What would it take? (response to Mr. Roger Olson)

Mr. Roger Olson, an Evangelical historical theologian who, over the past several years, has demonstrated the political intoxication of American Evangelicalism from the "never-Trump side", blogged recently about the reaction to Trump's conviction by a Manhattan jury. My main response to his question is perceived fairness. When Democrats tell you in 2016 that Hillary Clinton shouldn't be prosecuted because that's prosecuting political opponents, then open an investigation in 2017 on their political opponent over "collusion with Russia" which was proven never occurred, then in 2020 complain about Trump attempting to investigate Biden, then start cheerleading over the conviction of a President, any effort to lecture the general populace on democracy, fairness, rule of law, is moot. Now, one could insist that it was a "jury of his peers" to defend said "fairness", but that ignores the fact of how Manhattan voted in 2020 (85-15 pro-Biden). This is a district where you are almost guaranteed to get a jury of your peers that's 10-2 Democrat, with strong Democrat ideologues, where Democrat bullies can bludgeon the other two to render in the desired verdict. Does that seem "fair"?

Mr. Olson also complains that Trump is a bully though. In his efforts to condemn people who still support Trump to Hell after this. Right. Trump is a bully. I've been abused by both people on the right and people on the left for solely being autistic. Now, Mr. Olson can deny my personal experience (which is called gaslighting and a form of bullying), or Mr. Olson can take my personal experience into account for why I find the left more venomous. Because even though I've been abused for my autism by people on both sides of the court, none has abused me more than those who are Biden-voters. While Joe Biden himself may not be a bully, his failure to control and stabilize his voting base is telling. When a significant portion of Biden-voters found on social media tell you things like you're a moron because you're autistic or that you shouldn't vote or be allowed to drive because you're autistic, you definitely have a much different perspective. Trump might be a bully but who he bullies are people who deserve it. I would rather have a President who refers to Biden-voters who abuse people based on their disability as human scum than what we currently have.

Mr. Olson, despite being an Evangelical, apparently has no concern for the Left-wing agenda. No one may sway his opinion on this, but I'm fully aware that Christians, even Evangelicals, are opposed to the Left-wing agenda of tax-funded trans surgeries for minors, tax-funded abortions, tax-funded overseas wars, gay marriage, abortion up to the point of birth, etc. Since Mr. Olson is a Christian and against all of that, I do find it curious he thinks the Left-wing agenda is no threat. Now, he does contradict himself a lot though. For instance, he will unequivocally support Liz Cheney who supports overseas wars but supports Robert F. Kennedy because he does not support overseas wars. To be honest, I've never honestly believed Mr. Olson was anything other than a hypocrite and a false Christian. But that's irrelevant. That the Left-wing agenda is dangerous, is something that I continue to have a lot greater concern about than anything Trump has said or done.

What would it take? What would it take to get me to see that a Trump Presidency should be feared? Okay, here's a good list: Masses of liberals who aren't ghoulishly promoting abortion but at least view it as a tragedy. Masses of liberals who can hold an intellectual conversation with someone who doesn't agree with them on a political issue. Masses of liberals who don't foolishly drift tot the argument that being an orthodox Catholic makes someone a pedophile-supporter. Masses of liberals who have a respectful tolerance for the beliefs of Christians who aren't shouting "HOMOPHOBIA!". Basically, liberals behaving like the opposite of human scum would have me much more inclined to see eye-to-eye with Mr. Olson that a second Trump term would be a very evil thing. Instead, we have just the opposite of that. I'm an independent voter and still undecided. I don't know if I want to vote for Kennedy right now or not. Kennedy has said some good things in the past. Trump had a lot of objectively good policies. What I think America needs more than a President is an exorcism and a mass conversion to orthodox Catholicism.

But I think that Mr. Olson shows overall a significant problem with Evangelicalism today. A lot of Trump's most bitter critics and supporters are among Evangelical Christians and self-described Evangelicals. Evangelicalism, without anything sacred to look toward in the Church, has effectively satiated its lack of the sacred with the sacred within the State. It's a very sad state that Evangelicalism is in. Mr. Olson's posts frequently dunk on the Evangelical Trump-supporters, and safe to say, they aren't listening to him, but he still dunks on them anyway. Never-Trumper Evangelical critics will certainly act like they aren't political but when 9 out of 10 of your posts each week are all about the political state of America and Trump, you don't really give a good impression to an outsider that you are in favor of that. Maybe it's the idea of having a god who responds to Mr. Olson's every call that makes him lose focus on the sacred. That kind of god is being advanced by many Evangelicals nowadays. I don't see much of a future for Evangelicals. For Catholics, apostasies will come and mass conversions will come. With the death of Evangelicalism as it inclines itself more toward replacing the sacred with the political, I think that we might see an objectively good thing for this country in a mass conversion to Catholicism.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose: Review

