also depends on the number of people who desire the ‘traditional’ Mass, their motives and the availability of priests who can celebrate it.
“You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a ‘right’ to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This is not correct. It is true that he has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this Mass, but he has not stated that it is a ‘right’. Presently it constitutes an exception to the Church’s law and may be granted when the local Bishop judges it to be a valid pastoral service and when he has the priests who are available to celebrate it. Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice.”
We hope that this puts in a clearer light the letter about which you asked us.
With prayerful best wishes for this New Year of Our Lord 2003, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary

 

[bear06]

Not only do we see a problem with the quotes the SSPX gives about Fr. Murray, we also find serious issues with the Lara, Geringer, etc. quotes too.

jloughnan.tripod.com/ratzprl.htm

Here’s Cappoini on the SSPX in an interview:
.

SCHISMATICS SQUIRMING, William P. Grossklas’ account [partial] of the interview between Count Neri Capponi and Roger McCaffrey (extracted from home.earthlink.net/~grossklas):

McCaffrey: “My own view is that no matter what you can say about 1988, the fact is that by 1990 or '91, three Lefebvre bishops consecrated another bishop for the diocese of Campos, Brazil. And they can play with words, but the fact is that the Pope had appointed a bishop to the diocese of Campos. Now the Lefebvre bishops said: ‘We’re consecrating this bishop for traditional Catholics in Campos, he’s not claiming jurisdiction.’ But de facto he is claiming jurisdiction in that diocese. And I claim that is schismatic in tendency - is schismatic. Do you agree?”

Capponi: “I agree perfectly.”

Count Capponi went on to say, “Not only does this action in Campos definitely have a schismatic flavor about it, but I should say that some attitudes - not of all members of the Society of St. Pius X, but of quite a lot of them - are becoming increasingly schismatic.”

McCaffrey: “Well, let me give you an example. They have actually made a statement about the new code (of Canon Law), saying they don’t adhere to it. And that’s the only code we have - agree?”

Capponi: “Exactly. I think that they exaggerate there. It’s all very well for a jurist to criticize the technical wording of the new code, say that it is imprecise, say that it is ambiguous at times. But not to adhere to the new code is - well, there are schismatic tendencies.”

McCaffrey: “There is such a thing as a ‘spirit of schism’ - and I think there is a spirit of schism among the leaders of the Pius X Society. Do you agree?”

Capponi: “Exactly.”…

Capponi: “I don’t mean to be laudatory about the Society of St. Pius X. The Society has many faults. I don’t agree with lots of things that they do. I mean their attitude in moral theology is very strongly Jansenistic. Their attitude is sometimes extremely uncharitable. And, as I say, there’s a strong spirit of schism now in the Society that did not exist at the time of Msgr. Lefebvre. In a sense, curiously enough, Msgr. Lefebvre kept that spirit out.”

McCaffrey: “Except at the end. Did you know that after he broke with Rome, he wrote to Archbishop Mayer of Campos, urging him to consecrate a bishop for the diocese of Campos?”

Capponi: “That is going in the schismatic direction.”

McCaffrey: “But Michael Davies would agree with you that at least until the very end, Lefebvre was strongly inclined to maintain a unity, a formal unity.”

Capponi: “What I criticize Lefebvre for is not so much his action, is not so much as having violated canon law, as having gone back on one of the most ancient, the most fundamental human attitudes: Once you have given your word, you don’t go back! He had signed. Once you sign, once you agree that the person with which you have come to an agreement is trustworthy, and you agree with him - you stick to your agreement! You don’t go back on it!”

 

[bear06]

Here’s a little on Lara and Geringer:

THE STORY OF THE VANISHING SCHISM: THE STRANGE CASE OF CARDINAL LARA,
by John Beaumont and John Walsh Fidelity Magazine, March 1994.
(extracted from home.earthlink.net/~grossklas)

…The real Cardinal Lara puts the record straight

The first thing we did was to write to Cardinal Lara, explaining that he was being quoted as stating that Archbishop Lefebvre was not in schism, and asking him to clarify exactly what he had stated on the occasion in question. Cardinal Lara’s reply was as follows:

