Podcasts about Paschal

Saints Simon and Jude, Apostles (Feast)

Weekday

This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on the occasion of his first yahrzeit. Rabbi Harari was my first Gemara teacher and the one who sparked my love for learning Gemara. Over the course of his distinguished career as an educator, as principal of the Yeshiva of Flatbush, and as community rabbi, he inspired thousands of students with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah. As his wife Vicky beautifully expressed, Rabbi Harari embodied six core values that he cultivated with deep intentionality throughout his life: hard work, gratitude, forgiveness, patience, focusing on families and our priorities, and the inclusion of women in halakhic Judaism. Yehi zichro baruch. The Mishna presents a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis regarding a thought during the slaughtering of a sacrifice to leave the blood or the parts designated for burning until the next day. Rabbi Yehuda rules that such a thought disqualifies the offering, while the rabbis disagree, arguing that the thought does not pertain to “consumption,” and therefore does not invalidate the sacrifice. The Mishna further clarifies that only specific types of improper intent disqualify a sacrifice: namely, intent involving “outside of time,” “outside of location,” or “not for the sake of the correct sacrifice” and the latter only in the cases of sin offerings and the Paschal offering. It then enumerates several examples of thoughts that do not disqualify the offering, such as intending that an impure or uncircumcised person will eat the meat, or that the blood will be placed on the wrong altar or in the wrong location on the altar. Rabbi Yehuda’s position is initially derived from the verse in Vayikra (Leviticus) 7:15, which states “lo yaniach” - “do not leave it” - referring to meat left beyond its designated time. However, the Gemara ultimately rejects this derivation, noting that it cannot be applied to thoughts of “outside of location.” Additionally, a braita clarifies that Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning is based on logical inference: if physically leaving the blood beyond its designated time or place disqualifies the sacrifice, then merely intending to do so should also disqualify it. Rabbi Yehuda does not extend his logic to the other cases listed in the Mishna, such as consumption by an impure or uncircumcised person, because even if these acts were actually carried out, the sacrifice itself would not be invalidated. The Gemara analyzes each of the cases mentioned in the Mishna and explains why none of them would disqualify the offering. Rabbi Abba explains that although Rabbi Yehuda disqualifies a sacrifice when there is intent to leave the blood until the next day, if a pigul thought is later introduced, such as intending that the meat be eaten after its designated time, the sacrifice becomes pigul, despite the earlier disqualifying thought. Rava attempts to support Rabbi Abba’s statement, but his proof is ultimately rejected. Rav Huna raises a challenge to Rabbi Abba’s position, which remains unresolved. Rav Chisda presents two statements, both of which Rava attempts to prove, though each proof is refuted. The first states that if one intends for impure individuals to eat the sacrifice on the following day, the offering becomes pigul and is punishable by karet, even though impure individuals are already prohibited from eating it. The second concerns a Paschal offering that was not roasted, or a thanksgiving offering brought without its accompanying loaves. Although the meat of these offerings is forbidden to be eaten in such cases, if an impure person consumes them, it is still punishable by karet. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree regarding the minimum number of blood applications required on the altar for a sin offering. Both agree that for all sacrifices offered on the outer altar, except for the sin offering, if only one blood application is performed, the sacrifice is still valid. However, they differ on the sin offering itself: Beit Shammai maintains that at least two applications are required, while Beit Hillel holds that one suffices. In a case where only one application is required, if the first application is performed properly and a pigul thought (i.e., intent to eat the meat after its designated time) occurs during the second application, the sacrifice is not disqualified. However, if the first application is performed with a pigul thought and the second is done properly, the sacrifice is rendered pigul and is punishable by karet, since the disqualifying thought occurred during the essential act that permits the meat to be eaten. In contrast, for sacrifices offered on the inner altar, all blood applications are essential. Therefore, if a disqualifying thought, such as intending to eat or burn the meat beyond its designated time, occurs during only part of the applications, the sacrifice is disqualified. However, it is not considered pigul and is not punishable by karet, because pigul status only applies when the improper intent accompanies the entire act that permits the consumption of the meat.

This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on the occasion of his first yahrzeit. Rabbi Harari was my first Gemara teacher and the one who sparked my love for learning Gemara. Over the course of his distinguished career as an educator, as principal of the Yeshiva of Flatbush, and as community rabbi, he inspired thousands of students with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah. As his wife Vicky beautifully expressed, Rabbi Harari embodied six core values that he cultivated with deep intentionality throughout his life: hard work, gratitude, forgiveness, patience, focusing on families and our priorities, and the inclusion of women in halakhic Judaism. Yehi zichro baruch. The Mishna presents a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis regarding a thought during the slaughtering of a sacrifice to leave the blood or the parts designated for burning until the next day. Rabbi Yehuda rules that such a thought disqualifies the offering, while the rabbis disagree, arguing that the thought does not pertain to “consumption,” and therefore does not invalidate the sacrifice. The Mishna further clarifies that only specific types of improper intent disqualify a sacrifice: namely, intent involving “outside of time,” “outside of location,” or “not for the sake of the correct sacrifice” and the latter only in the cases of sin offerings and the Paschal offering. It then enumerates several examples of thoughts that do not disqualify the offering, such as intending that an impure or uncircumcised person will eat the meat, or that the blood will be placed on the wrong altar or in the wrong location on the altar. Rabbi Yehuda’s position is initially derived from the verse in Vayikra (Leviticus) 7:15, which states “lo yaniach” - “do not leave it” - referring to meat left beyond its designated time. However, the Gemara ultimately rejects this derivation, noting that it cannot be applied to thoughts of “outside of location.” Additionally, a braita clarifies that Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning is based on logical inference: if physically leaving the blood beyond its designated time or place disqualifies the sacrifice, then merely intending to do so should also disqualify it. Rabbi Yehuda does not extend his logic to the other cases listed in the Mishna, such as consumption by an impure or uncircumcised person, because even if these acts were actually carried out, the sacrifice itself would not be invalidated. The Gemara analyzes each of the cases mentioned in the Mishna and explains why none of them would disqualify the offering. Rabbi Abba explains that although Rabbi Yehuda disqualifies a sacrifice when there is intent to leave the blood until the next day, if a pigul thought is later introduced, such as intending that the meat be eaten after its designated time, the sacrifice becomes pigul, despite the earlier disqualifying thought. Rava attempts to support Rabbi Abba’s statement, but his proof is ultimately rejected. Rav Huna raises a challenge to Rabbi Abba’s position, which remains unresolved. Rav Chisda presents two statements, both of which Rava attempts to prove, though each proof is refuted. The first states that if one intends for impure individuals to eat the sacrifice on the following day, the offering becomes pigul and is punishable by karet, even though impure individuals are already prohibited from eating it. The second concerns a Paschal offering that was not roasted, or a thanksgiving offering brought without its accompanying loaves. Although the meat of these offerings is forbidden to be eaten in such cases, if an impure person consumes them, it is still punishable by karet. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree regarding the minimum number of blood applications required on the altar for a sin offering. Both agree that for all sacrifices offered on the outer altar, except for the sin offering, if only one blood application is performed, the sacrifice is still valid. However, they differ on the sin offering itself: Beit Shammai maintains that at least two applications are required, while Beit Hillel holds that one suffices. In a case where only one application is required, if the first application is performed properly and a pigul thought (i.e., intent to eat the meat after its designated time) occurs during the second application, the sacrifice is not disqualified. However, if the first application is performed with a pigul thought and the second is done properly, the sacrifice is rendered pigul and is punishable by karet, since the disqualifying thought occurred during the essential act that permits the meat to be eaten. In contrast, for sacrifices offered on the inner altar, all blood applications are essential. Therefore, if a disqualifying thought, such as intending to eat or burn the meat beyond its designated time, occurs during only part of the applications, the sacrifice is disqualified. However, it is not considered pigul and is not punishable by karet, because pigul status only applies when the improper intent accompanies the entire act that permits the consumption of the meat.