I had been wanting to watch The Exorcism of Emily Rose for a while and last night, it went on sale via the Apple Store and so I didn't hesitate to get it. I was not disappointed. It is partially a supernatural horror and partially a legal drama with a heavy focus on the question of exorcism and the overlap between the possible realm of the spiritual and the naturalist. The movie ends up pitting the spiritual against the naturalist, the Truth against the lie, and the Church against the State. It is a State that is hostile to the Church that must be convinced of the spiritual reality of the Victory of Christ over the demonic, but the State refuses to see itself as subjected to the demonic. Right from the beginning, we see the spiritual battle unfolding.

The movie opens up right after the death of Emily Rose, the titular character, most of her story will be shown in flashback during the court questionings of the witnesses involved in the story. The priest, Fr. Moore, is at the house and a medical examiner comes in to give his conclusion of cause of death to the officer. The officer then charges Fr. Moore with negligent homicide. It now must be determined who shall prosecute. The prosecution calculates the prosecutor must be a Christian, preferably a Catholic, and that he must be seen as Church-going and friendly toward the Faith. While this is a calculative decision, it is remarkable as to how in the real world such Satanic thinking operates. We are often presented with a "devoutly Christian" politician presented to us by the media who happens to have firm agreements with the faithlessness of the World because it is only under such an appearance of light that Satan could ever deceive us. How many times have we heard the drivel that Nancy Pelosi or Tim Kaine or Joe Biden are "devout Catholics" while they openly oppose every single Church doctrine?

It so happens that the prosecuting attorney picked is a regular Church-going Methodist. A Protestant. The defense attorney is an agnostic with doubts about her own past. And it is in that remarkable mixture that we are presented with the conversion power of the Church over a heresy. Throughout the course of the trial, we see the defense attorney come under both spiritual attack and receive spiritual protection in her own time of need as she becomes more and more open to the idea that there are spiritual powers that we come into conflict with. The priest, Fr. Moore, is more focused on presenting the Truth of the story of Emily Rose and he does not fear being portrayed as a madman.

Throughout the trial, we see the materialistic side presented by the prosecution to prove the case of negligent homicide. When I consider my old Protestant views and how much of it favored the idea of syncretism of the materialistic viewpoint with Christian theology even when both were incompatible, I see the manifestations of the Enlightenment mindset which Protestantism has given birth to. The "man of faith" is ultimately seen as the faithless and the skeptic. It is he who is exposed as the unbeliever. Whereas the agnostic is shown to have much more faith than she even realizes throughout the movie. It is something that many people don't recognize among our current world how faithless those they present as faithful are. It is the Satanic nature of today's world to present as faithful those who oppose the very Faith that is claimed to represent in an effort to undermine the very essence of the Faith. And that is where the real spiritual battle in the movie lies.

The priest, we find, does not intend to defend his own self. He only intends to present what he believes is the Truth. That is the very Truth of the Victory of Christ. He wants to make it known to the jury, not that he is a martyr, but that Emily Rose is a saint. He does not fight the battle but he puts the battle into the hands of God and the saints and lets them fight the battle. The movie also contains quite a theodicy in it where Emily Rose relates in a note to the priest a brief encounter she experiences with the Virgin Mary prior to her death and how it is in that which she ultimately chose to accept her continued sufferings so that others may come to belief.

The movie is based on the real life exorcism of a German girl named Annelise Michel. Annelise Michel was a college student who went through the exact same struggles as Emily Rose. It was presumed by the Church and the clergy that she was possessed and needed exorcism. The overlap between the spiritual and the material was forgotten and she was ultimately left malnourished and died. The priests involved, and her parents, were convicted of negligent homicide by German authorities. But today, the grave site of Annelise Michel is a place of pilgrimage among many German Catholics who even ask for her intercession as a saint. Through the sufferings of Annelise Michel, many have been brought to Faith. I won't reveal the ending of the trial of Fr. Moore in the movie as that would be a spoiler, but I would strongly recommend it. There are scenes that can be frightening so I would not recommend children see it, the theological message is very important.

Why modern day modalist doctrine rejects God's oneness

Divine Simplicity is a doctrine often times brought up to challenge the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity which is believed by all Christians and denied by non-Christians. I go so far to say that because, simply put, without the Trinity, there is no salvation. Not that invincible ignorance might lead to damnation. I cannot make judgments on that as I am not God, but that unless God is Triune, the doctrine of salvation as taught by the Church is incoherent. Christ's Mission on Earth was to defeat Death and Hell and He did exactly that. To those denying that He is Divine in and of Himself, they would posit that a mere mortal could do such. And to those confounding the Persons of the Trinity, well...

