#but everyone seems to agree that religion as in spirit of catholicism is very much there | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

horizonwitch · 4 years

Photo

The Archangel Theory - A Possible Explanation to MCR's new symbolism

Hello! This is a very long post, but I hope it’s worth the reading. Sorry.

I am Nana, and today I bring you a fan-theory on the meaning behind MyChem's symbols presented to us in the occasion of the band's return announcement and later on, at the actual reunion concert day.

First Considerations:

1. being it, as the title implies, a fan-theory, I do not claim any of the exposed to be factual when associated to MCR. I bring this thread to you guys in hopes that we can discuss, expand, teach and learn with each other, and maybe come to some sort of conclusion. Riddles are fun to play, especially together. I love riddles in fandom experience. :)

2. I highly apologize for my limited vocabulary and weird phrasing. I am not a native english speaker, but I'll try my best to make this understandable to everyone;

3. Despite my personal beliefs and stupid jokes, I mean no disrespect to any religion or symbol mentioned in here. (just as much as I believe MyChem also doesn't, on the wild possibility of this thread being on point with what they planned, lol).

That being said, before we start, I have some thanks to give:

this theory was only put together thanks to my lovely mychem group chat, composed by Raffs, Clara, Caroline and Hana. thanks for all the time and effort we shared, and for holding my brain with your bare hands when it was about to melt, friends.

Also thanks to Frank Iero himself, for laughing at me on twitter for me not being able to understand the reunion clues, despite "wearing a California 2019 shirt for 6 years". I humbly accept the possibility of this theory having nothing to do with the truth, but I sure hope I can laugh back at you in the end, rat. I love you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, let's finally head to The Archangel Theory, or, as I like to call it, The “If We're Not Careful We'll Turn Into Catholics” Theory, and how it all started.

It was Halloween. Everyone here was minding their own damn business (I was being a clown on twitter, Hana was putting on her badass revenge-themed makeup. You know, the usual). And we all know what happened: MCR raised gracefully from the dead, dropping brand new symbolism and a stunning angel image to our poor panicked hearts. A few days later, when Hana’s crying ruined makeup was long gone and everyone calmed the F down a little bit, people started to ask themselves: okay, cool, but what does it mean?

Like many of you, the first thought that crossed my mind was tarot. Because, well, how f-ing cool would it be, right? I draw tarot everyday. I just loved the idea. Mychem posting a latin countdown with some eerie photo was just… yea, I was very excited with this.

Many of us also associated the symbols with past albums and even with the members themselves. All of these theories are very valid to me, and I loved reading them. I agree with many points raised.

Well, everything was fine (as fine as it could be, because I am so damn curious). The Return concert happened at the faithful date of December 20, California. We all freaked out and enjoyed the noble services’ of days_fate and diet_shampoo’s streaming. All that jazz.

But then: well… another angel. I started to think to myself: is this a pattern? The show ends, we get very emotional, everything is okay (i hate this pun) with the world. Frank Iero makes a post-concert post on instagram, talking about how everything was pure Magick. With a K.

For those unfamiliar, this is an occultist term related to Aleister Crowley’s Thelema, to differentiate the religious concept from the “stage magic” that we are used to. A very carefully picked name that I highly doubt someone would drop around without knowing what it implies.... Don’t even start me with the K and C keys being so damn far away from each other on a keyboard.

At this point me and my groupchat were starting to be very done with Frank’s clownery (we indeed love him very much for that), and so we started to hurt our minds every single day since then. that’s the result:

THE ARCHANGEL THEORY

Let’s Return™ to the basics: angels and, probably, tarot.

Funny enough, there are actually angels in tarot cards. There are many types of decks, but for this we are using the most famous one, which most people believe holds ancient symbolism, The Rider-Waite Tarot.

There are many angels and archangels mentioned in the Bible (only a few by name, tho), but only four of them made it into being represented in tarot cards: Uriel, Michael, Gabriel and Raphael. Let’s get the gang together and meet the holy crew (please, forgive me for the puns).

