Pantheon and Pandemonium XIII: Asynchronous Q&A Nov 2024

Summary

Episode Overview

This episode of The Lord of Spirits (“Pantheon and Pandemonium XIII: Asynchronous Q&A Nov 2024”) is a special pre-recorded Q&A edition in which Fathers Andrew Stephen Damick and Stephen DeYoung dig into a large stack of listener-submitted questions on the “seen and unseen world” in the Orthodox Christian tradition. Covering everything from afterlife metaphors, scriptural canonicity, fasting, spiritual authority, and the nature of creation, the hosts answer a wide spectrum of queries, always with their trademark blend of humor, deep patristic knowledge, and pointed commentary. The tone is a little extra spicy this episode, with the Fathers occasionally taking aim at common misconceptions, online orthodoxy debates, and alternative Christian positions.

Jump to a section or question by timestamp for the segment.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Intro & Theme Setting

• [01:05–04:30] The episode opens with characteristic banter—joking about “turkey pardoning” as a metaphor for sin and sacrificial offering. Fr. Andrew introduces the purpose: to clear their backlog of listener voicemails, providing direct, off-the-cuff answers on unseen realities within Orthodox Christian tradition.

---

The Afterlife, Resurrection, and Time

Is the Eschaton Static? (Identity, Newness, and Time in the Life to Come)

• [05:00–14:40]
• Fr. Andrew recaps Fr. Stephen’s talk, asking if, in the age to come, our eternal life would feel “crystallized”, with no meeting anyone new or change happening, since time as we know it ceases, but motion/change is part of creation.
• Fr. Stephen responds:
  • The resurrection requires maintained identity, and identity is formed by relationships & life events, not just a “snapshot.” But time itself will be transformed, not destroyed: “The motion and change we experience [in the eschaton] is going to be more like that experienced by angels, not like what we currently experience.” [13:43]
  • All metaphors about the afterlife are just that—parabolic, since we can't yet comprehend the reality.
  • “This is a way of thinking about it, not the only way... Scripture gives us images because we can't grasp it yet.” [09:21]
• Notable Quote:
  • “What is declared to be a sin is an action... not because it makes God mad... it's because it's harmful to you—physically, emotionally, and spiritually.” – Fr. Stephen [45:44]

---

Law, Fasting, and Obedience

Did Jesus Break Modern Laws?—Understanding Torah, Law, Allusions to Lent

• [15:00–24:28]
• Question: Would Christ get a speeding ticket? Is Torah like legislation or is there something deeper?
• Summary: Torah is not legislation in a modern sense. Its commandments are models for living well and are adaptable for circumstances—their fulfillment is about alignment with God’s reality, not rule-following. Fasting and Lent are training regimens, not legal codes; they're to help develop self-mastery, not to appease God.
• Notable Quotes:
  • “The Torah is not legislation. It’s more like God saying, ‘This is the way I set up the universe...” – Fr. Andrew [16:24]
  • “There are circumstances under which Jesus would get a speeding ticket, but he would pay it.” – Fr. Stephen [18:12]

---

Canonicity and the Orthodox Bible

What Makes Something Canonical?

• [24:44–33:44]
• Question: Why are some texts “canonical” if not read in church, and why aren’t others, like patristic writings or hymnography, considered scripture?
• Answer: Old Testament canons were received from local Jewish communities—differently in different places, hence various Orthodox canons (Greek, Russian, Ethiopian, etc.). Canonicity is historical and liturgical, not a fixed, Protestant-style table of contents. Newer writings are not “canonical” even if read in church. Revelation is rarely appointed in the Orthodox lectionary, but is still accepted as scripture due to reception and the guidance of the Spirit.
• Notable Quote:
  • “For the Orthodox, this has never been understood [as fixed]. The church just received the Hebrew Scriptures from the local Jewish community...” – Fr. Stephen [26:52]

---

The Judgment of Pagan Gods (Egypt & Beyond)

What Happened to the Gods of Egypt After Exodus?

• [34:00–37:18]
• Question: After the Exodus, were Egyptian gods destroyed? What happened to subsequent pagan worship?
• Answer: The “judgment” pronounced is public humiliation—false gods (unclean spirits or demons) are exposed as powerless, but the worship continues to attract demonic presence. God’s intent is to benefit Israel and Egypt by exposing their impotence, not “destroy” those spirits outright.
• Notable Quote:
  • “What is the great sin they are guilty of? Publicly presenting themselves as God... Public humiliation is the judgment.” – Fr. Stephen [35:41]

---

Sexual Ethics & St. Paul

Homosexuality, St. Paul, and Modern Interpretations

• [37:27–48:01]
• Question: Some claim Paul only criticizes non-consensual relationships; does this apply to modern consensual ones?
• Answer: Historical context did not recognize “consent” as we do, but St. Paul’s condemnation is broader—it’s about the actions, not orientations or contexts. Arguments for “affirming” Christianity often ignore or neutralize biblical (and even basic logical) categories about sexual acts. Tradition and scripture present these sins as harmful, not arbitrary.
• Notable Quotes:
  • “You go down that path and you just come to: the Bible’s irrelevant, then.” – Fr. Stephen [41:58]
  • “What is declared to be a sin is an action... because it is going to be harmful to you—physically, emotionally, and spiritually.” – Fr. Stephen [45:44]

---

Esoteric Texts, Hebrew Roots, and Scriptural Interpretation

Matthew’s “He Shall Be Called a Nazarene”—Where’s That Prophecy?

• [51:04–55:09]
• Answer: Matthew is making a wordplay on the Hebrew “netser” (branch), linking “Nazareth” with the prophetic expectation of the Branch (Messiah) from Jesse. This literary technique requires knowledge of Hebrew.
• Notable Quote:
  • “If you don’t know any Hebrew, you can’t really understand the New Testament... the New Testament isn’t really written in Greek—it’s a Hebrew dialect of Greek.” – Fr. Stephen [53:03]

What Is Sorcery? Is It Just Advanced Technology?

• [55:16–57:33]
• Magic/sorcery in scripture is about manipulating spiritual forces via formulae, not relating to them; it is always demonic, distinguished from technology by its aim (control of the unseen).
• Notable Quote:
  • “Magic is formulae... aimed to control spiritual forces, not relate to them.” – Fr. Stephen [57:00]

---

Demonic Activity and God’s Sovereignty

Are Demons Acting Only by God’s Permission?

• [60:19–65:26]
• Question: Are demons just tools of divine punishment (the rabbinic view) or freely rebellious (the Christian view)?
• Answer: Orthodox teaching is that they are truly rebellious, but God allows their continued existence as He can draw good even from their evil. The rabbinic position is more deterministic, denying rebellion in spiritual beings—different from the Christian understanding.
• Notable Quote:
  • “God allows these rebellious, evil spirits to remain in the world because he is able to use them to bring good, despite their rebellion.” – Fr. Stephen [62:20]

---

Prayer with the Saints & Intercession

• [65:32–70:25]
• Question: If prayer “changes us,” what about prayers to the saints/intercession—who is being changed?
• Answer: Praying with the saints unites us to the Church triumphant; it is not magic or bargaining, nor about “numbers.” The saints’ will conforms to God’s; we are changed by becoming closer to God and His holy ones.
• Notable Quote:
  • “When I pray with others, that is transformative—it brings about community and solidarity and unites us in the Holy Spirit. The same is true with the saints.” – Fr. Stephen [68:59]

---

Sin as Taint or Privation

• [70:32–78:07]
• Question: Is sin a corruption (taint), or a privation (absence) of good as the Fathers say?
• Answer: The patristic “privation” model (from Augustine, etc.) is a metaphysical Platonist view, but the biblical (and better Orthodox) model is corruption—a parasitic, diseased distortion of the good.
• Notable Quote:
  • “Sin is like a disease. Disease certainly leaves contagious remnants—that’s a kind of privation, a kind of brokenness, a kind of twisting of what God made good.” – Fr. Stephen [75:59]

---

Receiving the Holy Spirit—Apostolic Authority or “Blowing Where He Wills”?

• [78:16–90:47]
• Question: Does one need apostolic succession (an Orthodox priest) to receive the Holy Spirit? What about non-Orthodox Christians?
• Answer: The Orthodox sacraments are the normative means of grace, but the Spirit can act outside visible boundaries. The minimalist, “what must I do to be saved?” approach is Protestant; Orthodox tradition asks how one can draw closer to Christ. The Holy Spirit is already active for anyone seeking Christ—if not, conversion itself would be Pelagian (heresy).
• Notable Quotes:
  • “If you say the Holy Spirit is not active in anyone’s life until they’re Chrismated, then you’re saying they came to Christ all on their own, meaning you’re anathema according to the canons of the Orthodox Church.” – Fr. Stephen [90:14]

---

Creation, Eschatology, and Creativity in the Age to Come

• [91:23–96:32]
• Question: Are we “sent out” in the age to come, curating worlds, expressing creativity?
• Answer: Theosis will entail creativity and stewardship, in conformity with God’s will. It is imaginatively possible (not heretical) that the work of humanity continues and even expands in ways we cannot envision.

---

Margaret Barker, Day of Atonement, and Cosmic Cleansing

• [96:39–100:20]
• Question: Is The Day of Atonement in Leviticus a symbol of the cleansing of all creation?
• Answer: The ritual model points toward an eschatological reality, anticipated in Second Temple Judaism and fulfilled in Christ, as in 1 John 2:2—Christ’s blood cleanses the creation, and the Day of Atonement ritual is a microcosm of this.
• Notable Quote:
  • “Second Temple Judaism saw the Day of Atonement as pointing to the cosmic purging of all creation—which the apostles say is fulfilled in Christ.” – Fr. Stephen [99:04]

---

Honor, Veneration & Worship: Why Not Worship Humans?

• [101:04–106:16]
• Question: If the honor given to the image passes to the prototype, why doesn’t worshiping a human transfer to Christ (the prototype)?
• Answer: Veneration and worship are not the same. Veneration is giving due honor; worship is sacrificial communal relationship reserved for God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Worship uniquely passes to the Father because Christ and the Spirit share the same divine essence as the Father—humans and icons do not.
• Notable Quote:
  • “Veneration and worship are different things. Worship is a community relationship with a spiritual being, based in sacrificial offering.” – Fr. Stephen [103:15]

---

Gentiles and the Torah: Should We Keep the Law?

• [112:54–123:02]
• Question: If Gentile Christians are “grafted in” to Israel, shouldn’t they keep all the Torah?
• Answer: Baptism brings Gentiles into Israel, but not as “Jews”—they keep their identity. Paul is clear: Gentiles shouldn’t take on Jewish markers like circumcision; each “branch” bears its characteristic fruit, drawing life from the root of Israel.

---

Mermaids, Non-Canonical Icons, and Magical Iconography

• [123:12–130:51]
• Question: Are mermaids real in Orthodoxy? What about non-traditional/anime iconography?
• Answer: Mermaids are not addressed in Orthodox theology—human-animal hybrids as icons (like “Panagia Gorgona”) are non-canonical; an icon must present a sanctified, true human nature. Artistic experimentation (Disney/Pixar/anime style) crosses the line when it distorts sacramental vision or dignity.

---

Eschatological Vision and Prophetic Time

• [131:32–135:20]
• Question: After death, do we “see” eternal realities like Daniel, or relive the harrowing of Hades?
• Answer: Eternal realities manifest in time but are not “repeated” for each soul; we participate liturgically, not via time loops.

---

Psalms Superscriptions & Their Meaning

• [135:35–144:41]
• Question: What’s with the various headings (“of David”, “for a pillar inscription”, “without superscription among the Hebrews”) and instructions (“Selah”) in the Psalms?
• Answer: Many are late liturgical ascriptions, giving historical or musical context. Their origins are murky and shouldn’t be pressed for doctrinal or interpretive weight; “Selah” is likely a musical or liturgical pause, but its exact meaning is lost.

---

Divine Council, Divine Economy, and Gentile Salvation

• [144:52–150:48]
• Question: If God allotted nations to other spirits (Deut. 32, Psalm 82), why does he send Jonah to Nineveh?
• Answer: God did not abandon the nations—he works salvation for all through Israel. Jonah’s prophetic call is precisely God’s work through Israel for the nations.

---

Inanimate Creation Praising God

• [150:45–155:04]
• Question: Is “the rivers clap their hands” (Psalms), and rocks praising Christ (Luke 19:40) just metaphor, or is there spiritual reality?
• Answer: There is an angelic “virtue” associated with each aspect of creation—through these spiritual beings, inanimate creation offers true worship to God, not mere metaphor.

---

Communion, Sin, and Discernment of Spirits

• [156:03–164:43]
• Question: If an unrepentant sinner communes, does that “taint” the Eucharist for the whole community?
• Answer: Unrepentant sin harms the community, but cannot corrupt the Eucharist itself. If “discernment” causes you to focus on the sins of others or drives you away from Communion, it’s not the Holy Spirit but a demonic deception—the Spirit convicts us of our own sins.
• Notable Quote:
  • “If you believe a spirit is pointing out to you the sins of others and using that to tell you not to receive Communion, that is not the Holy Spirit. That is an evil spirit.” – Fr. Stephen [160:04]

---

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• “You should always ask yourself: is this drawing me into humility, repentance, and prayer, or into suspicion and pride?” – Fr. Stephen [161:01]
• “If you ever reach that level of pretentiousness where you start asking people to call you ‘Father Andrew Stephen’, I will burst your bubble.” – Fr. Stephen [124:42]

---

Episode Structure & Timestamps

• 0:00–4:38: Banter, theme, setup for questions
• 5:00–14:40: Resurrection, time, afterlife metaphors
• 15:00–24:28: Law, Torah, Lent, obedience
• 24:44–33:44: Canon, scripture, what is read
• 34:00–37:18: Egyptian gods, cosmic polemics
• 37:36–48:01: Homosexuality, Pauline context
• 51:04–55:09: Matthew & Nazarene prophecy
• 55:16–57:33: Sorcery, magic, techne
• 60:19–65:26: Demonology, divine economy
• 65:32–70:25: Prayer, intercession, change
• 70:32–78:07: Sin as taint vs privation
• 78:16–90:47: Holy Spirit, Protestant/Orthodox boundaries
• 91:23–96:32: Creativity and the age to come
• 96:39–100:20: Day of Atonement as cosmic microcosm
• 101:04–106:16: Worship, veneration, icons, consubstantiality
• 112:54–123:02: Gentiles and the Torah
• 123:12–130:51: Mermaids, icons, artistic style
• 131:32–135:20: Eschatology, eternal realities, prophecy
• 135:35–144:41: Psalm superscriptions, textual history
• 144:52–150:48: Jonah, divine council, Gentile nations
• 150:45–155:04: Creation, virtues, rocks crying out
• 156:03–164:43: Eucharist, sin in the community, discernment
• 164:52–end: Closing remarks

---

Conclusion

A rich, wide-ranging, and sometimes pointed Q&A episode. The hosts remind listeners of the mystery and humility essential to Orthodox Christian contemplation of the unseen world, as well as the practical, pastoral application of ancient truths to modern confusions.

Memorable advice from Fr. Stephen:
“If you believe a spirit is pointing out to you the sins of others and using that to tell you not to receive Communion, that is not the Holy Spirit. That is an evil spirit.” [160:04]

To learn more:

• For further exploration of Old Testament imagery in the New, check out Fr. Stephen’s book St. Paul the Pharisee.
• To submit questions to the show, visit speakpipe.com/LordOfSpirits.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Transcript

[Narrator]

He will be a staff for the righteous with which for them to stand and not to fall. And he will be the light of the nations and the hope of those whose hearts are troubled. All who dwell on the earth will fall down and worship him. And they will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord of spirits.