A large problem is there is ample literature on Trinitarian doctrine and Trinitarian apologetics and the Church's classical doctrine and teaching are often times buried in the philosophical mumbo-jumbo that modern day anti-Trinitarians accuse Trinitarians of holding. The philosophical mumbo-jumbo about the Trinity in modern day Trinitarian apologetics is rarely seen or observed in classical orthodox dogmatics. That is because that mumbo-jumbo never even occurred to the Church. I see a lot of anti-Trinitarians using the word "Godhead" to refer to the Trinity as if "Godhead" is the same as God or even the famed "Trinity Delusion" website. They mostly respond to the anti-cult hunters and the Trinitarian apologists who are divorced from classical Christian doctrine.

The Trinity Delusion website is a class example. In the article I linked, it enforces modern understanding of the terminology upheld at Nicaea to arrive at the conclusion that the "nature" cannot be a "Who" but a "What". This is echoed strongly among Trinitarian apologists and lends itself to the greatest anti-Trinitarian strawman attack ever. I used to be an anti-Trinitarian and that was the dogma I attacked. But it was not the doctrine taught in historical Christian theology. In fact, in order to understand what Trinitarians mean by "ousia" and "persons" and "beings", a knowledge of the historical controversies has to be gathered. In Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity, he has an entire chapter dedicated to proving the point that the Trinitarian doctrine is built on a graveyard of heresies. It was Sabellians who first used terms such as "ousia" and "persons" and "beings" and this was why the Church was reluctant at first to adopt Nicene orthodoxy.

And that brings us to Sabellians of the modern day who are mostly found among a group called "Oneness Pentecostals". When contending with an upholder of this modern day Oneness philosophy, a variant of modalism which insists that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, much appeal is made to the hypostatic union doctrine. Of course, it is not. Sabellians will say that their doctrine is consistent with Divine Simplicity because they misunderstand the proper Trinitarian theology regarding the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is not a "group" deity nor is the Trinity a conglomeration of "parts" and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not parts of God either. Rather the Father is wholly God, the Son is wholly God, and the Holy Spirit is wholly God. If God was divided into parts, this would violate Divine Simplicity. But God's Oneness is found in His infinitude. Infinity is the only thing which cannot be divided into parts. God is infinite in nature, indivisible in nature, hence, the three persons of the Trinity can never be acknowledged as divided or in parts.

But when confronted, what you will notice with "Oneness theologians" is that they frequently separate the Son from the Father. How else will they get two witnesses (John 8)? How else do they explain the baptism of Christ or the Transfiguration? Either the Son and the Father are two persons or the Son and the Father are two entities which are not united as one together. The Son would have to be a projection created by the Father. This exceeds the hypostatic union doctrine of Chalcedon. While the hypostatic union differentiated between a human nature and divine nature had by Christ, it never denied that Christ was wholly talking as God. There are many places in Scriptures where Christ conceals His deity, but He never denies it. Matthew 24:36 is often times brought up by anti-Trinitarians on both sides and the Church has never accepted the interpretation that it marks Christ as "ingorant". There are many senses of "knowing". In knowing the day and hour, Christ does, but it is not to the benefit of His Mission. He is fully aware of the events that shall lead up to that hour and so He does know the hour. What is not of His earthly Mission is to judge the world. St. Augustine writes: "That He says that the “Father knoweth,” implies that in the Father the Son also knows." (Serm. 97, 1)

Further, St. Hilary of Poitiers elaborates on the text by indicating that "in all cases, in which God declares Himself ignorant, He is not under the power of ignorance, but either it is not a fit time for speaking, or it is an economy of not acting." (On the Trinity, IX) Therefore, we see that it is in the humanity, of being contained in finitude and time, that the Son is not here eternally acting, and therefore confesses not knowing. For is in such that He is not at act that He states His ignorance in figurative language. For both the Arians and the Modalists, the omniscience of the Son is denied outright by this text. And the Modalists have such a perverse view that they will proceed to differentiate the man Jesus Christ from God. But if Jesus Christ is the Father in their theology, then Who was incarnated? And that is where the Modalist position collapses. In essence, in denying that the Son is the Father and yet insisting that Jesus is the Father and the Son, the modern day Modalist or Oneness position gives itself over to philosophical reasonings in a desperate attempt to preserve it's anti-Scriptural theology. And it splits God into two - a man and a god. Oneness doctrine therefore cannot uphold in any matter the doctrine of Divine Simplicity. For their "Oneness" of God is a Jesus that is split into the Son and the Father who are both Jesus but not each other, meaning Jesus has a conversation with Himself, declares Himself His own God, prays to Himself, declares Himself to be His own Son, etc.

