Transcript

Welcome.

Let me make sure everything Okay, great.

This is way better than last time.

Let me Actually, you know what?

Let me go ahead and leave that open and silent in case I it be laggy again.

I might notice it more that way.

Um, all right.

So, this is my second time doing this as a public-facing one.

So, for those of you who are surprised to see me today on a Monday, you're used to me being around on Tuesday and Thursday, um, over on Patreon, and I'm not just plugging this 'cause you should join it, shamelesstwo.com, but just to explain what's going on, I always do a weekly, uh, Q&A live stream.

And I recently bumped it up to two a week but set up so that the $5 a month level, uh, gets one per week, and I'm now splitting that between one from just patron questions and one from you all, the general unwashed masses of YouTube.

And, um, and so that way I can kind of balance those out.

So, if you want to ask a question using SuperChat, Vanessa has very kindly, um, agreed to just kind of pull those and put them where I can see them.

And then additionally, if you want more of this, right now, paying nothing, you can, you can watch an hour, uh, every fortnight.

But if you pay $5 a month, you can do an hour a week.

That's twice as much.

If you do $10 a month, you get two weekly episodes, and it's a lot more likely I'll be able to get to your particular question.

So, um, yeah, feel free if, if that sounds good to you.

$10 a month, you get four times I mean, that's four hours of content a month.

I, I stand by Or sorry, eight hours of content a month if there's four weeks in the month.

Fortnight was a better unit, but nobody uses that.

All right.

To that, uh, Pete's Face had a question.

Now, I'm not calling him that.

He calls himself that.

Uh, had a question last week that I didn't have time to get to, so I wanted to get to that first.

He said, I've seen Wes Huff say the story of the woman caught in adultery was a later insertion and not inspired.

Are Catholics better equipped to combat s- secular excuse me, skeptical scholarship because of the magisterium?

And I would say yes, or more precisely, because of a particular view of the working of the Holy Spirit.

Um, the danger that Protestants can fall into, not intentionally, is this idea that I've heard Dr. Brian Cross call ecclesial deism.

So, deism is the idea, you know, God created the universe, He wounded it up like a clock, and then He just kind of lets it go.

And there can be a sense that Jesus takes the trouble to wind up the Church.

He builds the Church, as he says.

He gives the Holy Spirit to the apostles for that first generation so they can write scripture and they can establish the basic structure of the Church, and then he lets it go, and it falls into error, and he doesn't do anything about it.

And that is obviously not a good approach.

And you see, in the case of Wes Huff's view, I haven't heard Wes Huff's argument, but I've heard other people, um, make this point before.

So, it's fine if the woman caught in adultery is a later raser- insertion, because the author who gives it its divine authority is not the human author, and it's not gonna be a manuscript-based argument.

It doesn't matter.

And so, several of the books of the Bible we have have gone through, uh, different recisions, have, have gone through a process of, uh, the books being modified over time, and this is not a particularly controversial claim.

Like, when you read about the death of Moses, even if you're someone who believes the rest of the book is written by Moses, he clearly isn't writing the chapter on his death, and that's not controversial.

Um, additionally, you have more controversial claims about books like Isaiah.

Uh, certainly you have this involving Esther and Daniel.

It, it's glaringly obvious with Daniel.

Parts are in Hebrew, parts are in Aramaic.

I believe there are parts in Greek.

And so there's clearly, uh, an evolution within the book.

So, if the human author is the one preserving it from error, well, we're in trouble for two reasons.

Number one, then if something turns out to be a later addition, then we have to reject it.

And number two, the human author is not capable of protecting a, a book from all error.

Trust me.

I've written a bunch of books and I, invariably, no matter how many times I go through it and try to make sure there are no mistakes, within a week of it being, you know, uh, at the pre- uh, on, on the press, in bookstores, whatever, uh, someone will email me and be like, Hey, you made a mistake here.

And, and they're often these just, like, terrible, embarrassing mistakes.

You can't take them back.

You're like, I want to just buy every copy of the book now so no one ever sees it.

So, all this to say, if the Bible worked like that, where the human author is the one protecting it from error, we'd be in a heap of trouble.

But of course, that's not how it works.

Whatever human authors the Holy Spirit deigns to use, while they are acting in a truly human way, they're, they're not, like, being compelled against their will, He's using them and guiding the process in such a way that their free human actions are leading to this perfect divine result.

And so that might include, in the case of the woman caught in adultery, the general consensus is this was a standalone text that in ancient manuscripts you find it in two different places, not even in the same, um, book.

I think you find it, in addition to John, I want to say in Luke in an ancient manuscript.

Which suggests pretty clearly that early Christians read it, recognized the hand of God in it, and recognized this was a true and inspired account about Jesus and wanted to preserve it, but it isn't long enough to just be a standalone book, so they just sort of plugged it in to a book they already had.

It doesn't fit super well, um, in the narrative of, like, what's called the Book of Signs in, in the Gospel of John.

And so there are internal reasons as well as historic manuscript reasons why it's, it's generally accepted not to be, uh, an original.

Nevertheless, um, it is divinely inspired, and, and it's good, and, and so we shou- should take it very seriously.Uh, and, and so if you believe that, I guess the flip side, th- maybe to put it in a positive way, we believe the Holy Spirit is not guiding simply a human author, but is guiding the whole process, and is guiding the Church.

And so as a result, we're, we believe that the Holy Spirit is at work not only in the inspiration of the original books, but also in the Church's role in preserving those books and gathering them and recognizing which ones do and don't belong in Scripture.

If you accept that, you should have a 73-book Bible.

Additionally, if you accept that, it seems to me, you should recognize when that same Church tells you what the book means, you should listen.

Now, Protestants find themselves in a strange spot where they reject the 73-book Bible most of the time, and they reject the interpretations that that Church has said.

Now, y- even if you wanted to play the, Oh, I don't know what church it is, game, like, Oh, after the 11th century, should we go East or West?

Even if you wanna play that game, Protestants reject what the Church of the first millennium has to say about things like baptismal regeneration.

Not all Protestants.

About things like the role of the Pope, about things like any number of these important questions.

Um, so it isn't as if you can say, Well, I accept the first thousand years, that the Holy Spirit led the Church for a thousand years and then abandoned it, or then let it go kinda crazy.

That in the midst of all of the, uh, human sin and error, the Holy Spirit was nevertheless at work in a way that preserved the result that He wanted to preserve.

