Pints With Aquinas - Schism, Heretical Bishops, and Pope Benedict XVI (Dr. Richard DeClue)

Episode Date: March 1, 2025

Richard G. DeClue, Jr., S.Th.D. is the Professor of Theology at the Word on Fire Institute. In addition to his undergraduate degree in theology (Belmont Abbey College), he earned three ecclesiastical degrees in theology at the Catholic University of America. He specializes in systematic theology with a particular interest and expertise in the thought of Joseph Ratzinger / Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. His STL thesis treated Ratzinger’s Eucharistic ecclesiology in comparison to the Eastern Orthodox theologian John Zizioulas. His doctoral dissertation expounded and evaluated Ratzinger’s theology of divine revelation. Dr. DeClue has published articles in peer-reviewed journals on Ratzinger’s theology, and he taught a college course on the thought of Pope Benedict XVI. He is also interested in the ecclesiology of Henri de Lubac, the debate over nature and grace, and developing a rapprochement between Communio (ressourcement) theology and Thomism. The Mind of Benedict XVI by Dr. Richard DeClue: https://bookstore.wordonfire.org/products/the-mind-of-benedict-xvi

Everything comes from the triune god and is ordered towards the triune god, right? That means all of reality is based in the trinity Communion is actually at the heart of reality to celebrate the Eucharist schismatically Is a lie in a way It's the exact opposite of what it's supposed to be because the Eucharist is meant to bring us united as one body To celebrate it outside of communion with that body is an aberration. You have to have a means of maintaining universal unity. If we can understand the papacy as being a Eucharistic office, then it makes it more

understandable to our Orthodox brethren because they, along with us, have a Eucharistic ecclesiology. The gathering to celebrate the Eucharist is the church at her highest mode. Like that is what she is for, is worshiping God in the Eucharist. Good to see you. Good to see you. Thanks for coming back. Yeah. Congratulations on your new book. Thank you. Thank you. And congratulations on going with a publisher that knows how to make beautiful books. I know right yes They really do yeah when they had this they first showed me this they sent me a Image of it first, and I was just like yes. Thank you really yeah I wouldn't know I see if they had have shown that to me just as a as a document

I don't know it's's also the binding they do and the type of cover they have. Yeah, that's really beautiful. Do you ever meet Benedict? No, but he did walk in front of me. Hey. About, maybe a little further from where we are from each other now.

He walked right in front of me. When he came to Washington, D.C. To Catholic U, I was there at the time and I Was remember the first thing I thought was oh wow he's my height, okay? Just expected him to be like 10 feet at all because he's a giant yeah, you know, but yeah, it was pretty cool Yeah, I was in Rome When I interviewed Cameron Batusi remember when he announced his conversion to Catholicism? I don't know if you remember that.

Yes, I do. But when I was there, they gave us a tour of the Vatican and we went back behind the walls and we walked past the house that he lived in. That's the closest I've come to Benedict. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So you're a fan? Huge fan. You know what I mean? So I've been reading this fruit of her womb. Yeah. So you're a fan? Huge fan.

You know what I mean? So I've been reading this fruit of her womb. Yeah. One thing that I have just because the reason I bring it up is there's a lot of reflections from rats from rats from perponetic the 16th. And I was shocked at how he writes like he writes so simply. There's no at least when he's maybe writing to a regular audience, there's no jargon. But it's so brilliant and so profound. I really miss him. Yeah, I mean, that's definitely true. I think one of the...

the greatest aspects of his work is the fact that he's very profound and deep. He's got a tremendous wisdom. But he also knows how to put things in a very affective way. Like it doesn't just make you go, oh yeah that's true. It makes you go, wow that's awesome. You know, and it's sort of that unity of the mind and the heart, that you know truth and affect. You know, it's not just a list of facts or things we can prove but something to delight in well I know what affect means but what do you mean when you say that so there's this it elicits it elicits a positive sentiment or

feeling like it's a matter of the heart too yeah it's not just yeah it's like the head and the heart combined and I think that's a big part of his brilliance as a theologian, as a churchman, is that the ability to unite those two things together. It's sort of like the idea that... I mean, if you go back to like ancient Greek rhetoric right rhetoric can be Considered a negative thing. Yeah, because you see it all the time in politics, right? You know all the rhetoric and it's you know people are lying But they will be effective because they'll get away with it and most of the people won't know any better and it'll work

But that's not what I mean here What I mean is the art of being able to present things in a way that makes it attractive, but that is appropriate because it's also true. Will Barron Let me show you, kind of give one example of this. This is from his Christmas message in 2011. He says, this is the great evil, the great sin from which we human beings cannot save ourselves unless we rely on God's help, unless we cry out to him, come to save us. The very fact that we cry to heaven in this way already sets us aright. It makes us true to ourselves.

We are in fact those who cried out to God and were saved. God is the savior. We are those who are in peril. He is the physician. we are the infirm. Again, just that simple language but so deep, so beautiful. Yeah, he's, it's amazing. It's one of the things I love the most about him is the way that he writes. And because he, I think, you you know in some senses one of part of his method in theology is and This can make some people not like him as much is he's not a scholastic, right? Yeah Now he's a big fan of Bonaventure who was a scholastic of course St. Bonaventure

But he doesn't write in a scholastic style and so sometimes like if you really want to classic style and so sometimes like if you really want to get down to nitty gritty details on things and questions of sub questions you're not necessarily gonna find that yeah now occasionally he might have insights like that but so he's not doing a logical demonstration so he's not demonstrating he's monstrating meaning he's not proving he's showing okay And so I find his theology to be best understood As an elucidation that helps you see what he sees It's like he's dug through the tradition. He's dug through the scriptures. He's read authors from throughout the centuries and he's the scriptures, he's read authors from throughout the centuries, and he's interiorized it. And now he's now perceived not just the data, but the meaning behind the data.

He's seen the connections. So now he's painting you a mosaic. So he's revealing to you what he himself has imbibed and collated and synthesized. And so he's showing you a picture of the reality he's not necessarily proving it to you about beyond a shadow of a doubt and some sort of mathematical proof yeah but he's hoping you're gonna perceive it through his words interesting and then you will just know it's true because it will ring true and it'll you'll be gripped by the truth how is that different from I know he was a theologian Pope John Paul Pope Saint John Paul the second was a

