https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=XUWmQX2L25g
Good evening. Happy Sunday. And for some reason, it’s still light outside. If anybody can get to the bottom of this, let me know in the chat. How you doing, Xander? Wouldn’t that be the daylight savings? Oh, yeah, the nonsense with the clocks. Yeah. You didn’t notice this morning? I did notice. Actually, that was my opening. That was my opening for my homily today. I go out there and I just kind of I’m quiet for a second. That throws people off, you know, when you’re quiet all of a sudden. I just said, happy daylight savings time, everybody. And I got a polite church chuckle out of it. That’s all I’m looking for. That’s good. Tune people in. Did you have a 9 a.m. mass this morning? I did. I had the yeah, I had the 9 a.m. and I had the 6 p.m. today. OK, the boss is supposed to have the 6 p.m. But he had something going on tonight. So I got it. And I gave it to him next week because I set the calendar. Excellent. Grab grab those those key duties, right? Work the system from the inside. Yeah. Well, and then I can do things the way that I want to. And he’s just grateful that he doesn’t have to do it. So everybody’s everybody’s pleased with this arrangement. There are no downsides. Yeah. So, yeah, I went to 9 a.m. mass this morning at I just recently sort of switched my my Sunday parish routine. So I switched parishes on Sundays. And yeah, so I feel like I made the right decision going going today. It was actually one of the things that like is after the after after mass, they had like a coffee for people to gather like coffee and snacks so people can just meet in the common area and have have fellowship, I guess is the term. Yes, yes. I’m a fan. I’m a fan. Our church isn’t really set up to do that well right now, but because we don’t have the church building. And so the place where we would have coffee and donuts is where we’re having church right now. So we can’t. OK. To be trying to clear off the clear out the chairs. I just I just can’t wait for that church to be done. It’s going to be so much nicer to actually have a church than to be like in the social hall with movable chairs. It’s just this. It’s not the way it’s not the way it’s supposed to be, you know? Yeah, no, it’s not the same fix. And if anybody has a couple million lying around that they’d like to throw our way, we will gladly take it. I might even be able to get like a room or a hallway named after you. There you go. Stainless window. And I get it. If you pay for the stained glass window. Yeah, we’re not we’re not even like as far as the construction goes right now, we’re just putting in glass and like when we can, you know, we’ll have the stained glass planned out. But to actually install it is going to be that could be 20 years from now. Who knows? So are you a new church or is this a renovation on an old church? This is so West Fargo, North Dakota is growing rapidly. But when our church, our parish was founded, it was a pretty small town. And it was a really wild setup that they went for back in the 80s. So they actually had a Lutheran church on one side and a Catholic church on the other. And then a common office and gathering space in the middle. This was kind of a revolutionary thing. Yeah, as West Fargo starts to grow, that becomes unmanageable because there’s just too many people. So think about seven or eight or nine years ago, the Catholics sold off their half to the Lutherans and started building in the space that we’re in now. Okay, so we’ve got the school, we’ve got the offices and we’ve got the gathering space where we’ve been having mass for, you know, five or six years now. And now we’ve got office extension immediately behind me. So me and Father Carmel don’t have to share an office anymore. And then way over there, there’s steel up in the air for the church. Okay, that makes sense. I was wondering about the second seat over there. I was wondering if you had like one desk for the computer and one desk to resist temptation. That’s actually what I did one year in seminary because we had these study rooms. If your room was small, you would be in this study room. And there was originally going to be five of us in this one study room. And then like two guys got kicked out or left. And so there was only three of us. And Miller, he was never in there. And so me and Colin, we both had two desks apiece. Nice. I actually, I had in my first year of university, like everyone’s in, I stayed in what do you call it? The commons or the dorms. And everyone’s supposed to have a roommate in first year. But my roommate didn’t left after like three, four weeks and didn’t tell anyone that he was leaving. So as far as the school, because it was concerned, he was still there. So I got to keep my room and sort of throw somebody else in there. Well, they normally would. But he was an Indian, like a native. And he was part of a school program where he wasn’t paying for tuition. So he didn’t bother to tell anyone that he had stopped attending classes. And yeah, so they just kept the room, assuming that he was there. It wasn’t until like a few weeks before the end of the school year, before someone came in and said, is your roommate still here? Haven’t seen him. He ghosted me. Wow. That’s, yeah, but you don’t have any skin in the game. Like, I don’t know, though, people, people are crazy with college, right? Yeah. Like, they’ll just not go to class while they’re on the hook. 20 grand. Yeah, I know. Because it’s sort of like this ephemeral financial thing in the future that he has no connection. But honestly, I don’t blame him because he actually he had a young family already on the reserve. And so I think it was hard for him to actually like spend that time away from his family. And it started that he started doing long weekends. And then the long weekends sort of got longer until he just didn’t come at all. So I think that he also he already had a very substantive life and responsibilities on the reserve. So it was, you know, even so there was a difficult balance of opportunities for him. So yeah, yeah. Yeah. Interesting. Something that people don’t consider that like, you know, you offer like the skin in the game also sort of raises the stakes for people to write that if you’re you’re you’re so committed to doing it. And even though you might, if you lower the bar for entry, you’re also lowering the commitment. So you might you might encourage more people to sign up, but then also they’re going to have like the planet. It’s a planet fitness scheme. Yeah. Right. Like that’s how they’re able to to run those planet fitness is at what is it like 20 bucks a month or 10 bucks a month or whatever. You can get that gym membership, but because you’re paying so little for it. Yeah. They never go. And it’s like, yeah, I’ve got a gym membership that I haven’t utilized in like a week too. So I, you know, I will I will point out the glass walls all around me. But it’s like, yeah, I’m spending a little more than it’s a really nice gym that I go to. I’m spending a little more than 10 bucks a month on it. So that’s good. So how’s your Lenten journey going? How’s my Lenten journey going? You know, my main focus is lit was getting some of the the we could call it garbage internet time under control. You know, you don’t want to be my garbage internet. Right. Yeah. Some of that’s going well. And some of that’s like, dang. Oh, gosh, this is hard. Yeah. So I, you know, I have I have failed. I have failed in my Lenten resolutions. Throw the stones. Throw the stones. But yeah, you know, if that’s that’s a realistic assessment of where I’m at, then here we are. And I think I think the kind of the discipline that I’m looking for is something that I want to want to keep going forever, because I don’t need to waste more time on the internet. Mark’s the only one with the stones to throw stones. All right. I had the what was I going to say on that? I also did the the internet thing. I specifically said I was going to refrain from Twitter, reading Twitter, I could still post things if there’s something I really needed to announce or something. But I was going to refrain from reading Twitter. And I’ve done that. And I’ve also gone through like my video subscriptions and that and tried to like tell the algorithm to not to stop showing me things that are intensely interesting for me, but not really productive uses of my time. And that’s it’s actually it that’s gone pretty well, because it’s still showing me interesting things, but just more interesting things that are more along the lines of what, you know, I’m doing these days and not like StarCraft videos or something. That’s just is just a mindless distraction for me now. Yeah. I got I got sucked in this morning. One of my disciplines was to do that. But but I saw this video where they took all of the Half-Life video games from the original Half-Life Black Mesa incident. And it’s told from like different perspectives and like put those all together. I didn’t watch the whole thing, but I was like, oh, how are they going to do this? Oh, he’s really wasting. Oh, no. Bad Priest. Yeah. Oh, they did a really good job on it, too, because things were all happening at the same same time and made sense the way they were doing it. So anyway, while I can feel bad about myself for for having clicked on that, I didn’t make it. So there you go. That’s the step in the right direction. It came to your senses. I where I have failed this week, I’ve stumbled in my rosary walks. So I don’t know, I made it till Thursday without missing a day. So I don’t know how far in the land that was. I know I don’t have an we haven’t actually made it halfway. It feels like it’s that it should be halfway done. I want to meet those people who keep their lented disciplines 100 percent. Yeah. Who are those people? Who are you? Tell us your secrets. Yeah, they’re probably too pious to even admit it. Yeah. Stupid humility. Stinking humility. Yeah, there’s a couple of Bible readings I wanted to throw at you today. Let’s go. Let’s go. Actually, like so I went to Latin mass yesterday. So I actually like that. I thought the reading from that was called the lesson was was really good. We better get it up here in the Dewey Reams. I have it in the Dewey Reams. I have I have a link for you here. OK, you’ve got a link. OK, I was going to pull it up myself. But if you’ve got it, I got it. I got Dewey Reams and my standard version Catholic edition. That’s also pretty good. Yeah. Yeah. Hmm. Ah, all righty. Let us go here and share screen. I don’t know if that side by side is actually going to look good here on screen. I think you can see a little arrow there. The side that will close the ads. Oh, no. Keep it. Keep it up. You think so? Yeah. Keep it up. And then see the arrow there on the other on the right hand side there. Click that and the ads go away and then you have more space. Well, put a little zoom on it. A little a little zoom on it. There you go. There we go. All right. That looks decent. All right. What you got on your mind? Um, this is Jacob deceiving his father. Is that right? Getting his. Well, did I get this wrong? No, no, no. This is the reading from yesterday. I went to the Latin Mass too. OK, was I thought it was the wasn’t the two men in the garden or it was that another reading yesterday? I remember. Yeah, well, that would be from Daniel. Definitely Daniel. That was Daniel. Yeah, I thought it was Daniel. And then I was like, oh, lessons. That looks right. And I probably pulled up the wrong thing. That was from Daniel. Oh, do you want to go there? Is that what we’re looking? Yeah, I’m looking for it. If you can. I’m going to actually. All right. Oh, if I were brilliant, I’d like a funny little commercial I could run right now. I could find it here. OK, it was lessons is genuine. At mass for the 11th. March 11th. Huh, this is I thought this app was right. OK, can we I mean, like. What is that was the reading we did yesterday? I remember because it takes a very long time. OK. Yeah, all right. Well, maybe we can look at this then. But I wanted to talk about that Daniel reading. All right, we’ll talk about that. We’ll talk about that. Daniel, how do we find that Daniel? Garden, maybe garden. Yeah. Chapter 13. Here we go. Here we go. Got it. Got it. We’re ready to go. 13. Oh, nice. Daniel 13. Yeah, yeah, that’s it. There you go. Perfect. OK, so I guess. Hmm. Maybe the Latin mass I went to, they weren’t on the right on the calendar the way they’re supposed to. I’m just I’m still figuring that out. Yeah, so Susan’s beauty attracts two elders. What I thought was really interesting about this because there’s lots. It’s a long reading and you just watch you can pull out of it. I mean, the the TLDR of it is Susan’s very attractive young virtuous as well. Virtuous, virtuous and attractive. And she has servants, but the two elders of of her community start lusting after her. And they basically stalk her. And when they they know that she goes to the garden to bathe and she sends her servants away, so she’s alone and they catch her alone and they tell her that like basically lie with us or will tell everyone that you lied, that you met a young man here. The doors of the orchard are shut and nobody seeth us and we are in love with thee. Therefore, consent to us and lie with us. But if thou wilt not, we will bear witness against thee that a young man was with thee and therefore thou didst send away thy maids from thee. Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. And then she chooses, like she sees she basically she goes and says like she’s she’s darned if she does and darned if she doesn’t. But she chooses to go with the truth in God and let the chips fall where they may. It is better for me to fall into your hands without doing it than to sin in the sight of the Lord. Yes, every time. Yeah, yeah, so and and and ends up that like the the whole acquisition goes through and Daniel ends up saving her by doing a little matlock or murder she wrote, right? Like she’s just a classic. He separates them and and figures out that they’re lying by catching them in a lie. And Daniel said, Well, hast thou lied against thy own head? For behold, the angel of God, having received the sentence of him, shall cut thee in two. Yeah, yeah, so I was actually thinking of this is actually like Suzanne’s, Susanna’s a sort of a dilemma there is something that we that we commonly face, right? Right, where it’s sort of like we we can do what is pragmatic of the world, or we can follow God. Right, we can follow we can aim at the truth and follow God, or we can do as pragmatic of the world and and and and compromise ourselves in doing that. Even though it seems like the rational and maybe sensible choice. And I, I think that there’s a lots of situations in life where that comes up. And it’s interesting to see that Susanna, you know, chose God and chose that that other world. So it and I think that like that’s part of like Jordan Peterson’s message there, right? It’s like, go with the truth and and and see what happens. Right, right. Yeah, I mean, if you have the right principles, and if you always live them out, if you’re always manifesting what’s best, then that’s always, I think, the best ending, even if you do happen to get eaten by a lion. Yeah. Because literally, the only person whose opinion matters is God. Yeah. Like you put everybody else’s opinions. I mean, now we don’t want to be too extreme with that, because sometimes God does speak to you through other people. But yeah, so. But I think, yeah, and I think that even, you know, there’s the fact of like putting that with God and like God matters, but also just pragmatically like pragmatically in the long game, like putting your chips with God is the way to go. Right. And because it because she had no way of knowing that Daniel would rescue her from the situation. And even then, like even Daniel didn’t have any, and he feels the Holy Spirit move him to do it. Right. Because I don’t think Susanna is any, I think part of it is like he says that Susanna is like nothing to him. And he’s just there. And then he’s like, he gets it. Yeah. The Lord, we got it in verse 45 here. The Lord raised up the Holy Spirit of a young boy whose name was Daniel. Yeah. Are you so foolish, children of Israel, without examination or knowledge of the truth, you have condemned the daughter of Israel? And then and then the people mock him. This is the cool part. Right. So all the people turned again in haste, and the old men said to him, come and sit down among us and show it to us, seeing God has given thee the honor of old age. And yeah, I don’t know. And then Daniel’s just not, he doesn’t care what these old men think. He’s just like, no, you guys, you guys are rushing to the sentence. You guys are rushing to the sentence before you before you actually examine this case. So yeah. And that’s and sort of that and the other the they think they they left us like to talk about like the power distribution that too. But so like the elders, the elders are abusing their power and they are sort of like doing the trust the science thing, right, where it’s like, you know, we’re the experts, we’re the law. And who’s this Daniel punk to even be suggesting that we may be lying or framing this in a way and in an incorrect light. Hey, Valerie. Hi, how you guys doing? Doing all right. We’re just yeah, sharing parts of the Catholic Bible, because that bit’s not in Jewish or the Protestant canon. So really, it’s that one. No, that’s all the that fits only in Greek. And so I kind of vaguely remember a story like that. But I don’t remember the name Susanna. Yeah, it’s not in the it’s not in the Protestant canon. So there’s actually it to answer and Daniel, there’s Greek additions in the Catholic Bible that aren’t anywhere in the Hebrew. And I like the Greek additions to Esther, because what it mostly is, is people sending up prayers to God, and they’re very wonderfully written prayers. Wow. Very cool. It doesn’t. It doesn’t. Yeah. So anyway, it’s a one of those interesting things. Are there any other Susans in the Bible, or is this the Susan that gives us all our shoes? I’ve got to figure out what Samuel’s mom’s name is. Was it Hannah? No, not Hannah. That’s what it’s my mother. I think I think that’s right. So she might be the Susanna like this, the source of the Susans and the Susannas. Might be the only one. Maybe or I don’t know. How many Sus are in the Bible? This is a good chat. GPT question. Used to say Google, but now, you know, Samson’s mom is or Samuel’s mom is Hannah. You were right, Valerie. Stick with your guns. Stick with your guns. The word, the word Shoshadah shows up, but not sure it is a name. There is a how many Susan? Oh, okay. There is one mention of Susanna. Yep, she’s the only one. She’s the Sue. She is the source of the Sus. It means flower. It is often translated rose. Oh, very cool. I heard that from my seminary friend that Hebrew tends to be more functional when it comes to description. Like, you know, fish could be anything that’s swimmed in the sea or something like that. Right, right. So that’s if I understand this correctly, and I know Jacob’s in the chat and he’ll correct me if he sees me going astray, but there’s a it’s like that’s why shellfish are not kosher because, you know, God put the fish into the sea. So what are those shellfish doing there? It’s not right. It’s against it when it’s like a mixing of categories or something. And then, you know, the beasts are supposed to split the cuff and chew the cut. Those that don’t, it’s like, oh, we’ve got their categories mixed up and birds are supposed to fly in the air. So if they’re walking on the ground, you’ve got that mixture of categories that it becomes unkosher and not to be eaten. No, anyway, that’s the way we learn about it in Catholic seminary anyway. Oh, interesting. Which actually gives you a nice helpful link from Leviticus back to Genesis, right? Because that’s when, you know, Genesis one is where God’s putting every creature into its proper place. And so it can make that, you know, those sometimes long passages of Leviticus a little more interesting. You can actually get beyond just the details into the logos behind the law. Yeah. Yeah, I finished reading Leviticus and now I’m into numbers in my daily readings. And it’s like, oh, we’re in numbers. This feels like Leviticus. Are you following like a reading plan, Valerie? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I have a U version, which is a Bible app. And so every day I have like five or six or seven different readings, some from Old Testament, some from New Testament and Psalms and Proverbs. Okay. That’s cool. I’ve been doing the Bible in a Year podcast with my wife. Starting that out, that’s good because like I’m, when we were both, when we were married, we were both atheists and I was like a hardcore new atheist. So I’m the one who actually has changed over the 15 years. So I can’t blame her. So she’s still the atheist and I’m still that, but she’s actually showing an interest. She wants to find out more. So she’s like doing the Bible in a Year with me. And she’s also, she’s going to some of the, we’re doing, there’s one of the local parishes doing an Alpha course. So she’s coming to some of the Alpha course with me too. What is an Alpha course? I think it’s for, as far as I understand, there may also be a Protestant version that it’s sort of, you know, it’s the Catholic version of, but it’s the idea is it’s an introduction potentially for people who are thinking about becoming Christians, but it’s also targeted at people who, like within the Catholic church who haven’t been well-formed, like who want to find out more about the faith. And it’s sort of, it’s supposed to offer a format where they focus on the hard questions and keep the floor open to asking lots of questions. And there’s like, I think 12 videos or 12, at least the one we’re doing, and there’s like a video for each one and they ask and they’re all framed within a question or a hard question of faith. And they encourage people to ask questions about the faith. Yeah, that’s cool. That’s neat. That’s really cool that she’s willing to go and check it out and kind of like learn about it and stop, you know, no pressure or anything like that kind of thing. Yeah. Well, it’s actually, it was a surprise to me because I hadn’t actually, initially I hadn’t, I thought she’d say no or so I didn’t even tell her that the course was coming up. And then it was someone else, one of the neighbors had invited her to an event at their church, like a women’s event at their church. And she said yes to that and she had a good time. And I was like, but I felt really bad after that because I never even gave her the opportunity. I just assumed she’d say no. So I didn’t even ask. Afterward, I did. No, Sander, here’s what I’m really interested in. What does two atheists getting married look like? I’m talking about like the wedding ceremony itself. Well, actually, we were married in Japan. So in Japan, I think they do it. This is something I think that’s admiral. And if you’re going to have a secular government, I think this is the way you should do it. We actually just went down to the city hall and registered the marriage. And you didn’t need an officiant or anyone else if you wanted to do any sort of religious ceremony. That was a complete separation from that experience. So we were married and then we exchanged rings in the parking lot. And then we went on our honeymoon. And my parents came to Japan to participate somewhat in the wedding. So it was pretty chill. And we took our parents on this tour of Japan. And they were like enough. Because my dad rarely travels. So I had come up with this thing, okay, how can I condense Japan into the seven days that they’re here? Aww. Over planned it, right? Yeah, so that was basically it. So we had like a purely secular, not much of a ceremony at all and just sort of started our marriage life. So that was it. Interesting. It’s cheap. I do like that as sort of a way of resolving the issues we’re having now of that separation. I think the government should just sort of see it as the government contract should just be completely separated from the religious aspects of it now. Especially considering the way things have evolved with the same sex couples and so forth and all these issues. Just complete separation at this point. That would probably be more necessary in Canada. Yes. We’ve got very robust freedom of religion. So far, so far. Like better than anywhere else in the world as far as I can tell. So I’m less worried about it here. But yeah, if I was in Canada, I’d be feeling the same way. But it is a hassle for the couples when they have to do kind of the two stops or the two ceremonies thing here. Because I live in the great and brilliant and most excellent state of North Dakota. Because