"You bring to my attention a matter of importance. You asked if I could tell you what exactly I said in the interview of 10th July 1988. The substance of what I said is as follows: 'In the case of Lefebvre and the four priests consecrated bishops by him, there are two offenses canonically speaking, that they have committed. The fundamental offense is that of schism, that is, refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff and breaking communion with the Church. This offence they had already previously committed. Only that, now, the second offense, that of consecrating bishops, formalizes, in a certain sense. and concretizes the first, and makes it explicit. Schism is a delict which can be personal. It does not require having a number of people. Individuals can do it on their own. Lefebvre and his followers, inasmuch as they refused submission to the Pope, were already, by that fact itself, in schism. The intent of the act of consecrating bishops is already to create a church with its own hierarchy. In this sense, the consecration of bishops becomes an act of schism. One should keep in mind, however, that the act of consecrating bishops is not in itself a schismatic act. In fact, in the Code, where offenses are treated, these two are treated in two distinct headings. There are delicts against religion and the unity of the Church. And these are apostasy (i.e. renouncing the faith), schism and heresy. Consecrating a bishop without pontifical mandate is, on the other hand, an offense against the proper exercise of one’s ministry. For example, there was an excommunication of the Vietnamese Archbishop, Ngo Dinh Thuc in '76 and '83 for an episcopal consecration, but it was not considered a schismatic act because there was no intent to break with the Church. Ngo Dinh Thuc represents a pitiable situation, as there is some mental imbalance.

With regard to Econe, Lefebvre and the four priests, they are under two excommunications: one for the offense of schism, the other, reserved to the Apostolic See, for the offense of consecrating a bishop without a pontifical mandate.’ I hope that this is helpful for you." (Letter to John Beaumont, dated May 26th, 1993)…

…Another misrepresented canonist

As with the ease of Cardinal Lara, however, the version given by Professor Geringer was very different. In his letter to us he expressed his position as follows: “I would like to say that at the time in an interview with the radio I explicitly declared that through the consecration of the four bishops by Lefebvre the schism had become definitive, and that Lefebvre and his adherents had lost all their rights within the Church.” (letter to John Beaumont dated August 17th, 1993)

Professor Geringer went on to make the point that in the interview in question he had also dealt with the need for moral fault before the incurring of a penalty and the question of a mitigation of a penalty where actions are done on the basis of personal conviction. He concludes his letter, however, with the statement that “there can be no doubt that Lefebvre and his adherents are de facto schismatic.”

More on all of these folks, again, can be found here:
jloughnan.tripod.com/ratzprl.htm

 

[pbm]

It doesn’t apply to a bishop who’s in conversation with Rome and who has been fairly warned about a course of action. His concept of “necessity” doesn’t matter when he’s been told by the competent authority that no necessity exists. And he most assuredly WOULD incur penalities if he had been warned that he would by the competant authorities.

Baloney. You are distorting the meaning of these canon laws.
You are interpreting them falsely to suit your own argument.

FACT:

1. Archbishop Lefebvre THOUGHT there was a necessity.
2. Canon allows one to avoid culpability if he THOUGHT there
   was a necessity.

The Pope did not think there was a necessity, SO WHAT?
That is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the state of Archbishop Lefebvre’s mind.
And I guess I have to repeat this again: He THOUGHT it was
a state of necessity.

Stop distorting the meaining of these words. And who cares
about all the other stuff you are bringing up, Bishop Lara,
Capponi, and others.

To be excommunicated one has to have a formal hearing with
Rome and given a chance to argue his case, and possibly
recant if he is shown to be in error. No such hearing ever
occurred.

The arguments that support SSPX are very well explained in a
book called,

“The Great Facade”,
by Chistopher Ferrara and Thomas Woods, Jr.

Pope John Paul II was a modernist. He promoted Ecumenism.
Ecumenism was condemned by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical,
“Moratalium Animos” (see the following link):

papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM

If you have a problem with me calling JPII a modernist, than you
have a problem with Pope Pius XI also.

I don’t think I will have time to respond to all the distortions of
words and meanings that will surely occurr in future posts.

 

[bear06]

1. Archbishop Lefebvre THOUGHT there was a necessity.

Again and again and again, with your line of thinking most schismatics aren’t because they feel they are doing what is necessary. We are not the arbiters of necessity when a higher authority is available.

1. Canon allows one to avoid culpability if he THOUGHT there
   was a necessity.

You can no longer think there is necessity when the Supreme Legistlator of said necessity tells you there is no necessity.

The Pope did not think there was a necessity, SO WHAT?
That is irrelevant.

And, really, this is the crux of the problem. The SSPX think they trump the Supreme Legislator

What is relevant is the state of Archbishop Lefebvre’s mind.
And I guess I have to repeat this again: He THOUGHT it was
a state of necessity.