Philosopher but how how is that different different to his sort of phenomenological approach because it sounds similar in that he's sort of showing You something which ought to just resonate with you Without necessarily going through the the arguments. Yeah, I mean there certainly are actually a lot of similarities between the two of them. I think in a lot of their method and their way of expressing, especially as popes, you know, they both have a very keen intellect but also know how to put things in a beautiful way that grabs you. As far as like like Pope John Paul II was more of a philosopher,

so, but they both, so yes, John Paul II had a phenomenological bent but still rooted in metaphysics and I think that's why there's such a similarity between him and Benedict. So Benedict's not a philosopher either. He defends philosophy multiple times, tooth and nail, says it's absolutely crucial, especially metaphysics. And it's that metaphysical realism that I think they both share in common. And I think is absolutely essential

to the Catholic faith, to be honest. And I think a loss of metaphysics is actually behind a lot of our problems Sure today. What do you think would have happened if he hadn't have quit? That's hard to say can you imagine I Yeah, I don't know didn't die that long ago wonder what would have happened to the church I don't know if he would have lived as long as he did. I think I think resigning did extend his life significantly. I mean Gansh fine his his secretary at the time. This is like we didn't expect that he would live that long. Yeah, maybe a year Two three more they did not expect he would hang on

As long as he did But I that probably had something to do with being relieved of the duties of office. It's wild how last time you were on we were talking about the Second Vatican Council, which was a super helpful episode, I think, because a lot of people just blame everything on the Second Vatican Council. A lot of people do, right? And not realizing why it was necessary, what they were responding to. Maybe a lot of these people haven't even read the documents,

et cetera. But one of the things you said back then was that there was a lack of oversight that led to the confusion and liturgical chaos that resulted. Yeah. It seems to me, yeah. Yeah. I mean, and it's something that

Benedict himself complained about I mean he was not happy with the implementation of the council neither were people like on read the Lubeck, I mean they were rather upset About the way that the council was put into effect and the way it was being twisted by the media and other Theologians who are taking advantage of the media. Yeah. And I mean, then of course, Ratzinger being his name, I mean, basically said, it's like, yeah, you know, we might have been right in the theology, but we may have not taken into consideration how it would be received. And so they didn't anticipate the way that it would be twisted. And even with regards to the liturgy, he was rather upset at, you know... And this is kind of the first time that the media could manipulate a church council in the history of the church.

Because it didn't exist prior. Yeah, not on that scale. Yeah, on that scale. You had newspapers, but you didn't have TV, you didn't have radio. Not on that scale. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you had newspapers, but you didn't have TV. You didn't have radio. Yeah, that's what I mean. You didn't have any of that, yeah. Isn't that crazy to think about?

Because that was gonna be our next question, like had that happened before? But yeah, the media is, we know it. Yeah. Wow. But yeah, it's hard to know what would have happened if he hadn't resigned. I don't know.

That's a good question. I mean, I guess it would have depended on how long he lived and then it may have affected the next election based on which Cardinals would have aged out and that sort of thing. It's also a question of like how well would he have been able to continue leading the church? Yeah, yeah and what what may have rotted beneath the surface while he was unable to deal with things because of his health perhaps that's a possibility right? And that things may have looked okay on the surface with his red shoes and cool stuff. Yeah. Big fan of the red shoes. This is something I like I like to mention and I actually bring it up I think in the book

towards the end of the first chapter on his life, but I think because when you compare Benedict to John Paul II You see a pretty stark contrast right as far as how they handled that the end of their papacy Yeah, I mean, John Paul II just showed steadfastness and perseverance through suffering, and he had Parkinson's disease and just wouldn't stop. He just fought tooth and nail to the end. Then you look at Benedict and he's like, all right, I'm resigning. And I think there

can be a temptation to say oh well One is virtuous and the other one's obviously cowardly and you know, we and like no I actually think It's rooted in Showing us different virtues That correspond to their personalities and their gifts and talents. John Paul II was always a gregarious, outgoing, go-getter type of person, you know, since he was young. I mean, that's who he was. Benedict was a shy, humble person who never sought the limelight.

was a shy, humble person who never sought the limelight. You know, he was made Archbishop of Munich and Friesing out of nowhere. He thought for sure his spiritual director would tell him to reject it, to turn it down. And he's like, no, you have to accept. He's like, what? And then a couple years or soon thereafter, he was actually asked to move to Rome to head up the

congregation for education and he turned it down. Now his excuse was it's not fair to Munich they just got a new archbishop it would be unfair to them to lose it so fast you know it's a major archdiocese you know so that only worked for so long and then eventually John Paul II basically said I want you to have the CDF and and Benedict kept trying to decline it you know and eventually he's like okay I'll accept under one condition which he didn't think would be given he didn't think it could be given. How do you know that?

That's what he says. He says that in interviews. He told Seywald this. That he's like, I'll accept the position as long as you continue to allow me to publish. Okay. So writing books and articles and things like that. And John Paul's like, okay, well I'll look into it.

He goes, John Paul comes back, he goes like, actually it turns out this other guy did the same thing so you can too. Okay. He's like, okay, I guess I have to do this. So then, he tried to retire after five years. He told him, he's like, oh, well my five year term is up, so obviously it's time for me to get out of here. And John He's like, oh well my five year term is up so obviously it's

time for me to get out of here and John Pazulik was like, no I don't accept that. You're staying. Then he had a brain hemorrhage Benedictine. Wow I didn't know that. Yeah and he was like you know this is obviously really incapacitating you know it actually affected his vision which eventually he lost vision. I think it was in his left eye You know, I really need to be relieved of my duties like I've had this brain hemorrhage, you know This is really grueling jumps like no I Need you and then a third time

Pope And then a third time, John Paul II said, don't even bother asking. He goes, as long as I am Pope, I will need you in this next to me. And so he tried to retire three times before he became Pope. Yeah, and then John Paul II wasn't around and he did. Well, when he became Pope, the only person who could tell him no was himself. And I think what's interesting about that is he even though he knew his name had been bandied about

like in the press and people were talking about his name as possible being elected he didn't think it was actually possible he thought it was absurd that he would be elected probably the only person on the planet that thought he wasn't an actual contender did he give give reasons for that? No, he just didn't, he just didn't think it made sense. He didn't think it was possible. And then, the image he gives of, um, of when he was elected, when it became clear he was going to be elected, he compares it to an execution. He says, the image of the guillotine falling down on you came to mind. He didn't want it. This isn't a man who sought power in the church. And he's also

a very humble person. I honestly think that from his pers- and it's known and other people have testified to this, he was never good at playing the political game. He was in some sense almost childlike in the fact that he doesn't have any guile like that. He doesn't try to manipulate things. He doesn't know how to play the game. Like the sort of politics that you'll see in any sort of organization. He doesn't jockey for position. He doesn't play those sorts of games. So what he tells me is he probably doesn't know really how to detect it either.

Yeah. Like, administration was never his strong suit. It was never what he was known for. His gift was always theology. I mean, he was academic most of his, you know, life. And most of his life. And I honestly think because of his humility, he thought, I need the church more than the church needs me. I'm probably standing in the way. Like, so whereas John Paul II in some ways to me shows us the image of Christ carrying his cross on the way to Golgotha.

Yeah. Benedict kind of shows us John the Baptist. I must decrease that he must increase. Like, let me get out of the way. Like, I think he honestly thought someone else could be doing a better job. The church, I'm holding the church back. I can't fulfill this to the best of my ability. They're probably better if I step down I think that's honestly what he thought.