And, and this is the great irony, that when you look at Church history, it is Catholics, and, uh, Orthodox, by the way, but, uh, particularly Catholics, who actually preserve divine sovereignty much more than the people who talk a lot about divine sovereignty, but then think that God couldn't preserve His own Church, or didn't preserve His own Church.

All right.

Ryan had a question on Patreon.

I wanted to get to it quickly, but also, I was not sure if we would have enough questions, and that clearly is not gonna be the issue.

Um, he says, First, I came across a picture of you in a clerical collar, I assume from when you were in seminary.

You were just a baby, LOL. Yes.

Um, and I'll say Fatherhood has aged me, and also, yes, there's no getting away from the sheer number of clerical collar pictures, even so I used the, I used the thumbnail option this time because my thumbnail last time that was automatically generated was so terrible, uh, that I wanted to make sure it didn't happen again.

And going back and finding pictures when I was in Rome, obviously, a lot of them I'm in a clerical collar, 'cause I was a seminarian.

Uh, my daughter when she was, like, three, was like, Oh, when you were a priest, and I was like, Don't tell people.

I was never a priest.

I was never ordained even a deacon.

But, y- you know, it's easy to see how a little kid could be confused, 'cause everyone she sees in a collar like that, uh, you know, is, is a priest.

Anyway, Ryan has a question.

He says, One of my main reasons for abandoning Protestantism and coming into full communion with the Catholic Church this Easter Welcome home, Ryan.

was God's selection of Israel as His chosen people.

I really like the argument he makes here.

The Bible makes it abundantly clear, especially in Romans 11, that despite how hard the Israelites sinned and how dreadfully awful many of the nation's leaders were, Israel's still God's chosen people.

Why wouldn't they be, when God knew precisely how terrible they would be before He chose them by grace?

Given this fact, does it matter at all how badly Catholics might act or have acted in the past?

Well, let's bifurcate that question.

Does it matter in the sense of scandal?

Does it matter in terms of drawing people away from the Church?

Of course, absolutely.

Does it mean that God's election has been overridden?

Not at the corporate level.

At the individual level, you can reject the sovereignty of God in such a way that you're damning yourself.

You can't do anything to, um, override Him saying, I j- will build my Church, 'cause it's of divine and not human origins.

In the same way that, you know, individual Israelite kings might have been damned for how they behaved, and individual Israelites as well, but that doesn't mean God didn't choose Israel.

There's an election not just at the individual level, but at the corporate level as well.

And your individual malfeasance might just mean you're broken off from the Body of Christ, but not that you can kill the Body of Christ.

Still, the Church Okay, so then he, he poses two, um, potential objections to this.

Number one, Israel, once split into north and south, but were still treated by God as a single chosen people.

Couldn't something like the East/West split of the Catholic Church be seen in the same way?

Yes.

Uh, significantly though, in this schism, the 10 northern tribes are in schism.

And notice, this is actually, I think, uh, a defeater to a popular view called the branch theory that you find especially in Anglicanism that's like, Sure, there is one true Church, and then it splits into they're gonna say three branches, the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, and the Anglican, so they can kind of put themselves in- into history.

And the answer to that is just, like, No, that's not how that works.

There's still one true Church, and there have been plenty of people who've broken away from the one true Church, but that doesn't mean that there's now two true Churches or there's different branches that aren't in communion with each other.

When the northern and southern tribes, uh, have the split, uh, then the, uh, the 10 northern tribes, they're, they're in schism, and they, they set up false worship in Bethel.

And the southern tribes, with Jerusalem as the hub, are still doing what they're meant to do.

So there's still some sense in which the 10 northern tribes are part of Israel, but they're part of Israel in a strained relationship.

And we'd say that's not a bad analogy for understanding what's happened between Catholics and Orthodox, and then later between Catholics and Protestants.

Number two, God also opened the kingdom to the gentiles without rejecting Israel.

Couldn't the Protestant churches be saying, like, to gentiles such that God accepts these churches despite seeing the Catholic Church as His chosen church?

But the thing is, they're welcomed into one people, and Jesus says in John 10 He wants there to be one flock with one shepherd.

So He doesn't say, I'm gonna keep my flock over here, and then I want you guys to set up your own flocks, and that's fine, too.

He says the exact opposite of that, that it's not enough to have one shepherd, which Protestants and Orthodox and Catholics all do.

Like, we, we all have the same Lord.

We also need to be one flock.And you can't say it's, it's enough that we become one flock in some loose metaphorical sense just by all having one shepherd.

Clearly, we're being called to more in John 10.

So, yes, the doors of salvation are open and the doors of the Church are open.

But you have to actually accept that invitation.

So, the problem the gentiles were facing is the doors didn't seem to be open to them, at least to membership in Israel.

Now, the new Israel, the fulfillment of Israel is the, the remnant from old Israel coupled with the gentiles.

And the gathering together, the ecclesia of those people together, is known as the Church.

John Douglas says, Thank you for depend- defending the papacy and being strongly traditional without crossing the line.

You've been invaluable in my conversion from Protestantism.

Well, God bless you.

And welcome home, um, both to John and to everyone who, who entered the Church this Easter, entered into full communion this Easter.

It's, it's glorious.

It's, it's really beautiful, and this is such a joyful time of the year.

Zalmoxis?

Am I pronouncing that right?

I think I'm supposed to ask my doctor if Zalmoxis is right for me.

Uh, says, Joe, how did you transition from legal work to apologetics?

Can you explain that move?

Also, as a litigator myself, I commend you for your debate against James White.

Excellent work.

God bless you.

Thank you very much.

Um, yeah, I went from legal work actually into seminary.

And the, uh, the CEO of the firm, uh, said, Well, we can't out-compete God.

Like we can't compete against God.

So he was, he was very gracious about it.

It was actually really beautiful.

I, you know, I was working for a secular firm, and not everybody there was, was religious.

But it was a really beautiful experience.

I had been Um, I went to Georgetown for law school and then was working in the DC area, and was dating a young woman who I'd actually met i- in Kansas who, who had then gone out to DC to, to work for an intelligence agency out there.

And she was a convert from Protestantism, and her Protestant mom was one of the people who was asking, you know, her daughter, um, whether I wasn't meant to become a priest, which was not what you get every day from, you know, non-Catholics who think you might have a vocation to the priesthood.

You don't believe in the priesthood.

And then I thought, You know, are you just trying to get rid of me?

But it didn't seem like that.

We have a, uh, we had a very good relationship, and, and actually continued to have warm encounters when I would run into her in, in the years after that.