And the Pope, you remember, the Supreme Legislator, said there was no necessity.

Stop distorting the meaining of these words. And who cares
about all the other stuff you are bringing up, Bishop Lara,
Capponi, and others.

You were the one who went erroneously quoting the above. You should be happy that the truth is know but, of course, you won’t be.

To be excommunicated one has to have a formal hearing with
Rome and given a chance to argue his case, and possibly
recant if he is shown to be in error. No such hearing ever
occurred.

Where is this in canon law?

The arguments that support SSPX are very well explained in a
book called,

“The Great Facade”,
by Chistopher Ferrara and Thomas Woods, Jr.

Two people who are not canonists and supposedly are not SSPXers. Yeah, let’s forget Church documents, ignore people who were actually SSPX attendees (and even treasureres) and the very people YOU quoted and go with Ferrera and Woods.

Pope John Paul II was a modernist. He promoted Ecumenism.
Ecumenism was condemned by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical,
“Moratalium Animos” (see the following link):

papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM

If you have a problem with me calling JPII a modernist, than you
have a problem with Pope Pius XI also.

Pius the XI never called John Paul a modernist. That would be your mistake.

I don’t think I will have time to respond to all the distortions of
words and meanings that will surely occurr in future posts

It would seem that it was only YOU who decided to post erroneous/false quotes.

 

[bear06]

BTW, when one is trying to apply canon law, one might want to read ALL of the applicable canons. This one is never quoted byt he SSPX (no suprise).

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

Lefebvre was not the legislator.

 

[pbm]

You interpret “Supreme Legislator” to mean something totally
unreasonable, as if the Pope is a dictator of some kind as if
he is infallible in everything he says. (Yes I’m bringing infallibility
into this again, because you say the Pope cannot make a mistake).

Pope Innocent III in his “Bull De Consuetudine” stated:

“It is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does
not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should
he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not
be followed.”

The concept of Supreme Legislator does not give the Pope
arbitrary powers.

Again and again and again, with your line of thinking most schismatics aren’t because they feel they are doing what is necessary.

Archbishop Lefebvre was not a schismatic. Schism has nothing to do with it. It was a DISOBEDIENCE issue.

You can no longer think there is necessity when the Supreme Legistlator of said necessity tells you there is no necessity.

This is just a buch of baloney.

Archbishop Lefebvre thought it was necessary !!!
Obviously he was right, considering the modern crisis that we
have in the Church.

And, really, this is the crux of the problem. The SSPX think they trump the Supreme Legislator.

Nope, it’s the canon laws and the past popes encyclicals and
infallible statements that trump the letters of Pope John Paul II.

Pius the XI never called John Paul a modernist. That would be your mistake.

Is Ecumenism a modernist philosophy? Yes.
John Paul II has a problem because Ecumenism was condemned
by Pope Pius XI.

That would be your mistake.

It would be your mistake to deny that he was a modernist.

 

[pbm]

Lefebvre was not the legislator.

He didn’t need to be a legislator. All he need to be was a Bishop who thought there was a state of necessity.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I cannot respond better than Bear has done, but on this point:

To be excommunicated one has to have a formal hearing with
Rome and given a chance to argue his case, and possibly
recant if he is shown to be in error. No such hearing ever
occurred.

**Where in the name of goodness and mercy did you get THIS idea, some movie?!?!? **

I don’t think I will have time to respond to all the distortions of
words and meanings that will surely occurr in future posts.

Very convenient. Have a nice day.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You interpret “Supreme Legislator” to mean something totally
unreasonable, as if the Pope is a dictator of some kind as if
he is infallible in everything he says. (Yes I’m bringing infallibility
into this again, because you say the Pope cannot make a mistake).

Again, we’re talking about juridicial fact, not an issue of infallibility.

“Dictator” is kind of an unpopular word, but fine, if you want to use it. Caonon 331: “The bishop of the Church in Rome, in whom resides the office given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he can always freely exercise.”

 

[pbm]

OK, but the pope can make a mistake.

Consider Pope John XXII who taught that the elect in heaven will
not have the beatific vision until after the final judgement. He was
later proven wrong.

The pope does not always have to be treated as if he is infallible
or correct. Lefebvre did not have to believe the pope when he said
there is no state of necessity.

If you have the right to interpret the meaning of Supreme
Legislator, then Lefebvre has the right to interpret the meaning
of it also.

What gives you a better understanding of canon law than
Archbishop Lefebvre had?