Triune Oneness posits the infinitude of God which cannot be divided. The Trinity is not merely a "Godhead". The Trinity is God. And the Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is the only true God. The Son is the only true God. The Holy Spirit is the only true God. The Trinity is the only true God. Those statements cannot all be true unless they are wholly, uniquely, God, in and of themselves, and are indivisible. The "Oneness" deity is divided against himself.

How to cleanse right-wing brainwashing...

I speak from the position of someone who voted for Trump twice. I was never really what would be properly called a "Trumper" or "MAGA" even, except maybe to those on the hard left who see any opposition of any kind toward leftism as being "MAGA" or "Trumpism" or "Trump-supportive". Like how many Biden voters or Hillary Clinton voters do you really honestly know who actually gave whole support to the ideologies of those? Like most people, I just ended up voting for the lesser of evils. But nevertheless, I did venture more toward right-wing brainwashing. I think a lot of it is dictated by the news we watch. But there is a large responsibility that the left itself needs to take up in creating right-wing brainwashing. There's positive brainwashing and negative brainwashing. And the left contributes to a lot of negative brainwashing.

Pigeonholing is a tactic used frequently in rhetoric where someone puts someone in a position that they would not otherwise hold because of hasty generalizations or strawmanning or even guilt by association. And the left excels in it. I do believe this is how many otherwise conservative people, such as David French, get sucked into making excuses for the left even as the left attacks them. Because if they didn't stray toward the left, they'd end up in my position of being labeled a "MAGA". But that's the thing, these are labels that can be rejected. Labels aren't something that are handed out by people who aren't extemist. Labels are handed out by people who are extremists! I want to make that clear. Understanding that there is pigeonholing by left-wing extremists and anyone who undertakes in pigeonholing is, more often than not, an extremist, is a crucial component of this.

You're not an extremist just because someone says you are an extremist. In fact, you might be normal. I have empathy toward those who see January 6, 2021 as an insurrection. I think that it is an opinion. It doesn't make someone a defender of "MAGA" or a "Trumper" to be able to understand that the usage of the term "insurrection" to define that event is opinionated. What's more concerning is when politicians use the opinionated term as part of their investigation into what happened and so the legal search starts with a conclusion and then finds evidence to support that conclusion. Others, such as myself, see an otherwise organized rally that somehow erupted into a riot. And that's an equally justified opinion unless evidence proves there was an insurrection. When it becomes a matter of good and evil to see such a thing as an insurrection or people who became riotous and politicians start to use that as part of a legal investigation of the issue, that's dangerous. But an extremist, nevertheless, isolates people who see it as either/or into groups of us vs. them and ignores their own responsibility.

So during the Summer of 2020, the President had to hide in a bunker. That is a fact. He had to hide into a bunker because an organized group of people was committing violent acts, vandalizing the streets of Washington, D.C., and riot cops had to be called into to break everything up. Leftists denied this happened and yet video footage showed it happened. When confronted with this, leftists didn't call it out. They actually sought to justify it based on the nation's treatment of racial minorities...in the past. Most people tend to grow up, but extremists tend to grasp onto what happened in the past and act as if everything in the past is the same as today. That's why you get "Hitler" analogies. Obviously, no one's bringing back Hitler. Though due to the fact that Nazism is a variation of socialism and both right and left cling to socialism, it's understandable why so many make these Hitler analogies, on both right and left. The point is, that the Summer riot could also be categorized as an insurrection.

An insurrection, I think, is something that should be defined before the word is thrown out. Generally speaking, insurrection refers to acts that are intentionally undermining the Civil Government. It's impressive to me how many leftists will insist that our government institutionalizes racism and then will somehow care about that government being undermined. That's just cognitive dissonance disorder. Either you care about the institution or you think the institution is inherently racist. The fact that intent is typically emphasized is why I don't think that January 6, 2021 was an insurrection. I'm not saying it may have been, I'm just saying I don't think that happened. The only insurrection I am aware of that happened with certainty was the insurrection in Seattle that occurred in 2020 with "CHAZ".

Going back to my original point, extremism happens on both sides. I don't know what side it is more common with, but the hard rightists typically see the media make comments ad nauseam about right-wing extremism. Then they see on social media video clips of various examples of left-wing extremists and they are hurt and wounded by the fact that there is so much demonization of the right. More than that, but people in the middle, who hold more socially conservative views, see all of this, end up being pigeon-holed along with the more extreme bunch of the right, and end up being categorized as "MAGA", "Trumpers", "Nazis", and "extremists" as well. No one likes being called things they aren't, but it's a part of labeling. Cults typically divide the world into two categories of good guys vs. bad guys. It's easier then to glorify violent acts such as the knifing of Derek Chauvin (leftists recently) and the death of George Floyd (right-wing extremists in the past and today). Or even Kyle Rittenhouse's usage of force against people trying to kill him. Even justified violence should not be glorified. It reminds me of what Elyas says to Perrin Aybara in The Wheel of Time. The moment you start to love that axe is when you need to get rid of it.

