I would suggest that the REC priest has misconstrued Catholic teaching on the Jews. NA is low level teaching, not at the level of the actuallVII constitutions, and it’s not a good idea to start picking up non official quotes of the Popes. The fact is that they 1960 Breviary remains in force and in use, and the Mattins reading for Holy Week from St Augustine are probably the most comprehensive and unapologetic thoughts on the Catholic Church’s relationship to the Jews in 2026. Essentially, the Church is Israel and all of the promises made in the OT to her apply to the Church, not post second temple Jews. Further, it’s arguable whether modern Rabbinic Jews actually practice the same religion as Jesus did. It’s more accurately a successor religion.
You know what drives me crazy? The replacement on Good Friday of "the faithless Jews" by "we pray for the Jewish people". Calling the Jews faithless is a matter of fact. If they believed they wouldn't be Jews, unless you're a Nazi.
Father, I am not sure that that is all bad in this world, in fact I think it is good to moderate these words. I am not with Ted on this one. Look at the history of pogroms; we can afford to be a bit sensitive.
True. Btw,the second edition of Davies' "Cramner's Godly Order," produced a few years before his death,is a real work of secondary scholarship, making good use of "revisionist" English Reformation historians like Eamon Duffy and Christopher Haigh.
Ted, I belief that "unbelieving"is a better translation of "perfidis" in the eighth petition of the "Orationes Solemnes" of Good Friday - perhaps the original "prayers of the people" in the Roman Mass until the 490s, but thereafter relegated to Good Friday - than "faithless."
It is very hard, impossible really, to hear "perfidious Jews" as pretty raw anti-Semitism, saying that Jews in general are intrinsically treacherous liars. "Unbelieving" is just a statement of objective fact with respect to Christianity.
Agreed, with the caveat that while the Church is the new "Israel of God," the old Israel is still loved by Him "for the sake of the fathers." (Rom. 11:28) This second thing is often ignored by the "hard" supersessionists. God still cares about the patrimony.
I'd add here that I think that any speculation about how that "love for the sake of the fathers" plays out historically or eschatologically is just that -- speculation.
My speculation is that God made two covenants with Man, one through the Jews and another through Christ. For those Jews who did not embrace Christianity, the Old was and is still in effect, but I'm no theologian.
No, the words of consecration say at every Mass “the new and everlasting covenant.” The Messiah came, the vast majority of them denied Him. Their ONLY hope for salvation comes through Jesus. This basic Christianity, an idea shared by Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Protestants up until 5 minutes ago. I’m not saying every Jew (or Pagan) is going to Hell, but no one gets to Heaven except through Jesus.
As a practicing, modern Pagan, I've encountered, and, well, faced too many Christians who take a monolithic stance about Jews, Pagans and indeed any non-Christians. I'm not even a nominal Christian. I grew up in the heart of the Philadelphia Archdiocese. My home township population was over 70% Catholic. My peers and friends often told stories (also often complaining, of course), and my first encounter with a Catholic priest washed all of that away. You remind me of him. Be well.
As a Catholic, I agree salvation is ultimately through Christ however that may be effected for 'edge cases'.
I haven't thought much about covenants before but it seems to me that God wouldn't revoke one He had made. That being the case, this difficulty goes away if Christ is the fulfilment, rather than abolition, of the old covenant.
Yet, wouldn't Jews still be bound to follow the old covenant made with them by God pending any future recognition of the new one? Not looking to argue; I'm puzzling this out.
I can't answer that. I concede to shooting in the dark here.
My initial thought was same as my reply to Father Matthew. Wouldn't Jews still be bound to follow the old covenant pending any future recognition of the new one? I mean 'still in effect' in this sense.
Yes, Father is correct that 'Nostra aetate', whatever one makes of it, is a lower tier Vatican document. It is a 'Declaration'.
I understand the order, in decreasing significance, to be Apostolic Constitutions, Encyclical Letters, Motu Proprio, Apostolic Exhortations, Decrees/Declarations, Instructions.
