Is this an admission that Popes are not infallible in their decretals, bulls and edicts? If "official" papal declarations such as:
“We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”
are no longer binding, then how is anyone to know what is ordained by God? At least the Jews had a list of the 613 laws they were to follow!
The Code of Canon Law of 1983 was done in response to the second Vatican council (Vatican II) and we know full well the heartburn many RCs have to this day over what came out of that council. If with this new code Pope John Paul II said: in promulgating the Code today, I am fully aware that this act is an expression of pontifical authority and therefore is invested with a primatial character (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1.HTM), then wasn't the previous code ALSO an "expression of pontifical authority"?
Then, of course, we have the weasel words that attempt to "clarify" (reformulate positively?) what was meant by certain words, such as this:
“This law, like all penal laws, must be very narrowly construed. The terms Catholic Faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological; the latter to disputations more or less formal, and engrossing the attention of the public. But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defence of it to the clergy.” [who themselves needed due authorization]. - www.newadvent.org/cathen/05034a.htm
That there are massive rooms filled from floor to ceiling with canons, codes, bulls, decretals, pronouncements, etc., and the Catechism being frequently changed, modified and updated, more than adequately demonstrates both the heavy burdens the Roman Catholic church has placed on the backs of her faithful and would have ALL of Christendom fall in behind them as well as the changing nature of its doctrines. Was all this necessary or expedient? Where, may I ask, is the simplicity which is in Christ Jesus? I do not doubt Peter and Paul would hardly recognize what boasts itself of being THE church they founded!
Indeed it was, as binding as the requirement of RC rulers to exterminate those Rome deems as "heretics" or face excommunication. Autocrats can do so.
That there are massive rooms filled from floor to ceiling with canons, codes, bulls, decretals, pronouncements, etc., and the Catechism being frequently changed, modified and updated,
As "Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law," (Providentissimus Deus) and "it follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906), and so RCs are not to engage in interpretation of what was taught in the past, but look to what Rome presently teaches, and which actions reveal.
Thus liberal RCs are the majority.