The left has engaged in what I would call "negative brainwashing". By creating such a negative picture of the right, that more people on the right have started materializing that in response to the left-wing extremism that is both justified by the media and supported by politicians. Did Nancy Pelosi ever call out those who vandalized a crisis pregnancy center? While opposing right-wing extremism continues to be necessary, it must be remembered that left-wing extremism has media and corporate support. Both should be opposed equally. Those who are of the Kingdom of God know that the enemies attack it from all sides. The warfare is not a material one, but it is an important one. For the left to actually get rid of right-wing extremists, they themselves need to stop thinking like extremists of seeing people as two groups, those for, and those against, their ideological group think. But one thing I give credit to the left on, they at least know that the Kingdom of God is their main enemy.

Why dispensationalism is not Scriptural

I've been noticing on social media lately, a lot of Christians, particularly Protestant Christians, trying to defend the claims of the State of Israel unconditionally on the grounds of the theology of dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is a philosophy rooted in the more extremes of Protestantism. It is an attempt to take literally all the texts of Scripture that refer to Israel and apply them literally to the "people of Israel". It has gained more ground since the founding of the modern State of Israel. And herein lies the fundamental distinction and the most significant flaw of dispensationalism. Even from a literalist reading of Scriptures, it does not compute. This is why Catholic and Orthodox theologians have never held to such a theological position and why the Reformed Christians in Anglicanism and Lutheranism have also refused to accept the position.

Dispensationalists caricature the historic orthodox position of the Church as "replacement" or "supercessionist" theology, but as one looks through Scriptures, it's actually neither. In fact, it's a theology of the fulfilment of the covenant. The Scriptures are divided into two parts: the Old Testament and the New Testament. But the word "Testament" is generally criticized as a bad translation. The more accurate translation, and what is more revealing, is "Covenant". In Genesis, God made a covenant with Abraham (Gen. 15-17). At the Last Supper, Jesus declared that what His Apostles were drinking was "the Blood of the New Covenant" (Matt. 26:28). Everything in Scripture about God's relationship with humanity centers around the idea of covenants. God makes multiple covenants in Genesis with Noah and with Abraham, and then He becomes a man and makes a New Covenant with the shedding of His own Blood. The Covenant establishes His bond with His people.

When He makes a covenant with Abraham, He promises that Abram will be a father of many descendants and describes the boundaries of their lands, that his descendants will number the stars of the Heavens, and that they will be held in captivity for four hundred years (Gen. 15:4-21). Then, God changes the name of Abram to Abraham and declares that Abraham will be the father of many nations (Gen. 17:7). Abraham is not to be the father of one nation only, but of multiple nations. We can see that there are many peoples throughout the world who confess the name of Christ. God foreshadows an everlasting covenant to be made with the descendants of Abraham. This is not just referring to one nation of Israel or one specific group of people. God's intentions, from the beginning, with Abraham, was to use the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh, to be a light for the whole world.

There are multiple instances where "Israel" is referred to in Scriptures. It is referred to in Scriptures as Jacob the Righteous, the son of Isaac. It is referred to in Scriptures as the Kingdom of Israel. It is referred to in Scriptures as the people of Israel, the people of the Kingdom of Israel. Even dispensationalists have to acknowledge that the modern State of Israel is not a Kingdom but a democratic parliamentary republic. But there are already is a King of Israel according to Scriptures! In the Davidic line of descent, the Messiah is born to the Virgin Mary and becomes King of Israel! Moreover, it is revealed in the fulfilment, that this King was to come, not just to the Hebrews but to all nations. Such was the mission work of Christ. He clarifies that He has come for the Hebrews first, but with full intention to incorporate the Gentiles. This became an early question for the Church (Acts 15:3-21). In this controversy over the question of the circumcision of the Gentiles, the Holy Prophet Amos is referenced, "I will raise up the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down ... [a]nd all the Gentiles who are called by name" (Am. 9:11-12).

So even in the Old Covenant, it is explained that Gentiles were to be included in the promises of Israel! As St. Paul declares, "Now to Abraham and his Seed [Christ] were the promises made" (Gal. 3:16). Those who are included in the promise are of Israel, the Seed of Israel, because Christ is the firstfruits of Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20). Christ has established Himself as firstborn of a brotherhood and this includes those who find Faith in Christ. Christ establishes Himself as King over all nations in the glory of His Resurrection and the splendor of His Godhood. The Kingdom of Israel, therefore, must be the Church. But St. Paul also recognizes that there is a remnant of Israel according to the flesh.