Uriel:

whose name means “the light of god”, “the flame of god”. It’s the Wise Angel, often pictured as the one who holds books and scrolls and bears holy knowledge and understanding. or Clarity, if you will. They’re sort of the goth one™, associated with the Tartarus and being pictured as pitiless as any demon would; even holding the key to Hell during the end of times, Uriel is described as the angel who watches “over thunder and terror”. Uriel is sometimes even mistaken for a demon (apparently, the eastern catholicism accepts Uriel identity as an archangel, while the western catholicism gives more credit to its dark side, and does not encourage worshiping); this duality comes from the notion that very often, enlightenment may be the end result of dark times. Every archangel has many, I said MANY symbols attached to them, so other elements associated with this angel can be found on the image attached to this post.

About Uriel’s Tarot Card: if you were raised in a catholic family and slept through as much catechism as I did as a kid, maybe you’ll be surprised to know that Lucifer, Satan and Uriel are all different beings. Let it be a lesson: no matter how edgy of a teen you are, please accept knowledge from any possible source. Putting this thread together would’ve been so easier to me now if I did, haha... That being said, our angel Uriel is actually the Devil in the Devil Tarot card, which meaning touches on addiction, obsession, feeling imprisoned or restrained, but it being only an illusion of powerlessness. This card is an invitation to free yourself, fight distractions and temptation, and finally fulfill your destiny. Please, consider that tarot readings are very deep and variable; there’s extensive books only on tarot meaning, so I won’t explore much on each card. that’s just a very general notion.

Some sources also consider Uriel to be the responsible for the change represented in the Death card, despite not being directly pictured in such card. As stated before, Uriel is associated with the concept Death brings, being a turning point, and ending route.

The symbolism presented in the Devil card (as for the Rider-Waiter deck):

“At the foot of the Devil stand a man and a woman, both naked and chained to the podium on which the Devil sits. They appear to be held here against their will – but look closer, and you will notice that the chains around their necks are loose and could be easily removed. Each has small horns on their head, like the devil’s, a sign that they are becoming increasingly like him the longer they stay here. Both have tails, a further symbol of their animalistic tendencies and raw instincts, and the grapes and the fire on their respective tails signify pleasure and lust.”

Poor people. If only they knew better. A lil bit of Clarity, huh?

That’s it for MCR’s clarity symbol, conveniently shaped as a candle.

Michael:

whose name means “who is like god” (being it a rhetorical question, to mean that no one equals to God). It’s the Protector Angel. They’re the leader of angels in the battle against demons, Defender of God’s realm against Satan in the Book of Revelation. Michael is a warrior, and is often seem with the sword in hand, to allure to the idea of bravery. They’re described as the angel of strength, protection and Courage.

About Michael’s Tarot Card: Michael appears on the major arcana Temperance. In fact, even the name “Temperance” comes from the process of refining and strengthening materials in metallurgy. this one likes swords a lot, huh. That’s a card which meaning touches on patience and prudence. It means already having a clear vision and knowing what you want to achieve. Now It’s all about thinking before action, and accepting the balance of things, blending the opposites to achieve an ideal solution. Apparently a very suited card for a warrior of faith. Prepare yourself: in my research, I’ve found a source that associates this card with the color blue (the very same of the archangel) and the musical note G. Yes, the universe has a strange sense of humor.

The symbolism presented in the Temperance card: “The vessels in the angel’s hands represent the vessel that contains eternal life. The flowers are Irises symbolising the goddess Iris who links God to humanity. Iris travels from one end of the world to another, into the depth of the sea and the underworld. The angel’s feet, one on land and one in water, symbolise the unification of the external and internal, conscious and subconscious. It also represents testing the waters before jumping into the unknown. The red wings on the angel represent blood which symbolizes life. The sun conceals a crown which represents a connection to higher power. The triangle on the angel’s dress is an equilateral triangle and symbolise spirit, divinity, fire, life, prosperity, and harmony. It can also symbolise God and the holy trinity. The square outside the triangle represents protection and stability.”