Re: It's arguable whether modern Rabbinic Jews actually practice the same religion as Jesus did. Agree! On You Tube, the former Orthodox Jew Ash Maiz has posted a series of videos about the validity of Christianity, including that the Rabbinate during the 700s-800s began to systematically alter Jewish teachings and practice to deny any connection between Jesus and the OT. Maiz recently converted to Eastern Catholicism. He is articulate, cool, calm, collected, and is extremely knowledgeable about the OT.
"It's arguable whether modern Rabbinic Jews actually practice the same religion as Jesus did."
Yes, it is "arguable." It is sad that many "Christian Zionists" appear to be totally ignorant of it. Such Christians appear to have no knowledge that taking"Rabbinic (Orthodox) Judaism" as normative Judaism ascribes to it a status among Jews that it did not achieve until ca. 150/250 AD, and it takes no account of the many rival parties in the Judaism of Our Lord's day,nor of the Karaites today. Cf.:
It begs the question: what is Judaism without the Temple cult? You can’t remove the operating Temple from the story of Jesus and have it make any sense. Further, Jesus himself foretold of its downfall. God was explicit in that one way of worshiping Him was at an end.
Unfortunately to discuss this is to be labeled an anti semite by theologically illiterate Christians and attracts low IQ modern neo Nazis. 🙄
True; the "Second Temple" Judaism of Our Lord's time had the Temple and its priesthood, but not the Land nor the Davidic Kingship, which were the three pillars - four if you include the Torah, although its canon was not then completely closed yet. After the Tishri b'Av in AD 70 it had neither Temple, Priesthood, Land, or Kingship. The ensuing decades, right down to 135 AD and the end of the Bar Kochba Revolt, saw the rise of Rabbinic Judaism (with its "magisterium"of Scribes and Scripture Scholars)and its contest with Jewish Christianity for being "the Israel of God." The Gospel lost; the "orthodoxy"of the Tannaim won. To my mind, the essence of apostolic Christianity (whether Catholic, Orthodox,or Oriental Orthodox) lies, to put it bluntly, in its claim to constitute the true "Israel of God." The late French Jewish scholar, Marcel Simon, made this the nodal point of his masterwork, Verus Israel
It would be true to say, IMO, that Apostolic Christianity and the Church, on the one hand, and the Orthopractic Judaism of the Tannaim, on the other, both emerged symbolically from the rubble of the Temple, both of them in differing ways equidistant from Second Temple Judaism, and each of them claiming to be its true heir, the Verus Iseael. It is the neglect, ignorance,or rejection of this matrix out of which both Christianity ans Judaism emerged that makes it possible for absurd conceits such as Christian Zionism (in the theological sense) to emerge.
I don't know what good thing happened, Rod, but I'm glad to hear it. Not only have I been praying for you, but I've got a bunch of Poor Clares at my daughter's monastery doing the same. It doesn't get better than that!
I don’t look forward to reading tomorrow’s newsletter, needless to say Rod it will be both prescient and depressing. Just saying. God Bless. 🙏🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶 Stay warm y’all, red wine helps!
Agree to an extent. Yes we don't know exactly what happened the other day (and likely will never truly know), but it may reflect more the overall problem with divisions in America.
I'm burned out from it. I know that Rod has expertise in the culture wars, and I've followed him now online for close to 16 years. I've been a paying subscriber for maybe 6 years now, I think? I deeply enjoy it when Rod focuses on the spiritual stuff and less on the politics.
Regardless, I'm really just approaching the exhaustion point with hashing out yet another law enforcement/ protestor interaction that ended bad for the protestor.
I might even be done with talking about the politics. I don't think talking about our divisions helps anything, at this point.
Yeah I like him better on faith issues and the woo woo stuff. Other people hate it though.
I'm more fed up with listening to people talking about Minnesota and Greenland.
There's a point where you're just thinking "yeah I saw the same news. you aren't there either. nothing you're saying is affecting my opinion. let's talk about anything else."