The modern world doesn't acknowledge, but is nevertheless haunted by spirits, angels, demons and saints. In our time, many yearn to break free of the prison of a flat secular materialism, to see and to know reality as it truly is. What is this spiritual reality like? How do we engage with it? Well, how do we permeate everyday life with spiritual presence? Orthodox Christian priests Father Andrew Stephen Damick and Fr. Stephen DeYoung host this live call in show focused on enchantment in creation, the union of the seen and unseen as made by God and experienced by mankind throughout history. Welcome to the Lord of Spirits.

[Caller]

Greetings.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Good evening, good morning, whatever time you're listening. Giant killers, dragon slayers, turkey torturers. You are listening to the Lord of Spirits podcast. My co Host, Father Stephen DeYoung is with me, straight from the swamp in Lafayette, Louisiana, practicing his Drentling much to the delight of his heathen dogs. And I'm Father Andrew Stephen Damick in Emmaus, Pennsylvania, high atop the Eldritch tower of podcasting, perched above a disused gateway to the underworld. And we're why?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Why are we torturing turkeys?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

It's alliterative.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

There's no penal substitution in animal sacrifices of Thanksgiving.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I don't know. I'm sure they're out there somewhere. There's turkey.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

This is why the turkey pardon. This is why the turkeys need a pardon.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay, I have a thing about this turkey pardoning thing, since you brought it up.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

It implies all turkeys are sentenced for a crime. Right?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

That suggests that most are being needle substitution.

Are criminals and they are being eaten for their crimes. Like execution by eating?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

No, you have to understand the sins of each family are put on the.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Turkey and then they're eaten.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Is that killed and eaten in a celebratory meal?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Sin eating. Okay, I'm trying to work this out now. With a sin eater. With a turkey? Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I don't know, gravy represents blood or something. Which brings us back to basted in blood. Sarah Lachlan song about the turkey holocaust.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right, Right. Or as the bard once said, but for the stuffing. Well, we are all mortal.

That being said, we're not live, neither are we dead. And so on this very undead Roedinger's episode, we are going to be answering some of the many voicemails that you have left us over the past months, clearing out some of that blessed backlog of bonkers with which you have bothered us. This episode, though, is sponsored by the Orthodox Studies Institute at St Constantine College, which exists to advance the study and application of Orthodox Christianity and faithfulness to holy tradition. By popular demand, OSI is bringing back you, Father Stephen, to teach a live course on the Book of Jubilees, taking a deep dive into one of the most important texts in Second Temple Judaism. The course begins on January 7th, runs for four weeks. You can learn more and register@ orthodoxystudies.org Los and if you missed Father Stephen's previous course in the Book of Enoch, you can sign up for jubilees and get $25 off of Enoch by using that link. So go to orthodoxstudies.org los and register to see all of OSI's course offerings.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And I think for the first time, I am the subject of a bundle you've been bundled there at the end. I have been bundled. They got ahead of Ancient faith on that.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Oh, man.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Y.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Someday we'll do The Stephen. The DeYoung bundle. DeYoung bundle, yeah. It has a kind of assonance to it. Yeah. Young and Bund Bundle. So.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

All right, well, the D. Youngle.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

The debunk. No, I don't want to say that.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So, yeah, we're going to go through.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

21 questions on this. At least that's the plan. 2021 questions on this episode. But before we get to all the voicemails.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Just three sevens.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Exactly.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

All you numerology fans out there.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

That's right. And you and I are both seven sevens in age.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

We're seven squared.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

This is true.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So just do. Do that what you like. But I want to take the first question for myself.

So this is not a pre recorded question.

So I. I finally just.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

It would be funny if you had. If you had pre recorded your own.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Question and then I could offer commentary on what I was saying. Yeah, like. Oh, that was a good point I made just there. Much like you do with pre recorded episodes of Lord of spirits on YouTube.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Like I do on YouTube premieres. Yes.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So I recently listened to your talk at Peugeot Fest. Finally. And in English or Russian? In the. The English version. There is a Russian. Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. Yes, there is.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. My Russians pretty rusty. Actually, I did take one year of Russian in high school long, long ago in the before times.

Yeah. The German teacher taught Russian at our high school.

So I listened to that and you didn't say anything that I hadn't heard you say before. Right.

But just to recap for maybe listeners who haven't listened to it or don't or haven't listened to every single episode or moment or remember every moment, but the. Just correct me if I get some of this wrong, but your basic take was the resurrection of the body implies or means that not just implies.

Means that as St. Paul says, all of the. The chaff of our life is going to be burned away. So all of the bad stuff that we've done, so forth, and then all the good stuff, all the joy, all the holiness, all the love, all the self sacrifice, this gets made eternal. So am I tracking so far?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. Well, the crucial middle piece in there is that the bodily resurrection requires that we maintain our identity.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Identity and relationships.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. That it's us and our identity is not just this static or internal thing, but is made up of our connections to other people and actual events. Right. Our identity is sort of spread out across our whole life.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yes, right, right. You are not just what you're doing at this moment, you're all of it for the last 49 plus years.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. So I know that a number of people, like in hearing, when you talked about this on this podcast and in response to that talk where you, you know, put it all in one can together.

Had this question and I kind of thought about this myself. Now I have an idea about what, how one might respond to this, but I haven't completely worked it out. So I want to hear what you have to say about this, which is for a lot of people, their view of, of the afterlife, they might say that, okay, that makes total sense. But does that mean that the age to come is this sort of crystallized thing.

Where, like, for instance, you don't meet anybody new, nothing sort of new happens. And I have the idea that that time is a very much a key component of how we understand this. But here's the wrinkle in the monkey wrench for me, which is that to mix your metaphors. Yes, yes, I know. Well, I'm just throwing out metaphors, you know. Yeah, it's either a wrinkle or a monkey wrench or, you know, whatever is.

That to be a creature means to be in motion. It means to be changing. Like only God is unchanging and sort of perfectly still, so to speak. So how does that all work?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Little play doh. Brain going on there.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

All right, all right, I know, I know, I know, I know. But, but, you know, but There. But even like Saint, Saint John of Damascus, for instance, describes the angels as being in motion and they're in this time zone. So expand on this.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Obviously that means something different than what we mean by motion.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yes. Right, right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah.

So just like they have bodies, but that means something different than what we usually mean when we talk about. Yeah, yeah. So the biggest thing that I've seen missing in the responses I'm going to get directly to the question this is lead in.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Is first of all, a lot of people frame this as, oh, this is my view. As if this is a view competing with views.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And I thought I was pretty clear.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I remember. Yeah. At the beginning you said, I have some thoughts about this and now I'm willing to talk about this.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. This is a way of thinking about it.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. An angle, right?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, amongst others. Right. Because preface to this is, as scripture makes clear, we can't right now understand what the world to come is going to be like. And so it offers a series of metaphors and images and ways of thinking about it. So this is just offering another way of thinking about thinking about it. Right. And.

Also people who, you know, I get the usual, like, oh, give me some quotes from church fathers to back up this or that point, to which I say, that's not how you read the church fathers. And if you'd actually read the church fathers, you wouldn't need to ask me that question.

As I've seen some people online point out. Right. Some people who actually, like. Some people from Orthodox countries have pointed out like, no, this is from here. This is. You know.

Also.

There'S some people who seem to think somehow that what I'm saying in the talk is based on Nietzsche.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. No, it's not. I listened to the whole thing the other day and it's not.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That's kind of like saying that Dante's Inferno is based on the Aeneid.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Because Virgil's in it.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And I even saw one guy from a. From a non Christian philosophy perspective say I was like, misrepresenting Nietzsche. And it's like, nice. Do you go after Dante for misrepresenting Virgil? Like, this doesn't sound like Virgil at all.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

No, this is. This is. I wish you had used the word psychopomp because you're basically using Nietzsche as a psychopomp. That's a word that all Lord of Spirits should know.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But so the reason I brought up, especially that first part is that I think some of these questions and problems that monkey wrenches and wrinkles come from approaching this as if I'm trying to present this all encompassing view. Like, no, these other ways you've heard of explaining it are wrong. This is the right way. This explains everything.

[Caller]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

As opposed to. No, this is another way of thinking about it amongst others. Because it's something we can't totally grasp.

[Caller]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

There is. There is mystery to it. I think that particular question, or the people who were bluntly are like, oh, so you think it's like Groundhog Day?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yes.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I've seen that hell might be like Groundhog Day.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Well, that's one thing that some people have said. Like, you know, having my life, even as great as it might be at certain points, having the great parts crystallized, that sounds like hell, like with nothing kind of.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. Well, you're right. And because they're thinking of Groundhog Day. But what is Groundhog Day? Groundhog Day is not like any moment in his life made eternal. It's him being forced to go through the same thing over and over again. There's still this temporal succession of moments. It's just in a loop.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. So that's not what we're talking about. Or.

And now here's the direct answer to people say, well, does that mean nothing new can happen? I think you're hearing what I'm saying. And then assuming that like.

Okay, we come into the life of the world to come.

All that is godly and holy and good about our life is made eternal.

And then either time stops and there's no experience of time whatsoever.

Because we're now God and outside of time and not created anymore.

Or all that happens and then sort of a succession of moments resumes.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Neither of which would be corollaries of what I was saying.

So the same thing about our identity in the eschaton would be true. That's true. Of our identity in this life.

In terms of it being spread out temporally. But that means something fundamentally different in the eschaton, because time is going to be different. It's not going to cease to exist, but it's going to be different. The same way that it's different for angels.

Right. And the motion and change we experience is going to be like the more like.

Not identical to, but more like the motion and change that angels experience.

Than how we experience it now. Well, what does that mean? I don't know what it's like to be an angel.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And even then it's a comparison.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

It's not identical.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. It's just, you know, obligatory plug for time and man By George Munseridis.

So, okay, all right. That's kind of what I thought, but I wasn't sure. And yeah, I think probably the most useful bit to walk away with that is this is one way. Just like for instance, when we talk about damnation, you know, is it madness? Is it some kind of non or sub existence? Is it burning? Is it, you know, like all these things are not. Is it darkness?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. You can't be darkness and fire at the same time.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right, right. Dark line.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But.

They'Re images. Yeah, right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay. All righty. Okay, let's begin now with our pre recorded questions. This first one comes from Phil, who asks, would Jesus get a speeding ticket?

[Caller]

Hi podfathers, this is Phil from Canada. I'm speak piping in to ask a question on the nature of the law via a somewhat humorous question. If Christ were to drive today, would Christ ever get a speeding ticket? I ask this question because it touches on how we tend to view the law as rules to be obeyed. And so we fulfill the law as not breaking the rules, for example, not going over the speed limit. I think we tend to read this understanding back into what we think of when we think of the Torah, namely what the law is and how Christ fulfilled it. In what way is Christ's fulfillment of the law beyond what we would call not breaking the rules or obedience to the rules? In what way is the Torah, the law, different from simple rules? And in what way is obedience different from how we see things like current traffic codes, another piece of legislation? Maybe it's an issue of civil law being different from religious law. If I'm also going to work in a bonus Lenten question, how does this understanding of the rules and keeping the rules apply to Lent and keeping the fast. Thanks and looking forward to the rest of the series. Wow.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So, I mean, I like my initial reaction to that is that the Torah is not legislation. Right.

It's not God making laws. You know, it's more.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I think that's part of the point he was trying to make.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah. It's more like God saying, this is the way that I set up the universe. And if you do this, then things will go well. If you do not do this, things will go badly. It's more like the laws of nature than like a code of laws.

But you know, with regards to.

The rules of Lent, I mean, it's pretty clear.

That they're not even laws. Right. There's. Because the tradition is, is clearly that, that there is mitigation possible, there's adjustment possible. And Also, frankly, if you read about.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

The.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

The history of, of all the things that we do in Lent, whether it's the fasting or the service schedule or whatever, I mean, that has changed over time. And so that does not have the character of utter eternality, you know, or like, it's not the same thing as the Torah, and it's not the same thing as, as laws like traffic laws or whatever.

You know. And honestly, it's much more like a training regimen, which, I mean, one could say, well, you can't just make it up for yourself. And that's true, of course. You know, training, like an exercise regimen is something that's very, very, very adjustable and very.

Customized to the individual person. But.

Obedience is a pretty key part of the routine with regards to Lent. So. Yeah, I mean, that's what I would say about all that. What do you think?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, I mean, it's.

So there are circumstances under which Jesus would get a speeding ticket.

But he would pay it.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right, right. Just as, I mean, he violated the Temple tax. That's right. He obeyed the laws of his time and even paid the price when he violated them.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, but it's built into the Torah.

Right? It is built into the Torah that there are circumstances under which you violate command.

For example, according to the Torah, if your family is starving and your neighbor has more food than they need. Right. And isn't sharing, you can go and take enough food to feed your family. And that's not stealing.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

There you go.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. That's just one example. And the principle that comes out of examples like that from the very earliest interpreters of the Torah we have, is that there are certain things, chiefly human life.

That supersede all of the other commandments.

That supersede everything else. There are lots of other examples. Your donkey falls into a ditch on the Sabbath, you pull it out. That's not even human life.

But there are lots of examples. But human life, if you have to lie to save someone's life, that's not a sin.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. There's a kind of hierarchy of priorities.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

If you have to. Right. That's. You know, Kant is just all wet.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

With his ethical system based on the Torah. Okay. Like in ways that should seem obvious to a moral person. But I mean, Gant was doing what he was doing for certain reasons. Right. In context, he was trying to find some way to preserve some kind of at least semi traditional morality and ethics in the face of.

Rationalism. So, you know.

But yeah, there's the.

These aren't legislation. These aren't commandments that are, you know.

This sort of thing is always wrong in and of itself, regardless of context. Context doesn't matter. Alternatives don't matter.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Real world doesn't matter.

And that gets into, here's the segue toward Lent that gets into how the Orthodox Church has always applied the canons.

Right. That the canons are rules and we don't change those rules. That's the rule. Right. Even if we've made exceptions to that rule, even if bishops have made exceptions to that rule a thousand times, we don't change the rule.

Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

The canon remains and the exceptions don't constitute precedent.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Unless a bishop wants it to, basically.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. And so.

Right. But they're still there. They're there because they're important. They're there because they're useful. They're there because they contain truth. Important truth. Right. But there's also the real world.

Right? In the real world, people get divorced.

In the real world, after people get divorced, sometimes situations develop where the best thing you can do in that situation is to allow them to be remarried. And so the bishop does.

[Caller]

Right?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So there are other groups out there who maybe craft elaborate legal fictions so that they can say they don't allow divorce. Right. When they actually are.

Right. But we deal with it the way the Torah does. And so that includes course, the fasting rules, right? That includes the fasting rules. And so as Father Andrew mentioned, there are exception, exceptions made. But the fasting rules have a. Have a purpose. And that purpose is to help you develop self discipline.

And I say this to people a lot in confession. I'm like, if you don't have enough self control to say, I'm going to eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on Wednesday instead of a ham and cheese sandwich.

If that's too much for you, right. Then when real temptations come, like anger and lust and pride, you're done, man.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

It's true.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

You're not even going to mount a futile resistance. You're done.

And so the Church gives us these things that are relatively easy.