I haven't seen her in years.

But yeah, so th- it wasn't just j- jumping straight from being a lawyer to, uh, like Catholic Answers or anything like that.

That said, I did do apologetics on the side as a lawyer, and it was, um a huge, like, time suck when I was very busy in other ways.

So, you know, it, I- I was very grateful for the opportunity to be a lawyer.

But it was clear i- in hindsight that I had this other call on my heart that I, I couldn't find a way of just like getting away from.

And I, you know, it sounds like as a litigator, you're, you're familiar with the experience.

Like, one of the, the grossest things about law, in my experience, is you bill in these short increments, you know, every six minutes or every three minutes or whatever.

And so, if you're not careful, that can seep into how everything else in your life goes, where you, you write an email and you're just like, Ugh, or a personal email, and that was like five billing segments.

Or, and you're just like, Don't, just don't do that.

It, it's so gross when you're thinking about what the time value of your, or the, the financial value of your time is.

Uh, yeah, so word of warning there for anyone who might be discerning law.

Um, but yeah, so it went from there into seminary and then from seminary to actually working for a group called School of Faith that did formation with school teachers and secondary and, uh, just kind of doing catechetical formation.

And then from there, ended up joining Catholic Answers in January of 2021.

So yeah, the, uh, the pictures of me in collar are all from like 2017 and before, so I'm absolutely a baby in those.

CatholicChristian gave me $5 gas money to come to Wichita for a collab.

I'm willing to go $5 of the way to Wichita, but I'm, I'm not sure at these prices.

Actually, hey, I might make it there.

I might not make it back.

Uh, becomethenite, Mike, I am sending you your money back.

So for those of you who don't know, this is Mike Caprice, who is my editor.

And for some reason, he, uh, gave me $10 to answer a question I would have happily answered from him directly.

Uh, so the question is on 1 John 5. This is another biblical insertion question.

Uh, let me pull it up here.

1 John 5:8, the so-called Johannine Comma.

So in the version that's in the RSV-CE, it says, There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three agree.

The Vulgate then has, um, in verse 7 and 8, There are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.

And there are three that give testimony on earth, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are one.

The earliest that's found is in the fourth century in Latin and in the 15th century in Greek.

And, uh, as the comment notes on the RSV-CE, this is probably what was called a marginal gloss, meaning th- So if you think about the, the way manuscripts are laid out, this is actually an important bit of context to make sense of when there are errors in m- biblical manuscripts.

A lot of times, they're not intentional insertions and you, you think it You know, the popular imagination is people are just like writing in their own theology.

But the reality is, is slightly different.

They were often writing their own theology on the side, kind of next to it.

But if it wasn't carefully notated, like, This font, this, you know, this writing style, this location, um, is just me commenting on the scripture on the side, the danger is, you know, like, uh, yeah, okay.

So you take a book and it's- you got a book and it's printed, and you can, like, fill in notes on the side.

And it's very clear because you've got pen, uh, which things are from the author and which things are, uh, just your own commentary.

When you subscribe who's doing both, and you don't have typing and none of that's a thing, then it's easier to have those get conflated.

And so there are two possibilities, and I think one of them is clearly right.

You will find people, like the KJV-only crowd, I've, I've heard them make this argument, that this Trinitarian passage, um, was excluded by enemies of the Trinity.

Now, that strikes me as entirely implausible, because the copies circulating are being circulated by Trinitarian Christians who have no motive to remove what would have been this incredibly clear Trinitarian verse.

If that verse, if 1 John 5:7-8 was as it appears in the Vulgate in the earliest biblical manuscripts, then all of the fights about the Trinity would have been Everybody would be running to that verse, because obviously, right?

And so it, it actually is too good of a verse, and so it definitely seems like someone took the actual line in 1 John 5 and then wrote, Well, there's a threefold heavenly witness and then a threefold earthly witness, as a commentary on 1 John 5, which makes total sense as a commentary, it's totally theologically correct, and then it worked its way into the text by mistake.

Somebody copying a copy, that sort of thing.

Um, and, and so then, you know, in the Renaissance people realized this was the case.

And again, the fact you don't have this in any of the early Greek manuscripts is pretty strong evidence that this was an accidental insertion.

Um, Parker sent me $2 and said, Don't spend it all in one place.

Sounds like I'm spending it in gas money towards Wichita, we'll, we'll see.

Uh, my wife did notice, like a week Uh, no, no, a week ago, two days ago, on Saturday, I, I was giving a talk at a men's conference in Jefferson City, and she's like, We have never You've never gone to Wichita in the entire time I've, I've been married to you.

So I don't know what's going on.

Wichita has this thriving Catholic culture, but they never ask for Joe Heschmeyer to come down there.

So no pressure, anyone in Wichita.

But I do speak publicly, um, it does cost more than $5, but that's There you go.

Uh, Following Star says, A Protestant scholar named James Snapp Jr. has strong arguments on why the Pericope Adulterae is legit, has to do with lectionary manuscripts/scribal notes.

I would be interested in that.

I mean, I think it's inspired.

I don't, I don't think you have to argue that it is of Johannine authorship, um, to be, you know, authoritative, and I haven't heard good arguments in favor of why it would be.

So, um, ba-ba-ba-boom.

Sorry, I'm looking There was something in the Wikipedia article about it that might be helpful, but never mind.

Oh, here we go.

Arguments for Johannine scholarship.

The story of the adulteress has been defended by those who teach the Byzantine Priority Theory, this is about which manuscript traditions are oldest, and by those who defend the superiority of the text as receptus.

Yeah, you'll find that, among certain Protestants, very similar to the Johannine, uh, Comma.

This is the same kind of thing.

Among these, Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad argue for Johannine authorship of the Pericope.

They suggest that there are points of similarity between the Pericope's style and the style of the rest of the Gospel.

They claim the details of the encounter fit very well into the context of the surrounding verses.

They argue that the Pericope's appearance in the majority of manuscripts, if not in the oldest ones, is evidence of its authenticity.

None of that strikes me as particularly good argumentation, because it can sound Johannine without proving that it is, in fact, Johannine.

Um, usually stylistic arguments work the other direction, that if something sounds just completely unlike the author, that's usually a red flag.

The fact that something doesn't sound like a different author doesn't immediately prove that it's by the same author.

Um, ba-bum-bum.

