 Welcome to the summer 2022 breakout session. I'm Patrick Madrid, and for about the last, I don't know, 25 years, I've been doing the almost every summer I do a workshop called Stump The Apologist. Not Stumpy The Apologist, not Stop The Apologist, but Stump The Apologist. The idea is that we'll have a free-wielding Q&A session. I'll take your comments and questions on any topic. If you want to make a comment, that's fine, and I'll comment under comment. We'll try to get through as many questions as we have time for, but the audience being the size of it is right now, I have a feeling we'll be able to maybe even go back for seconds for those of you who want to do that. And I'm just delighted that we're not in the tent, because normally they have me in the tent, and sometimes as you know, I'm very hot and humid here in Studentville, so it's nice to be in air-conditioned comfort. So we'll just open it up to your hands, yes or no? You were in this one, at work? Unambulantly I should have downed this. I had to work a week, but... Well, I can see that every time you explain to somebody, you're a lawyer, you're a lawyer, I'm a lawyer, and you always slide back, and you don't get a full list. Oh, okay. And it's not like a lawyer, I guess, but I have a very professionalist ministry problem, and he's very well-concentrated, so... I wonder if you get any comments you have on it. Sure, yeah. So what I'm gonna share now are my own perceptions, my own opinions, if that's what you wanna call it. So they don't really mean anything to anyone except for me, but I'll share with you my stance on the topic. So I'll begin by saying I've never been to Medjugorje, and although I consider myself an open-minded skeptic, there have been many people over the years who have said, well, you can't know, you've never been there, there's no way you could know. Well, that's true, but there are plenty of other places that I haven't been, but I can have an opinion on that, and what about all the people who have not been to Medjugorje, and who do have a favorable opinion of it? So the idea of going or not going in itself, I don't have the benefit of being able to draw upon that, but my way of background, my aunt and uncle, these actually were my godparents, my father's sister and the resident. In about 1983, they came over to my parents' house, and my wife and I were there busy, and they said, we just came back from this amazing place in, at the time, Yugoslavia, Medjugorje. My uncle called it Medjugorje for the longest time, and I never heard anything about it, and they said, we just went on a pilgrimage, and it was really amazing, all days appearing there, so I was like all years, and I'd like to know, so tell me everything you know. And they wound up making maybe, I don't know, 60, 70 pilgrimages there, and they led groups to Medjugorje, so they were deeply, deeply involved, and they were very, very familiar with the seers and the messages and all of that. So that was my first exposure. It was probably more than a year or two after these alleged apparitions began, and I didn't really give it a lot of thought, but as time went on, I wanted to read more, so Wayne Weigel had a book that he came out with, I got that, and a few other books, just trying to make sense out of it, but I would run into things that didn't make sense, so there were aspects of it, especially like when the seers went on BWTN and were doing interviews and things, and I won't bore you with like a laundry list, but there were things that just didn't seem quite right, and I wasn't sure why, so after more time went by, I began to get a sense of kind of skepticism, like I'm not really sure what to make of this. That's probably how I would describe myself now. I'm more than open to being long, I'm more than open to finding out that this is really our late appearing. That's great, we need more of that, not less of it, but things like a seer doing a conference in Northern California and telling the blasts from this joke about Jesus not being able to walk on water because he had holes in his feet. And stuff like that, it's like I can't picture your sister Lucia or Sita from Batima doing something like that. There is also the concern about what seemed to be sort of fame and kind of selling the apparitions that I felt funny about. Seems like most of the other apparition seers, they would go into the convent where they would lead lives of humble obscurity, but it didn't seem like that's what was going on here. So for all those reasons, and a few others that started back up here and over there, that's my stance, I'm just sort of an open-minded skeptic. I'd love to be wrong, hope I'm wrong, but I'm content to just kind of take a way to see approach to this sort of thing. Close to Sam. Oh, you don't have to, no. I'll stand, you guys can I'll stand. First, I'm a, I made a, was a convent that flew over transfer like a possible pastry to produce a part of their films, so. Okay. Welcome home. And you were part of that, so I'm gonna thank you for taking their films. So this is friendly fire, which is, by the way, this is a paper-fold, you know, Sanctum in the 14th century. They built films about, you know, the thing was, reparation, there was no salvation outside the church, right? It was necessary for salvation, there was no increasing subject, no, not to, of course, it was effective to the player, and we got a house, so it was kind of the one. Right. And they had a long, it was pretty much a topic. By the way, I have to repeat the questions for the recording, so don't make it too long, because I'll never remember all of them. Sorry. So if you could summarize it, I'll try to. I'd like to add that, because it covers basically all the prostitutes, most of the convent, not so much, in that side of the church. And yet, that, too, the degree of ecumenism in chapter three basically reverses all that, and uses very delicate language to basically lead you to a wide open, so for a lot of prostitutes, this looks like moving the bulls, moving the bulls, performing the plant season, and taking the bulls once, that is now the day for the prostitutes. Okay, so the gentleman's question has to do with extra lazy on the Nula Salves, the Latin phrase for, there's no salvation outside the church, referencing a paper documents that declares this dogmatically that there's no salvation outside the Catholic Church. And then other magisterial comments to that effect. And then, just supposing that with section three of the Vatican II document on religious liberty and ecumenism, and it seems to be an about face of an exact opposite approach to the topic in Vatican II compared to the earlier papal comments. So how do we square that circle? How do we make that work? Well, I would begin by saying, first of all, I adhere to the dogma of no salvation outside the church. It's a divine dogma of the faith every Catholic is obliged to believe that. And I do, firmly. I would take my cue from section 14 of Lumen Genesium, the document of constitution of the church. And that carries more weight. It's more weighty as a doctrinal statement than a document that is giving sort of an outlook, so to speak, without teaching dogmatically certain things as the decree on ecumenism is. So I would say we should look at section 14 of Lumen Genesium, which says, and forgive me for not being able to quote it verbatim, but this is a pretty close approximation, that no one knowing that, first of all, it talks about Jesus Christ being our unique soul savior. There is no other savior other than Jesus. He is our savior in owning them. And therefore no one who knows that the Catholic church is necessary for salvation and either refuses to enter it or to remain in it can be saved. That's a rather clunky way of saying no salvation inside the church, but it does say it very clearly. Now the key to that passage, if you ask me, is the word knowing. So that is where it gets into the question of visible and invisible ignorance. So the church has always held a view even prior to some of these papal statements on the subject of the church, that there are people who through no fault of their own don't know. And that's always been a question mark. Well, what happens to the unborn baby who dies in the womb or in a baptized infant or what happens to somebody who is mentally retarded who does not have the capacity to make a decision as our brothers and sisters say, make a decision for Christ. So I would say that the way to harmonize, I'll come back to the decree on humanism. The way to harmonize this question about what about people who don't know would