These disciplines that are relatively easy. Spending a few minutes in prayer in the morning and evening and fasting certain days out of the year from certain foods, adjusting our diet, right. In order to help us build the discipline and the self control and the self mastery that we need to resist and fight back against the really big and destructive temptations.

Right? And so, yes, you know, if you eat that ham and cheese sandwich on Wednesday, like, you're not going to hell for it, right? It's not. God is not Angry at you about it. Okay. And then there's some other person who, for some health reason, didn't have to follow that, and they ate the same sandwich and they're fine. Right. It's not how any of this works. It's there for you, to help you.

Like Christ says, the Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Right. It's not there to subject you to a law. It's there to help you find salvation.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. All righty. Our next question comes from Brian, who wants to know about exactly what makes something canonical if it's not really being read in church, or what if it is being read in church? Is that canonical? So here we go.

[Caller]

Since the scriptural canon is descriptive of what is read publicly and liturgically in churches as opposed to prescriptive or proscriptive, then what makes revelation or vast swaths of the Old Testament canonical? Or what makes Enoch, for example, less canonical, since it isn't read in church either, even though it is referenced in the New Testament? Why aren't patristic writings, which are read publicly, considered holy Scripture? Famously the paschal homily of St. John Chrysostom. But I understand some monasteries also have patristic readings appointed for orthros. Or what about the Synaxarion, the lives of saints read daily, but also works like the life of Saint Mary of Egypt, which is appointed to be read, and Lent, or hymnography, which we sing in church, or the ladder of divine ascent? Isn't all of this canonical? Why do we call some of the older writings Holy Scripture, even if some are never read publicly, but newer writings aren't, even if we do read them? I understand the concept of the Bible as a single volume book is recent, as well as the Protestant understanding of canon vis a vis sola scriptura. These are late and foreign concepts to orthodoxy. But our faith is a beautiful, seamless whole tradition to us, and it does not originate in one book. I know this might be a spreadsheet kind of question, but what makes the Bible special above and beyond the other liturgical texts?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, I think. I mean, the quick answer is when we say we're reading something from the Holy Fathers or singing a hymn in church, we don't then say, and this is Scripture, Whereas we absolutely do say that whenever. When it comes to the Gospels or, you know, prophets or the apostles or whatever. So there's a clear, at least labeling going on that's not going on with others. Other. Those other things.

But yeah, I mean, so, like. Yeah, but what do you say about all these as he says, there's whole portions of the Bible that do not get read out loud in church. And I mean, some of them. Were they ever. I don't know. I don't know the answer to that question.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, well, Old Testament wise, the historical reality is.

Christian groups just received the Bible of the local Jewish community as their Old Testament. Yeah. That's just functionally what happened.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. Exhibit A. Ethiopia.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. Ethiopia. Alexandria.

Vs. Antioch, Jerusalem vs. North Africa vs. Western Europe vs. Greece.

And Asia Minor.

That's how we ended up with these sort of different canons. Right.

And as the caller mentioned, until someone comes along with Sola Scriptura, this wasn't.

As important of an issue.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So you find in Western Europe, in the medieval period, in Roman Catholicism, you find people arguing back and forth whether the North African canon or the North African Latin canon or the Western European Latin canon was the correct canon. But it's sort of an intramural debate. Right.

There were lots of those in the medieval period within Roman Catholicism. Right.

If you read very much of.

Thomas Aquinas Summa, you know that. Because he'll list. He'll say, some say that, some say that, some say. Right.

But then when Sola Scriptura comes along, then all of a sudden the exact borders of the Scriptures become incredibly important. And.

In the west, they sort of become, as most things in the west at the Reformation, the reformers sort of picked one side of the intramural debate and Trent chose the other side over against them.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I mean, the fact that for the Orthodox, this has never been understood in that way is evidenced by the fact that.

Like, the Greek and Russian churches do not have exactly the same Old Testament. I mean, it's pretty close, but it's not exactly the same.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

And that's okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And so that's why, for example, Esther or whatever book you want to bring up is canonical, even though we don't read from it.

Publicly in church, is because we've just received the Hebrew Scriptures. Right.

[Caller]

Yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

We theoretically could. Like if a bishop said, okay, I'm going to.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Let's put together an Old Testament lectionary.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah. Like, like I'm going to build a church named for Saint Esther. And so we've got to celebrate her feast. So it seems obvious that during vespers we should read selections from the Book of Esther. You know, he could absolutely do that.

[Caller]

And there's.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

There's no reason. There's no reason he couldn't do.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Or an example that again, a certain group of our in our audience fired up again, if there ever was a mass conversion of Jewish Christians. Oh, yes, right. And we had sort of a Jewish Orthodox Church. They might do Torah readings every Great Vespers.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yep.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

On the night of the Sabbath.

Right. Do Torah readings and then have the Gospel readings and epistle readings on Sunday morning. Right. That would be something their bishop could do.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. I think people don't realize sometimes how much authority bishops actually have.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

It's not just. This is the thing that for those.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Of you who aren't Orthodox, every bishop in the Orthodox Church has basically the same authority as the Pope.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

There you go.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

From our perspective, Roman Catholicism only has one bishop that he's at Rome.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

It's kind of true.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And the other guys are all sort of auxiliaries and functionaries.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Send me your angry emails right now of our Catholic friends.

Yeah, okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

All right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yes. All right. We got another one. So go ahead, go ahead, go ahead.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, yeah. So in terms of the New Testament, we're really only talking about Revelation. Revelation is the only thing that isn't on the schedule in the New Testament.

And that's because.

You know, we've talked before about St. Andrew of Caesarea in the 6th century.

Writing his commentary and that leading to its acceptance. But we also know from the list of St. Nikephoros, the confessor of Constantinople, that beginning of the 9th century, when he's patriarch of Constantinople, the Book of Revelation was still being read in some churches and not others.

Right. So.

Our. Our sort of public reading schedule was kind of together by then.

[Caller]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Now it was being read in some churches.

It still is read in some churches.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. I think I've heard, and I do not know if this is true, but I've heard that there is a tradition in the Alexandrian Church of reading it on Holy Saturday.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Well, the Copts do that.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Oh, do they? Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And so I don't know. I don't know if.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

If the Greek Orthodox of Alexandria.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, Greek Orthodox, Alexandria. I don't know if they have that tradition too or not.

But the Copts do. It's read on the Isle of Patmos at certain times.

There are places where it's read and circumstances in which it's read in the Orthodox Church.

But ultimately, what canonicity means in that regard is Saint Nikephoros had more than just the Book of Revelation on his list of New Testament books that some places read, but not others. It's the only one that ended up being.

Seen as canonical.

So the usage of it by some churches in the guiding of the Holy Spirit has led us to accept that it is.

And then.

It was not added to the public reading schedule by any bishop so far from what I have seen, and even talking to my own bishop.

Because largely of a practical concern that.

People take the Book of Revelation to weird places.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yes. Especially here in America where they aren't.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Trained to read it. Yeah, I can't think of any precedent of that whatsoever.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay.

Our next question comes from Anker, who A N K E R. He wants to know about what happened to the Egyptian gods after. After God judged them.

[Caller]

Hello, fathers, this is anchor from Colorado. It's been quite the challenge to catch up on every episode before I call in for the first time, but I've finally done it.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Wow.

[Caller]

I've had this question since the Eating with the Gods episode with the Lord God pronouncing his judgment against the gods of Egypt in the book of Exodus through the ten plagues. Or what does that mean for further pagan worship in Egypt after that point? Were they just worshiping nothing? Were the gods killed off in some way? Cast into the lake of fire ahead of the rest in the end times? Thank you very much.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

That's a good question. I mean, at the very least, Egyptians directing their worship towards idols are definitely going to have demons showing up.

Could you identify them as the same group or. I mean, how does that even work?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, so, yeah, it's pretty clear in when you read Jewish demonology in the second Temple period that they're pretty clear that even if it wasn't sort of the same demon, like demons would show up and intercept any of that stuff. Yeah, phenomenologically it's the same thing still being offered. But I think the core of the way that judgment is understood in scripture.

Is that the judgment that's issued against them.

Which is sort of strict justice, but is sort of public humiliation.

Because what is the great sin that they are guilty of?

Publicly presenting themselves as God, taking for themselves honors that belong to God.

So being kind of publicly stripped of that and humiliated and being shown to be powerless is sort of the judgment.

And I think this is.

The understanding of.

For example.

The plagues on Egypt that St. Paul is appealing to when he talks about Christ on the cross, having made a public display of the powers.

Right. By stripping them of their power and sort of publicly humiliating them is more the idea than that something bad happened to them, like they got, you know, beat up or, I mean, it's exiled somewhere or killed.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, I mean, it's for the benefit of Egypt and for the benefit of Israel.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Because, yeah, if God just sent those particular unclean spirits to the abyss, plenty more around to show up and take their place.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, I mean, this fits into the. One of the big polemics against paganism in the scripture, which is that the, the pagan gods are weak and lame and pathetic and can't follow through. Yeah, yeah. So public humiliation is, is. Is a way to demonstrate that to everybody. I mean, just like with Elias on, you know, Mount Carmel. Right. Look at baal. Loser, you know?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

All right, this next one comes from Allison, and she wants to know.

How we understand what St. Paul says about homosexuality in response to some people's attempted critique of that.

[Caller]

Hello, my name is Allison and I'm from Virginia. My question is about homosexuality. I often hear affirming Christians say that Paul and people in New Testament in general had no concept of consensual.

Homosexual relationships because of the power dynamics which Father Stephen has gone into in various places. And so that therefore we can't apply any of the verses in the Bible about homosexuality to modern consensual relationships. So I was just wondering how, as orthodox Christians we should respond to such arguments. Thank you.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, I've heard this one a bunch of times. People will say that.

You know, St. Paul is only talking about pederasty.

You know, and so this, therefore this doesn't apply to.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Or cult. Prostitution.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Or just in general the fact that, you know, people with slaves people. Right. That there was no.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah. I mean, he doesn't.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Concept of consent.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

He doesn't bring up consent.

[Caller]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

The concept didn't exist.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. It's not really on. On the table. But I mean, what. When the scripture does talk about it, it references.

The actions. Right. Even the words that he uses, if I recall correctly, doesn't he kind of use what frankly are like first century slurs that refer to particular actions?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Well, yeah, yeah, we might scan. Well, I'm not going to protect people from the Bible. I'll go ahead and scandalize some people.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

There you go. Don't.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

There is a verse in the Bible where, if you read the Greek.

Jesus uses what we would call a gay slur to refer to Herod.

It's usually translated in English as something like when he's talking about St. John the Forerunner, having been killed by Herod.

Then he says, what did you go out into the wilderness to see? It's usually translated as like a man dressed in fine clothes or a man dressed in soft clothes.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yes, right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

What's actually used there is a word that refers to.

Prostitutes who would Dress as women in order to.

Have sexual relations with other men.

[Caller]

Gotcha.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Okay. So that's just the reality. I'm sorry, that's in. That's. That's in the Bible. Jesus says that. Okay. If that scandalizes you, I don't know what to tell you because it's there. Okay. But that's not the core of our argument here. Right. I'm not trying to say, oh, God is homophobic, so you can be too, or something like. I'm not making a weird argument like that. I'm just saying.

Right. This is a reality. But even there. Right. You could say, well, that's in the context of prostitution. Right. So see? Yeah. Prostitution, bad. Okay. But there's a bigger problem here. There's a bigger problem here because you know what else St. Paul and the other apostles didn't know about consensual relationships between men and women.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. So there's. They're not saying that there was no.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Concept of consent there.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Either rape is okay, or there was.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

No concept of marital rape.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

There was no concept. They didn't know anything about that. So do you say, okay, well, they didn't know anything about that. Our relationships between husbands and wives, like, you get to choose who you marry. Now, in a lot of countries, they had no concept of that. Okay. You were married off to someone when you were like 13, 14 years old who you might never have met.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And they considered it a sin to divorce that person.

[Caller]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Okay. Well, that's very different than how relationships are done today. So do we take everything St Paul, the other apostles say about husbands and wives and marriage and families? Well, their family structures were different and everything. So we're just going to set all that aside. No relevance, those verses have any relevance. But ultimately, you go down that path and you just come to, well, the Bible's irrelevant then.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, you can say. And I mean, there are people who essentially say that. Right. That, like, well, you know, the context has so radically changed that none of.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

This could possibly apply, that it's just irrelevant. Right. And you get to the, you know, you get to the new atheists with the, what is a Bronze Age, you know, list of commandments have to do with me? Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Caller]

So.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

The affirming Christian or the liberal Christian or the progressive Christian is in this weird space, in this weird cognitive dissonance of. I still want to say the Bible's important and I still want to identify as a Christian, but I don't believe anything in the Bible or the Christian tradition as it has historically existed. Up to this point has any relevance to me or my life.

Which sort of begs the question of, okay, why do you still want to identify as a Christian then? And why do you care at all what the Bible says where you want to wrap it around?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. But let me go even a step beyond that. Right. Because there's also, for those people, there's cognitive dissonance on the other side too. There's cognitive dissonance on the Christian side.

There's also cognitive dissonance on the progressive liberal side. Right. Because.

Why should gay people be monogamous?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. On the basis of what?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. Yeah.

They can't reproduce. Right. So there's not that whole set of issues.

[Caller]

Yep.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. So when these people who identify as like progressive Christian folks say, okay, well, no, it's okay.

If the gay people are in a monogamous marriage, it's like, well, wait, why?

Why do they have to do that?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Why is that the only time it's okay? And how do you make that case? Because you can't make a biblical case for a monogamous marriage because you've just chucked that aside. Right. You've just said, well, wait, that isn't strictly relevant because these are different types of relationships. Why should they have to get married?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. And I mean, I'll say the other thing I would add is, as we know, as you have demonstrated very, very well, St. Paul does not contradict the Torah in any way. And not just you. I mean, a lot of people have demonstrated that very well. And I mean, look at Leviticus where it talks about all of this stuff. If you're going to, I mean, there's a big list of sexual actions that you should not do in Leviticus and they are described as defiling the land.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Like, you know, so, okay, you're going to pick one and say, well, the context makes this okay. Now there's a different context. And so that's okay. So does that then mean.

That if you have consensual incest, that that's okay? That if you could figure out some way to have consensual bestiality, that that would be okay? That I mean, it goes on and on. There's a long list of these things.

[Caller]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Well, but we don't even have to go that far. Right.

Because I know there are folks out there who have same sex attraction stuff who really resent being compared to.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Of course, of course, of course.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right.

The point is, what is this? What is declared to be a sin is an action.

And it's declared to be a sin. Not because it makes God mad or it's an on an arbitrary list or. Or some old fuddy duddy from the benighted past thought that was bad. It's because it's harmful to you.

Physically, emotionally and spiritually.

[Caller]

Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And since I've already scandalizing people, the church has always said that sodomy is a sin because it's harmful and demeaning emotionally and spiritually for everyone.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. Whether it's between two people of the same sex or two people of two sexes.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes. For a married heterosexual couple, it is wrong.

[Caller]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

According to the church. Yep. Throughout its history.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yep.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. So it's not that. It's not that. Oh.

Well, it's definitely not the church telling people who they can love.

[Caller]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

You're supposed to love everybody.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. And before the current cultural climate, we had this concept of friendship where two people of the same sex could be lifelong companions and just not express their love sexually.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

You read Shakespeare, you see men talking about how much they love each other all the time and they are not sleeping together. Yes.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. We used to have that. Right. No one's saying that's wrong. No one's saying there's any problem with that. There are problems with certain actions that you can take. And the problem is that it is going to be harmful to you and you might not see it now because that's the way sin always works. Yeah. Right. The teenager who is just super in love with his girlfriend and gets her pregnant did not do that because he, like, secretly hated her and wanted to destroy her future and make it really hard for her to go to college.

