What is Papal Minimalism? (Guest: Elijah Yasi)

[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign. [00:00:14] Speaker B: Elijah, good to have you on the program. [00:00:16] Speaker A: Thanks for having me, Eric. [00:00:18] Speaker B: Yeah. So it's one of these things when you're on social media. All of a sudden somebody's name, their account starts popping up on your feed because I'm too lazy. I just do the. For you on X. You know, I don't do the following. And so just randomly and all of a sudden you would just pop up. You know how it is. Somebody pops up, you kind of look at and you just kind of go on. Didn't know how positive finally starts to enter into your brain. Like, okay, I'm starting to listen to what's this guy saying. And more and more than eventually you end up following them. And that's basically what happened with you was that you just started popping up my feed over and over again. And you know, the algorithm never lies. [00:00:55] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:00:56] Speaker B: It directs our life. So. So but you. Mostly what I saw was you talking about papal minimalism. And I, you know, I've, I've been tagged to papal minimalist. And I'm not, I'm not ashamed of that or hiding from. I didn't really like, you know, people like Peter Kozneski, same way tradition, who've been kind of tagged people middle during Francis talked about. And so I thought I need come to about more. I've talked about a little bit on this podcast before, but I wanted to give a little bit more detail of that. So. Okay, so first I just want to get. Why don't you give us a little bit your background? Like did you. Are you a cradle Catholic convert? Are you Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, or what's going on? [00:01:46] Speaker A: Sure, sure. No, I appreciate the question. So I was born into a Catholic family in Iraq, Baghdad. So I'm a. My dad is a Syriac Catholic, my mom is a Chaldean Catholic. So I was baptized and confirmed as an infant in the Syriac Catholic Church. So I was born as a Catholic and then I, I received my first communion in the Chaldean Church. So I'm kind of like a mutt when it comes to that Eastern. Right. Mix. Yeah. So. [00:02:17] Speaker B: And. [00:02:19] Speaker A: We, we weren't really like super religious, but we did believe in the Catholic Church and all this stuff to the best of our abilities. We went to church twice a year. So we were like cultural in a sense, but like we always knew God was important in our family. And my parents taught me to pray every day, so I would always pray before I sleep. But I was never religious. When I turned 20, I started to get into my faith more. But in the wrong direction. And I actually ended up leaning Protestant and I was more Calvinist in my, my views. You know, I rejected Catholic teachings mostly because I didn't know what Catholicism taught and why they taught what they taught. I just wasn't never brought up that way. And then it took about a year. My dad found out that we were my brother and I have a twin brother. I don't know if you know, Enoch, he found out that we were Protestant. [00:03:23] Speaker B: Enoch's your twin brother? [00:03:24] Speaker A: Yeah, he's, he's my twin brother. Yeah. [00:03:26] Speaker B: I did not know that. [00:03:28] Speaker A: Oh, wow. [00:03:28] Speaker B: I didn't know you guys were brothers. I know you're twin. How about that? Yeah, yeah. [00:03:32] Speaker A: You don't see the resemblance? The resemblance. We look, we look exactly the same. No kidding. [00:03:37] Speaker B: Yeah, exactly. You need the beard and everything, I guess, right? [00:03:40] Speaker A: Yeah, no, I, I, I had a beard look good on me, so I, I got rid of it. Okay. But he, he, he supports that really well. He's, he can, he can rock that. Really. [00:03:48] Speaker B: Yeah, he does rock it. [00:03:50] Speaker A: Well. [00:03:50] Speaker B: Yeah, that's true. [00:03:51] Speaker A: Yeah. So my dad finds out we're, you know, Protestant and things like that. He gets just super mad and he goes, you're going to go to a Catholic Bible study. And my brother and I, oh, sure, I got to respect Lego, but like, we're still Protestant, right? You can't force somebody to believe something. So. And in the Bible study, this, this guy is doing Gospel of Mark Bible study, which is kind of foreign to me as to hear a Catholic doing Bible study because, you know, my perception, Catholicism doesn't care about the Bible. And then he starts bringing up the church fathers and, and incorporating the interpretation of the church fathers into the Gospel of Mark. And then it sparked my interest. I, I got into the church fathers, I looked into them and then I found out that they were more Catholic than Protestant. A lot more, obviously, you know, baptism and Eucharist and all the stuff that they believed in. So I was like, well, if Catholicism is false, then Jesus lied at that point. Right. The whole nine. Right. You, you know how that goes. And then like, how can the truth just come out in the 16th century? And so it wasn't very long. It took about a year of me being Protestant and studying the church fathers that I became back to the Catholic Church. And I thank God for that time because if it wasn't for that, I would not be like where I am right now with the knowledge of the fathers and things like that. Right? Yeah. [00:05:17] Speaker B: God bless your dad, first of all. [00:05:19] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:05:19] Speaker B: I mean, that. That's a good dad right there. You're gonna go to a Catholic Bible study, boys. I don't care. And good for you, both of you, respecting your father enough to. To go along with that. So. So now what do you attend now? Do you attend a Sirach or a Chaldean or a Roman Catholic church? Where do you attend now? [00:05:37] Speaker A: I really attend a Syriac church maybe like once or twice a year. I'll go with my dad. He barely does, too. But I mostly attend either a Chaldean church or a tlm. Okay, so those are the two. I'm actually really lucky. I live three minutes from a parish that does a TLM on Sundays and they have daily confessions. But it's not a TLM parish. It's just. Okay, they borrow that parish to do that every Sunday. And then I also have an institute of Christ the King, which is my official parish. Like, that's where I registered in. In town, 30 minutes from me. So I'm very lucky here. We're in metro Detroit, so we used to be more lucky, but I still consider myself lucky. Right. Because the new bishop, what he did. Reseller. Yeah, yeah. [00:06:24] Speaker B: Detroit was. I don't say was, like, it's all past tense. But I went up to visit, and, boy, there are some great parishes there. Like, there were so many TLMs. It really was heartbreaking what the bishop did there, because. Heartbreaking. Remember where it was. But I kind of looked at Detroit as the best place for the TLM in the country because it was so integrated into the diocese. It wasn't just like, okay, we'll stick you guys in this one parish out in the middle of nowhere or. Or in the middle of a terrible neighborhood. But instead it was like, no. Lots of parishes would have TLM Masses along with the Novus Ordo and things like that. So it really was unfortunate. But. Yeah. And there's a Chaldean Catholic Church up there as well, you said. [00:07:07] Speaker A: Oh, there's several of them. This is probably the most in the country. Yeah, there's Chaldeans here. There's two Syriac churches. And going back to your point about the TM, I think I heard there was like 17 TLM masses, and now there's. There's down to four now. [00:07:20] Speaker B: Right? [00:07:21] Speaker A: Yeah. So that. That's a huge drop, unfortunately. [00:07:23] Speaker B: I mean, I figured just the fact that they had three different parishes here. Invite me to speak means it can't be that bad because I'm not usually invited by most places. [00:07:32] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:07:33] Speaker B: So. Okay, well, that's interesting. So now when you, when you came back to the church after being Protestant briefly, did you come back immediately and start going to a Chaldean or a Novus Ordo tlm? Like what, what did you come back to initially? [00:07:47] Speaker A: Great question. So I came back and I started attending Novus Ordo and Chaldean. [00:07:54] Speaker B: Okay. [00:07:54] Speaker A: Depending on the day. So that, that was. I didn't know what a TLM was. [00:07:58] Speaker B: Right, right. [00:07:59] Speaker A: And then there was a parish and so I used to live in San Diego when this was happening. Okay. And there was a parish about 15 minutes from my house that had like a really reverent Lopus Ordo. They would do like the, you know, the hymns in Latin, the incense, the whole nine. It was just. They had a really good priest. [00:08:17] Speaker B: But. [00:08:18] Speaker A: They also had a 6pm TLM mass. And I attended that for the first time. That was my first time doing tlm and that just blew my mind. I was like, wow, this. Where has this been all my life? And then I started going to that mass every Sunday and then they, they have another TM parish, it's called Saint Ans in San Diego that I started attending every Sunday eventually until I moved here to, to Michigan. So yeah, so very, I would say about three years into my, you know, Catholic, like really being Catholic, I discovered the tlm. [00:08:53] Speaker B: Okay. Now I, we're going to talk about PAC minimalism, but I do want to make sure everybody kind of is following. Let's just explain what the Chaldean Catholic Church is like so that everybody who's listening is like what is he even talking about? So why don't you give a brief explanation what the Chaldean Catholic Church is kind of its history and it worships and things like that. [00:09:12] Speaker A: Sure, sure. That's a great question. So it, it was part of the original church. It's apostolic. It goes back to the apostles. We can trace back the, the, the bishop back to St. Thomas the Apostle that's there, the bishop, the bishopric line. And so you know, everything was, everything was great in the first four, five centuries with the, the church until there was the, the story and split in 431. And