be in 1 Timothy 2, verse four where it says that God was salvation all meant He was to become to knowledge of the truth and to be saved. So I believe the church's teaching alongside extra-clays young is that God desires salvation of all people. Therefore, there must be some way that at least it's possible that all people could be saved. All people, not just, you know, cart-carrying Catholics in the United States but people who lived many, many centuries ago or even millennia ago had never had time or opportunity to know about Jesus. There must be some way that the Lord would provide for them and that has not been revealed to us. What hasn't been revealed to us is that Jesus Christ started a church and all their lives to enter into it. So the church in that document in section 14, I believe it's saying is that if you know or even if you suspect that a Catholic church is necessary for salvation if you don't enter into it or if you're a Catholic and you're the main in the church then you will be lost. Now, it leaves open the question where it doesn't answer the question in the document well what about those souls who never had a chance and it wasn't their own fault. So to that I would just simply say to say that we trust in the Lord's mercy and love is not incompatible with the dogma of no salvation outside the church. It's compatible. The church has never really defined any dogma about that so we just simply accept that on faith. Now as for the decree itself as you probably are well aware there was a great inroad that was made into the schemas of the Second Vatican Council by very liberal and modernist architects of an approach to these topics that is consistent with spiritual teaching. So I don't deny that there are different friends and even perhaps some phraseologies that make it that much more difficult but in the end the dogmatic constitution on the church I would say trumps the decree on ecumenism and it clearly does say you can't be saved if you're not aware of the church. So that's how I have a piece of equilibrium with the issue. I suppose there's much more that can be said is that a satisfying question? That's good to just look and follow up. No one would even check the church. Where does that lead? I know you don't know but you were a vet and what would you think about it on Lucas? Oh so would I guess that he's in hell? I would guess that he's probably in hell unless he had a deathbed conversion but there's no evidence of that that I know of anyway. So assuming that there was no true conversion apart and a repentance for the sins that he committed then I can't imagine that we could have. I just, it's completely against everything that Jesus said. Jesus said he who endures to the end will be saved. Martin Luther did not endure it from the end. So I hope he made it to the very last minute but I don't expect to see Martin Luther in heaven. I'd like to be wrong, I'd like the other issue. I'd like to be wrong about that. I certainly don't mean to be Mr. Deven Gliff. The other thing that I would add to it is that Jesus said the road is wide and well-traveled at least to perdition, to hell and the gay is narrow and you find it that leads to eternal life. So even from our Lord Himself it seems as though there's a sort of, it's weighted more in the pessimistic direction. But again, just my perception is on the topic. Thank you. Now let's get to some more questions. Hi. Yes. I'll just hold the mic up to you so I won't have to repeat it. How about that? If eating meat was the result, if eating meat was the result of Adam and Eve's fall, how did Jesus eat meat? How did he participate in something, even if it was traditional at the time, that stemmed from the fall? That's a very interesting question. I don't think I may be current that question before. So let me think it through. So eating meat is the result of the fall that need. We know that God made clothing out of animal skins for them, which means that animals had to die for that to take place. It doesn't say that they ate the animals, but we know that shortly after that eventually they were eating animals because the abundance of the garden was no longer available to them. Why would Jesus do that? I don't see any conflict with that because eating animals in itself is not inherently evil. There's nothing inherently wrong with eating animals or eating plants. It seems to me possible that human history in the garden was, you might say, perhaps exempt from natural history that had been going on maybe for many billions of years and all the processes that developed and God treating different species at various times and the old earth view that there were obviously what we may have when we countless animals, dinosaurs, insects, fish dying, coming and going, but the death that was talked about in Romans chapter three and chapter five was introduced by sin that was out of need. So I can see the case to be made that that death is not saying that nothing died prior to this point, but that in the garden as far as human beings and whatever animals may have been there, they did not die. That's just the theory, and I don't know. I mean, it could be false, but it seems like that would be one way to reconcile this, but I would respond to your son who was vegetarian by saying, well, there's really no conflict here. Jesus wore clothing, and clothing was the result of the fall. They were naked before the fall. And the direct result of the sin was the loss of innocence and the awareness of their own nakedness and God being clothing for the very first time. Jesus wore clothing. Why would he do that? It's a result of the fall, well, true, but all of everything that happened in human history is a result of the fall. So I don't see any conflict. So I would just nibble in about there and just say it's kind of a non-question. So, you're welcome. Yes, ma'am. So I have a question. It's kind of a complicated question for me, but I think I get it. But since you're very in the fall, there's all these questions of some of the things he's saying. Why don't they come to you? Because the microphone has to pick up the question or it won't make sense that people are listening to it. Okay. All right. So my question is about the fall. There's not as a question about the things he's doing and saying, okay, that he's not so traditional that he wants to change things. So that makes me nervous. And then like he reinstated of hope, not of hope, he reinstated the bishop who was in trouble because of that kind of failure. You know, so that makes me nervous. Then the whole thing that we really have two hopes today. I just, it's a question, is it ever getting forward? I think so. I would like it. I'm afraid if you got more to that, I'll never, I'll never get through it all. So Pope Francis certainly is very different in his demeanor, in his manner of speaking and conveying information. Then Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, that's for sure. They were academics and they were very precise and logical and orderly. And Pope Francis isn't, it's just not his style. He's not an academic. Now I don't think we can chop it up just that. Pope Francis is Jesuit and the Jesuit border, by and large, in the last 100 years, if not more, has swung very far to the left in many areas. And I think we're seeing that reflected in many of the things that Pope Francis is saying. So what do we do with that? How do we make sense of it? Well, I look at it this way. First of all, we don't have two hopes. There can't be two hopes at any given time. There's only gonna be one validly elected pope. And I don't accept the view that Pope Benedict is still really the validly elected pope. Francis is an invalidly elected pope because the way Pope Benedict resigned, he didn't use the correct Latin word, Moonus versus a ministerium, which is the office versus the ministry of the office. I don't think, I think that's a dead end street and that argument does not really pan out. I don't know if that's what you're thinking about. But no, I don't believe that Pope Benedict is the real pope hiding in the wings. For a variety of reasons, one of them would be that if he really knew that he was the validly elected pope, then look at the trauma and the problems that he would have inflicted on the church knowingly by having somebody who, if this were true, and I believe it is, was building an anti-pope. Pope Benedict, Pope Benedict, he's a wicked scoundrel, but that's really what he's doing. I don't believe that it's what he's doing. He has repeated many times. I have not lost my office completely. Now, looking back on