---

It looks like we are hung up on the proper interpretation of the
term “Supreme Legislator”.

You say the Pope is absolute authority no mater what.
I say that he does not have ARBITRARY powers. That requires
some explaining which I don’t have time to research now.

What about St Athanasius, he disagreed with the Pope.
He was proven to be correct later and the Pope was wrong.
What happened to “Supreme Legislator” powers then.

If the Pope does ever teach heresey, should we follow along
blindly without questioning him?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

OK, but the pope can make a mistake.

Consider Pope John XXII who taught that the elect in heaven will
not have the beatific vision until after the final judgement. He was
later proven wrong.

I’ll take this in sections, then I’ve got to tend to some things. The following is a Wikipedia entry:

"Pope John XXII was involved in a theological controversy involving the Beatific Vision

 

[bear06]

pbm;2504827:

OK, but the pope can make a mistake.

Consider Pope John XXII who taught that the elect in heaven will
not have the beatific vision until after the final judgement. He was
later proven wrong.

I’ll take this in sections, then I’ve got to tend to some things. The following is a Wikipedia entry:

"Pope John XXII was involved in a theological controversy involving the Beatific Vision

. Beginning before he was pope, he argued that those who died in the faith did not see the presence of God until the Last Judgment. The point is important to Catholics, since if the dead are not in the presence of God, then the whole idea of prayers to the saints would seem to be undermined. John XXII continued this argument for a time in sermons while he was pope, although he never expressed his argument as an ex cathedra teaching. He eventually backed down from his position, and agreed that those who died while in the faith do indeed enjoy the Beatific Vision.

John XXII was not considered to have become a heretic despite his denial for many years of the Catholic doctrine that souls of persons who die in grace are immediately admitted to the Beatific Vision since this doctrine was not formally established by the Church, a lacuna that his successor, Pope Benedict XII (1334–42), immediately filled by his legislation in the encyclical Benedictus Deus which formally made this doctrine a part of Church teaching."

He never formally proposed it to the whole of the Church as Pontiff, invoking his office, and making it binding (ex cathedra).
Since you keep going on about infallibility, it’s important to note that he didn’t attempt to invoke that infallibility.

Who cares about infallibility on this one? He didn’t even declare it a teaching that was binding on the faithful in anyway. He never official taught it ex cathedra or not. There was no encyclical, motu, etc. on the issue by John XXIII. The Pope can’t officially teach anything contrary to Tradition. If you think he is, it’s your misunderstanding, not his.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Again, for someone who quotes the canons, you’re coming up short. Even if the pope isn’t speaking ex cathedra, his laws and disciplines are to be obeyed. It has nothing to do with infallibility. And the Archbishop most assuredly DID have to believe the pope when he said there was no state of necessity. I refer you again to Canon 16.

If you have the right to interpret the meaning of Supreme
Legislator, then Lefebvre has the right to interpret the meaning
of it also. LOL, I’m not interpreting anything. This is the Church’s, the Holy See’s, take on the matter, not mine!!!

What gives you a better understanding of canon law than
Archbishop Lefebvre had? What gives him (or you) a better understanding than the Pope and the Magisterium?!?!?

You say the Pope is absolute authority no mater what.
I say that he does not have ARBITRARY powers. That requires
some explaining which I don’t have time to research now. I don’t say that the pope has arbitrary powers. The Pope didn’t behave arbitrarily. He had meetings with the Archbishop, the Archbishop had meetings with other officials, the Archbishop signed an agreement, he reneged on the agreement, he was repeatedly warned. There was nothing arbitrary about it!

What about St Athanasius, he disagreed with the Pope.
He was proven to be correct later and the Pope was wrong.
What happened to “Supreme Legislator” powers then. The Catholic Encyclopedia (of 1913) has something to say about the innocence of Pope Liberius:

en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/Pope_Liberius

If the Pope does ever teach heresey, should we follow along
blindly without questioning him?

Nope, but thankfully we haven’t had one where the issue arose, radical traditionalist assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’ve got to tend to my ordinary life. I’ll look in tomorrow.

 

[bear06]

OK, but the pope can make a mistake.

Consider Pope John XXII who taught that the elect in heaven will
not have the beatific vision until after the final judgement. He was
later proven wrong.

The pope does not always have to be treated as if he is infallible
or correct. Lefebvre did not have to believe the pope when he said
there is no state of necessity.

If you have the right to interpret the meaning of Supreme
Legislator, then Lefebvre has the right to interpret the meaning
of it also.