the Chaldeans were part of that split. So they, they kind of went on their own as, as the story is like as the Assyrian Church of the East. Some people call it an historian church today that. So the Assyrian Church of the east was the original like Chaldean church during the split. So before that obviously everybody was Catholic. But at the split in the fifth century, now they're the Assyrian Church of The East. And then fast forward to, I think it was, like, about a couple hundred years ago where part of that church entered communion with Rome. And now the Chaldean Church is an Eastern rite that has its own patriarch, has its own bishops. And the liturgy that we do is from Marmari and Marade. So it's an ancient liturgy, obviously, as all the liturgies are. And so, yeah, that's basically the elevator pitch and I guess the nutshell of the Chaldean Church. [00:10:37] Speaker B: Where is the patriarch located? [00:10:38] Speaker A: What's his c. I think he is in Iraq. I want to say Mosul and specifically. But I could be wrong. I think he's in Iraq. Yeah. [00:10:47] Speaker B: Okay. I thought. I thought, like, Baghdad or Mosul or something like that. I wasn't sure exactly where it was. Yeah, but historically, that's where most of the Chaldeans are, is Iraq, that general area. So. [00:10:57] Speaker A: Correct. [00:10:58] Speaker B: What did you say the liturgy was it? Which one was it? [00:11:01] Speaker A: You said Mar, Marade and Marmari. [00:11:04] Speaker B: Is that the one? Okay, now I'm getting kind of geeked out, I admit. We'll get to the topic at hand soon enough. [00:11:09] Speaker A: Yeah, no worries. [00:11:10] Speaker B: Is that the one that doesn't have explicit words of institution? [00:11:15] Speaker A: So here's interesting. Yeah, that's interesting that you say that it didn't. And if you go to the Assyrian Church of the east, which is. If you want to look at what the Chaldean liturgy was originally, before they came into communion with Rome, you go to that liturgy, obviously you can't receive communion there because we're on a communion with them. You'll see what the original Chaldean liturgy was. And they don't have the words of institution. When Rome, you know, when Calvin Church and Rome united together and they were communing with Rome, they added the words of institution to the liturgy. So that's in addition to the Chaldean liturgy. And Rome came out and said that the Assyrian Church of the east liturgy is still a valid Eucharist, even without it, because it implies the words of institution. And if you look at, like, history, some historians debate on this topic, right. Like, they. They. It's split. Some say that the original liturgy didn't have the words of institution, and some historians say that it. They did have the words of institution. I think it was probably a little bit of both. Right. You should have, like, some regions they had it, some regions they didn't. But, like, not having the words of institution in the liturgy is actually very, very ancient. It goes back to, like, the second century. [00:12:28] Speaker B: So yeah, that I remember. I learned that it blew my mind because, of course, in the west, we have a pretty strict view of, like, the words institutions, what makes the consecration happen, essentially. And here we have a liturgy that Rome considers valid that doesn't have the words institution because of the. Like you said, the implicit. And I believe they came out like, like 20 years ago, something with an Rome did, saying, yes, it is a valid liturgy, even without the words of institution. [00:12:55] Speaker A: Correct, Correct. [00:12:56] Speaker B: I did not know the Chaldean Church had added the words of institution when it came in union with Rome. [00:13:01] Speaker A: Yeah, because they were doing the, the Mass the way the Assyrian Church does it right now. [00:13:05] Speaker B: Right. [00:13:05] Speaker A: That's the same Mass. So. But now if you go to the Chaldean Church and you go to the Assyrian Church, maybe you wouldn't be able to tell the subtle differences. But there's, there's a lot of additions and modifications and things like that. Especially recently with the new patriarchy, He, He. He reformed the Mass. Okay. Yeah. So I. Not. [00:13:23] Speaker B: It makes all of us nervous around here when we hear reform the man. [00:13:26] Speaker A: It should. It should. I mean, that, that, that wasn't a good reform, in my opinion. Right. Yeah. [00:13:30] Speaker B: Now, now what. What language is the liturgy in now? Like, when you go to liturgy there? [00:13:35] Speaker A: Okay, so. Good question. So you can go to a liturgy and it could be either in Chaldean, it could be in Arabic, it could be in Chaldean and Arabic mix, and it could. Or it could be in English, but the hymns are usually in the original Aramaic that Jesus spoke, because the Chaldean language and the Aramaic language are sister languages. So, like, when I watch the Passion of Christ, there's a lot of words that I understand because I speak Chaldean. So it's, It's a close language. They're all Semitic languages. They're all close to each other. [00:14:04] Speaker B: So your words and institution are about as close to the actual words of institution that you're going to get. [00:14:12] Speaker A: So if, if you go to a Syriac or actually if you go to a Maronite Church, which is a Syriac. Right, right. The Maronite Church, they do the consecration in the original Aramaic that Jesus spoke. And it's beautiful people. [00:14:27] Speaker B: Like, I've been to Maronite. Yeah, we have one here in, In Cincinnati. [00:14:30] Speaker A: Oh, okay. Yeah. I mean, you see, like, it's the way they do it, the hymn, like, the way they hymn it, it's just beautiful. Yes, I would say that is the original. The Chaldeans, they don't do it in the original. But if they do it in Chaldean. It's close, but it's not the same. Yeah. [00:14:46] Speaker B: Okay. Okay. [00:14:47] Speaker A: Good to know. [00:14:48] Speaker B: Okay. I, I just can't help myself. When we start talking about this stuff, I'm, I, I geek out about it. So I just wanted to talk about that a little bit. Okay. So the topic is papal minimalism. Why don't we just start. Give me, like, a one or two sentence, like description or definition of what you mean by papal minimalism, and then we'll start breaking it down. [00:15:08] Speaker A: That's very hard to do, but I'll try. [00:15:10] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:15:10] Speaker A: Okay. [00:15:10] Speaker B: It doesn't have to be. I won't, I won't count your periods. It can be more than two sentences. [00:15:16] Speaker A: So if I were to say, if I were to say, like a sentence or two, I think the importance of papal minimalism and what we're really trying to drive at from my approach is more of an apologetics approach. And I would say it's important to know that the Pope doesn't work in a vacuum. It's not the Pope's opinion alone that matters. So when the Pope speaks in an official manner for the Church and he's declaring something official, the consent of the Church is behind his decree. That's papal minimalism versus papal maximalism, which is, it doesn't matter what bishops think, it doesn't matter what the Church is taught. It's the Pope's opinion is the opinion that matters. That's the law of the land. And whatever he says is, Is the way things go. So that's the difference. It's, It's a big difference. And I think most folks believe that Catholicism teaches the maximalist view, and that's because of a lot of factors that we can get into. [00:16:22] Speaker B: Yeah. Now, would you say that the, Would you say both papal minimalism, papal maximalism you define, would you say both are acceptable opinions for Catholics today, or would you say, no, you really should be a papal minimalist if you're Catholic, or is it an open question for debate still? [00:16:42] Speaker A: That's a very, very good question for me. I would say papal minimalism is the right understanding of the papacy. So if you are a papal maximalist, the Pope is not going to say, you know, you're excommunicated. Right. So it's not like that extreme, but you have an erroneous view of the papacy because to think that the Pope can decree something in opposition to the Church, which is papal maximalism, like he can decree something in opposition to the Church, the bishops, to the Church, as a Whole. And he's alone, in his opinion, to that extreme example. And they'll say, yeah, he can do that. That, that goes against Vatican one. That goes against the, the debates at Vatican one. That goes against Pope Pius ix, who was at Vatican one, what he believes, the, how he believes the papacy works. So I would say, as a Catholic, you. I can't say you can't be a maximalist because, like, I'm not a bishop to tell you that, you know, you're excommunicated or anything like that. But I would say that you have the wrong view of Catholicism. You're an error. So you, you truth matters. So you should, you know, become a papal minimalist in your opinion on this, on this category. [00:17:51] Speaker B: Okay, so let's go back to then, kind of sources for support of this position of papal minimalism. And let's go, of course, talk about Vatican I in a minute, because that's obviously the big one. But like the first millennia, millennium, you know, the first thousand years of Christian history, that's really, you know, it's our shared history with the Eastern Orthodox. And that's also where we have, you know, so everybody's accepting the Pope as the bishop of Rome and of some type of primacy on. Or something like that. There's. That's where the debates come in. [00:18:26] Speaker A: Sure. [00:18:26] Speaker B: So where would you see, like, papal minimalism support for it in that first thousand years in the practice of how the papacy was actually exercised. [00:18:38] Speaker A: Pretty much multiple times every century. That's actually the strong view of the papal minimalism position is that it's found everywhere in the early Church. And I'll give an example. The controversy with the Chalcedon Council in 451. You have, you know, Dioscorus and his view of Christology. You have Uticus, who was declared a heretic, and all the controversies of Christology that