it, I really would rather that he hadn't done that, but he did that. So we just, we have to roll with the punches. This is Christ's church. And one thing I can tell you, I don't know how much of a consolation this will be to you, but if you look at the 2,000 year history of the church, for the most part we've had rather good pope, some of them very saintly, martyrs, some of them good, competent men who didn't necessarily rise to the level of saintly, but we also had a few terrible evil popes who committed murder and who fathered all sorts of illegitimate children and carried on in what different ways, buying and selling offices. Some of these popes were wickedly corrupt and none of those things appear to be any problems that we might see with Pope Francis. I've never seen any evidence of that. So I argue that by way of comparison to say, in the history of the church, we have seen some really terrible popes. So by comparison, even though it's jarring and some of the things that Pope Francis says and does, or can be indeed very jarring, even to the point of saying, well, how do we square this with what we know to be true? Another point of refuge, if we can call it that, is that when the First Vatican Council defined the doctrine of papal availability, it was very specific about when the Pope enjoys the special charism of infallibility, and it gives an example of when formally or in an extraordinary way, it's going to define a dogma. Pope Francis' comments on planes, who am I to judge? Catholics, you're not to be like rabbits. All of them think that none of those things fall within the parameters that are set by the church as far as the charism of infallibility is concerned. None of them do. So what that tells me is, all right, Lord, if in the course of your church's history, if you've seen fit to permit some hopes to come and go who did not do as good of a job or as clear of a job, or maybe they needed a bit of a mess of things, and we've seen that before, well, Lord, I trust you. I trust you. And you said that on the Strockwell Bill Ventures in the Gaze of Hell and on Perville against it, and I believe that. So it's easy to believe the Lord when everything is calm and seems easy to figure out. It's much more difficult to trust the Lord when you're in the Fushin boat as the apostles were on the Sea of Galilee when this huge storm came up and it looked like they were going to drown because the waves were being so high and Jesus was asleep in the back of the boat, as you know, and they were shaken awake. Lord, don't you care that we're about to die? And Jesus says, you know, the story, he says, why did you doubt what would give us a little faith? And then he calls the storm. He had been there on the boat the whole time. The apostles were freaking out. And so personally, I look to that story in scripture as a reminder to me that I have to trust and I do trust. And I'm not gonna try to, you know, figure out some fantastical theory about how Pope Benedict is the real Pope or anything like that. I'm just gonna trust and go forward and I'll have this. And I pray every day that God will help Pope Francis to be the very best Pope he's capable of being. Give him courage and conviction. Give him the light of intellectual truth to know what needs to be done so that he can be a very good Pope. And I pray that in God's providence that's what happens. In the meantime, I'm just gonna trust in Jesus and I know the faith. I know what Jesus taught. I know the Bible teaches what the Church's teachings are. And I'm okay to just press on that way. That's a question that does come up more than a few times on the radio program. So I've just given you a rendition of the answer I've given you for history. How, when, and where did Mary pass away? And how do we know for sure that Jesus was assumed into heaven? What if your permission empty is that I'll follow? Okay, certainly. So the gentleman's question is, how, when, and where did Mary die and how do we know that she died and was more important, bodily assumed into heaven? And then there's a follow-up coming up to that. Well, we don't have any explicit scriptural testimony that tells us that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. We can infer implicitly a few things because for example, we know that other people were assumed bodily into the heavens like Elisha. So at the end of his earthly life, he was somehow transformed whenever this fiery chariot and Elisha saw him go up into the heavens. He didn't go to heaven because the gates of heaven were closed at that point. But he was translated somehow into eternity. And so we know that is true. We know that in first Thessalonians chapter four that there will be a rapture at the very end when the final trumpet blows as Steve Ray was talking about. And those who are left alive on the earth will be raptured up and caught up into the air and transformed somehow into eternity. So we know that bodily assumptions are biblical. There's no question mark on that point. The question is, does the Bible say anything specific about Mary being bodily assumed into heaven? We could look at Revelation chapter 12, verse one. Now I saw a great sign in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun and on her head a crown of 12 stars standing on the moon. And this of course is an image of the Blessed Virgin Mary. There are other senses of scripture that one can see there. This woman can also represent Israel, for example. But the male son born to this woman is clearly Jesus Christ. So the literal meaning of that passage, Revelation 12, one and forward is Jesus literally so the literal interpretation of the woman would be Mary. So some church fathers have pointed to that to say there's an illusion to the assumption that she's seen in heaven, but it doesn't say bodily assumed or anything like that. So how do we know? We know from what was called epistolic tradition, which is the oral transmission of the faith. It's not reduced to scripture, it's not contained in scripture. And the oral tradition of the church, going back as far as we have records in the case that Mary was bodily assumed in heaven when she was elderly and she had lived for a time in Ephesus, in Turkey, in St. John. And then near the end of her life, the stories that she went back to Jerusalem and the other apostles including St. John, they all gathered in Jerusalem to be with her when she died. And they were there with her when she died. And they went back the following morning and her body was gone. And it was total of roses. And if you ever go to Jerusalem, you can actually see the chapel that's dedicated. And they say that this slab is the place where her body lay. So we don't know from that standpoint. But the church, by formally defining this as a dogma, was drawn upon the firm epistolic tradition. Now, in the earliest centuries of the church, there's no mention of this. But there's a good reason for that. So in the first, say, 250 years, the reason we don't see anything in written form about this is for the same reason that we don't see anything written about the Trinity or anything written about the hypostatic union of Jesus because the church was fighting for its very life under persecutions. It was living underground. It did have the luxury to be able to develop some of these theological truths. But as soon as the persecutions ended in the early fourth century with the coming of Emperor Constantine, that's when we begin to see the sort of explosion of literature talking about our Lady Bevali assuming to heaven. So we can make a reasonable case that this was a truth epistolic tradition that had been handed down, but nobody had had a chance to really write about it until that time. So what was your follow-up question? Well, just to expand just one quick second. Sure. We really don't have any record of how long Mary lived after the death of Jesus still. No, we don't. We have what I would call solely private revelation with people such as Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich who does give some very precise details. And she does, in fact, I think she even goes so far to say how old our Lady was when she died. But those details are apocryphal. They could all be true, but the church doesn't say that anyone has to believe any of that stuff. One interesting point though was that Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich she in these visions, she saw this house that St. John and Our Lady lived in in Ephesus and she knew exactly where it was and she described how the road up from Jerusalem going into what is now Turkey and then you