Biblical scholar Maurice Robinson argued that the anomalies in the transmission of the Pericope Adulterae may be explained by the lectionary system where, due to it being skipped during the Pentecost lesson, some scribes would relocate the story to not intervene with the flow of the Pentecost lesson.

So he's arguing that it was a mistake in the lectionary system that accidentally had it omitted.

I am dubious of that, but that's at least an interesting argument.

Like it doesn't That doesn't seem obviously wrong.

I would want to see, for an argument like that to have legs, are there other cases where we see people cutting things out of the biblical text for the sake of, of the lectionary?

I know you can find that today with the lectionary where, you know, passages will be elided or skipped over, and, you know, if you're just reading like a missalette, you might notice it's jumping over some verses, um, usually the really good stuff.

Um, okay, I'm showing a $5 Superchat from Zarky, but no actual, uh, question.

So if I missed a question, please let me know.

And then a $10 Superchat to piggyback on my Joe to Wichita gas fund.

I know how dull that trip through Emporia can be.

Yeah, but Braum's, you know what I'm saying?

For those of you who don't know, Braum's is a Southern It's got to be Oklahoma-based.

I think it's Oklahoma-based, uh, ice cream place.

But they're also just like They do dairy and they do really good.

And in fact even people who have like a, um, lactose sensitivity, they do Is it each one?

There's two different forms, I don't understand any of this well enough, but for some reason people who are sensitive to ice cream and milk and everything else can often have their stuff because it's fresh and doesn't use the stuff that triggers the allergy.

Don't ask any further questions, I don't know.

Um-Speaking of very good ice cream, it's the Easter season.

Let's be real here.

Uh, and really fresh dairies.

Central Dairy in Jefferson City is legit, and I'm very glad I don't live in Jefferson City because of that.

Not because of any uh, I love Jefferson City's a beautiful little town, 40,000 people, and built on hills, and lots of nice old buildings and all that.

All right, That One Catholic Girl.

Okay, people who work for Catholic Answers, stop sending me This is getting embarrassing.

Uh, can you explain the difference between consubstantiation and transubstantiation?

Oh yeah, sorry, it's A2.

A1 and A2.

A2 is the good one, thank you, Jonathan.

Not H1.

Um, yeah, that's like visas.

Yeah, so consubstantiation is the term that many non-Lutherans use for the Lutheran view.

I've seen some Lutherans use it for their own Eucharistic theology, but they often resist and reject that view, or that term for their view, preferring just the idea that Christ is in, with, and under the bread and wine.

So you have bread and wine, and then Christ's body becomes present there in some way, but not in such a way that it ceases to be bread and wine.

So this is going to be something more.

So think about kind of tiers here.

The bottom tier, uh, the lowest view, is going to be the mere memorialist view.

This is Zwingli, this is a lot of modern day non-denominational, Evangelical, Baptist types.

And it's just the bread and wine, or crackers, or bread and water if you're Mormon, or whatever else.

It's just a symbol.

This is just a visible It might as well be a poster.

In fact, a poster would be better, because a poster is much better at symbolizing things than two food items are.

I- it's just a symbol of Christ's body and blood, and that's it.

And, and that's a very popular view in the US, and that is historically without root, and it's pretty bad.

Above that, you have John Calvin's view, the view of some of the more traditional reform that Christ is spiritually present in some way, but they're notoriously vague on what that way is and what that means.

I mean, Christ is spiritually present in my neighbor.

I don't worship my neighbor.

So how is Christ's mode of presence different, and is he bodily present?

It doesn't It just sounds like spiritually present in some amorphous kind of way.

And, you know, Christ is present in the congregation, in the gathering, where two or three are gathered in his name.

So what are we really claiming?

This sounds, it's a little higher than, than the bottom view, but it's still pretty I mean, it's notoriously vague, for one.

And it doesn't tell you how you want to approach the elements.

Lutheranism, and some forms of Anglicanism, are going to go above that and say, Yes, Christ is actually bodily present.

But, and Lutherans are much more clear about this, it still remains bread and wine.

So two issues with this.

Number one, uh, you can ask the question of worship.

Do you worship the Eucharist?

And historically, the Lutheran answer is no.

Or, or you could ask, do you take the Eucharist to the sick?

And historically, the answer is no.

There's actually a article, an article written by the What I want to say is the actually the founder of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod about why you don't do that.

Um, because the Lutheran view is that Christ is in, with, and under the elements during the liturgy, and only during the liturgy.

Well, that is historically.

You can't maintain that.

You go back and read the First Apology of Justin Martyr in the mid 100s, and you see they're bringing the Eucharist to the sick.

Saint Tarcisius famously is killed and martyred for, uh, bringing the Eucharist to the sick, and, and then being assaulted by a gang of boys who wanted to see the Eucharist.

And because he wouldn't give what is holy to the dogs, he wouldn't even reveal the Eucharist to them, and was killed instead.

Uh, Saint Ambrose in his funeral sermon for his brother talks about this moment where his brother is at sea, and he hadn't even been baptized yet, uh, and the boat starts to sink.

And so he has a Christian bring the Eucharist to him wrapped in a, like a kerchief, like a handkerchief, and places it around his neck and throws himself into the water, knowing that he'll be saved with the help of Christ.

And he, he survives, miraculously.

Um, so the fact that the Eucharist is on that ship, the fact that you have people reserving the Eucharist from a very early age, that we can find, and bringing the Eucharist, and so on, is a mark against the Lutheran view.

Uh, additionally, the fact that they talk about it no longer being the bread and wine is going to be another argument against that.

But then I think the deepest argument does become this notion of what's called impanation.

So in the incarnation, God, without ceasing to be God in any way, becomes man.

He takes a human nature to himself while still being a divine person, with everything that entails.

Now, you can do that because there's nothing in being divine and nothing in being human that inherently contradict.

God doesn't have a body, but it's not part of the definition of God not to have a body.

So there's nothing, um, that's a conflict between that.

Now, anyone who has a view of humanity, you know, to err is human, that views something as sin is being part of human nature, would then make the incarnation impossible.

This is one of the reasons I hate the phrase to err is human.

And one of the reasons I hate the expression sin nature that you hear in some Protestant circles.

That no, this is a, a broken element introduced into a good human nature.

Otherwise, you cannot say the word became flesh.

That's the incarnation.

Well, the problem is impanation would be the word becoming bread.

Now notably, Lutheranism does not as such affirm this, but it is difficult to see how its theology avoids this reality.

Because I can't be fully man and fully bread.

Like the gingerbread man is an abomination.