During the Paschal sacrifice, the drain in the floor of the Azara was plugged to ensure that any spilled blood would be collected. Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis offer different explanations for this practice. Rabbi Yehuda says the blood was collected and placed on the altar in case some of the blood from the sacrifices had spilled and had not yet been brought to the altar. The rabbis explain that it was to demonstrate the dedication of the kohanim, who stood knee-deep in blood as they performed their service. Each opinion faces challenges. Regarding Rabbi Yehuda, the Gemara asks how the blood could be valid for the altar if it had not been collected in a sanctified vessel. After resolving this, another issue is raised: the dam hatamtzit, the residual internal blood, might nullify the dam hanefesh, the lifeblood that exits during slaughter and is valid for the altar. Regarding the rabbis, the Gemara questions whether the accumulated blood would create a chatzitza, an interposition between the kohanim’s feet and the floor, potentially invalidating their service. It also asks whether the blood-soaked garments would be rendered unfit for priestly service. All these objections are ultimately resolved. The laws of pigul apply only to parts of the animal designated for consumption or burning on the altar. If a priest has a pigul thought, such as intending to eat or burn a part of the sacrifice beyond its permitted time, it only renders the sacrifice pigul if the thought concerns a part meant to be eaten or burned. Non-edible or non-sacrificial parts, such as the hide, tendons, horns, and similar items, are not subject to pigul. In a female animal, a thought regarding the fetus, placenta, or eggs does not render the sacrifice pigul. If a sacrifice becomes pigul, consuming the milk or eggs does not incur karet. Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree about whether a pigul thought regarding a non-sacrificial item, such as intending to eat something not meant to be eaten or burn something not meant to be burned, can render the offering pigul. Rabbi Eliezer is more stringent, while the rabbis are lenient. Rabbi Elazar adds that while a thought about a fetus or similar part does not independently render the sacrifice pigul, if the animal itself becomes pigul due to improper intent, then those parts, like the fetus, are also considered pigul. Three sources, including the Mishna under discussion, are brought to support Rabbi Elazar’s position. Attempts to refute his view are made, but ultimately only an inference from our Mishna stands as a conclusive proof in his favor. A Mishna in Zevachim 84a records a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis regarding a blemished animal that was mistakenly brought to the altar. Rabbi Akiva holds that if the animal has already been placed on the altar, it is not removed. The rabbis disagree, requiring its removal. The Gemara qualifies Rabbi Akiva’s leniency with three limitations: the ruling applies only to certain types of blemishes; if the blemish was present before the animal was sanctified, it must be removed; and a female animal designated for a burnt offering is also removed. Rabbi Zeira raises a challenge to the third limitation based on a braita previously cited in a discussion concerning Rabbi Eliezer. This challenge is ultimately resolved.  

During the Paschal sacrifice, the drain in the floor of the Azara was plugged to ensure that any spilled blood would be collected. Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis offer different explanations for this practice. Rabbi Yehuda says the blood was collected and placed on the altar in case some of the blood from the sacrifices had spilled and had not yet been brought to the altar. The rabbis explain that it was to demonstrate the dedication of the kohanim, who stood knee-deep in blood as they performed their service. Each opinion faces challenges. Regarding Rabbi Yehuda, the Gemara asks how the blood could be valid for the altar if it had not been collected in a sanctified vessel. After resolving this, another issue is raised: the dam hatamtzit, the residual internal blood, might nullify the dam hanefesh, the lifeblood that exits during slaughter and is valid for the altar. Regarding the rabbis, the Gemara questions whether the accumulated blood would create a chatzitza, an interposition between the kohanim’s feet and the floor, potentially invalidating their service. It also asks whether the blood-soaked garments would be rendered unfit for priestly service. All these objections are ultimately resolved. The laws of pigul apply only to parts of the animal designated for consumption or burning on the altar. If a priest has a pigul thought, such as intending to eat or burn a part of the sacrifice beyond its permitted time, it only renders the sacrifice pigul if the thought concerns a part meant to be eaten or burned. Non-edible or non-sacrificial parts, such as the hide, tendons, horns, and similar items, are not subject to pigul. In a female animal, a thought regarding the fetus, placenta, or eggs does not render the sacrifice pigul. If a sacrifice becomes pigul, consuming the milk or eggs does not incur karet. Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree about whether a pigul thought regarding a non-sacrificial item, such as intending to eat something not meant to be eaten or burn something not meant to be burned, can render the offering pigul. Rabbi Eliezer is more stringent, while the rabbis are lenient. Rabbi Elazar adds that while a thought about a fetus or similar part does not independently render the sacrifice pigul, if the animal itself becomes pigul due to improper intent, then those parts, like the fetus, are also considered pigul. Three sources, including the Mishna under discussion, are brought to support Rabbi Elazar’s position. Attempts to refute his view are made, but ultimately only an inference from our Mishna stands as a conclusive proof in his favor. A Mishna in Zevachim 84a records a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis regarding a blemished animal that was mistakenly brought to the altar. Rabbi Akiva holds that if the animal has already been placed on the altar, it is not removed. The rabbis disagree, requiring its removal. The Gemara qualifies Rabbi Akiva’s leniency with three limitations: the ruling applies only to certain types of blemishes; if the blemish was present before the animal was sanctified, it must be removed; and a female animal designated for a burnt offering is also removed. Rabbi Zeira raises a challenge to the third limitation based on a braita previously cited in a discussion concerning Rabbi Eliezer. This challenge is ultimately resolved.  