The MCR symbol for Courage is a drop. is it a drop of blood? for an warrior angel and their endless battles on God’s behalf? Of water, the waters of unknown? The water of balance of life? I don’t know.

When Michael / was a young genderless being,/ their father…

Gabriel:

whose name means “strength of god”. It’s the Messenger Angel; Gabriel is often portrayed playing the trumpet, to make announcements of God’s will. (many angels play the trumpets on Revelations book,, but Gabriel seems to be the most intimately attached to this concept). In the hierarchy of angels, Gabriel seems to occupy a very high position, being knows as the “Left Hand of God” (our Michael aforementioned being the Right-hand angel).

Their famous appearances on the Bible includes appearing to Zechariah and the Virgin Mary, foretelling the births of John the Baptist and Jesus. Islam also has Gabriel appearing for many prophets, telling them the divine plans. In a way, all those messages are basically callings to a higher purpose, a proof of faith, a personal Sacrifice. This idea is reiterated by the symbolism of Gabriel’s tarot card.

Gabriel is also one of the Angels of Death (depending on the religious we are speaking about, there are over 14 different angels with this role). Not in a dark way, their role is to comfort and bring peace to the deceased, guiding them into the light. Gabriel is therefore an angel of mercy, redemption achieved through a proof of faith (often a self-sacrifice, of any nature), after a fair judgement. speaking of which…

About Gabriel’s tarot card: Gabriel appears on the major arcana Judgement, which meaning touches on taking responsibility for your actions, speaking the truth. It’s a beginning/ending type of card, but a different kind of change than the one represented on one of Uriel’s card, Death. While Death brings something unstoppable, more powerful than anyone’s options, Judgement usually portraits something you can actually choose to take part in. But it also your responsibility any consequences of not taking this step. A fair judgement, indeed.

The Symbolism presented in the Judgement card: “The angel with the Trumpet could be a reference to the angels and the seven trumpets in Revelation, bringing apocalypse and resurrection. The white banner with the red cross can be St. George Flag, and a reference to Saint George gives Judgement the symbolism of sacrifice done in the name of our faith. Both the flag and the trumpet are military symbols of authority. A man, a woman and a child are being called from the tomb of ego consciousness. The three people are reflected on the other side of the river, another symbol of the soul’s victory over death. The three people are also a symbol of the three pillars of the tree of life. The man and the woman has changed side from the familiar feminine on the left and masculine on the right. In Judgement it is the other way around. Perhaps it is to unify us and to tell us to look at a situation from a different perspective, from within. You are seeing the pillars from the Angel’s perspective. This symbolises to raise your thinking and ask for Divine Perspective. The mountains represent the structure that surrounds us all.”

Calling all units! Time for the ultimate vibe check.

I guess that’s it for our third MCR symbol, Sacrifice, shaped as hand. Is it a left hand, just like one of Gabriel’s titles? that would be interesting.

But not so fast.

Now we come to an interesting point. Gabriel is the first of our angels to have a sculpture used by My Chem. :) It’s actually endearing how, if this assumption is correct, they chose the messenger archangel to bring the good news: mcr is alive!

About Gabriel’s sculpture: our Return angel, as some of us already know by this point, is actually a piece called “Angelo e Alma”, by italian artist Pasquale Rizzoli. It is located on Cella Magnani, a memorial chapel of the Magnani family, inside Certosa di Bologna, which is a very antique monastery, later transformed on a monumental cemetery for many italian families. You can take a look here, it’s stunningly beautiful.

Finished in 1906, this piece was a commission by the widow of a war veteran called Natale Magnani, who apparently died young. As far as I understand written italian, since I speak portuguese (latin languages perks, yey!), it’s still difficult to me to do further research on this family. Being it an old, traditional italian family, there’s tons of Magnanis, but there’s little to no info on Natale or his wife’s lives on the internet, it seems. If you’re italian and have any info about this, please comment. It can actually be relevant to this thread.

