Jo Cox and Charlier Kirk - a reflection...

The past couple days, I have had trauma triggered...as mentioned before, while I may have been more political in the past, I've become less and less political lately. And I didn't really become interested in political affairs in general until 2016 to begin with. But in 2016, I had a long-distance relationship with a woman in England. She got involved in politically campaigning for the "Bremain" position. When Jo Cox was brutally and senselessly murdered, I remembered just being in fear for her safety. She's my ex-girlfriend now but if you have unconditional love for someone, that love never fades away entirely and that fear at the time is still there. I had wanted her out of politics...not to mention, the campaign was exhausting to her and severed time to actually communicate with her. It's the feeling that someone you love may not be safe. For a lot of us, we may look at the assassination or the death of a celebrity as a one-off blip on the radar, but for others it hits close to home.

I had been reflecting on this a bit and noticed that progressive blogger Fred Clark wrote an article about what he learned from the murder of Jo Cox. I decided to read it thinking he had some reflections to make about how both of these events felt personal to him, but I gave up hope upon reading through the article. It's entirely a politicization of two human lives that were wrongly and senselessly taken from us now being used as political football. Though we tend to be simplified into right and left in this world, people are a lot more complicated, and the world is a lot more complicated, to define someone as being on a linear model. I think I might mention that when I end up writing a different reflection that's non-political next week. But Fred Clark seems to see the lack of rallying toward "Bremain" in the end as a reflection of non-empathy of the right and his overall understanding of human nature is completely lacking.

It's not like we go from shedding the stain of original sin by becoming "right-wing" or "left-wing". We are subjected to the tyranny of the Devil due to the sin of our first parents and can only be set free by Christ. A true and genuine encounter with Truth and with Love. Being a member of an earthly political party does not free us because Christ's Kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). Adopting someone's politics does not indicate how empathetic we are toward someone either. Political assassinations didn't originate back in 2016, they've been a thing for quite a while and it doesn't matter what the earthly group is, as long as people are subjected to the tyranny of the Devil, some will confuse that tyranny as freedom, embrace it, and act out on it. Both the murderers of Jo Cox and Charlie Kirk acted out on that.

Another thing I should note is that a lot of people seem to think social media is a good indicator of where the world's at. Social media is nothing but a lot of anger amplified. It tends to be anger that gets likes, that gets praised, and that gets one's voice heard. It's awful, but it's true. As such, the wicked in all parties get amplified and we tend to think the other is out to get us. Common sense doesn't exist anymore. Moderation doesn't exist anymore. If someone doesn't support COVID lockdowns, it's not because they find the loss of freedom and interpersonal connection too great a price to pay for an unknown number of lives, if any, to save. It must be because they want everyone to die or they deny the reality of the virus. And so people are villainized for having entirely human concerns.

Empathy is not the same as sympathy and people who emphasize the need to show empathy often do not show any empathy whatsoever. Empathy is not about discarding rational thought and simply just agreeing with someone's politics. I never really paid any attention to Charlie Kirk to be honest and never knew Jo Cox. But the horror of losing a father of two kids or a mother of two kids, that's unfathomable. I'm fine not accepting and seeing eye-to-eye with these people on everything. That doesn't mean I lack empathy. Empathy is the ability to understand the sufferings of another from an outward position, namely that of not having the experience. Compassion is partaking in those sufferings and sympathy is having concern for another experiencing suffering. While I have not shared the experience of losing someone close to me due to political violence, I certainly shared the fear of losing someone I loved to political violence. Jo Cox was doing something similar to Charlie Kirk when she was murdered. She was going to hear from her constituents. Charlie Kirk, even if you didn't agree with his politics, introduced to academia methods of discourse and ways to build up stronger arguments for and against particular positions. I think that's important to remember. He was murdered trying to get kids of all political positions involved in a discussion.

Empathy does not mean I have to agree with you. Empathy is about sharing in another's emotional experience from an outward position. Empathy isn't something political. It's something human. It's something that flows from the image of God. Empathy is an act of love. It does not mean I have to share your beliefs if they are inconsistent with the image of God. Empathy does not discard rationality. I don't know if this is something that neurotypicals just don't get or if they just skirt over and don't have empathy in general - which is something odd because it is usually neurodivergents who are accused of lacking empathy. Empathy actually demands rationality in order to process and to provide necessary help. I grieve for Brendan Cox and I grieve for Erika Kirk. I grieve for them because we are one with the human race and two humans were brutally and senselessly murdered by people who hated their spouses' politics. That should not happen. While emotionally driven people would discard their viewpoints and use this to adopt to their views, that is not the same thing as empathy. That is conversion. My opinion is that I should only convert to a person's viewpoints if I believe them.

Political violence is horror and I am sorry for people like Fred Clark who cannot empathize with the brokenness of the human race and feel a need to score political talking points for their team. That goes back to what I talked about yesterday with our desire to dominate and displace God. I also am sorry for people who think the murder of Charlie Kirk should be used to have people come over to their side as if the "other guys" somehow plotted it. The rhetoric on both sides needs to calm down. While the neo-conservative media tends to dominate the discussion and tends to stoke the fire more, nobody ordered that Brexiteer to brutally murder Jo Cox and nobody ordered a sniper to fire at Charlie Kirk. These people made their own decisions and gave themselves over to a cult of demons.

MAGA's trends toward liberalism...

Christians are not talking about this enough right now. There are the common Woke critiques of the Trump Administration right now that even some self-professing Christians are going on and then claiming that they are doing what other Christians should. But these range on subjects that are either morally neutral or morally commendable. For instance, the ending of DEI should rightfully be praised by Christians. While the suffering that has been experienced by many races under the yoke of past white supremacy is not something that we should ever want to see come back, the problem with DEI and affirmative action is that it issued an ideology founded in a never-ending cycle of revenge politics. To truly move past our racist past, we can't allow either the past white supremacy or the current implementing of hiring people based solely on race to continue. People's attributes need to be looked at. Their work ethic, their ability to function on a team, and their commitment to creating a better life for their peers.

Immigration policy has been something frequently critiqued by Christians on the grounds that Christians are expected to welcome the foreigner. Christians are supposed to welcome the foreigner. The State has the right to establish proper order (Rom. 13:1-4). Immigration policies should be based on a combination of both the individual obligation and the State's obligation to be a guarantor of order in society. I've seen many Christians on both sides of the issue failing to properly synthesize that issue. Mass deportations are the current result of a past Administration which committed a dereliction of their duty to create order, allowing numerous people into a country unchecked. The Laken Riley Act, which was passed recently, received support from both Republican and Democrat Senators. I'm not saying Democrat and Republican support makes something inherently wholesome, but it shows that there needs to be real concern for the State to actually guarantee security and safety to its nation. I would hope that these mass deportations are being conducted in a humanitarian way, and that's the best I can state because I don't have control over the situation.