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop, Martyr (Memorial)

Weekday

Gift Grub is back on tour with the inimitable Mario Rosenstock, bringing you the likes of Michael Flatley, Michael D., Paschal, Miriam, Leo, Roy Keane, Marty, and many more. He joins Anton to talk about it all.

Weekday

On this morning's Gift Grub, Ian invited Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe to answer some tough questions on the budget . However, Paschal brought a little gift for Ian, and the questions were soon forgotten! Hit play now to hear the full episode.

In the Torah verse regarding the purification of the leper (Vayikra 14:17), the word “right” appears three times - once in reference to the hand, once to the foot, and once to the ear. Rava explains that each mention teaches the requirement to use the right hand in a different ritual: one for kemitza (taking a handful of flour) in meal offerings, one for chalitza (the release ceremony of levirate marriage), and one for piercing the ear of a Jewish slave. According to Rabba bar bar Hanna, quoting Rabbi Yochanan, wherever the Torah uses the term “kohen,” the action must be performed with the right hand. Based on this, Rava’s drasha regarding kemitza teaches that not only the taking of the kometz (handful) must be done with the right hand, but also its placement into the kli sharet (sanctified vessel). Rabbi Shimon, who either does not require this part of the process or does not require it to be done with the right hand, agrees that the kemitza itself must be performed with the right hand, as derived from Vayikra 6:10, which compares the meal offering to the sin offering. Therefore, Rava’s interpretation applies specifically to the meal offering of a sinner, brought as part of a sliding scale offering. The Mishna rules that if the blood spills directly onto the floor from the animal, without first being collected in a sanctified vessel, the blood is disqualified. A braita teaches that the blood to be collected must be the spurting blood from the act of slaughter - not blood from a cut, nor residual blood that flows after most of the blood has exited the animal. The blood must flow directly from the animal into the kli sharet, from which it will be sprinkled on the altar. These laws are derived from Vayikra 4:5, in the context of the sin offering of the Kohen Gadol. Rav rules that all of the blood must be collected, based on Vayikra 4:7. According to Shmuel, the knife must be lifted immediately after slaughter to prevent blood from dripping off the knife into the vessel, since the blood must come directly from the animal. Rav Chisda and Rabbi Yochanan explain that the animal’s throat must be held directly over the vessel to ensure the blood flows straight into it. Rabbi Asi posed a question to Rabbi Yochanan regarding the airspace above a vessel. The Gemara brings three versions of the question and Rabbi Yochanan’s response: If the bottom of the vessel broke before the blood reached it, but the blood had already entered the vessel’s airspace, does this count as if the blood had reached the vessel? If so, the blood could be collected from the floor and used on the altar. To answer the question, Rabbi Yochanan cited a braita regarding a barrel into which fresh water streamed into its airspace, disqualifying it for use in the red heifer purification waters, as it is considered as though the water entered the vessel. However, this comparison is problematic, since the red heifer case does not involve a broken vessel. To justify the citation, the Gemara reframes the question as a two-pronged inquiry. The question was about the barrel, and the answer was drawn from the aforementioned braita. The question was about the barrel, and the answer was derived from the laws of sacrificial blood, which must reach the vessel directly. Since the blood passes through the airspace first, this implies that the airspace is treated as part of the vessel. If the animal becomes blemished after slaughter but before the blood is collected, brought to the altar, or poured, the blood is disqualified. A source is cited from the laws of the sin offering to support this. The Gemara attempts to extend this ruling to offerings of lesser sanctity, such as the Paschal sacrifice, but the proof is ultimately rejected.  