go this way and you go that way and the house is there. Well, some explorers have read that. They thought, well, let's test this. So they followed the information that she had given in these ecstatic visions that she had and they found it. They found this house that was, it was a stone house. Some of you may have been there, the house of Our Lady in Ephesus and it was completely obscured by branches and trees and plants. So nobody really knew it was there anymore and they discovered it in all of her details about this house that she had given years before were exactly as described. So not that that proves anything but it is an interesting little tidbit that maybe her information about Our Lady how old she was, that could be true but the church does not say that we have to believe anything about that. And you started to speak about my follow up which was Elijah. You know, I was going to say, Mary had an assumed that the heaven and then she came back and appeared and she's kind of working in heaven where we hear about Elijah who was brought up to heaven and we don't hear about him anymore. So who would be the significance of Elijah being assumed to heaven? There isn't anything. I know that I have an answer to that off the top. I would have to read a Scott on book. I'll tell you more into that question. Scott so knowledgeable in such matters. I'm sure he could give you some really scintillating reason. I don't know off the top of my head. If nothing else, I would guess that that was a way of God showing his favor to Elijah as the premier prophet. Moses and Elijah appearing with Jesus on Mount Tabor symbolizing and personifying the law and the prophets. So Elijah personified all of the prophets in himself. Moses symbolizes in himself the law and the two together on the Mount Transfiguration are you might say sort of like God's stamp of approval that my beloved son, listen to him, he now is fulfilling everything that came before. So if I had to guess, I would say that the Lord giving Elijah the special privilege of going up to this chariot was a way to show his favor on Elijah. I bet Scott's got a better answer than that. So, yes ma'am. Hi, when she was conceived it was without original sin. This is not a crossing line, I know it's just I'm referring. Mary was conceived without original sin. Both her parents, the original sin was removed before the sperm in the egg met. Then Mary has always been spoken of as being a virgin. So when she conceived, she conceived from the Holy Spirit. When Christ was born, in order for Mary to be a virgin, then she had to adjust, Christ has, even as an infant, just had to come out of her stomach, her abdomen, or somewhere, but he didn't come down through the birth tract. Is that correct? Good question. At first I thought you were going in the direction of Mary's sinlessness, but you're talking more about her ladies being a perpetual virgin. Okay, got it. And I think for obvious reasons, when you think about it, the gynecological details of this aspect of our Lord's life and coming into the manger are just not revealed to us. We just, God did not tell us that. And I don't know that we need to know that personally. I mean, we can speculate, but the commentators, the church fathers, for example, who comment on this, not all of them did, but some of those who comment on it, they say that on the one hand, of course, our lady was not subject to the penalties of the fall, one of which was pain and childbirth, and that was pulled by God to Eve and Genesis three. So Mary was not subject to that. She didn't have to have pain and childbirth, but normal childbirth involves pain, as you don't need me to tell you ladies, you already know that. So the commentators say that it's possible that one of two things took place. One is that our lady had a normal, regular birth the way any mother would give birth to a child vaginally. We're not talking about a cesarean, because those didn't exist then. And the miracle of that was that the Lord passing through the birth canal did not violate the integrity of Mary's anatomy. I'm speaking in roundabout terms here. We're talking about our lady, after all. So that's a possibility. The Lord could easily have enabled that earth to take place that way without any change whatsoever to our lady's physical integrity. But that's assuming that virgin or virginity is referring only to that and it's not. It does refer to that, but I'd say more in a limited way, but it's more importantly, it's referring to the means of procreation that our lady was a virgin and never experienced that. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit that conceived the Lord inside her. So when the church says that Mary was ever a virgin, it's, I think, more so emphasizing that point than the anatomical issue, but I think that's her too. The other school of thought is that the miracle was that the Lord passed through her lady's body in a way like a ray of light passes through a pane of glass. It goes through it, it doesn't change it, it doesn't break it, it's a miracle. That's possible too. So personally, I'm content to say what or the other happened, I don't know, I don't feel like I need to know. And in heaven, if the Lord reveals that to his saints or heaven, they will know. But in the meantime, we can still say it's certain to you that our lady remained a virgin before, during and after the Lord took Jesus. Does that get to your question? Yeah, I think it's like a decision. That's what I think happened. Yeah. Yeah. That's what all things got. It was God that well, it all went over the reverse. Well, we have to remember that that is sort of possible, it couldn't happen this way. But other things that didn't have to happen did happen. So like our Lord didn't need to be circumcised. He didn't need to shed his blood. He didn't need to go through that, but he did need that as a way to fulfill prophecy and to enter into our human sufferings as he did. So, basically for the moment, I guess what we can say is we know something right was happened. We just don't know exactly what it was. Yes. Would you address the immaculate conception and how you intend to preserve it? Sure. The immaculate conception, first of all, is that our lady was preserved free from all sin in the moment of her conception. And that is understood in two ways. One is that she never contracted the condition of original sin, which is inherited from that of me. And she also never fell into any sin of her own. So she never committed any act against the will of God. And so those two go together. The best way that I know to establish this back biblically would be to use typological arguments. And I'll give you a quick overview of it. I wrote an article on the topic about 30 years ago. It's called Mary Arthur, the New Covenant. And if you go to my website, PatrickRidger.com, look at articles, it says there's a PDF, and you can print it out. It gives you far more biblical information that I can give you right now, but I'll give you a little smattering of it. The typological argument is rampant throughout the New Testament that in the Old Testament there were persons, places, or things that foreshadowed or pointed to or symbolized something that would come in the New Testament. Most of them have to do with Jesus. So Moses was a type of Jesus. Moses led the people out of bondage of sin in Egypt, down to the Red Sea, and eventually to the Promised Land, feeding them with men in the desert, et cetera. So he was a prefigurement of Jesus who rescues us from bondage, slavery, in sin. Adam was a type of Jesus. St. Paul talks about that in Romans where he talks about the first Adam is the one who caused the catastrophe with sin. The second Adam of Eve, Jesus, is the one who corrects the fall, the results of the fall from the first Adam. The man in the desert is a type of the Holy Eucharist. The Paschal Lamb on the night of Passover was a type of Jesus slain for our salvation and consuming him in mass in the Holy Eucharist. There's a half a dozen examples right there. I think just to establish the fact that this is a very common of the whole type of archetype. The thing that you will notice is that in typology, the type or the Old Testament figure or person is always inferior and imperfect. The fulfillment of the type or the anti-type, as it's called in theological circles, is always perfect and complete. And this is an important point because now we'll do a few types that point to merit. So the first immaculate conception, of course, was Adam, followed by Eve. They were created immaculate, free from sin. Now, they didn't