Cutting USAID has also recently been something that I've seen Christians taking issue with. And while cutting funding to charity groups has disastrous consequences for the charity groups that are doing legitimately quality work in improving people's lives, there needs to be something said about this. Government funding needs to be able to have oversight from the general public. Which means sending tax-money to a charity group is not a good thing to happen at any rate. All the tax-payer can see is that their money has been sent to a third-party group. They have no idea what this third-party group is doing with their money or even if they support that. It's like using tax-money to build a wall that many people don't support. Individuals should be allowed and invested with the authority to discern how their money is spent, even if its tax-money, and they should be allowed to see how government is using or abusing that money. Christians on both sides need to start looking at government distributism like that. Too often we hear the phrase "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" used as a justification for outrageous taxation, along with Romans 13:1-4. However, in creating proper order, the State needs to also honor the individual who was made in the image of God, otherwise, the tyranny of the collective will be implemented.

There are also a shocking number of Christians who are opposing the Administration's relative pivots on transgenderism and abortion from the previous Administration's. I'm not sure where these people got their theology from, but according to Christian tradition, God created mankind male and female (Gen. 1:26-27). There is also the historic condemnation of murder which applies to children in the womb as well as to those outside it. There are frighteningly very few Christians who are opposing sending money to Israel to use in an offensive against Gaza. While I support Israel's right to defend its citizens from being kidnapped by the terror group Hamas, I only support a defensive. At the same time, Ukraine also has a right to defend its own borders from Russia. But the Benedictine position would be to pursue peace between the Romans and the Lombards in regard to both issues. Christians on both sides have de-sacralized life by promoting a twisted anthropology defending the murder of the unborn, turning from the truth of creation, and salivating over war and the destruction of lives.

Which takes me back to the main point. While there are many legitimate concerns over the criticism of the Trump Administration right now, as there were many concerns over the Biden Administration, I've seen Christians on both sides missing the mark. Part of it is because of a grotesque negligence of historic Christianity, but there is also a political element to it as well. I can certainly understand the people who voted for Trump over Harris as a lesser evil, but the people who voted for him and are supporting him whole-heartedly while claiming that they are pro-life is frightening. We have a man who supports the abortion pill about to take over Human Health Services. Both J.D. Vance and Donald Trump have spoken out in favor of the abortion pill. MAGA has become liberalized to the same extent that the Democrat Party has become liberalized. What I mean by liberalized is this - there is a devaluation of the sacred among the movement that emphasizes the material over that of the sacred and even throws out the sacred. The material nation is now more important than the Church. Winning elections is more important than influencing culture for future generations. Joe Biden said in 2021 that democracy has prevailed. In 2025, we are finally seeing the effects of that victory that democracy has won. Democracy has won and it has conquered the Church. Well, rather, it looks like its winning. The Church will never be conquered.

I am very frightened by the liberalism that has been embraced by Christians who are in the MAGA movement. While there are some good things that the Trump Administration has done, there can be no doubt that a Christian cannot support the totality of this Administration. While it may be an improvement for Christians than the last Administration, which was even more divisive at this point, it's grotesquely imperfect. Put not your trust in princes. The worship of political leaders - Trudeau, Trump, Harris, Vance, Biden, etc. - is not something Christians should get behind at all. A lot of right-wing Christians have anger toward church leaders for failing to properly call out the Biden Administration and they are right to be angered about that. Left-wing theology is not the solution to the right-wing politics among Christianity. One failure of the Church this past decade is in the over-protection of republican forms of government and the neglect of the sacred aspect of the human condition. Had the Church been properly addressing this, we would not have the political idolatry. Man is hungry right now. They are hungry for God. But if the Church yields its evangelical duties, Man will find God in himself and exert power over others. This has been the frightening scenario for the last decade.

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.

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.

Love, forgiveness, and reconciliation

I've been slowly reading through Eleonore Stump's massive book, Wandering Through Darkness. Recently, I was in an emotionally abusive relationship. Not so much a significant other as it was with a friend who I thought I might have been in love with at one point. She was incredibly toxic, dismissive of my emotions, and declared me manipulative for trying to communicate with her when I was being stonewalled. I've been told by numerous people that the behavior on her end was far more consistent with gaslighting and projection, that it was not Christlike behavior that was shown toward me, and that I need to stay away from her. I was struggling with whether permanently staying away from her was consistent with forgiveness so I asked a priest who explained that forgiveness does not mean that we cannot set up reasonable boundaries. In such a case where you are dealing with emotional abuse and the other refuses to even self-reflect, it's necessary to abandon the cause.

Reading through Stump's fifth chapter of Wandering Through Darkness, which is introducing concepts to the core of her main argument, she addresses the question of love, forgiveness, and reconciliation through the perspective of Thomistic moral theology. Stump is Thomistic and Augustinian in her theology and has written much addressing concepts in both Thomistic and Augustinian theology. Starting with the core essence of love in Thomism, love is about the desiring of the good of another. That other may not necessarily desire the good for themselves. So when people were telling me that the friendship was toxic, they were acting in love toward me. They desire the good for me. That which is healthy and no emotionally draining. And emotionally abusive relationship, whether it's with parents or with children or with friends or with a significant other, can have real harm on the psyche of the person being abused.

Part of forgiveness though is a desire for reconciliation. But there remains a question as to whether reconciliation is possible or not. Stump addresses this. Reconciliation is the goal of forgiveness under normal circumstances. We may look toward the Parable of the Loving Father where the Father anxiously awaits the return of his son who squandered his entire inheritance. But what if there is a situation where that reconciliation is not possible? What if there is a situation more akin to Pharaoh, who despite all of the plagues and punishments, refuses to repent for his heart has become hardened. We can still forgive someone who is like that. If there is ample reason to doubt that a person's repentance is sincere or genuine, or if the person refuses to repent or seek reconciliation, then we may need to establish healthy boundaries. In the case of Pharaoh, that boundary was determined by his watery grave in the Red Sea.