This sculpture portraits an angel ascending to heavens, guiding a soul (represented as a woman in a long dress). There’s rose branches and lilies at the feet of both the angel and the soul, as they fly together. These flowers pay homage to Magnani’s family blazon, as stated by the Storia i Memoria di Bologna Project website, that also offers on their site a brief explanation on the meaning behind the many other plants on this piece. they all basically allure to death, sleep, and resurrection. you can check it out here.

The presented symbolism, being an angel appearing to a soul in their travel to the spiritual realm, and even the flowers used, lead me to conclude that this sculpture very likely pictures our Archangel Gabriel, in their judgement roles again.

Now, our holy rpg party already has a mage, a paladin and a bard. It’s time to introduce the most underappreciated (and my personal favorite) class:

Raphael:

whose name means “God heals”. Raphael is the angel for healing, thus making ‘whole’ everything that has been broken. They’re also a patron for lovers, role that he plays by using his healing powers in a non-literal way. Pay attention to the “fixing the broken and making it a whole again” part, that’s the connotation.

Both of these titles come from the roles Raphael played, depicted on the scriptures: the most famous ones being when Raphael was sent by the Lord to heal Tobit of his blindness and to deliver Sarah, his future daughter-in-law, from the demon Asmodeus, who killed every man she married on their wedding night before the marriage could be consummated.

Another famous role commonly related to Raphael is about the Pool of Bethesda. Despite not being mentioned by name, manuscripts of John 5:1–4 describe an angel that blessed this pool, healing the illness of those who touched its waters:

"an angel of the Lord descended at certain times into the pond; and the water was moved. And he that went down first into the pond after the motion of the water was made whole of whatsoever infirmity he lay under". It’s usually given credit to Raphael for this action, since they’re seem using healing power to fulfill God’s will in many occasions through the Bible.

About Raphael’s Tarot card: Raphael appears on the major arcana The Lovers, as the angel blessing the couple depicted. This is a card about romantic, even sexual, attraction, but not purely that. It’s about finding peace within yourself, and in someone else, about the journey to pick “the one” for you. Making a whole out of two halves is a common concept associated with this card.

Symbolism presented on The Lovers card: “the man and the woman in the image are being protected and blessed by an angel above. The couple seems secure and happy in their home, which appears to be the Garden of Eden. The fruit tree with the snake behind the woman is a reference to that story, which tells of humanity's fall into temptation and into the realm of flesh and sensuality. The angel depicted here is Raphael, the angel of air - who is of the same element of the zodiac sign that governs this card: Gemini. Air is associated with mental activity, and communication in particular, which is the foundation for healthy relationships. His blessing seems to give this card a sense of balance and harmony, the symbolization of union in a grand and cosmic sense between two opposing forces.”

Another source adds: “The couple stands in a beautiful, fertile landscape, reminiscent of the Garden of Eden. Behind the woman stands a tall apple tree, with a snake winding its way up the trunk. The serpent and apple tree represent the temptation of sensual pleasures that may take one’s focus away from the Divine. Behind the man is a tree of flames, which represent passion, the primary concern of the man. The twelve flames suggest the twelve zodiac signs, the symbol of time and eternity. The man looks to the woman, who watches the angel, showing the path of the conscious to the subconscious to the super-conscious, or from physical desire to emotional needs to spiritual concerns. The volcanic mountain in the background is rather phallic and represents the eruption of passion that happens when man and woman meet in full frontal nudity.”

Despite the latter being a bit too horny for my tastes, lol, both descriptions reiterate Raphael’s influence on the role of patronizing health and union, a journey of Devotion.

Oh, about the MCR symbol, shaped as a half-sun. at first I couldn’t find a correlation to Raphael and this sun shape, as for the first three angels it was very clear to me since just as I started reading about them. Then I realized the huge sun portrayed on The Lovers card, behind Raphael.