You know and And he's he said that he wasn't pressured and I just I believe him Do you think there was a reaction to how benedict governed to pope francis? or how, yeah. What do you mean? Well, I mean, if Benedict was, you know, like God's Rottweiler in the sense that he would, he was very orthodox and doctrinally sound,

do you think there was a contingent of Cardinals who kind of I I honestly other direction with Francis it could be but I don't even know how much the Cardinals even knew of cuz I don't how much they know of each other I mean how many of them really knew who he was I mean I'm sure there was a core contingent that did in this as a set of CWF they would know about him but do you think no I meant no I meant no Francis I see I see I mean I heard the name Bergoglio before he was elected gotcha. Yeah, right

I don't know how much they know of each other or how they how that works out. Yeah, I really so I don't know I mean that could be I Really don't know what went into that Yeah, that's it'd be it would be interesting to be on the fly on the wall in those conversations. So like, why did you get into Benedict? Have you always loved him? Did it develop till you wanted to write this book? Yeah, so my history with Benedict, when I was in college as a I was a theology major and

I remember just default liking him because I knew he was Orthodox. Uh-huh, which you know back in those days You know was not You had to hang on to the Orthodox people, you know when you had him so I loved them by reputation I never actually studied him It wasn't until I don't know the year or where, which grad program, I was in graduate school and I just, I started reading them and I don't remember what the first book was but the more I read, I just wanted to read more and I just kept reading and I remember just being like, this is amazing. Like I would underline and highlight and make comments in the margins and it was like every page had

Like yes exclamation point amen underline So when I got my second graduate degree the STL and systematic theology I decided I was really interested in ecclesiology mm-hmm which theology of the church and So I ended up writing my STL thesis comparing Ratzinger to a Greek Orthodox theologian John's is Ulyss on how to understand the papacy or Universal primacy from a Eucharistic perspective like can we understand the Pope as a Eucharistic office? because Catholics and Orthodox

both understand the church and the Eucharist as being intimately and essentially united, almost as like two sides of one reality. What are the two sides? The Eucharist and the church. Yeah, yeah. So if we both understand the church Eucharistically, and that's like our strongest thing we have in common, well the thing that divides us the most is the papacy. So can we understand the papacy in light of the Eucharist? How would you do that? What does that mean? Well I wrote a whole STL thesis on it. I talked about it in the book a little bit. We can go into that but let me finish my thought first. So that was the first foray into doing major work on him. It was about a 140 page thesis comparing him to Zealous on that question. I loved it. So then when I went back for the doctorate, I had to come up with a topic and

I wanted to continue writing in ecclesiology, but I couldn't find anyone to direct it Like all of the obvious professors were booked. They just had no more room for any more direct ease so Was one professor father Galvin was like well You know So his original's got another tangent. In Germany, you typically don't just write one dissertation, write two for the Habilitation degree.

So his second one was on Bonaventure, right? Now, the first version was rejected and never approved. And that was from 1955? That one was never approved, it was rejected, he had to change, he changed it, published only a section of it as the whole thing to pass the degree. Well I think it was in 2008 or 2009, The original version was published for the first time in German. Um, so no one had access to that before. And so it was a major change. So my professor was like,

I've got the German copy of this. I could direct a dissertation talking about his theology of revelation using this His-Habilitation-Schitation script from 1955 I was like all right let's do it yeah so I did my doctoral dissertation on his theology of divine revelation and so that just that was really hard because like most of my sources were in German so did you learn any well I had to learn German to yeah you read it fluently? I wouldn't say fluently. You know it goes up and down depending on how much I use it. Sometimes I can have a conversation that's casual. I can understand a lot now. Like I'll watch things in German sometimes if they're not too fast I can pick it up. But yeah I can read it fairly well. I wouldn't say I'm

fluent you know in this sense like a native sense, but yeah, I've done a lot of research in German I've helped with translations before So that was really difficult but it was just Fascinating and so For I wanted to write this book probably 15 for like 15 years before I started, and I finally had the opportunity and I was like, yeah I want to do this. Because I, the purpose of this book in particular, because what he did for me is it was through Ratzinger

that I became more aware of how all of the different doctrines of the faith are part of one mystery, which means they're all connected. They're not separate questions. They're just different aspects of one reality. And I never really saw it that way before. And so I wanted to write a book that not only gave you a summary of his thought on specific questions I wanted to show how all of his answers to those questions and how all of those questions themselves are related So that was the purpose of the book. It was to try to explain how

the catholic faith how you have all these different areas and and so I I how you have all these different areas and so I ordered the chapters in a very intentional way, like each, I try to do it in a way that I think most logically exemplifies how they're related to each other, how one flows from the other, and then I try to show this leitmotif of communion as being the key to understanding every single area of it. And so the purpose of the book was not just to give a summary of those separate questions, but to show how they're actually forming unity. And so that's what we tried to do. Awesome.

Were you a convert to Catholicism at all? Did you always believe? Yes. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, I remember... You were just a nerd? Like a Scott Hahn nerd back in the 90s. Listened to his tape. Yeah. I remember middle school. I was reading Peter Crave. Yep. And,

Whoa, middle school. That's amazing. Yeah. Middle school. I was reading his yes or no. Yes. Yes. It was so good. And then I read his Refutation of Moral Relativism, interviews with an absolutist. And I was reading like Stephen B. Curry's like Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, Scott Hahn's Rome Sweet Rome. I would really love the, I listened to a lot of Scott Hahn audio,

like the fourth cup. I loved that. So yeah, I was doing all that when I was young. Some of that was in college and high school, but that wasn't all in middle school, but you know, over the years. So yeah, I always doing all that when I was young some of that was in college and high school But that wasn't all in middle school, but you know over the years So I always just loved the faith my I came from a very developed core family plus Grandparents aunts and uncles on both sides

So very Catholic environment, and I don't remember a time in my life when my faith wasn't important to me It's probably the best way to put it. So it started before I think my memories even begin. You're a blessed man. Yeah. So would you consider yourself an academic at this point? This is primarily what you're doing, is writing and researching?

Yeah, you could say that. I kind of have a foot in both worlds because I do a lot for the Institute for a more popular level as well. What are you doing? Right, so as professor of theology the Warrantifier Institute, I run what's called the Theology for Evangelists community. Okay. So if you sign up for the Institute and become a member, they have all these different communities you can join. Okay. Mine is Theology for Evangelists. So I give lectures over the course of like

a semester. It's just not, you know, we take breaks for summer and for December. Every other week I give a live lecture and give you like a little assignment to do to help you try to express what you've learned or whatever. So I do that. I do... What's the website? It's word on fire institute. Sorry, institute.wordonfire.org or community.wordonfire.org. If you go institute.wordonfire.org.org, that will redirect you to the website. Yeah, I'm with it. So it's Word on Fire Institute. And then we also do, every month we have a three day seminar, which is, so it's an hour,

it's 75 minutes per day, so it's not like the whole day, but they're live seminars where one of us, one of the professors or one of the fellows will do three days on a specific topic that's pertinent to the culture. So I've done two of those so far. All right, help me understand what on fire. So I understand that it used to be just Baron doing videos. Right.