In the case of an abusive situation on social media or in real life, that may include blocking or filing a restraining order with the other. Often, it is impossible to tell the real reasons why someone has chosen to be emotionally manipulative or abusive. It is impossible to determine whether that someone is sincere. And when there is no self-reflection, or there is constant accusations made by that person against you, the only thing you can do is walk away from the situation. If someone tells you one thing and does another and makes it seem like you are the one being paranoid for wondering why this is happening, that person is not a healthy person to be around or near. I've been around many people like that.

But this goes to the key point that Stump addresses. Reconciliation may not always be possible when it comes to forgiveness. In such situations, only the desire for reconciliation can be maintained. It'd be one thing if I wanted my abuser to stay an abuser, because then I would not be desiring the good for her. It's a much different thing if I acknowledge that reconciliation with my abuser is not possible at the moment because there is no sign that the manipulative behavior has changed. I can walk away from that person comfortably, knowing that I have not failed to forgive them. I desire reconciliation with that person, I just don't know if reconciliation will ever be possible with that person.

Christ in the Book of the Holy Prophet Daniel

The Christian looks at the Old Testament with the constant anticipation of Christ that was experienced by the Jewish world as they awaited their Messiah. As we approach the Nativity on our Festal Calendar season, we also take a moment to remember the Holy Prophet Daniel and more specifically the Three Children. On December 11, we commemorated St. Daniel the Stylite who not only was named after the Holy Prophet Daniel, he was also buried on top of the remains of the Three Children, Radshach, Meshach, and Abednego. The Book of the Prophet Daniel is filled with foreshadowings of the Messiah's impending coming. Not just His second coming which is often times considered when looking at the apocalyptic narratives, but also the first coming too. Scripture is a multi-layered cake and different parts of Scriptures often times have multiple meanings. We can see the multitude of meanings in the apocalyptic literature of the Holy Prophet Daniel especially.

We start in Daniel 2. Many people see this as a foreshadowing of the world empires before the second coming of Christ. While this is certainly one way of reading it and also one of the more traditional ways of reading it, we must remember the multitude of meaning that Scriptures have and remember there might be another meaning. In Daniel 2, there is a statue with a gold head, silver chest, bronze waist, iron legs, and iron and clay feet. A stone is thrown at the statue's feet shattering it to pieces. Nebuchadnezzar is troubled by the statue's image in his dream and seeks out to find someone who can interpret the dream. None of the astrologers of the Emperor can give an adequate interpretation until the Holy Prophet Daniel, with discernment given to him by the Only Wise God, is able to decipher the dream's meaning. The statue shows the successive Empires that shall dominate the world, one after the other. Tradition understands them as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. The rock that is thrown at the statue will bring an abrupt end to the current era, dismantling the present kingdoms, establishing an everlasting kingdom. Most see Rome as the end of history and so look for some kind of antichrist from this passage. While the apocalyptic narrative definitely foretells the antichrist, this is a narrative of the Messiah. It was in a period in which Rome was being divided up into a Triumvirate, the Republic was dissolving after the Julius Caesar's dictatorship and his son Octavius Augustus was reigning upon the newly erected throne of the Roman Empire when an infant was born. Octavius was proclaiming himself to be the son of a god but the one that was born was the Son of God. Octavius proclaimed the Pax Romana but the Son of God proclaimed the Pax Christi. Indeed, a new kingdom, the Church, was established from the rubble of the Roman civil wars which savaged the world. The clay and iron couldn't withhold and Christ came down and established His own kingdom. It was a kingdom not of this world. It was a rock thrown from Heaven.

In the very next chapter of the Holy Prophet Daniel, we see the Three Children refuse to bow down before the false idol of the Emperor's. As a punishment, the Three Children are thrown into a fiery furnace with flames so hot that the men who threw them into the fire all died the moment the flames came near to them. Assuredly, Nebuchadnezzar had presumed the Three Children would be incinerated but he was in for a surprise. When Nebuchadnezzar looked into the furnace, he saw a fourth man in the furnace. The Hebrew text does not possess a definitive article so it is very possible he presumed it to be one of his own gods, but he recognized in the fourth figure and proclaimed that it was "one like a son of god!" Christians understand that this divine being who appeared in the furnace was Christ Himself. The Angel of God in the Old Testament is commonly held to be a Christophany or an appearance of Christ. And this is identified later in the text as an Angel of the God of the Three Children. While Nebuchadnezzar may not have understood who the being was, later generations have given new meaning to his words which shows that the Three Children very clearly understood that this being was not only a son of god but the Son of God who had come to save them from the fires of the furnace.

Once more, we see in Daniel 7 another prophecy of the things to come and the end of the world. There are four successive beasts. The beasts are identified in tradition as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. From the Roman beast, there stem ten kings and from there, a little horn comes out with great blasphemies, speaking these until fire is reigned down upon the beast from Heaven and the eternal kingdom of the saints is established. One like the Son of Man is then seen ascending upward to the Ancient of Days. While this is typically interpreted in the Cosmic Battle between Christ and Antichrist, there is an additional foreshadowing of this battle which is found in the incarnation of Christ. Christ comes into a divided Roman world that is wrested in its factionalism. From the chaos of the civil wars comes the Roman monarchy and the claims that the Emperor is the son of a god. But Christ comes in a very unique and unexpected way. He ushers in the true Peace while Rome claims a time of peace for itself. He is the Son of God but Rome can only claim such. While this is indeed is a very prophetic text about the coming antichrist, it is also a text which prophecies the initial conquering of Christ on the Cross and His establishment of His earthly Kingdom, not of this world.

Daniel 11:36-45 has baffled many scholars and eschatologists for years because there is failure to understand the often times dual fulfillment of prophecy. While there is grounds that this is a prophecy for the coming antichrist, it is also a Messianic prophecy of the first coming of Christ too. This is missed when people get fixated on the futuristic interpretations of Scriptures and fail to see that the Lord's Day has been here for quite some time. This is why He invites us into His Church now. Because the Church is the Kingdom of God. It is very easy to see how Herod fulfills the description of the one described in Daniel 11:36-39. He was thought of as a Jew being an Idumean but proclaimed the gods of the Romans and the Greeks. He thought of himself above all the priests and above all in the land of Judea. He sought the blood of all the infants throughout the land of Judea going against the natural maternal inclinations of women. He spoke great blasphemies against the Most High God and sought the death of the One Who was God in the flesh. Herod then supported Mark Antony in his war against Octavius as the King of the South attacked the King of the North and the news of the Messiah's coming brought great trouble to Herod. This was brought to him by the three kings of Orient. Herod would eventually succumb to madness, killing his own son and then dying of an illness. In Daniel 12:1, we finally see Michael the Archangel taking the stand for the Israelites, just as was done in Revelation 12. Revelation 12 is also given a double-meaning in its reference not only to battle of Christ and Antichrist but also the Virgin Mary's fleeing to the wilderness to give birth to the Messiah.