Uh, because unlike being fully divine and fully human there is an inherent contradiction where there's a spatial reality to bodiliness, and that bodiliness cannot be both human and the, not bodiliness, but materiality of bread.

There's an actual contradiction there, um, 'cause they work at the same level of reality.

Maybe this will make sense.

Why?

Why did it do this?

Okay.

Uh, I don't know what you're hearing me out of.

Yeah, you're, you, it's, you've gone to purgatory.

This is like bright lights, amazing.

All right.

Sorry, I don't know why it did that.

Um, yes, I, it is a haze.

I, I recognize that.

I can't fix it right now, but at least we made it halfway through.

Yeah.

Big Gingerbread is cracking down on my insults.

Um, anyway, that was a, a long-winded way of saying a blue triangle can be fully blue and fully triangle because the nature of blue and the nature of triangle don't intersect at all, so they can be perfectly complementary.

The nature of humanity and the nature of divinity are like that.

But to be bodily human and being materially bred, you can't be those two things.

That's like saying 100% blue and 100% red.

That would just be a contradiction.

So for that reason, uh, you run into some problems claiming that Christ is bodily present, that it is, that the same object, this, uh, Lutheran Eucharist, is simultaneously bodily, both Jesus, uh, bodily and Here, let me at least get out of the glare.

Oh, all right.

Shamelessly angelic.

Yeah, my halo, my manufactured halo that's kind of square-looking.

Um, now it just looks like maybe I've had a, a Road to Damascus moment.

Um, yet is, is, the problem is not Christ being spiritually in with and under bread and wine.

The problem is him being bodily in with and under.

That doesn't seem to make any sense intellectually or, or, uh, philosophically.

As an aside, I was reading a little bit from Luther's address to Christian nobility from 1520, earlier.

So I, and bear in mind, like I didn't ask anyone to ask me a question that would make me talk about, uh, Lutheran philosophy, but we're gonna go there.

Luther, in his address to the Christian nobility in 1520 says, My advice would be that Aristotle's physics, metaphysics, on the soul ethics, which have hitherto been thought his best books, should be altogether discarded, together with all the rest of his books which boast of treating the things of nature, although nothing can be learned from them, either of the things of nature or the things of the spirit.

So he's actually making the argument that you can learn nothing from Aristotle, and then he says, Moreover, no one has so far understood his meaning.

Many souls have been burdened with profitous labor and study at the cost of much precious time.

I would venture to say that any potter has more knowledge of nature than what is written in these books.

It a crazy attack on Aristotle, the idea that no one can learn anything from Aristotle, just say you don't understand Aristotle, bro.

Just say, Well, nobody understands him.

It's gonna get crazier.

He goes, It grieves me to the heart that this damned, conceited, rascally heathen has, with his false words, deluded and made fools of so many of the best Christians.

God has sent him as a plague upon our sins.

This is like the stereotype of the idiotic Christian in the secular context, right?

Like the person who's just like, Oh, this dang science is destroying our souls.

And it's like, I don't think real medieval Christians thought that way.

Uh, but Luther is absolutely thinking this way.

He then goes on and kind of complains that, This dead heathen has conquered and obstructed and almost suppressed the books of the living God, so that when I think of this miserable business, I can believe nothing else than that the evil spirit has introduced the study of Aristotle.

So the devil introduced Aristotle.

Now, that would have been insane to the early Christians, who had a deeply Aristotelian view in many cases, as well as a deeply Platonic view.

But then finally, he says, again, his book on ethics is the worst of all books.

Now, this is a huge critical Like virtue ethics, it's having a moment in the last century because it is brilliant, but fine.

It flatly opposes divine grace and all Christian virtues and yet is considered one of his best works.

Away with such books.

Keep them away from all Christians.

Now, remember the context.

He's arguing that the state should outlaw Aristotle.

Let no one accuse me of exaggeration or of condemning what I do not understand.

I will say, you clearly don't know Aristotle.

My dear friend, I know well whereof I speak.

I know my Aristotle as well as you or the likes of you.

I have lectured on him and heard lectures on him, and I understand him better than do St. Thomas or Scotus.

I want to just make clear that I don't think any scholar of Aristotle today, regardless of their denominational affiliation or religion, et cetera, would view this as anything other than like insane, egotistical, narcissistic rambling.

Like the idea like, I know Aristotle better than Aquinas and Scotus do, I would, I would be shocked to hear an actual scholar of Aristotle make that claim.

And you just find some rando monk because he's like, Well, I've, I've heard some talks on him.

I've talked about him before, think that they have that level of knowledge.

I point this out partly 'cause it's hilarious to me, but also partly because I know many times people are just like, Well, maybe the church really was as horrible as Luther thought in the 16th century, and, y- you know, because most Christians today don't have a deep grasp of church history, they hear Luther say these insane-sounding things about how bad the church is, and maybe it was that bad.

Well, here you go.

Aristotle was dead.

Aristotle didn't do anything to deserve the attack that he got.

And when you see like what an unhinged bit of rambling, uh, Luther had against Aristotle and how arrogantly he thought he knew Aristotle better than everyone else, my hope is that it gives you at least a little bit of pause.

Now, apologies for like a 10-minute rant about Luther and Aristotle based on the question on transubstantiation and consubstantiation, but there you go.

Uh, Rapadom says, Tradition is swell and all, but the web pages of the Holy See are in dire need of a redesign.

I'm Lutheran, but I think we can be ecumenical on this.

Brother-Hope you enjoyed my rant about Luther.

Uh, but two, the-- you know who's killing us both with web design?

The Mormons.

If you've been on like the Mormon Church's website, uh, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint, any of these, like it is-- they're so good.

And yet, meanwhile, ours are terrible.

Now part of that, in the smallest defense of the Catholic Church's website here, is that you have this problem with like everything being in a gazillion different languages, so it actually is genuinely hard to maintain.

But the number of times I've seen like typos and grammatical, not just grammatical, like it'll be like weird fonts where like there's clearly some kind of rendering error.

You know when you see like instead of a space, you get like the percentage sign number five, uh, between words?

I d- I don't know what they're using.

Um, but yeah, it's- it's bad.

So yes, this is I'm thinking about doing a tier list on arguments against the Catholic Church.

It'd be kind of funny to include that one, 'cause it's- you- you're dead on.

It's terrible.

I think it was the same website that Martin Luther was using when he was reading about Aristotle.

All right, Zarkhi says, uh, I was wondering how that would relate to the theology of the body and the inseparability of the body and soul.

