What Is a Catholic's Duty to the Pope?

[00:00:17] The current papacy has a lot of Catholics wondering what level of obedience and submission is due to all the very various Pope's statements and actions, such as exploitations on climate change and a synod that could be looking to radically change the faith. So that's what we're going to talk about today on Cris Point home. I'm Eric Sims, your host, editor in chief of Crisis magazine. I feel like I should have this next section just pre recorded and hit the play button because I say the same thing every time. But you know what to do then. Smash that like button, subscribe to the channel, let other people know about it, get on the street corner and hold up a sign saying, subscribe to Crisis Point your life will never be the same, or something like that. Also, you do want to follow us on social media if you're on the social media, if you're not on social media, you're a better person than I am, and you can do it at Crisis. Mag at all the various social media channels, and subscribe to our email newsletter. Just go to Crisismagazine.com. And at some point we'll ask you to do that there. So go ahead and do that so you can be up to date on the latest that Crisis puts out. Okay, so I think that's my spiel. Now let's get into what we really want to talk about here. And that is, as always, it seems like, or often recently, the Papacy, the Pope. So yesterday at Crisis magazine, have I mentioned that you should go to Crisismagazine.com? If I haven't, you should go to Crisismagazine.com. But yesterday at that same Crisismagazine.com, I had an article, and it was titled how Pope Francis is Inadvertently Developing the Doctrine of the Papacy. And in it I basically and I encourage you to read it, but if you haven't, I'll give you the Cliff Notes version here. [00:02:06] Essentially, what I was arguing was that doctrine develops based upon a lot of factors, and one of them is how Catholics act and what Catholics believe and their attitudes towards things. So, for example, the doctrines of the dogmas about Mary, they developed over time because of the deepening understanding of devotion to the Blessed Mother. [00:02:36] We see that, of course, the Trinity developed because Catholics realized they needed a more precise definition of the Godhead. They need to know more clearly how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit interact with each other, how they're related to each other, how they're the same, how they're not the same. So these things developed, and the doctrine of the Papacy is no different. It's developed over many centuries. [00:02:59] The meaning of it, what exactly was meant by Christ's promises to Peter and how did that get passed on to his successors, the Bishops of So? But then I talk about the fact that there's development doctrine, but then there's official doctrines, official teaching, church, but then there's also unofficial, basically, beliefs attitude people have towards things, and they're not the same thing. They should be related to each other. They should be very similar. [00:03:28] And when it comes to papacy, we see this very clearly, because what we see is, over time, the church has developed the doctrine of the papacy till we get to the point of Vatican One, where it states very clearly that the Pope is infallible when he's teaching ex cathara basically from the seat of Peter on something, on faith and morals for all the universal church to believe also that he has universal jurisdiction over the Church legally. [00:03:55] But that's not all that was happening when it comes to the papacy among Catholics. There's a great article by Tim Flanders over at One Peter Five, I think it was from last week, talking about the false spirit of Vatican One, and he talks about this a lot, how the attitudes of Catholics change. Because of historical political realities into the point where many Catholics had an attitude towards the Pope that was much greater than what Vatican I itself said, where you have somebody like William Ward saying that he wanted a papal bull with his times, with his paper each morning at breakfast. So basically you'd have his marching orders for the day. That's not Vatican one. That's just somebody, a Catholic who exalts the papacy far beyond what the Church teaches about it. [00:04:46] And so that's essentially what I was saying, that because Pope Francis has been such a disaster as a pope, he's basically made it so a lot of Catholics, myself included, have had to think like, oh, wait a minute. What are the boundaries, the official Church boundaries of doctrine when it comes to the papacy? And what are the things that we've just added on over the past 100, 200 years? Because it's really the past 200 years where you've seen a flourishing of not just teaching about the Pope, but a devotion to the Pope, a spiritual connection to the Pope, a exaltation of the Pope as the center of our faith. Not just the visible head of the Church, but the center of our faith where everything revolves around him. Every bishop has to look to him before they do anything. We all have to look to him and get our marching orders from him. That's what's happened over the past 200 years. But Pope Francis has made many of us realize, is that correct? Is that really what Catholicism is? Is that really what our Lord had intended for the papacy? Now, of course, I got some pushback for the article. Some people know I'm basically Martin Luther for not exalting the papacy as they think it should be