was happening at the time. And then here comes Pope Leo, who is the bishop of Rome at the time, and he writes a tome saying, here's the truth is this tone, this is what you have to accept to be Catholic. And then he got signatures of the bishops to sign off on his tome, to agree with it. So that is, right there is the consent of the church and the pope. So papal minimalism in a nutshell, is the head and the body, the pope and the bishops working together in unison. That's. That's what papal minimalism really is. It's the head and the members, and they can never be severed or separated. You can have a fraction of the body being Separated. But you can't have all the bishops disagreeing with the Pope. That is impossible. The Holy Spirit will never allow one side and, and say this is the truth and the other side saying this is the, no, this is the truth. They'll always act together. So the important is head and body always acts together. So with that said, you have Pope Leo, who's the head, and you have the bishops who signed off on it. And then afterwards, you know, the council was, was held Chalcedon, and the bishop signed off on it on an, in an official matter at the council. And so then you have that act, the solemn act of the council being between the head and the members. And so then you have papal minimalism right there, which is the importance of the Pope having the consent of the Church behind his act. And you know, you can, you can go to any of the ecumenical councils really, and maybe not the second one right away, but you know, first one, third one, which is Ephesus one, Calcina, the one we talked about, Constantinople two. They all are seeking the consent of the Bishop of Rome in order to have universal validity. That's the importance of Catholicism versus like Eastern Orthodoxy, where the Bishop of Rome's consent, sure, it's relatively necessary, but it's not absolutely necessary. And that was foreign to the first millennium church. They didn't operate as if the Bishop of Rome's opinion was like important but not absolute. No, they, they believe that his opinion needs to be there. His stance has to be behind a teaching before it becomes universal. And that's why Vigilius in the, you know, in 553 was imprisoned by Justinian. He was imprisoned by Justinian, the Emperor, to, you know, to consent to the council because he knew that he had to have the Bishop of Rome's consent for him to say, to call this council ecumenical and universal. [00:21:49] Speaker B: So a lot of people, when they hear papal mentalism, I know you've, I'm sure you've been accused this, I've been accusing this, that we're basically just one step to Orthodoxy. We're about to become Eastern Orthodox, blah, blah, blah. And of course our friend Michael Warren Davis, you know, he kind of says that. I had him on the podcast a while back. I know you had him on your show as well, about like basically saying the papal mentalists are just want to be Orthodox in a certain sense. [00:22:11] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:22:12] Speaker B: So make sure that's clear. What is the key difference between the Catholic papal minimalist position and the Eastern Orthodox position on the papacy? [00:22:22] Speaker A: Okay. So when we talk about practicality I think we can shake hands and say, okay, we agree on practicality. The head and the members, they work together. I think Michael Warren Davis would say amen to that. And I think, I hope a lot of Eastern Orthodox would say amen to that and hope a lot of Catholics, I know a lot of Catholics, bishops and Pope would say amen to that, that that's how things work. Ecclesiology is bishops and Pope, where it's not like a triangle where the Pope is on top and then you have the bishops on the bottom. It's more of a circle and the Pope is in. That's really how you look at the papacy. So, and I think everyone can agree with that. The, the, the theological difference is where we start to separate. And this is what I mean. In, in the Catholic Church, we believe that Christ instituted the papacy. So it's divine institution by Christ in Peter, with Peter in Matthew 16. You are rocking on this rock. I will build my church. You know, I'll give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bound on earth will be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth will be loose in heaven. And, and so Christ hands over the keys to Peter. And we believe that handing over of that keys is where the institution of the papacy was established by Christ. And so that difference is, is sounds like it's nuanced, but here's where we defer. For us, papal infallibility is a gift. It's a grace that God gives to the Church. So the Pope has that grace, has that gift, and he's the only one that has that gift. So he, when he speaks in an official capacity and binds the whole Church to a specific teaching on either faith or morals, that teaching is protected by God to be infallible and truth. So not that the Pope is necessarily being led or inspired to a decree that he has to like. It's not like he just wakes up one day, he's like, oh, God told me to do this right. It's a negative gift to where the Pope is impeded or prevented from speaking heresy on an official capacity in that manner. The Eastern Orthodox don't have such a teaching. So they don't believe that the Pope is impeded. They believe that the Pope can be a heretic in, even in an official capacity. That's where the difference is. The difference isn't whether the Pope acts alone or not. We agree that the Pope doesn't act alone. We agree that the Pope has never acted alone. He always consults his bishops in every dogma. That you can come up with. You can see the Catholic Church ecclesiology is head and members never fails, and the consent of the Church is always behind it. However, the difference, again, is the gift of being impeded from speaking heresy. We don't believe the Pope has that ability. He. We will be impeded, like, even. Even, like, struck dead by God if he is about to decree something. Now, somebody's asked me before examples, and there was a Catholic who actually gave me an example of one that has happened in history. So there was. Oh, my gosh, I think it was. Don't quote me on this. I have to look it up. But I think it was Pope Sixtus V. I could be wrong on that. But whoever the Pope was that tried to decree that the. The Vulgate is the best translation of the Bible and really the only one, he was going to decree that in an official capacity, and he died before he could. So there's an example of, I'd be. [00:25:43] Speaker B: Nervous if I was Pope, because I'd be like, oh, man, if I say something wrong, I'm gonna drop dead before I can say. [00:25:49] Speaker A: Exactly. That's. That's why. That's why folks have to understand the papacy in that manner, because of what you just said. The Pope can't just make something up. If he really believes in his office, he believes that they're only instituted. He can't just wake up one day and decree something on his own will and impose his will on the Church, because if it's not truth, if it's not orthodox, he will be impeded by God before he can decree that. So that's why papal minimalism is the Pope has to do his due diligence. He has a moral obligation to do his homework, to make sure that what he's about to decree is the Church's consent. The Church is belief. That's what the Church agrees with, believes. And so that gives him a surety that this is, you know, a teaching that God can. Can stand behind. Right? He's not going to be impeded by it. Examples of that is, are Pope pius the. The Ninth, who was at Vatican I. But in 1854, about 16 years before Vatican 1, he decreed that Mary was immaculately conceived or is, you know, is immaculately conceived. And he didn't just wake up one day and decide to do that. In fact, he had no intention of doing that. He was actually petitioned by people to do that. He received hundreds of thousands of petitions to decree that. And so in return, the Pope pulled the bishops around the world and the bishops then pulled their priests in the diocese and the priests pulled their parishioners. The parishioners said yes, we believe and we practice this teaching, the Immaculate Conception, and we believe it. And then the priest said yes. And then they went back to the bishops. The bishops said yes, and then it went back to the Pope and then the Pope decreed it. So now he just decreed the mind of the Church. So now if everybody believes it as, as, as we teach in the Catholicism is, if everybody believes something, all the bishops scattered all over the world believe something, that teaching is dogma, that's infallible. [00:27:55] Speaker B: And then Our lady herself of course confirmed it. [00:27:58] Speaker A: Exactly, exactly, my lord. [00:28:00] Speaker B: Sorry. [00:28:00] Speaker A: Yeah. Yep, exactly. [00:28:02] Speaker B: Okay, so now here's the thing. The, the, the kind of, the typical, like overview of papal history. No, no, like serious scholar disputes that the first thousand years you had a form of, of a paper papacy that's definitely lean more towards a papal minimalist view. Yeah, I mean anybody who disputes that doesn't, isn't really reading history in my mind. And our friend Eric Yubara wrote I think the, the kind of definitive book on that, on the papacy, because he really goes through the first thousand years and he's very fair to every position. But ultimately you come away with, yeah, the Catholic, it's more Catholic than his orthodox. It's definitely more in practice at the very least. There isn't, there aren't popes decreeing, you know, like even running the universal church as we see it today. But then you see in the 11th century with Gregory VII and then throughout the Middle Ages, you know, Innocent iii, I think it was some other, you know, and some others, it continues to grow and the narrative is okay, yeah, the first thousand years you had a somewhat minimalist papacy. But then after the 11th century, which also coincidentally, I don't think coincidentally was when we broke with, you know, when the orthodox broke with us, I should say, yeah, kind of started that process. I know it wasn't a one time thing, but the point is that's when we