[livius]

Something that we should remember is that while the Papacy is one thing, the Vatican is another. The Vatican is essentially a corrupt European court, one of the oldest, and furthermore, totally unreformed and operating by the rules of many centuries ago. Things such as poisonings, etc. are not unthinkable in this environment, and palace intrigues are no doubt rife.

The Papacy (embodied by each individual Pope) is, however, something different.

But at a certain point, they come together or at least operate in the same spheres. What is their effect upon each other? Are there times when the Roman court overwhelms the Keeper of the Keys? How does the Fisherman hold off forces that would have been quite at home with the Borgias? (Incidentally, the Borgia - or Borja, the original spelling on the name, since they were Spanish and in fact from Catalunya - Popes did incredible things for the Church, although some of the other family members were a bit iffy.)

I've been wondering about this a great deal in the last few weeks. One of the things that occurred to me is that, in various ways, Vatican II gave much more control to the corrupt Roman court than it had ever possessed before. I think that many 19th century developments, and particularly infallibility, may in some way have been designed to separate the Papacy and the individual Pope from the Vatican and its dangerous and vice-ridden court. But Vatican II undermined much of this, and I think we are seeing a strangely Vatican-dominated Papacy, except for the wonderful doctrinal pronouncements (Vatican aparatchiks aren't smart enough to come up with their own) and the great personal power of this Pope.

Any opinions on this?

[livius]

Sorry, guys, forgot to ping you. Any ideas on this? (see post #216)

[Mike Fieschko]

in various ways, Vatican II gave much more control to the corrupt Roman court than it had ever possessed before.

What are examples of how the Council, the Council documents, whatever, gave the curia more control, and control over what?

[saradippity]

I reread your post and wonder whether I answered your question. You seem to indicate that you think Vat II gave more authority and power to the Vatican and the curia.Do I read you correctly?

If so,I disagree. I think that they gave much more power to the national conferences of bishops,perhaps without intent but nonetheless that was the result.It seems to me quite clear that the Pope and hiis staff have ordered and requested many actions that would get the church in the US in accord with Catholic teaching through the ages and the Americans have refused to obey.

I still stand by my original rsponse to you that while there are many of the curia who have another agenda the Vatican and/or curia are more in line with Catholic Truth than the gaggle of USCCB bishops and cardinals and bureaucrats.I see them as a useless corporation of middleman,who do nothing but impede the flow from the Pope to his Bishops,to us.If our bishops need a support group,I think it would be fine to meet once or twice a year It would be helpful to have different workshops that might assist them in different areas as well as silent prayer but this powerful quasi-official obstructionist body needs to go.IMO