Doug recounts a transformative visionary experience that occurred during a family RV trip to Colorado in 2020 or 2021. In Leadville, the highest city in the country at 10,000 feet, he ran ten miles and then consumed a powerful cannabis edible—his first time using cannabis in 10-15 years. Not knowing what he was doing, he ate an entire potent gummy, then smoked more weed, which launched him into an intense three-hour experience. The Descent into Hell Doug describes this period as "complete and total existential despair"—a literal descent into hell within his own psyche. He was bombarded with messages of worthlessness: "Abandon all hope, for there is none. The whole of you has always been false and a lie. You are nothing." This experience amplified his deepest insecurities, particularly around having kept his exploration of the Law of One material secret during the darkest seven-year period of his life (2013-2020). His imposter syndrome intensified to unbearable levels as he imagined his family discovering his perceived phoniness. He experienced such intense terror that he physically trembled and writhed, even contemplating that his family would be better off if he killed himself. Visually, he saw twisted, malformed, grotesque beings—viscera, lower chakra colors, volcanic orange fire, and a blackness that wasn't void but malice itself. He describes this as "dark light"—blackness inverted from void to malice rather than void to love. The Turning Point: Agency and Belonging At the lowest point, Doug received an internal nudge reminding him of cognitive behavioral principles: these thoughts and feelings were something he had created, not something creating him. He realized he'd always had a defense mechanism but now had to enact it at the deepest level ever. As he flew at 100 miles per hour over volcanic craters with demons pulling him down, he began repeating: "And you belong. And you belong. And I understand." He recognized these disintegrated parts—splintered through this lifetime and past lifetimes—as his own creations. Even negative external entities belonged because he is the creator. By saying "you belong," he cut the cords of shame and guilt. The arrows still hurt, but they no longer mounted one upon another or killed him—they bounced off. This awakened him to a greater truth that had been completely covered: he has agency. The word "Satan" means "the accuser"—the disintegrated energy level that accuses us of never having been whole. The Sacred Yes and Ascent Once Doug awakened to his agential self, he stopped being propelled by a force stronger than him. He declared his "sacred yes": "I desire to bring the light of wholeness. I desire to bring the light of Christ." For Doug, "Christ" represents the singularity of manifested wholeness—a code word invested with 2,000 years of human ritual and belief. Gold, the color of wholeness made manifest, became his experience. At this declaration, an explosion of golden luminosity occurred—a big bang bringing wholeness into the depths of hell within his psyche. He began blessing everything rather than being cursed by it. This shifted his energetic space, transporting him to a perspective higher than the hell realms. The Heaven Realms and the Great Realization Doug found himself in what he calls the heaven realms, surrounded by heavenly beings attentive to him. He belonged there and flew in the golden hue, bathed in hope after the funk of despair. When he looked down at the hell realms and saw the demonic beings looking up angrily, he didn't feel pure bliss. Instead, he felt what all the beings around him felt: the joy of wholeness simultaneously connected with great sadness that those below have, in a way, chosen to be miserable. The crucial insight: there was no line separating hell from heaven. The difference is that when one only desires disintegration, it doesn't occur to self that you have agency to transcend. From below, those in heaven appear as "other." From above, those in hell are seen as "us"—welcome to come up. The suffering Doug felt was the realization that the pain doesn't have to be this way, but we create our own hells—energetic vibrational streams of consciousness in the spectrum of separation. Integration: Metaphysical and Psychological Truth Doug emphasizes that while this was a visionary experience, it's metaphysically, archetypally, mythologically, and psychologically true. He connects it directly to his counseling work: when clients learn through courage to live in greater spaciousness and choose higher-grade responses instead of status quo reactions, they move from one frequency (perhaps hellish realms) into realms of integration and wholeness. It's all one reality, just described with different words. Good counselors, he argues, offer the "lore" of myths—these visionary experiences can be found in comic books, fantasy novels, or Revelations, but they're all words describing phenomenological, experiential facts. The key is dropping constricting worldviews by discovering your "sacred yes"—what Whitehead calls the "subjective aim." When you declare and articulate a sacred yes for the highest and greatest good, it becomes a focusing apparatus creating an orientation in time-space, a vortex of wholeness you can operate within. This awakening to agency and articulating what you truly want—"I want to bring the light of wholeness here"—can happen through mundane conversation, good counseling, or ayahuasca. The mechanism is the same: awakening to the sense of self, realizing agency exists, and declaring your sacred intention. Doug's Journey as the Archetypal Harrowing of Hell Mystical Christianity's Understanding of the Descent In mystical Christianity, the Harrowing of Hell refers to the "Vigil of the Heart of the Earth"—the liminal space between tragedy and triumph during Holy Saturday when Jesus descended into the heart of the earth to encounter the depths of separation and disintegration. According to Cynthia Bourgeault in The Wisdom Jesus, when Jesus entered the realms of the dead, he didn't fix, judge, or redeem hell itself. Instead, "he just sat there surrounded by the darkest, deepest, most alienated, most constricted states of pained consciousness; sitting, if we can imagine it, among all those mirroring faces of the collective false self... sitting there in the midst of blackness." His love went into the darkest and deepest places of darkness and reconnected the darkness to the whole. Bourgeault describes this as holding "all the boundary conditions of this realm (time, change, and circumstance) 'in and to love's embrace' and in such a way release duality... In that ultimate 'letting be,' he transformed them." The stillness of Holy Saturday represents Jesus' Spirit going "to the depths of the darkest realm of our consciousness, reconnecting our true self to his Spirit bringing his light to the dead. The Kingdom of God invaded and absorbed all sin brought forth from our ego and false self mirroring what it is (letting it be) and transforming it through his love." The Psychological and Inner Harrowing Mystical tradition understands that Christ's descent into Hell has an ongoing meaning relevant to daily spiritual life: "Christ is at all times poised to release that same love, to do to death the evil that is within us, now. This is the fuller and mystical meaning of the descent into Hell... It reminds us too of our responsibility to respond to the same love that destroyed the power of evil that once threatened to destroy Christ. What was done in him, will also be done in us." This is precisely what Doug experienced. His journey mirrors the four-part archetypal pattern he himself identifies: the descent into hell, the crucifixion (the terror and darkness), the harrowing (the work of recognition and integration), and the resurrection (the ascent into wholeness). Mary Magdalene as Witness and Model In Bourgeault's teaching "Through Holy Week with Mary Magdalene," she presents Mary as one who accompanies Jesus through the Paschal mystery, modeling "the transformed human heart bridging the finite and the infinite." Through Mary Magdalene's "witnessing and 'substituted love,' we come to understand how the human heart is the gateway to the transformational mystery." Mary Magdalene's presence and undying witness does not falter as she accompanies Jesus through his crucifixion, burial, and resurrection. Bourgeault emphasizes Mary's capacity "to not turn or run. To not run from our own pain, breaches, failings, and loss; and to not turn from that in others and in the world around us." This is exactly what Doug enacted in his hell realms. Like Mary at the tomb, he stayed present to the horror. He didn't flee or dissociate. Instead, he looked directly at the twisted beings and declared, "And you belong." This is the mystical witnessing that Bourgeault identifies as Mary Magdalene's gift to Christianity—the capacity to remain present to darkness without being consumed by it, to hold vigil at the threshold between death and life. Doug's Experience as Living Archetype Doug's journey perfectly enacts the Harrowing of Hell as understood in mystical Christianity: 1. The Descent into Disintegration: Like Christ descending to sit among "all those mirroring faces of the collective false self," Doug encountered his own splintered parts—the imposter, the liar, the fraud. These were the "anguish of Judas, the indecision of Pilate, the cowardice of Peter, the sanctimony of the Pharisees" within his own psyche. 2. Sitting with the Darkness: Rather than trying to fight, flee, or fix these demonic aspects, Doug learned to simply be present with them. Like Christ who "just sat there" in the blackness, Doug stopped running and began the work of recognition: "And you belong. And I understand." 3. The Reconnection Through Love: The essence of the Harrowing is that Christ's love "reconnected the darkness to the whole so that 'in Him all things hold together.'" Doug's declaration "I desire to bring the light of Christ and wholeness here" performed this exact function—reconnecting his disintegrated parts to the wholeness of his being. 4. The Transformation of Separation: The Harrowing asks: "Why is this creation here? Why did all this happen? And why are we in the midst of this?" The mystical answer: "I was a hidden treasure and I loved (longed) to be known so I created the worlds visible and invisible." The only way to be known is by taking the risk of loving. Doug's hell realms existed because separation exists—but his choice to love them ("you belong") rather than reject them enacted the cosmic pattern of reunification. 5. The Vigil at the Boundary: Like Mary Magdalene keeping watch at the tomb, Doug maintained consciousness at the boundary between death and life, hell and heaven. He didn't abandon himself in his darkest moment. This vigil—this sustained presence—is what allowed the resurrection to occur. 6. No Line Between Hell and Heaven: Doug's realization that "there was no line separating hell from heaven" reflects the mystical understanding that heaven and hell are not locations but states of consciousness. The early tradition used "Sheol" to describe "the place where those who had preceded Christ waited for his coming," not a place of eternal punishment but a realm of separation waiting for reconnection. The Sacred Yes as Resurrection Power Doug's "sacred yes"—"I desire to bring the light of wholeness here"—functions as the resurrection proclamation. In mystical Christianity, the Harrowing is not complete until the captives are led out. Doug didn't just sit with his demons; he blessed them and brought them into the light. This is the completion of the archetypal pattern: descent, recognition, embrace, transformation, and ascent. Bourgeault speaks of Mary Magdalene as embodying "surrender to the alchemy of transformation, the capacity to love and the willingness to remain, to stay—to not turn or run." Doug's journey demonstrates this exact alchemy. By remaining present to his hell, by declaring the belonging of all parts, by articulating his sacred intention, he enacted the Harrowing pattern within his own consciousness. This is why Doug's experience is not merely personal but archetypal and mythological. He lived out the pattern that Christ demonstrated, that Mary Magdalene witnessed, and that mystical Christianity has understood for two millennia: the way out of hell is not around it, but through it—by bringing love and consciousness to the darkest places within ourselves, we reconnect what has been severed and restore what has been lost. The counseling work Doug describes is simply helping others undertake their own personal Harrowing—descending into their disintegrated selves, learning to stay present without fleeing, discovering their agency, articulating their sacred yes, and allowing the light of wholeness to transform their inner landscape. Every therapeutic breakthrough is a small resurrection, every integration of shadow is a harrowing, every client who learns to respond rather than react is ascending from their personal hell into their heaven. This is the gift of mystical Christianity that Bourgeault has helped recover: the Harrowing of Hell is not merely a historical event that happened once, but an eternal pattern, a cosmic template that each person must enact within themselves to become whole.