Despite holding its individual meanings, Tarot cards are not meant to me taken isolatedly. (that’s one of the reasons many people are not found of the single card yes-or-no type of drawing). That being said, it is not a surprised to find traces of one card on another, and many shared symbolism. As for the sun, it appears multiple times on the Rider-Waite deck, but only one card holds the same exact half shaped, upside down, centered sun as the MCR symbol. and that’s The Lovers. :)

Now, our romantic archangel lead us to a very lovely part:

About Raphael’s Sculpture: as we waited for MCR to dramatically drop the curtain at the reunion show, we were being watched over by a piece nicknamed “Angel of the Waters,” from the Bethesda Fountain (have you heard this name before?), located in the Bethesda Terrace, Central Park, in NYC. sculpted by Emma Stebbins in 1864, this piece’s history, together with Central Park’s history can be fully read in this awesome article that my friend Clara found: here.

But since we’re already here, let’s try to make a shorter version, focusing on what’s relevant to this thread.

Upon release, the angel, which stands and above and blesses a water fountain, was directly associated with the Bethesda Pool mentioned in the Bible, and the healing acts of Raphael. On the dedication pamphlet it was quoted the very same passage from the Gospel of John, chapter 5, verses 2-4 I’ve mentioned before. It’s a shame I couldn’t find any pictures of this pamphlet on the internet. Old documents, huh. NY people, if you have access to this, I’d love to see it.

If we stopped there, it would be enough evidence to assume the connection to Raphael, but there’s more! There’s some particularities about this statue.

Its conception was a huge deal: Emma was the first woman to receive a major sculptural commission in New York City. Also, she had a female lover, the world-famous American actress Charlotte Cushman, who, for Cedar Miller, historian that wrote about Central Park and Emma’s statue, holds a huge impact on the Angel of Waters actually making into existence. In 1869, Cushman was diagnosed with breast cancer. In addition to having two mastectomies, Cushman tried water cures in England. (Water cures were a big craze from the 1830s through the 1860s). The historian who wrote about them finds it another connection to the statue itself. Unfortunately, Cushman's treatments were ultimately unsuccessful, she passed away in 1875. Emma followed her not long after, in 1882. To this day, the statue remains, and to NY is a gathering place to find tranquility, peace of mind, even in the darkest times through the its 141 years of existence. It’s a place to heal yourself.

It’s not your average Raphael statue.

We have the archangel connection, a devoted couple's backstory, and lesbian/sapphics rights. I don’t know about you, but I can even picture Gerard Way carefully picking this himself, haha.

Oh, a spicy fact I’ve learned while writing this: This angel sculpture is actually even older in MCR’s history, tracing back to revenge era merch. (I didn’t have much access to mcr merch back in the day so I didn’t know about this, I apologize!)

I guess someone got nostalgic for some catholic aesthetics, huh. Bless!

Angels in tarot, bonus addition:

It is valid to mention that not only all of the 4 mentioned archangels have their individual cards, they also appear together in a single card, The Wheel of Fortune. In this card, each angel can be seen in a corner: Raphael (Aquarius) is upper left, Gabriel (Scorpio) is the eagle, Michael (Leo) is the lion, and Uriel (Taurus) is the bull, appearing in disguise, a common thing for angels though the scriptures, it seems.

If you draw tarot, you understand how big of a deal it is. If you’re not familiar, here’s the basic notion: “The wheel of fortune is a card about cyclical change. The wheel keeps on rolling, churning events in a ceaseless progression of ups and downs, either way freeing us from the past. No one can escape its cyclical action, which can feel somewhat terrifying -- no matter whether we are rising or falling. When one is balanced on top of the wheel, there is a moment of crystal clarity. However, the only part of the wheel that's actually not going up and down is the hub, which represents your eternal self. Every one of us will occupy all the points on the wheel at one point or another. The cycle of the wheel is its lesson -- and we can learn to take comfort in it. If you don't like the look of things right now, just wait -- things will change. Of course, if you do like the look of things right now, enjoy it while it lasts, because that will change too!”

It is quite a powerful card that holds all of the aforementioned symbolism. Woa.