Nothing against Rod on that particular. I'm just sick of the subject
I note that this comment has a very unusual 35 likes, one of which is mine, and is largely in response to your second paragraph. But it is very hard to avoid it because it's fanning the rage flames so high. I gave in to a temptation which I've largely resisted for many months and got into Facebook scraps about it.
To be only concerned what Orthodox Christians think about Jews and Israel is to dismiss what Jews and Israel think of themselves. It sidelines Jewish voices necessary for solutions about Jews and Israel. Rod is correct to explore other thoughts in this matter.
There is a note in my "Christian Individualism: The Maverick Biblical Workmanship of Otis Q. Sellers" (1901-1992; to be published mid-year, God willing, by Atmosphere Press), which I'd like to share:
"I have found the Anglican clergyman James Parkes (1896-1981) to be the most balanced and convincing historian of this fraught subject. Among his many works, see especially "The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism" (London: Soncino Press, 1934; republished by Macmillan, New York, 1961); his preface to "Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity," ed. Alan T. Davies (New York: Paulist Press, 1979); and "Whose Land? A History of the Peoples of Palestine" (New York: Taplinger Press, 1970). As with Sellers, so with Parkes: whatever claims Jews may have to The Land are to be weighed on grounds other than biblical prophecy. The events of 1948 did not fulfill any. But there the comparison ends: Sellers the biblicist held that some events do and will fulfill prophecy, whereas Parkes, the “liberal” theologian, likely did not. Whereas he was pro-Zionist—Jewish claims to The Land are legitimate; they have a uniquely continuous connection to it—Rosemary Radford Ruether, the feminist liberation theologian cited in “Sellers on ‘the Jews’ in the New Testament,” an addendum to Chapter 8, was anti-Zionist."
Sellers was an "ultradispensationalist" biblicist, not associated with any Evangelical form of dispensationalism, as am I.
I read a bit of Parkes in the late 1970s/early1980s. He struck me then as a Liberal Protestant Broad Church Anglican and the "tone"of his writings made me wonder how much of "Mere Christian" orthodoxy he actually believed.
"Supersessionism" exists on a continuum -- there are "hard" and "soft" varieties. In my view it's the former that results in (or stems from) anti-Jewish sentiment, but I do not see how "anti-supersessionism" can be valid if it implies that there was no change in the Covenant at all.
Plus, from a Catholic and Orthodox perspective if anti-supersessionism is indeed a "new" theology then it's necessarily suspect from the outset.
Rod mentioned the first two claims of the possessing demon in the Exorcist Files' episode "Maid for More"; namely, her engaging in divination and fornication. There was also a third mentioned - her engaging with the entity when it was flickering the lights by conversing it and putting it to the test i.e. "If you're good spirit, do this with the lights" or words to that effect. It's the forming of a relationship by interacting with them that's the problem.
Some exorcists note that particular demons seem to have specific heavenly adversaries in that they are particularly affected by relics associated with one saint more so than other ones. Theory is that these demons played some role in persecuting the saint during his/her life. but that saint, having triumphed in Christ, over their temptations/evil thus has spiritual impact with regard to them.
Yes, that comes out in this two-part episode, in which the demon gives evidence that it was behind the martyrdom of Joan at the hands of a corrupt bishop.
The Akathist is a beautiful prayer and it is completely new to me. Thank you for sharing it. I am glad to hear there was some kind of breakthrough in your personal life. The whole question of the Jewish covenant has always been fascinating to me. I remember the spouse of a Jewish colleague, who lamented that Jesus excluded them from his salvation. At the time, I was not deeply religious, but I spontaneously said to her that God had established his covenant with the Jews, it was still in place and that what Jesus had done was to open (or add) to that covenant to the Gentiles. She was shocked. No Christian had said that to her before. She expected me to say that yes - she was, as. Jew - not a part of God's plan after Jesus. I had zero, absolutely zero standing to make that remark, but I was mostly right, and it was mostly intuitive. I am really happy to read what was written here today - especially St. Paul's words. St Paul was a brilliant man. I also was fascinated to learn that Jerome learned from the Rabbis. I need to learn more about Jerome. In "The Last Pagan Generation", I learned that he had come from a upper class family and had trained to be a member of the Roman bureaucratic class, but he rejected that and instead chose the a life in the Church. But he brought his administrative and legal training to the 4th century Church and its organization. Again - fascinating!