exalted, and I can take that. I'm not Martin Luther. I very much and I make it clear in the article, I very much believe in the papal office that is founded by Christ and sued by Christ. It's essential to the church. I had a podcast a few weeks ago, maybe it was a month or two ago now, about defending the papal claims, the claims of the papacy. So I'm very much on that. But I'm not endorsing all the unofficial attitudes people have about the Pope. I'm not endorsing what some hyperpapalist thinks the Pope should do. I'm not supportive of that. Even though they like to act like they are teaching Catholic doctrine, what they're really doing is they're just simply supporting their own attitude towards it. [00:06:49] And so attitude towards the Pope, that has been common. I don't want to make that clear. I'm not saying it's just a couple people who have these high exalted views of the papacy. It's a lot of Catholics, including popes themselves, have had these attitudes towards the papacy in the past, particularly 150 years, since Vatican One, but even before that. [00:07:10] But I don't know about you, I'm just tired of the Pope explaining. I'm tired of the cognitive dissidents that's necessary to square the circle, which is these high exalted attitudes towards the papacy where everything he says has to be true. We have to agree with it, we have to follow it. And then what Pope Francis actually says and does, because what we've seen is when you have that attitude, you go one of two ways, you really become a hyperpapalist, and you basically say, yeah, Pope Francis, we just follow what he says. Death penalty is wrong yesterday. He says it's right. I'm sorry. Death penalty was right yesterday. He says it's wrong today. It's wrong today. Divorce for I'm sorry, communion for divorce and remarried and living in sin was bad yesterday. Pope Francis says it's good now. Okay, it's okay now. That's what some do. And then the other side of the Pope, basically the hyperpapalist coin is the and say, well, clearly what this so called Pope is saying contradicts what previous popes have said. So therefore he's not the Pope, but both have the same underlying assumption, and that's the attitudes, the hyperpapalist attitudes of the past 100 and 5200 years, which is not official teaching. Again, I make that clear. I make that clear. It's not official teaching. It's okay to challenge common beliefs in the church. We don't challenge church teaching. We're not saying this means the Pope is never infallible, for example, or he doesn't have universal jurisdiction. What we're challenging here is these attitudes people have, these hyperpapalist attitudes people have. So a perfect example, this just came up last week. The Pope just released an apostolic exhortation called ladate Deum, and it basically is ladate C 2.0. It's another one about climate change. [00:09:05] And so it raises a lot of real questions because this is an apostolic exhortation. It's important in that sense. I mean, it's the head of the Catholic Church issuing an exhortation that he addresses to the whole world, I believe, if I remember correctly, but at the same time okay, so this is important on some level. But what I want to know is, and this is a question I asked on Twitter, I'm going to pull it up here real quick. I said, for those who argue that ladate Deum somehow exercises the Pope's magisterium in moral matters, what specific moral directives does the doc include that I'm bound to follow? Not use air conditioning, recycle more, vote for green politicians, not use fossil fuels, reject the Western lifestyle. Now, I will admit that this tweet has some snark in it, and I freely admit that, and I probably shouldn't have thrown the snark in there, but I actually did mean as a legitimate question, I really wanted somebody to tell me what specific moral directives does ladate Deom contain that I'm bound to follow? Because remember, when we talk about the role of the Pope in faith and morals, it's a matter of him saying, yes, this is a moral thing for you to do. This is an immoral thing for you to do. It's directives like, no, you may not kill a child in the womb, you may not commit adultery, things like that. We're reiterating things, you may not bomb a city of innocent civilians, even if it's during war, things like that, a Pope can and should talk about and make it clear. But ladate Deim, are there any actual specific, more directives that if I need to read to find out, to make sure I know I'm doing them so I'm not committing a sin that I have to confess? And I know we all make jokes that would say, oh, we'll go to confession and we'll say, oh, Father, forgive me because I use my air conditioning, or I didn't recycle. But I'm serious here. [00:11:02] What exactly are we bound to follow in ladate Deom? Now, one person said basically he was saying we can't be climate change deniers. I don't see how that works, because that's just a mistake. Let's assume that man made climate change is real, that everything that the Pope and others believe about the science, about this, they're all right. And I deny that. And I basically say, no, I don't think that's legitimate. I have not committed a moral fault. There a sin I've committed just a mistake, an error. I could say, for example, unicorns are real. [00:11:38] That's not a sin. To think that it just would be an error. And so that clearly can't be a moral directive. Believe whether or not to believe mamma client change is real. But then somebody then posted part of ladate