More symbolism seem on this card includes:

“The Wheel of Fortune card shows a giant wheel, with three figures on the outer edges. Four Hebrew letters – YHVH (Yod Heh Vau Heh), the unpronounceable name of God – are inscribed on the wheel’s face. There are also the letters TORA, thought to be a version of the word Torah, meaning ‘law’, or TAROT, or even ROTA (Latin for ‘wheel’). The middle wheel has the alchemical symbols for mercury, sulphur, water and salt – the building blocks of life and the four elements – and represents formative power. On the outer circle is a snake, the Egyptian god Typhon (the god of evil), descending on the left side. The snake also represents the life force plunging into the material world. On the right side rises the Anubis, the Egyptian God of the dead who welcomes souls to the underworld. And on top of the wheel sits the Sphinx, representing knowledge and strength.”

THE SECOND SET OF SYMBOLS - STILL A MYSTERY

So, after all this, if any of this is correct at all, we just learned the meaning behind the first four MCR symbols, released on halloween: Clarity, Courage, Sacrifice and Devotion.

Now, what about the ones released at the reunion show, on the merch truck? Well, my friends, we still have a lot to think about.

I am a doctor, and in my profession there’s a saying which instruct us to always think of what seems like a complicated situation, with many possibilities, as a single disease causing many effects. That was my train of thought as I tried to associate these new symbols with the Archangels that we already have. It may have nothing to do with that at all, but it’s worth trying.

Differently from the first set, the second set didn’t get an official release, and does not hold text captions to guide us on it’s meaning. the symbol shapes, however, are easier to associate with tarot cards than the first ones, in my opinion. I’ve seen people online trying to guess it too.

Having the angels and their aforementioned traits as a guiding line, I used some symbolism associated to each one to connect them to a new symbol, as you can see on the picture attached to this post.

I have some major problems with this, tho, the biggest one being the order of the symbols not matching the first set sequence. We had Uriel (Clarity) / Michael (Courage) / Gabriel (Sacrifice) and Raphael (Devotion). The second set order was Sword / Moon / Tower / Wand, so the sequence goes like Michael / Gabriel / Uriel / Raphael. It doesn’t match. Please, help me.

THINGS THAT KEEP ME UP AT NIGHT: ABOUT WITCHCRAFT AND… SOLDIERS?

During the past weeks of my life I’ve been researching all types of things to break this down, so I came across some very unsettling things that may be just wild coincidences or... something else? Just in case, I am putting them here in case anyone finds some connection that I couldn’t.

Sigils and Pagan influences, maybe?

As some people on twitter and reddit noticed, Gerard was using a sigil on his arm that reads “My Chemical Romance”. Every Archangel mentioned here also holds its own sigil, which is shown on the picture attached to this post. While I was excited about the dates for new concerts, I started to think, is there anything special about these dates? I tried to not overthink it because we probably have major influences of disponibilities and,,, Label issues...I don’t know? some very practical stuff going on. But still, I came across an interesting match.

There’s 8 sabbaths, composing the Wheel of the Year, “an annual cycle of seasonal festivals, observed by many modern pagans, consisting of the year's chief solar events (solstices and equinoxes) and the midpoints between them.”

eight sabbaths, eight symbols, huh. Initially, I tried to connect each symbol to a sabbath, but it was very… not satisfying enough to me, so I’m leaving that out; nonetheless, I still believe they hold some meaning similarities.

And it doesn’t stop there.

That our lovely wheel of the year: here. We’re using a northern hemisphere version, since MCR is based in the USA.

The band returned on Halloween, which is the Samhain that occurs between Oct 31 / Nov 1. There’s some minor variation on dates because the Celtic day begins and ends at sunset.

Return Show took place in California, Dec 20: which marks the start of Yule. (Yule dates range from Dec 19 to Dec 22, for the Celtic calendar reasons)

The next sabbath is Imbolt, that takes place on Feb 1 / Feb 2. MCR has nothing announced for this date until now.

2020 concerts will happen during the week of March 20, 21, 25, 28 and 29, In Australia, New Zealand and Japan, as for now. That marks the start of the Ostara sabbath, which start range is March 20/21.

so… can we expect something (anything?) being announced at Feb 1 or 2, or near that? What about all the remaining sabbaths? Is that a reach? is it related at all? oof.