stopped communicating with them and checking with them on things and they check with us, stuff like that. And so then, and that goes all the way till its peak, which is Vatican one. And then that's what, and that's kind of the development of doctrine because it's Catholics, you do believe in a development of doctrine. And so it's a legitimate development that yeah, the first thousand years it was pretty minimalist, but then the next thousand years it grew to become more and more maximalist, both in practice, like you Know, jurisdiction, but also in doctrine and dogma and being able to define things and really having, you know, the canon of the. The first sea shall be judged by no one, you know, dates from this time, first dates from this time frame of 11th, 12th century, something around there. So how do you kind of respond to that historical narrative? It sounds like you're going against a legitimate development. You're going against almost a thousand years of what the Church at least practiced. How would you argue against that? [00:30:14] Speaker A: That's a good question. So I do want to. If it's okay, I do want to say that the, the first C is judged by. No one actually goes to the back to the first millennium. Middle of the first millennium, yes. [00:30:24] Speaker B: Okay. That far. Okay. I was thinking it was more like 800 or so at the earliest. So it's even earlier than that. Okay. Okay. [00:30:29] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. The, the popes were claiming that in, like, the sixth century. Okay, good to know. Yeah. So. So that you ask a very good question. And I think that question poses the biggest challenge to this because you can, as far as on the surface, like, when you first think about it, okay, like, you have the first millennium, and it seems like, you know, the popes are working with the church, and then the second millennium, it seems like the popes are kind of like pounding their chest and saying, I have all the power. But if you think about it, it's not like in the first millennium you had ecumenical councils, and then in second millennium you only had ex cathedrals. Right. In the second millennium, you had more ecumenical councils than in the first millennium as Catholics. So on an official, official position of when the Church was producing dogmas in the second millennium, the popes were doing that through councils with bishops voting. And so you could say that that minimalist idea, when things really, really mattered, the popes were working with the bishops, even in that capacity. In fact, and I can pull this up if I find it, there was a, a pope in the 17th century that was dealing with some controversy. And he wrote that having consulted the bishops around the world, and then he spoke their mind and decreed with them. And that was in the 1600s, right? 16 to 1700, somewhere around there. And so you, you have examples, nothing but minimalist examples. Now we have to distinguish two things that Vatican 1 decreed, because to your point, and I'll get to your point here, to your point, Vatican one decreed two things that pertain to the papacy. Papal infallibility, which is what we're talking about, right. Where official capacity of the pope can speak on behalf of The Church, and it's official. You have to believe it. You have no choice. That is one aspect of papal the papacy, Vatican one. That's chapter four of Pastor Returnus and Vatican one. The other one is universal jurisdiction. One, it has a protection by God to not fall or fail, which is papal infallibility. But universal jurisdiction has no such protection. Universal jurisdiction is the Pope has authority above the whole Church. So if, if there is like, let's say, a bishop in Africa who is teaching some wacky things, the Pope can say, you're excommunicated. He has that capacity to do that. Right, that sort of capacity, that saying you're excommunicated. We don't see that as infallible. Like, the Pope is not infallible in, in the way he governs the Church. He's not protected by God in that sense. So he can fail and he can be in error when it comes to that. But you obey because you, you obey for order purposes. You have a head. You have to, you know, keep, keep the order. So even if you, if you feel like you're wrongly accused, you work it out with the Pope in the background, but you don't oppose him. Right. [00:33:45] Speaker B: So Pope could, for example, excommunicate a bishop who's perfectly orthodox and has no problems just because he didn't like them, maybe, you know, whatever reason that is, that does not go against the idea of universal jurisdiction. Nor, you're saying, does it go against the papal minimalist view. So the papal minimalist, when it comes to jurisdiction, accepts all the authority of a Pope to run the Church, knowing that he can do a good job of that. He could do an average of that. He could do a terrible job of that. But the point is he has the authority and we are bound as Catholics to obey him. Assuming, of course, he's not asking us to do something that goes against the faith or against something like that. [00:34:21] Speaker A: So. [00:34:21] Speaker B: Okay, and that's very. I was going to bring that up. Yes. So Vatican I, we have the jurisdiction and the infallibility, so the doctrine split. And when it comes to jurisdiction, a papal minimalist doesn't really believe anything different than a papal maximalist, at least doctrine internally. Like, you know, yeah, we might disagree whether or not Pope's doing a good job or not a specific Pope, but we're not going to disagree on does he have the authority to do that? [00:34:44] Speaker A: Okay, exactly. Yeah. And now. But you do have precedents in the early Church where the popes excommunicate, like, you know, Pope Celestine in 430excommunicates Nestorius, who was second in rank. He's a patriarch of Constantinople. He's like the highest patriarch in prelate in the Church, besides the pope, who is first. And the pope felt like he could excommunicate him. So there is precedence where popes can excommunicate. Now, like you said, was it a good reason or a bad reason? Did he like him or not like him? That, that, that's all practical stuff. But we know that he does have the authority, even going back to the early Church. [00:35:21] Speaker B: And that would be another place we would disagree with the orthodox because they would not say a bishop of Rome could just excommunicate a patriarch of, like, Constantinople or wherever, just on. Under his own authority. [00:35:36] Speaker A: Well, they say, they'll say he can, but only from the Sea of Rome, not from the Church as a whole. So he could separate himself from that. Whereas Pope Celestine wasn't looking at it as, hey, you're excommunicated and you're no longer communion with me. He's like, no, you're excommunicated. You're out of the Church. You're no longer part of the Church. Universal church. Yeah. So, yeah. [00:35:56] Speaker B: Okay, so let's go back real quick to this narrative of papal minimalism for a thousand years and then growing papal maximalism when we're talking about doctrine, not jurisdiction, but just doctrine capping off with Vatican I. And then you could even say reaching its, its high point in recent years with, you know, people saying that when Pope Francis talks in an airplane practically, he's infallible type of thing. So I'm being a little bit unfair, that position. But, you know, basically, though, it's a very maximalist view of, of everything. So how do you, how, how are you countering that, that narrative again? [00:36:30] Speaker A: So when it comes to papal infallibility and official dogmas, the Church has been papal minimalist for 2,000 years. I mean, I've asked folks to give me examples of where the Pope was a maximalist in the second millennium, and no one's able to produce anything. It's usually a jurisdiction thing. Right. The issue, it doesn't fall under the umbrella of divine protection or papal minimalism in the papal infallibility. Now, I do want to say that there is, there is a teaching in Catholicism of universal jurisdiction where the Pope is supposed to operate in a minimalist way, in the way that happens in papal infallibility. So let me unpack that. So even, even if the Pope is going to, you know, excommunicate someone or correct someone in. In that capacity of jurisdiction. He is doing that with the mindset that he has the backing of the other bishops with this act. So it's still supposed to be a collegial act, like head and members are working together to say, hey, you're wrong. You need to correct yourself. So it's not just the Pope kind of overstepping and saying you're wrong. By himself. He's still going to consult. He's still going to ask the bishops before he does anything like that. So the way it works in a practical manner is still a minimalist approach, even when it comes to jurisdiction. But he doesn't have to do that. But that's just the way that Vatican one saw it. And we know that because the debates that were had on this topic with Vatican one, this was heavily debated where the bishops felt like they were now becoming, well, the minority bishops in Vatican 1. They felt like they were becoming more of, like the delegates of the popes. Like they were just becoming like they're. They're his employees. Right. And Vatican one. And if I can. If you don't mind, I can pull it up and read it a decree from Vatican one that. That was put on there to address that concern. Right? So. So if I put Pastor Returnus and. And I go to. And they actually quote Gregory the Great. So he said, this is from Pastor Returnus. It says, this power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of the episcopal jurisdiction by which bishops who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power power of the pope of theirs, actually, the power of theirs. The power. This power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor. For St. Gregory the Great says, my honor is the honor for. For the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due. So in other words, the authority that the Pope has isn't to take away the authority of the bishop. It is to strengthen that so that the people that the bishop is governing are listening to that bishop. And