And then he did that Catholicism series and that exploded. I'm not asking you to like advertise for it necessarily. I'm just trying to personally understand the difference. So if people start up to this today, they just start getting different courses from different people who work for him or work for y'all. Right. Yeah. Yeah. So I mean, it's grown massively over the last several years. So I don't even know how many employees we have now, but it's, it's expanded quite a bit. So I don't even know how many employees we have now, but it's expanded quite a bit. So we've got different departments, of course.

We've got like the development departments, and we've got like the communications and media. I'm probably butchering the department names, but we've got tons of people working in there. We've got a publishing arm that's got multiple imprints. Yeah, so good. The, obviously customer service and relations, things like that.

Design team, which is amazing. Absolutely fantastic team there. That's why we have such beautiful books. And, so the institute was founded And so the Institute was founded to try to provide a little bit higher level. I guess one way of putting it is to help train people to be evangelists with the word on fire ethos. Commitment to positive orthodoxy and Eucharistic and Christo-centric. We have like whole eight principles, you know, and the idea is to help train evangelists to engage the culture, to evangelize the culture. It looks so good. And so the Institute, we have courses in there,

so you, I mean they're like basically eight to twelve twenty minute talks, they're not like full academic courses, but you know on different topics we do a lot of stuff on faith and science, like I've given a couple of lectures on faith and science through, we have conferences on that, we've had the Wonder conference now for a couple years, and the year before that even started we had a Faith in Science Summit. We bring in like Ivy League Catholic scientists to talk about faith in science, things like that. The courses on all sorts of different topics, and then yeah these communities. So, and you get, we have a quarterly journal that comes along with the membership, the Evangelization and Culture Journal. It's

gorgeous. Yeah. So we have good articles that are you know they're intellectual and they're deep but they're not academic in that sense. Yeah. How did Barron get so good at this? Did he just know who to put in the right seats? Yeah. Because I presume he's not a graphic designer. He's got an idea of what he wants. No, it's unreal. He and Father Steve have a great ability of talent acquisition.

They seem to just know how to find people that, and help them use their talents. I mean, it is amazing, honestly, to see, because there's such great people that work for us that... Sometimes you do wonder, how did you find this person? Is this primarily online, Word on Fire? With like these communities referring to? Yes. So are you forming communities outside of the web or is it just people connecting online?

I don't know the current status on some, on some of these things because like we used to have a fellow for parish life and a fellow for community life or something I forget. So we've done things with parishes. Some parishes will use our stuff for RCIA and, oh sorry, OCIA and stuff like that that so we've had some interaction with local things in the past and I think you know I don't want to speak for the future visions of the organization but yeah there's some desire for people to actually meet locally as well awesome yeah I'm so impressed with everything we're on fires doing they keep sending me books. I think cuz they

Yeah, I keep letting them we also have a master's program out to you do an evangelization in culture what yeah So you get to take classes in like philosophy and theology and literature? That are all geared towards evangelizing the culture. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I'm so grateful for all the barons doing. I'm tempted to go back to this Eucharist and papacy thing, but I'm afraid it'll be too complicated. Can you sum it up quickly for me? So that even a knucklehead like me can understand, and then if I can understand that, we can go deeper. Right.

OK. So what's your argument trying to accomplish? Basically, as a Catholic, my argument is to try to show how the papacy is actually necessary for the church understood from a Eucharistic perspective. Okay. Because it's needed in order for the church to be that which the Eucharist makes her to be. So it's not accidental that both the church to be that which the Eucharist makes her to be. So there's, it's not accidental that both

the church and the Eucharist are called communion. Okay, now this all, it might actually make more sense if I just try to give you the brief outline of the book, but the fundamental point is that The fundamental point is that everything comes from the triune god and is ordered towards the triune god. That means all of reality is based in the trinity. That means relation, communion, is actually at the heart of reality. Yeah. So, sin breaks apart communion. Yeah. Isolation, separation. It destroys relationships. Sits like wheat.

It destroys relationships with our relationship with God, with one another, even with ourselves, right? The integrity that we have of the division of the body and the soul warring against one another and not even having full possession of our own self. When you think about that. The will and the passions. Yeah. That's disordered. So it's a lack of integrity. It's a disunity with yourself. That's what sin accomplishes. So what is redemption and salvation? It's healing the division caused by sin, which means bringing back into communion, which means healing relationship with God,

and by healing relationship with God, healing our relationships with one another and with our interior selves, right? Ordered towards becoming members of the communion of saints. Right? So that means there's a communal aspect to salvation. It's not just individualistic. Yes, we are judged individually, no one's denying that. But if salvation is to live divine life and divine life is communal, then salvation is communal. It's being united with God and all of the others who are united with God, which means the church is not accidental to salvation. It's the beginning of salvation. Okay, so the unity of the church is essential to what she is. As Lumen Gentium said,

essential to what she is. As Lumen Gentium said, she's as a sacrament or sign and instrument of a closely-knit union with God and of the unity of the whole human race. So the Church symbolizes and enacts, affects the unity of man with God and the unity of all mankind. That's what she is in her essence. So the argument is that what we understand as St. Paul says in 1st Corinthians, we are though many are one body for all partake of the one bread, right? Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a communion, a communion, it's koinonia, a communion in the blood of Christ. Is not the bread that we break a communion, a communion, it's koinonia, a communion in the blood of Christ. It's not the bread that we break, a communion in the body of Christ. Therefore, we though many are one, for we all partake of the one body, or the one bread.

The Eucharist is the source of our unity as the church. Even St. Thomas Aquinas says this right the rez tantum the effect of the sacrament of the Eucharist is the bond of charity of the members of the church So the unity of the church is the the rez of the sacrament of the Eucharist the thing the the effect that it has So that's what the Eucharist does it unifies us as the body of Christ Which means it must be celebrated in unity. Okay, so unity is therefore the effect, and that means it can only be properly celebrated in universal communion. So you have to have these means of maintaining communion.

I missed that step. Both lo- yes. It has to be celebrated in universal communion? What does that mean? Meaning that the different celebrations of the Eucharist must be in communion with one another. For them to be what they're- what they- fully what they are. Okay. Right, to celebrate- this is what the early church fathers were saying, right? You don't go to the table to the altar of a schismatic. Mm-hmm. Right? So you need to have communion on the local level, and that's where the bishop comes into play, and you need to have communion on the universal level to keep all of the local churches one church throughout the world and

throughout time. Mm-hmm. So, and to be professing one faith. So there must be a means, a structure by which the church can maintain her identity throughout the globe and throughout time. So across time. So it's diachronic and synchronic unity. And basically the argument is that the papacy is the office that serves the universal communion of the church through space and time so that the Eucharist can be celebrated properly and those celebrating the Eucharist can receive that as members of the one church established by Christ, right? Which is part of what the Eucharist can receive that as members of the one church established by Christ, right? Which is part of what the Eucharist means.