Deom and said, why don't you read it for yourself? And he posted chapters 69 through 71. But what's interesting is this just kept the question in the forefront again, because it says basically he talks about I cannot deny that it is necessary to be honest and recognize that the most effective solutions will not come from individual efforts alone, but above all from major political decisions on the national, international level. I don't have any impact on these decisions on the national, international level. [00:12:26] I'm not bound to that. And also, when it comes to voting for certain politicians, if one guy is a real big environmentalist but he's also pro abortion, not bound to vote for him then, am I? [00:12:39] And then he talks about that. Every little bit helps. And avoiding an increase of a 10th of a degree in the global temperature would already suffice to alleviate some suffering for many people. First of all, that's a scientific claim. That's not a moral claim or a faith claim. So the Pope has no charism of infallibility when it comes to this. He might be right, but he might not be yet what is important is something less quantitative the need to realize that there are no lasting changes without cultural changes, without a maturing of lifestyles and convictions within societies, and there are no cultural changes about personal changes. Okay, what personal changes? [00:13:16] He continues, efforts by households to reduce pollution and waste and to consume with Prudence are creating a new culture. Okay, so we're supposed to reduce pollution and waste and consume with Prudence. That's probably not a bad idea anytime. I don't need a Pope to tell me that the mere fact that personal, family and community habits are changing is contributing to greater concern about the unfulfilled responsibilities of the political sectors and indignation at the lack of interest shown by the powerful. Let us realize then that even though this does not immediately produce a notable effect in the quantitative standpoint, we are helping to bring about large processes of transformation arising from deep within society. I'll be blunt. This sounds just like a UN document. I mean, there's nothing here that tells me to do something other than perhaps the make an effort to reduce pollution and waste and consume with Prudence. I think we probably should have done that before. Obviously, we can't be consumers. I mean, only we have to consume with Prudence. That's just a Catholic value. [00:14:19] And yeah, we don't want to increase pollution and waste unnecessarily because that's the thing is a lot of things that create waste and pollution are done to help society, to help people live in a better way. And so there's balances here. So again, there are no directives here that are saying do this or don't do that. So my obligation to them, it really isn't very much. And that's important to note. And I don't have to agree with the Pope's political views. That is clearly not I mean, I realize that in Catholic attitudes a lot of people think that's true, but I don't think that's clearly not Catholic teaching. That's just an attitude people have. [00:15:07] And so it's true that Catholics have always had to submit to the Pope on some level. Again, I'm not denying that. The question is how exactly is that done? I mean, we see over time that this has been changed. In the early Church, most catholics, most even bishops, did not look to Rome very often. They simply couldn't. They weren't able to. And so it wasn't like the Pope was very much part of their lives. They would make sure they named him in the liturgy, and that was it. That was literally all they did when it came to the Pope. And every once in a while, there'd be a big crisis and we needed the Pope. The Council of Chalcedon is a perfect example where Pope Leo jumps in and know this is what we believe, and the bishops say, Peter has spoken through Leo. And there's other times in history, of course, where the Pope jumps in because there's a big crisis. But generally speaking, the average person has very little to do with the Pope when it comes to how you live. This is something Tim Flanders mentioned in his article as well, is like for a long time, it just simply was. You learn the faith from your family, from your parents, you listen to your parish priest sometimes necessary, your local bishop might be involved in some passing on the faith to you, your confirmation, something like that. [00:16:36] And then beyond that, you have the Pope will come in very rarely. Now, one of the things that I've heard often is and actually, somebody just put it in the comments, I'm going to bring this up because perfect segue. Victor, thank you. One should always obey the Pope, even beyond matters of dogma. The Popes themselves have said this so numerous times. So many, numerous times, Victor. Thank you for mentioning that, because that's exactly what I'm talking about. This is one of the unofficial attitudes of Catholics over the past couple centuries, and by Catholics, I mean including Popes. In fact, I will read you a quote. I will bring up a quote that somebody sent to me on Twitter from Pope St. Pius X. [00:17:22] When we love the Pope, we do not dispute whether he commands or requires a thing, or seek to know where the strict obligation of obedience lies, or in what matter we must obey. When we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not yet spoken clearly, as if he were required to speak his will in every man's ear, and to utter