In the Torah verse regarding the purification of the leper (Vayikra 14:17), the word “right” appears three times - once in reference to the hand, once to the foot, and once to the ear. Rava explains that each mention teaches the requirement to use the right hand in a different ritual: one for kemitza (taking a handful of flour) in meal offerings, one for chalitza (the release ceremony of levirate marriage), and one for piercing the ear of a Jewish slave. According to Rabba bar bar Hanna, quoting Rabbi Yochanan, wherever the Torah uses the term “kohen,” the action must be performed with the right hand. Based on this, Rava’s drasha regarding kemitza teaches that not only the taking of the kometz (handful) must be done with the right hand, but also its placement into the kli sharet (sanctified vessel). Rabbi Shimon, who either does not require this part of the process or does not require it to be done with the right hand, agrees that the kemitza itself must be performed with the right hand, as derived from Vayikra 6:10, which compares the meal offering to the sin offering. Therefore, Rava’s interpretation applies specifically to the meal offering of a sinner, brought as part of a sliding scale offering. The Mishna rules that if the blood spills directly onto the floor from the animal, without first being collected in a sanctified vessel, the blood is disqualified. A braita teaches that the blood to be collected must be the spurting blood from the act of slaughter - not blood from a cut, nor residual blood that flows after most of the blood has exited the animal. The blood must flow directly from the animal into the kli sharet, from which it will be sprinkled on the altar. These laws are derived from Vayikra 4:5, in the context of the sin offering of the Kohen Gadol. Rav rules that all of the blood must be collected, based on Vayikra 4:7. According to Shmuel, the knife must be lifted immediately after slaughter to prevent blood from dripping off the knife into the vessel, since the blood must come directly from the animal. Rav Chisda and Rabbi Yochanan explain that the animal’s throat must be held directly over the vessel to ensure the blood flows straight into it. Rabbi Asi posed a question to Rabbi Yochanan regarding the airspace above a vessel. The Gemara brings three versions of the question and Rabbi Yochanan’s response: If the bottom of the vessel broke before the blood reached it, but the blood had already entered the vessel’s airspace, does this count as if the blood had reached the vessel? If so, the blood could be collected from the floor and used on the altar. To answer the question, Rabbi Yochanan cited a braita regarding a barrel into which fresh water streamed into its airspace, disqualifying it for use in the red heifer purification waters, as it is considered as though the water entered the vessel. However, this comparison is problematic, since the red heifer case does not involve a broken vessel. To justify the citation, the Gemara reframes the question as a two-pronged inquiry. The question was about the barrel, and the answer was drawn from the aforementioned braita. The question was about the barrel, and the answer was derived from the laws of sacrificial blood, which must reach the vessel directly. Since the blood passes through the airspace first, this implies that the airspace is treated as part of the vessel. If the animal becomes blemished after slaughter but before the blood is collected, brought to the altar, or poured, the blood is disqualified. A source is cited from the laws of the sin offering to support this. The Gemara attempts to extend this ruling to offerings of lesser sanctity, such as the Paschal sacrifice, but the proof is ultimately rejected.  

