Audio only:
An argument has been spreading that Francis is not the pope because Benedict retained some of the papal powers. We ask apologist Michael Lofton to explain the munus/ministerium debate.
Cy Kellett:
What about the theory that Pope Benedict resigned only part of the papacy? Apologist Michael Lofton is next.
Cy Kellett:
Hello and welcome to Focus, the Catholic Answers Podcast for living, understanding, and defending your Catholic faith. I’m Cy Kellett, your host, and our guest this time is Apologist Michael Lofton. Michael Lofton has actually been quite critical of Pope Francis, and so we thought he was the perfect guy to ask about this theory that has been going around whether or not Pope Francis actually holds all of the papacy or whether some of it was reserved to Pope Benedict in the manner of his resignation, or if maybe the manner of the Pope’s resignation means that all of it is still with Benedict.
Cy Kellett:
Here’s what Michael Lofton had to say. Michael Lofton, the hardest working man in apologetics and affiliate apologist here at Catholic Answers. Thanks for being with us.
Michael Lofton:
Thanks for having me back on, Cy.
Cy Kellett:
My take on you is you’re not some crazy wild eyed liberal and you’re very fair in your approach to assessing the situation in the church. I wanted to talk to you about the… Just because I think that gives you a certain credibility, to speak and be trusted on this whole question about the papacy with Pope Francis. Is he the Pope? Is he not the Pope? We have these two words. You have to tell me the two words now. I forgot them.
Michael Lofton:
Ministerium and munus.
Cy Kellett:
I didn’t know how to say the munus one. All right. All that going on. That’s what I want to talk with you about today.
Michael Lofton:
Absolutely. Sounds great. I’m glad that you bring up that point there about being conservative, because in fact, I am a conservative Catholic, and I do want to say that I do sympathize with many of the concerns and criticisms that have been made about the current pontificate. I just want to be guarded and make sure that we do so with caution and with charity. Those are my only concerns.
Cy Kellett:
You would not have a problem… And I’m not saying that you would say this, but you would not have a theological problem or even a practical problem with a person saying, “I think Francis is a bad Pope.”
Michael Lofton:
I don’t have a problem with that. I think the concern is whenever someone publicly begins to slander Pope Francis, unfairly misrepresent him, distort the facts. That’s when I would say we’re going beyond fair criticism to territory that I think is out of bounds. But just saying that, I think that this is a very problematic pontificate, I don’t think that that’s uncharitable, and I do think that that is within the scope of our ability to say as layman.
Cy Kellett:
Okay. Because I don’t want to put you in the position of… I mean, I’m sure that you could, if called upon to do so in the debating class or whatnot, make a defense of Pope Francis. I’m not interested in either defending or attacking Pope Francis in this. Just simply the theological and practical question of, can we say with confidence that he and not Benedict is the Pope?
Michael Lofton:
I think that that’s a fair way to approach this. Because at the end of the day, if in fact Pope Francis were the worst Pope that we have ever had in the history of the papacy, that doesn’t mean that he’s not actually the Pope. Those are two separate questions. Whether or not we think that this is a good pontificate or a bad one, that’s a different question. I’m happy with the way that you situated it here.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah, but it’s funny to think about, but the worst Pope in history is the Pope. He just happens to be the worst. But that’s the fact. The worst Pope in hist… Just like the best Pope in history, they hold the same office.
Michael Lofton:
I think that Peter being the first, if you will, Pope, kind of anachronistic, but I mean, I’ll grant it, he had some pretty significant failures. He had some moments of apostasy prior to his returning to the faith. He set the bar pretty low in some aspects. Not that we haven’t been equally guilty of great things, we all have.
Cy Kellett:
You realize he died a martyr for Christ though. Like you said, he set the bar…
Michael Lofton:
Most certainly. He finished very well. He finished very well.
Cy Kellett:
He finished strong. Okay.
Michael Lofton:
But what the point is, there have been some very serious failures in the history of the papacy, beginning with our very first Pope. But that doesn’t mean that Peter wasn’t the man that Christ said that he was, and that he did not possess the office that Christ gave him.
Cy Kellett:
All right. Let’s tackle the question then as it’s posed. I can actually remember the first time the question was posed to me about this idea of the office having different kind of… I don’t know. The office being divided, I guess. It struck me as illogical. I mean, the point of the papacy is to have a public visible vicar of Christ. The possibility that it could become a hidden office in which the world doesn’t know who’s the Pope seems to me impossible.