they're not ignoring him and overstepping him and saying, hey, we got to listen to Rome. No, the Rome is saying. We are not saying that the bishop is in competition with the sea of Rome, but the sea of Rome is strengthening that power of the bishop to be able to govern his people properly. So it's actually the opposite of what people think Vatican one is doing. They're not trying to take away the bishop's power, they're trying to strengthen it. So that was put on there purposely because of the misconception that the Pope can just override a bishop. And that's what Vatican one was decreeing. That's not what they were decreeing. You have to understand that the Pope has that in his sleeve to act in that sense where he can say, you're wrong and you're gone, because that's for order purposes. That's not a practical, that's not an ordinary thing that happens on an everyday basis. That's just there as the lack of last resort. If that's not there, then things cannot be resolved. Things will always begin to spin in a circle and never get resolved. So that's the purpose of that. [00:40:44] Speaker B: Okay, and so you've talked a number of times about, you've mentioned how the Pope acts in kind of concert with the Church and union with the Church. And you gave the example Immaculate Conception definition. But practically speaking, what does that mean? So, for example, what if the Pope's like, okay, I really think I need to define this doctrine. And let's say, you know, let's say 40% of the bishops agree with him, but 60% of bishops think, no, I don't think that's such a good idea. And so, like, what is? You know, I mean, Papal Maximus say, well, if the Pope decrees it, then it's true. [00:41:22] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:41:23] Speaker B: And whereas papal malice, like, how does that work? Because how would you then, you know, does he need 51% or does it just. How does. And does it matter? Is it just the bishops of today, or does it also mean all the bishops throughout time, the lay people, clergy and all that? [00:41:37] Speaker A: Yes. Excellent, excellent question. So to answer your question, I would say that that was also debated at Vatican 1. The whole 51. Or does he need this many? Like, what does he need? And the. The answer is that there is no percentage that we put and attach to say this is what the consent of the Church requires. O so both the minimalists and the maximalists agree that once the Pope decrees something and he's successful in decreeing, what I mean by successful is that God does not impede him, so what he decrees is true. Once that happens after the fact, it doesn't matter whether there's a hundred percent or zero percent behind his decree. Now, we will say that there will always be a huge, pretty good chunk of bishops behind his decree after the fact. The debates are more about before the act, what the. Before the act, what kind of consent does the Pope need and what kind of consent does the Pope have in order for that to become valid? So the consent. And. And if you don't mind, I'm going to read Vatican one. Sure. To answer your question, because this is the most misunderstood aspect of what we're talking about. Right. This whole consent thing. And I'll break it, break it down where it's going to make sense. So if you look at the very end of Pastor Return, this is the. [00:43:12] Speaker B: Last man you got here. I got printed out and I have it highlighted to ask you. So you're already ahead. You're a step ahead of me. I know exactly what passage you're gonna about to read. [00:43:21] Speaker A: This is the most misunderstood. This is the consent of the Church. Vatican one, when they talk about the consent. So when it talks about ex cathedrals, how they work, what an ex cathedral is, and then. And all that jazz. So this is what they say. They're therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith to the glory of God our Savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people. With the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, that infallibility which the Divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy. In defining doctrine, concern concerning faith or morals, and here's the sentence that you probably have highlighted. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. Was that the. This highlight? [00:44:26] Speaker B: Yes, that was it. [00:44:28] Speaker A: Okay, so how does that work with papal minimalism? Like it seems like it literally contradicts papal minimalism because it's saying that the, the Pope's ex cathedras decrees are irreformable in and of themselves and not by the consent of the Church. Right. So there are two words, two definitions for the word consent. Consent could mean permission and consent could mean agreement. In, in Latin, the word consent, it can mean. So when, when Vatican one is using consent in the background of the debates, which is the relatio, Bishop Gasser is where, where you Read the background of the debates. If you, if you, you know, Google Relatio Bishop Gasser, and you read it. Gasser is using the word consent in two ways, either permission or consent. And we, and that's just a side note, I'm going to get into that in a little bit. But when you say that the Pope. When we say that the Pope's definitions are in of themselves irreformable and not from the consent of the Church, here's what that means. We have the example of the Immaculate Conception, and we'll use that example to answer this question. So the Immaculate Conception example has the bishop's consent behind the teaching before the Pope decrees it, right? It has the priest, the lay people, it has the whole Church consent behind it. And it's not just like, to answer your question, it's not just consent of the existing Church today as it is in present teaching, but it's the consent of the antiquity of the Church. So like from from the beginning, all the way up to our point, consent of the Church means previous bishops, church fathers, saints, scripture, even tradition, all that together falls under the consent of the Church. Which means in this point, the teaching or the agreement of the Church, the faith of the Church, that faith of the Church has to be behind the decree of the Immaculate Conception in this example. But there's a huge but here. The but here is that consent is not what makes the decree infallible. That consent is a requirement to be behind the decree. But what makes the decree infallible is one thing alone, and that's God is ensuring that infallibility. So the fact that he wasn't impeded and he was successfully able to decree it because God would step in and to impede the Pope if he, if he was going to decree heresy, that is where the Pope's infallibility is and relies on. It doesn't rely on the Church. The Church having consent is kind of like the Pope's confirmation that I'm safe to decree this, because if the Church believes it as a whole, and if whatever the Church believes as a whole is dogma or official or, you know, can be decreed safely, that tells me that I'm safe to decree this teaching and God is going to be behind it, because there's, there's not a point to where God is going to let the whole Church teach heresy. That's impossible, right? The Holy Spirit ensures the whole Church is infallible, not just one bishop, the Pope, the whole Church is infallible. So if all the bishops in the world are saying one thing the Pope is safe to say, okay, I can decree this safely. So now to answer your question, let's break down what we just read again with that in mind. And you, you'll see that the, that the Vatican 1 fathers worded this very carefully so that there aren't confusion. But unfortunately, there still is confusion with this. So this is what they said we teach and define as the Valley Revealed dogma, that when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or mor, to be held by the whole Church, he possesses by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, that divine assistance that's promised to him is what ensures the infallibility that alone, that infallibility which the Divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith and morals. And here's, here is, here's the kicker. Therefore, such definitions, the definition itself is irreformable. Such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves because God is behind it and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. So they're, they're reformable because God is the one who's saying, I rubber stamp this teaching. What you just said is correct. And that's why I allowed you to speak this decree in an official manner. How do I know that that interpretation is the correct one? I could, Elijah Yasi could just be making this up. Right. So, and if you look at what happened after Vatican 1, very shortly after Vatican 1, and I hope I'm not talking too much, because this is. [00:49:31] Speaker B: No, I want you to get into this. This is, I mean, this is the key crux point right here. [00:49:35] Speaker A: Yes, yes. So you had bishops from the Swiss regions, they're called the Swiss bishops. They wrote a letter to Pope Pius IX a year after the Vatican one Council. And Pope Pius ix, as you know, he's the guy at the council, the Pope at the council, they wrote a letter to him and they asked and they wrote what their view of Vatican one is. And Pope Pius IX approved that interpretation. And I'm going to read that, if you don't mind. So. [00:50:05] Speaker B: Yeah, please do. [00:50:06] Speaker A: It says, in order to complete what Monsignor Fessler here says, we borrow a passage from their pastoral instruction in the Swiss bishops in June 1871, which has been approved by a brief of Pope Pius ix. And this is the letter. The definition of the Council has not in any respect brought about a separation between the head and the members of the teaching body in the Church, after the Council, as before, the popes will exercise their office as doctors and chief pastors in the Church, and without forgetting that the bishops are appointed with them by the Holy Spirit and according to the constitution of the Church, as successors of the apostles, in order that in concert with the Pope and in subordination to the successor of the Prince of the