I am a Catholic priest, I am just in the eyes of the state automatically a… I could sign the wedding license and it’s just accepted just because I’m a Catholic priest. Whereas my friends over in the degenerate communist state of Minnesota had to go and register at the county courthouse as an officiant of marriage. Oh really? Okay. So yeah. So here I think you’re… I don’t know if there’s… Actually I don’t know if the Catholic priests have to do anything. But you have to… There has to be a ceremony that is presided over by an officiant. So the secular humanists have quite a grift going where they register as officiants from marriage in Ontario. Because you need to have like a justice of the peace or a religious person or something. And I don’t know if the Ontario government makes you register beyond as an officiant officially. But I do know that there has to be someone who is recognized as an officiant has to preside over the wedding. In other parts of the world, like they won’t… The government won’t ever have a dual ceremony. Where you know when I marry somebody it has both ecclesial and civil effects. So that’s great. They only have to do the one ceremony. There are some places I think in Germany for instance that like if you’re doing it in a church, the government will not recognize it at all. So you have to like stop at the courthouse in the morning and then in the afternoon get married in the church. Which is just a pain in the butt for people. Getting married is complicated enough. In Israel it’s actually the opposite. There is no secular marriage at all. If you want to get married you have to go to your religion, whatever. And it has to be one of the recognized religions and get married. And otherwise there is no marriage. And the secular people really hate that. So they leave the country to go get secular marriage and come back. Because Israel will recognize those marriages. Are there reform synagogues in Israel? Reform Judaism is not officially recognized as Judaism. Neither is conservative in Israel. Okay, okay. I can do a little bit of context there. Because it’s like you go to one of them reform synagogues, that’s basically a secular marriage. That’s what I’ve learned from you, Jacob. Well, yeah, I mean I’m sure the reform don’t like me putting it that way. But in Israel it’s not actually considered Judaism. The reform conservative are not actually considered Judaism. So you could perform a marriage whereas a reform rabbi could not. Okay, okay. Interesting. Because Roman Catholicism is one of the, I think there are like 16 official religions in Israel. And if you’re not one of those religions, like religion is actually pretty tightly, this has been part of the discussion we’ve been having because there’s all kinds of political turmoil in Israel right now. Yeah. As there is everywhere. Yeah. I actually came on because I wanted to tell you a story because I am hoping, I think his name was JD, is watching because I, so this is what happened. I took Andrew to services with me on Friday. And after services, we went to dinner and we’re having pizza and having this discussion, normal discussion like we always do. And this guy comes up and says, I know this is really weird, but can I join your discussion because you’re talking about all of my favorite things. Okay. He says, are you guys Lutheran? Like, no. You didn’t beat on a Friday during Lent, so you must be Lutheran. So this was the thing. So this was the thing. And so I offered him some pizza and he said, actually I’m fasting. So he was a TLM guy. Oh, yeah. So I invited him. So we had some discussion. He went to Notre Dame, apparently. And I made him pull up your YouTube channel and subscribe and told him about things. So I’m hoping he’s watching. And so JD, if you’re watching, you can click and come on here and say hi to Father Eric. Okay. All right. You know, I am planning on going out to California for the gathering in Chino. And I’m like, I wonder if there’s a priestly fraternity of St. Peter Parish in the LA area. There has to be, right? And it’s like way up on the northern end of the LA sprawl. It’s like an hour away from Chino. And I’m like, oh. Well, everything is an hour away from Chino. Okay. Chino is in the middle of nowhere. And I’m wondering if there wouldn’t be, Orange County is much more conservative than the rest of, like, if you go south of LA, I would expect you would find more. Yeah, I just got to look at that Latin Mass locator and see if there’s something a little closer than that. Could I ask a question about the TLM politics or? You want to get into that? You want to get me into trouble, huh? Let’s do it. Yeah. Yeah. That’s the question. So I mean, I’ve just been tangentially orbiting the traditional circles, but I think that there has just been another document put up by the Vatican, someone within the Vatican, I think is the ecclesiastical guy who’s just confirming, who’s basically trying to close. Yeah. So I’ll open the loophole for allowing Latin Mass. Yeah. So this is time, but we get to talk about canon law. I know you are all really hoping that this would happen. And so here we go. So a quick question. What is TLM? Oh, okay. Thank you. Yeah. No, that’s, that’s, I didn’t, I didn’t know we could go either. So or a couple of weeks ago. Okay. All righty. Here we go. So actually, we’re not ready for that yet. We’ll remove that yet. So summer of 2021, Pope Francis issues a legal document heavily restricting the use of the traditional Latin Mass. Very sad, very sad. So, but there was a very well-thought out canon in the code of canon law. So one of the restrictions that he put on there is that if you have a parish church, that you are not supposed to have the Latin Mass there. At all. So it’s not even, it can’t, it can’t be like a, a second secondary mass that you offer. Nope, nope. You’re not supposed to have that at all. So there were some people who didn’t like this law and doesn’t think that this sort of thing should be managed by a bureaucrat thousands of miles away in Rome. And they came to beautiful and sensible canon 87. A deacisum bishop, whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual good is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory. It’s his subjects by the Supreme authority of the church. He is not able to dispense however, from procedural or penal laws, nor from those whose dispensation is specifically reserved to the apostolic seat or some other authority. So what does this say? This says that if there’s a universal law that is not a procedural law, right? So the procedural laws that protects your rights in a trial, right? Or a penal law, a penal law that establishes that something is a, is a canonical crime. So a bishop, bishop butter pants can’t say that this, my, my, this priest doesn’t have a right to do process. Or he can’t say, Oh, that’s not a canonical crime in my diocese. But other than that, or something whose dispensation is specially reserved to the apostolic see or some other authority. So no, you have to ask permission for this. So this document that was written in the summer of 2021, Mark Lefebvre, the brilliant YouTube channel, Navigating Patters would hate it because it would remind him of sloppy programming, just how badly it was written. And it did not specifically reserve dispensations to the Pope. So there was bishops all over the place dispensing it saying, no, you could do it in the parish church. I’m using Canon 87, which is in the code of Canon law dispense you of that. So recently the, our Cardinal Roach got a new law passed saying, Oh yeah, this is actually reserved to the apostolic see. So apparently there is a Latin mass church, St. Vitas FSSP in the valley, which yeah, I saw that one. That’s like an hour long drive. So yeah, that’s because you’re going into Los Angeles, but that, yeah, it’s the valley is actually Los Angeles, whereas Chino’s out in the middle of nowhere. Yeah. So it was Andrew, does that help you answer your question there? It helps me answer it. So I, but I think the question is now, is there something, is there another other avenue that bishops are using to justify allowing Latin masses now? So what you can do is you can move it into, so there’s, there’s several places where you’ll still be able to find it. Some places you can actually get that dispensation where Cardinal Roach and his graciousness and his mercy is allowing the ancient liturgical rights to continue to exist. If you go to a priestly fraternity of St. Peter parish, their mission appears to be entirely unaffected. And if you can find the suitable location to have it, that is not a parish church, then you don’t need a dispensation. So right now the Latin mass community in Fargo is celebrating at the local Catholic high school chapel. Oh, wow. Okay. That’s interesting. Okay. So I would be curious to see what your people, and you know, here’s a fact that people don’t talk about in the church enough is that sometimes people just do what they want. And sometimes in the long run, they’re right. Yeah. Or another time, they’re horribly wrong, horribly wrong. Actually, I have, I have one of those horribly wrong ones. I can share a link if you want to. Oh, I get you more trouble. There was somebody in BOM in the Catholic chat is like, hey, is it normal for the priest to meow for three minutes during his homily? And I was like, I’ve never done that. I could see maybe doing it once. Even then it’s kind of, I don’t know. So anyway, apparently somebody’s mother, a fallen away Catholic was giving mass a try again. And the priest meowed for and I’ll pull up the quote here, but they said three minutes during mass. He just continued to meow for three minutes. What is the song? No. Because there’s a song from a movie or something of a choir boy singing meow. It’s really funny. Here’s the, here’s the quote, during the sermon, the priest meowed like a cat on and off for three minutes or so. Needless to say, any feeling of spiritual emptiness was not filled that day. And I don’t see my mother attending another service. Yeah. You need spiritual malpractice insurance. That’s actually like, I don’t have as dramatic a story, but that’s, that’s it was, it was homily malpractice or malevolence that caused me to, to switch parishes. Yeah. But because that’s the thing is like, I, I find that it is the people who are quickest to sought to, to cite the fact that attendance is down in churches because as the need for reformation and change, who are also the ones are causing the problem in the first place because of things like meowing in mass, right? Like it’s like, oh, we’ve caused this crisis. No one wants to go to church anymore. Clearly we need more change. We need more puppets. We need more clowns. We need more balloons. Yeah. We need more guitars and bongos. Smoke machines. We already have smoke machines. Oh, okay. We need more of them. Then we do. Yeah. The analog, the analog smoke machine. Oh, that’s the way to put it. Vinyl smoke. Have you heard of a repressive tolerance before Herbert Marcus? Marcus. That’s what I, when I hear that, hear about them going so hard against the Latin mass and then allowing meowing in the pulpit. That’s what it reminds me of it. Right. I got that sort of the, uh, yeah, that that’s, that sounds like repressive tolerance to me. It sounds like it’s like an orchestra that some people may have an underlying agenda to what’s, to the way that they are. It’s like they actually, like if you, if you were just to analyze their actions, um, you would get the sense that they actually wanted this to become a smoking crater with nothing in it. Right. Cause that’s exactly what their actions lead to. Um, so yeah, I don’t if somebody, what, if somebody’s doubling down on something in the church that isn’t working and is actively driving people away, then you don’t pay attention to what they’re saying anymore. You just pay attention to what they’re doing. Yeah. Because what they’re, what they’re saying they want and what they’re actually doing are completely disconnected. Yeah. And the one that’s hurting people is what they’re doing, not what they’re saying. I think that, that Christ might have said something along the lines of from, from their fruit shall ye know them. Right. Right. Which I think is actually where a lot of the, uh, you know, the whole, um, justification through faith to justification to actions debate comes from. And sort of my resolution to that is that, that