Cy Kellett:
If the role of the thing is to be the vicar of Christ, then I can see there could be confusion, but that it can’t be divided so that some part of it is hidden.
Michael Lofton:
That’s the key right there. The papacy can’t be divided. Many who would take the position that Pope Francis is not the Pope in Benedict XVI is the Pope, some of them would actually grant that, yes, the papacy can’t be divided. But here’s the key, they would say, but Ratzinger or Pope Benedict thought the papacy could be divided. In his resignation speech, he has a substantial error. According to canon law, if you have a substantial error in your resignation, it’s not valid.
Michael Lofton:
They want to say, “Well, yeah, it’s wrong to bifurcate the papacy between this ministry and office, idea that’s wrong, but that was Benedict’s view. Perhaps he’s in error in bifurcating it, yet that is enough to introduce doubt in substantial error in his resignation.” That’s kind of their argument is they would say, “Yeah, okay, sure. You can’t divide the papacy, but Benedict thought that he could, and that spilled over into his resignation speech which made it invalid.”
Michael Lofton:
We can take a deeper dive at that if you want to, but that’s effectively their argument.
Cy Kellett:
Would you just explain the two terms to me then, munus and what’s the other one?
Michael Lofton:
Ministerium.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah, I knew that. Okay, go ahead.
Michael Lofton:
Ministry and office.
Cy Kellett:
Ministry and office. Okay.
Cy Kellett:
Let’s just use the English terms, ministry and office. What people will try to say is, okay, ministry and the aspect of ministry when it comes to the papacy pertains to the executive aspect, the writing of encyclicals or motu proprios and installing bishops or something like that. Munus pertains to just the office itself, which carries an obligation for prayer, prayer for the universal church and caring for the universal flock, things like that. They try to make that distinction there.
Cy Kellett:
However legitimate maybe the distinction might be, we can’t make an absolute division and say that, okay, you can have two people who share these things, right? Well, maybe one person has the ministerium or the ministry of the papacy and the other one has the office. We can’t separate these things. In the same way that we can say, well, Jesus is fully God and fully man, and we can make a distinction there, but you don’t want to say but those things are just separated because now you kind of have the heresy of Nestorianism.
Cy Kellett:
There’s an analogy there. We could say, okay, maybe we can make distinctions here, but it’s most certainly not the case that two people could share these distinctions. That’s where the problem is. Now, they want to say in the resignation speech, he only renounced the ministry. He does not specifically renounce the office. They want to say, well, since Benedict makes this distinction in his thought, they assume that he makes the distinction, this is a faulty resignation, because in fact, you can’t separate the two.
Cy Kellett:
Of course, I can offer a response, but take it wherever you want.
Cy Kellett:
Well, first of all, I guess I would like to ask, do you have any sense that Benedict intended anything other than to resign the papacy in whole, in totem, in toto, that was reserved in any way, or is the evidence to the contrary?
Michael Lofton:
What they will say is that if you look at young Ratzinger back in the ’70s, he makes this distinction between ministry and office, and they want to read a little too much into that and assume that he means these things can be divided and shared by two people, I think they’re reading too much into them.
Michael Lofton:
But when we look at Benedict by the time he resigns in 2013, whatever his former view was, which I don’t think was incompatible, but whatever his former view was, by the time he’s been Benedict XVI in 2013, in his resignation speech, he shows no intention of bifurcating the papacy or leaving it partially vacant. In fact, and to me, this is the deathblow to the [Inaudible 00:10:08] position, the position that Benedict is still the Pope and Francis isn’t. Here it is.
Michael Lofton:
He says in his resignation speech, if you don’t mind me quoting, “I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, in such a way that as from 28 February 2013, at 8:00 PM, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.”
Michael Lofton:
At first, he mentions that he’s renouncing the ministry and they want to say, “You see. Aha! He’s renouncing the ministry, but not the office.” But he says he’s renouncing the ministry in such a way that the sea will be vacant, not that it will be partially fulfilled, not that he will renounce the ministry, but still retain the office. He wants to say, no, the sea will be entirely vacant and the College of Cardinals will need to elect a new Pope.
Michael Lofton:
It’s clear in the intention that he doesn’t mean to just resign only the mere ministry, but the entire office so that the entire thing is vacant. Here’s the thing. According to canon law, believe it’s canon 332, according to canon law, all that’s required for the resignation of the Pope is that it’s free and manifest. He has elsewhere said most certainly and very explicitly that he was free in this resignation. It’s most certainly manifest that he resigns the entire office when he says the sea will be vacant. To me, that’s the death wall.