not it not only by word of mouth, but in letters and other public documents as well. [00:17:44] Nor do we cast doubt on his orders alleging the pretext which comes easily to the man who does not want to obey. That is, not the Pope who is commanding, but someone in his entourage. In other words, we don't obey if, for example, we think comes from the Vatican, not from the Pope directly, we do not limit the field in which he and ought to exercise his authority. [00:18:03] We do not oppose to the Pope's authority that of other persons, no matter how learned, who differ from the Pope for whatever may be their learning. They are not holy, for where there is holiness, there cannot be disagreement with the Pope. This was said by Pope Pius X in an address to the priest of the Apostolic Union in 1912. [00:18:24] Now, I will just say it. I said it on Twitter. I don't mind saying here, I don't think this passage by itself should be taken literally or should be followed completely. Because here's the thing, reality does not allow that. When he says, where there's holiness, there cannot be disagreement with the Pope, that was literally proven to be not true at the beginning of the Church. [00:18:50] It was St. Paul himself who disagreed with the Pope, with St. Peter, because that's what it says. It just says, where there's holiness cannot be disagreement to Pope, there's no limit on what he just said there. But if you follow this, what Pope Pius X says right here, as this is your lode star, this is your guiding principle in how you talk about the Pope and how you interact with the Pope, then you literally have to contradict 2000 years of Catholic teaching, including, for example, St. Thomas's teaching on obedience. He makes it very clear that our obedience to man is never unqualified, only to God. And yet this quote and by the way, I'm not booting on Pius X because there's a context here. He also is a man of his times and all that. But my point is that St. Thomas talks about how obedience has limits, always has limits for any man. It only is unqualified to God. But this quote from Pius X makes it appear that we have no limits on our we have to agree with him on everything, but it's simply not true. It just simply isn't true. Because we also have had Popes who have done very imprudent things that saints have told them they shouldn't do. That would be like saying that St. Catherine of Siena should not have disagreed with the Pope for moving to Avignon because she's not holy if she disagree with the Pope. The Pope is the one who decided to move an Avignon. If you're holy, you wouldn't disagree with him. And your obedience, there is no limit to it. It's not just for faith and morals, for everything. You have to just submit and obey. If that were true, the Popes would still be an avenue because nobody would be able to disagree with them. Nobody would have said you need to move. [00:20:38] And so clearly it's not true that there just can be no disagreement with the Pope. You can't have holiness if you disagree with the Pope. That's simply not so anyway. Okay, and then just I'm not going to dwell on this too much, but Victor did bring up a little point here. He said St. Paul did not, quote, unquote disagree with St. Peter's teaching. Tradition is always explained that Paul rebuked Peter for faulty conduct and also obeyed Peter in his teaching. Again, you're playing semantic games, Victor. I'm not going to. Because you notice that it says there could be no disagreement with the Pope. It doesn't say just his teaching. It just says we have to do whatever he says and does well. St. Paul didn't do that. St. Catherine Sina didn't do that. [00:21:20] So it's clear that St. Pius X, he lived in an era in which we'd had great Popes for a long time. We'd continue to have good Popes for a while. And there was this idea that we needed the Pope to resist modernism, to resist Protestantism, we needed to do whatever he said. He was our infallible guide in everything. [00:21:43] But now we see where that's led. That when we treat him like that, it goes too much. And in fact, this kind of culminated at Vatican II, believe it or not, which I think is kind of ironic considering you had the people who reject Vatican Two and don't think any pope after Pius Xi is a true Pope. [00:22:04] But it's actually vatican Two agrees with their attitude in some ways because it talks oh, I pulled up the wrong thing. Let me pull it down. Okay. And this is Lumincium 25, and it talks about the Pope and the bishops and stuff like that. [00:22:18] And I apologize. I hear my Internet connection isn't very good. I've had this happen before, and it just happens sometimes, and I don't really know why. And so hopefully you can still hear me and follow along. But one of the most famous passages from Luminjinsi, it says, this religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he's not speaking ex catheter. [00:22:45] It must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence. The judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to according to his manifest mind and will. [00:22:58] And this passage here has been taken by a lot of the Papologists, the papaliters, the hyperpaples, whatever you want to call them, the Pope splainers. As you cannot disagree with the Pope, they're basically saying the same thing that they're saying this means the same thing as Pius X said. But I think if we look at it, it's not clear exactly what this means. First of all, it's religious submission of mind and will. What