Apostles, they may govern the Church of God, as the Popes did before the Council, so now after, they will continue to strengthen their brethren, the bishops, in the faith, so also in the government of the Church. Never will they undertake anything which concerns the universal Church without taking the counsel and advice of the bishops, as they did before the Council. So now also afterwards, will the popes summon councils, ask the advice of the bishops scattered over the world, use every means in their power to obtain a full understanding respecting that deposit of the faith which has been confided to the Church. It will be according to this only an immutable role of the faith that they will decide, as if in a court of supreme and last instance and infallibly for the universal Church, all questions which can possibly arise on matters of faith or morals. So now that's the first paragraph. And the key here is that they're saying that the Pope will never act without first seeking the Council in the Church on things that pertain to the Church universal on a official capacity. So right there, that's the minimalist position. If I were to say, let's. Let's type up a paragraph to some summarize the minimalist position that words it better than I ever could, and the Pope says amen to that. That's what Vatican one is teaching. But it goes further, what I just read from Vatican 1 about the reformability of the Pope's decree and how it's not by the consent of the Church, they're going to get into that interpretation, and here's what they say. Nevertheless, add the Swiss bishops, even when the Popes use all possible means to obtain a profound knowledge of the question of the faith which is under consideration as the duties of their office require. Yes, is it not the purely human knowledge, however complete it may be, but it is the assistance of the Holy Spirit, that is to say, it is a special grace of his state, peculiar to himself, which gives the Pope the inhabitable assurance of infallibility and which guarantees to all the faithful with an absolute certainty that the definitions of faith of the supreme teaching authority of the Pope are exempt from error. So, in other words, it's not the homework that he does, it's not the fact that he's seeking the consent of the Church that makes this teaching infallible and irreformable. No, it's the Holy Spirit, the Divine assistance, the special grace that the Pope has. That's the guarantee for us Catholics that what he just spoke is infallible. That's the difference between us and the East Eastern Orthodox. But notice that that homework and the consent of the Church is still going to be behind his decree. It is still a requirement because you can't have the head severed from the body ever. Both the head and the members are going to agree on this teaching on an official capacity. The Holy Spirit is going to ensure that. And so it's the Divine assistance that ensures and guarantees infallibility, not the consent. But I hope you see that the consent is still something that is behind the decree. Does that make sense? I don't know if I'm making sense. [00:54:02] Speaker B: Yeah, I think so. So like trying to break it down then. First I would say that it sounds like one of the things that this is talking about, this highlight. Such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves and not by the consent of the Church, irreverent, reformable. One thing that's addressing is it's more after the fact that once the Pope decrees something, says this is an ex gathered statement, and then after the fact there is no, you don't take it then to a council for a vote. You don't do anything like that. It is now the issue is closed completely. Rome has spoken. You know, the issue is so, so I think that's one part where the consent of the Church is just irrelevant because it's already happened. And so likewise, the Church couldn't today go back and like reverse Immaculate conception definition or something like that? Yes, and I think that's pretty clear. I think the, the, the other point which is a little bit less clear is before the definition. But I think, I think I'm following you. Just make sure I am. [00:55:00] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:55:01] Speaker B: That the Pope, he would work towards, or at least he would, he would look for the consent of the Church before he defines something to say, is this something that the Holy Spirit has led the Church over the centuries to believe, such that I can now define it as infallible. And if so, that in a sense is he's getting the consent of the Church before he makes the definition. Not that it's like, like that's what makes it infallible. [00:55:34] Speaker A: Correct. [00:55:34] Speaker B: But the fact is that's what led him seeing the consent in the Church, like in the case of Matt Conception, that's like the kind of the classic one, because there was this groundswell. People wanted this to happen. [00:55:45] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:55:46] Speaker B: And so he's getting that. And that is how that's, That's a way in which the Holy Spirit works through the Church to give that divine promise to Peter. [00:55:56] Speaker A: Bingo. [00:55:57] Speaker B: That he will be able to find something infallible. Is that, is that a good, like, summary of what you're saying? [00:56:02] Speaker A: Beautifully said. And in fact, what you just said is, is just really, really good because especially what you said at the end, that's what the Holy Spirit gives the Church, because it says divine assistance, not inspiration. So how does the Pope receive the assistance from the Holy Spirit to know what the truth is, is he uses the Church to guide the Pope to the truth. So if the Church believes it, everybody believes it, then it must be true, because the Church cannot teach error. Right. All the bishops cannot altogether agree on a dogma, and that become erroneous or heretical. That's impossible. The Holy Spirit ensures both head and members to act. And we can. I don't know if. How much time we have, but. Yeah. [00:56:42] Speaker B: I just want to say, though, that. That I think that's a key point here that we have to emphasize is. Yeah, I think that, you know, Protestants, you were present briefly. You know, this Protestants have a very individualistic view of our relationship with, with God. It's just basically me and him, direct communication. Yeah, I can get some help from my fellow Protestants, but that's what it is. I feel like the papal maximalist view of the papacy is somewhat like that. And they're like thinking of the Pope as an island unto himself that God communicates directly with. And then he just says, okay, what God just told me, kind of like the Mormon president, who's the prophet as well, and he can just be told what to say by God alone. But really in practice, what we've seen is the way a Pope comes to the decision, okay, I need to decree this is because the Holy Spirit has already led the Church. [00:57:32] Speaker A: Yes. [00:57:33] Speaker B: In that generic sense of the bishops, the laity, the clergy, everybody to this idea. And then the Pope is going to say, okay, yes, that is the Holy Spirit speaking, and I'm going to now confirm it. So it's not this, the Pope as prophet, because, you know, in the sense that God directly speaks to him and him alone. [00:57:54] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:57:54] Speaker B: And it's. There's no, no, no, nobody else part of the equation, so to speak. It really is more the whole Church working together, that the Pope then says, okay, this is what we believe. [00:58:03] Speaker A: Correct? Correct. Yeah, that's, that's very, very beautifully said. And the only thing that is special about the Pope in the matter than that official capacity is this one thing alone. And that's it. And that's what folks need to understand is that he would be impeded from decreeing heresy. That's the only thing special about him. And so that doesn't mean, and the reason why I say this is, I'm bringing up an important point here, is when there is a question that arises in the Church, you know, let's say the question of Arianism, you know, is Christ God or is he a God? Right. Is he the God or a God? Just because there's a question that arises doesn't mean that the Pope is going to have an answer inserted into his brain by God. Like here. Now, now, because you're going to be energized with truth. Just because there's a question at hand in the Church. Right. That's not how it works. Right. Question arises in the Church. Now the Pope and the bishops together are going to seek and understand what side is the truth and officially decree that together, whether it's in a council or in an ex cathedral. But they're still working together either way to, to know like which side is the truth. And what you said before, as you asked me, you know what happens at 40 and 60, there's a 40, 60 split. That is the wisdom of Vatican One. That's why Vatican One did not say consent. The Pope has to like, get consent as far as like the percentage of bishops. Like he has to get 75 or 80. Because if you say that he has to have that, then you have problems in the history of the Church where the popes and the bishops who were on the right side of history were in the minority. And we have examples of that. You said 40, 60. That was the split of Arianism. 40 of bishops were on the right side of history. 