Cy Kellett:
The sea will be vacant. Have you heard any cogent response to that, or is that one that you have not heard?
Michael Lofton:
I have not heard response to that.
Cy Kellett:
To that point.
Michael Lofton:
The best argument that I’ve ever heard is the idea that according to I think it’s canon 188, that in a resignation speech, if there’s a substantial error in the speech, then it is invalid. They want to say Benedict, in his mind, bifurcates the ministry in the office. Therefore, that’s a substantial error. Therefore, he did not fully renounce the papacy and now he’s still the Pope. But again, the problem is, I think number one, they’re reading too much into Ratzinger’s thought on the distinction here.
Michael Lofton:
And then moreover, he makes his intention manifestly clear when he says that the sea will be vacant. There’s no way to read him otherwise. Moreover, I mean, in following interviews, he’s confirmed that, hey, I’m no longer the Pope.
Cy Kellett:
A person such as yourself then who comes to this conclusion, what do you make of the distinction then between office and ministry? Why even bother making that distinction? What is the point of ever having made that distinction? What did it accomplish? Is the distinction… Is there any purpose for that other than to say that it could, in fact, these two things could be exercised separately?
Michael Lofton:
I do think that there’s an importance for making the distinction. I think that’s a really good question. Why is there this distinction? Although I don’t think he makes the distinction rigidly in the resignation speech, what I will say is Ratzinger does make enough of a distinction or Benedict XVI, emeritus, whatever you want to call him, he makes enough of a distinction between ministry and office.
Michael Lofton:
For this reason, he wants to say that, okay, once you’re the Pope, you have this moral obligation or you have this, in fact, maybe even juridical obligation to pastor the flock care for the flock, pray for all the souls in the universal church. He wants to say, however, whenever you renounce the sea of Peter, though you aren’t still the Pope, you still have a moral obligation to pray for the universal church. And that is distinct from writing in cyclicals and teaching and governing the universal church. The distinction is important.
Cy Kellett:
I see, yeah.
Michael Lofton:
It’s important because he wants to say he still has a moral, maybe not a juridical, but a moral obligation to pray for the entire church, which is why he still wears the white cassock, which is why he’s still called your holiness. Not because he’s still in the office, not because he’s still the Pope, but because once you have become a Pope, you have that obligation to pray for the universal church. He still retains that obligation though, maybe not juridically, but morally. That’s why he has that distinction.
Cy Kellett:
Yes. You can’t undo the fact that you… It’s not, in other words, like Barack Obama was president and now Barack Obama is not president anymore, but there was no change in his permanent… He’s a private citizen now. But the papacy is not merely an office that can be taken up and put down like that. It’s also a kind of familial role within the church that can’t be… It’s like, I used to be your uncle, but I’m not your uncle anymore.
Cy Kellett:
Well, you can’t do that. It’s both an office in the world with these worldly functions and a familial position that just can’t be surrendered.
Michael Lofton:
Right. The office can be renounced and can be vacated, but the obligation to pray for the universal church and things of that sort remain whenever you’re elevated to the papacy. It doesn’t mean that you’re no longer the Pope if you’ve validly offered a resignation, you are, in fact, no longer the Pope, but you still have that moral obligation to pray for the universal church, and that’s effectively what Ratzinger is doing or Benedict XVI or emeritus.
Michael Lofton:
Now, we might say, “Okay, that makes sense, but it sure seems perhaps even imprudent to still wear a white cassock or be called Your Holiness in light of the confusion.” Maybe we could offer that criticism perhaps. But it doesn’t mean that he still thinks he’s the Pope. It just means that he thinks he still has a moral obligation to pray for the universal church. But that doesn’t mean that there’s a defect in the resignation.
Cy Kellett:
No. As a matter of fact, I think I’m among those who have said… I don’t know if I’ve said it publicly, but I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t modify that what he wears to have some other color involved in it, or just be another color if you want to… So that it doesn’t look papal. I think that would be… But I mean, the frank truth is, every Norbertine priest, every Dominican priest looks like a Pope as well. It’s not the biggest deal in the world, but it seems it would be more reasonable not to wear the white once you’ve left the office.
Michael Lofton:
I agree with you. I think that obviously this is within the bounds of what he’s able to do if the current Pope doesn’t have a problem with it. But we could maybe ask, is this the most prudent thing to do in our current situation today? I think legitimate criticism can be offered there. Perhaps this wasn’t the most prudent thing to do.