Lila answered saying she thought they would still be the same person.

Could I have an ounce of context for that?

Zarkhi, I'm going to see if, uh, maybe Vanessa can find out the context of what you just asked and- and I will, um Oh, I saw a clip from a debate between Lila Rose and Destiny where he asked her if you could transplant someone's brain, would that still be the same person?

That's a great question.

This is a Ship of Thesis kind of question.

Uh, if you took someone's brain out, they would die and so would the new person.

Uh, there's this idea that Uh, so okay, a lot of this gets into mind/brain dualism, and there's a lot of unanswered questions about this, um, because we think of the brain as the seat of consciousness.

And that's not right, the mind is, but it's using the brain for sort of the hardware, uh, that, or like the memory, if you want to use a gross technological kind of example, or at least the hard drive.

So, you know, you could have a perfectly functional, um, computer without having like your C drive, because I'm an old person and I remember the C drive.

Maybe if you're running it off of something else and then you- you remove the hard drive but the computer's still running.

So it- it's running, it's fine, but it can't access anything in terms of permanent storage.

Um, seemingly something like that is sort of at issue when we're talking about the relationship of the mind and the brain.

So it- it's a really fascinating question, uh, in terms of if we ever could, like move someone's brain into someone else's body.

I'm skeptical that it just literally cannot happen, but you can do that with the heart and the organ isn't what Like if- when you take someone's heart out, leaving aside all the moral implications of vital organ donation, uh, you take person A's heart out and put it in person B's body, it's still clearly person B with someone else's heart.

You- you know, it's- you talk to them as clearly person B. Because of the relationship of the mind to the brain, it's a great question and I don't know the answer, um, in terms of what- when you talk to that person, what are you going to get?

Another way to put it would be should we understand this as a brain transplant or a body transplant?

Like you've got person A and person B, and person A's brain and person B's b- brain.

Is this an issue of, uh, person A loses their brain and gets person B's brain or is person A so tied to their brain for the exercise of consciousness that it'd be better to say person A gets person B's body?

So which same person they would be?

I'm inclined to think that you give them a new brain and it's going to look a lot like, uh, giving them a new heart so that if it did work, they would just have memories that weren't their own memories, which is pretty bizarre.

But they'd just like remember things that had happened to another person.

Um, yeah, we- I mean, the reality is there's something a little science fictiony about it 'cause we just don't know.

All right, um, maniah24 asks, What's the number one best breakfast fast food spot in your opinion?

That's a good one.

I am a sucker for Okay, look, I used to live in the suburbs.

I don't do this nearly as much anymore because I'm no longer trying to like get children out of the house while my wife rests 'cause she was like up all night with the kids.

But I used to, uh, have these situations where I'd be, you know, trying to figure out something to do and sometimes I'd be hungry and I'd be out of the house and I'd swing by and we lived four blocks away from a McDonald's and a Taco Bell.

And I got into the habit, not habit, occasional indulgence where I would get, um, Taco Bell's Crunchwrap and I'm already telling them, I'm not covering myself in glory here.

But I don't love either of their coffee, so I'd get, uh, like a diet Coke from McDonald's.

I would go through two drive-throughs, food from Taco Bell, but there was nothing at Taco Bell that sounded appealing to drink.

And- and then I would, uh, get the soda from McDonald's.

Um, it's been a while.

It's been a while since I've done this, let the record show.

We- we moved here, uh, more than a year ago and so I no longer live where I can do that, and thanks be to God.

Now though, we live walking distance from really good bakeries and that's a different problem.

At least I'm walking there and, you know, there's some Yeah, splitting a homemade Pop-Tart with the kids after we have some bacon and eggs, that's, uh, an indulgence we definitely did for Divine Mercy Sunday yesterday.All right.

Matt says, How do you respond to a Protestant who asks how we know who is and is not in Heaven, eh, as relates to praying to the saints?

So, I would say two things.

Number one, there's some people we know are in Heaven because the church has said so, using the authority of the Church.

Number two, uh, it's a harmless error if we're wrong.

So, we don't have perfect knowledge for the vast majority of people, and Sorry, I was reading about gut microbiome about, but it turned out it was about the brain transplant.

I thought people were telling me I was ruining my gut microbiome with Taco Bell.

We all I mean, that would also be true, but it's been a long time since I've had Taco Bell breakfast.

Okay, sorry.

So, the I think the problem that comes up in, in people's mind is, what if I'm asking for so-and-so's prayers and they're not actually in Heaven, they're in purgatory, or worse, they're in Hell?

Number one, when you pray to canonized saints it's not an issue.

Number two, even if you're like, asking your loved ones to pray for you and they- they'll say they're not in Heaven, or not in Heaven yet, um, that's harmless.

It's not like you're conjuring up the souls in Hell.

Like, imagine this way.

Let's say Look, this is gonna be grim.

I'm gonna warn you.

Let's say you're, you're doing the dishes and, and you call out for your roommate to help because, like, they never help with the dishes.

Unbeknownst to you, your roommate just died and went straight to Hell because they never help with the dishes.

Now, have you just asked for help from someone who's in Hell?

Technically, yes.

Is that a sin?

That would be absurd because you had, uh, no reason to believe that they were in Hell.

You had every reason to think they were not.

And, and then there it's just like, oh, okay.

Well, that's bad.

And we do this regularly.

We will talk to people if we don't know if they're alive or dead.

Oh, I say regularly, I'm not regularly like, talking to people who I'm seeing who I'm not sure if they're alive or not.

But like Pope Francis, when he died, one of the things in the actual, uh, kind of order of events for confirming papal death is you speak to the possibly deceased pope.

And if he responds, okay, well he didn't die.

And if he didn't, then you proceed as everything else.

Um, yeah.

Hopefully that helps.

I'm gonna jump this one to the top because it's so dorky.

Robadam says, Best soda, Dr. Poper or Holy Sprite?

Which reminds me of the, uh, have you've seen the cartoon where like, the best Catholic fast food place is Popeyes 'cause it just says, Pope yes.

So, well done Robadam.

If, uh, someone needed to bring, uh, cheesy jokes into this and I'm, I'm glad it was you.

Uh, Sparkling Witch, I think we call that when we're dealing with carbonated beverages.

All right.

I'll Do It Eventually I was confused by that note and then realized that's your name, and it says so much about your personality.

Uh, What do you think is the hardest thing to explain to a Bible-only Christian Church of Christ at their first Mass?