All throughout the writing of the Holy Prophet Daniel we see the presence of the Coming of Christ foreshadowed in not only the first but also in the second coming. It is revealed for Christians that there is a cosmic battle between Christ and Antichrist and the enemies of Christianity and the followers of the Kingdom that is established not of human hands. But we are given the hope that our side is victorious. We see in the coming of Christ in His incarnation that He has already proclaimed victory. He set up and established a Kingdom already. The prophecies of Daniel are fulfilled in the Nativity which is why the Holy Prophet Daniel's celebration falls just before the Nativity and not afterward. It is a poetic way to end the narrative of the Holy Scriptures that point to and foreshadow Christ. Christ is all throughout Scriptures and Christians are given this revelation because they have been entered into the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, the Church. The Church is the eschatological fulfillment of these pages and the Church is what the infant Christ established. The Church is what was brought to life when Christ stormed the gates of Hades. The Church is what proclaims the victory of Christ! Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit! Unto ages and ages, Amen!

The Righteous Ruth and Her Mother-in-law Naomi

The book of Ruth was probably the most frequently analyzed book in my undergraduate years studying Biblical Hebrew and Ancient Hebrew literature. It is also a moving story of a woman who places her ultimate trust in an unknown God and clings to her kinswoman in a most tragic and difficult circumstance, finally being rooted and ingrained into the everlasting kingdom of saints as an ancestor of the Heavenly Messiah. The story starts with famine, destitution, and death. It starts with a fleeing from God. But then it ends with a return to God. This return is spurned on by a former Pagan woman who desires the God of her mother-in-law, the God who her mother-in-law at first left behind.

Naomi and her husband Elimelech lived during the time of the Judges of Israel. As Israelites, they were children of the Promise. They were the Chosen race of God and their sacred duty was to place trust in God and shine the light for the world. There was more than just a famine of food in Israel. There was a famine of Holiness. Naomi fled Israel with her husband Elimelech as a reminder to her that her king was God. The name Elimelech, translated from Hebrew, means "my King is God". Names have meaning. For secularists, this is nothing more than a literary device. But for Christians, this is Divine Providence. Fleeing from Israel with the constant reminder that her God was her king, Naomi, her husband, and her two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, would end up in Moab. Moab was an enemy of Israel and once again, her sons names give an ominous foreshadowing as to what is to come. Mahlon mean "sickness" and Chilion means "wasting". Fleeing from Israel, the Church as it was in the Old Testament, Naomi sees her family wasting away even if they may now have food. For her venture into Moab, Naomi sees her husband Elimelech die. Signifying also her soon attachment to the Moabite tradition. Her sons marry two Moabite women, Ruth and Orpah. Ruth is wed to Mahlon and Orpah is wed to Chilion. It is not long after her sons cling to Moabite Pagan women that they also perish.

It is in this that Naomi renames herself "Mara" meaning "bitterness" as she acknowledges the bitter hand that God has sent her. Widowed and with no children, she sadly sends her daughters-in-law to depart from her and find new men to marry. Naomi cannot bear them sons of her own to marry for even if she could still give birth, her daughters-in-law would have to wait for them to grow old enough to marry. Orpah leaves. In the New Testament, St. Paul spends time talking about the care of widows and what qualifies a widow. He permits widows to remarry but refuses to have younger widows put on the list of widows to be honored "for when their sensual desires alienate them from Christ, they want to marry" (1 Tim. 5:11). He would rather "have younger widows marry, bear children, and manage their households, so as to give the adversary no occasion to revile us" (1 Tim. 5:14) and any believing woman is to care for a relative of hers who is truly a widow (1 Tim. 5:16). We see in Orpah the first category of younger widow. One who is given over to her sensual desires, who runs off from her widowed mother-in-law refusing to care for her. In Naomi, we see a widow who is truly a widow. One who is to be honored for she has no sons to care for her and has reached an older age. In Ruth, we see the second class of younger widow who is managing her house, caring for her mother-in-law. For when Naomi sends her daughters-in-law away, Ruth clings to her and exclaims, "Thy people shall be my people and thy God shall be my God!" (Ruth 1:16-17) Ruth is exemplary of a younger widow, which is not to say all younger widows are required to marry, but they are required to manage their households and give the adversary no occasion to revile Christians.

Naomi, a name in Hebrew which translates to "pleasant" or "beautiful" is now left "Mara" or "bitter" after witnessing both the death of her husband and the death of her sons. When famine began in Israel, she fled with her husband Elimelech, "my God is King", to the land of Moab. Clinging to the Pagan falsities from Moab, Elimelech dies, which signifies Naomi's apostasy. Mahlon and Chilion signify God's further chastisements, for God chastises His faithful in order to bring them back into the flock. Seeing their deaths, she accepts the chastisements from God, and although bitter, returns once again to Israel, the Church. She is joined by her daughter-in-law Ruth who exhorts Naomi in her penitence. Naomi's story is one of repentance while Ruth's story is one of conversion. Orpah's story is of one who prefers the darkness to the light. Ruth, desiring the light, having observed Naomi's repentance, now desires also the God of Naomi.

When Ruth and Naomi return to Israel, Ruth seeks to glean in the fields. She does not realize it at the time, but she ends up by Divine Providence, gleaning in the field of Boaz who is a kinsman of Elimelech. By Israelite law, the next nearest kinsman would be required to provide his deceased kinsman an heir through his kinsman's widow. Boaz sees Ruth gleaning in the field and inquires about her. Understanding that she is gleaning on behalf of her mother-in-law to provide care for her, Boaz extols her. "All that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband has been fully told me, and how you left your father and mother and your native land and came to a people that you did not know before." (Ruth 2:11) Ruth is the archetype of what a believing woman is to do for any relative of hers who is truly a widow. By bringing back the grain she has gleaned for her mother-in-law, Ruth is showing that she is also managing her own household. Ruth earns the favor of Boaz and is invited to drink wine (Ruth 2:14). She is provided with superabundant care by Boaz. When she reports back to Naomi it is revealed to Ruth that Boaz is a kinsman of her mother-in-law. Naomi instructs her daughter-in-law to go out with Boaz's women in his field and to stay close to Boaz (Ruth 2:22). Honoring her mother-in-law and committing herself to her household duties, she obeys the instruction given to her.