Even though the basin in the Temple must be large enough for four people to simultaneously wash their hands and feet from it, a kohen may also perform this washing using a smaller utensil - provided the water originates from the basin and the utensil is sanctified (a kli sharet). Reish Lakish ruled that a liquid suitable for completing the required volume of a mikveh may also be used to complete the volume of water in the Temple basin. However, such a liquid is not valid for the quarter-log amount required for netilat yadayim (ritual handwashing). The Gemara explores what types of liquids are excluded from use in netilat yadayim. Initially, it suggests excluding liquefied clay or aquatic organisms like red gnats, which are considered water-like. Both suggestions are ultimately rejected. Instead, the Gemara concludes that the exclusion applies to a case where one adds a se’ah of liquid to a mikveh that contains exactly forty se’ah, then removes a se’ah, repeating this process until half the mikveh consists of the added liquid. This method is acceptable for a mikveh and the Temple basin, but not for the quarter-log required for handwashing. Rav Papa introduces a unique case where such a liquid would be valid for tevilah (immersion) of very small items. Rabbi Yirmia, quoting Reish Lakish, stated that water from a mikveh may be used in the Temple basin. This raises a question: perhaps the basin requires flowing water rather than stagnant water. Although a tannaitic source seems to support this requirement, the Gemara resolves the issue by showing that it is a matter of dispute among the tannaim. The Mishna teaches that if an uncircumcised kohen performs sacrificial service in the Temple, the sacrifices are disqualified. This ruling is derived from Yechezkel 44:7,9. Similarly, a kohen who is impure disqualifies the sacrifices he offers. The elders of the South limit this disqualification to impurity from a sheretz (creeping creature), but not to impurity from contact with the dead, which is permitted when the majority of the community is impure. The Gemara challenges this view, noting that impurity from the dead is more severe as it lasts seven days and requires purification through the ashes of the red heifer. However, the elders argue that since communal sacrifices are accepted when the majority are impure from the dead but not from a sheretz, the same distinction applies to kohanim: a kohen’s sacrifice is not disqualified if he is impure from the dead. To better understand the elders’ position, the Gemara concludes that they must hold that someone impure from a sheretz on the 14th of Nissan may have the Paschal sacrifice offered on their behalf and eat it on the night of the 15th in a state of purity. Ulla explained that Reish Lakish strongly disagreed with the elders of the South. He argued that the laws governing the community are more lenient than those governing the kohanim. While the people may have their Paschal offering brought on their behalf when impure, a kohen’s offering is disqualified if he is impure from a sheretz. Therefore, if the Paschal offering cannot be brought on behalf of someone impure from the dead, then certainly a kohen who is impure from the dead should disqualify the sacrifice he offers. To resolve Reish Lakish’s difficulty, the Gemara suggests that the elders of the South may have held that even the Paschal offering could be brought on behalf of someone impure from the dead. This raises a question: how does this view align with the laws of Pesach Sheni?  

Several difficulties are raised against the conclusion that the elders of the South must hold that the Paschal sacrifice may be brought on behalf of someone who is impure from contact with the dead. After presenting a challenge based on a question posed by Rami bar Hama, the Gemara concludes that Rami bar Hama clearly disagrees with the elders of the South. He maintains that the Paschal sacrifice cannot be brought for someone who is impure, and if it is, the offering is disqualified. A baraita is cited as a challenge to Rami bar Hama’s position, but the difficulty is ultimately resolved. Notably, there are two different versions of this challenge. Additionally, the Gemara discusses the case of a kohen who sits while performing the sacrificial rites. In such a case, the sacrifice is disqualified. The source for this ruling is examined, and two textual proofs are brought to support it.

Even though the basin in the Temple must be large enough for four people to simultaneously wash their hands and feet from it, a kohen may also perform this washing using a smaller utensil - provided the water originates from the basin and the utensil is sanctified (a kli sharet). Reish Lakish ruled that a liquid suitable for completing the required volume of a mikveh may also be used to complete the volume of water in the Temple basin. However, such a liquid is not valid for the quarter-log amount required for netilat yadayim (ritual handwashing). The Gemara explores what types of liquids are excluded from use in netilat yadayim. Initially, it suggests excluding liquefied clay or aquatic organisms like red gnats, which are considered water-like. Both suggestions are ultimately rejected. Instead, the Gemara concludes that the exclusion applies to a case where one adds a se’ah of liquid to a mikveh that contains exactly forty se’ah, then removes a se’ah, repeating this process until half the mikveh consists of the added liquid. This method is acceptable for a mikveh and the Temple basin, but not for the quarter-log required for handwashing. Rav Papa introduces a unique case where such a liquid would be valid for tevilah (immersion) of very small items. Rabbi Yirmia, quoting Reish Lakish, stated that water from a mikveh may be used in the Temple basin. This raises a question: perhaps the basin requires flowing water rather than stagnant water. Although a tannaitic source seems to support this requirement, the Gemara resolves the issue by showing that it is a matter of dispute among the tannaim. The Mishna teaches that if an uncircumcised kohen performs sacrificial service in the Temple, the sacrifices are disqualified. This ruling is derived from Yechezkel 44:7,9. Similarly, a kohen who is impure disqualifies the sacrifices he offers. The elders of the South limit this disqualification to impurity from a sheretz (creeping creature), but not to impurity from contact with the dead, which is permitted when the majority of the community is impure. The Gemara challenges this view, noting that impurity from the dead is more severe as it lasts seven days and requires purification through the ashes of the red heifer. However, the elders argue that since communal sacrifices are accepted when the majority are impure from the dead but not from a sheretz, the same distinction applies to kohanim: a kohen’s sacrifice is not disqualified if he is impure from the dead. To better understand the elders’ position, the Gemara concludes that they must hold that someone impure from a sheretz on the 14th of Nissan may have the Paschal sacrifice offered on their behalf and eat it on the night of the 15th in a state of purity. Ulla explained that Reish Lakish strongly disagreed with the elders of the South. He argued that the laws governing the community are more lenient than those governing the kohanim. While the people may have their Paschal offering brought on their behalf when impure, a kohen’s offering is disqualified if he is impure from a sheretz. Therefore, if the Paschal offering cannot be brought on behalf of someone impure from the dead, then certainly a kohen who is impure from the dead should disqualify the sacrifice he offers. To resolve Reish Lakish’s difficulty, the Gemara suggests that the elders of the South may have held that even the Paschal offering could be brought on behalf of someone impure from the dead. This raises a question: how does this view align with the laws of Pesach Sheni?  

Several difficulties are raised against the conclusion that the elders of the South must hold that the Paschal sacrifice may be brought on behalf of someone who is impure from contact with the dead. After presenting a challenge based on a question posed by Rami bar Hama, the Gemara concludes that Rami bar Hama clearly disagrees with the elders of the South. He maintains that the Paschal sacrifice cannot be brought for someone who is impure, and if it is, the offering is disqualified. A baraita is cited as a challenge to Rami bar Hama’s position, but the difficulty is ultimately resolved. Notably, there are two different versions of this challenge. Additionally, the Gemara discusses the case of a kohen who sits while performing the sacrificial rites. In such a case, the sacrifice is disqualified. The source for this ruling is examined, and two textual proofs are brought to support it.