Cy Kellett:
Likewise with Holy Father or being addressed that way that we might have just come up with another term. I mean, because Holy Father in a certain sense is a term of endearment. I mean, the word holy is there to remind us that he’s the father of the one holy Catholic and apostolic church. But father is a very endearing term that’s meant to endear us to him and him to us. But we could have used some other endearing term maybe.
Michael Lofton:
Some other. But at the same time, I’m okay with us offering something to distinguish him from just another cardinal or something. Because after all, he is a former Pope. He did hold that office. I’m fine with him having some kind of way to distinguish himself. I just want to be prudent about it.
Cy Kellett:
I think formerly Holy Father would not work because…
Michael Lofton:
Right.
Cy Kellett:
The distinction there then is not just idle talk. There is a distinction between these things. There’s a way in which the papacy is permanent. I mean, it’s not a permanent…
Michael Lofton:
A moral obligation.
Cy Kellett:
The papal obligation is permanent.
Michael Lofton:
A moral obligation to pray.
Cy Kellett:
But wouldn’t you say that our obligation to a person who’s been the Pope is different as well, in that this person has represented Christ as his vicar on earth. That person is due a kind of place of honor among us, a very high place of honor among us.
Michael Lofton:
Most certainly. This is the position that’s confirmed by Gänswein, who is the personal secretary to emeritus. He has noted that, yes, it’s clear. Pope Benedict is no longer the Pope. He has renounced the office. To make this rigid distinction between ministry and office is illegitimate. He’s in no way, shape, or form the Pope and Pope Francis is the Pope. He’s made that clear.
Michael Lofton:
But in the same breath, he can go and say, “But the reason why he wears the white cassock, Benedict, the reason why he wears the white cassock and is called Your Holiness is because he retains a moral obligation.” He doesn’t necessarily use the word moral obligation. He just says obligation, “But he retains an obligation to pray for the universal church.” But that should not be interpreted rigidly in the sense that he has this juridical obligation as if he’s still in the office of the papacy.
Michael Lofton:
That would be a problem, but that’s not what Gänswein is saying. He’s not saying that he’s bound to do this because he’s still Pope. He’s just saying, look, if you’ve once been a Pope, you really have that obligation to the universal church whether you’re in that office or not. If you’ve taken that office, you’ve taken on that office for life. If for some reason you have to resign, you should at least retain a moral obligation to pray for the universal church.
Cy Kellett:
I appreciated you’re pointing out that you can have a distinction, but that doesn’t mean the thing is separable into two persons. The example of Jesus himself is a very good one. You have a very clear distinction between a human and divine nature, but you don’t divide the person. You can’t. That can’t be two different people holding… Like you said, it’s Nestorian to say, “You’ll be the human Jesus and I’ll be the divine Jesus.” You can’t say, “You’ll be the Pope with the ministry and I’ll be the Pope with the office.”
Cy Kellett:
That seems quite clear. Are there other arguments that you might want to marshal to help the person who’s still unsure about that?
Michael Lofton:
Well, I would say that ultimately, because some might still push back and say, “But there are certain problems, linguistic problems in the text of the resignation.” This is another big one that I’ve heard. What I would want to still say is words only have meaning in their context. When you look at the resignation speech, whatever Pope Benedict says, he’s saying the intention is to completely vacate the papacy, to completely vacate the office, because he’s saying the sea is going to be empty, [foreign language 00:22:06], and a new Pope will need to be elected.
Michael Lofton:
Whatever problems we might see allegedly in the text when it comes to the language, you have to ultimately look at intention. Because as I noted, what the canon law notes in canon 332, he just simply needs to make it freely and manifest, and he does both of those things. It doesn’t say that he has to do it very articulately and cross all your T’s, dot all your I’s. It doesn’t say that. It’s just simply he needs to do it freely and make it manifest.
Michael Lofton:
Now, others might say, “But he was forced out and it wasn’t free,” and and my response is okay, well, what do you say when Pope Benedict himself tells you that it was free? Well, others might say, “Well, he’s being held hostage by the Vatican or something.”
Cy Kellett:
If you need a level of proof where essentially you would have to get him into your own house, know that he’s safe and secure and interview him, you’re not going to get that level of certainty.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah, I don’t think that we could have the moral certitude to say that he is being forced to say these things.