So glad to hear about the development for you in the first section, Rod : )
I would suggest that the REC priest has misconstrued Catholic teaching on the Jews. NA is low level teaching, not at the level of the actuallVII constitutions, and it’s not a good idea to start picking up non official quotes of the Popes. The fact is that they 1960 Breviary remains in force and in use, and the Mattins reading for Holy Week from St Augustine are probably the most comprehensive and unapologetic thoughts on the Catholic Church’s relationship to the Jews in 2026. Essentially, the Church is Israel and all of the promises made in the OT to her apply to the Church, not post second temple Jews. Further, it’s arguable whether modern Rabbinic Jews actually practice the same religion as Jesus did. It’s more accurately a successor religion.
You know what drives me crazy? The replacement on Good Friday of "the faithless Jews" by "we pray for the Jewish people". Calling the Jews faithless is a matter of fact. If they believed they wouldn't be Jews, unless you're a Nazi.
Unfortunately, a lot of theological reform was done under sway of fear of offense.
Father, I am not sure that that is all bad in this world, in fact I think it is good to moderate these words. I am not with Ted on this one. Look at the history of pogroms; we can afford to be a bit sensitive.
Theology done for any other reason than a search for the Truth is worthless.
You should read these two books, both pointed on the subject of "liturgical reform" and delightful in themselves
https://angelicopress.com/products/a-wider-view-of-vatican-ii
https://angelicopress.com/products/the-memoirs-of-louis-bouyer
And prepare to be depressed. Davies and Lefebvre will do that to you too.
True. Btw,the second edition of Davies' "Cramner's Godly Order," produced a few years before his death,is a real work of secondary scholarship, making good use of "revisionist" English Reformation historians like Eamon Duffy and Christopher Haigh.
The men who cured me of my Anglo Catholicism.
Ted, I belief that "unbelieving"is a better translation of "perfidis" in the eighth petition of the "Orationes Solemnes" of Good Friday - perhaps the original "prayers of the people" in the Roman Mass until the 490s, but thereafter relegated to Good Friday - than "faithless."
Agreed on “faithless.” The loss of Latin knowledge in our culture continues to hurt us.
It is very hard, impossible really, to hear "perfidious Jews" as pretty raw anti-Semitism, saying that Jews in general are intrinsically treacherous liars. "Unbelieving" is just a statement of objective fact with respect to Christianity.
Agreed, with the caveat that while the Church is the new "Israel of God," the old Israel is still loved by Him "for the sake of the fathers." (Rom. 11:28) This second thing is often ignored by the "hard" supersessionists. God still cares about the patrimony.
I'd add here that I think that any speculation about how that "love for the sake of the fathers" plays out historically or eschatologically is just that -- speculation.
My speculation is that God made two covenants with Man, one through the Jews and another through Christ. For those Jews who did not embrace Christianity, the Old was and is still in effect, but I'm no theologian.
No, the words of consecration say at every Mass “the new and everlasting covenant.” The Messiah came, the vast majority of them denied Him. Their ONLY hope for salvation comes through Jesus. This basic Christianity, an idea shared by Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Protestants up until 5 minutes ago. I’m not saying every Jew (or Pagan) is going to Hell, but no one gets to Heaven except through Jesus.
As a practicing, modern Pagan, I've encountered, and, well, faced too many Christians who take a monolithic stance about Jews, Pagans and indeed any non-Christians. I'm not even a nominal Christian. I grew up in the heart of the Philadelphia Archdiocese. My home township population was over 70% Catholic. My peers and friends often told stories (also often complaining, of course), and my first encounter with a Catholic priest washed all of that away. You remind me of him. Be well.