60% of them failed. And that's a conservative number. Some say it was even more. It was 70, 30 or 80, 20. But I'll be conservative and say 60, 40. So the side of history that won out the consent of the Church was in the 40% of bishops and the Pope together. That was the consent because that's what won out. In 649 Lateran Council, later and synod, all the patriarchs of the east fell into monopolitism and it was Rome alone, the only sea that held the that held it down for the, for the Church. And they decreed the. The real Christology, the Orthodox, like Christology that the rest of the Church accepted three decades later. So that was a minority position at the time, but it was the right position. So when we speak about consent, consent does not equal consensus. Consent equals the belief of the Church now and before, but not in a percentage that it's, that it's, you know, what's the higher percentage? It's not a Paul, not a political democratic thing. Right. And so that's why Vatican. I did not say here's what the Pope needs in order for it to be, you know, the, the consensus right of the Church is because you have the history of the Church where that wouldn't work. That would be a problem with Arianism, even, even, even with Chalcedon. At 451, when all the bishops accepted Chalcedon, shortly after the Eastern bishops rejected Chalcedon and fell into heresy, the same bishops that accepted it after the fact, they, they rejected it. And it was the west that held things down. And we see this constantly where the west was in the minority and they were in the right side of history. The reason why I bring this up is, and I'll make this my last point is when There was the 10:54 split, Orthodox always like to ask, the Pope did this on his own and imposed his will on the rest of the Church. Well, first of all, he had the whole Western side on his side, so it wasn't him alone. The Filioque issue, the. The 1054 split, with all the things that came with it, he went against the patriarchs of the East. But we see that in the history before that, the popes went against the Patriarch of the east and still were right in their opinion and their position. So why are they wrong now? Right. So you can't just say it was 1 versus 4. So therefore 4 is my majority. And so 4 is the truth. No, truth is not on the majority all the time. Normatively speaking, the truth is in the majority. Normatively. That's ordinarily how things work. Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary, you know, all the councils that we have. Normatively, you have agreement with like 95% of bishops or more with the Pope. Great. But there are instances in the history of the Church, you know, two or three of them, very, very seldom, very rare, where that's not always how it plays out. So. Right. [01:03:25] Speaker B: You know, one thing I was kind of excited about is that the man who's probably the most famous papal minimalist is about to be declared a Doctor of the Church. And of course, it's John Henry Newman. And now I'm the first. That a doctor of Church does not mean every single one of his teachings are infallible. At the same time, if somebody's declared a doctor of Church, you can feel pretty good about following that person's teachings, that they are. What they wrote and what they talked about are pretty sure guides. And I assume you probably read a letter addressed to the Duke of Norfolk. Oh, yeah, that's his famous. You know, it's a letter that's just. It's really a book that he just. I mean, look, it's like. It's literally a book. [01:04:06] Speaker A: Very long. Yeah. [01:04:07] Speaker B: But I. I encourage people to read this now. Newman's a tough read at times. I'm. I always want to make sure I know that. But it's interesting because you know what? Newman really, of course, Newman was alive during Vatican one. He was invited to come to Vatican one. He turned it down. He was very worried about what the. What people were saying about the Pope could do. A Cardinal Manning is a great example of that. A colleague of his, he was the Archbishop of Westminster at the time, and he was very much, you know, I guess you would call him a papal maximus if there ever was one. And so I think the fact that Newman is the saint, Newman is a doctorate of church should at least give pause to those who act like we papal minimalists are making something up now. And like, we're all trying to. In fact, this is kind of where I'm leading to is, what do you say? People basically are saying, you're kind of just coming to this because of Pope Francis, that, you know, because Pope Francis did all these bizarre things and things that clearly were. Were not in keeping with tradition of the Church. And so we have to construct a minimalist, you know, structure in order to explain him away to the orthodox. And. And everybody. How do you kind of respond. To. Respond to that. That. That argument. [01:05:29] Speaker A: That's a great question. And, and I'm sorry if I was looking down. I was actually looking for the quote from Newman from that book. [01:05:34] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, that's fine. [01:05:35] Speaker A: Yeah. And I found it. I'll read it in just a second. So to answer your question about Pope Francis, I was. I was teaching this before Pope Francis, like, Pope Benedict was Pope. And this is what I got into. I never really got into why I got into this. Nothing to do with Pope Francis at all, actually. I got into this for apologetical reasons. So I. I was part of the Catholic answers forum and catholic.com back in the days when there was the forum and I was very active in that. And I would see a lot of Catholics, not a lot, but I see good amount of Catholics fall into Eastern Orthodoxy because of the papacy. And they would think that the papacy is this maximalist position where what we called it at the time with Catholic Answers was the absolutist position and the minimalist position. We call that the high Petrine view and then the Orthodox position, the Eastern Orthodox, we call that the low Petrine view. So that's how we broke down the three positions. And this is back in like 2007, I want to say, or well before Pope Francis was pope. And we didn't even know who Pope Francis was at the time. And so at that time, I saw Catholics becoming Orthodox because of this misconception of absolutist, maximalist position of the faith. And it's a very dangerous position to hold because it's very fragile. Because once you see the Pope, you know, a little shaky in his, in his, you know, what he's teaching you kind of your faith becomes as shaky as, as that, right? So you, you falter and you say, oh, the Eastern Orthodoxy must be right. So I'm going to become Eastern Orthodox. And so I learned this position from a gentleman at that forum. His name was Marticum at the time. I don't know where he is now. He, he was a Coptic Orthodox who converted to the Catholic Church. Once he learned the, what the official position of the Church is, which is this minimalist position. He, he, he's the one who pointed me to the Bishop Gasser, the relatio Bishop Gasser and all the things that I'm, I'm teaching here. I've been learning for 20 years and I've had my resources for, for 20 years. Nothing has changed for me as far as personally, nothing to do with Pope Francis. This, this is an approach that we take because we want to correct the misconceptions so that we keep our faithful in the Church, so that way they're not falling into heresies or falling into Eastern Orthodoxy due to misconceptions. And I feel it is my responsibility to teach this to as many people as I can. I'm just a small person as far as my account goes and things like that, you know, So I like to spread this as best as I can so that bigger channels, you know, like, like yours. And you're, you're a bigger name than I am and bigger name than I'll ever be. I'M just this, this small fish that you guys can take this. And I'm glad that you would believe this before you even knew who I was. So that's, that's actually good. It's good to see Catholics believing in this. Now you can take this and teach other Catholics and spread this as the truth. Because from Vatican one to our day, what has been spread is misconceptions about the papacy. And that needs to stop. And so that's my motivation. It's nothing to do with Pope Francis. In fact, nothing Pope Francis has done is in any like decree of ex cathedra and an official decree of ex cathedral. And he didn't hold any councils. [01:09:02] Speaker B: It doesn't really touch even what Vatican I said or anything like that. I feel like in my experience, it seems like those who take the absolutist position, the maximus position, they often, under Francis particularly, they went in a couple different directions. One would be the Pope splainer direction of. Okay, well, we have to agree with every. Basically everything Pope Francis says and does, or else we're not good Catholics. Another path is the SETI of a contest. And I think that's where you really see the absolutist and maximalist view most clearly. Because they see rightly that Pope Francis and even you could say Benedict JP, two others, they don't fit into the, the maximalist mode of the papacy. They're not. And so therefore they, they just say they're not popes. And you know, and there is no pope. And so that. And then, like you said, some then might become orthodox, leave the church, things like that. And I feel like whereas the minimalist position wasn't created for Francis, it existed, like you said, for 2,000 years. Somebody like St. John Henry Newman advocated for it. You were advocating before Francis became. I do feel like at the same time, the papal minimalist position being more well known does help people to navigate. [01:10:22] Speaker A: Yes. [01:10:22] Speaker B: When we have a pope who does things that are a bit fishy. Like I saw people already with Pope Leo because he met with Father James Martin, you know, and like, okay, I'm ready to give up on him. And I just, I'm not gonna, like, I don't think there's really. He might not really be the Pope. Something like that. I'm just like, to get to that. You have to have so many presuppositions ahead of time. [01:10:43] Speaker A: Yes. [01:10:44] Speaker B: That are frankly just wrong. [01:10:45] Speaker A: Great point. [01:10:46] Speaker B: That's why you immediately. Whereas this is one of the reasons I always loved, you know, I started going to Eastern Catholic Churches. I'm definitely Roman Catholic 100% and all that, but, like, I've attended Eastern Catholic liturgies for over 25 years now, you know, regularly, like these few times a year, if not more. And I hung out with online, especially Eastern Catholic forums, stuff like that. One of the things I always loved by Eastern Catholics is their. Their attitude towards the papacy of. They just don't get worked up when the Pope does something crazy. It's not. [01:11:18] Speaker A: They don't care. [01:11:18] Speaker B: They understand scandal and all that. [01:11:20] Speaker A: Yeah. [01:11:20] Speaker B: But they just don't get worked up in the sense of this is a crisis of faith for them because it's like. Because they naturally, the Eastern Catholics naturally have a more minimalist position of the papacy anyway, just kind of born into it. So I think that's. I think these are good. The reason I like talking about, the reason I wanted to bring you on too, is because I do think it helps Catholics today 100 to have a better, you know, just attitude of what the papacy is, what its purpose is. And like we were saying before, it's. We're not talking about jurisdiction. Neither of us, at least I don't think so, have ever claimed that Pope Francis couldn't do a lot of the things he did. [01:11:56] Speaker A: Yeah. [01:11:56] Speaker B: You know, when he removed Bishop Strickland. [01:11:58] Speaker A: Yeah. [01:11:59] Speaker B: That was an awful decision. It was unjust. It was. It seemed from the outside at least, to be petty and personal. But I never claimed he couldn't do it. [01:12:09] Speaker A: Yeah, he has a right to do it. He doesn't need permission. Right, right, right. [01:12:13] Speaker B: He doesn't. Yeah. Right. So that even though we're minimalists on papacy, we're not saying. We're saying he shouldn't have done it, not that he couldn't do it. Whereas we're also saying, though, he can't define things just against the kind of consent of the churches we were talking about, not the consensus, but like as we were talking about before through the Holy Spirit. So this. Yeah, this has been great. I'd recommend people definitely read Alera Jesse, Duke of Norfolk. I. I have a copy that was just printed from the public record and stuff you can get online as well. And I think that's very good. Obviously read Vatican 1. I had it printed out as well, my notes. But what I want to tell people is how do they find out about you? Your. Your. I know you have a X account, know you have a YouTube channel. So tell us, you know how to. And I'll make sure I put in the show notes, links to it, but just let Me. Let us everybody know. [01:13:06] Speaker A: Sure, sure. So I have a YouTube channel, and you put it on there, it says hoes. Underground Catholicism. It's called Underground Catholicism. You can Type that into YouTube or you can type in Elijah Yasi. That channel will pop up. And that's where I do a lot of my, my shows. And my shows are like two or three hours long. So, you know, it's, it's for a certain audience, like, like Eric Ibarra, you know, when he does his shows, it's for a certain audience. It's not for like your, you know, average Catholic who doesn't care about these nuances. Right. [01:13:33] Speaker B: But I could listen to him, though, for hours. [01:13:36] Speaker A: Absolutely. Yeah. [01:13:37] Speaker B: I mean, he's brilliant. [01:13:38] Speaker A: He is very. Yeah, he is. We've been friends for probably like a decade now or maybe a little more. And a lot of the papacy stuff, as far as the apologetics in the first millennium, that's Eric. That's, that's, he's the guy that I learned from. Right. I have his book and obviously I've read it, and it's just a phenomenal. It's the best book that's ever written on the papacy in its category of apologetics. [01:14:03] Speaker B: Yes. And what I think is amazing, we're going to do a little praise of Eric here. But what I love about it is, is that Eric does not have formal training. He doesn't have a master. I have a master's degree in theology. What? But he freaking do. He does. He, he's just like, you know, I think, I can't remember now what he does. I don't know if he's in computers or something like that, but it's not theology yet. I would put him up against anybody, you know, PhDs or whatever, and he's going to stand his ground. He's going to be just as solid, you know, more solid than most of me. Heck, half these PhDs are, are idiots. So. [01:14:38] Speaker A: Yes. [01:14:39] Speaker B: Yeah. So it's great recommendation, that one. [01:14:41] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, he's a, he's a very careful thinker and it's. And I always joke around about this with my wife. I always tell my wife and my, my friends who know about Eric's works. It's almost like he's an individual that has time traveled to our. To a day from like, you know, the 12th century, 11th century. The way he talks, the way he thinks. He's just a super smart guy that you don't see a lot of people like that anymore. Like, he's just kind of like an ancient guy. Who lives in the modern days, in a sense. [01:15:12] Speaker B: And, and he does the, the Aquinas scholastic thing of giving every single benefit of doubt to the opposing side. He makes sure he understands, he explains as best as possible. He never, you know, sets up straw man or anything. I, I'm, I, I do that at times. I admit it. I try not to, but, but, I mean, most of us do, but he doesn't. I mean, he just always makes sure he's very clear about, you know, what the other side says before he then critiques it. [01:15:38] Speaker A: Yes. And if, if, do you mind if I read. It's a very short quote. Do you mind if I read it? [01:15:42] Speaker B: Oh, yeah, sure. [01:15:43] Speaker A: From the, from Newman. Because you, you mentioned that book. [01:15:45] Speaker B: Oh, yeah, right, yeah, I want to hear that. [01:15:47] Speaker A: And he says, a few years ago it was the fashion among us all to call writers who conformed to this rule of the Church by the name of minimizers, which is the minimalist position. So at even at this time, that day of Tyronis Ipsy Dixie, I trust, is over. Bishop Fessler, a man of high authority, for he was Secretary General of the Vatican Council in a virus of higher authority, still in his work, for it has the approbation of the sovereign pontiff, clearly proves to us that a moderation of doctrine dictated by charity is not inconsistent with the soundness in the faith. Such a sanction, I suppose, will be considered sufficient for this character of the remarks which I am about to make upon the definitions in general and upon the Vatican in particular. So what he's talking about is the people that are teaching the minimalist position, including himself and Bishop Fessler, who was like the right hand man. He was like, probably like second highest in ranking at the council. He wrote a book on this minimalist position. This is like in 1870s, somewhere around there, right, right after Vatican one, maybe 1880s. And the Pope approved that interpretation. So you have Fessler, you have Newman, you have the Swiss bishops, you even have the German bishops in 1875. They're all writing against the maximalist position as minimalists. So this isn't something we're making up today because of a response. This is something that is naturally what we actually believe. And people just need to know this. So. Yeah, very good. [01:17:22] Speaker B: Yeah, very good. Okay, I want everybody to follow Elijah on X to subscribe to his channel. He said, he's a small account. Let's make that different. Let's, let's grow that. And then, you know, what we really need to do is get you to hunker down and write a book about this, and then we'll be all set. We'll have all our. It'll be like, you know, Eric's book on the papers, so you can do one on papal minimalism. And. [01:17:44] Speaker A: Yeah, I'm considering. Yeah, I'm considering. My wife is. She has her master's in theology, so she. She's really good at writing. I. I'm not good at writing, so. [01:17:52] Speaker B: Okay, well, you can be a team. You can be a team. Every single thing I've written, my wife has edited it because she's a much better writer than I am. She's a brilliant editor. And so I. I. My editor's desk, I do that without her looking at. That's why you can tell they're not written as well. But like, any article, all my books, she goes through, and, like, it's just always a little bit smart. Hilarious when she goes. I mean, it's funny because we. She's been doing for so long now that, like, she will just, like, sometimes circle an entire paragraph and then just put like a frowny face, kind of like, no, this just isn't working. Like, I'm not even gonna try. I'm not even gonna try to fix this because it's so bad, you either need to delete it or rewrite it from scratch. So, like, it's just like, it's. It's really. For one time, though, I want to tell on her. One time. She. I print. I wrote something, and she circled something like, this isn't well written or something against it. And it was actually a quote from the catechism that I had forgotten to put as a quote, and it was from the catechism. So she was editing the catechism and. [01:18:51] Speaker A: Saying, oh, my gosh. [01:18:52] Speaker B: So I was dying laughing. [01:18:55] Speaker A: I'm like, you just. [01:18:56] Speaker B: You just criticize the catechism itself. She's like, well, I think it should have been written better. [01:19:02] Speaker A: Well, she knows her stuff. Yeah, exactly. [01:19:04] Speaker B: She's like, she didn't back down. She was like, oh, whoops. She's like, no, it. It wasn't very clear to me. I was like, okay, there we go. [01:19:09] Speaker A: That's so funny. That's good to have. That's good to have. Yeah. Because, yeah, I'm the same way. I can't write. My wife can write really good. So. But yeah, I mean, I. I really appreciate you having me here and asking me to come on. It's. It's an honor. And I've followed your X in. In your channel for a long time, so. Oh, great. Thank you. Yeah. [01:19:30] Speaker B: Yeah. And my last question to you, and then we'll sign off, is, do you rap like your brother? [01:19:36] Speaker A: So I'm actually on his album. [01:19:38] Speaker B: Are you? [01:19:38] Speaker A: A few times. There's a few songs. Him and I used to rap together, and then I stopped and he picked it up again, and now he does it alone. But sometimes he'll ask me to, to do some songs with him. So, yeah, I do rap, but I don't do it like him. But I, I, I don't enjoy it as much as he does, at least anymore. [01:19:55] Speaker B: That's, that's what everybody wanted to know, really. Okay, Elijah, thanks so much for coming on the program. [01:20:03] Speaker A: Absolutely. God bless you. Thank you. [01:20:05] Speaker B: Okay, until next time, everybody. God love you.