So the idea there is that it's a Eucharistic office, meaning, so this is actually something Benedict XVI is known for. It's not a direct quote, it's actually someone, Bautiste Mondine, said this about him, that even more than orthodoxy, the chief role of the pope is to serve ortho-Eucharist. Wow. The right celebration of the Eucharist. And so- What does that mean? What does the right celebration of the Eucharist mean?

That it's celebrated properly, which means with right belief, you could argue right way it's supposed to be done, but that it is done in universal communion, because that's what the Eucharist means. So to celebrate the Eucharist schismatically is a lie, in a way. It's the exact opposite of what it's supposed to be. It's the exact opposite of what it's supposed to be. Because the Eucharist is meant to bring us united as one body, to celebrate it outside of communion with that body is an aberration. So the point being, in order to celebrate the Eucharist in a united way that is tied in unity, you have to have a means of maintaining universal unity.

You can't just separate off into separate churches, because then you're separating the body of Christ from itself. And what if you try, I guess one way around this would be to try to come up with a spiritual view of the church, would it? To say that we're all united in some sense, but not in a... It's really hard to argue that when you're literally breaking off from one another because you don't want to be in communion with each other. You know what I mean? Like, people can push that thing. Like, the whole spiritual versus corporal communion, first of all, it's against the incarnational understanding of the church. No, that's a great point. I see it. Like Jesus is the Logos and made flesh, right? The church is after, analogously to the body of Christ, both Spirit and flesh. It is

visible and invisible, right? And it's obvious, Jesus prayed for this. He prayed that the church would be one as he and the Father are one in John 17, right? So, it's hard to argue that there's this great spiritual unity when people are literally refusing to be in communion with one another. Yeah, that's interesting. Because they don't agree, like, yeah, so it sounds nice. It does. Right? Oh, we're all one. It's all the same. Well, then why aren't we coming? Well, because no, no, you guys believe in the papacy and purgatory and Mary and like we can't Gotcha. Well, that's not unity. Yeah, and it's also not unity in faith, which is part of the celebration of the Eucharist Right or even the validity of the Eucharist first of all requires apostolic succession

which requires a hierarchical structure. And, but yeah, basically the idea is that the papacy serves the authenticity of the local Eucharistic celebrations. And that's what I was trying to argue in the thesis, that if we can if we can understand the papacy As having a is being a Eucharistic office Then it makes it more understandable to our Orthodox brethren because they along with us have a Eucharistic ecclesiology the their Ecclesiology is very similar to ours and and understanding the church primarily as the the Eucharistic synaxis the gathering to celebrate the Eucharist

Is the church at her highest mode? Like that is what she is for is worshiping God in the Eucharist Have we found on the ground that it has been somewhat helpful It's definitely helped well, I don't know how many people read my thesis. So probably not as much as it could be. But I mean the argument, not necessarily just a thesis, but what you've come to argue, has it been helpful? This has been separately sort of an approach taken by the

International Catholic Orthodox Dialogue. I mean one of the earliest documents they wrote, if not the first one, was the joint international commission for theological dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic or the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church as a whole or something like that. It was on the mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in light of the mystery of the Holy Trinity It's actually a pretty beautiful document, but it's it's showing we have a mutual understanding of

the church through from a Eucharistic perspective Or that we understand the church and the Eucharist in a Trinitarian way So there's this link between the Trinity of the church and the Eucharist in a trinitarian way So there's this link between the Trinity of the church and the Eucharist Zizoulas was a good dialogue partner because he's a Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Pergamon in Turkey. He's also a scholar and He was actually very amenable to universal primacy

I mean he pushed back against the of his fellow orthodox and said that, you know, trying to claim that synodality or collegiality is of divine right, but primacy is only of ecclesial right doesn't make any sense and the reason it doesn't make any sense is that you can't have a synod without a protoss you can't have a synod without someone who heads it so if it's a sine qua non condition for a synod then it exists by the same right as a synod exists because you can't have a synod without a head that That means the head exists, the office of the head exists by the same right, which is divine. So if we're going to admit that synodality is of divine right, then the head of the synod also exists by divine right, because you can't have the synod without them. Gotcha. Yeah. So he actually admit and he basically admitted to it does belong in Rome

It's just a question of well, what does primacy mean and that's where you start getting into arguments of You know, well, what are the extent of his authority and power some evolving happening today on how to understand? I haven't I haven't been directly involved in that research in a while now, but I haven't seen that on the ground. I'm hoping that they're making progress. I do think there was some progress in the commission itself, the theologians. There was a document, I think it was the one they were writing when they were in Ravenna in Italy, and it was supposed to be on the the primacy in the first millennium and they wanted to have a joint study of how primacy was exercised in the first thousand years prior to this the schism. Yep. Right? So they had different working groups in different languages, they had a commission that had to bring those all together, they wrote a

document, the Catholic and Orthodox theologians agreed on it. The Orthodox bishops wouldn't accept it. So it got rejected because they didn't like the outcome of the research, the joint research. And it did get leaked online. I don't remember the title of it. But there's attempts to try to address this on an academic and an inter ecclesial level. So I think at higher levels it's happening. I don't know how much that's happening on the ground I think I wasn't really involved in a lot of the you know

um On the street leveled conflicts with the orthodox before You've had some converts from Orthodoxy, but I guess I didn't have a real sense of how much many of them hate us until I started seeing the online world when it comes out. Now maybe that's just because it's the online world, because that brings out hatred in all sorts of ways. It's funny isn't it, because yeah I'd want to be careful of the word hate because obviously I think it's hard to interpret it differently when you read it.

Yeah. When you read a lot of what's going on. Yeah, and it's not all of them. I'm not saying everybody, but I've seen a lot. I didn't realize how much animosity there really was. You see that in Catholic circles, don't you? Oh, yeah, of course. Yeah, that's true, too. I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think it's, I don't know what it is. It's a, it's a insistence on a very particular way of devotion and worship, perhaps in the Catholic Church, at least, that will not settle for any kind of compromise or any kind of accommodation.

I think there's a fear that my Catholic faith is being eroded. And so, I'm talking from the Catholic perspective. And so, if I feel as if you're compromising my faith in any way, I will lash out at you. There's a lot of that. Right, yeah. Which, if you're correct, is actually appropriate in a way, right? If you're right. If you're right. Yeah. Yeah Yeah, because I mean I mean, yeah, so I mean even growing up. I mean we had my parents had to Take us to a different parish Because I don't remember exactly. I think it was a parish

somewhere in Connecticut and my mom was gonna enroll us in faith formation there, and I don't even know how it came up, but it was something like they told her that, oh, we don't believe in purgatory and all that nonsense anymore or something something and so she took us to another church, so There's definitely reasons to be on guard for the right outstanding of the faith because it has been eroded on the ground Yeah in many places Well speaking of purgatory something similar limbo I don't know if you know about this or not But be Terran one four six says Pope Benedict the 16th said he didn't believe limbo exists.