[Caller]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

He thought at the time it was love and an expression of his love.

Right. But if he had listened to the wisdom of the church that said, hey, you know what? Wait with that, because. Right.

Then all of those harmful consequences wouldn't have happened.

Right.

This is just. Should be basic stuff for adults. Right. And I should have the right to XYZ is frankly just childish.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. I think what's happened is that there's certain ideas that have become sacralized.

And so as a result, people let themselves go there. And I say, well, you know, it used to be that my family and society and, you know, everybody was saying that's wrong, but now we know better. And those were just mean people, hateful people, bigoted people. And now, you know, now I don't need to be ashamed of that. Now I don't need to feel bad about that. I can, you know, it's just the Same as anybody else's sexual expression of love or whatever it might be.

But I think that it's that societies deceive people, societies get stuff wrong.

You know, like there seems to be this idea, this myth that. And I mean myth in the grand sense here. This myth that society is gradually getting things more and more correct. I mean, if you believe that, if you believe that, you probably don't like how the last election, the recent election turned out. And so.

Was it getting it right this time or another time that the election didn't go your way?

Clearly there's back and forth going on and up and down and whatever.

Societies get things wrong.

As a whole. They tell people things are great that are not great. They tell people that things are bad that are not bad.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That's a big problem with democracy.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

There is no king, and everyone does what is right in their own eyes.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right. You know, I remember one time, the late Father Peter Gilchrist, he referred to. This probably wasn't original him, I don't know, but he's the one I heard it from. He referred to Bible studies where no one was really qualified to interpret the Scriptures as just the pooling of ignorance. And I mean, in a lot of ways, that's what society is in this fallen world is the pooling of ignorance.

By no means do I deny that people have genuine, deep, sincere feelings.

But the fact that you have a genuine, deep, sincere feeling does not mean that you should take particular actions based on those feelings.

There are other things that can be done, and this is why we have the wisdom of the Scriptures and the church. Because we're not infallible, we're not omniscient. We're not perfect. We're not. And society definitely isn't. So, yeah. Okay, a couple more before we take a break. This one's from Socrates.

[Caller]

Hi, Father Andrew and Father Stephen. Thank you for the podcast, as always. My question was about St. Matthew's gospel. At the end of the second chapter, St. Matthew says that a prophecy was fulfilled in which he shall be called a Nazarene. And in the orthodox study Bible footnotes and other sources, it says that this prophecy is not found in the Old Testament or other apocryphal works. So I was wondering if you two knew where St. Matthew is getting this.

Prophecy from. Thank you.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, I don't know. I've wondered this myself, but never looked it up. So what's the answer?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, it's because a lot of these folks don't know Hebrew. Oh.

So this is one of the Things that shows up in those. You know, the people who want to argue that St. Matthew's gospel is originally written in Aramaic. This is one of the things they point to. Because what he's doing is he's doing a very Hebrew thing and he's doing a wordplay on the Hebrew word natser, which means branch or stem.

Right. So he says, oh, he's from Nazareth. Well, you know, Eltesa said he would be the Nazareth, like the branch from Jesse's. Right. Stem.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So he's basically making a pun. Yes, a Hebrew pun.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

He's making a Hebrew pun.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

He should be called a branch.

Well, that's. That's easy.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

It requires reading Hebrew, though.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes, that's the quick answer. Yeah.

But, yeah, that's.

Let me just like, make the larger point because I've said this and I know this ticks off a segment of our list. I'm just trolling the listener today, I guess. I mean, might as well.

So the. The truth is.

If you don't know any Hebrew.

You can't really understand the New Testament.

And that is in part because the New Testament isn't really written in Greek.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, I think you've said it's basically.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Written in Hebrew using Greek words, kini or koine. Greek is not a thing. It doesn't exist. There are no other documents written in New Testament Greek by anyone, anywhere. Philo is not the same Greek. It's written around the same time. Josephus is not the same Greek. It's written around the same time.

The Greek of the New Testament is to Greek as Yiddish is to German.

It is a Hebrew dialect of Greek.

And it is people writing in Greek and thinking in Hebrew. And there's example after example after example of it. We've just seen one. When St. Paul.

Says, in, I believe it's Colossians, what gets mistranslated in English as, he who was without sin became sin for us. Yeah, right. And you go and you look up, say, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, and he's like, no, it means he became a sin offering because Saint Cyril of Alexandria knew a little Hebrew and he knew that chata in Hebrew means both sin and sin offering.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

That kind of pulls the rug out under a lot of theology.

Just that one thing.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes, yes, that's right. Exactly right. So you try and read the New Testament Greek as Greek, right? Like, say you're huge into Plato and like to use big words. I don't know who I'm describing. And you go and you translate the New Testament using your Platonic Lexicon you're going to get a distorted picture of what the New Testament says because you don't know any Hebrew.

[Caller]

Yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay, we're going to take one more before our first break. This is from John. He wants to know about sorcery.

[Caller]

Father's bless. I was hoping you could elaborate on the topic of sorcery. What makes a phenomenon sorceress is all sorcery demonic in nature. Is sorcery a kind of technology in the way that you've defined it on the show? And is it possible that some phenomena once considered sorceress might later be revealed not to have been being rather technology sufficiently advanced that it is indiscernible from magic? Thank you so much for the show and God bless your ministry.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. So what counts as sorcery in scripture and tradition of the church?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Well, magic.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yes.

Good night, everybody.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

What's usually translated as sorcery, like in the New Testament is pharmakeia.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yes.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Which is a more specific subset of that. And yeah, pharmakeya gives you an idea of what that's about. Right. Inducing altered states. My pharmacist is a sorcerer for purposes of divination or what have you.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, but it's that. For the purposes, like, it's that manipulation to try to derive control.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. As we said when we differentiated maybe in an episode that came after we got that speak pipe.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Some of that episode we did on magic. What separates like magic from just pagan religion in general is that pagan religion in general involves some kind of relationship or relational approach to.

Spirits that are regarded as divine. Whereas magic is.

Formulae, often ritual formulae that are aimed to control spiritual forces.

Not relate to them, not make offerings with them, not make some kind of quid pro quo deal with them, but to directly manipulate them. And so that's why it is closer to a kind of techne.

Right. In that it's seen that, well, if you know these secret names and you know these patterns and you know these things, then you can manipulate.

Those forces to sort of do your will and yes, it's always demonic.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. The anarchist.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

You can't manipulate God that way.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

It's like the Anarchist Cookbook, you know, it's teaching you how to. How to make particular effects.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

You can't buy it at Barnes and Noble. Oh, no. Okay.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I wouldn't know. Father Stephen.

All right, well, that said, we're going to go ahead and take our first break and we'll be right back with this Thanksgiving pre recorded episode of Lord of Spirits.

[Narrator]

Father Andrew Stephen Damick and father Stephen DeYoung will be back in a moment to take your calls on the second half of the Lord of Spirits. Give them a call at 855-237-2346. That's 855-AF-RADIO.

[Announcer]

The centuries after the Protestant Reformation brought about a radical reinterpretation of The Epistles of St. Paul, disconnected from any historical reality. But Paul operated during his entire life as a faithful Pharisee within the Roman Jewish world. In St. Paul the Pharisee, Jewish apostle to all nations, Father Stephen DeYoung surveys Paul's life and writings, interpreting them within the holy tradition of the Orthodox Church. This survey is followed by DeYoung's interpretive translation of St. Paul's epistles, which deliberately avoids overly familiar terminology. By using words and ideas grounded in 1st century Judaism, DeYoung hopes to unsettle commonly held notions and help the reader reassess St. Paul in his historical context. Available now at store.ancientfaith.com Again, that is store.ancientfaith.com we're back now with the Lord.

[Narrator]

Of Spirits with Father Andrew, Stephen Damick and Fr. Stephen DeYoung. If you have a question, call at 855-237-2346. That's 855-AF-RADIO.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Welcome back to this special undead episode of the Lord of Spirits podcast here on Thanksgiving 2024. We're listening to your speak pipe messages and shooting from the hip. Although I did, I did create a script for Father Stephen. So he has some idea of what's coming, but I don't think he's.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

You're assuming I looked at it.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I. That's true. It is an assumption. Okay, well, let's just jump on in. We're trying to do 21 questions in this episode. So we're on. This is number eight. Actually. This is from Tim. He has a question about demons. How about that question about demons here on Lower Spirits?

[Caller]

Hello, Fathers, my name is Tim. I have a question about something that a couple different speakers at the conference said and I could be mischaracterizing Lord of Spirits conference, but I believe what was said was that there are two slightly different views on how and why the demons are allowed to continue to act in the world. And one being, I think sort of more so the modern rabbinic Jewish view was that a certain percentage of the demons were allowed to continue to act in the world to afflict the wicked and drive them to repentance. And the then the more the second more sort of traditionally Christian view is that they are in some way sort of truly rebellious powers. I was wondering if you guys could help me sort of flesh out, like, just to what extent these views differ or if they're. Or if there's some way in which there's actually sort of a complementarity to the two or a sort of a helpful tension.

I've found I found something sort of along the lines of the first view kind of helpful in my own life in terms of viewing.

You know, bad things that happen to me and sort of making them meaningful. And I like that whole shall prove but mine instrument thing. So thanks.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Hey, Tolkien quote there at the end. I didn't pick this one because of that, I promise.

[Caller]

You sure?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

Honestly, I wish we had Tim here because I'm not clear as to why he thinks these views are not obviously compatible.

Because my sense is right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Both of those are elements of the traditional Christian view.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right. I don't know what the.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Neither of those is. The modern Jewish view.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

What is the modern Jewish view about demons?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

The view commensurate with both of those is that God allows these rebellious, evil spirits to remain in the world because he is able to use them to bring good.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

And they are out of it. They are rebellious. They are doing what they want to.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Do despite their rebellion. Right. And so the rabbinic Jewish disagreement with that, going back a long ways, because you already see this in St. Justin's dialogue with Trypho.

Is that the rabbinic Jewish view is that no angelic spirit can rebel against God. So the Jewish view is that those spirits are doing exactly what God created them to do.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Oh, wow. Huh.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That's that God created spirits to torment the wicked. And God created spirits. Right.

So it's sort of like the Calvinism Arminianism debate transferred onto wow. Onto angels.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I mean, that strikes me as a very dark view of God.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Oh, no. The Rabbinic Judaism will say they point to the verse in Isaiah that says God creates evil.

[Caller]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Just like some Calvinists do.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

No, I've heard Calvinists do that. Like, literally, I've heard them revert to that. Right.

Yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Now it's a little different. I wanted distinguishes because their rabbinic Judaism does not embrace anything like reprobation.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And when.

So when a Calvinist talks about God doing XYZ or creating XYZ in order to torment the wicked or in order to. That's based on this construction that the damnation of this particular group of people brings glory to God. And so God is doing things to make that happen and bring glory to himself and glorify himself. Whereas no rabbinic Jewish person is going to say that.

They're going to say they're ultimately going to end up kind of the same place we do.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That God is bringing good out of what they do.

The question is, did God just create.

Unclean or even create evil spirits for that purpose? Or is it a question of God allows these rebellious spirits to continue in rebellion because he is going to bring good out of it?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That's the core disagreement in the Jewish and Christian views.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Caller]

Yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

All right, our next one is from Avery, who has a question about prayer with the saints.

[Caller]

Father's blessed. This is Avery from Arizona. My question is about prayer. I've often heard you say that prayer changes us and doesn't convince God. But what about praying to the saints? Who does that change? Does that change us to be more receptive to God? And what about the saints prayer to God on our behalf? Does that change them or does that also change us? Thank you so much.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Plusage plus. Yeah, sorry.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

How long was the string attached to that can he used?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

It sounded like he was literally calling on the phone or something. But you can't do that with speak pipe. I don't, I don't know. There is no phone number attached to it. But it did sound like he was driving in his car and talking on the phone.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, he was auto tuned. Maybe he was auto tuned.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Just really bad use of it was.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

T pain he called in and anyway, go ahead.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I mean, the saints who we.

Yeah, I mean, I'm okay with saying pray to saints. People misunderstand that, of course. But literally the word pray just means ask people. So when you say, you know, when you were a kid, you say to your mom, can I have some eggs and toast for breakfast? You were praying to your mother. If you don't believe me again, read some more Shakespeare. Yeah, that's all it really means.

But yeah, I mean.

The point as, as he says, of course, is that we would be changed. God's not going to do something that is not within his will. And I would say that the saints who are, you know, have moved into the, the life of the age to come, they are perfectly in harmony with the will of God. Like there's not a point where they're going to say, oh, oh, you've got a good point when you called on me to help with that. Yeah, yeah, good point, God. How about that? You know, like they're not, they don't change their mind. They no longer have gnomic will. Right. They don't have to make choices between stuff.

[Caller]

Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I don't know. What do you think? What's going on there?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, I mean, I think praying with the saints does the same thing as praying with your church.

Right. We don't think that. Oh, if I could just get enough people praying. If we get enough likes on this post, then God will heal the kid.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Oh, there is a theology out there that says that. Agree with me.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Sorry, kid only got 999 likes, but.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

We are not word faith Pentecostals.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah.

Right.

Right. So hopefully you don't think that. Hopefully you don't think, well, you know, God might not do X, but if I could just get enough people, you know, all praying. All praying at the same time. Like that's literally magic.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, right.

[Caller]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Like I could give you an example of a modern day matte chick practitioner doing something like that, but I've already scandalized people enough and so I won't give this example I'm thinking of.

I'll tell Father Andrew about it later when it's not being recorded for not having said it on air.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

One of the many secrets I get to know.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Tantalize people with.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah.

But. Yeah, that's how it works. But when I have something that's weighing on me that I'm praying about and I bring that to my brothers and sisters in Christ and we're all praying together for it. Right. That is transformative for all of us, that brings about community and solidarity and brings us together and unites us in the Holy Spirit. Right. It's not numbers to try to convince God to do what we want. It's because of that. And the same thing is true with the saints in glory.

Right. It's about the solidarity of the church. It's about bringing you into especially. So, for example, if it's your patron saint. The whole purpose of having a patron saint is that this is someone who not only inspires you, but someone whose life you want your life to embody in some sense.

Right. Such that you're taking their name and acting in the world in their name.

[Caller]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And so.

That relationship and that connection.

Right. Is sort of deepened by that.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. I mean, and everything that we do as Christians is aimed towards our salvation.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. Not getting things we want.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. Which means, you know, as you say, Avery changing us.

That's. That's what it is. Okay. All right, well, this next one comes from Sabine. She has a question about how we understand sin.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Is she named for the mighty river that flows through East Texas?

[Caller]

Thank you so much for.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Oh, what did you say, I'll play that again.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Is she named for the mighty river that flows through East Texas?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I do not know. You know, to me, like, in my head, Texas is just this massive desert with no trees. But Richard Rowland assures me that that's West Texas.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, that's West Texas.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I know, I know. Yeah. East Texas is basically Louisiana, right?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

No.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Oh, no. Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

No, Parts of northern Louisiana are basically East Texas.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay. All right, all right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Quite the opposite.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I'll play that again. This is Sabine. I don't know who she was named after.