come into existence the way babies do now, God made them in different fashion, but nonetheless, He made them immaculate, free from sin. And one of the patristic comments is that He made Adam, as we're told, from this immaculate material, cosmos before the fall, was not labored by sin. It was not corrupted by sin. And therefore, in a sense, if you want us to talk about Mother Earth, but not in a tree-hugging way, the mother, so to speak, of Adam was this primordial, good material that was smallest. It was not corrupted by sin. Now, the mother of the second Adam, Mary, if the typology is correct, would say that this, of course, was a limited kind of connection because it's just dirt or whatever it's about used, but here we have a woman, so Mary, this argument goes, would be more perfect and complete in the sense of being immaculate. The second example would be of Eve herself. So as you know, Eve was created immaculate, but she fell. And then in the Prologue of Galeon, the Progospel in Genesis 3.15, where God says, because you have done this, you have cursed her, you, above all the cattle and all the other beasts, and you'll have to crawl on your belly, talking to the servant. And he says to the devil, he says, I will put entity between you and the woman, and you will strike his heel and he will crush your head. Now, Saint Jerome, later on, in translating the Bible into Latin, he drew out the Marian type here, the Marian archetype, that Eve, the first woman who was created sinless and yet fell into sin, she was the mother of the human race. Well, Jesus, the second Adam, his mother would be created free from sin and did not fall. So she was preserved in Christ. And the third one would be the Ark of the Covenant. Now, I find this particularly dramatic because the parallels are so close, but the Ark of the Covenant was this container probably, as I would guess, maybe about the size of the table that Tyler was sitting at right now, be a box, about four feet wide, maybe, about so tall, and it had strict dimensions that are given by God in Exodus, chapters 25 through 30, and then the repeated in Exodus 25, 30, and 40. And there we see God telling Moses to create this container that would house within it the word God in Scripture. Now, that would be the same commandment. This is the very beginning of the word God in Scripture. That were posed in the Ark, as well as some manna from the desert that was kept in a jar in the Ark. Now, the Ark had to be made as perfect as possible. So out of the finest wood, a case of wood, out of covered with beaten gold, surmounted by angels, statues of cherubim that sit on top, all of which point into the excellence and the perfection, as far as humanly possible, of this Ark. Well, obviously, you can't make it perfect in every detail because it's human craftsmanship. So the majestic argument is that just as the Ark, which carried the word God in Scripture in it, was holy, the word of God in flesh was in the Ark of the New Covenant, the Blessed Virgin Mary. But wait, there's more. So when the Ark was completed, and you read this in Exodus 35 through 40, when the Ark was completed, we see that the Spirit of God, the presence of God overshadowed the Ark and filled the Ark with the presence of the Lord, which of course is relevant of what the Andrew Gabriel said in chapter one, that the Holy Spirit will overshadow you and God's Spirit will come upon you. And this is how God literally was present inside the Blessed Virgin Mary in the incarnation. But wait, there's more. So the Ark was the holiest artifacts in the people of Israel, and it was captured in battle. You can read about this in 2nd Samuel, chapter six. It was captured by the Philistines. So King David rallies the troops, they go back into battle, they recapture the Ark, and as it's being brought back into the city of David, it just read the whole chapter of 2nd Samuel 6. It says that King David leaped for joy before the Ark of the Lord. And he said, who am I that the Ark of the Lord should come to me? And then he diverted the Ark into the hill country of Judea, and they were told the name of the family, go bet it on the get-tike. And while the Ark was present there at that man's home, it blessed his family, and that's a euphemism for the women got pregnant, the animals got pregnant, and the crops were bountiful. So life was bestowed upon this family as a result of the presence of the Ark. Well, the parallel here is startling with chapter one, because our lady gets up and hastens and goes to where in the hill country of Judea, to the home of Elizabeth and Zachariah, who had just been blessed with life in their old days. And Elizabeth sees Mary and says, who am I that the Ark of the Lord should come to me? And we know that the baby and her womb leaped for joy as King David did when he leaped for joy in the presence of the Ark. So these are all, and I forgot to ask you a question, you guess what we're doing, these are all aspects of the typological argument that polls that if we want to talk biblically about it, that Mary fulfills the biblical typology of these different things. And because those things are imperfect and partial in the Old Testament, she would be perfect and complete in the New Testament. One last little snippet here. At the end of Revelation chapter 11, St. John says, then I saw the temple in heaven opened, the sanctuary in heaven opened, and I saw the Ark of the Covenant. And there was a great earthquake and there was hail and thunder and peals of lightning. The very next sentence is Revelation chapter 12 verse one where he says, and then I saw a great sign in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun. So he brings together, yet again, this Ark Mary motif. We have to rely upon, if we want to give a biblical defense of our ladies' sinlessness, we have to rely upon these implicit arguments because there is nothing explicit there that says that Mary was sinless. So the church fathers and later doctors of the church, they rely upon that as their biblical foundation. Oh, my hobby is internet and public. If you're just thinking to somebody who's open and really wants an answer, all of that can be compelling. I usually face people who are attacking the church who don't want to hear anything, but give me the verse at the end of the chapter and just follow it along. I'll tell you how to handle that. That's a different argument, but it's related. He just, if somebody says, unless you can show me the Bible or it says that Mary was sinless, I'm not going to believe it. What I would say is, oh, are you saying that you will only accept a doctrine if it's found in the Bible and if somebody asserts a doctrine and you can't find it in the Bible that you shouldn't believe it? He's going to say, yes, that's exactly what it means. So then what you should do is to say, oh, well then show me where that doctrine is found in the Bible. Where does the Bible say I have to prove anything to the Bible? And the answer is nowhere. This is something Catholics need to know. If you ever find yourself on the defense, on the defensive, and somebody's saying, show it to me in the Bible, show it to me in the Bible, what you can do is to say, show me where the Bible says I have to. And it doesn't, because this is a presupposition that's brought to the discussion that is actually nowhere taught in the Bible. It is great and important whenever you can do scripture, but it's not always possible. So in this case, I would turn it back around that way. And I would say, if you can't show me where the Bible says I have to prove this to you from the Bible, that I am under your obligation to have to prove it to you from the Bible, and it's so true. So, yes. It seems that Catholicism is reducing the popularity of the United States, yet in a country like Africa, for what we've read, it's really catching on. Could you give us some input as to why you feel that might be impactful? Yeah, I've never been to Africa myself, but I've heard from a lot of people that the faith is really expanding there. Lots of priestly locations, lots of religious sisters, big families. So we should rejoice to see that kind of growth in the church. And you're right, I think, in many respects, the church is dying rapidly in the West. Why do I think this is happening? Well, I was actually talking with Scott over lunch about this very issue, and he was talking about the principle of recapitulation, where something is kind of, in other words, talking about cycles that happen in scripture. And so we see where Israel, God's chosen people, was protected by God, but eventually