Thanks, I think? Germanic paganism is a pet interest of mine, as it has direct effects on Anglo Saxon and Norman Christianity.
As a Catholic, I agree salvation is ultimately through Christ however that may be effected for 'edge cases'.
I haven't thought much about covenants before but it seems to me that God wouldn't revoke one He had made. That being the case, this difficulty goes away if Christ is the fulfilment, rather than abolition, of the old covenant.
Yet, wouldn't Jews still be bound to follow the old covenant made with them by God pending any future recognition of the new one? Not looking to argue; I'm puzzling this out.
I would like to believe such a thing, but what Church Father ever hints at it?
I can't answer that. I concede to shooting in the dark here.
My initial thought was same as my reply to Father Matthew. Wouldn't Jews still be bound to follow the old covenant pending any future recognition of the new one? I mean 'still in effect' in this sense.
That makes sense to me.
Yes, Father is correct that 'Nostra aetate', whatever one makes of it, is a lower tier Vatican document. It is a 'Declaration'.
I understand the order, in decreasing significance, to be Apostolic Constitutions, Encyclical Letters, Motu Proprio, Apostolic Exhortations, Decrees/Declarations, Instructions.
Even more fascinating! OY!
Re: It's arguable whether modern Rabbinic Jews actually practice the same religion as Jesus did. Agree! On You Tube, the former Orthodox Jew Ash Maiz has posted a series of videos about the validity of Christianity, including that the Rabbinate during the 700s-800s began to systematically alter Jewish teachings and practice to deny any connection between Jesus and the OT. Maiz recently converted to Eastern Catholicism. He is articulate, cool, calm, collected, and is extremely knowledgeable about the OT.
"It's arguable whether modern Rabbinic Jews actually practice the same religion as Jesus did."
Yes, it is "arguable." It is sad that many "Christian Zionists" appear to be totally ignorant of it. Such Christians appear to have no knowledge that taking"Rabbinic (Orthodox) Judaism" as normative Judaism ascribes to it a status among Jews that it did not achieve until ca. 150/250 AD, and it takes no account of the many rival parties in the Judaism of Our Lord's day,nor of the Karaites today. Cf.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism
It begs the question: what is Judaism without the Temple cult? You can’t remove the operating Temple from the story of Jesus and have it make any sense. Further, Jesus himself foretold of its downfall. God was explicit in that one way of worshiping Him was at an end.
Unfortunately to discuss this is to be labeled an anti semite by theologically illiterate Christians and attracts low IQ modern neo Nazis. 🙄
True; the "Second Temple" Judaism of Our Lord's time had the Temple and its priesthood, but not the Land nor the Davidic Kingship, which were the three pillars - four if you include the Torah, although its canon was not then completely closed yet. After the Tishri b'Av in AD 70 it had neither Temple, Priesthood, Land, or Kingship. The ensuing decades, right down to 135 AD and the end of the Bar Kochba Revolt, saw the rise of Rabbinic Judaism (with its "magisterium"of Scribes and Scripture Scholars)and its contest with Jewish Christianity for being "the Israel of God." The Gospel lost; the "orthodoxy"of the Tannaim won. To my mind, the essence of apostolic Christianity (whether Catholic, Orthodox,or Oriental Orthodox) lies, to put it bluntly, in its claim to constitute the true "Israel of God." The late French Jewish scholar, Marcel Simon, made this the nodal point of his masterwork, Verus Israel
https://utpdistribution.com/9781874774273/verus-israel/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1rmhv5
It would be true to say, IMO, that Apostolic Christianity and the Church, on the one hand, and the Orthopractic Judaism of the Tannaim, on the other, both emerged symbolically from the rubble of the Temple, both of them in differing ways equidistant from Second Temple Judaism, and each of them claiming to be its true heir, the Verus Iseael. It is the neglect, ignorance,or rejection of this matrix out of which both Christianity ans Judaism emerged that makes it possible for absurd conceits such as Christian Zionism (in the theological sense) to emerge.
"You can’t remove the operating Temple from the story of Jesus and have it make any sense."