[Caller]

Hi. Father Stephen and Father Andrew. Thank you so much for all of your work that you're doing. I just have a question about the concept of sin as a taint. You speak about this in quite a few of your episodes. But when I read in the Fathers that sin is not a substance or there's no such thing as sin. Sin is more about the absence of good. It's a. It's a lack of. I'm just wondering how we can marry up those two understandings of sin being something ontological, leaving a stain, and then Sid not being anything at all but the lack of good.

Yes. That would be amazing if you could answer that question. Thank you.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay, well, I'm gonna guess based on her. Her accent, that she is not from East Texas.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I'm thinking, so.

Although, you know, we're both friends with a priest from East Texas who, if you heard his preaching voice, it's true.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I don't know. He doesn't sound like her, though.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

You get a couple shiner bocks in him, you can tell he's from East Texas till that point.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

And he listens to this show, too. We're probably going to get text.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So there we go. Sub rosa shout out.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

There we go. That's right.

Yeah. So sin is taint versus the privation of. Good idea.

I mean, I don't think that these are. I mean, I think that those models are not fundamentally compatible, but they're both metaphorical. Right?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Well. Well, yeah. What do you.

[Caller]

I don't.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I don't know that the privation thing is metaphorical for St. Augustine. I think it's.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

More literal Plato, brain symptom.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Where does that get into Boethius as well? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, I think it's true. Bodithia. It's super.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

He's even more Platonist than St. Augustine. Yeah.

Yeah. That's the whole Platonic period in Western theology.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Sorry.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Boethius until Aristotle gets recovered.

But.

Yeah. So there's a version of that, though, that is not incorrect.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay, Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So the problem is, the reason it gets into Plato brain is there gets to be this confusion between ontology and ethics.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay, Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So, you know, bad things don't exist.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And things that don't exist are de facto bad.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay. Yeah. No, I don't think I should go both ways.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And this gets into Anselm's ontological argument. Right. Like existence is a good.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay, right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And therefore all fiction is to some extent bad. If you follow through that argument.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. I mean, fictus is literally lies. I mean.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. So that's. So every. Everything's. And what's good. Then if you're a Platonist, and this is why there's a lot of discussion about whether Plato was a Pythagorean math.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Oh, I know a lot of. I mean, some of my children would absolutely disagree with that, that math is.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

The highest good and their fiction is evil. I think a lot of people would disagree with that. I think Aristotle even disagreed with that.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. I mean, I think the only way that this works for me is if instead of privation of good.

We talk about corruption.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right, yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Which.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That is parasitic.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, that's the biblical. I mean, that's biblical language. That's St. Paul.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. So you think of like a virus that's like a shard of genetic material.

Right. But there's this ongoing argument among biologists as to whether a virus is actually alive.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And you want to say yes, because you could have dead virus. Right. But live virus isn't really like a living organism the way a bacteria is, for example. Right, right, right. It's this weird thing.

Exists and sin is sort of like that.

And I think that's part of why.

The overriding metaphor for sin in the Bible is disease.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And disease certainly leaves contagious remnants. Yeah, right.

Yeah. And so that is a kind of privation. It's a kind of brokenness. It's a kind of right twisting of what God. Because everything God created is good. That much is correct. Right. And senate evil is just a twisting of that. Yes, that is correct. Right.

But the.

You don't want to go so far as to accept the Platonic idea of the distinction being between being and becoming and becoming always being evil or bad to some extent. Right, right. And the difference between being and becoming being, a lack of being being, a lack of stasis change, being evil. We're coming back to that.

But it's not a coincidence, this whole fiction versus math thing. It's not coincidental. That Descartes, sort of the beginning of modernism, and modern philosophy is just going back to Plato. Right. Mind, body, dualism.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Mathematics is the real truth. Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Like, I used to have a Roman Catholic roommate who was a member of Mensa, and I used to mess with him by saying that math isn't real, that it's all just made up.

If I just said that, he would argue for, like, half an hour.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. He's got to give the Aristotle argument against Plato, which was math doesn't demonstrate its own first principles.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Or you could just be Terrence Howard and say that one times one is two and watch people lose their minds.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

One plus one.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Because if one times one equals one, it's not multiplying.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

That's right. One plus one can be three for very large values of one.

Okay, I hope we've pissed off a number of groups today. This is good. All right, this next one is from Matt, who has questions.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That's what we do for Thanksgiving. We're thankful for our listeners so much as we've decided to make them all angry.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So we're just going to shed a bunch of our audience in hopes of gaining.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

You already had to sit there with your crazy uncle and his political opinions while you were trying to eat. And now you try to relax in the evening by listening to Lord of Spirits and we goad you yet further.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

That's right. Okay, this next one's from Matt, who's asking about the conditions under which you can receive the Holy Spirit.

[Caller]

Hello, Fathers. Thanks so much for your show. It's really a blessing to me as someone raised Protestant, I'm learning a ton. And I guess as I keep listening to you, I have this one question that keeps kind of haunting me as someone raised Protestant. And I've often wondered if I have the Holy Spirit inhabiting my life. And I've been really disgruntled. Without Protestants talk about this. There seems to be a lot of confusion, lack of clarity about receiving the Holy Spirit. When that happens, how it happens, and as someone entrusted to teach, I just consider it more and more relevant. I need an answer to this question. So my short question is this. What's the role of apostolic authority in receiving the Holy Spirit? I was baptized as a teenager in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Was that the moment I received the Holy Spirit, or is an apostolic representative required to anoint me? I guess I just really want to understand properly because I've had sneaking suspicions, you know, do I have the Holy Spirit guiding my Life. And so what do you think? Do I require an Orthodox priest to impart the Holy Spirit rightly into my life?

Quick. P.S. i have spoken with a local Orthodox priest about this. I'd just love to hear you specifically address the Holy Spirit portion of the question. Thanks so much. You've been a huge blessing to me. God bless you.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

This is a good question because, I mean, in the New Testament, for instance, we see people laying hands. You see the apostles laying hands on people and they receive the Holy Spirit.

But also there's cases where, like, for instance, St. Elizabeth, before there's any apostles, it says that she's filled with the Holy Spirit. Right. When she speaks with the Theotokos or various people filled with the Holy Spirit.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Well, yeah, that's also pre Pentecost. Yeah, pre Pentecost transition there, for sure.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So, yeah. I mean, and there's, and of course, you know, there's all these big debates at least amongst, you know, online Orthodoxy about.

With relation to, like, other, other religious groups. Other, you know, if I call them other Christian groups, some of them will freak. But I mean, I'm okay with that. You know, other churches, other Christian groups, you know, well, they, they're devoid of the Holy Spirit, you know, that kind of thing. I mean, how, how do we, like, on the one hand, the Holy Spirit blows where he wills, he does what he's going to do. On the other hand, we clearly have rituals that are designed to impart the Holy Spirit. Right. So, yeah. Where do we go with all that?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. Well, so.

Part of the issue is with the question, okay, not to pick on our.

Pick on our caller.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

He's trying his best here, clearly.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

No, no, but. And it's not, it's not his fault. Right?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, no, I mean this. Yeah, exactly.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

He's asking a question that comes naturally, emerges from a Protestant framework.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yes. And I would say what I'm about to say, probably especially in definitely Pentecostal and certainly Pentecostal and charismatic adjacent, you know.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Well, no, I think what I'm aiming at, this is really a Protestant question. And because.

Do I need.

Do I need to do this?

That is like, do I need to do it if I don't want to?

[Caller]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

This is a very Protestant framing of religious issues.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

What's required? What's the minimum?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

What must I do to be saved? Yes.

Right. And.

Because of it, a lot of times, I'm sure this is true with Roman Catholicism, Catholicism, too.

But in discussions between Protestant folks and Orthodox folks, we end up talking at cross purposes, like we're Speaking different languages, like we're relating to these things differently.

Right. So you will get. Right. It's very clear in the New Testament, it is abundantly clear that if you accept that Jesus is the Messiah and you want to join his church, you get baptized. Right?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And then there's all the things about baptism. But what happens when an Orthodox person says to a Protestant person, you know, quotes St. Peter, baptism now saves you. What's the first thing they say? What about the thief on the cross? All right, he didn't get baptized.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

That's right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And my response from an Orthodox perspective is, so what does that have to do with anything? Right.

Like he couldn't. He was dying on a cross. Right. Like.

You know, if you're ever being crucified next to, you know, our Lord Jesus Christ, then yes, different rules will pertain.

But, but more to the point, the reason that's what comes out as a response from the Protestant person is their thinking, the way they're hearing.

What I'm saying, as an orthodox person, they're hearing if you don't get baptized, you go to hell.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah. Or if you don't have anointment with chrism from an orthodox priest and the apostolic succession, then you are devoid of the Holy Spirit.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. The Holy Spirit is absent from your life. Which is not what we're saying.

We're not saying anything about that. We're not talking about what you have to do to not go to hell. Okay. We're just saying.

What any Christian would have to say is that assuming you're able to, it behooves you to go get baptized. When you become a Christian and enter the church.

There is a should there.

And then. And the question in response to you should if your response is or what? That seems a weird response to me.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

I mean, Chrismation, I mean Chrismation does what it's supposed to do. It imparts the Holy Spirit.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right? Chrismation imparts the Holy Spirit. And this is.

Obvious, reading the end of the Gospel of John, reading the Book of Acts, Christ imparts to the apostles and they impart to their successors. Right. The role of laying on hands and imparting the Holy Spirit.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Receive ye the Holy Spirit, he says.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

To them, okay, and this is following a pattern from the Old Testament, starting with Moses laying hands on Joshua, right. To appoint him as his successor, at which point Joshua received the Holy Spirit.

The anointing of Kings, Right. To receive the Holy Spirit.

[Caller]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But for example, David.

King David, David the prophet and king from the Old Testament.

Was filled with The Holy Spirit when he was anointed by the prophet Samuel. Right. We're told that, yep, there's this anointing. He's filled with the Holy Spirit. Before that, he'd written psalms.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Oh, were those unspirited psalms?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Were those not inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Was the Holy Spirit doing nothing in his life? Was the Holy Spirit completely absent from his life before that happened?

Obviously not.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right.

Okay. Had St. Peter received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

When he said to Jesus, you are the Christ, the son of the living God?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

No, not yet.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And was told, these are not your words.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, the Spirit has revealed this to you.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

The Spirit has revealed this to you. That was before he received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. I think the problem is, and this is frankly, at the heart of the debates of online orthodoxy about this stuff, it's this idea that the sacraments in particular are almost like magical rituals. Like they're this mechanism that always does that, does this thing, and that thing is completely absent outside of that set of rituals done in this particular way.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Which is not the orthodox view.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

No, it's not.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

It's a caricature of the Roman Catholic view of the sacraments working ex opera operatum. That's not the orthodox view.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Just, frankly, just read the canons of the Council of Nicaea about receiving non Orthodox Christians into the Orthodox Church. And if you have that magical view, then there's no way they could have written those canons to say, well, in this case, you would do this. In this case, you would do that. You baptize these people. Don't baptize these people. These people come in just giving a profession of faith. These people. You Chrismate them. Like, if. If it really is the case that you must. That you cannot be a member of the Church outside of a very, very circumscribed set of rituals.

Then they would have no. Those Holy Fathers would have no business ever saying anything like that. And like this cop out of, like. Well, these are exceptions being made for the sake of mercy. I'm sorry, you can't do that. If that's really the model. You can't. You just can't. You know.

Sorry, now I'm ranting. We're pissing off a whole other group of people here today. That's good. I think it's good. This will be a good watershed episode.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But the. We drive away our audience one subgroup at a time.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So if what the caller wants to know is.

Should he want to be a disciple of Christ and draw Closer to him. Yes. In order to do that, should he become a part of his local Orthodox Church? Yes, I believe, yes. Right.

Does that involve him getting Chrismated? Yes. When he's Chrismated, will he be filled with the Holy Spirit? Yes. If his question is, has the Holy Spirit been active in my life throughout my life up to this point, my answer is also going to be yes.

Though I'm not going to be able to confirm any particulars. Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yes.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Because. And this is where the rubber meets the road, right? This is where the rubber meets the road. Pelagianism.

Is a heresy of the Orthodox Church. Pelagius was condemned as a heretic at the third Ecumenical Council.

So if you say that the Holy Spirit is not active in anyone's life until they're Chrismated, then what you are saying, what you are saying.

Is that they came to Christ all on their own.

[Caller]

Hmm.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

With no influence or direction by the Holy Spirit. Meaning in the language of the second Council of Orange, they merited first grace, meaning you are anathema according to the canons of the Orthodox Church.

Just saying us all.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. Just as anathema as Calvinists are for believing in reprobation.

[Caller]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And evangelicals are for not believing in baptismal regeneration. There we go. Now I've ticked off everybody.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I expect a full three hour Gavin Ortland response.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Oh yeah, See, look, they do they anathematize. He's anathematizing people.

He's anathematizing everybody up in here.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

All right. Okay.

Okay. This one's from Steve. It's about the life of the age to come.

[Caller]

Hello, Fathers, this is Steve from Philly. I've been thinking about the resurrection of the body, the life of the world to come, new heavens and new earth, and what is it going to be like? And the idea I keep coming back to is what if one of the outcomes of theosis is that God then sends us out to spread life throughout the rest of the universe.

But without the risk of us taking sin and evil with us, totally in conformant with his will. And maybe we're each curate our own planet and can travel to. To visit one another instantaneously, the way the resurrected body of Christ was able to travel after, after, after the resurrection. And so anyways, I guess my question is I find this idea very motivating and is it in conformity with the church teaching? I want to make sure this isn't heretical and would love to hear your thoughts. Thank you.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

All right. I like this question.

I recently did a. A presentation Actually, for a class that I've been taking that I just wrapped up about. I mean, it's a Tolkien and Lewis class. So that's. It was about that, but it was about the question of, like, well, is there creativity.

In the life of the age to come? And interestingly enough, Lewis comes down on the. Well, the story goes on, but you're not the one telling it. And Tolkien comes down on. Yeah, in the life of the age to come. We're gonna be writing poetry and music and sculpture and the whole nine yards. It's gonna be, you know, a sub creative smorgasbord.

So unsurprising because Lewis was much more the Platonist, I think, than Tokyo was. But. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, you know, Steve talks about creating planets. I don't. That might be a little bit too much, but there is definitely this sense of the age to come being stewarded by the saints. Right. I mean, that's, that's, that's in scripture.

I don't know. This, this kind of jumps off in some ways a little bit. In one of the other directions from, from my initial question at the beginning about your, your, your Nietzsche talk. What do you think? Is there creativity? Is there? I mean, isn't this just sort of the expansion of the Adam and Eve commission?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

You know, it's definitely not heretical.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

It's definitely not heretical.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay. Breathe easy, Steve. It's okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

It's. Yeah, yeah. You're not a heretic. It's. It's probably imaginative. Both imaginative and a little over literalized at the same time.

I don't think there's a problem with that.

Part of it too, when it comes to. And this kind of obliquely touches on the whole question of why did God create this whole universe? And then there's just us here in this tiny little corner of it.

Part of that hinges on.

Christ. Could return tomorrow.

Could be a really long time though. Still, from our perspective.

We'Re about as far from.

Christ's death and resurrection in this direction as Abraham was in the other direction, give or take.

But there was plenty of human history before Abraham.

Yeah, we won't go into how much because, you know, oh, come on.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

This is our trigger.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Q and A. Yeah, that's true.

Who knows how much? I know.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

The funny thing is, the Q and A episodes, we know that the audience is a little bit smaller, but you guys tell your friends that this is one of the spicier episodes.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. And we keep working on making it smaller and smaller. Each one.