What gives you a better understanding of canon law than
Archbishop Lefebvre had?

---

It looks like we are hung up on the proper interpretation of the
term “Supreme Legislator”.

You say the Pope is absolute authority no mater what.
I say that he does not have ARBITRARY powers. That requires
some explaining which I don’t have time to research now.

What about St Athanasius, he disagreed with the Pope.
He was proven to be correct later and the Pope was wrong.
What happened to “Supreme Legislator” powers then.

If the Pope does ever teach heresey, should we follow along
blindly without questioning him?

You’re comparing apples to oranges. On one hand you’re talking about a Pope who was in exile who may or may not have signed a document and then you are talking about a Pope officially teaching heresy. Pick one argument. You can’t make both be the same.

One might also want to read up on Pope Liberius rather than take everything the already-proven-to-be-false word of the SSPX.

Here’s someone who’s actually done a little research. Grab your Denzinger’s.

Pope Liberius
Probably the most common claim I came across within SSPX circles was the claim that Pope Liberius (reigned A.D. 352-366) was a heretic, sympathetic to Arianism, who falsely excommunicated St. Athanasius. For this reason, the SSPX claims, Pope Liberius became the first pope in the history of the Church not be recognized as a saint. Of course, by analogy the SSPX considers Archbishop Lefebvre a modern St. Athanasius and Pope John Paul II a modern Pope Liberius.

Their argument is that if it happened once, it can happen again. And yet, as our Lord showed me in a rather amusing fashion, such claims have little basis in Catholic Tradition.

Convinced the SSPX claims pertaining to this situation were true, I was reading my copy of Henri Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma one day when I noticed that Denzinger listed Pope Liberius as “St. Liberius.” To say I was surprised would be an understatement — ironically enough, the SSPX had sold me the particular edition of Denzinger I was reading, since they held all subsequent editions as suspect. Yet this portion of Denzinger clearly did not accord with what was being preached from our local SSPX pulpit. So I simply dismissed this listing as a probable typesetting error and continued reading.

A mere ten pages later, I came across a papal epistle authored by Pope St. Anastasius subtitled “The Orthodoxy of Pope Liberius.” In it, Pope St. Anastasius clearly states: “The heretical African faction [of the Arian heresy] was not able by any deception to introduce its baseness because, as we believe, our God provided that that holy and untarnished faith be not contaminated through any vicious blasphemy of slanderous men — that faith which had been discussed and defended at the meeting of the synod of Nicea by the holy men and bishops now placed in the resting place of the saints” (see art. 93 of the thirtieth edition).

So far, so good; God had clearly preserved the Church from Arianism through the actions and prayer of holy men. But who were these holy men, and how does this relate to Pope Liberius? I wondered. To my surprise, Pope St. Anastasius answered the question in the subsequent paragraph this way: “For this faith those who were then esteemed as holy bishops gladly endured exile, that is . . . Liberius, bishop of the Roman Church.”

I was stunned by this pope’s answer, for clearly there was a contradiction here: Was I to believe Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers as the authentic teaching from Catholic Tradition? Or was I to believe the teaching of Anastasius in his papal epistle Dat mihi plurimum — the claim of one who was a saint, a pope, and a writer much closer to the time the Arian heresy took place? When my local SSPX priest failed to provide an adequate solution for this quandary, I could only accept the claim of Pope St. Anastasius as the authentic voice of Catholic Tradition.

 

[Ad_Deum]

I don’t see them a schismatic group because they teach the traditional Catholic teachings and beliefs.
Don’t believe those negative liberals who only want to spread destructions to the Catholic Church.

Pax

Instaurare omnia in Christo

 

[bear06]

I don’t see them a schismatic group because they teach the traditional Catholic teachings and beliefs.
Don’t believe those negative liberals who only want to spread destructions to the Catholic Church.

Pax

Instaurare omnia in Christo

Please. Name one liberal who’s participated in this thread.

 

[bear06]

You interpret “Supreme Legislator” to mean something totally
unreasonable, as if the Pope is a dictator of some kind as if
he is infallible in everything he says. (Yes I’m bringing infallibility
into this again, because you say the Pope cannot make a mistake).

First of all, nobody said he was infallible in all he says.

Secondly, there really is not need for interpretation here. Pastor Aeternus spells it out completely.

1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that **he is the supreme judge of the faithful **[52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Please. Name one liberal who’s participated in this thread.

liberal is in the eye of the beholder ive been called liberal and been called conservative on caf.