because they disobeyed God and they did not walk in His statues and ordinances, eventually God punished them by allowing them to be taken captive. And the land of Israel was depopulated and Babylonian captivity as one example. So it was a punishment to the people for their infidelity. He didn't forsake the covenant with them, but He permitted them to undergo this suffering and great many of them were killed as a result of that. And so in talking to Scott, what he was pointing out is this is not only a biblical pattern, it's an historical pattern. And so the church was really, really strong in the Middle East for the longest time, and then came Islam. And Islam overran the Middle East, which was largely Catholic at that time. And now the Catholic church is reduced to a very tiny minority, and it's under great stress all the time. The same thing is true with the sack of Rome. So you get to the seventh century and the different tribes from Eastern or Western Europe finally destroyed Rome and captured it, the Goths, the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths, a lot of the Goths back in those days. And eventually Rome, the seat, the very capital of the church so to speak was depopulated, it was laid waste. And so this happens in cycles historically as well as biblically. And so the upshot, and I think the answer to your question is, it may well be that we're living in such a time where the Lord is permitting the devastation of this part of the vineyard. And it's not him devastating the vineyard, it's we who have devastated the vineyard. And not necessarily you and I personally, but as a culture, as a church locally, we have devastated our section of the vineyard. And so maybe that the Lord is just gonna allow that to happen while the vineyard thrives in some other place like Africa. So we're seeing the same devolution now in Latin America. And for 500 years, Latin America was thoroughly capital, completely capital, and now look at it. It too is falling apart. So that's another one of the cycles that seems to me. I don't know if that's the answer, but I find it plausible myself. Yes, ma'am. I'm a second grade teacher. And when we had a Catholic school and when we get to the rosary we learned the Apostle's Creed every year, the kids ask me. Can I guess? Why did Jesus descend to the dead? Okay, I was gonna guess. There are two, that's one of them. So that was one guess. Why would Jesus go to hell? Or to hell, yeah. Why did he descend into hell was the point of that. The other one that comes up all the time is what does it mean that he rose again from the dead? Does that mean that he rose once before and that he rose again from the dead? You'd be surprised how many people trip over that as well. And that's just a figure of speech. Okay, so let's talk about that. The Creed says that he descended into hell and the Latin is inferno, inferno. So the word in Latin that Saint Jerome chose translate from the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament is that Latin word. In Hebrew it's Sheol and in Greek it's Hades. So I'm sort of saying it the way in American English people would say those words. Those two words Hades and Sheol mean the underworld. It means the place of the dead. And everybody went there. So good, bad, and everybody went there. And we know that because Jesus himself said that in Luke 16 where he tells us about Lazarus and the rich man. And I know you all know the story but for the sake of it, let's go through it. So Lazarus and the rich man both died. Lazarus, the poor man, goes to a place of tranquility and peace with Abraham. The rich man, Divas as he's traditionally known which is just the Latin word for rich. He goes to a place of fiery torment. Now when he appeals to Abraham for some help as he sees Lazarus with Abraham and he asks for some relief, Abraham says no, there's a great chasm fixed between where you are and where we are. We cannot cross to where you are and you cannot cross to where we are. But they all were in Sheol. They all were in Hades. So what happened was, when Saint Jerome in translating the Latin Vulgate used the Latin word for hell, that was translated eventually in English. So like I said, the Dewey Reims version. That's the literal translation of that word. But it loses the nuance of the underworld being a place for both good and bad. So long story short, answer question. When Jesus descended to hell, quote unquote, he descended into Sheol and Hades. And he went to that place where Abraham and all the righteous of the Old Testament were waiting, Lazarus included. And so he preached to them, Saint Paul talks about this in second Peter chapter three and second Peter chapter four where he says that the gospel was preached to the dead who were in prison and it's referring to them that he went to. But he certainly did not go to where the damn souls are. He did not go again into the lake of fire or anything like that. Some Protestant preachers, I've even heard some say that Jesus had to go to hell and suffer for our sins in hell for a while. Nothing could be further from the truth. So there's a rather lengthy answer but does that satisfy? I don't know if it'll satisfy a second grader, but sure. No? If it satisfies an adult, then it's the job of the adult to figure out a way to translate that into second grade. Yes ma'am. If you look at the IC degree, House of Spirit, he or one of them mentioned I know they were written to codify things that were not believed, but then I started thinking about all the prayers that we say none of them are complicated. And I feel like that would definitely help our faith. It would help. And I just curious why that's never been harder than he is on prayer. It's interesting the way you phrase it, and I'm not playing gotcha, but it actually is. So in Matthew chapter four, I believe it is, where the Lord gives us our Father, the phrase our daily bread, that's kind of a weak English translation. The meaning of the word in the Greek is super substantial. So give us this day our super substantial bread. So I think most of the time when we say that prayer, we think about give us the necessities of life. We want to eat today. We want to roof over our heads today. But actually it's referring to the Eucharist. So Jesus is saying give us this day, this bread from heaven, this bread that Jesus said, if you eat this bread, you will never die. So I would propose to you that the very prayer that Jesus gave us does talk about the Eucharist in that word. We just don't pick up on it because it's kind of been sifted in English so it's translated. But yeah, so what about, why wouldn't they talk about the Eucharist and such a huge deal? And even early church fathers in the first and second century, they're talking about it. So why wouldn't it be the creeds? I don't know the answer to that question. I wish that they had said more about the full divinity of Jesus Christ. I wish that they had said something more about the Trinity. And they don't say any of those things. This is why the Aryan heretics and later heretics, they could appeal to the creed. They say, look, just as I believe in God, I believe in Jesus, I believe in the Holy Spirit. Some of them say, well, Jesus isn't God. He's Jesus, but he's not God. God is like separate. And so they misunderstood the important creed. It would have made my job a lot easier if they had spoken a bit more about that. I wish that the St. Paul had said, oh, and by the way, our Lady was a student in heaven. And as you can figure, that would have made it so much easier for me. But it's one of those mysteries. When I look back and I wonder what was it that they didn't think was so urgent to include that? So yeah. Is there any chance that the Aryan heretics, Catholics, don't believe in the Holy Spirit? I think it's not that they don't believe, right? You know. So isn't it time to put it somewhere? They don't barely say all the time. Yeah, that's an interesting question. Well, the ladies for the recording asking about, because the Eucharist has not mentioned in the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed, and since many Catholics have lost their faith in the royal presence now, might it not be an opportune time to add it to the creed? Yeah, well, you know that the Eastern Orthodox both would go wild if we did that. They're already angry that we put the filiopeic clause in there, the Holy Spirit received from the Father and the Son. And that's caused over a thousand years of heartburn in that area. I don't think we're likely to see that happen. And I'm not sure I have a good answer to