But yeah. So, you know, who knows?

If our Lord chooses to tarry until the year 50,000 AD, who knows what the universe will look like.

And where human beings will have spread? Right. I mean, Abraham, had he known, which he didn't, you know, the circumference of the earth, etcetera, could have said, you know, why did God create this whole world and just put humans in this little corner of it?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

See what I'm saying? Right. So.

Yeah, we kind of don't know. It's not necessarily the case that that's only for us to explore in the life of the world to come, I guess is what I'm getting at. Yeah, that may be something that our descendants end up exploring more themselves in this world, in this age.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

All right. Okay. Well, this next one is from Nathan, and he has a question about Margaret Barker. So this is all you.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Oh, boy.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, Here we go.

[Caller]

Hi, this is Nathan from Wisconsin.

I was reading a paper by Margaret Barker on the temple roots of the liturgy. In that paper, she makes the argument that the Day of atonement.

Was a cleansing of creation, that the temple represents kind of a microcosm of creation. And so the Day of Atonement wasn't just a cleansing of the temple so that God could remain present among his people, but that it was kind of symbolically cleansing of the entire creation.

And I'm thinking of some of the things that have been said on Lord of Spirits regarding Christ and his blood shed on the cross and what it means to make atonement. And I guess I'm just wondering if there's anything to what she's saying. And. Yeah. Curious to get your thoughts. Thank you.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

When I heard this, I mean, I would. I immediately went to. In my mind, to your dissertation, which is like, literally, I mean, so, yes, everybody. Yes. Father Stephen is something of an expert on this very, very narrowly specific question.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes.

Yeah. So Barker has kind of collapsed something there. Right. So the problem with saying that the Day of atonement as such, like in Leviticus. Right. And.

In the Old Covenant, was a cleansing of the whole creation, is that the ritual requires there to be uncleansed parts of the creation. There has to be a wilderness to which the goat for Azazel is sent out.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yes.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. There's an outside of the camp. Right.

Elements of the offerings are burnt outside of the camp. So there has to be. For that ritual to function, there has to be an outside of the camp. And so that ritual functioned only to cleanse the sanctuary. And then by extension of the Sanctuary, the camp.

But.

The part she has picked up on there is that.

The ritual as described in Leviticus 16 is pointing to. And Second Temple Judaism understood this all over the place. In Second Temple Judaism, like in Second Enoch and the.

Apocalypse of Abraham, there is this idea that there's going to be an eschatological day of atonement, that this ritual by the tabernacle being a sort of microcosm, is pointing to that day on which all of creation will be purified and cleansed. And there will be no, everything will be sanctuary. Right? Because remember Genesis 1, the creation is created as a temple, right? So the whole temple of creation will be sort of reconsecrated, purified and reconsecrated to God. And you then find places in the New Testament, like 1 John 2:2, where the apostles are arguing that Christ's blood has done that in potency and will do that in its fullness at his return. If you want to read more about that, read my dissertation.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

There you go.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Which is available on ProQuest. If you have access to ProQuest religion, you can get it.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

And I think it is floating out there somewhere online, elsewhere.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, I'm sure it is floating in different places, but you could go to. If you go to your local, like, if there's a seminary, if there's a college around and you could get access to their computers, you could probably pull up the ProQuest religion database, pay a couple of shekels and print it out if you want a printed copy or download the PDF.

[Caller]

There we go.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

All right, we got one more question before we're going to take our second and final break on this Thanksgiving Undead episode of the Lord of Spirits. This one's from William, who has a question about.

If you worship a human, shouldn't that worship pass to Christ?

[Caller]

Father's bless. This is William from Tennessee. We have the understanding that what is done to the image passes to the prototype, as St. Basil says, so when we do good works for a person, person, we do it to Christ. Because the honor passes from image to prototype, and they are made in Christ's image. When we worship Christ, we worship the Father. Because the honor passes from Christ to the image, the image to the prototype of the invisible Father. And I know it doesn't, but why is it that when worshiping a human who isn't Christ, the worship there does not necessarily pass from the image of the person made in Christ's image to. To the prototype? Who's Christ?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay. I mean, I think this is a good question because he's Tracking with something that is true, like Matthew 25. In as much as you did it to the least of these, you did it to me. As much as you didn't do it to the least of these, you didn't do it to me. That's the basis of. Of, you know, iconographic theology.

Why doesn't it pass? And I think. I mean, when he says that, when we worship Christ or worshiping the Father, because it pass. But I. I don't think that that's working in the same way as the iconographic.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Whoa, is it?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I don't know.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I mean, he is the image.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Or to say Basil the Great. It is.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay, Okay. I haven't. I haven't looked at that. So, I mean, it's. Yeah, well, but the thing is that he and his father are one in a way that an icon and the one whom the icon is of are not one.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. They're not consubstantial with each other.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

This was part of the debate about iconoclasm.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

This is. This is how the Eucharist got involved in iconoclasm.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right. So, I mean, there is. There is. There is an issue there.

But obviously St. Basil is not trying to address that particular issue.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

No.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

No.

So the. The key thing here is that veneration and worship, we're talking about different things.

Where veneration is giving someone or something the honor that it is due.

Up to and including God. We give God the honor.

And glory that belongs to him, Whereas worship is the establishing of.

A community relationship.

[Caller]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

With.

A spiritual being.

So those are two different things. Right.

And it's a particular type of relationship that's based in sacrificial offering. Right.

So.

Asking. Right. Why veneration of an icon is okay, but worship isn't.

You know, I mean, it's kind of like, why is it okay for me to put unleaded gas in my car but not diesel? Right. Well, because unleaded fuel and diesel are two different things. Yeah.

[Caller]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Now, there is, as he says, there is a common.

Pattern in that. In the same way that we could see.

Honor passing from an image to its prototype, we could see.

Worship passing from the Son and the Spirit.

Who are the express images of God the Father, to the Father.

Right.

So there's an analogy there.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. But veneration and worship are different things. And the core idea there is, as you pointed out, the fact that.

Christ is. And the Spirit are consubstantial.

With the Father.

They are the same thing.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. Well. And.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

You Know, And I mean, obviously he's just trying to work this out because he knows you shouldn't worship humans. And.

If there's one thing that's that one commandment that should be obvious from the Scripture, it's worship God alone.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. And I am not consubstantial with the Father. Yeah, right. You are not consubstantial with the Father. And icon of Christ is not consubstantial.

With Christ. Right. An icon of a saint is not consubstantial with the saint.

[Caller]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And so.

In that circumstance, honor is what is appropriate.

Right. Of a saint either way. Right. Even if it was somehow consubstantial with a saint, it would still just be honor.

We don't worship an icon of Christ because it is not consubstantial with Christ.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

That's right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So one of the second wave of iconoclasm.

One of their primary arguments was that they were on. They were only willing to accept.

That principle with veneration.

If.

The quote, unquote, icon was consubstantial with the prototype.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So they were Trinitarians. So they had. As Trinitarians, they had to accept that worship of Christ, of the Spirit, passes to the Father. Right, right. Had to accept that as Trinitarians. And so they said, okay, well, we're willing to say the same thing about veneration, but only if it meets the same condition of consubstantiality. And so the second wave of iconoclasm, they argue that the only true icon is the Eucharist.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Oh, wow.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Because they argued that the Eucharist, once it's been consecrated, is consubstantial with Christ.

And therefore you could not only venerate it, but worship it. Now, the seventh Ecumenical Council, and what's really the eighth Ecumenical Council, now we're going to set some more people off in 843.

Said, among other things, in putting down iconoclasm, the Eucharist is not an icon. The Eucharist is something else.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Charlemagne disagreed.

And wrote a counter theology.

Of iconography.

Arguing that the Eucharist is.

Consubstantial with Christ and therefore is the only thing that could be not only venerated, but worshiped. This led to Eucharistic. This, through the chain of development, led to the practice of eucharistic adoration in the Roman Catholic Church, which is one of the big things that set off the Protestant Reformers.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And.

Has ultimately led to the great irony that certain Protestant apologists, one of whom may have already been named in this broadcast.

Argue against iconography. And they quote the Frankish councils.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Wow.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That rejected this. And you point out to them, you know, these are like pro eucharistic adoration, these councils you're quoting. And they get flustered. I may have done that in person at one point. Wow.

But yeah, so there's a whole convoluted thing there. But the idea is, right, when we're talking about, in the Orthodox Church, we're talking about, we're talking about icons and other holy things. We're talking about veneration and people. We're talking about, you give everyone the honor and respect that they are due. Right. And the image of something is due the same or person is due the same respect and honor that that person or thing is due.

Then separately, when we're talking about the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, one of the ways we point out that we only worship one God. Right. Is because the worship given to the Son of the Spirit is passed by them to the Father, which is an idea that goes back in Christianity long before St. Basil the Great, all the way back to, as we talked about it in the Ascension of Isaiah, stuff written at the end of the first and beginning of the second century.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

All right, we've had some good questions for this one. This has been pretty good. All right, we're going to go ahead and take our second and final break. And we'll be right back with the third half of this special pre recorded Thanksgiving episode of the Lord of Spirits.

[Narrator]

Father Andrew, Stephen Damick and Fr. Stephen DeYoung will be back in a moment to take your calls on the second half of the Lord of Spirits. Give them a call at 855-237-22-346. That's 8-55-AF-ADIO.

[Announcer]

During one of the darkest times in recent history, God gave us a saint. This saint had to be someone stubborn. Stubborn enough to outshine evil even when confronted with it face to face. But how did St. Maria become a person whom God could inspire, help and guide during such a dark time? How did she wrestle with her own temptations and allow Christ to grow brightly in her soul? Stubborn Love by Rita Thola is one book in three parts written for young people. Her life tells the story of Mother Maria Skopstova of Paris from birth to death. The first section of the book is accompanied by graphic novel style illustrations to help the young reader imagine her work, family and adventures. Her writings comes next. A smattering of some of the notes and thoughts that shaped her. Your life is the final section where the reader is challenged to consider his or her place in the world, using Mother Maria's life and sayings as a springboard for. For journal entries and also some group study questions to answer. Pray for us, Dear Mother Maria. You can find this [e-mail] faith.com Again, that is store.ancient faith.com we're back now.

[Narrator]

With the Lord of Spirits with Father Andrew, Stephen Damick and Father Stephen DeYoung. If you have a question, call now at 855-237-2346. That's 855-AF-RADIO.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

All right, we're back for the third and final half of this very set of spicy takes on the Lord of Spirits podcast. Well, somewhat spicy, a little, little bit of a glow, leaves a warmth in the mouth.

And we have seven more questions to go. So this first one comes from Brad, who's asking about, well, if gentiles are grafted into Israel, shouldn't they be keeping the Torah?

[Caller]

Hello, Fathers. If Gentile Christians are considered those who are living in the land and not Israelites, why does Paul go to all the trouble to show that we are grafted in as the lost tribe of Israel? And if we are actually Israelites now, isn't it trying to have it both ways to say that we are not subject to the laws that apply to Israelites? Stated another way, James agreed with Paul that gentiles were not subject to the Torah applicable to Israel. Would James agree that the gentiles have been grafted into Israel? And if so, would he have changed his mind about which laws they are subject to? If you got circumcised and ate the Passover, you would then be an Israelite and thus have to keep the whole Torah. Correct. If our baptism is analogous to circumcision and by it we enter into Israel, then why would we still be considered only living in the land?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay, it's, it's a good question. And I mean, it's interesting to me how much what were relatively brief comments you made as you're discussing the Torah has blossomed into so many questions about this, this issue. But I mean, it's been, you know, it's been debated. It was definitely a big debate in the first century.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. This is what St. Paul was debating about, right?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I mean, this is the debate. Right.

So, yeah. So there's a couple things. I mean, there is a connection between circumcision and baptism, but baptism isn't circumcision.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. And St. Paul is very clear on one hand that gentiles shouldn't go and get circumcised. And if they do, they have to keep the whole law. He says that in Galatians. Yeah, Right. But he also, in the case of, like, St. Timothy. Right. Whose father was Jewish.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Or.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

No, whose father was Greek and mother was Jewish, he has him circumcised. Right. So he's not against Jewish Christians being circumcised.

Right. But he is against gentile Christians being circumcised. Okay, so it's clear that that's St. Paul's position on circus vision in the Torah is that gentile Christians.

Treated as sojourners in the land.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And Jewish Christians are still Jewish. Right.

He also then appeals to.

The tradition that starts in Genesis, Right. About the fullness of the gentiles, that talks about.

The northern tribes of Israel being reconstituted from among the gentiles. And then this is the nexus of the clash. Exactly what the caller is asking in the question. And so St. Paul is very clear that, see, St. Paul brings in other texts from the prophets that talk about the nations coming. And this is even. This is mirrored in the book of Revelation itself. The kings of the nations coming and bringing the treasures of those nations to the temple.

Right. In Jerusalem.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Caller]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And so St. Paul brings those prophecies together to say, yes, they do.

Occupy the space left by those tribes. Like, remember the olive tree analogy? Right. In order to graft in a branch, a branch has to be cut off.

So part of what St. Paul is doing there, as we went through kind of some detail last time, is God let all these branches grow that he knew were going to end up being cut off. And part of the reason for that was to have the place to graft in these other branches who he knew would come and would be faithful.

And right. And that makes them part of God's people, Israel. But that does not make them.

Jewish, for lack of a better term.

Right. So they are Greeks who are now part of Israel. And that means the hard work has to be done of.

What is Greek Christian identity.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

If Christian identity and Jewish identity are not identical.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So a thought occurs to me and correct me if I'm going the wrong place with this.

You know, a fruit tree that's been grafted. The branch that's grafted in does not bear fruit of the rest of the tree. It bears its own fruit.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Which is why you can literally have a tree that has, like, you could have an apple tree and then graft in a bunch of branches from different breeds of apple and Each one of those branches will. Will bear the fruit that is their breed.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. They're all drawing the life from the same root.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah. So I think.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. So, I mean, I don't think that this is. That that extension of the metaphor is used in the scripture, but I think it works, you know.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Well, I don't. I don't think that's an extension of the metaphor.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Oh, okay. You think that it's important.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I think the problem is St. Paul is talking to a bunch of people who had fruit trees.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So they know specifically olive trees.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

How ubiquitous were olive trees in the Greek and Roman world?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Oh, yeah, right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

They knew exactly what he was talking about. They knew the grafting process. Right. They knew all this.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So it's implied in the use of the metaphor.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. We have to add all this context because most of us have never grafted a branch into a tree, and we don't know exactly how it works. I mean, we haven't had that experience.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Like, if you ever go to a. And I've. I've done this. I've never grafted a branch. I do not have that level of arborist skill, but I have bought and planted and successfully, well, relatively successfully tended a bunch of fruit trees. If you come to my backyard, there. There are six fruit trees in my backyard, and which I all planted. But if you take a look, close look, almost every especially apple tree that you buy, it has been grafted. Almost all of them. And that's because if you grow these things from seed, you don't necessarily get the best fruit. The best ones come through grafting. That's just a characteristic of apple trees. And so, yeah, you can see it. If you look closely, you can actually see that they've been grafted. In most cases, I would say. I don't know about other fruit trees, but definitely apples are that way.