is, I think from what I’ve, my, from what I’ve read in the Bible and what my interpretation is quite clear is that ultimately it’s the Protestants are right. Although they’re being a little pedantic when they’re saying that it’s purely justification of faith. And that’s because Christ knows our hearts, right? Ultimately he knows our hearts, but it is- Well, and the council of Trent, council of Trent, the anti-Protestant council of Trent said that faith is the root and source of all justification. Yeah. So it’s like, that’s what’s at the base. That’s what you start from. Yeah. And then all of the other good works are supposed to flow through that spiritual life. And that was where I was going is that we’re not Christ. And Christ makes that clear is that we’re supposed to judge by acts because we don’t have the divine access to other minds to, to, to, we cannot see the hearts of other people like Christ can. So we do the second best thing and read people by their actions, read, see, see, see, see, see them by their fruit, see them by the, like judge their faith indirectly through, through their actions. And so I see the, the, the church, oh, speaking of the, the, the traditional Latin mass, got another trend on board. Oh, there we go. Hi, ho. Hi, ho. Um, you know, yeah, I think you’ve basically got the faith thing, right? The faith is sort of where all the good works come from. But what I want to look at is fruit bearing over time, which some people might call that a Darwinian analysis, but we could also call it common sense. Is that if, okay, so you’re, you’re, you’re baby Catholic Xander. You were baptized just about a year ago, right? Coming up on the year, right? Coming out of new atheism. There’s a, there’s a, there was a trip through Buddhism there too. Like we’re talking, there was a 10 year journey from new atheist to, to Catholic. Yeah. And then your, your, your, your, I think rather correctly, uh, identifying spiritual malpractice, which, you know, it might not be a grave sort of thing that we need to write the bishop about, but, you know, something goofy where you’re like, I don’t think that’s right. Is that basically what you encountered? Oh, what I encountered was, um, I, I would actually say is, is I would prefer, I would, I would have probably, I walked out on communion, even though I was the, uh, I was the elector and, uh, and that was, uh, I did that because what I heard, I would have preferred, preferred the priest mouth, me out honestly, because what I heard, it was, it was, it was nerdy theological, which is why I think a lot of people just let it slide, but it was for Lent. I felt it was completely inappropriate, like, cause he was basically denying the, I, it was, didn’t he reframe sin and inverse, inverse the whole concept of sin in his homily did so in a very sly manner. So, you know, I don’t like, yeah, but that, that, that was basically it. And, but I did, it culminated in that the Lenten spirit is we should really fast from self criticism is where the homily ended up. So I was like, yeah. Yeah. So, so the point is you hear that for the pulpit, something that’s just kind of not quite right. Yeah. That drives you away into what? Another parish, right? Yes. So do you think you’re the only person making that kind of movement? No, I think I’m the only one who’s, who was bold enough to actually just walk out on the, the, the mass. Yeah. So first off, what you’re doing is you’re sending a signal back to that priest, right? So that’s actually really useful because a lot of people are too scared to send signals. Signals are important because otherwise you have no idea what’s going on. And you’re also, you know, contributing to the life of a new parish. You’re taking care of yourself. I mean, yeah. So it’s, yeah. If you do that often enough, you, you repeat that cycle often enough, eventually you end up with ex parish dying and the other parish thriving. And that’s, that could even happen to diocese and that could even happen to the regions, right? Yeah. We, we, we want to look like the local Nova Sordo parishes around here. The, it’s just been interesting to see over the last 12 months as, as a new priest has been there. It’s just like, just packed the walls now, you know, and he’s, he just, he takes things very seriously and has, you know, really good, just very like solid homilies. And, and it’s just interesting to see, you know, it just, it’s like, where are these people coming from? You know, they’re, you know, the, it’s, it’s, it’s not like the town is growing. You know, there’s 5,000 people in the town or less, probably less than that. And it’s like, but people are hiking from 30, 30 minutes away. Just like, hey, the mass here is reverent. Like, you know, this is so, yeah, you can, you can see that really clearly. There’s hunger for it. There’s hunger for it. I was, doing spiritual direction for a young father who was contemplating moving parishes here in Fargo on, on that sort of thing. And eventually, I haven’t talked to him recently, but he has been kind of, kind of creeping in that direction. He wants the more reverent worship and he knows where he can get it. And, but he wanted to, he wanted to try and like move the needle at his current parish. And what we could say, the immune system of that body rejected him. I don’t know. You can put it, you can put it into that way. Cause it does, you know, when you, when you come in and change those things, especially if you’re trying to go at it from the bottom up, which isn’t always bad, but, or, or, or more difficult than it needs to be, is that you are making a change to the identity in that. Like once you make a change to worship, you make a change to identity. I don’t see how you can, you can get away from that. And that’s why all this traditional Latin math stuff is so controversial because it made a huge, like not just like an adjustment or a tinkering or a tweak. They made a huge change to it. And a lot of people like on levels that they aren’t able to consciously articulate, say, this was a change in identity. Yeah. Yeah. I was, I was just at mass this morning. I was thinking about the relationship between that sort of, you know, cumulative practice of acts and the way that that corresponds so directly to like learning instrument or learning to operate a machine and how you move from that unconscious to conscious operation or sorry, conscious to unconscious operation. And yeah, I’m real, it just, yeah, you’re, you’re exactly right, father. I mean, you start getting into, when you start changing, I mean, there’s a reason that that stuff hits people so deep because it’s not, you start to internalize that stuff so, so deeply. And then you’re going out through your life with those internalized patterns that you’ve been hammering in through, you know, weekly or daily mass. And, and then you start saying, Hey, we need to change that. Hey, you can’t do that. Hey, you need to do it this way. And then all of a sudden people are like, Whoa, why, why do I feel like things are being violated and changed here that on a level I don’t understand? Yeah. But the great thing is that if, you know, if those are good things, then you start being, you pick those up and they become subconscious operations in your own life, you know, in the same way that you, when you’re really proficient in an instrument or operating a machine or any of those things, you don’t have to think, you know, how am I, how am I playing the scale? How am I articulating the joint on this excavator? It’s just, it just happens. And, and sort of that level of agency moves up and yeah, you could like, like celebrating mass, I could start figuring out, Oh, my microphone’s not working. How am I going to deal with that without while I’m still doing all the math, which happened tonight, my microphone. Oh, I had to pivot there. So I, I’ve been like, looking under, I guess all the, the carpets during the lens. So I haven’t, I have another question that’ll get you, potentially get you in trouble. All right. All right. The Bishop doesn’t watch this, so I should be good to go. Third Fatima Revelation or Third Fatima Ministry. Hmm. Yeah. I don’t have a strong opinion on that one because, because right. Traditional Latin mass, traditional Latin mass. That’s something that can actually affect my day-to-day living. Yes. So I have to come to a decision on that, right? This whole Third Secret of Fatima thing, like what the controversy is, is that the Vatican hasn’t released the full text of the Third Secret of Fatima, right? Yes. Or I understand that they were supposed to at, in, in 1960 and, and didn’t until, until on the, the 20, 23rd. Read it and said no. Read it and said no. Right. And it was just before he was going to, he was planning for Vatican II. Right. And he was very concerned about the geopolitical situation. Right. And it was, and it was probably, and it was, there was something about it that was overtly political and anti-communist. Sure. Yeah. And that, and so it wasn’t until. Ninety something. It was, no, it was the year 2000 and it’s sort of a significant date because there is, what’s his name? A priest who is a Jesuit priest and because of what, hurting, hearing the Third Fatima, Fatima mystery, he actually, he was, he was there as a translator. So he heard it and he was interpreting for the other Cardinals. And he, because of that, he, he actually, and, and because of John, John’s, Pope John’s 23rd decision, he lost faith in the Jesuit order and asked to be released from his vows and became a popular Catholic, Catholic writer. And he died in 1999, but he had warned that, you know, he would honor the Pope’s decision, but if anyone ever actually put out a, if the, if the, if the Vatican dared to put out the mystery incomplete or inaccurately, then he would actually reveal what the, the, the proper text was. Yes. And so the way I approach that, and maybe you won’t like this, is that if I knew for a fact, with 100% certainty that the Vatican had released only an incomplete text to the Third Secret of Fatima, I don’t think I’d actually be doing anything different right now. I don’t think you can. I think it’s lost the time because if, because if it, whatever it was, and this is, I was actually, like, I learned about this, about the time that I was reading that, that text about Susanna, that I think that, that really Mary puts John, John the 23rd to that test of like, whether are you going to follow the word of God? Are you going to follow the, the worldly geopolitical situation? And he made his decision and we live with three percussions of that. Sure. So once after 19, after, yeah, we didn’t, we didn’t consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1960. Yeah. Yeah. So, but then we did in 2021 or 22. Yeah. No, but it’s, yeah. Anyway, if you show up for the exam, like, like 60 years later, it doesn’t necessarily count. Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, I don’t know what to make of all that stuff. And, and so I just go like, I don’t think I’d be doing anything differently if I knew that. So, no, I think that’s fair. And I think that’s the right decision. Like, I’m not going to, I’m not going to divide, like cause divisions over church or something in a private revelation, which is what the Fatima is. Yeah. Yeah. It’s not a part of the deposit of faith. So, so, so what it was, could you tell me a bit more about the Fatima story? If you know? Oh, sure. Yeah. There was the three Portuguese shepherd children who were, this was like, it was 1917, literally 1917. And the, the Blessed Virgin Mary just starts appearing to them, right? While they’re out attending their flocks in Portugal and starts, you know, doing regular Blessed Virgin Mary shows up kind of things, right? Telling them that they need to pray the rosary, telling them that they need to go to confession, telling them that they need to attend mass every Sunday, promoting first Saturday devotions, those sorts of things, regular old bread and butter, Mary apparitions. You guys straighten things out. Had some interesting things to say about immodest fashions that would be sweeping things. But then there’s these three secrets, right? Oh, there can we, can we book, I want to come back to that anyway, finish this, but I’ve got some interesting things about fashion that I’d love to come back to when we get the chance. Sure. And so the first two secrets are relatively uncontroversial and were released on time. One of them was like a vision of hell. And I can’t remember the second one. But the third one involved, oh gosh, was that in the text of the third secret or not? Now I can’t remember. Anyway, what Mary wanted the pope to do was to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and that would have all the bishops in the world do that. So this is in 1917 and Mary said something like Russia will propagate her errors throughout the whole world unless this happens. Yeah, the errors like implying communism and communism giving where we are now forms of the metastasized Marxism that have spread throughout the body of the world. That is quite abstract. I don’t know if you’re quoting. It’s a metastasized Marxism. It’s a cancer that has learned how to infect different parts of the body there. Absolutely. With all that stuff there. So anyway, point is that I’m not the pope and I’m not a bishop and I can’t do much about this. So I’m just going to try and be a good priest in North Dakota. And this is the thing too, even then ultimately the pope is a man and if you are, I think if you’re a good catholic, it’s not the first time a man has failed us. No trusted princes, immortal men in whom there is no help, take their breath, they return to clay and their plans that day come for nothing. You ever heard that one before, Jacob? I know where that’s from. I think. Yes, I know it by heart in Hebrew. Okay, that’s the stone cutters. I just, I always have something else. No, you’re thinking of a different verse. Okay, that verse, I mean, many are the plans in the heart of man, but the counsel of God shall be established. Okay. Alrighty, Ted, talk to us about fashion, because I don’t have to dress myself anymore. I just wear a uniform. It’s great. And I will, I’ll honestly, I’ll tell you like, it’s a regular source of envy that I don’t get to just dress like a priest. Like I’ll just, you know, cards on the table. So, but I, so I was part of this is, I mean, part of this is just like some slow turn stuff in my head. But then, let’s see Friday, I guess I listened to that Jordan Peterson podcast on birth rates and demographics. I don’t know if anyone else listened to that. And I’d actually, I mean, you know, that stuff comes around, has been bummed around for a while recently. And, you know, lots of like 2022 totals have come up, like Japan having twice as many deaths as birth Latvia, birth Latvia having the same, you know, Poland’s population decreased last year. I mean, just like pretty crazy stuff. And I, so then I got into a conversation with some friends of mine who are, who are not Catholic. And, and we were talking and they, you know, had some questions about the Blessed Virgin Mary. And I was, so all this stuff about like her being veiled has been something that’s been in my, in my head a lot. And so anyway, all this stuff kind of, kind of, kind of works together. And I was thinking about how we have these, we have these things that are related to human procreation. And what hap, when, what we’ve done in the last 200 years, or sorry, the last 100 years on an absolutely unprecedented scale is to take those things pertaining to matrimony and reproduction and have completely uncovered them. Right. And so I think about, I think Pajot probably brought this up at some point that like even the house has that same structure as the temple, right? Where you’ve got the outer courts and the inner courts and the holy place and the holy polies. And there’s this increasing decrease of intimacy, right? And like in a properly ordered household, the parents’ bedroom is the holy polies. And like that is where life comes from. And that is the place that is the absolutely most restricted in terms of access. Like, right. You invite your dearest friends to come and eat at your table. You don’t invite your dearest friends to come and sleep in your bed. And so there’s this sense of when you take things like, when you take pornography and then all the associated just depictions of that, we don’t even call pornography anymore. And then also in terms of modesty and the way we present our bodies in the world, when you blow all that out there, when you take all those veils, you rip the veil there, you bring all this to bear, the counterintuitive result is not that people start reproducing more. It’s actually that it sterilizes the world. That makes sense to me. Because you’re separating these things from their proper teleology. Yes. Yes. And so it’s been fascinating to me how little in the discourse of demography do you see anything discussed about porn, except with the rare exception of Japan, honestly. And like, you know, I’ve kind of had my eye on this and like, you can go back and read these studies of like, where people actually look at why young Japanese don’t have relationships of any kind. And it’s like, it’s the fact that there’s just this like, way to rip the curtain off of all of that. And then you don’t have to go any further. There’s no relational negotiation. There’s no dealing with the troublesomeness. That was like the most chilling, like this, the word, like, these things are too bothersome to deal with. Anyway, so just like thinking about this connection between like this like account to the world, I guess counterintuitive connection between modesty and fertility is really like, it’s got stuff going in my head. I don’t actually think it’s that counterintuitive. Like, it just, it’s only counterintuitive to our, I don’t want to say even modern, but our like our post sexual revolution sensibilities. Right? I think like the ultimate sin of the 60s was that we didn’t, that they didn’t appreciate because they had grown up in this world where so much had been taken care of and like, it’s continued on. But I think the 60s where this, it really hit the first bit was this idea that because they had a well-ordered society, they just assumed that that was like, they took it for granted, like fish take water for granted. Right? That the well-ordered society was presented to them. And so they thought that they were always thinking about tweaking these other problems, right? They were always thinking about all these other, so they could look forward and think about racism or feminism and all these other things. They figured like, oh yeah, making food, procreating, having sanitation system, having an economy. It takes care of itself. It takes care of itself. This is all problems. We don’t have to do any effort for this. Right? And that’s, and that’s the fundamental problem is that we, we’ve taken our eye off of the ball because of these, and we don’t realize like how hard it, how hard a trick it is to have well-ordered families and, and make, and, and cultivate and have families that produce not, not just men and women, but men and women of good character. That’s a really hard thing to do. And you don’t, you can’t have a complex society unless you have men and women of good character. Right? Cause you can’t. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, yeah. Yeah. There’s so much there. I mean, you, and part of that is I think, you know, again, sort of a recurring theme around here is this like, you know, the, the, the need for interfacing with sort of material reality in an actual sense. It’s weird that like materialism keeps you away from material reality in some sense, but, but that when you start doing those things and you start like, I don’t know, trying to grow your own food or trying to raise children, all of a sudden you realize, Hey, it’s not a given that these are going to turn out well. And then it does this amazing flip on history where you realize, well, history wasn’t this like inevitable thing that everything was just going to turn out fine. Like we’re still around and we saw the civilization because like so many people woke up every day and did the right thing enough. And, and, and Frank, I mean, that’s, it’s a lot like Chesterton’s description of orthodoxy where he’s like, people think of orthodoxy as this like stable, boring thing where really it’s this like chariot race, you know, where you’re like always just like staying right on the right track and how, yeah, exactly. And so he described it as a carriage being pulled by galloping horses. That’s constantly on the brink of teetering one way or the other. Yeah. Yeah. And so I think, I think you can take that out from, you know, orthodox theology and even to more like society more broadly and realize, you know, in one sense, the profound heroism of just keeping things together. Like I remember talking to this one time I was up in New York visiting when my brother was living there and I was talking to this guy, he was a, he was a basically like a civil engineer up there. And he’s describing to me them like maintaining the sewer systems in New York. He’s like, yeah, so we’re doing this one temporary diversion tunnel here so that we can hopefully like fit, you know, expand the capacity of this other tunnel before it collapses. And we have like a total sewer, you know, and he starts describing this. I’m like, hold on, you’re telling me that like the sewer in New York doesn’t just work. It’s like guys like you that get up every day and are like, all right, we got to figure this out. Otherwise, like 2 million people’s toilets are backing up next week. It’s like that’s actually reality. And the same goes for all the mundane things of taking care of your household, taking care of your children, doing your job. And it’s like, I mean, frankly, that should be really exciting and also terrifying, but mostly exciting. And I think that’s actually part of the spiritual danger of fashions, right? Because we go, we go immediately to like immodest fashions. Okay, fair enough. But it’s also like things that are fashionable are always ephemeral, right? They’re trying to get like chase after the spirit, which is almost by definition, completely fleeting, right? So like, I remember 10 years ago, what the fashionable haircuts are. Do you remember 10 years ago what the fashionable haircuts were? So you shave it up real close on the side, and then it’s really long on top, and it just kind of flops down all over the place, right? I never went through that, right? And I see the fashionable haircuts now. And now perms are back in, right? And I’m sure you’ve seen those punk kids running around with the perms. They look like a bunch of poodles, right? And the TikTok, TikTok is literally like a fashion, like I don’t even like a strobe light for fashions. It’s just code. So yeah. And what that literally does is it just gets you into a position where you are not focusing on those things that are actually lasting and that actually matter, which are spiritual matters. Oh, neutrino, neutrino. Yes. Yes. Always in style. Always in style. Bald in a beard is the new style. Okay. Whatever you say. Whatever you say, pastor. Oh, yeah. So anyway, it’s not even just a matter of like the fashion, the fashions, all the fashions. It’s not even like, it’s more than just the lust and the detachment. So Father Eric, if I just send like a link to one of the divine mercy images, or divine mercy image. Which divine mercy image do you want? Do you want the good one or do you want the not good one? The best one, the good one if you have it. But I have a link to one I thought was pretty good, a copy of it. If you could bring it up, because I wanted to, it really connected to something Ted said. Both you and Ted were talking, but with the JR Chesterton. And did I say that right? Can you see that down there? GK, it’s GK Chesterton. Is that the one we’re looking for? Yeah, that’s good enough. I think the one I had was better, but this is good enough. It’s not the one where Jesus is wearing eyeliner. That’s what I’m mostly about. Oh, no, it’s the same one as this one. It’s just sort of like a prettier, but it has all the elements I need to make my point. All right. So you’re talking about the chariot and sort of staying on the track. This is actually what I see in the divine mercy images is a representation of the Holy Spirit. And the two aspects of the Holy Spirit, which are mercy and which I think are mercy and zeal, so which is the water and the blood. So the water is the mercy and the blood is the zeal. And what they do and what the Holy Spirit does is it guides us, it keeps us on the narrow path. It guides us to Christ by keeping that equilibrium between mercy and zeal. So we’re not those zealous that were becoming fanatical and falling away. And we’re not so merciful that our brain falls out. And we’re meowing in the pulpit, because everything is love. So those are sort of the rails. And I envision it like, I don’t know if you have this American, you Americans and your highways, I don’t know if you do this yet. But in Canada, a lot of our highways now they have these sound things. So if you’re driving at night, Rumble strips. Rumble strips. Yeah, rumble strips. And so if you start to go off the narrow path, then you hit the rumble strip and it’s an oh, you can hear the noise and you can come back on the strap. And that’s what I see. Like the divine mercy is showing us the rumble strips of mercy and zeal. So it’s sort of like, oh, if you start going too far into zeal, maybe you should be a little merciful. And if you start going too far into mercy, it’s time for a little more zeal. It’s time to get back to that Latin mass. Time to get back to basics. This is the way that Pajot says it’s been historically represented. Did you ever see that stuff about the right hand and the left hand? Yeah. Oh, this is actually my big takeaway from Thunder Bay with the right hand and the left hand. The left hand is stiff. It’s written. Everything is decreed. And the right hand is flexible and can extend to incorporate mercy. And Father, are you familiar with it? It’s like the earliest icon of Christ that really, that like it’s super, it’s like fifth century, sixth century. And it’s got like both sides of his face are painted very differently. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Those are at a friend’s house. And I was looking at it in two days. That would freak me out when it’s like as a kid, because I like my parents just had it on their refrigerator. It was like some like they’d like sent money to somebody and they got a free magnet. You know what I’m just sitting there looking at it. And that’s quite the matter. You know, my dad, he could teach us like the Siphon sacraments and our prayers and right from wrong, which is the bread and butter and absolutely what we needed. But like he wasn’t able to explain that one. Why is Jesus, you know? Yeah. Yeah. It’s almost like, yeah. It’s like, yeah. So as judgment and mercy, even in his face, which is human and divine, that’s what it’s trying to explain. Well, so Andrew, I’ve heard that too. I just jumped back at that because I’m like, but he’s not like half and half. That’s the part that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It’s actually Jesus is the resolution of the problem. Right? So like what there’s three theological virtues, there’s hope, faith and charity. And of the greatest of the three is Christ of Corinthians 13 is charity. Right. Because like this is where you get the whole God is love thing is because you need to resolve the problem between the man and the divine, right? The particular, the practical situation. Do I get my, do I get my calf out of the well? Cause it’s going to violate the, the divine law. Right. So, and, and, and Jesus resolves that problem. Of course, you know, you get your sheep out of the well, but you still try and honor the, honor the Sabbath. You know, you, you falter during your lent like father Eric and myself have done, but you still, you get back up and you keep on trying, trying to honor your lenten commitments. Right. So that, and that, that’s that resolution between the man and the divine, the particular, and, and the theoretical, right. For the, and that’s the hope and the faith. And this is like, I think what, when the biggest misconceptions and I, I like, I definitely account to myself as a, as, as, as, as my, from a new atheist, new atheist days, this misconceptions about faith is that they, we, we, they, people will often try and rarefied faith into this really abstract thing, right? They were sort of like, Oh, it’s, it’s only, it’s only for things you have no evidence of. That’s, that’s all what faith is. But I think what faith actually is, is connects back to what father Eric was talking about from the fruits of Shalom. It’s, it’s your practices. You, your faith is what you do every day. That’s why my, my daily prayer is my faith, right? When I go on, on a, on a Rosary walk, that’s, that’s the test. That’s, that’s testing my faith. That’s my faith, right? Am I actually practicing and demonstrating what I believe? And that, that’s, that’s what faith is, is the, is the practice. Andrew, we found it. We found the guy who doesn’t falter during lent and his name is Mark LeFevre. Oh, can confirm. Bruce, did you give up anything for lends? No, I’m reformed Baptist. I do all things for the glory of God. Does that mean like it’s always lent or? That’s right. It is. Thank God. There you go. Are you of the sort of Baptist persuasion that frowns upon the alcohol that Xander’s drinking right now? Cause it’s Sunday during lent. Yeah. No, I’m of the Baptist persuasion that drinks a lot of Scotch and smokes a lot of cigars. You can, you know, you can drink Scotch. What is it? Chesterton said, we thank God for, for beer and Burgundy by not drinking too much of them. That’s right. Amen. That’s the, well, the whole pines and Aquinas is based on cigars and liquor, right? Yep. Yep. Yeah. The wine makes the hard glad. You know what I mean? That’s what scripture says. I know exactly what you mean. Yeah. I mean, that Jacob’s Island there, they just celebrated. What is that? Purim. Purim, right? Where you, it’s like, like a, a, a divine obligation to get hammered. It is a Jewish law. It is required of all adults to drink to the point where they no longer can tell the difference between Mordechai was good and Haman was bad. Sounds sensible to me. Which tradition is this? What is it called again? Orthodox Judaism. No, no. I mean like which particular. Purim, it’s based on the book of Esther. Okay. Nice. Okay. But within that, that’s actually, so here’s something that I think is, is, and this is why, why Vatican two is sort of important for it. So I, okay. And I don’t want to say that Vatican two is all bad because I don’t think it is. Cause it’s not. It’s not. I don’t, I, you will. But I, but I do think that it, it did compromise the immune system of the Catholic church against the Marxist cultists against communism. Sure. And that was, but there were good reforms too within, within the Vatican too. Yeah. So it’s, and I think, you know, whatever you, I’m not going to go, I’m sidelining whatever I want to get to. My point here is that one of the key things the Catholics have is communion. And communion is so important because it is, it’s not a propositional presentation of biblical truth. It is a, it is a performative presentation of, of biblical truth. I don’t know which one of Vervecki’s four P’s it is, but it’s, it’s one of the other ones besides propositional. But because, because what you’re doing is so symbolic, it, it shows the, it shows the biblical truth in a way that it’s really hard for the Marxist to, to get against. And so the mixing of wine and water and wine and the presentation of the Eucharist, these like, because, because there’s, it’s, it’s not so driven by words, but all, but driven by action and symbols. It’s, it’s, it’s hard, it’s, it’s difficult to refute propositionally. And the, the evil wizards like to use words to refute things. I don’t, there’s a lot there. I don’t know if I, that actually came out in any way remotely, remotely eloquent, but. No, no, no. It’s the, the, the, the power of symbolism over words, because it can invite participation in a way that a whole bunch of words just can’t, basically. Yeah. But it’s also, it can be, it can’t be contradicted in the way words can, can be contradicted. Like it’s, it’s deeply meaningful that we take part in communion, right? That we all go up there and, and, and take part in the body of Christ. And the communion comes out of a gold vessel and not individually wrapped plastic. And it, and it shows us that separation of the, the body of Christ and the blood of Christ, right? The blood being the Holy Spirit and the body being the good, the true and the beautiful, right? The, that which is, that cannot be defined, but only discerned. That is, that, that gives us the way to life, the way the truth in life. That’s a new expression. I’ve never heard anybody say it, so I’ll have to think about that. Yeah. Mull it over. I have a natural Roman suspicion of anything new. It’s healthy. But yeah, I, I, I promise not to put any pig hearts over the altar. So at mass this morning, I was thinking about, you know, obviously with, with the big lens, you know, like right through the sorrowful mysteries every, for every rosary we’ve been doing. Yeah. And so then, so all that’s, you know, right here and, you know, the priest is coming with, with the, with the host in that golden cup. And I was like, well, that’s the cry, the cup that Christ said, if it can pass from me, let it pass. And like, because it didn’t pass from him, like, here we are receiving his life. That’s true. I never made that connection. That’s a really interesting one. That’s really good. So the good, next time I go through that mystery in the, in the rosary, I’ll, I’ll, I’ll think of it from that perspective, meditate on it from that perspective. Yeah. I want to ask you to render judgment on that Father Eric. I just presented as a possible symbolic meditation. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I won’t render a final judgment on it. This cup can pass from me. Yeah. But because it, because he didn’t pass on it, he drank from it. Yeah. You’re just for us to participate in. Yeah. Alrighty. Cause that’s the whole, cause that, cause this is actually one of the things is, is Christ, Christ’s gift to us, like Messiah’s gift was, was the Holy Spirit. And that’s, I think what, what the blood of Christ, like what the cup represents is the Holy Spirit, right? The gift of the Holy Spirit. And that’s ultimately like, that’s what that connects us. That’s why Christ becomes like the fulfillment of the law. Because previously we needed, like the, we needed, um, like the, the, the, the full law of Abraham, right? With all the, the little particulars. Careful now, careful now. You’re right next to a, a son of Abraham there. Yeah. Yeah. I know. I was he’s holding himself back adverbally. But, uh, yeah, but that, that, that, that, that was that, that, that’s an idea of the fulfillment of the law, the Holy Spirit connecting us. That’s so we can sort of, we can know the mind of God when we come into those particular situations, right? That we actually have this, this direct connection that Christ has provided us, the, the, what would, what would Jesus do factor? Jesus do factor. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, hey Chad. Hey. Hiya. How’s, uh, how’s, did you guys get buried with snow out there? Uh, a little bit. Yeah, not much, not too bad. Though the Thursday night into Friday morning, I don’t know, it’s like six inches of pretty wet snow and I doubled it up, which wasn’t too bad. Got a nice shovel and then, uh, went to a men’s retreat over the weekend. That was absolutely fine. Good. Good. Yeah. I feel like a good retreat to get you away from all the, uh, the hurly burly. Well, it’s just good. Uh, there was 80 of us there. It was good. And they’re all, we’re all, uh, we’re all in the same meetings and stuff. And so it’s good to, uh, we have panels where we, you know, we participate on the panels and feel vivid and it was really beautiful and unbelievable. So it’s much, we do it every year. Good. Good. And Andrew’s getting a, a well-balanced breakfast right there. Everything the man needs. The thing is Andrew’s like two miles north of me, but it seems like it’s a lot lighter where he is than I am. Did the sun go down like to the north? I don’t get it. I know. Because you’re inside and, and he’s outside probably. I’m looking outside. It’s a lot darker. I don’t know. I think it’s his camera. No, you guys have been getting hammered with rain too out there in California, right? Yeah. Thank God. I mean, we need it. So, yeah. And Bruce, what part of the, uh, United States do you hail from? I’m on the Eastern shore of Maryland on the Chesapeake Bay. Lovely. Yeah. It’s nice. It’s a little cold. Um, we’re getting like winter will not stop, you know, it’s like this, uh, I mean, it’s not terrible compared to places like where, you know, Chad is up in Wisconsin or whatever, but, um, it’s, it’s just that, um, it’s that constant wind, you know, wet, cold spring. And we’re just, you know, looking forward to the sun, you know what I mean? Looking forward to the spring and the, or the real summer. So, um, yeah, it’s just been, it’s not great. Y’all are making me so grateful for the South. I love the South. I’m like, yeah, we’re technically in the South. We’re below the Mason-Dixon. You guys are like Yankee Southerners, basically. Yeah. Oh, I’m a Yankee. I’m from New York, but I live down here and yeah, we’re, we get like the worst of all of it, but never the extreme, but we get all of the, like the mid Atlantic here gets just all of the possible seasons. You know what I mean? There’s no, um, there’s no missing out, which I do enjoy. It’s great to have different seasons, but yeah, we had, you know, church today was a long, a long service and, um, I got home and I was trying to finish this pergola that I was building and I was just getting beat up by the wind, you know? Um, but so I loved, I loved, uh, I loved the long service because it was so gross outside. What is a pergola? A pergola? A gazebo, you know, it’s like a, yeah, either way it’s kind of a similar structure. On set. So like a shelter where you can sit and chill. Yeah. I built it so I could, you know, have my smoker out there and not get pelted by the rain, you know? Um, but yeah, yeah, it’s good stuff. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. I was just, I was going to say I’ve been following a, uh, a meteorologist YouTuber named Ryan Hall and he, he forecast it where he said, uh, like halfway through February that the polar vortex was dying down and that March was going to be miserable. And turns out he was a hundred percent correct because the polar vortex keeps us all safe and happy, uh, by keeping all of that Arctic air wrapped up on the North pole. And when it breaks down, it just ruins March. Oh my goodness. You’re in North Dakota. Is that right? Yeah. Yeah. We’re, we’re like, we’re supposed to be, you know, averaging about 42 degrees this year or this time of year and it’s not getting above freezing. Yeah. That’s no fun. That’s no fun. North Dakota has a rough weather pattern. What’s because the jet stream directs Arctic air right down through where I live basically. Um, whereas if you go like four hours west, it’s consistently quite a bit warmer. Yeah. I mean, you really, you read like those later, uh, little house books and the stuff that they’re, you know, them trying to survive those Dakota winters and, you know, uninsulated houses and, and coal stoves. And you’re just like, this sounds like, I mean, what it sounds like is like, um, Bradbury writing about people living on Mars, you know, it’s like, you know, like people just like, Hey, you don’t make it back to the cabin. That’s it. Like, you’re just, you’re not, it’s not going to happen. You know, and then like getting, there’s one scene when Laura’s teaching in like one of those little, like some tiny school shack and the stove is like glowing red and that’s barely keeping them from getting frostbite while she’s teaching. Like, okay, that is bending my brain to try to figure out, you know, it’s just amazing that the kind of stuff that it’s, it’s actually interesting because I was thinking about this when you guys were talking earlier, but I want to jump in and you were mentioning the, I hadn’t watched this discussion with JP yet, but about the birth issue. Um, but one of the, and so you’re talking about like this sort of arc of the covenant or holiest of holies sort of symbolism there. But one of the things that, that, well, I mean, I immediately thought of was it’s somewhat, um, it’s a product of, of wealth or modernity to have such a separation of rooms in a home. Um, in, in most recent, you know, 120 years, a hundred years or anyone today that’s in poverty, you don’t have this separation of the rooms really. You have, um, many people in one large room in a house. Uh, now you may have a bed that is, you know, specific to your parents, but, um, we, we have this sort of, uh, separated and segmented lifestyle that was not the case for many people for a large part of history. Um, especially when you consider the birth rate was an average of 10 in the United States at the turn of the century. So I do think that that although, while that is true in some, in some sense, I think that we, the separation was not nearly as strong as it may be, um, seem today with parents and children and the home, things of that nature. You stepped into someone’s house to have dinner. Your, their bed is also there. Yeah. I mean, it is interesting, you know, like when I was like that, the, I mean, the, all the extreme poverty that I’ve been around is in Latin America, but it’s still like, I mean, like the first thing you put up is the curtain, you know? Um, but, you know, and then you have to decide the thing between like, well, what’s sort of, sort of like, what can you manage versus what’s the normative situation? And, and so then if you have this sort of consistent movement towards that sort of structure, as people move out of poverty, I would say that’s as much of an indication of like how people want to structure their lives as what you can learn from the reality that’s necessitated by severe poverty. So, and, and I mean, I think you can, you can look at, there’s certainly, well, we can get lost in our houses, you know, especially, I mean, I don’t, again, speaking from here, like the number of people that I met in college who come out of these like, you know, massive Texas sub-divs where it’s like, you know, one or two kids in these giant houses. And you just, as you, as you get inside into the lives, you realize that, yeah, they’re just kind of like lost in this house. It feels sort of like, like, like some Borquet’s story where like all these people are just lost and elaborate at this house. And then, and there’s really something, I mean, so we, we live in a tiny house and we have four young children, four children, four and under, and we are all on top of each other. And, obviously there’s like plenty of challenges with that, but there’s like, there’s also a lot of like, you know, we’re all here with each other all the time. Honestly, one of the things I’ve noticed, just studying mental health and stuff right now is, you are so, so one thing we’ve started doing, and I was talking to Andrew about this earlier, but, is telling people that for your mental health, you need to get away from people. Like we have retreats and we’re constantly trying to get away from other people for our mental health. Well, if you’re dealing with people who are crazy making and, honestly, no, so mental illness is socially contagious. There’s no question about this. It is definitely healthy to get away from people who are crazy making, but you as an individual alone will lose your mind. And so the nuclear family and just like separating and becoming atomized individuals is also crazy making. Again, I think that’s a good point. I think that’s a good point. That balance there. Yep. That’s why I’m a Jesus is the centrist, right? It’s like that radical centrist. It’s not radical because it’s, you could say, but it’s because like, I’ve talked to you before about the opponent processing, right? Because there is a frame and that has to be resolved. And what the cultists do in that is they try and disrupt the resolution of frame or try and artificially control the frame. But Jesus is what actually creates that is, and that’s what, I’m going to get it right this time, hopefully CK Tasterson and it’s close. You need a little bit more on the sea, just like a little line on that sea. Yeah. Like his whole thing with the distributism, right? Was like that. But it’s sort of like finding that middle ground and like all these things. I think that, you know, Jesus is about finding that center that is otherwise unmarked, that resolves all these oppositions without one having to destroy the other, right? That’s interesting. I don’t know if I would place it that way as far as I would see it, but because there’s a very specific, in Christ teaching, right? There’s a very specific line to those who are, who are goats and sheep, right? So there isn’t a radical centrism as much as there is a narrow path that one must be on for this particular salvation effort, right? So it’s to say, to do this centrist thing is a hard analogy for me because it sort of feels fensity, you know? Oh yeah. Well, that’s actually, Father Eric threw that radical word in there. I was never going radical with the centrism. I was just, when you started talking about centrism, you reminded me of lungfish. You guys remember lungfish on BOM? Oh yeah. The radical centrist troll? What a guy. Well, when you say lungfish, I just think of air breathing fish coating themselves in mucus to make it through the dry season. So, and that’s, you know. So all I was saying is Jesus is a centrist in the fact that he is the center of that radical path. He’s at the end of that narrow path. He can unite all of the extremes in himself. And the Holy Spirit is giving us those, what was the word that I forgot? Rumble strips. Rumble strips. The Holy Spirit’s giving us the rumble strips so we stay on the narrow path. The guard rails, yeah. The guard rails so we get to Jesus, right? The law is that, I mean, as far as I, you know, the law gives you the guard rails, right? Yeah, the only thing I’m going to say about… It’s because there’s mercy as well. It’s not… The only thing I’m going to say about lungfish is I actually met him. Nice guy, had lots of problems. Trying to find the right person. I don’t remember the person. Yeah, well, he was Catholic so I tried to look out, but… So yeah, I mean, my reading, I haven’t read Orthodox in a while, but I probably read it five or six times. It’s not so much this sort of like happy mean, it’s so much this ability to integrate all of the virtues. Because that was Chesterton’s major concern is that when you isolate one of the virtues or a couple of the virtues, you end up in this madhouse situation, which I mean, is like, absurdly, you know, it’s like, yeah, everyone can see that. It’s like compassion with nothing else, justice with nothing else, you know, truth seeking with nothing. And it’s like, and obviously they all collapse into the weight of themselves and they cease to become just or compassionate or merciful or what, you know, or truthful or fortuitousness or anything. But anyway, his point was not so much, you know, try to find this happy mean, but Christ is the place where all of those things come together. And that’s why in the church, you both have these people who are, you know, St. Francis of Assisi, who’s like, taking the clothes off his back, walking out of, you know, out of the court of law with his parents and be like, yeah, you take everything, including like, I’ll walk out if you’re naked. And you also have, you know, warrior saints. And it’s like, how can you have both of those? How can you have this like, intense activity in the sort of, and also this intense surrender? How can you have, you know, this sort of all this contemplation and activity and all these things? And it’s the integration rather than sort of a leveling. And he makes a big point out of, it’s not about mixing the two of them together. Yes. It’s some sort of watered down thing. I agree. Yeah. When I was talking about the center is the center, like Jesus is the center, like it’s not a center, center ism. Jesus is the center. It’s, I’m not saying that it’s, it’s in no way finding the mean. It’s no way compromising. There’s no compromise in Christ. Right. Right. It’s about taking these different opposing forces and finding the truth behind them. Right. So it’s not, they’re not pulling you in these deceptive directions. They’re actually finding like through the, through this, like Christ being like the supreme being, like being the exemplar of all the virtues at once, you know, showing you that that resolution is possible. And then you finding your way down that narrow path to get there. Right. So it’s not, so, so yes, so there’s no compromise in Christ. I would say like that. So it’s not, it’s not a mean, it’s not a compromise. That’s not what I’m talking about at all. Right. Yeah. And, and Christ shows us that is possible. Yeah. Yeah. To embody it all. It’s difficult. Yeah. Yeah. That’s why it’s the God man. Jacob, what do you think, what do you think of the book of Joe? What is