I have had that thought many, many times. Whatever one makes of it theologically, it seems to be a fact.
I bet you got the idea from me. You’re welcome.
I think I got it from the New Testament. Thanks though.
I wish to express my agreement with every aspect of Fr. Matthew's comment.
"Pizzaballa's church" is good.
I'm very glad to hear your prayer, at least one, was answered. Thanks be to God!
I don't know what good thing happened, Rod, but I'm glad to hear it. Not only have I been praying for you, but I've got a bunch of Poor Clares at my daughter's monastery doing the same. It doesn't get better than that!
IT'S WORKING! Glory to God in the prayers of His people.
It has sometimes been my experience that God moves when I run out of hope.
I don’t look forward to reading tomorrow’s newsletter, needless to say Rod it will be both prescient and depressing. Just saying. God Bless. 🙏🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶 Stay warm y’all, red wine helps!
Had my dose of red wine with spaghetti tonight in South Louisiana which looks forward to a frigid (for Louisiana) week.
Why do you have to address Minneapolis at all? Why not wait for the investigation and the facts to be developed? Why put any energy into it?
I think we're all tired of Minnesota bullshit.
Nah, fam. We're not.
Enjoy, then. I'm not interested in reading yet another take on it. Rod is at his best when he avoids these flashpoint political events.
Agree to an extent. Yes we don't know exactly what happened the other day (and likely will never truly know), but it may reflect more the overall problem with divisions in America.
I'm burned out from it. I know that Rod has expertise in the culture wars, and I've followed him now online for close to 16 years. I've been a paying subscriber for maybe 6 years now, I think? I deeply enjoy it when Rod focuses on the spiritual stuff and less on the politics.
Regardless, I'm really just approaching the exhaustion point with hashing out yet another law enforcement/ protestor interaction that ended bad for the protestor.
I might even be done with talking about the politics. I don't think talking about our divisions helps anything, at this point.
You know that Green Mile meme? "I'm tired boss"?
I'm tired, boss.
Yeah I like him better on faith issues and the woo woo stuff. Other people hate it though.
I'm more fed up with listening to people talking about Minnesota and Greenland.
There's a point where you're just thinking "yeah I saw the same news. you aren't there either. nothing you're saying is affecting my opinion. let's talk about anything else."
Nothing against Rod on that particular. I'm just sick of the subject
I'm not so much tired of it, as I am loath to parse through the conflicting stories and reports. In some ways it's worse than Ukraine/Russia!
Similar problem. Very difficult to trust the reporting.
Q: How is ICE doing in Minnesota?
A: Pretti Good
Thanks folks I'm here all week, nyuk nyuk
I note that this comment has a very unusual 35 likes, one of which is mine, and is largely in response to your second paragraph. But it is very hard to avoid it because it's fanning the rage flames so high. I gave in to a temptation which I've largely resisted for many months and got into Facebook scraps about it.
Rod, I pray for you by name every day, and I'm glad there has been a positive development in your life. Prayers will continue.
I look forward to your commentary tomorrow because your assessment of events is usually spot-on . God bless you for all you do.
As an Orthodox Christian, Rod, you should only be concerned with what the Orthodox Church has to say about Israel and not what any other group thinks.
To be only concerned what Orthodox Christians think about Jews and Israel is to dismiss what Jews and Israel think of themselves. It sidelines Jewish voices necessary for solutions about Jews and Israel. Rod is correct to explore other thoughts in this matter.
Not what I meant but thanks.