that, except to say it doesn't seem like it's the kind of thing that the church would do to change. Now, maybe in an ecumenical council, there will be a new creed formulated that everyone will learn. Just like the old creeds were formulated and everybody had to learn, and this is the creed of the faith. And maybe it is time, or in another ecumenical council, something you creed that would include some of those things could be established. I would welcome that. So I guess we'll have to wait and see, yes ma'am? There are several instances that are proven that the Blessed Sacrament is truly Christ because it has ballet. There was a witch lady that took one of the hosts and put it in her pocket and got it out of the church. And when it started bleeding, it bled down or stowed across from her. I'm familiar with it. And now, and then there's been several others. You're referring to something that is absolutely bona fide truth and that is Eucharistic miracles. And there are many, there are hundreds of them. And most people have only heard of maybe Lonciano or some of the more prominent ones, but you're right. And scientific studies on some of these, in fact, this hosts have shown that it's human heart tissue. And interestingly enough, the blood type matches the blood type on the shroud of Turin. That doesn't prove anything, but it is interesting. So you're right, Eucharistic miracles are a real phenomenon and they're not explainable by modern science. So there's somebody I was gonna say, yeah, this gentleman's waiting back. I had a question. When you're debating somebody about solo scriptura and you mentioned that, you know, hey, that idea isn't even in the Bible. Have you been able to come up with a list of beliefs that Protestants have that also are not in the Bible, but they believe it anyway, and you can kind of rattle off of you that you can kind of get with that? Oh, okay, well, that's one of them. Solo scriptura, the idea of going by scripture alone is not in the Bible. For that matter, Jesus the Apostle is the church fathers, they teach it. It's a presupposition that arose in a systematic way at the time of the Cross of Reformation. But another good one, it's so blindingly obvious that it surprises me that more people don't see it right away, and that is the canon of scripture. It was revealed by God that these books, these 27 books of the New Testament are inspired. In fact, St. Paul says in 2 Timothy 3.16, all scripture is inspired by God. So the church reports did not make these books inspired. Church men wrote them under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but this is God's revelation to us, but it's also God's revelation, which books are inspired, that's part of his revelation. And the interesting thing is that the Bible nowhere tells you which books belong to Bible. So I'm talking about the New Testament here. There's no inspired table of contents, as people have said before. So there's no, if you go by scripture alone, there is no way to know what scripture is. You have no way of knowing it. You have no way of knowing if Matthew is an authentic gospel, because it like the other gospels is anonymous. Doesn't tell us who wrote it. Now we have very good foundational evidence to know that it was written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, two apostles and two ones who came later. But the Bible doesn't furnish us with that information. So that's another tradition, sacred tradition that is, that comes to us from God, that comes to us through the church, not through the Bible. And if you don't accept that, as Protestants do and they are forced to do so without really realizing it, they are in effect, they are accepting, they have to, this unwritten apostolic tradition that informs them which books belong to New Testament. And so that's the irony, it seems to me, that some of you says, I go by scripture alone. I don't accept any tradition at all. I've had to say a few times, well, in fact you do. And then talk about the canon of scripture. I did a debate with a gentleman named James White, a Calvinist Baptist, really anti-Catholic guy. We did a debate in 1980s, 19, what was it, 1993. And it was on this topic. And it's on YouTube if you wanna look it up. And during the cross-examination period, this is probably my favorite moment of this debate. He says, Mr. Madrid, can you furnish us with just one example of a tradition that we as Christians, because this is out of Protestant church that we held it fake, that we as Christians are obliged to hold as necessary. Can you just give us just one? And he was expecting something about Mary or Pervitory or something like that. So I let my Bible thump down on the table in front of him for dramatic effect. And I said, the Canada, New Testament. Canada, New Testament. Those books are inspired by God, but you have no way of knowing that you're inspired by God going through the Bible alone. That is a tradition that you not only have to accept and you freely do accept. So that was one of those fun moments of the debate. Yes. What impact did the Dead Sea Scrolls have? Could you repeat that, please? What impact did the Dead Sea Scrolls have? Oh, lots of impact, for sure, for a few things. So the Dead Sea Scrolls, which began to be found in the late 1940s, they shed light on the integrity of later Bible translations because these were older, these fragments, and in some cases larger, even complete books of the Bible. We can now check our oldest manuscripts, which would be centuries older than these. We can check them to see are they accurate? So there's a manuscript textual comparison that scholars are still doing. We can also help to set up another polemic, and that is the seven books of the Old Testament that are rejected by Protestants, known as the Deurocanon, which means the second canon. The Deurocanon books, Protestants often call them apocryphal books. So first and second, Maccabees, Tobit or Luke, Judith, et cetera. So one of the important things is that when Martin Luther wanted to jettison those books from the Catholic Bible that had been defined by the church for well over 1,000 years as being part of the canon. So he didn't like, for example, in Second Maccabees chapter 12, where it says it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins. I mean, that's a direct reference to purgatory. Or where it says in James chapter two that you see that a man is justified by words and not by faith alone. What Martin Luther's whole project was that he was justified by faith alone. So that wasn't one of the seven Old Testament books but it led to a desire on the part of many Protestants to find a way to say those books don't belong in Bible, those Old Testament books because they were inconvenient for the novel theology that was coming out at that time. So an argument that was made was, well look, the rabbis didn't accept them in the Palestinian canon, which was drawn up after the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70. So after Israel had been laid waste again and the Romans had destroyed the temple, profaned it and then destroyed it. Remember Jesus said that this generation will not pass away before you see these things that are coming and one stone will not be left upon another. Jesus was prophesying about the destruction of Jerusalem. So there were people there who lived to see the state place. Well, in the aftermath of all that, there was a rabbinical council in Palestine that was seeking to determine which books do we regard to be inspired scripture with. And so they did not include those books, some books of the D. Romano books and their argument was not because there was anything in them, keep in mind that those books had been part of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament for 600 years. Well, 300 years at least. So the Septuagint translation and degree of the Hebrew scriptures contain all those books. And that was never an issue. But those rabbis said, we have no evidence that these books were inspired in Hebrew and there's no way that we can accept the idea that they would be inspired at Hagan tongue like Greek. So they only had the earliest examples they could find parts of Esther. For example, the second part of Esther in these books were only in Greek. Well, back to your question, the Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed the fact that you've got older Hebrew versions of these books. So the argument that we shouldn't accept them because they were not inspired in Hebrew that was now a moot point. So that's another reason why the Dead Sea Scrolls are important. There