I want to take my brother to Mass when I visit this weekend.

Trying to be prepared.

The speed is so different, that the vibe is just totally different.

Like, if you are trying to introduce someone to classical music and they've only done pop, it's gonna just be hard at a gut level to sort of adjust all that.

More than anything being like, heretical or bad or crazy or evil, I think the, the danger in both cases, it, it Everyone looks at it as just like, oh, no one cares, everybody's lukewarm.

And that's not what's happening, but you have to adjust.

Um, while we're talking food, this is one of the biggest adjustments m- Americans have when they go eat in Europe.

When everything isn't chock-full of salt and sugar, then at first you're like, Everything's really bland.

And then later it's like, Oh wait, actually this is really better.

But it takes some adjustment.

So, you can kind of warn him on that, uh, that, you know, this might be a little more subdued even during Easter time than, than he might be used to.

And, and s- second also, it's, it's less focused around the preaching.

The role of the priest is more like the role of an emcee than like, the main event.

He's there to help facilitate things, and the main event is Jesus, coming first in His Word, and then even more so in the Eucharist.

And so the priest facilitates that.

He proclaims the Gospel, or the deacon does, he unpacks it, but it's not about him.

And so there's much less emphasis given on like, the homily.

Uh, Mountain Desert says, Hey Joe, are you familiar with Jason Staples?

It appears he does not agree with the Protestant view of faith alone.

Please have him on your show.

I am not familiar.

I'm familiar with Tim Staples.

Um, maybe send a link.

I don't also have people on the show really.

I don't really do interviews with this show.

I've had a lot of people ask if they can be on the show or s- suggest guests.

But Well, I used to have a channel where I'd do much more of those things, but the thing is I'm not a great interviewer because I'm really, uh, golden retriever-ish perhaps with my personality, and I want to just like, jump in and talk about whatever the subject is if I find it interesting.

So, the more interesting the topic is, the more likely I am to obnoxiously want to like, add my own two cents.

Not because I think more I know more than the guest, but because I just like, that's how I think about issues and- and want to unpack them.

Okay, Monica says, I struggle with explaining to my family the danger of speaking to a medium even though she tries to justify her actions saying she has good intentions and just wants to talk to her fiance.

Yeah, but what if it's a demon?

So, I would just say mediums I don't think we say media for the plural.

Mediums, um, are in the business of, at best, lying and ripping people off.

Or at worst, actually putting themselves in contact with the spiritual realm they've been explicitly told not to by our Lord.And so God is not going to reward someone opening that door and reward by having, you know, the person they want come through and, and, you know, have this loving, beautiful encounter.

God's not gonna reward that.

So either nobody's coming through that door and the medium is lying to you or something evil pretending to be your loved one is coming through that door.

Both of those are bad and seriously, dangerously, wickedly bad.

Um, okay, I actually, believe it or not, got through all the questions.

And I actually have some questions from Patreon, so I will turn to those if nobody has questions.

Um ba, ba, ba, bum.

All right.

I just came across the story of David and Abigail in 1 Samuel 25 and was wondering if it might be another Biblical type prefigurement for intercessory prayers, obtaining God's forgiveness for others.

So let's pull up 1 Samuel 25.

I don't remember a intercessory part of this.

Oh, yeah.

But she's, she is, um, interceding with her husband, I thought.

Is that not the Yeah.

She's interceding to protect the life of her husband, Nabal.

And so yeah, it does show that intercession is, is clearly a thing.

Oh, Daniel Ward has Uh, you know what?

So tell you what.

Patrick, I will save your question for when we're doing members only.

And also I just realized I'm, like, staring straight up.

That's because I'm using two screens, so apologies for that.

Uh, Daniel Ward asks, Thomism or Scotism or Molinism, which school do you identify the best?

I know by Thomism you mean Bonacianism, but I It really is, it is a difference, because I think there are some really good Thomists who don't fall into the Bonys kind of camp, and those would be the ones that I would probably identify with the most.

I, I studied under Lawrence Weingolt, and I think he is probably, it's fair to say, in that camp, although I may be wrong about his own views.

Father William Most's book, Grace, Predestination, and the Salvific Will of God, uh, is m- one of the best books on the subject, for my money.

This is one of those areas where, uh, the guys at Catholic Answers are not always on the same page, so to speak, but neither are the great theologians of the Church.

Neither are, you know, uh, Thomas Aquinas and, uh, say Ignatius, seemingly, Ignatius of Loyola.

So I think it's okay.

Um, yeah.

There we go.

If there are other questions, I will answer those .

Actually, you know what?

I saw this one just pop up.

Jonathan asked, How does it feel knowing that Sedevacantists were right?

And I wanted to address that.

Not that they were right, obviously.

I know that's a joke.

Because I saw, um, a priest who isn't quite a Sedevacantist himself complaining that we were referring to ourselves as Sedevacantists during this time and, and saying, Oh, you know, words have meaning, and But yeah, the meaning is you're someone who believes the seat of Peter is empty and Catholics do and, and Sedevacantists do.

So the question will become, well, what happens next?

Now, I think the Sedevacantists are just gonna say, Well, none of those cardinals are real cardinals, and therefore they can't elect a new pope.

Uh, but in that case, you have painted yourself into this impossible corner where it's not just that you don't think there's a pope now, it's not just that you don't think there's going to be a pope a month from now, it's that you don't think that there can ever be a pope.

And now that is an anathematized position.

Vatican I speaks of the papacy as a perpetual institution.

If you think that the papacy is gone in a way where it is unrecoverable, barring some new miraculous intervention, then you don't think it's a perpetual institution.

That's not what a perpetual institution is.

That's much closer, ironically, to the Protestant views of really, like, a great apostasy, where, like, the Church is destroyed but God can send a Luther or Calvin or somebody to resurrect it.

And I understand that's not the reformers' original view of themselves, although Luther in his characteristic, uh, humility, has some times where he compares himself to Noah, like in his commentary on Genesis, where it does sound a little bit like he thinks he is actually the savior of the Church.

But yeah, like, if, if you think the papacy has ceased to exist and the mechanism to get a new pope has also ceased to exist, we have to either invent our own.

This is how you get, like, Antipope Michael, where it's like his family is voting for him and like his mom is one of the cardinal electors.

And you're like, that's clearly not the Catholic model.

Um, this is why, like I, I know this is dorky, I know this is at least in part coming from having been a lawyer, but the idea that you can create this situation where there's just no mechanism to legally have a new pope should strike every Catholic as so ridiculous, so absurd that it is just an impossibility.