In Romans 9-11, where many dispensationalists come away with the understanding that their opponents' theology is somehow a "replacement" theology, they miss on key concepts that St. Paul speaks of the remnant of Israel (Rom. 9:27-28). The point is to show that Abraham has descendants according to the flesh, but that the flesh will account for nothing in the judgment from God. Much the same, even Jesus makes note of this in His dispute with the Pharisees where He declares that they are not the children of Abraham but of the Devil (Jn. 8:44). St. Paul is much aware of the statements made by Christ and is making an argument showing that the Gentiles are indeed apart of the Covenant, but how the Covenant is not superceded at all. Ironic that fulfilment theology is often termed "supercessionist" because it is anything but!

When I went to a non-denominational church when I was younger, the pastor once informed us that Paul was a "Jew" and emphasized in his lecture the Jewishness of Paul. I was both disturbed and perplexed. This is because the distinguishing of Judaism and Christianity as a religion nor the ethnic distinction was actually applied. But if we look at Scriptures, we do come across the statements made by St. John that there are Jews who say they are Jews but are of the Synagogue of Satan (Rev. 2:9, 3:9). It is not the replacement of Israel that we are looking at in Scriptures, but the fulfilment of Israel. The writers of the Catholic epistles want us to come away with the understanding that we are indeed correctly called Israel, have the promises of Israel, and are included in that. They cite the Old Testament's references that include the Gentiles in that Covenant and show the intent to incorporate the Gentiles into that Covenant. The Gentiles are restored with the tabernacle of David. That is the Church. Anything that contradicts is actually supercessionist and replacement. Was St. Paul a "Jew"? He was a Jew who was a Jew in reality. But that is because the true Jewish religion is not that of Rabbinic Judaism, but that of the Messianic following of Christ in the Sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist. Both "Christian" and "Jew" is appropriate for Christians are Jews of the New Covenant. Those tied to the Old Covenant stand in rejection of Christ. They deny that Christ came in the flesh and are Antichrist (1 Jn. 2:22, 4:3; 2 Jn. 1:7). Thus, St. John distinguishes between Jews who are of the Synagogue of Satan and practitioners of the true Faith (called Christians).

The word "Christian" was first applied to those who followed Christ as the Messiah by the opponents of Christianity and not by Christians themselves. The first Christians more than likely would have viewed themselves as a sect of Judaism at the time. When we sort through the anachronisms, and understand the texts according to the way the early Christians saw it, we see that they viewed Jewishness far differently than it is understood nowadays, Israel is a Kingdom of which the Church (Ekklesia - gathering) is the standing army, and the Eucharist is the sacrifice. Because many Protestants have rejected that the Eucharist is sacrifice and that Jesus's pouring Himself out on the Cross once and for all is infinitely offered on the Holy Altars, they miss out on this. That's how dispensationalism is arrived at. Because Lutherans and Anglicans haven't dismissed that theology of the Eucharist, they have retained the same views as historic Christianity. Dispensationalism is, effectively, replacement theology because it throws the Gentiles out of the Covenant and replaces the Kingdom of Israel with the modern State of Israel. Dispensationalism, therefore, is heretical.

My view on Fratelli Tutti revisited...

A couple of years ago, I wrote a post about the Pope's encyclical Fratelli Tutti. I think it's healthy to reflect on how one's mind develops over the years toward the search for Truth and whether or not I still actually affirm that there are heresies in it. Overall, the Catholic dogma can be vast and is established and is firmly rooted in its historical tradition. This is what separates Catholicism from Protestantism. Whereas Protestantism undergoes self-criticism through Biblical reflection, Catholic doctrine is guided by historic tradition which roots out novelties of Scriptural interpretation, ever discerning how the Holy Spirit is being listened to. Re-reading my comments on Fratelli Tutti as of today, I can state with confidence that the document is a largely problematic document, but each Papal Encyclical is written to a specific audience, for a specific purpose, at a specific point in time. So I think I should re-look at Fratelli Tutti and reassess the analysis I made on it. Consider the Epistles of the New Testament. Whether written by St. Paul, or St. Peter, or St. John the Evangelist, each one of these are episcopal encyclicals, and the two by St. Peter are Papal Encyclicals! They are dealing with different circumstances in the Church and different contexts. With that said, a proper reassessment of some of Fratelli Tutti's statements can be further explained.