But yeah, you. So. But yeah, you. Theoretically. And you can buy. You can buy multi graph. You know, trees that have graphs from multiple origins. And so you can have single tree that grows. It won't be like, you know, you couldn't get a tree that. I don't think that grows oranges and apples and pears and cherries. You know, I don't think you can do that. It'll be more like multiple kinds of apples, you know, that sort of thing. Because I think that tree would probably reject something that's radically different. Although, I mean, I. I think you can get a citrus that will grow like limes and lemons and oranges maybe.

But. But yeah, yeah. So, I mean, I, I, I think it's, it's, you know, to understand grafting a little bit better, I think.

Gives some better understanding to what's going on with this. And I would say, I mean, look at the church. It's clear that there are different ways that different kinds of orthodox Christianity that each have their own sort of flavor. Right. Different emphases.

Within those traditions. That strikes me as indicating that the church is a tree with multiple graphs on it from different varieties.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. And this is an important principle in terms of interpreting the Scriptures in general.

Where, like I remember way back in the long ago time when the Melville Gibson movie the Passion of the Christ came out, there was some controversy around it in orthodox circles.

[Caller]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And one of the areas of controversy around it was the idea that how graphic it was. It was super graphic in displaying Christ's suffering and crucifixion and what crucifixion was like, how sort of graphically violent it was. And the argument was, well, look, the Gospels don't spend a lot of time going over the gruesome details.

And so that shouldn't be our focus. Right. And that seems on the face, like a fair argument until you think for a second and say the people who originally read this had seen crucifixions.

They had seen everything Mel Gibson put on screen in front of them. Yeah.

Right. They had witnessed this multiple times. And so the Gospel writers didn't have to go into all that gory detail.

Right. Because the people they arrived to knew all the gory detail of what that meant. Right. And in some of these cases, people say, well, the church fathers don't go into all that context. It's like, yeah, because they were still living in the Roman Empire. They didn't have to.

Right. Like there were still people doing grafts in olive trees when St. John Chrysostom was preaching.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. So the reason we have to do so much more with context now is that our context is so much further removed.

That we don't. That the people who are hearing us talk about the Bible or the people who are reading the Bible for themselves today don't have the level of context that the original readers did. They don't even have the contact level of context that the 4th and 5th century readers did.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. All right, our next question comes from Anna Marie, who. She has a question about mermaids. I love this.

[Caller]

Hi, Father Stevens. I have two questions, although I have.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

To stop her right there. Anna Marie. It's not Father Stevens. Okay. Anyway, we covered that in the first.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Episode, maybe she's just talking to me and thinks Stevens is my last name.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay, that's fine. I'll go with that. That's the charitable reading. Okay.

I'll listen to it again.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Because otherwise it would be Father's Stephen. Right?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, I guess that's true. Some people do. You know, I have a filter in the Facebook group. If someone writes that, their post just automatically gets rejected.

[Caller]

Wow.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

It's true.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I'm that vindictive.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Somebody's triggered.

We found out a certain other person is triggered by the mention of choice meats.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I know.

It's. I mean, I. I kind of love the.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I get it. If you have that thrown at you all the time. I get just being sick of hearing. Yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I mean, I found multiple cases of him, like, defending himself over that. Like, maybe pick a different metaphor, dude. I don't know.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Well, and I wasn't even bashing him for it. No, I just mentioned in passing, like. Well, here's an example of taking it as an adjective that I think is not quite right. You know, like. But, yeah, okay. Triggered. Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

All right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Okay, go ahead. Father Mermaids.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I've had, you know, I've had people come up to me very respectfully, and they're like, father Andrew, should I call you Father Andrew? Stephen? I was like, it's okay. Father Andrew is all you need. It's just what's on the book.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

No, if. If you ever reach that level of pretentiousness where you start asking people to refer to you as Father Andrew Stephen, I will burst your bubble.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Thank you.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I will find the way.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. That's not.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

This is my vow to you.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. Thank you. All right. Okay, here we go. Mermaids.

[Caller]

Hi, Father Stevens. I have two questions for you. The first is probably the girliest question you will ever get on this show.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I don't know.

[Caller]

And that is, what is the orthodox understanding of what mermaids are? I remember listening to your Halloween special a couple of years ago, and I noted that in all of the monsters and creatures that you touched on, mermaids were not one of them. So I'm curious to know what exactly they are. And the second question is, I'm an iconographer, and in all of my research of iconography, I have discovered icons that startled me. Icons done in a kind of anime manga style. So as an Orthodox priest, if someone were to bring you an icon of the Theotoko Service saint that was done in a style not according to what we normally see, you know, something kind of Disney, Pixar related, For example, and asked you to bless that, what would you say and why? What would the standard be for? This is an icon versus this is not an icon. Thanks so much.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay, so what? She may not. I don't know if she knows this because she didn't make the direction.

Connection, but there is an icon out there called Panagia Gorgona, and you can find versions of this that are perfectly okay. Like I'm looking at one right now, which. It's the Theotokos and she's raising her hands in prayer and there's a chapel next to her and there's a ship and it's the ocean and it's fine. But there are versions that are labeled Panaya Gorgona in which it is literally the Theotokos as a mermaid.

Have you seen that, Father?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Isn't there a repentant mermaid saint story, though? I thought it was bleed over.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, I think that.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I thought it was bleed over from that.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I thought it was Irish or something, though. I don't know. I might. I don't know.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Why does it matter if it's Irish? Does that mean there's drinking involved?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I don't know.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Wow, there goes another segment of the audience.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Well, it is Thanksgiving. I'm sure there's a little bit of drinking going on.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

If not, why not?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. So I'm not an iconographer, but I'm going to go ahead and go out on. I don't think it's much of a limb and say that the Theotokos as a mermaid icon is not canonical. Apparently it is on the wall of this one chapel in Greece, like this little itty bitty chapel that's next to the water.

And there are other versions that, like, there's another Panella Gorgona icon. You can see where she's holding like a trident and she has a boat in her hand and that's all there is to it. There's. But there's no, you know, fishtail or anything like that.

And like, and then there's versions that are, you know, have that plus the fishtail and. No, please, please, please, iconographers do not paint the Theotokos with a fish tail. Please do not do that. Thank you very much.

Yeah, it's not.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

No human animal hybrids.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Oh, now we're gonna get into the dog face. St. Christopher, get a whole other thing. Oh, you know, we did stir the pot.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

We did get. We got an. Was an email about that recently. I don't know. But.

But yeah, I mean, if, if, like to Answer the second part of our question. If someone came to me with one of those. This. This fishtail icon of the Theotokos, I. I wouldn't. I mean, mind you, I am one of those people that believes you don't need to have a. Even though I know it exists, you don't need to have a special blessing to make an icon, like, sort of ready to go. And I'm not against that. If someone asks me to do it, I will do it. But there's also. Apparently that shows up relatively late in church history.

And, I mean, it's fine, but. But I. I don't think that it's required.

But, yeah, if someone brought me something like that, I'd be like, no.

I wouldn't do it, because it's not. You know, this is not appropriate to depict the saints this way. Yeah. Animal. Human hybrids. Like, this is.

Yeah. I mean, this is a demonic image.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

You know, it's pagans that worship and venerate things like that.

I mean, we.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, yeah. As I sit in my office doing this episode, I'm surrounded by uncanonical icons.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I'm sure you are.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I am, because I sideline them. If someone brings one into the church, I snag it.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I'm gonna put this in my office.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

That's a good pastoral approach to it, I guess.

I know. Of course, now that we've mentioned Pan Gorgona, probably the people who sell copies of this are going to see the sudden increase in sales. Like, I'm gonna buy that just to show. Show those guys. I'm gonna bring it to their church.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And make them see what they say.

Yeah. I'm pretty strict about what I'll bless on the altar, like, iconography wise. So. Yeah. Like weird Photoshop stuff. No, no stuff from certain companies. No. You show up with an anime icon, I'm gonna pronounce the anathemas against Weebs and show you the door.

Yeah. And also, it has to be an actual icon, Right. Not a Christmas ornament or a mug or a T shirt with iconography on it.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So sorry, Jordan Peterson. I will not bless that jacket.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

That is going to be. Someone's going to cut out that thing you just said and make it their ringtone or something. Yeah, do it, people. Do it. I want to hear someone's phone ring at the next Lord of Spirits conference and hear Father Steven's voice saying, sorry, Jordan Peterson, I will not bless that icon jacket. Okay. All right, this next one comes from Basil, who has. It's interesting. We've gotten a few questions about the life, the age to come. So this is about eternal reality. Are we going to see eternal realities like the prophets did?

[Caller]

Father's bless my name is Basil from calling from Virginia, Shenandoah Valley. Question regards the vision of Daniel, Part one.

If he was seeing not something in the distant future, but some eternal reality, will we also, upon our departure from this life, also see the Son of Man ascending on the clouds and seated at the right hand of the ancient of days?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Second will.

[Caller]

Involves the harrowing of Hades. If is that an eternal reality also?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

And will we, upon our departure, find.

[Caller]

Ourselves in hades with seeing St. John the Baptist preceding Christ, will we get to see what we sing about as if it's already happened in Pascha? So love to hear your answer. Love the show. Thanks so much for all you do.

Bye.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I mean, I think this is an interesting question because of course, like, we ritually participate in those things.

So will it be. I don't know. Obviously there's a whole lot of questions about time and the afterlife. You know, are we going to see those things play out in front of us in the same way? I like, definitely the Son of Man is enthroned at the right hand of the Father. That happens at the Ascension, happens in the vision of Daniel. But it's not like we're going to be watching the ascension play out over and over again or. Yeah, I don't know. How do we understand this kind of thing?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. Well, yeah, so the time is reversed on those two examples.

So Daniel sees this eternal reality of Christ's enthronement before it sort of manifests itself in history.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. In space and time. And then the harrowing of Hades is something that has already manifested itself in space and time. Right. For us from our perspective. And so we ritually participate in it. We richly participate in both of those because both of those have already manifested themselves in space and time from our perspective. But it's not like.

When our soul leaves our body or when we're resurrected, we're going to go back in time.

Right. And like.

Do all those things again.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. So they are eternal realities.

You know.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

But like, it would be like asking also, like, okay, is Jesus going to still be on the cross for us in age to come, or are we.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Going to watch God create the universe or.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, I don't. I don't think that that works. Yeah, quite like that.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. Yeah, that's us time traveling. And then after time traveling, experiencing time and space the way we do now. Yeah, basically So I don't, I don't think that's. I mean, I'm going to say, well, that's wrong and these other things are right, because of course we've said you can't sort of nail any of this stuff down.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Sure.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But I don't think that's a helpful way of looking at it.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Caller]

Yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay. All right, this next one comes from Radu, who asks. I love these kinds of questions. It seems like a small thing, but actually pretty interesting. What is the deal with the title headings that are in the Psalms?

[Caller]

Hello Fathers, this is Radu from Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada. I have a question about the headings.

Those titly things in the Psalms.

All scriptures for salvation. But what do we do with these? When, like good orthodox Christians, we try to read the Psalter when it says for a pillar inscription, or of David after it says in the Psalms, the Psalms of David, son of Jesse hath now ended.

Or of Moses, the man of God, or my favorite, without superscription among the Hebrews.

What do we make of these? Where did they come from?

I never really knew what to do with them. And also some of the psalms in the middle of it too, I think say die up psalm in it. What's up with that?

Thank you.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I've always wanted to hear someone single without superscription among the Hebrews, but I've.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Never gotten that pro demon.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Although I have heard a Psalm of David.

Yeah, so, I mean, okay, so. So what is that? And what is. Is. Is. Is Daisy, Is that. Is that the same thing as like Selah? He didn't mention Salah, but I mean, that figures into all this. These little things that are kind of like. Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

It sounds like he's reading the Greek psalter.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. There's like metatextual things going on in the Psalter.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Because at first I thought he was going for the later Hebrew superscriptions, right? The like David while he was being chased by Saul. You know what I mean? Like those super lengthy ones that are actually.

In the Masoretic text of the Hebrew, that's the first verse of those Psalms. It throws all the verse numbering off.

When you're reading them in Hebrew. And sometimes when you compare the Hebrew and Greek, the verse number gets thrown off because of that.

But yeah, he wasn't talking about that. But those, just for the record, are really late. Like those are after the Greek translations. That's why they don't show up.

And are really just codifying sort of Jewish tradition at the Time.

[Caller]

Sure. That.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Oh, that's what was going on in David's life when this happened.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. They're just trying to add some context.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. And you can go down the whole rabbit hole, but there's not a bottom to that rabbit hole of how did that tradition come to be? Was it ultimately just somebody reading it and thinking about the life of David and going, oh, that would kind of fit here.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Or what?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But.

There doesn't seem to be. Based on other writings about David's life and the Targums and stuff. There doesn't really seem to be enough additional details beyond.

The Hebrew text of first and second Samuel about David's life to have them be based in that.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

It seems like it would have to be post hoc, but again, there's no way to prove that. Right. Like.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That's why I say there's no bottom to that particular rabbit hole in terms of the ones that were already there. Right. When the Psalms were translated into Greek, which are the ones that'll show up in your Greek psalter.

I don't know what the orthodox study Bible did with that. I don't know if they kept the longer headings from the new King James or if they.

Just went with the shorter Greek headings, like of David. So the one example he brought up here. End. The Psalms of David. You got to remember that what we now call the Book of Psalms, the Psalter, is made up of five books. They're labeled in the text, meaning there were five separate collections of psalms that circulated independently before they were all put together into the Book of Psalms as we know it today.

And so. And there's all kinds of journal articles and dissertations because they have to be written and published about the ordering of the Psalms within the books and all kinds of things like that. Right.

So that's a whole other rabbit hole.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. I mean, I have to imagine, like it says, you know, the end of the. The Psalms of David, but.

You know, editors putting these things together.

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

At some point in some collection that was the last one that was from David.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right. And so it just stuck onto that Psalm.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes.

And if you know how Hebrew scribes and copyists worked, like.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

These are people who would deliberately leave errors in the text.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yes.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That they knew were errors and just put a margin note.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. This is what we call it.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Saying it should probably be this.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

This is what's called a textual ruin. At least in that particular case, it's indicating some other thing that we don't have a text for. Or evidence of. Or whatever.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Speaking of First Samuel, there's a chunk of it in the Hebrew that's corrupt. It's not readable.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

And they just keep copying it.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes. And everybody who translated into English kind of leans on the Greek.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

There you go.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

In terms of what it's supposed to say. Right. The Greek of the Syriac. Right. Because.

The Hebrew has become muddled, but they've preserved it exactly as they received it. Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So what is that diapason thing? Is that like Salah? Is that just a translation?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

And Salah is like usually pause here.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Nobody knows.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

No one knows.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

They're all over that.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

No one knows.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Pause or take a beat or something like that is.

Probably the majority opinion.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But nobody would swear by that. They just go with that. Because it's like, nobody knows. Because that's as good a suggestion as any.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Probably indications to musicians and whatever.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right, right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

But no one. But we've lost the context, the tradition of what they refer to.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And the ascriptions to David or Asaph or the sons of Korah. Those are all just traditional ascriptions that had been handed down to that point as to the authorship. Moses.

With Psalm 90 or 89.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So.

Now if the question is whether we should give those a lot of weight in interpretation, the answer is no.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

In most cases.

I've seen some half decent arguments about the ones from the sons of Korah. We talked about this a little at one.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Oh, yes, yes, yes.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

When we talked about Korah's rebellion. But that's more noticing themes in those Psalms based on the fact that. Oh, the sons of Korah had this experience.

Oh, look, some of these themes in the Psalms. Yeah, right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Lifting them.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Here's the problem. Yeah, but there's a chicken and the egg problem there.