Naomi instructs Ruth to put on her best clothes, find Boaz on the threshing floor, and to wait for him to lie down after which, she is to uncover his feet and wait for his instruction (Ruth 3:3-4). Ruth does what her mother-in-law says. It is easy for someone to make the mistake in assuming that Naomi has a higher authority than Ruth, however, Ruth's subjection to her mother-in-law and her willingness to do as her mother-in-law says is an entire act of voluntary faith on the part of Ruth. Ruth was given the option to go her own way early on but chose to remain with her mother-in-law. Ruth is willing to do what her mother-in-law says because she recognizes the dire need of her mother-in-law. Ruth is a provider for her mother-in-law. She is the youthful one who will be able to carry on the familial line and Ruth is doing her duty in managing her own household and taking care of her widowed mother-in-law. She does exactly as her mother-in-law has told her to do and Boaz blesses her for not pursuing a younger man. He then informs her of a relative closer to her and that it is not to be found that Ruth entered upon the threshing floor for there might be a scandal should an adulterous relationship be found suspected (Ruth 3:13-14). Boaz, understanding that Ruth is a provider for her mother-in-law, gives her six measures of barley to take back to Naomi (Ruth 3:16-17).

Boaz presented Elimelech's land to the next-of-kin, but on hearing that he would inherit Ruth, the widow of Mahlon, the next-of-kin refused the land and gave it to Boaz (Ruth 4:1-6). This also meant that Boaz would acquire Ruth, the Moabitess (Ruth 4:10). The people gathered and blessed Boaz that this woman be like Rachel and Leah and that his house may be like "the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah" (Ruth 4:12). The comparison to Tamar is interesting as Tamar was under a similar circumstance as Ruth. Tamar had married Judah's son Er. But Er was found wicked in the Lord's sight and was struck dead. Judah sent his son Onan to provide the heir for his brother, but upon realizing the children would not be his, Onan spilled his semen before he had relations with Tamar. The Lord found this wicked and struck him down with that. Judah refused his third son Shelah to Tamar, telling her to remain a widow until he grew up. Tamar, hoping to claim what was hers properly, removed her widow's garments and set about as an harlot, seducing her father-in-law. Through her father-in-law, she bore the twins Perez and Zarah. Zarah had stuck his hand out of the womb first and a cord was tied around his hand to distinguish him as the firstborn but then he withdrew it and Perez was born to Tamar first (Gen. 38).

Ruth conceived as soon as she came together with Boaz and the women prophecy to Naomi. Then the women said to Naomi,

“Blessed be the Lord, who has not left you this day without next-of-kin; and may his name be renowned in Israel! He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age; for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has borne him.” (Ruth 4:14-15)

Thus, Ruth is to Naomi more than seven sons. Not just a maidservant as one could reasonably assume from the text, but rather the caretaker of her mother-in-law. She is not a subject of her mother-in-law but has presumed a role greater than Naomi. Through Ruth comes Naomi's redemption. For Ruth is to give birth to Obed, the father of Jesse who is the father of King David. In the genealogy of Matthew 1, Ruth is one of three women mentioned by name along with Tamar, Rahab, and Bathsheba is mentioned as a fourth as the wife of Uriah. Thus showing us that the universality of the Church. Israel was not meant to be a nation of one race, offering salvation based on one's blood inheritance. Israel was meant to graft the foreigners into the community as well. Israel stood as a light. Ruth was grafted into the Church of the Old Testament as also Christ grafted the Gentiles into the Church in the New Testament. Ruth gave birth to the genealogical line of King David (Ruth 4:17). As mentioned, Naomi's husband Elimelech died when she abandoned Israel. Elimelech, meaning "My God is King", in a way symbolized Naomi's apostasy. Mahlon and Chilion, meaning "sickness" and "wasting" married Pagan women and died. But Naomi, having returned to the Church, and bringing back with her a convert daughter-in-law, now finds herself taking God as her King once again. Her daughter-in-law is who conceives the Davidic Royal line of Israel. This is the Royal line that the Messiah is to be born unto. The incarnate God thus finds His way back into Naomi's life as she returns from her own spiritual apostasy. Ruth the Righteous, pray for us!

Hannah, the Mother of Samuel

In the Latin calendar, and some Eastern Catholic calendars, the Feast Day of the Conception of the Ever-Virgin is celebrated on December 8. Most Greek Catholics have retained the traditional date as December 9. The purpose is twofold. It is to remind us that the Ever-Virgin full of grace, has her grace in the origin of God. It also remarkably falls on the date of the Feast Day of Hannah, the Mother of the Prophet Samuel, and last Judge of Israel. In writing about Hannah, the Mother of the Prophet Samuel, I am by no means diminishing the Feast Day of the Conception of Mary. In contrast, it is actually an amplification of the Feast Day of the Conception of Mary. Scriptures have a multitude of meanings and it is important for us to reflect on all of them. It is like eating into a multi-layered chocolate cake. We see in the connection between Hannah and the Ever-Virgin Mary a typological approach to Scriptures.

In Hannah, we see a barren woman. Hannah is the first wife of the priest Elkanah. Peninnah, his second wife, had children and would bring grief to Hannah. Hannah, asking the Lord for a child, was blessed with one whom she would dedicate to the Temple of God. This also is a figure of the story of Abraham, Hagar, and Sarah. For Sarah is barren and ordered Abraham to have relations with Hagar delivering Ishmael. But Isaac was the chosen son. Sarah would later bear Isaac in her old age. From barrenness comes the greatest fruit of the Church for it was also in Hannah's namesake, Anna, the mother of Our Lady, who we would see another barren woman give birth to the child who would bear the Christ-Child. Not only in that are the two women of Hannah and Mary connected, but also in many other features.

For both Hannah and Mary, there is a miraculous nature to the conception of their children. Mary has a Virginal conception, her Son, God-Incarnate, Jesus Christ, is to be born without Her knowing any man. For Hannah, she was barren, but the Lord fulfilled her prayer for a child. Anna, who was Mary's mother, and is celebrated with her namesake Hannah on the Feast Day of the Conception of Mary, dedicates her child to the Temple from infancy as does Hannah with the Prophet Samuel. The Prophet Samuel not only came before the period of the Israelite Kingdom, but also would anoint both the first and second Kings of Israel. In a sense, Hannah is also intricately connected with the barren Elizabeth, the cousin of the Virgin Mary.