There is a note in my "Christian Individualism: The Maverick Biblical Workmanship of Otis Q. Sellers" (1901-1992; to be published mid-year, God willing, by Atmosphere Press), which I'd like to share:
"I have found the Anglican clergyman James Parkes (1896-1981) to be the most balanced and convincing historian of this fraught subject. Among his many works, see especially "The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism" (London: Soncino Press, 1934; republished by Macmillan, New York, 1961); his preface to "Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity," ed. Alan T. Davies (New York: Paulist Press, 1979); and "Whose Land? A History of the Peoples of Palestine" (New York: Taplinger Press, 1970). As with Sellers, so with Parkes: whatever claims Jews may have to The Land are to be weighed on grounds other than biblical prophecy. The events of 1948 did not fulfill any. But there the comparison ends: Sellers the biblicist held that some events do and will fulfill prophecy, whereas Parkes, the “liberal” theologian, likely did not. Whereas he was pro-Zionist—Jewish claims to The Land are legitimate; they have a uniquely continuous connection to it—Rosemary Radford Ruether, the feminist liberation theologian cited in “Sellers on ‘the Jews’ in the New Testament,” an addendum to Chapter 8, was anti-Zionist."
Sellers was an "ultradispensationalist" biblicist, not associated with any Evangelical form of dispensationalism, as am I.
I read a bit of Parkes in the late 1970s/early1980s. He struck me then as a Liberal Protestant Broad Church Anglican and the "tone"of his writings made me wonder how much of "Mere Christian" orthodoxy he actually believed.
"Supersessionism" exists on a continuum -- there are "hard" and "soft" varieties. In my view it's the former that results in (or stems from) anti-Jewish sentiment, but I do not see how "anti-supersessionism" can be valid if it implies that there was no change in the Covenant at all.
Plus, from a Catholic and Orthodox perspective if anti-supersessionism is indeed a "new" theology then it's necessarily suspect from the outset.
I'm glad to hear of your answer to prayer whatever it concerns!
Rod mentioned the first two claims of the possessing demon in the Exorcist Files' episode "Maid for More"; namely, her engaging in divination and fornication. There was also a third mentioned - her engaging with the entity when it was flickering the lights by conversing it and putting it to the test i.e. "If you're good spirit, do this with the lights" or words to that effect. It's the forming of a relationship by interacting with them that's the problem.
Some exorcists note that particular demons seem to have specific heavenly adversaries in that they are particularly affected by relics associated with one saint more so than other ones. Theory is that these demons played some role in persecuting the saint during his/her life. but that saint, having triumphed in Christ, over their temptations/evil thus has spiritual impact with regard to them.
Yes, that comes out in this two-part episode, in which the demon gives evidence that it was behind the martyrdom of Joan at the hands of a corrupt bishop.
Keeping in mind, however, that demons very often lie!
true
Are you familiar with the books by this woman?
Ghada Karmi
Here is a simple interview she game, would love your thoughts, and Mr. McDermotts on this.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=naP1JAEXCTs
Rod Dreher: Yankee Tomcat of Budapest:
https://chatgpt.com/s/m_69769e38d7488191a61e987f0fbc43b7
I couldn't resist, man. It's all in the hair.
Neat!
Hilarious!
The Akathist is a beautiful prayer and it is completely new to me. Thank you for sharing it. I am glad to hear there was some kind of breakthrough in your personal life. The whole question of the Jewish covenant has always been fascinating to me. I remember the spouse of a Jewish colleague, who lamented that Jesus excluded them from his salvation. At the time, I was not deeply religious, but I spontaneously said to her that God had established his covenant with the Jews, it was still in place and that what Jesus had done was to open (or add) to that covenant to the Gentiles. She was shocked. No Christian had said that to her before. She expected me to say that yes - she was, as. Jew - not a part of God's plan after Jesus. I had zero, absolutely zero standing to make that remark, but I was mostly right, and it was mostly intuitive. I am really happy to read what was written here today - especially St. Paul's words. St Paul was a brilliant man. I also was fascinated to learn that Jerome learned from the Rabbis. I need to learn more about Jerome. In "The Last Pagan Generation", I learned that he had come from a upper class family and had trained to be a member of the Roman bureaucratic class, but he rejected that and instead chose the a life in the Church. But he brought his administrative and legal training to the 4th century Church and its organization. Again - fascinating!
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/544252.Jerome
https://archive.org/details/jeromehislifewri0000kell_j7t1
https://www.amazon.com/Jerome-His-Life-Writings-Controversies/dp/156563084X