Private Property

On private property, the statement of Fratelli Tutti when compared to other areas of Catholic dogma don't really appear well. I compared Fratelli Tutti's assessment of private property to Rerum Novarum's assessment of private property. This was wrong of me to do so. When read side-by-side, Rerum Novarum seems to contradict Fratelli Tutti. However, Fratelli Tutti never undermines the doctrine of private property and its management in Rerum Novarum. In today's world, where capitalism is often idolized, we tend to also become very much attached to our own private property. While capitalism was a dominant philosophy when Rerum Novarum was written, there was a budding philosophy that many were beginning to take seriously - communism. Communism undermined the value of the human individual and attacked the private property rights' of the given stewards. The fact of the matter is that all property we are given is actually a direct gift of God Who has made us stewards of that private property. This should be understood first when we discuss the question of private property. When reading Fratelli Tutti in full, we should take into account that the importance of Pope Francis's comments on private property is not to undermine the value of private property, but to remind us of the important usage of private property in direction to the common good of men. That's not heretical at all.

Just War

I still maintain that his position on war has always seemed contradictory. But I think there is an important point to consider is that when the Pope is speaking as an advisor on stately matters, he is not infallible. On this matter, when he is advising nations not to seek war, he is certainly speaking on the position of a stately advisor. Even though this is an encyclical, there are aspects that he seems to address toward the world and to his actual sheep. And I think this is a problem with Pope Francis overall. He strikes me as a much more worldly Pope who gets too much caught up in media attention rather than the focus of his flock. In his writings on Just War, this is a prime example. That said, his position that takes on a much more pacifistic approach is a more healthy way for the lay Christian to engage. Reading some of St. Basil's ethics, one finds that there is considerable question as to whether a soldier would be guilty of murder should he kill another Christian in combat. And I think this also requires historical combat. What extent should Christians be involved in wars between countries when we know that we might be killing our own brethren? On a practical matter, as Fratelli Tutti indicates, no war is a far superior position.

Death Penalty

This one is far more shakier. The past few Popes, from John Paul II to Benedict XVI to Francis, have all been hotly against the death penalty. And though past posts in the past have had me unequivocally defend capital punishment, I think St. Mark the Ascetic's position should be taken. When lay Christians bring others to be punished before the state tribunals, those Christians sin. When Christian rulers carry out punishments against criminals, there is no sin committed. According to Romans 13, the state has been given full right by God to wield the sword of judgment. There is a distinction then that should be made. Unfortunately, it's not a distinction that is made by today's moralists. We don't see any effort to make a distinction, but instead, we presume that the call for Christians to seek the end of the death penalty is an inherently unequivocal call for even Christian rulers to cede their God-given authority. That's where things become more ambiguous and more confusing. Because the historical doctrine is that the death penalty can be used by the legitimate authorities without sin, but the current mode of thought is that all Christians are to be against it. And yet, Fratelli Tutti isn't directed at state officials, but to lay Christians. The intended audience of Fratelli Tutti needs to be taken into account. This is not a political advisory statement to officials, even if it was, such political advisory would not be considered infallible. I think the difficulty is that the position is based on philosophical prowess rather than theological prowess.

Equality

While the question of equality really ought to be defined based on what is meant by equality, I think we should look to earlier theological positions of Pope Francis to determine what is meant before making a conclusion. In Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis upholds the traditional hierarchical nature of the Church. What he means by equality then cannot, in any way, be a contradiction to what he has maintained in the past. So we should take a view on equality that is far less absolute. Are we all equal as brothers in Christ through our baptism? Yes. Again, the audience of Fratelli Tutti is not those who are outside of the Church. Therefore, we can conclude that equality is not a heresy.

In full retrospect, I think I may have been too hasty with my statements on Fratelli Tutti in the past and I apologize for those positions. Although I will leave that post up to show what my mindset was back in 2020, I'll leave a link at the bottom to this post so that people can have an idea of how my view on the document has changed. Please don't judge me for any errors in the past. I was deeply affected by Traditionalist circles at the time Fratelli Tutti was written and I think that affected my overall reading of it too.

C-3PO's symbolism in Attack of the Clones

Recently, I watched the movie Star Wars: Attack of the Clones. I am aware that George Lucas has admitted to using C-3PO as a metaphor before. In Empire Strikes Back, he compares C-3PO's being pieced back together again as a reference to Darth Vader's being pieced back together. Vader is ultimately broken by the fact that his own son has rejected to join him and overthrow the Emperor. Luke Skywalker has emerged triumphant over Darth Vader's attempt to turn him to the Dark Side of the Force, but Darth Vader is crippled by the fact that his son has rejected him. In the meanwhile, C-3PO is blasted at by a stormtrooper and ends up in pieces. We see Chewbacca struggling to put his robot friend back together and our heart breaks for Chewbacca. After the duel on Bespin, Darth Vader is seen for the first time in Empire Strikes Back no longer punishing his subordinates for their failures. An Imperial Officer says directly to Lord Vader that the Millennium Falcon's hyperdrive has been disabled, only for the Falcon to blast away right before Vader's eyes into hyperspace. Darth Vader does nothing. He has been defeated by Luke Skywalker's refusal to join him. Darth Vader has been blasted apart. He is starting to be pieced back together, but Luke Skywalker is now going to be just as frustrated, near despairing, as Chewbacca was when he pieced C-3PO back together.