Cy Kellett:
There you go. Okay. Right. The burden would be there when all the evidence seems to point in the other direction.
Michael Lofton:
Certainly.
Cy Kellett:
Pope Francis is the Pope. It does seem to me that there’s a kind of… That this would not come up if… Before we started talking, you phrased it better than I’m going to phrase it right now, but this wouldn’t even come up as an issue if people were satisfied that Francis is a good and… Actually, I want to say almost safe. He seems unsafe in a certain sense I think to many people.
Cy Kellett:
In the sense that he’s supposed to be the defender and the protector of the unity of the faith and many people just have a visceral sense, “This guy does not get that that’s his job and he’s not doing it.” None of this would come up if he weren’t that kind of a figure.
Michael Lofton:
I think that’s the impetus behind this. People are rightly scandalized. They’re rightly upset by some things that they have seen. That’s understandable. But I think what is ultimately driving this idea that Pope Francis isn’t the Pope is that discontent, that scandalization, the fact that people have been emotionally scandalized by whatever they have seen, whether they’ve understood it properly or not, I think that’s where this is coming from.
Michael Lofton:
I don’t think that anybody would’ve said… Let’s say if Pope Francis was the best Pope ever in the history of the papacy. Okay. Do you think that a person would really look at the resignation speech of Benedict and say, “Look, no, there are some flaws here. This doesn’t make sense,” I don’t think anybody would’ve really done that.
Michael Lofton:
The only reason why, in my opinion, people have gone behind and looked at this and started to question it is because they’re looking for a reason to say the Pope Francis isn’t the Pope because they don’t know how to reconcile [foreign language 00:25:19] and things like that. How do I reconcile that with what I know to be true about the papacy? They’re unable to do that. They’re struggling with those things. They’re looking for a reason to say, “Okay, he’s not the Pope.”
Michael Lofton:
Now, in addition to this issue with the resignation speech in the ministerium munus, there are other reasons why some might say Pope Francis isn’t the Pope, which we can get into, but one of them is, I’ll just briefly mention, one of them is the claim that there was a conspiracy to elect Pope Francis prior to the conclave. The claim is that that conspiracy invalidated his papacy. Even if we toss out the ministry office argument, people would still say, “But there’s a problem with this conspiracy.” I’m more than happy to get into that if you want.
Cy Kellett:
Well, let’s do so briefly just because we are here and I do think there’s a certain way in which you… One part of your brain wants to go, “Let’s just separate these things out one at a time,” but another way you think, “Well, there’s just this kind of preponderance of things that create a suspicion in the mind,” including a lightning hitting the Vatican, I think hitting St. Peter’s. Was it on the day that Benedict resigned?
Michael Lofton:
Of the resignation.
Cy Kellett:
I got to say, that freaks you out a little bit. You’re like, really? This is the universal sign of God’s displeasure with something is lightning hitting, and there it is. It does create this kind of a mental state of alertness. Now I’m in that mental state of alertness. What’s going on here? What exactly is that? Is there something I should be attending to? And then you bring up this point about the conspiracy. What might you say about that, about the conspiracy?
Michael Lofton:
Really quickly about the lightning strike, these things can be interpreted in multiple ways. I mean, it could say that God wasn’t pleased with Benedict resigning. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t fully resignate in God’s eyes, and that Pope Francis isn’t of the Pope. It just could be that God wanted him… In a certain sense, God would say, “No, it would’ve been better for you to have remained the Pope.” It doesn’t automatically equal, however, that the vacation of the papacy was somehow invalid or something like that.
Michael Lofton:
When it comes to those kinds of signs, you can always interpret them in many ways. Those things are too subjective for me. I need objective stuff that I can really measure these things by. I can’t go with the subjective stuff like that because of how they can be interpreted. As far as the pontificate of Pope Francis, whether or not he was validly elected in light of potentially a conspiracy to elect him, let’s just go ahead and grant that there was a conspiracy for a moment, though I can’t challenge that. Let’s just go ahead and grant it.
Cy Kellett:
Sure.
Michael Lofton:
When you look at the document Universi Dominici Gregis John Paul II that really deals with issues involving cardinals who are not to do things like this, not to engage in these kind of conspiracies, it simply notes, however, that they are not bound to any of these oaths perhaps that they’ve even taken to elect this person. Those are null and void, but John Paul II never says that the conclave because of that is null and void.