does that mean to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff? It talks about the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, but what is that exactly? We know, of course, it would be teachings on faith and morals that he sets as binding to the Church. We also know it would not include his political views. A Magisterium has never included political views. So if, for example, Pope Francis says we need to have political leaders call for carbon credits or something like that, that's not part of his authentic Magisterium. We don't have to agree with him. We don't have to follow that. [00:23:55] We don't have to give a religious submission of mind and will. And the truth is, we know it doesn't mean blind obedience like the hyperpapalists say, because that contradicts Church teaching. What the Church has always believed about the limits of obedience. We know there isn't a blind obedience to any man, so we know it's not that. At the same time, what does it exactly mean? And I think this is something to be honest, I think the Church needs to still determine the precise meaning here, the precise meaning of religious submission of mind and will. I think what it means on some level, it shows a level of respect in the sense that if a pope, you give the benefit of doubt as much as you can to a pope. If he states something, you give it a certain level of respect and try to listen to it at the very least, even if you end up dismissing it as something that you don't believe. [00:24:49] Again, I'm not talking about his teaching on faith and morals ex Catholic or anything like that, but it does not mean blind obedience. And so I would just say we don't have a clear knowledge of exactly what that means. The Church, I think, needs to clarify that some, because another case of a Vatican II statement that ends up giving more problems than it solves, to be honest. Now, one of the things that we have to always remember is that the papal charisms are negative in character. What I mean by that is he cannot err when he teaches faith and morals, ex Catholic binding on the whole Church. [00:25:29] That does not mean he is going to necessarily have the charism being prudent, that he's going to make good statements that are going to be very always going to be clear, always be the fullness of the truth. It might not have air, but might not fully explain something. All these things are true. And this makes sense because if you look at how the Pope has practiced his papacy in history, you'll notice is a negative thing in a sense that he's a court of final appeal. That's not all he is. But usually what happens is when problems come, they arise to his. There has to be a place where it stops. And that's why you need infallibility, because if there's a controversy in the Church, there has to be at some point, it has to end, and it's only going to end with an infallible judge. [00:26:20] So if people are debating the two natures of Christ, whether or not there's two natures, two persons, and all that in Christ, one person, two natures for those who aren't clear. But if they're debating that back in the fourth and fifth century, you need a court of final appeal that says, okay, this is the final ruling, and that's what he's protected from. It does not mean he's given a positive charism to mean, I'm going to direct your lives. I'm going to tell everybody what they should think and do at all times. I'm going to make sure Catholics always know every day what they need to do. [00:26:54] That's not what the charism is intended for. [00:26:57] And so what I've come to realize, this is something I've come to realize recently is we have too much Pope. [00:27:05] What I mean by that is because of modern communications, we know everything the Pope thinks about everything. [00:27:13] We know what his views are on everything. [00:27:16] And so the idea that we have to follow the Pope in everything, it gets to the point where it's just not practical. It's just not possible to always know. Like most Catholics aren't reading ladate Deom, they're not reading other encyclicals, stuff like that, and that should be okay. You shouldn't have to read papal encyclicals or exhortations or airplane interviews in order to be a faithful Catholic. That just is ludicrous. To think that Christ set up the Church in such a way that you have to know what the Pope thinks about everything before you can move forward, when that wasn't even possible until recently. [00:27:53] I compare it somewhat to Sola scriptora with the invention of the printing press. There was an overemphasis on Scripture all of a sudden, and it led to Sola scriptora, which is a heresy, of course. But I think what we have to remember is that doesn't mean the sacred scriptures aren't important, they aren't the inspired word of God. [00:28:15] And so therefore, if the fact is know the printing press led to this overemphasis on scripture without but at the same time there was truth about the value of Scripture. I would say the same thing has happened with the Pope. We're getting into the territory of Sola Papa, only the Pope, because we have this modern communication that makes it possible for us to hear everything he thinks about everything. [00:28:40] Now saying that does not undercut the fact that the Pope has a real role. He is the head of the Church, he is infallible in certain situations, he does have universal jurisdiction, but modern communications made like we want to look to him for everything. Every single thing he says