are others, but those are two. I want to get to something I haven't taken yet, but I will sort of back into it. And then just in the Bible, what are some of the things where personal relationships with Jesus saves you not religious people? I'll repeat it, tell me about it. What do you say to people who say that your personal relationship with Jesus is what saves you not, the fact that I'll say it simultaneously, not that you're a member of the church, but you have a name like Catholic or some sort of. Well, I would say that it's true, but it's not the whole truth. So your personal relationship with Jesus is indeed what saved you, because you're either going to be in the state of grace in which you would be saved when you die, or you'd be in the state of mortal sin in which case you would be damned. But to be in a personal relationship with Jesus on his terms means to accept his teaching and to enter his church. And he said in Matthew chapter 28, verse 19 and 20, great commission, he said the apostles go into the whole world and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them, teaching them to observe, all that it commanded you. So baptism, you might think of as a doorway, like it's the entrance into the church, but Jesus wants every person everywhere and all times to be in his church. So when I say we have to cover Jesus on his terms, what I mean by that is Jesus established the needs by which he wants to have a personal relationship with us and that is in his church with the sacraments and all those good things that he gives us, he wants us to have that. So if somebody were to say, well, you know, I just want to have like a relationship with you, Jesus, and I just want to think about you and pray about you and hear our sermons about you, but I'm not interested in the things that you said that people have to do. I think that belies the possibility of having a real relationship with Jesus that's based on truth. So I would say yes, it does flow from your relationship with him, but if you're demanding that Jesus come to you on your terms, that's not the kind of relationship that he's talking about. Remember, he says, Matthew chapter 15, the wise man is the one who hears these words of mine and does them. He's like a man who goes house on the rock and the foolish man is the one who hears these words of mine and does not do them. And I think about that or I think about what Jesus says. Why are you saying to me, Lord, Lord, that you do not do what I command you? What did Jesus command us to do? Listen to the apostles. Luke 10.16, he who listens to you and said the apostles listen to me, he who rejects you, rejects me. So seems like Jesus is giving us lots and lots and lots of reasons to say that he wants us to have a relationship with him that will save us, but he dictates the terms of the relationship. We don't, the Jewish people. Well, I would put it this way and I'm just drawing upon what St. Paul himself said. So you read Romans chapter 11, for example, he talks a lot about this, also in Galatians talks a lot about this. And that is that the Lord did not go back on his promise. The Lord did not forget his chosen people. He gave them everything he promised he would in Jesus. So he gave them the Messiah, the Redeemer, the Savior. He gave all of Israel everything that they had been hoping for and waiting for. They're the ones who refuse to accept what Jesus gave them. So just like anyone else, Jewish or non-Jewish, if somebody says, no, I will not accept this. I will not believe this. Jesus said, you know, that unless you repent, you will all die. He was talking to Jews and he was telling the Jews over and over again, if you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will have life within you. If you don't eat my flesh and don't drink my blood, it will not have life within you. And some of them, as you know, walked away from them. I don't know what time we're supposed to stop. Is it time? You got till 3.15. 3.15, okay. So it looks like we have a little over five five minutes to go. Six minutes to go. Yeah, so the Jews are called to the fulfillment of the covenant just like anyone else is. And God did not forget them, resturn them. He gave them all to them. They just, some of them, many of them have not accepted it. Yes, this lady even did Jesus' work. So it says for today, it's by the first person. Yeah, by the first person. And I had a question about that, because if this was an event that happened outright, then how did that influence our time? Is God's time, which is outside of time, to answer some of our questions? If I'm not understanding the question correctly, the vision is not outside of time, not the way that God is outside of time, because time is a creature. So he's not subject to a creature. But the vision is a vision of historical events. So it's an allegorical story. It's told to be symbols. And even the term days, you know, how long is a day in this case? Is it a year, or what's the unit of So, if I'm understanding your question, it's a description of actual things that would happen, but it's told in a way that is symbolic. So unless you know what the meaning is of those days and other things like that, it would be hard to say it's definitely this or that. This is also another area where Scott An's got a lot more information about that than I would underfly. But I think in the bookstore your clients just got off those. I think we may have time for maybe, well, let's say five minutes. So, yes sir? I was just going to ask, he asked me at one point, why did God bring up Jesus at that sort of time? Yeah, why is Ignasi Pritt asked him, why in the fullness of time did God come to us in Jesus when he could have come earlier or later? Why didn't he come now when we've got the means of mass communication? And everyone, everywhere, could know about this. I don't think anyone has the answer to that question. Some people I know have speculated, St. Gusen took that up in the city of God, talks about that. And so one possible solution is that it was the appropriate time to do so because of how God had led his people through all ages before that through the prophets, or gradually preparing them for Messiah. And because it was God's, it was the Lord's intention that the church be the means of preaching the gospel. This is why Jesus ascended to heaven. He could have stayed on earth. I mean, he could still be there. Could you imagine that Jesus was still there two thousand years later and anyone could go there and hear Jesus speaking? His plan was not to do that personally, but to do it in through the church. So that's why I don't think it would be, you know, any better if he had come now with his TV and blogs and things like that, because it would work for the church to do that. Anyway, off the cuff, those are a couple of thoughts coming to mind. Maybe one final question. Yes, this gentleman who's been trying so hard Oh, I'll start too. I'm amazed about that question. What are the issues, what are the problems I have? How to feel you? Yes. How can you be the true church when your priests are doing all these terrible things? Yeah. Yeah, it's a messy, ugly, terrible problem, and I don't mean to suggest that there's some snappy, you know, to say this and it will solve the problem because it's clearly a big mess. But you could say, well, Jesus can't pick 12 men and Judas betrayed Jesus and then committed suicide. Peter denied Jesus three times, including once under oath. So, I mean, should we really have trusted Jesus or should we really have trusted the apostles because their track record was pretty bad? In fact, that is, you know, so someone helping with Matthew, what percentage of 12 is two? It's got to be what, maybe 8%, something like that. So, I think 8% of 12 is bigger than the percentage of priests compared to the total number of priests, so we just want to go up percentages. Jesus had a worse track record than we have right now, but it didn't invalidate the truth of his message or the truth of those that he sent forward. We don't put our faith in the priests or the bishops or the popes of the Catholic Church, we put our faith in Jesus. And all of us are to keep our eyes fixed on him. And this is why it seems to me that there's maybe the best answer to their question is, this is a proof of the Church's divine mission and being established by Jesus. Because look, 2000 years have gone by, we've had lots of bad priests, and the Church is still here. And it hasn't destroyed itself many times over. I find that a great sign of encouragement. I'll believe in that. Thank you all very much.