Elizabeth bears the forerunner John Baptist who announces the coming Kingdom of Christ as did Samuel announce the Kingdom of Saul and then the Kingdom of David. Hannah gives birth to the first forerunner and Elizabeth gives birth to the second forerunner. The first forerunner paved the way for the Kingdom of Israel to be made. The second forerunner paved the way for the King to take His throne in the Kingdom. Thus, Hannah is intricately connected to the Virgin Mary by being a prefigurement of the Forerunner's Mother. But Hannah is also a prefigurement of the Virgin Mary herself.

In both the account of Hannah's miraculous birth to Samuel and the Virgin Mary's miraculous birth to Jesus Christ, the women are seen giving praise to God in poetry. Hannah gives praise in 1 Sam. 2:1-10 and Mary gives praise in Luke 1:46-55. In both Hannah's prayer and in the Virgin Mary's prayer, we see how the roles in society have become inversed in the miraculous accounts of the birth of their children. The rich have been sent away empty and those who were once fruitful have become barren. The two show a reversal of fortunes in the account of the birth of their children.

In Hannah, the church fathers saw a prefigurement of the New Testament. Hannah displaces Peninnah as she gives birth to the Prophet Samuel. Much as in the birth of Isaac, St. Paul draws a prefigurement of the children of God in contrast to the children of the bondwoman. Hannah symbolizes the New Testament Church and Peninnah the Old Testament Church. The Old Testament Church turns to apostasy as it refuses to hear the Gospel and accept their own Messiah. The New Testament Church comes to fulfillment in the Gospel and they receive their Messiah and their King. Hannah receives the fullness of the Kingdom of Christ and Peninnah, as the apostate Jews, is sent away empty in her own blasphemies as she chose to mock the holy woman.

Hannah is a prefigurement of her namesake Anna who is celebrated today when we celebrate the Conception of the Virgin Mary. Hannah is celebrated the same day as the Conception of the Virgin Mary because she foreshadows Anna. Not only does Hannah foreshadow Anna in bearing a child to be dedicated to the Temple, she also foreshadows Elizabeth in bearing a forerunner to the Kingdom of Israel on Earth as Elizabeth bore the Forerunner to the Kingdom of Heaven. And finally, Hannah, in her song of praise, foreshadows the Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin's song of praise in thanksgiving to Our Lord for having become the vessel of Divine Grace. Mary, full of grace, is born of grace, for the name Hannah in Hebrew means "grace". The name Anna is the Greek variant of Hannah. Greek Catholics have retained the Feast Day of Our Lady's Conception for today because it falls on the Feast Day of the Holy Mother of Samuel, and also because Our Lady's birthday is September 8. Because Our Lady's grace was received from God, the one-day off signifies this only defect that Our Lady experienced in Her entire life from conception onward, in that she was not fully God.

The distortion of reality

I mentioned in my last post that there is a distorted reality that often overcomes me from my depression. What is the first distortion of reality? The spiritual and the mental often times overlap because the psyche is the soul. Psyche which is the root of the words "psychiatry" and "psychology" is a Greek word that refers to the soul. The Hebrews called this the lev. The word lev refers to the heart. While the lev is a part of the nephesh and the neshema, the latter two are found in other animals but the lev is unique to the human being. It gives the human being a rational thought and an inclination for the Divine that is lacking in the animal nature. Man alone was created in the image of God. While all of creation testifies of the ability of God and praises Him in some way or form and they will partake in the redemption of the New Creation, Man alone is made for a Divine Communion with God. Man alone has an inheritance to partake in the Divine Nature.

When Man was created in the Garden of Eden, he was created to dwell in perfection and immortality. God had gifted Man with His own perfect likeness. They could eat of all the fruit in the Garden save for the one that grew from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The serpent slithered along its belly and told the woman that the reason why God had told them not to eat of that tree was because Man would become exactly like God. This was not what God taught them nor was it what the Church teaches. God had already made Man in His own likeness. There was no benefit from eating the tree in becoming like God because Man was already like God! But the serpent insisted that Man was not like God, that they needed the tree to become like God. The serpent had already begun distorting reality by denying that Man was created in the image of God.

From the first sin onward, Man threw his entire relationship with God into discontinuity and distortion. Creation became disordered and suffers until its final redemption. Yes, creation shall be redeemed when the world is made anew (Rom. 8:19-23). When Man is brought back into harmony with his Creator, so will creation be brought back into harmony. The consequences of the first sin, the acceptance of a distorted reality that never was, threw creation and Man into a drastic imbalance. We see this imbalance at play in the mental health impact upon the world. Because the psyche is the one aspect of Man that is so directly and intimately connected to God, the imbalance caused by the first sin is shown forth in the negative impact of mental health. This is why Man experiences things such as boredom, depression, anxiety, anger. We are impacted by our ancestors' first sin and thrown into confusion and imbalance, the despair of being severed from the communion with our Creator which is what was intended from the beginning.

Striving to reconnect with our Creator, we go about with all these different sorts of distorted realities, influenced by the lie of the serpent, thinking we can reach Him entirely of our own willpower and volition. But we need Him to free us and free us He does for His offer of grace is free to us. We are already intimately connected to Him because we possess the image and likeness of God but we are severed from Him by our participation in and acceptance of a distortion and a lie. We are thrown into confusion by the Devil's forked snake-tongue. We give into the unreality. Our hearts know that it is True what He offers to us but our weakened psyche often times forces us into accepting this distorted reality, giving into the passions of the flesh, because we are both spiritual and physical beings, meant for communion with God, but bound to accept the adversities of the flesh. As St. Paul himself states, "the evil that I do not want is what I do" (Rom. 7:19).

This entire fleshly life is a trial for the psyche. It is not that the flesh is not a good, for the flesh is an earthly vessel for the psyche and it is the Temple that God intended to House the psyche in. But the flesh has suffered from the corruption of the Fall. It is bound to death and destruction, crying out to its Creator to be resurrected back to Life in glory and there is the Hope of the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:42-49). We are not bound to sufferings, but we are bound to trials and adversities. We live in a distortion of the image of God, but we live in the hope that the image of God will be restored in immortality for Christ Himself was raised from the dead to prove this! As I mentioned in my first post in this series, when experiencing an episode of depression, I find myself in a distorted reality. The sun may be shining but the motivation to do anything is gone, non-existent, and it seems to be raining all around. The sin that has bound Man to this distortion of his spirit and flesh is based on a distortion of reality. A denial that Man was made in the image of God and the promotion of the lie that something other than God could give this gift to Man. Man turned himself over to Satan in the Garden of Eden. Man turned himself over to a liar. And from this, we live in the consequences until we participate in the ultimate healing in the Resurrection of Our Lord.