Does the church have an official teaching on this? See I'd like to see a quote where he explicitly says that himself. I don't know that if that's the case I would like to see the direct quote. I think there was a commission that came out with a document that addressed Limbo while he was head of the CDF. This is still an area of dispute amongst theologians. What is Limbo for those at home? I guess the best way to describe it would be for those who die without like say infants or the equivalent thereof, people who have never been able to reach attain an age of reason or right use of faculties where they could be held responsible for like mortal sin, yeah, whatever, that if they died without

baptism that they would go not to the hell of the damned, right, but basically to a place that would be akin to natural beatitude. So the perfection of human nature, but not supernatural beatitude. They would not behold God face-to-face in heaven. So it'd be like a perfection of all the natural aspects of human life, body and soul. You'd have natural virtues.

Here's a article from Tim Staples at Catholic.com. In 2007, the International Theological Commission, which is the department of the Roman Curia under the Dicastery for the doctrine of the faith and serves as an advisory board for the Ticasteri issued a document called the Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized. It was published with the approval of Benedict XVI and taught that the church has reduced the teaching of limbo from the level of common doctrine among theologians to a possible theological hypothesis. It does not do what many expected that is completely abandoned limbo as Benedict has had said the church should do back

when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, but it did reduce teachings prominence. Now the question here has to do with Pope Benedict, the 16th people will sometimes talk about it as a prophecy Whether it was a prophecy or not I don't know But I believe it was in his interview with Raymond Arroyo where he said that the church will continue But it will remain it will become very small. I've heard church. Yeah, I think that was he was reading

Yeah, I think was like smaller but pure church or smaller but more faithful. Yeah I I think it was like smaller but purer church or smaller but more faithful. Yeah. I Mean I wouldn't I doubt it was like a prophecy in the theological sense of that term, right? But he seemed to be reading the signs of the times and saying that look, I mean It seemed to him that society itself was becoming more Mary antagonistic to the faith Yeah, and so he expected that as the persecutions ramp up and as we're asked to compromise more and more, that those who are willing to endure that and not or not be won over by the ideology of the culture would reduce the numbers of the church and therefore, but those who remain would be, would because of that external pressure to remain already means that you've got some

deeper level of commitment. So I think he was just doing the math in a way, like well it would make sense that the church is going to get smaller but the people who remain will be serious about it. Here's an excerpt from his work Faith and Future. The church will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. And I tell you as someone who just lived in Austria for six months and traveled all around Europe that seems to be true. As the number of her adherents diminishes, she will lose many of her social privileges. It will be hard going for the church for the

process of crystallization and clarification will cost her much valuable energy. It will make her poor and cause her to become the church of the meek. The process will be long and wearisome as was the road from the false progressivism on the eve of the French Revolution, when a bishop might be thought smart if he made fun of dogmas and even insinuated that the existence of God was by no means certain. But when the trial of this sifting is passed, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified church. Men in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty.

Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret. And so it seems certain to me that the church is facing very hard times, the real crisis has scarcely begun. We will have to count on terrific upheavals, but I am equally certain about what will remain at the end, not the church of the political cult which is deadals, but I'm equally certain about what will remain at the end not the Church of the political cult Which is dead already, but the Church of faith

She may well no longer be the dominant social power to the extent that she was until recently But she will enjoy a fresh blossoming and be seen as man's home When where he will find life and hope beyond death So beautiful it is so beautiful. And it's also partly, he's not just looking to the future there. I think he's also drawing from his own personal history because he's got a beautiful quote about the church purgoring through the Nazi regime.

And it's in the book, I quote it in the book, but it's just a beautiful thing where he basically says that we now know what it means that the gates of hell will not prevail against her. Because we have seen the gates of hell, and she alone was left standing. Meaning that the church remains steadfast, and did not kowtow in the end. I'm not sure how true that is in Germany now, but yeah, back then. Right. Sorry. Right.

But he saw that in the past. And so I think- Yeah, that's why. And I also think he's, he's, you can almost see like societies as analogous to corporate personalities, like they're almost like individual persons. Okay. If you see someone who completely begins to dissipate and live a life away from truth and virtue and all that, Yeah. Their life doesn't always get better.

No, almost never. Right. So it's like, I think what he's saying is once society gets what it wants It's gonna realize how empty would it wanted really is yeah, and it's still not satisfied Mm-hmm, and then you're gonna have this remnant of people That have been telling you you guys are the crazy ones all along for trying to get rid of us Yeah, and they're gonna be like Well, that's where meaning is. That's where beauty is. That's where authenticity is.

Yeah, a couple of comments on this. One, I remember while in Europe at these different places, there were certain places where it looked like there was real faith and it was very inspiring. There were other places I went where I thought to myself, I don't know if the church will exist in this city, maybe this country in 50 years from now, given the stories I was being told

from the couple of faithful there or the bishop. And it made me realize, and you correct me if you think I'm wrong, I don't think I am, but the gates will not prevail against the church does not mean the gates will not prevail against the church in Switzerland or in Ireland or in, right? Nope. Yeah. So the idea that people could be living against the church in Switzerland or in Ireland or in right nope yeah so the guarantee of that people could be living in a in a in a country with with no

you think about the number of times even in the patristic era even after the Edex of Milan right it's not like Kassin came in and Edex of Milan and everything was great you still had heretic emperors come in from time to time and do more persecutions and exile bishops. Like St. John Chrysostom was basically kicked out of Constantinople and he died in exile. Right? I mean, you can have your, even if you have a good bishop, he could be thrown in prison

by the government. He could be sent into exile, you know, taken away. I mean, that happened in the early church even after the Edict of Milan. So the idea that it couldn't happen now, and you know, perhaps worse, you can have, because, I mean, think back again, even after the Caliphate of Nicaea, Arianism didn't go away. It remained a force for a long time. You know, there were a lot of Aryans that remained after Nicaea and sometimes took power, you know, and a lot of bishops were Aryans. So heretic bishops is a real thing that has happened in the history of the church.