And you don't have to get into 2025 Catholic politics or, uh, revisit Vatican II or any, none of that.

You don't have to do any of that.

You could ask a Catholic in the year 1000, Hey, um, Is it possible that the pope's going to go away in such a way we can't get the pope back ever?

And I think they would rightly be like, No, that's ridiculous.

That's impossible.

Even in the 1400s where there was a deep question about who the valid pope was, everyone agreed there was a pope and that there was only one pope.

You'll hear Catholics today talk about there being, like, three popes at the same time.

Nobody thought there were three popes.

They thought there was one pope and two pretenders.

They didn't all agree who the two pretenders were because of the mechanism for, for how we, we get a pope.Um, Harry Rope says, Why aren't you dropping everything and trying to convert Mel Gibson?

That would be good payback.

I'd, uh, I w- I wanted to say a Mel Gibson pun for his, uh, Joe Rogan interview.

All right.

Jesse says, My wife and I are only civilly married.

I asked about a dispensation but she's against it.

I don't want to force her.

The priest said I can receive the Eucharist spiritually.

What does that mean?

So two things.

Number one, you can go to confession.

So I don't know your whole story, but it sounds like knowing better you didn't follow the instructions for how to become married as a Catholic, and don't have a valid marriage in the eyes of God, but you have the material that could make for a valid marriage.

So it isn't like you- you're in a gay union or something.

The right course of action is to rectify this completely so that you and your wife can get your marriage blessed, and you can actually have what is canonically called a radical signation, a healing of the roots, where we retroactively, uh, treat your marriage as having been valid from even when you got civilly married because everything needed for the marriage was there.

So you put this situation right before God.

You're no longer living in fornication.

You have the graces of the sacrament and, and so on.

That's obviously best case scenario.

Two, barring that, the situation you're in is that you are not married in the eyes of God to your wife, as far as any of us can tell.

And you have to act accordingly.

One way of acting would be to separate from your wife.

That is often not the appropriate course of action for your, you know, putative wife.

Uh, it's often not the appropriate course of action because of children, that the scandal you give by just, like, leaving the family is greater than the scandal given by the handful of people who know you're only civilly married.

Um, and so in those cases, Pope John Paul II talks about a familiaris consortio, that you can live as brother and sister under, you know, like, for, for the right reasons.

Now, you still have to then engage in the spiritual battle of making sure that you, you don't fall into sin by fornicating together, 'cause that's what it would be.

Uh, but there, for, that would be one of the rare handful of cases where you have a, a good cause of living with a woman you're not married to.

There are a handful of cases you, you can come up with, you know.

Um, then let's say you fall short of that, and you're in a situation where you're not able to receive the Eucharist.

You can make a prayer asking Jesus to come into your heart in those cases, uh, because you haven't been able to make it to confession, for instance.

But I do think you should not treat that as an exception to just be like, All right.

I'm gonna go ahead and live in sin.

Um, and, and, you know, like, that, that'd be clearly not the, I think, the way to, to rectify that or harmonize that.

All right.

Daniel Word, I think I can give a, a short answer to your question.

I can give a longer one in two weeks if, if you wanna come back.

Uh, Cantate Domino, uh, or the papal bull at Florence talks about the necessity of, uh, submitting to the Roman pontiff for salvation.

And Lumen Gentium, divine claim they contradict.

It's a difference in emphasis.

Catholics before, during, and after the Council of Florence, Catholics before, during, and after Vatican II recognized that somebody who didn't realize, uh, a certain divine claim is treated differently as someone who knowingly rejects that divine claim.

Invincible ignorance is something that we hear very clearly in the 19th century.

It's not invented then.

The difference is one of emphasis, that at the time of the Council of Florence, it was much more common to just assume everybody knew, and so anyone who was not a Catholic was consciously rejecting the Catholic Church 'cause, you know, most of the people at the Council of Florence lived in societies where everybody was a Catholic or deeply engaged with Catholicism.

That is no longer the way the world looks now, and so we're much more likely to assume people have a, a kind of excusing ignorance.

But this is Biblical, right?

Like, the times of ignorance God has overlooked, when we hear about that, uh, when St. Paul talks about the Athenians and their approach to religions in the Areopagus, uh, Jesus saying, Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.

It is a different assessment of the state of the individual believer, not 'cause we disagree on the dogma, it is still necessary to be Catholic for salvation.

Vatican II actually reaffirms anyone aware of that who consciously rejects it is damned.

The difference is Vatican II thinks there's probably a lot fewer people in that category than Florence thinks there are, and that's probably true in both cases.

All right.

Batman Incorporated said, Is it possible to do a video covering Protestantism's treatment of religion as if it were a bad word, and that Christianity isn't a religion?

Even if not, thank you for all your work, Joe.

God bless.

I do talk about this in one of the chapters in The Eucharist Is Really Jesus.

Now obviously, a lot of Protestants are totally fine with the word religion.

There is an evangelical, uh, kind of push against, Oh, it's all about relationship, not religion.

And it's unbiblical, right?

Scripture speaks of Christianity as religion.

A true and undefiled religion is this.

It's like caring for widows and stuff.

But two, healthy relationships have structure.

So if I said, like, My relationship with my wife isn't a marriage, it's just like a relationship, man, it's like what are you talking about?

Is your wife a concubine or do you have an actual relationship that is governed by rules and regulations, AKA a marriage?

And so healthy relationships have boundaries which means that they have rules.

Sometimes they're explicit.

Sometimes they're implicit.

And the Biblical term for a structured relationship, well, one sense would be religion, but I think an even more formalized term would be covenant.

Is if you wanna know what God's relationship with his people looks like, look to the covenants, and particularly look to the new covenant.

Jesus mentions the new covenant one time and it's in the institution of the Eucharist.

And I, I talk about all this a lot more in my chapter on how the Eucharist explains the covenant in my book, The Eucharist Is Really Jesus.

So there you go.

I'm, uh, happy so many of you tuned in and hope it was helpful for you.

I will be back in two weeks.

If you can't wait that long, go to shamelessjoe.com.

All right.

God bless you.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Fa- Kanye was here and had a question, and I always respond to Kanye.

Um, he said, uh, Father, thoughts on Father Garrigou-Lagrange?

I've got a picture in, in color actually of me at the tomb of Father Garrigou-Lagrange, so I think that probably answers that question.

All right.

God bless you guys.

I hope you have a wonderful day.

Peace.