Right. Like the fact that those themes are there, the source of the tradition, that it came from the sons of Korah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Or did these sons of Korah just have this on their mind? And so they were writing these psalms.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, right. Like.

So that's why I say I would not put a ton of. And that makes it really ridiculous, by the way. So there's a place where Christ quotes a psalm.

And he says, sort of as David says.

And that psalm does not have a superscription that David wrote it.

So you will get the literalist types jumping up and down like, no, Christ here reveals that it was David who wrote that psalm.

Right.

And no, that's not what's going on there. Frequently people at that time quoted the psalms by just quoting David it.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

The.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Same way that they referred to the Torah as Moses. Moses said.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. And then they quote the Torah. David said that. They quote the Psalms. Solomon said. And they quote Proverbs, Even though if you read Proverbs, a whole bunch of them are not by Solomon.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right. It's just. He's the header. He's the.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

The name that's associated.

[Caller]

Yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

All right. Okay. So our next one comes from Alan and he mentions a couple of our favorite poems. Favorite. There's so many. But a couple of our favorite passages.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

They're the only ones we ever talk about.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Have heard the Internet and enoch. Yeah. Psalm 82, Deuteronomy 32.

[Announcer]

Hi, my name is Alan. I want to thank you guys for the show. Enjoy listening. Just had a quick question regarding Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32, 8, 9.

[Caller]

You know, we read about the Divine council.

[Announcer]

We read in Deuteronomy 32, of course, where God divides mankind according to the.

[Caller]

Number of the sons of God.

[Announcer]

Can I. Divorces humanity and assigns them their own deities to have jurisdiction over them, and chooses Israel as his own. His own allotted heritage, as the Bible puts it. Given that, I've always wondered what to make of the story of Jonah and Nineveh. If, as I understand it, God is only dealing with Israel, all other nations, all other peoples kind of have their own deities as their own placeholders. Why presume to intervene with Nineveh? I didn't think he was even dealing with them anymore, but just Israel. Anyway, I've always wondered about this. If you could speak to that, I would greatly appreciate it again. Thanks again. I'm going to try to call in for the live stream, but in case I don't get there, I thought I'd.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Just leave this message.

[Announcer]

Thanks again.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, I don't think.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And indeed he did not.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

He didn't. Yeah, he did. Or he tried to call and it was busy. I mean, that's the way that.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. Whatever happened, happened.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

Yeah. I don't think there's any indication that God abandons all of the nations totally and only communicates and works with Israel.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. Some of the language there.

I think.

And this isn't what the late Michael Heiser actually was trying to teach, but I think he picked up some language there.

[Caller]

Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

From the late Michael Heiser may have misconstrued it. And I say misconstrued based on. Not that I disagree with it, though I do. But that. I don't think that's what even Heiser was getting at.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So.

Yeah, so the language we try to use.

In terms of the relationship between God and the nations post Babel is.

Like, I wouldn't use that divorced language or abandoned or any kind of language like that. The language we use is he had to distance himself.

In the way that he had to distance himself. And this is the parallel we draw all the time. He had to distance himself from Judah. He had to leave the temple when Judah became wicked.

And that's when the exile happens.

Because if God's holiness remains in the presence of sin.

Then that's where you get death by holiness that would consume. And so you get the story of the flood in Genesis, where man becomes unbelievably wicked, God remains present with him and humanity is wiped out. God promises he's not going to do that again. So then what you see in Genesis chapter 10 after the flood is that though the same thing all starts happening again, has happened before the flood. You get giants, you get nimrod, you get all the bad stuff. Right. It's all happening again. Well, God has promised not to destroy the world this time. So what's the only other thing he can do? He can withdraw.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Back off. Yeah, right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

He can withdraw. And so then with Abraham, chapter 12, God draws close to humanity again. He appears to Abraham.

And then through Abraham is Israel. And so the idea is not that God has nothing to do with the nations, it's that that God is administering the nations through intermediaries.

Right, These intermediate angelic beings.

[Caller]

In order.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

To protect them from his holiness in their wickedness.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And then.

A bunch of those intermediate beings go bad. Right, etc.

But as we really emphasized last time when we were talking about the election of Israel. Right. What it means that Israel is the chosen people in the Old Testament is that God is working salvation for all of the nations, for the whole world, through Israel.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Through Israel. Yeah, yeah, yeah, right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

As Christ says to the Samaritan woman, salvation is from the Jews.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. I mean, the Jonah story would be an example of that. Jonah is right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And so, yeah, Jonah doesn't contradict that. He's an example of that.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah, right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

The word of God, the call to repent, comes to Nineveh through an Israelite prophet.

Right. So he's not dealing with Nineveh directly. There's not a temple to Yahweh, the God of Israel in Nineveh at that point.

Is later. But there wasn't at that point.

And there's not a Ninevite or Assyrian prophet of Yahweh. There's An Israelite prophet who is sent to the capital of the Assyrian empire to call them to repentance. And they experience repentance and salvation through that.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

All right, just a couple more to go before we wrap up this episode. So this next one is from Eric, who has a really intriguing, to me, anyways, question about what exactly does it mean that inanimate objects are said to worship or praise God in the scriptures?

[Caller]

Hello, Fathers. Ever since listening to one of the early episodes where you mentioned the virtues, I've begun to see some verses of scripture differently. And also I think in one of the episodes, you mentioned how we invite the saints and angels to worship with us when we say certain verses from the Psalms. So my question is dealing with inanimate matter, for lack of a better term. I always wondered how people of the day would have interpreted what Jesus said in Luke 19:40, where he says that if the disciples that were praising him were silent, the stones would cry out. And in the Psalms, for example, Psalm 95, 96, 97, and 99, Psalm 97 is even very explicit in saying, the rivers shall clap their hands together. The mountains shall rejoice at the presence of the Lord.

Before listening to Lord of spirits, I would have interpreted these passages as anthropomorphisms or metaphors. But now, after listening to Lord of spirits, I feel like there's something more here. So in these passages, are Jesus and the Psalms referring to the virtues? Thank you for all that you do.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay, Like I said, I found this an interesting question. Now, when he says the virtues, everybody, he doesn't mean the virtues like courage and love and purity. That's not what he means. He's talking about the. The rank of angels called virtues, Right. Who are, you know, given care for the creation.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So what do you think? I mean, is that what's going on in that language about rivers clapping their hands and that sort of stuff?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

The short answer is yes.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay, what's the long answer? Yeah, yeah, I haven't done that one in a while.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So. Yeah, we've. We've talked about this, right?

How. How inanimate are inanimate objects? Yeah, they're inanimate compared to us.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right, yeah. Well, and. And. And I mean, this. This also. He didn't mention this, but I think this also kind of plays into.

The question that I know a number of people have had because this gets discussed once in a while in our Facebook group or whatever, about what shorthand you might call fairies.

This idea of sort of lesser spirits that are.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That's Your influence, I'm pretty sure.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay, yeah. That are in creation or something like that.

Yeah. How inanimate are inanimate objects? You know what's going on.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. So they're inanimate in the sense that they don't have a soul.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

The soul being the life of the body, and they're not alive.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. Well, angels don't have souls. Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But as we've. Right. As we've talked about.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

That's right, everybody. Angels don't have souls.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

As we've talked about in several episodes.

There's a difference between soul and consciousness or soul and self.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. Those aren't the same thing.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And so we've talked about how.

Any ordered system has a kind of rudimentary level of consciousness that emerges from it.

And that part of what we're saying when we talk about these virtues, these angels who are assigned to these various aspects of creation is that those angelic beings sort of are the consciousnesses associated with those elements of the creation, such that someone like Saint Paul can refer to the sun, moon, and stars as the bodies, in some sense, of the angels assigned to those things, those elements of creation.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. Now, not literally everybody. The sun and moon, stars are not literally the bodies of those angels, in a sense.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

In a sense, there is key.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Well, yeah, but so this is. This is important because this was. We don't see. I mean, we're not going to do the big, long Philo quote again, but when you look at ancient Judaism and you look at early Christianity, they don't argue to the.

Pagans that, for lack of a better term, that these are all inanimate objects.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

They argue that they're not to be worshiped as gods.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

It's a crowded, invisible world because they're.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

The servants of the true God, who alone should be worshiped. Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. Okay, well, we got one last one, and.

I don't know, it's a little. It's a little difficult. I didn't put this one at the end on purpose. It was just sort of. As I was going through our. Our voicemails, I was like, okay, I want to do 21 questions.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I'm not sure why you think this one is super difficult.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Oh, okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

How this unfolds.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

All right, all right, all right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

This is the one I've actually listened to in advance. And I was just like, that's true.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I sent this. I sent this to Father Stephen to ask, should we do this one? Because we don't. We don't. We don't do everything you guys send. We can't.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. Okay. All right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I sort of didn't get why not, but so I guess that we will see this.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay. Okay. Well, this is from Lily, who has a question about.

Communion.

[Caller]

My question is regarding communion and.

Whether if an unrepentant member of the church is taking communion with the rest of the church body, if that is affecting the communion of the rest of the church. And so the context of my question is that I was saved a couple years ago from the occult. And.

One of the gifts that the Lord used to save me was discernment of spirits. And.

Most recently at a church service, as we were all receiving communion together, in my knowledge of the unrepentance of one church member.

It felt like we were partaking, like there was poison in the communion.

And I don't want to say that, you know, the devil is more powerful than he is.

But I'm just wondering if there is any backing to that sense that I believe I was receiving. So thank you so much.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

There we go.

Okay. I'm gonna give what I think is the easy thing for me to say.

And let's see. I want to see what you say about. About what She's.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, I mean, this is a clear. This is a. This is a clear cut thing to me.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay. Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I'm probably gonna alienate another listener.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay. Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Well, at least one.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. I mean, I don't. It's not that I. Yeah, it's not that. I don't know what to say, but I'm just. I'm just. I guess maybe it's because I'm. I.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

You want me to just say it and then you can.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

No, no. Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I'll say what I have to edge off for you.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I'll say what I have to say, which is. Okay. Setting aside the question of holy Communion. Okay. Certainly unrepentant sin of someone in a church community does affect the community. I mean, this is why St. Paul, you know, in. I can never remember, is it 1 Corinthians or 2 Corinthians, he talks about this person who's probably sleeping with his mother in law or, you know, something.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Like that, or Stepmother.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Stepmother. Stepmother. That's it. Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

One of the two. It's hard to tell.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay. Yeah.

And says, you know, this person has to be excommunicated, handed over to Satan until such time as he repents. So there's clearly is a sense of. That unrepentant sin within the church community is harmful to the Community. If it's not dealt with.

With regards to whether someone's sin can harm the Eucharist, I definitely disagree that that is the case.

Where it's a little touchy for me is I don't quite know to know what to do with what Lily says that she personally experienced or is seeing or. I don't. Yeah, I don't know.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Okay, well, let me rush in where you fear to tread.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay. Thank you.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

If you believe a spirit is pointing.

Out to you the sins of other people and based on that, telling you not to receive the Eucharist, that is not the Holy Spirit.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That is an evil spirit.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

There you go.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I mean, point blank.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

The Holy Spirit does not bring to our minds the knowledge of other people's sins. The Holy Spirit brings to our mind the knowledge of our own sins. It wasn't super repentance.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, I. It's. It's interesting. As I listened to what she said, I wasn't.

I wasn't super clear. Now. I. It could have gone either way in terms of my understanding what she was saying, that she knew that this person was unrepentant or that it was being revealed to her in some spiritual way.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That this doesn't matter. It was being brought to her mind in the moment.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Related to her not receiving the Eucharist because of it.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Okay. And that's why I'm saying the Holy Spirit, right. Wants us to draw closer to Christ, wants us to prepare ourselves to receive communion by repenting of our own sins.

Right. And points, it makes us aware of our own sins so that we can repent. The Holy Spirit does not try to keep us away from Christ in the Eucharist and does not do so by pointing out are bringing to our mind the sins of other people there in attendance.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah. There's not cooties.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. To me, that's a basic discernment thing right there.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right.

So.

If you know. No, not think you know, but no, no. Right. That this person is living in unrepentant sin, you can approach them as a brother or sister in Christ to try to talk to them about.

Sounds like. I'm guessing the caller is not in an orthodox church. Maybe.

She didn't say another kind of.

Christian communion. Like I said, it just sounds like. Because she didn't say.

And so. But the reason I bring that up is authority structures are different. Right. In an orthodox parish, it is the priest's job.

To protect the Eucharist. And by that we mean in some cases as we were talking about with God and the nations, protect people from the Eucharist.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Protect who are prepared to receive it. So that's his job. You may know about some things that someone else is doing, and they may be doing them. Right. But they may be talking about them in confession. They may be working through a lot of things. Right. And they're still sinners, but they're in this repentance process, and.

The priest within that is allowing them to receive communion. And then that's kind of none of your business. In an Orthodox parish.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right.

This is prayer of Saint Ephrem the Syrian that we say over and over again and let you know, help me to know my own sins and not to judge my brother. Right. Eyes on your own plate.

That gets stickier.

Obviously, in other. That's handled differently in Roman Catholic churches, as we alluded to earlier, they have a little different view of reception of the Eucharist with the Eucharist working ex opera operatum in Protestant churches. Frankly, Protestant churches are all over the map about what the Eucharist even is and what it does and how often to do it and all of that. So you can't make a generalization there of how to approach that. But I mean, if it's something you know about and you're concerned for your brother and sister in Christ, it's perfectly all right to approach them and say, hey, have you talked to the priest or pastor about this? Are you doing something about this? Is there a way I can help you work through this? Not that you're judging them and saying they're unworthy to be in the church or unworthy to receive the Eucharist or something, but just to talk to them and offer them support and help.

The New Testament has promises for those who help bring a wandering brother or sister back to Christ.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But.

Yeah, the Holy Spirit is not going to come to you with a purity test of the other people there in the church in terms of whether or not you should receive the Eucharist.

[Caller]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That is a demonic spirit.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okie doke. All right, well, that's it for this special undead Thanksgiving episode of the Lord of Spirits.

I don't have any final comments to make. Do you have any final comments to make? I mean, we're kind of all over the map with these questions.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Well, yeah, we don't usually do final comments.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

No, no, we don't. All right, well, that's our show for tonight. Thank you, everyone, for listening. We were not live, but we'd still like to hear from you. You can email [e-mail] and you can message us at our Facebook page. You can, like all these people did, leave us [e-mail] LordOfSpirits and especially if you have basic questions about Orthodox Christianity or you need to help to find a parish, go to orthodoxintro.org Join us.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

For our live broadcast on the 2nd and 4th Thursdays of the month at 7pm Eastern, 4pm Pacific. Shyness is nice, and shyness can stop you from doing all the things in life that you'd like to.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

If you're on Facebook, you can follow our page, you can join our discussion group, leave reviews and ratings everywhere. But most importantly share this show with one of your friends who will maybe like it. But hey might also like turn us right off after this episode.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, and finally, be sure to go to ancientfaith.com support and help make sure we and lots of other AFR podcasters stay on the air, spending warm summer days indoors writing frightening verse to a buck toothed girl in Luxembourg.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Thank you, Good night. Happy Thanksgiving all you Americans and God bless you.

[Narrator]

You've been listening to the Lord of Spirits with Orthodox Christian priests, Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick and Fr. Stephen DeYoung, a listener supported presentation of Ancient Faith Radio and I beheld and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders, and the number of them was 10,000 times 10,000 and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and Blessing. Revelation chapter 5, verses 11 through 12.