On this morning's Gift Grub, the news of Jim Gavin stepping down had just started to filter down. Ian caught up wth Bertie and Paschal to get their reaction this morning. Hit play now to hear the episode in full.

Todd Miller of Head Honchos talks with Tyrell Marchant about H-2A programs and Abby George joins Joe Paschal, Texas A&M University, to discuss New World Screwworm and if it's ‘if it comes', or ‘when it comes'. The podcast team chats about beef prices and the best western movie actors.

Happy Birthday, Paschal Donohoe! The Minister for Finance celebrated his big birthday by joining Ian on this morning's Gift Grub. Hit play now to hear the episode in full.

Presidential election, the budget and returning to the Dáil. All to discuss with Minister for Finance Paschal Donohue.

https://youtu.be/yi6FeSLC2I4 Audio: Play the audio class Download: Download this MP3 Topics: Morning Prayers Follow-Along Text: ח. הַבְּכוֹר וְהַמַּעֲשֵׂר וְהַפֶּֽסַח, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, שְׁחִיטָתָן בְּכָל מָקוֹם בָּעֲזָרָה,8) The offering of firstborn animals, the tithe-offering, and the Paschal sacrifice are [also] sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity. [The animals designated for these sacrifices] may be slaughtered in any place within the Beis HaMikdash Courtyard.וְדָמָן טָעוּן מַתָּנָה אֶחָת, וּבִלְבָד שֶׁיִּתֵּן כְּנֶֽגֶד הַיְסוֹד. שִׁנָּה בַאֲכִילָתָן,Their blood was to be dashed once [upon the wall of the altar], above its base. The rules for the consumption of the above vary.הַבְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים, וְהַמַּעֲשֵׂר לְכָל אָדָם,[The meat of] the offering of firstborn animals could be eaten [solely] by kohanim, while [the meat of] the tithe-offering could be eaten by any person.וְנֶאֱכָלִין בְּכָל הָעִיר, בְּכָל מַאֲכָל, לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַֽיְלָה אֶחָד.[The meat from these sacrifices] could be eaten within the entire city [of Jerusalem], prepared in any manner, during the day [the sacrifice was offered], on the following night, and during the [next] day.הַפֶּֽסַח, אֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל אֶלָּא בַלַּֽיְלָה, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל אֶלָּא עַד חֲצוֹת,[The meat of] the Paschal sacrifice could be eaten only at night, and only until midnight.וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל אֶלָּא לִמְנוּיָו, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל אֶלָּא צָלִי:It could be eaten only by those who had been registered for it, and it could only be eaten roasted. PreviousClass 073: Shlamim Habechor Vehamaaser Vehapesach part 1 More in this section Class 073: Shlamim Habechor Vehamaaser Vehapesach part 1 Class 072: Mishnah 5-6 Class 071: Mishnah 5 Class 070: Mishnah 2-4 Class 069: Eizehu Mekoman Mishnah 1 Class 068: Ana Bechoach, Ribon Haolamim Class 067: Abbaye Hava Mesader Class 066: Hashem Tzevakot Ashrei, Hashem Hoshia, Minchat Yehuda Class 065: morning prayers: Hashem Tzevakot Imanu

https://youtu.be/bGQItMfoDPA Audio: Play the audio class Download: Download this MP3 Topics: Morning Prayers Follow-Along Text: ז. שְׁלָמִים, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, שְׁחִיטָתָן בְּכָל מָקוֹם בָּעֲזָרָה,7) The peace-offerings are [likewise] sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity. [The animals designated for] these sacrifices may be slaughtered in any place within the Beis HaMikdash Courtyard.וְדָמָן טָעוּן שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע, וְנֶאֱכָלִין בְּכָל הָעִיר, לְכָל אָדָם, בְּכָל מַאֲכָל, לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַֽיְלָה אֶחָד.Their blood would be dashed twice on the altar [in a manner that enabled it to reach all] four [sides of the altar]. [The meat from these sacrifices] could be eaten within the entire city [of Jerusalem], by any person, prepared in any manner, during the day [the sacrifice was offered] and on the following night, and during the [next] day.הַמּוּרָם מֵהֶם כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהֶם, אֶלָּא, שֶׁהַמּוּרָם נֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים לִנְשֵׁיהֶם וְלִבְנֵיהֶם וּלְעַבְדֵיהֶם:Similar rules apply to the portions taken from them, except that they could be eaten [solely] by the kohanim, their wives, their children, and their servants.ח. הַבְּכוֹר וְהַמַּעֲשֵׂר וְהַפֶּֽסַח, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, שְׁחִיטָתָן בְּכָל מָקוֹם בָּעֲזָרָה,8) The offering of firstborn animals, the tithe-offering, and the Paschal sacrifice are [also] sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity. [The animals designated for these sacrifices] may be slaughtered in any place within the Beis HaMikdash Courtyard.וְדָמָן טָעוּן מַתָּנָה אֶחָת, וּבִלְבָד שֶׁיִּתֵּן כְּנֶֽגֶד הַיְסוֹד. שִׁנָּה בַאֲכִילָתָן,Their blood was to be dashed once [upon the wall of the altar], above its base. The rules for the consumption of the above vary. PreviousClass 072: Mishnah 5-6 NextClass 074: Shlamim Habechor Vehamaaser Vehapesach part 2 More in this section Class 074: Shlamim Habechor Vehamaaser Vehapesach part 2 Class 072: Mishnah 5-6 Class 071: Mishnah 5 Class 070: Mishnah 2-4 Class 069: Eizehu Mekoman Mishnah 1 Class 068: Ana Bechoach, Ribon Haolamim Class 067: Abbaye Hava Mesader

Saturday Memorial of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Paschal Donohoe, Minister for Finance, outlines the latest in Ireland's public debt and discusses Budget 2026.

