The construct of this council is lacking and its content outrageous. It is the nature of an ecumenical council to have quorum of three-quarters of the priesthood and we have severely restricted the presence to five cardinals of the septarchy and five bishops. To be both binding by the laws of the faith and keeping in harmony enough that the bishops are both aware of and accepting of the laws they expect their own flocks to follow, you must allow them to be present among us.
I see no part of this council that is either a folly, already existent and a redundancy to accomodate twice-over, or an affront to the sensibilities of the church.
I). To receive a mandate to completely overhaul the structuring & typography of the current Canon Law.
No -I see no reason to call an ecumenical council to change the font or aesthetics of script of the current codices.
I). To add a stipulation to Canon Law that makes the (Princely) Archdioceses of Providentia, Jorenus & Albarosa permanent within the Holy Mother Church, in name and in scope.
No - Both Jorenus and Providentia are states ruled by a Canonist monarch so fulfil the criteria of prince-archdiocese. The only defining extent documents for Albarosa do not qualify it as such.
II). To update the definitions in Book II, Title II. Chapter III., expanding the Curia roles currently present & outlining their tasks more concretely.
No - This proposition is dangerously vague and I cannot assent to it without exhaustive clarification of what is to be modified, to the exact wording.
IV). To change in Book IV, Title IV, Chapter III., that only one attributable miracle is necessary for sainthood: as not all current saints have two.
No - It is the nature of those blessed by the church to be responsible for one miracle. It is not the criteria for sainthood but the sainthood of these individuals that must be redressed.
V). To add in Book V, Title II, Chapter I that inciting sedition against, questioning the legitimacy of or conspiring to harm the High Pontiff commits a crime and excommunicates himself automatically.
No - There are already provisions for those inciting contempt of or sedition against the Church. It is the first crime against virtue in Canon law. Refusing communion for those that express doubt will turn the faith into fools and dogmatists as even the most pious and reverent question things. I am at all impasses against enshrining contemporary politics into law and see this as nothing more than a will for the Pontiff to expedite the removal of dissenting voices from the fair courts of the Mother Church. To increase what penalty there is from a hearing of the ecclesiastical court to excommunication ad initio is a folly that will send every acolyte out of the faith within weeks of them joining it. Only fools do not have doubts and we do not want to be a faith of fools, the tools of the faith allow us to mediate and find right penance for those questioning the legitimacy of any organ of the church. Excommunication does not meet that healing end and simply removes them from communion and the eye, a sweeping under the rug.
VI). To add in Book V, Title II a chapter that describes Papal Briefs.
No - The canon law already outlines and clarifies the purpose of pontifical letters. To refer to them as breve is a description of their nature; they are brief and subsequently not as solemn as bullae.
VII). To overhaul Book VI, Title II. Chapter III., rendering Minor Bulls ‘Archdiocesan Decrees’ and further streamlining them with the Golden Bulls of His Holiness.
No - Book VI, Title II. Chapter III is explicit in its reference to the purpose of minor bullae as those issued by provincial pastors for their provinces for matters that may not supersede or conflict with canon law or golden bullae. They are minor in their nature due to being promulgated by a pastor instead of the pontiff himself, so the name minor bull must remain and be used in writing.
X). Although it is within the High Pontiff’s authority to venerate any Canonist at will, His Holiness seeks to gain popular approval for his nominees regardless:
Yes - I raise no issue with venerating previous pontiffs as shepherding the faith is a venerable and pious deed. It was until recently a tradition for a pontiff to show unity with the faith to venerate his predecessor, except in the case of schismatics and those in a state of undeath, and it would be wise to restore this tradition and allow good men access to skies further. These men were the venerable by any definition and it is my greatest sin to have never met either.
No - Richard Reden and Lemuel Lengford, whoever these men may be, have no record of active worship nor interacting with the faith so I would struggle to acknowledge them as possessing virtue more than the average man. In the case of your friend Lengford, would pity what fool who prays for the intercession of a politician through prayer. Veneration is final and may not be revoked unless there are factual errors at play, to use it as a folly and political reward to your Everardine political era peers is a stain on the escutcheon of this pontificate. I understand that you may have longing for nations of yore and a love of old homes, but the church is not a tool of personal reward for old peers. Do not sully the realm of the spiritual with rewards for your temporal friends and venerate those worthy of veneration instead.
XI). To beautify
XII). To beautify, and then proceed to Canonize
XIII). To Canonize,
No - you ascribe no miracles to these people, just a list of names. There is far more to sainthood than being a name alone. Should these become private petitions that the curia may work over, investigate and vote upon, then that will be a worthwhile cause, but it is a fool’s errand to busy an ecumenical council with matters so spurious, vague and severe. Those interested in beatification or canonisation of these individuals may make individual petitions that elucidate their merit but it is not the place of an ecumenical council to expedite them so.