The beautiful rosary

I learned the rosary from an Anglo-Catholic priest. He knew the history of the rosary quite well and never prayed the luminous mysteries. I don't have any judgment toward those who do, but for me, the rosary will always be prayed with the full 150 Hail Mary's to remember the 150 Psalms. I wrote this on an old blog of mine back in 2016.

I wanted to write this for people unfamiliar with the rosary. It is a very beautiful devotion though often misunderstood. The rosary is quite a scriptural prayer and takes on the prophetic narrative of the 150 Psalms and how they are fulfilled in the Gospel. For instance, Mary’s intercession on behalf of sinners is seen in John 2:1-12. She stands at the side of the King (Psalm 45:1-9) and is always present in his life. One needs to become acquainted with the Psalms though to see how Mary is prophetically seen alongside her son in his mission but this is why the rosary has three sets of mysteries. The joyful, sorrowful, and luminous mysteries. Not only do they recount the prophetic detail of the Psalms but also the prophetic detail of Mary’s participation in Jesus’s life. What initially started as 150 Psalms became 150 Our Father’s and then 150 Hail Mary’s.

So here is the basics on how to pray the rosary.

Start with the crucifix saying the Apostle’s Creed–

I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended into hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

Next, pray the Our Father holding the next bead–

Our Father, Who is in heaven, Holy is Your Name; Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.

On the next three beads, three Hail Mary’s–

Hail Mary, full of grace. Our Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

On the next bead, pray the Glory Be and optional Fatima prayer–

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

O my Jesus, forgive us of our sins. Save us from the fires of Hell. Especially those in most need of your mercy. Amen.

Then begins the first Our Father introducing the first decade. An Our Father introduces the decade, and then the mystery is announced. Normally, information on the rosary does not specify the mystery, however, for our purposes, we will identify each one as I am most interested in explaining a full rosary which will give the 150 Hail Mary’s reflecting on the prophetic message of the Psalms.

After saying the Our Father, the joyful mysteries are begun. They start with the Annunciation. This is announced followed by 10 Hail Mary’s. Afterward, a Glory Be and optional Fatima prayer and whatever intercessions desired are made.

Then another Our Father and the Visitation of Mary’s to Elizabeth is the next joyful mystery. This is announced followed by 10 Hail Mary’s. Afterward, a Glory Be and optional Fatima prayer and whatever intercessions desired are made.

Then another Our Father and the next mystery is the Nativity. This is announced followed by 10 Hail Mary’s. Afterward, a Glory Be and optional Fatima prayer and whatever intercessions desired are made.

Then another Our Father and the next mystery is the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple. This is announced followed by 10 Hail Mary’s. Afterward, a Glory Be and optional Fatima prayer and whatever intercessions desired are made.

Then another Our Father and the next mystery is the Finding of Jesus in the Temple. This is announced followed by 10 Hail Mary’s. Afterward, a Glory Be and optional Fatima prayer and whatever intercessions desired are made. This concludes the joyful mysteries. The sorrowful mysteries are then transferred to as you pick up normally.

An Our Father is said and the first sorrowful mystery is the Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane. This is announced followed by 10 Hail Mary’s. Afterward, a Glory Be and optional Fatima prayer and whatever intercessions desired are made.

Then another Our Father and the next mystery is the Scourging at the Pillar. This is announced followed by 10 Hail Mary’s. Afterward, a Glory Be and optional Fatima prayer and whatever intercessions desired are made.

Then another Our Father and the next mystery is the Crowning with Thorns. This is announced followed by 10 Hail Mary’s. Afterward, a Glory Be and optional Fatima prayer and whatever intercessions desired are made.

Then another Our Father and the next mystery is the Carrying of the Cross. This is announced followed by 10 Hail Mary’s. Afterward, a Glory Be and optional Fatima prayer and whatever intercessions desired are made.

Then another Our Father and the final sorrowful mystery is the Crucifixion. This is announced followed by 10 Hail Mary’s. Afterward, a Glory Be and optional Fatima prayer and whatever intercessions desired are made.

This concludes the sorrowful mysteries as the glorious mysteries are next transitioned to which complete the prophetic nature of the Psalms. If we go to Hebrews 1:1-12, we see many Psalms are fulfilled in the resurrection. In addition, St Peter cites numerous Psalms, specifically Psalm 110:1 in Acts 2 related to the resurrection. There are three glorious mysteries which refer to our own resurrection–the resurrection of Christ which we are to become incorporated into, the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost in which our baptism is a major part and we are joined to Christ’s resurrection in baptism (Rom. 6:3-4), and the Assumption of Mary which reveals Mary’s own resurrection from the grave to be foreshadowing of our own resurrection.

An Our Father is said as the glorious mysteries are announced. The first of which is the Resurrection of Christ. This is announced followed by 10 Hail Mary’s. Afterward, a Glory Be and optional Fatima prayer and whatever intercessions desired are made.

Another Our Father is said. The next mystery is the Ascension of Christ into Heaven. This is announced followed by 10 Hail Mary’s. Afterward, a Glory Be and optional Fatima prayer and whatever intercessions desired are made.

Then an Our Father is said and the next mystery is the Descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. This is announced followed by 10 Hail Mary’s. Afterward, a Glory Be and optional Fatima prayer and whatever intercessions desired are made.

Then an Our Father is said and the next mystery is the Assumption of Mary. This is announced followed by 10 Hail Mary’s. Afterward, a Glory Be and optional Fatima prayer and whatever intercessions desired are made.

Then an Our Father is said and the last glorious mystery is the Coronation of the Ever-Virgin. This is announced followed by 10 Hail Mary’s. Afterward, a Glory Be and optional Fatima prayer and whatever intercessions desired are made. There is one more prayer–the Hail Holy Queen.

Hail, holy Queen, Mother of mercy, hail, our life, our sweetness and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve: to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears. Turn then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus, O merciful, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary! Amen.

This concludes the rosary.

The escape from Egypt

During the Fast of St. Phillip, Byzantine Christians pray regularly the service of the Paraklesis. A series of prayers offered to the Theotokos with intentions for our fellow Christian men.* In the course of these prayers, one theme strikes me. Ode 1 reads, "Crossing the waters on dry land, in that way escaping, from the evils of Egypt's land, the Israelites cried out exclaiming: To our Redeemer and God, let us now sing!" We see an historic reference here to the flight of the Israelites from Egypt, but we also tend to forget that there is also a spiritual element to the texts as well. Of course, we see the obvious historical reference. In the sacred history, Israel is subjected to the slavery of Egypt, Moses is chosen by God to deliver the Israelites from Pharaoh's hands, and God unleashes severe plagues on Egypt. It is easy to see the historic meaning and neglect other meanings. But as the Archimandrite told me a year and a half ago, the Scripture are not only shallow enough for an infant to wade in, they are also deep enough for an elephant to drown in!