And it does a lot of damage. God's mercy is such a mysterious thing. You think of somebody being raised in a country where the church may not be present anymore, or not in a state that it ought to be and so it causes scandal perhaps like you think of some places in Germany. We lived in a place in Austria where we were told not to go to this church because the Eucharist isn't valid because the priest has all sorts of shenanigans with the Eucharistic prayer and you think about the six-year-old who's attending that Mass and he's knowing the wiser and he's getting told things and he comes to believe certain things right you know what's what's responsible or what is that kid responsible for believing and how is he

culpable if he rejects the faith, which it may not even be, that's being presented to him? Yeah, of course that child wouldn't be culpable, right, in that way, but it is still has... right in that way but it is still has it is it is scary I mean to be honest and I don't know if we I mean obviously some people take this seriously and they talk about it ad nauseam online but I'm trying not to overstep my bounds, but... Do it. It's... the history of the church... if you could have in the age of the fathers, heretic bishops, sometimes that were a significant number of the episcopate, the idea that that couldn't happen now just because we're like in a later time period is absurd. Especially when you

consider the fact that dissipation tends to happen the more free from government persecution you are. Right? A lot of those heresies arose after the Edict of Milan. Right? Arianism, Apollinarianism, Manichaeus, like... so not, I'm not saying every heresy necessarily did, but I just think the Church as a whole and individual members need to take seriously whether or not they're actually Orthodox. And the fact that we will be held accountable for that. And I think there are significant numbers of people in

positions of the church that don't take that seriously. Being given power in the church is not a license to preach your own gospel. I mean, St. Paul's very clear on that. If even we or an angel from heaven should preach you a different gospel, let him be anathema. Right? And the idea that if you become a bishop or a professor in a theology classroom, that you can change the church's, you can present the faith in your own image and likeness to your liking when it's not authentically united with the tradition? And you're aware of that fact? I don't think... Some might not be, but if you're talking about bishops and professors, they should know better.

Yeah. It's one thing to be, to say, no, this is, I read the tradition and it seems to say this, like and I'm receiving it. It's another to like, well, let me twist it to fit this mold that I like and ignore it. I mean, it's... I really do think that's... It's not... it's the souls of the leaders and the professors and the people they influence that are at stake. And I don't think...

I think sometimes we give heterodoxy a pass too easily. You know, because we think, oh, it's not really that big of a deal. Do we? Who thinks that? I think a lot of people do. I think a lot of people think that it doesn't really matter, because as long as you're nice or you're... or even charitable. Like you... Like, well, as long as you're nice or you're even charitable like you like well as long as i get the virtue of charity i don't need the virtue of faith yeah maybe this maybe it is true i just don't think that's true for people like you and me

i think it's what's more likely for me i don't know you so i can't speak i'll just speak for myself people like me the temptation isn't to become like that the temptation is to become like a schismatic, because all around me appears to be falling away. And I wanted to bring that up, right? Because that is the temptation. It's sort of like where Christ says, all people will hate you because of me, you know? And how many people have just assumed that they must be faithful to Christ throughout history because they're hated, when maybe they just sucked and kind of that's why you were hated Right, but it's so easy to take that passage and apply it to yourself as one of the chosen ones

People shouldn't be hated of course, but The same thing here the church will become small I mean how many people are reading Benedict's words saying yes exactly and that's why I don't go to Mass anymore I go to the garage that father Gary celebrates the But that's where I have the problem because if you go to a schismatic group you've actually conceded the gates of hell did prevail right because the if if the Again like go back to this is one thing that I always find interesting, is a lot of the radical traditionalist

schismatic groups will talk about the past encyclicals and all that. Well, they explicitly say, like condemn the notion that the church is not a visible, identifiable, tangible reality that you can point to. Mm-hmm. And that it, you know, it's just this free-floating thing. You know, that no, it's got a structure, it's got an identity, like you can see to. And that it, you know, it's just this free-floating thing, you know, that no, it's got a structure, it's got an identity, like you can see it, touch it, go there, like there's a reality to that and that it must have this universal structure. So to say that it has persisted without the papacy, like, is a...

I'm not saying you can't have short periods of time like that, but... Especially when there's no way to reinstate it. What would be the mechanism by which you would ever have a pope again? That's making... That's what I'm... It doesn't make any sense. Yeah, that's what seems crazy to me when people try to deny the papacy of Pope Francis. Because then are the cardinals he has elected, are they legit? Right, and if they are the majority voters...

Do you know, I'm actually asking, do you know if like these modern set of accountants would say that the cardinals... No, if they don't think... Obviously, if they think he's not legit, then they can't be legit cardinals. The reason I ask that is that maybe he's making them cardinals based on him being the bishop of Rome and they're trying to separate that from the... You can't. Can't you, I think? No, you're pope by virtue of being the Bishop of Rome

So if you have a bishop of Rome, you've got a pope. That's all right that works. All right Well, then then let's say yeah, so let's say then that is the case that they're saying that these cardinals are illegitimate Then you just have a conclave of illegitimate men. So what they can't elect anything. Yeah, so it's somewhat self-refuting but No, I get that. The tendency to schism is definitely out there. And I don't think I realized until recently how out there it is. It's a growing problem, it almost seems like. What do you mean when you say recently? What did you see? Well, because I'm not really an online, like, I'm not big into doing a lot of social I just that like I don't find social media very glorious because I used to be much more involved in social media and I just

I enjoy not being involved in it so what did you see that you like holy crap this is big no you just see like because sometimes in videos I watch I'll look at the comments or a look at the comments or I'll look at the... That's mostly where I see it now. That's scary. And I'm just like, oh my gosh, and there's some wackadoodle stuff out there. And this is, well this is the other caution. So we talk about heterodoxy. Satan is very wily, right?

Satan is very wily, right? He... He knows what your weaknesses are. So he's gonna try to get you... ensnared based on your weakness. If you style yourself a traditional Orthodox Catholic, he's not to tempt you with, you know, radical liberal progressive ideology to try to get you to leave. He's going to try to get you to go in the opposite direction. He that you will try to make yourself a judge of the magisterium itself, and therefore find a way to justify leaving the church, because he wants everyone to jump off the bark of Peter. That's what he wants.

And he does that in different ways, and he tries to either get you to leave by liberal progressivism or by radical traditionalism in a way, depending on which one is more enticing to you. And I think he really does that. I do think it's demonic. And that people have bought into lies and feats. Um, in medium scripture talks about this. Um, no, it's not facetious. What is it the word? Is it facetious arguments? No, I forget what word. Specious? Maybe that's what it is. Specious arguments. Like and

that you're like wow, I can't believe because sometimes some of these groups are really good at weaving a narrative that if you don't know any better sounds very convincing Yeah, the use of rhetoric and selective quotations And things like that is it's it's propaganda. It's the same way people fall into other sorts of ideologies, right and That's how he's gonna get you But it's you know the reality of it is, it's like, well then... But if you understand the church as a communion that has a visible and an invisible structure, or a component to it, then schism is never the answer. That's always an exacerbation of the problem.

So no matter how marred the body of Christ gets, no matter how bad certain people in certain positions might become, it doesn't mean that the solution is to lop yourself off of the body. You know, if you're... You know, let's say your right arm gets gangrenous. Well, you don't chop off your left arm, right? So you want to remove a good member of the body of Christ because there's some bad ones out there? That just makes, that exacerbates the problem, the disintegration of the church, right? You don't want... So...