Saturday Memorial of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Father Edward Looney reads and comments on The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations: From the Visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich.Day 92Volume 2JESUS IN THE DESERT. MARRIAGE FEAST OF CANA. JESUS CELEBRATES THE PASCH IN JERUSALEM FOR THE FIRST TIMEChapter 15: Jesus' First Paschal Celebration In JerusalemLEARN MORE - USE COUPON CODE ACE25 FOR 25% OFFThe Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations: From the Visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich Four-Book Set - https://bit.ly/3QVreIsThe Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ: From the Visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich - https://bit.ly/4bPsxRmThe Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich Two-Book Set - https://bit.ly/3yxaLE5The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary: From the Visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich - https://bit.ly/3wTRsULMary Magdalen in the Visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich - https://bit.ly/4brYEXbThe Mystical City of God Four-Book Set - https://bit.ly/44Q9nZbOur Lady of Good Help: Prayer Book for Pilgrims - https://bit.ly/3Ke6O9SThe Life of Jesus Christ in a Year: From the Visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich is a podcast from TAN that takes you through one of the most extraordinary books ever published. Follow along daily as Father Edward Looney works his way through the classic four-volume set, The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations, by reading a passage from the book and then giving his commentary. Discover the visions of the famous 19th-century Catholic mystic, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, a nun who was privileged by God to behold innumerable events of biblical times.Anne Catherine's visions included the birth, life, public ministry, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, as well as the founding of His Church. Besides describing persons, places, events, and traditions in intimate detail, she also sets forth the mystical significance of these visible realities. Here is the infinite love of God incarnate and made manifest for all to see, made all the more striking and vivid by the accounts Blessed Anne has relayed.Listen and subscribe to The Life of Jesus Christ in a Year: From the Visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich on your favorite podcast platform or at EmmerichPodcast.com.And for more great ways to deepen your faith, check out all the spiritual resources available at TANBooks.com and use Coupon Code ACE25 for 25% off your next order.

St. Pius X, Pope (Memorial)

Weekday

Holy Father Dominic, Priest, Founder of the Order of Preachers (Feast)

Saints Martha, Mary and Lazarus (Memorial)

In this thought-provoking episode of "Father and Joe," hosts Father Boniface and Joe Rockey delve into the complexities of understanding and applying Jesus' two greatest commandments, especially focusing on the challenge of loving one's neighbor. Our hosts begin by exploring the often-paraphrased commandments: loving God with all your being and loving your neighbor as yourself, often quoted as the 'Golden Rule.' This conversation illuminates the common misinterpretation of these commandments as being overly simplistic, highlighting the intricacies involved in genuinely understanding and implementing them in our lives.Joe candidly shares his struggle with the application of the second commandment, especially when personal preferences and expectations do not align with those of others. This is a common modern-day challenge, especially apparent within the context of relationships and marriage, where different personal desires can lead to miscommunication and misunderstandings. Father Boniface provides profound insight into this dilemma, reminding us that these commandments are derived from the Old Testament but find their full meaning through Jesus' life and teachings.The discussion takes a more profound turn as Father Boniface introduces the new commandment given by Jesus at the Last Supper: "Love one another as I have loved you." This statement elevates the concept of love to a divine level, setting Jesus' life as the benchmark for how love should be expressed—through selfless, sacrificial acts that are not bound by mere duty or superficial niceties. The dialogue ventures into how this divine love correlates with the Paschal mystery, emphasizing that true love demands sacrifice, echoes the crucifixion, and transcends everyday preferences.The episode transitions into practical spirituality by exploring how to set realistic goals for loving others as Jesus does. Despite the challenges inherent in this path, our hosts encourage listeners to embrace their journey with honesty and openness to transformation. Joe reflects on the staggering potential of adopting Jesus' model of love, imagining its impact on his personal life and relationships. Father Boniface further explains that the Christian journey is not about immediate perfection but a lifelong commitment to growth, guided and sustained by the grace found in the sacraments and the community of the church.As the conversation wraps up, listeners are invited to introspect and evaluate where they stand in the continuum of divine love. Father Boniface gently urges everyone to envision a life perfected in divine love, a journey fueled by grace and sustained by a steadfast desire to love like Christ. Together, they highlight that while this path demands patience and perseverance, it ultimately leads to profound spiritual fulfillment and a deeper understanding of God's boundless love for humanity.Hashtags: #DivineLove, #SpiritualGrowth, #ChristianLiving, #TwoCommandments, #GoldenRule, #JesusTeachings, #LoveYourNeighbor, #ScriptureUnderstanding, #SacrificialLove, #LastSupper, #PaschalMystery, #SpiritualDirection, #Grace, #ChristianFaith, #SelflessLove, #MarriageChallenges, #ChristianRelationships, #DailyLifeProblems, #SpiritualInsight, #DivineCommandments, #OldTestament, #NewTestament, #LoveLikeJesus, #SpiritualTransformation, #FatherBonifaceHicks, #JoeRockey, #FatherAndJoePodcast, #UnderstandingGod, #BuildingFaith, #RelationshipWithGod, #ReligiousTeachings, #FaithConversations, #SpiritualFulfillment, #Sacraments, #ChurchCommunity, #ChristianJourneyThis line is here to correct the site's formatting error.

Saints Joachim and Anne, Parents of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Memorial)

St. Mary Magdalene (Feast)

Joe explains how the early Church Fathers understood the Eucharist, and demonstrates how immensely powerful the Paschal meal in bringing us to eternal life. Transcript: Joe: Welcome back to Shameless Popery, I’m Joe Heschmeyer. And last episode I mentioned this. I’m really looking forward to just doing an episode on how Gregory of Nisa shows the Eucharist is connected to bodily resurrection and glorification because it’s incredible. Yes, Joe, I agree with you. The early Christians were convinced that the Eucharist was key to our rising from the dead. And at first blush, that ...

We continue our examination of Christ's acts through the sacraments that he instituted. Fr. Mike emphasizes the importance of understanding that the sacraments are sacred signs that “make present efficaciously the grace they signify.” The sacraments specifically signify the Paschal mystery, Christ's life, death, and resurrection. We also explore how the Paschal mystery cannot remain in the past. Though it occurred in time, it transcends all time and is made present in all time. Today's readings are Catechism paragraphs 1084-1090. This episode has been found to be in conformity with the Catechism by the Institute on the Catechism, under the Subcommittee on the Catechism, USCCB. For the complete reading plan, visit ascensionpress.com/ciy Please note: The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains adult themes that may not be suitable for children - parental discretion is advised.

In our final reading from the Gospel of John, we hear about the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Fr. Mike points out the connection between the Paschal lamb and Jesus, and also the connection between the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. Today's readings are John 19-21 and Proverbs 6:16-22. For the complete reading plan, visit ascensionpress.com/bibleinayear. Please note: The Bible contains adult themes that may not be suitable for children - parental discretion is advised.