It is largely in our prayers that we see the spiritual elements at play. In the Psalms, when King David speaks of Babylon, it often refers to a metaphorical place of spiritual captivity. Babylon had not increased in power when King David was alive. Yet King David speaks of a captivity as if it happened or was happening in his days. There is simultaneously prophecy and metaphorical reflection on our own spiritual captivity to the Devil in the Psalms. I will write more on those at another time. In the prophesies of Isaiah and Ezekiel, there are two instances where the Prophets cease speaking of the earthly Kings and refer to the Fall of Lucifer from Heaven. When Isaiah speaks of the King of Babylon and when Ezekiel speaks of the King of Tyre. There may be a typographical imaging in the Kings of Babylon and Tyre respectively that correlate to the Devil's rebellion against God, but the texts are primarily speaking of a spiritual being that has rebelled against God's order.

No truer is this than when we gather to pray the service of the Small Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos known as the Paraklesis. For when we are confronted with the Israelites being led out of Egypt, we are next confronted with the praise of the Theotokos:

"Most Holy Theotokos save us. With many temptations surrounding me, searching for salvation, I have hastened to you; O Mother of the Word and Ever-Virgin, from all distresses and dangers deliver me."

In the East, the concept of sin is one of our own spiritual captivity. How much more fitting to begin this forty day fast with the realization that the Israel crying out to sing praise to the Theotokos is in fact the very Israel of today! Certain teachers have claimed that Israel still exists as a distinct country in the Scriptures or is of the Jewish inheritance still but those teachers have failed to see in Scriptures that a new Israel has emerged. When Jesus came into the world, He came into a world that was held hostage to sin and the Devil. He came to oust the Devil's rule from this world and release the captives from Hades. This is what St. Peter reflects on. It is why St. Peter compares the waters of regeneration in baptism to the flight of Israel from Egypt. The Israel of the Old Testament was the prefigurement of the Israel of the New Testament. What these teachers miss in their delusion is that the material Israel was under the old agreement. There now reigns a new agreement. The world that is Israel is now seen fulfilled in the Church. So together with the Israelites, we too celebrate our freedom from Egypt, even as we begin a new forty year wandering, which for us is forty days of fasting until the Nativity Feast.

"Assaults of the passions have shaken me, my soul to its limits, has been filled with much despair, bring peace O Maiden, in the calmness, Of your own Son and your God all-blameless One."

Free us from the hand of spiritual Egypt. Free us from the bondage which sin holds to our souls. Free us from the chains of imprisonment, this spiritual slavery we find ourselves in under the Devil. Be with us during these next forty days of wandering. Without the understanding that the Church is Israel, the New Covenant (Testament) becomes almost meaningless. The prayer life of the Church becomes almost void. We are marching forward, away from Egypt, on toward our Hope, on toward the Lord, led by His Holy Light in the Theotokos. She is the bush that did not burn for she held Him Who is Above All in her womb. She is the Ladder that leads Jacob to Heaven. She is the Ark of the Covenant which we now carry with us. "To God and the Savior, you've given birth; I ask you, O Virgin, from the dangers deliver me!"

To the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit be the glory, unto ages and ages, Amen!

*I offered two of my friends names this year, both of whom have difficult job situations and one has been through many of the spiritual challenges I have been through.

The Theotokos in Pauline Theology

One common attack by Protestants is the overwhelming absence of the Theotokos in the writings of the New Testament. If she is so central a figure in Christianity, why isn't she mentioned in Scriptures? The argument is an argument from silence, yet she is very much central in Pauline theology. It is difficult for someone to see who is not used to the centrality of the Theotokos in Christianity, but we see her presence there loudly. St. Paul is often times confused as to whether it seems he supports women in leadership positions in the Church or if he is simply just a male chauvinist. It is very clear from a myriad of writings that St. Paul is abundantly supportive of the role of women in the Church, yet feminists like to attack him as being against women on the basis of one or two texts that suggest otherwise. This is because they silence the Theotokos, the most important woman of all. The most controversial text on women in St. Paul's theology is 1 Timothy 2:11-15,

Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

Looked at in an isolated manner from Tradition, we can see how Protestant exegetes would turn this into bickering about what the proper role for women in tradition is. Yet we know from experience that the Catholic and Traditional view of the role of women is great and high. We have seen women as Empresses commanding their kingdoms such as Pulcheria, Irene of Athens, and Theodora the wife of Theophilos, Tamara of Georgia, the Old Testament shows women as heroes and as great leaders of the Israelites such as Deborah, Esther, and Judith, and St. Paul shows a respect for women such as Priscilla, Junia, and Phoebe. We cannot isolate one text and presume it as the whole. Even further, St. Paul's commentary on the origin of sin show it coming not from Eve or a woman but through Adam, the first man (Rom. 5:12).

When we go back all the way to the text of Genesis, we note that it is through the descendant of the woman that the serpent's head is to be crushed (Gen. 3:15). The pangs of childbearing would come upon the woman. And in Galatians 4, St. Paul draws an allegory between the descendants of Hagar and Sarah in comparing the children of the promise to the children of bondage (4:21-31) and also elaborates on the importance of Christ's birth to a woman (4:4-7). The key is not in that the woman is to be saved through a physical birth-giving. St. Paul is actually in fact elaborating quite a Marian theology in 1 Timothy 2.

It is through man in Pauline theology that sin comes into the world. Yet here, he recognizes the woman's involvement in sin coming into the world as well. It is in this acknowledgment that he is able to unite man and woman together. Without the Theotokos in the Christian Church, we come to a conclusion that is both a-theological and we place an artificial cultural restraint on St. Paul. Yet this is not the case. The Theotokos, in her humility, while alive, did not allow anyone to speak of her directly. Yet here, St. Paul speaks of her indirectly, but with loud and concise clarity for the Christian believer. It is through birth-giving that the woman is saved. Through her birth-giving of Christ. Eve led Adam to sin, but the obedience of the Theotokos, the humility of Our Lady, led to the God-Man coming into the world through her birth-giving of Him. Where we see the First Adam, we must also look to the Second Adam. Christians must also look to the Second Eve when we see the First Eve. Thus, when St. Paul references the First Eve, we must also look for the Second Eve, the Theotokos.