I think a lot of this has to do with what Benedict says here, with the kind of glory days of the church. This desire to have this sort of social clout that we did once have. You even watch movies from the 80s and 90s, even back then occasionally you might see a priest who has a lot of kind of moral authority and amidst social cache, among a kind of community of people. Yeah, right. It's just a beautiful... It is tempting, but if they have no mandate from the church, they are not proper ministers. So they can't do that, right? It's in some ways it's LARPing. So I will say this though, Benedict got a lot of flack when he was, I think he was still a fairly young priest at the time,

it was like 1958 or 59. He wrote an article in, I think it was in Hochland, which is a magazine or journal, and depending on how you translate the German, it's either the new heathens or the new pagans in the church. And so this is in the 50s, right, and he basically says, we've got a problem. And he said the problem is the church is basically I'm paraphrasing but pulling in some of his words the church is becoming a facade yeah we're keeping up appearances hundred percent but by keeping up appearances we're allowing so to give an example, he's basically saying people, from the

outside it looks like we're strong, but in reality the people in the pews are pagans. They don't really believe. You got people bringing their children for baptism who have no intention of actually following through on the baptismal promises. They'll answer yes to all of them during the ceremony, but they don't mean it. They're not going to bring the kid the mass every day. They're not going to make sure they're raised in the faith and get good catechesis. They're not going to do that. So we baptize the child anyway. We confirm the ones that don't really believe we

allowed them to get married in the church when they don't even really know what that sacrament is and you know They just kind of go uh-huh when you give them their Yeah, fifth from I and he basically says By doing this We are allowing these people to believe That they aren't pagans when they really are And he bases this is a problem

Like we need to take seriously that the sacraments come with obligations, and the fact that we're not holding people to those is actually a scandal to those very people we're administering the sacraments to. I'm highly paraphrasing here, but that's the gist of what he was saying, Is that basically the church looks fine if you look at it from the outside, but the people don't really believe. And we're allowing them to continue to think they're believers when they're not. I thought of that when I was in Ireland. There's some beautiful people in Ireland, obviously, and some wonderful Catholics who are excellent things getting together in communities Celebrating the liturgy etc. It's very lovely

But I mean there's a church on every corner almost and the churches look really beautiful And so when you're there you just get the idea like this feels like a really Catholic country, right Ireland But if you were to remove every single church and only remove the ones that are being used You might not see a church hardly anywhere But if you were to remove every single church and only remove the ones that are being used, you might not see a church hardly anywhere to the idea of it being a facade. And that would be more honest. I'm not saying we should do that. And I think he may have even been talking to the people that even go to church.

Like you might have a parish where everyone's going every Sunday but they really don't believe you know they don't take it seriously think of the mafia leader who takes his son to get baptized yeah you know does he really believe you know yeah all right we got a few more questions that okay okay with you. Catholic Viking says, do you foresee him becoming canonized as a saint? If so, when do you think it could happen by and what would you guess his patronage to be? Right, now obviously all this is complete speculation. There'd be difference between what I want

and maybe what would be better for the church Um I would like to see him be canonized to be made a doctor of the church really I would and um Father amary de gaulle who wrote the foreword of my book mentions that in his his foreword. He says that he is qualified for this um I don't know how fast that will or should happen. I think there does... I would like to see it in my lifetime, obviously, because I want to see it happen. I should think, well, I can see it happen from Purgatory or heaven, right? I don't need to be here. I don't know if it could or should happen that quickly. I think there

is, they're starting to grow a number of people are starting to think, are we just gonna canonize every pope we have now? And like right away? because I mean John the 23rd, Paul the 6th, John Paul the 2nd, you know, it's just what we do now, it's the next step after, you know, and I could see some wisdom in saying you know what we should probably give this stuff time but because of the brilliance of his intellect and how much he fought against evils in the church and against heterodoxy and the like, if he could get enough miracles to qualify, then it'd be great. I think as far as the Doctor of the Church component, probably should take a good amount of time to make sure that his thought remains impactful and looked back upon with reverence. And it continues to have that before something like that would happen.

I think that in particular, the sainthood could happen more quickly, but maybe even those we need to slow down a little bit. And then the doctor of the church should probably happen After I'm dead. Yeah, because I think you need to show a lasting impact Yeah, that doesn't just dissipate. Yeah, and that requires time Seth asks, what do you consider his must-read Works and then a follow-up question to that would be what might be something to read if you've never read him before Okay, so... Usually when people ask me what the first book of his you should read is, I usually tell them milestones, which is his memoirs of his own life going up to 1977.

It's a short book. It's an easy read. But it gives you a great insight into... So my first book, sorry, the first chapter of my book is his biography, but I don't just go through chronologically. I go through it thematically. So basically talking about these different themes and I show how his later thought is sort of prefigured in events in his own life and so oh this is where his humility comes from this is where his appreciation of the liturgy comes from this is where his appreciation of the power of beauty comes from of art and architecture in

nature this is where his intellectual formation happened and who influenced them. So I usually point people to that because you get a better sense of who he is as a person. Then that gives you insight into how he thinks. And so usually I say milestones. Now there's obviously a bunch of biographies about him that are good But of his introduction to Christianity to her introduction to Christianity is most people's Favorite it seems or the one they was good first. It seems it probably is and it's a great book I will say there's a sleeper that I I Actually like more yeah

a sleeper that I actually like more. Yeah. And that's his Principles of Catholic Theology, Building Stones for Fundamental Theology. Okay. No one talks about that. That definitely sounds more boring than Introduction to Christia. It was written later, but it's a great book and there's a lot in there that's, it's just amazing. And then Called to Communion is Good, it's a short book on ecclesiology that I'm making an ecclesiology junkie. So I just like theology about the church So that's one of course the Jesus of Nazareth series is hard to beat as an example of of good biblical theology Yeah Yeah, ecclesiology nerd, huh?

They used to be my area of expertise and focus. It's been a long time since I've been able to do that. I do have an article coming out in Pro Ecclesia on the Eucharist and Primacy in the works of Jean-Marie Roger-Tillard, who was another, who was a, I think French Canadian actually, I think, but how he tackles the Eucharist in primacy question. So that's coming out in prog. It's available for those who have access to their digital stuff, but it's coming out. So I did get to do that, but other than that,

I don't get to delve into it as much as I used to. Where can people get the book? Well, you can give it on Amazon, although it's better for us, and if you go to the bookstore, Word on Fire's actual bookstore, their own, I think it's bookstore.wordonfire.org, I think is the link but that's

The best place to get it is is on there. Yeah, but if you need to there's Amazon as a backup anything else coming up There's a lot of academic conferences and things I'm going to like next week I got to fly out to Chicago for a philosophy conference talking about Bonaventure on marriage and Then yeah another one in January end of January beginning of February I'm supposed to be going to an academic conference there Which is a Thomistic themed one? Yeah, just a lot of a lot of different things like that. Thanks for coming on the show. Yeah, appreciate it. Great to be here