Flash back nearly 25 years before the events of Empire Strikes Back and we've reached the tides of war in the galaxy. Once you understand the main plot-line behind Attack of the Clones, it becomes one of the most interesting of the prequel trilogy. Palpatine is slowly beginning to coagulate power as the Supreme Chancellor of the Galaxy. Right now, he is operating in the context of a democratically elected parliamentary republic. But there are rules he sees he can bend in order to accumulate much greater power. He has split the galaxy into two factions that don't even realize that they are both fighting for him and against each other at the same time. He has done so through his apprentice Darth Tyrannus - Count Dooku - as we will come to learn at the end of the movie. Count Dooku refuses to use his Sith name in front of the Jedi for he wants the Jedi to think of himself as the Sith Master and Maul as the Sith Apprentice whom he trained. He desires the Jedi to believe he is Lord Sidious while Maul is actually Lord Tyrannus. The Jedi are aware of both, but have not identified the Master. They won't until the end of the Clone Wars.

The Jedi, in speaking with Palpatine regarding the assassination attempt on Senator Padme Amidala view themselves as keepers of the peace. Historically, the Jedi have always maintained peace in the galaxy. But Count Dooku became more and more disillusioned with the Jedi. He came to see them as political agents for the Galactic Republic. The Separatists are disillusioned with the direction of the Galactic Republic so they form a faction with the Trade Federation and begin to declare their secession from the Republic. Senator Padme Amidala is revealed to be a dove who was going to vote on the subject of the creation of the grand army of the Republic. But the assassination attempt will drive her away and create a scenario where she and Anakin will become involved in a relationship with each other. Senator Amidala was Queen of Naboo when the Trade Federation attacked her planet and the Viceroy Nute Gunray is furious for the punishments he suffered. He was also involved in her assassination attempt. Nevertheless, Senator Amidala takes a view of not wanting conflict with the Separatists. She is not an ideologue in that matter and it infuriates both sides of the political aisle, the Loyalists to the Chancellor and the Anti-War faction. Senator Jar Jar Binks takes a Loyalist position and hands all power over to the Chancellor.

In the meanwhile, Senator Amidala and Anakin Skywalker end up on Geonosis where Obi Wan Kenobi has been taken prisoner by the Separatist Faction. Along with R2-D2 and C-3PO, Senator Amidala and Anakin Skywalker end up in a droid factory. Inside the factory, C-3PO ends up losing his head on the assembly line and it gets pieced back together onto the body of a B1 Battle Droid. A B1 Battle Droid head gets pieced onto his body. The rest is pure comedy. C-3PO ends up shooting at Jedi on the battlefield of Geonosis where he shouts, "Die Jedi! Die!" He corrects himself as soon as he says this, but the point is made. He is confused. What are his ideals? The Jedi, who were keepers of the peace, are all of a sudden becoming armed combatants of the Republic while the clone troopers show up to save them all. It is a confusing position for the Jedi. Once peace-keepers, now they will begin to be turned into soldiers. This justifies the disillusionment of Count Dooku and the Separatists with the Jedi and the Republic.

In the meanwhile, the B1 Battle Droid, who's head is on C-3PO's body, is frustrated. Not being able to move. He doesn't realize the master he serves is actually in fact the Chancellor of the Galactic Republic that he fights against. Nobody realizes this at this moment. But Count Dooku is aware of this. Count Dooku is the only one who knows all of the mystery at this point. He and Chancellor Palpatine both know the grand conspiracy. And you can hear it when you look at the formation of the clone troopers before Senator Bail Organa and Chancellor Palpatine and the rest of the Loyalists. You can see budding concern on Bail Organa's face as he looks on at the grand army and he starts to question his Loyalist commitment to Palpatine. A commitment that will erode as Palpatine disrupts the Galactic Republic and founds the First Galactic Empire in the midst of the collapsing government. Bail Organa is the B1 Battle Droid, wondering why his body isn't moving. The Jedi are C-3PO who have lost their way. C-3PO is the Galactic Republic, governed by Darth Sidious. The B1 Battle Droid is the Separatists, governed by Chancellor Palpatine. George Lucas, in this brief comedic moment in Attack of the Clones has placed in all of the symbolism that the viewer needs to see in order to know all of Darth Sidious's evil intentions for the galaxy.