Michael Lofton:
The only time you ever see him say that the conclave is null and void is in the context of problems with the actual ballot in the voting procedures, not issues that took place prior to the voting procedures. This is stuff that my reading here of the document is that which is read and understood in the same way that canonist Ed Peters understands it. He wants to say this, that the prohibition against excommunicated cardinal’s voting in a conclave, he wants to say that only goes against the licitly, but not the validity of the ballot.
Michael Lofton:
Meaning if you have some kind of cardinal who engaged in this kind of conspiracy, even if they’re excommunicated because of that, they’re still able to validly vote for a Pope. Even though they’re excommunicated, they’re still able to validly vote for a Pope, but not licitly. In other words, the election is valid. It just wasn’t done licitly. The key here though is, there is a universal principle that theologians have long recognized known as universal and peaceful acceptance of a Pope.
Michael Lofton:
Where even if you have some kind of canonical problem in an election of a Pope, if the faithful have universally received a person, and most certainly Francis meets that description, if they have received his pontificate, just initially at the time of the election, that heals in the root any kind of canonical defects, even if they were present. In other words, I don’t see a canonical reason to say that he isn’t the Pope. I don’t see a theological reason to say that he is in the Pope.
Cy Kellett:
We come back then to, I suppose, where we began. You’re perfectly fine to say he’s not a good Pope. I don’t like him as a Pope. Even say as long as you’re not causing scandal or schism in the church to the degree that you’re making a legitimate criticism, make whatever criticism you want. It’s not a defense of his papacy in any way to say, however, he’s the Pope.
Michael Lofton:
Right, yeah. I do think that at this point we should offer some legitimate and fair and charitable criticism. I don’t think that we should merely be silent. I do think that we should challenge some things from the present pontificate. But I just want to make sure it is done in a charitable and fair way. Because sometimes, not all, but sometimes Pope Francis is being misrepresented. Sometimes he is being misreported, not all the time, but sometimes.
Michael Lofton:
Sometimes we maybe jump the gun and criticize him when in fact, eh, that’s not exactly what he said. We do need to be fair to him, even if we have problems with him elsewhere.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah, right, right. I would assume that the commandment to honor your father and mother, it applies to everyone who is in a position of authority over us or in a position of honor above us. We’re required… I mean, it’s very serious matter to follow that commandment. There’s no getting excused from that commandment.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah. I think the spiritual application most certainly applies to the papacy. It applies also to our local bishop, our local priest. That doesn’t mean we can’t charitably criticize them, in the same way that we could charitably challenge and criticize our own parents. But we need to do it charitably and fairly and accurately.
Cy Kellett:
I hope my children are listening. Michael Lofton, the hardest working man in apologetics, I appreciate your time. Thank you very much.
Michael Lofton:
Thank you so much. It was an honor.
Cy Kellett:
Get ready to be criticized on the internet for this.
Michael Lofton:
I already am.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah, no. Sure. Right. You know what? It’s perfectly legitimate to charitably and hopefully criticize Michael Lofton too.
Michael Lofton:
That’s fine. I’m fine with hearing pushback. I just want to hear it fairly done, charitably done. That’s the key.
Cy Kellett:
Well, stay off Twitter then. All right, thank you, Michael.
Michael Lofton:
Thank you so much for having me. I enjoyed it.
Cy Kellett:
Many people have, in fact, come to the conclusion that Pope Francis is a bad Pope. But as even the person that comes to that conclusion that Pope Francis is a bad Pope has to distinguish between defending a particular Pope and defending a theology of the papacy. That it’s a true theology of the papacy. Hearing this episode, I hope we have done that.
Cy Kellett:
I hope we have just stayed away from the whole question of whether or not Francis is a good or a bad Pope and simply defended the theology, the proper theology, of the papacy, so that we can have a healthy view of what the papacy is. I hope we’ve done that. If you disagree, or if you’d like to point out other points that we didn’t get to, send us an email, focus@catholic.com, focus@catholic.com. If you’re watching on YouTube, you know what to do. Hit that little bell so you’ll be notified of future episodes.
Cy Kellett:
Subscribe so that we can help grow the podcast. If you’re watching, or if you listen on Apple, Spotify, Stitcher, or one of the other podcast services, then like and subscribe. And that way you’ll be notified. If you’d give us that five star review, that will also help grow the podcast. And if you’d be so kind as to support us financially, you can do that at givecatholic.com. Once again, I’m Cy Kellett, your host. Thanks for being with us. We’ll see you next time, God willing, right here on Catholic Answers Focus.