the book of, yeah. All right. Where, where does that? I don’t start crying the way, the way Jess does every time somebody mentions it, but it’s, it’s still one of my favorites. All right. So I’ve got a question. Is it, to your understanding, is it viewed as sort of like the introductory piece to the wisdom literature? Cause like, you know, the way that the, the, all those writings are typically put together, Job is the first one before you get into, you know, the Psalms and Proverbs and all the rest of it. And I’ve, and I’ve been, you know, mulling over, is that, is that like, is there something in Job that’s supposed to be presented to us as sort of this like sort of entryway to wisdom? Do you know if there’s- Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, isn’t it? Job got some of that right at the end. So- Yeah. And, and the knowledge of your death, those are the two, those are the two sources of wisdom. The one thing I’ll bring up is there’s a debate in, in the Talmud, whether or not it’s, the story of an actual thing that happened or just an allegory. And one of the more common opinions is that it was actually written by Moses as a way of understanding, like as a kind of counterpoint to Deuteronomy, right? Like there are the promises that Deuteronomy promises, yet we live in a world that has fallen and- You have the best man who does everything right. And then the worst thing happens to him. And I mean, that’s something that goes throughout the Bible. I mean, you can call it, you got Christological typing. What are you guys going to call it exactly? But I- I apologize, you’re not typing, you’re ruining it. Sorry. But I mean, the idea of the suffering servant, that’s, that’s a common thing throughout the Bible. Yeah. And then it becomes, you know, I mean, there’s the whole thing of him being the intercessor for his friends afterwards, but I’ve been, yeah, I don’t know. I just really, really love Job. And I was curious what, you know, what you have. Oh, if you haven’t listened to Jess, do you know Jess? He’s not on BOM. He’s- Oh. So- I don’t even know how he found me, but I’m glad you’re here. Paul VanderKlay, comment on Paul VanderKlay’s videos. Yeah. So Jess is one of the old school members of this lower corner and- And he has, he, he, we have a joke that he starts crying whenever he talks about the book of Job because he starts crying whenever he talks about the book of Job. And I think he and Sherry did a 15 hour discussion. Like he has the book of Job memorized. He loves that book. And like, so if, if, if you want to talk to somebody about Job, Jess, Jess is your man. Cool. Cool. Yeah. Yeah. There’s some, there’s some really interesting things. I mean, this is a, this is a weird connection, but have any, I don’t know if any of you all have ever read The Monsters and the Critics by Tolkien. It was his essay on Beowulf. Fascinating essay where he basically, my understanding is previously it had been seen as a sort of like weird, like little piece of Northern European history. And then he wrote it and people were like, oh, maybe this is actually one of the greatest pieces of literature in the Western world. And his contention is essentially about the timeline of it. Cause you have this weird, the first part where Beowulf is like glorious and he defeats Grindel and Grindel’s mother. And then he’s with the dragon and gets killed as an old man. And people are like, this, the timing makes no sense. This is a weird story. And Job is fascinating because you have these, to me, cause you have these like two little bits of narrative at the beginning and the end and this huge chunk of discourse. And the thing that’s kind of been like striking me so hard is the irony of everything that his friends say about Job, about how like God will never lift up a righteous man and like, you know, God will never let a righteous man fall and, you know, and, and all in all. And you’re like, well, yeah, I mean, if you like flip six pages on, you see that much of this, it’s a probably like, in that sense, like it’s really ironic. So I don’t, I just, I don’t, I’ve found myself like continually sort of like schooled in like my attempt to understand narrative by Job. Like that’s actually like, I feel like if you spend enough time with Job, like it really teaches you a lot about like what narrative is for, what good narrative is, what’s that interaction between narrative and our lives, like in what sense can we see our own lives as a narrative? I don’t know. I just, I, there’s Jess probably knows all this stuff. I’ll bring up one of Father Eric’s favorite, favorite authors, which is Thomas Aquinas. And the reason why Thomas Aquinas is a classic is when he asks a question, he asks real questions. Like it’s not, it’s not, can we beat up on the Protestants on this channel? Do something. I guess I’m the only one present. I don’t know. Well, I’m Protestant too. I’m okay with it. Yeah, I’m all right. We’re used to it. It’s not like some catechisms where they ask a question and like, it’s not a real question and the answer kind of obliterates the question. You know, there’s, there’s real catechism, real instruction involves a real question. And so Job’s friends aren’t just caricatures. There are people who are saying things, which, you know, religiously we struggle with. And then God reads them the riot act and tells them, you know, we, we have to, we have to recognize our limitations and who we are as human beings. But that is real intellectual engagement. And so shout outs to Father Eric’s homeboy, Thomas Aquinas for that one. Oh yeah, yeah. No, and yeah, that’s interesting that Job’s friends and the random guy who shows up at the end and never gets mentioned again. Yeah, they weren’t, they weren’t just trying to shut Job up or something, but they were really wrestling with it. Yeah. Well, it also sort of articulates well as much of scripture does is the wisdom of man is never held in high regard. So this Protestant tangent sort of has has another brings up another one of my tabs for Father Eric that I had president. It’s there’s a a a conference called I think a near simulacrity that happened in January. And it was, and one of the speakers did a talk called Hermetics and Perspectivalism. And he was a, he was a Protestant. Dr. William Roach. And I thought I was listening to his talk yesterday on the way back from camp. And I thought it was really good. And he actually, he was lamenting the fact that that German idealism has basically completely infested modern hermeneutics, hermeneutics. Hermeneutics. And he as a good Protestant would he compared it. He compared it to the Luther stand against the Magisterium and claimed that the woke German idealist take on hermeneutics was the new Magisterium dictating how we should interpret the Bible. I thought it was an interesting talk. Well, Mark liked that talk too. If you can find it, you can go ahead and drop it into the chat here. I did. Ah, there it is. There it is. Then we can all a little bit of quality reaping for Grimm Grizz there. Mark, we have successfully reaped it. Both Xander and Mark liked it. And Grimm Grizz thinks it’s funny that I called somebody a ginger. Nudered Herman is suspicious. But hermeneutics, generally, because I think I actually, and that was what I was talking about before is because I as a new atheist who’s seen the sort of the wave of evil sort of consume everything and me running in front of it, I think that the way that the Marxist cultists had to go over the Catholic church was over the liturgy. But the way they needed to get to corrupt the Protestant church is through hermeneutics because they needed to go after the interpretation of the Bible for the Protestants. And since the center, I think of Catholic life is the liturgy, they needed to compromise that. I don’t know if that’s that needs some. Yeah, you go straight for the center, right? Yeah. And then because they need to bring the bring the margins to the center, the center, the center of the margins. Right. And then they invert and throw the margin, the center out. Right. That’s what they do. It reminds me of this book I just read. Keith Winschuttle wrote it. It’s called The Killing of History. And it’s basically about how sociology and literary critics have basically destroyed historical hermeneutics and historical interpretation. And so what the lens by which we view and do history today from an academic perspective, people that are doing history and academics are infected and influenced by sociology to a degree that’s essentially ruining any sort of history. Well, that was Marx’s thesis, right? He went after like, he sort of started that whole assailment of history. And like, so that history through the end, where it became that history through the critical lens, jumping a few iterations and mutations of Marxism there. But yeah, so it, so it’s, it’s, it’s, they’re basically taking their, their German idealist tools that they refined to the constant reevention and confusion of history to hermeneutics. And so, so, so, and again, it’s the disruption of the text. So it’s like, so in history, it’s like, did this fact that like, you know, the literally the, it doesn’t become about the history anymore. It’s about the stuff around the history. It’s like, okay, so why did the historian write this? And why did this, you know, in why the historian highlight this fact instead of this other fact? And so you, so the discussion moves away from the, from what is actually presented in the historical text. And the same thing they’re doing with hermeneutics is it’s no longer about, well, what is the text and the symbolism of the text? We’ll talk about, well, what was the author thinking? What was the whole historical contents of context of how this was written? And then, you know, then you’re, you’re playing a new shell game where then you’re actually like creating this new narrative, creating a narrative around the narrative, the text, which disrupts the actual proper interpretation of, of, of the narrative within the text, the text of the, instead of considering what the story within the text is, they’ve moved you on to, to their own story, right? That’s, that’s surrounding the text and blocking you from getting to the actual truth that is, that is revealed in the Bible. Isn’t that, I feel like, is that what Peugeot is always getting on about, about the power of the feminine as being the power of the frame? I have not heard that. Yeah. I would love to. He’s basically like, Yeah, he’s like, which is more, you know, which is more powerful, the question or the answer? It’s like, well, you know, if you get to control the question, then he kind of has this correspondence between the feminine and the masculine. Yeah, you can actually see that in, in why the devil had to go after Eve. Actually, I like that a lot because I was actually like just talking this Friday in my Catholic dad’s group about Adam and Eve and why did Satan go after Eve. And that’s sort of like, and I think that, I think you’re, you’re, you’re really sort of hitting the nail on the answer that on the head there with Ted with that whole idea of like framing the question because Adam was, he’s really sort of two forces that would influence Adam, right? It would either be the father or Eve, right? So the father told Adam, like he basically gave him two instructions in the garden. It was like plow the fields, right? Provide and also defend. So he would actually, you know, if the serpent came after Adam directly, he would see Adam would perceive him as an, as an intruder and, and presumably like reject anything Satan said out of hand. But by going through Eve, then Eve can present the frame that, you know, that frames the question. And then Adam surrenders to her, right? Cause, cause, cause she’s sort of this, the center of the heart of his, of, of his world. I don’t know if I’m getting sort of lost in a lot of things there, but I think that there’s something there, which, which you’re saying there, Ted, gets, it gets back to the story in Genesis. I’m getting a little lost myself and I think it mostly has to do with the nonsense with the clocks and waking up early. So, thank you all. Bruce, nice to have you on. I, and we’ve got some regulars here. Jacob, nice to have you on. You don’t, you don’t jump on all that often, but it’s always good to have you and Ted and Xander and Valerie. Thank you very much. God bless you all. Good night. God bless. Take care.