or does, we have to follow. We have to abide by. That's simply not the way the Church ever operated, because it couldn't operate that way. Christ couldn't have set it up like that because it simply wasn't possible. Just like he couldn't set up the Bible as the sole rule of faith, because it wasn't possible for everybody to have their own Bible back when Christ came in the same way. He couldn't set it up where the Pope is our sole rule of faith, because if he did, then for thousands of years people could not know everything he thought and said about everything. It wasn't until recently that happened. So I really do believe technology has led to this overemphasis on the role of the papacy. It's simply not sustainable. All this we know all this information, all this communication we get from the Pope to follow everything he says and does, it's just not possible to I follow this stuff for a living and I don't know, everything the Pope has said over the past ten years, it's just impossible to keep up with it all. And so this idea that I have to have religious submission of mind and will to everything he said in those ten years is ridiculous. It's just simply not possible. [00:30:05] So I think though, then the answer is I'm going to kind of conclude it here. I think what we have to do is we have to go back to the basics, which is we have to center our Catholic lives around, first, our families, second, our parishes, third, our local bishop and diocese, and then only then the pope. That should be the order of things that first in our families is where we learn the faith. That's where we decide what it know, that's how we learn what we believe. And at our local parish, our local bishop might be involved at some points, and then the Pope, when there is a crisis of a universal nature that really needs to be solved, not climate change or anything like that, then we can look to the pope. I think that's the way forward. I think obviously we still have a duty to pray for the Pope. We should be praying for our local bishop as well. We should be praying for our pastor, our priest. We should be praying for all these people that's obviously now I just realized I did forget to do something I want to bring up. Just I feel like I could just use Credo, the book, the catechism from Bishop Athanasius Schneider as a resource in every single podcast because it's a great resource to kind of tell us what we think. But I had a number of different passages, but I just want to bring up one. It's question 566 on page 79 of Credo, if you're following along and he addresses a number of the issues regarding the Pope, but in issue 566, he says, is any act of disobedience to a command of the Pope by itself schismatic? And the answer is simply no. He explains, one is not schismatic if he resists the Pope or refuses to obey a particular teaching or command of his that is manifestly contrary to natural or divine law or that would harm or undermine the integrity of the Catholic faith or the sacredness of the liturgy. In such cases, disobedience and resistance to the Pope is permissible and sometimes obligatory. Now, this is a catechism written by a bishop exercising his ordinary magisterium and given an imprimatur by another bishop exercising his ordinary magisterium. So this is not just some random dude on YouTube like me just stating his essentially. But it makes total sense what he's saying. [00:32:22] It's not Bishop Schneider's opinion. This makes sense you can resist or refuse to obey a particular command if it is manifestly contrary to natural divine law. So, for example, communion for divorce, remarried, or the death penalty. [00:32:38] Such instances, this would be instant resistance to the Pope is permissible and sometimes obligatory. I know people don't want to hear that because we've been ingrained for the past 150 years or so that we have to listen to every single thing the Pope says. We have to obey every single thing he does. But that's simply not Catholic. And here's the thing. I have about 1900 years of Catholic practice behind what I'm saying, because it just simply wasn't the case that every Catholic just was like, what's the Pope think about this before he acted? [00:33:11] I need to know what his opinion on this? I guarantee you popes for a very long time had crazy, wacky opinions about various things, but they weren't binding. That's just not the way our Lord is so wise. Obviously, he's infinitely wise. He would not set up a system that was dependent upon the human opinions of one man. I mean, St. Peter himself saw this. [00:33:34] And so I really think that we need to recognize that our faith is not centered around the Pope. Our faith is centered around the deposit of faith that's given to us. That the Pope is charged to guard and protect the papal office is part of that deposit of faith. It's not the deposit of faith itself. It's part of it. And I think that's the key thing we have to remember here. This is not a call to overthrow the papacy. This is not a call to proselytism or even orthodoxy. In fact, I reject those two wholeheartedly. And I've defended the papacy here before, and I will continue to defend it. But the incorrect understanding of the role of the papacy that has been dominant in the Church for over 100 years that I am calling for a rejection of and a resistance to. Okay, I'll leave it there again. Pray for the pope. Pray for your local bishop. Pray for your pastors. Pray for each other. Until next time, everybody. God love you. [00:34:35] Never mind.