Who said Danger Days isn’t goth enough?

Another VERY interesting thing my group chat found on the internet during our MCR tarot obsession. If this theory is correct, this is not the first time they would be alluring to it. Please look at this pic of Grace Jeanette, The Girl in DD universe, posing with the mailbox on the set of the “Art Is The Weapon”/“Na Na Na” video shoot (2010). (Exact source and photographer unknown; likely taken by Jeanette’s mother). (big thanks to tumblr user killjoyhistory).

Bellow the big “OH HELL” we have four tarot cards, on the very same deck we used for this thread, the Rider-Waite deck. The cards are The Tower, The Devil, Death and Three of Wands.

Please note that it may have no correlation to future works, since DD itself had religious symbolism with the Phoenix Witch and this mailbox (go read the comics if you didn’t already. DD rights!), it may be a DD-only thing. Also, please note that 3 out 4 of theses cards were already mentioned in this thread, all possibly related to archangel Uriel.

To wage this war against your faith in me, MCRMY.

So. This one will sound weird and maybe a reach too, but, hey, mychem is alive and breathing, I guess there’s nothing really impossible, haha….?

Are we all familiar with Gerard liking a lot that green coat? After all those years, I guess so.

Indeed, our lovely frontman used yet another green jacket as his return outfit. This time, it was a military one. As a foreigner, and being very ignorant on how the US Army works, I got curious about the badge on his jacket. Maybe that’s common sense to you guys and I’m just embarrassing myself, but hey! be kind to someone who’s sort of dying inside after all this thinking process, would you?

The badge on Gerard’s jacket happens to be from the 1st Armored Division, a.k.a the Old Ironsides, named after an old ship (and the world's oldest commissioned naval vessel still afloat).

Actually, the nickname “Old Ironsides” trace back to England in 17th century, during their Civil War, but I didn’t find many relevant content / possible connections, besides them being mostly Protestant, in terms of religion… referring to them after all this catholic-conception angel talk is some sort of metaphorical war going on, MCR? Who knows. History-loving english folks, I’m counting on you too now to confirm this, lmao!

The American side of the “Old Ironsides” term, after being passed down from England during their Independence Wars (please be kind with me, my knowledge about american independence is almost 100% from Hamilton the musical lmao, help me) apparently resides, mostly on the US Army/Navy.

Interesting coincidences (?) about this: the Old Ironside ship, aka USS Constitution, has a familiar date on its history: November 1. I’m quoting its construction period info: “Her keel was laid down on 1 November 1794 at Edmund Hartt's shipyard in Boston, Massachusetts under the supervision of Captain Samuel Nicholson and master shipwright Colonel George Claghorn.”

I didn’t read much about it since I’m already at edge with everything I’ve been researching but, it seems it was a very adored ship. In fact, one of the reasons it’s still in active service it’s because a poet even made it a famous poem about this ship, that you can read here. It’s symbolic and adored, it seems.

About the homonymous 1st Armored Division of the US Army, which badge Gerard used during the return show: being the first armored division of the U.S. Army to see battle in World War II, it also holds a huge historical meaning.

Again, I don’t have much info to share about this and I think some of you will find possible connections on this better than I would.

But wtf does it have to do with all the angels, Nana?

Well, as mentioned before, angels fight battles in the name of God. They’re heaven’s military. Michael, especially, is a warrior angel and leads God’s troupes against the demons.

Something interesting I’ve found relating Gabriel (which statue, let’s not forget, was commissioned by a war widow) to the war concept was the hebrew poem "Elifelet" (אליפלט) written by Nathan Alterman in 1958, often turned into music and played on the israeli radio. it tells of a heroic, self-sacrificing (hm…) israeli soldier being killed in battle. Upon the protagonist's death, the angel Gabriel descends to Earth, in order to comfort the spirit of the fallen hero and take him up to Heaven. It’s very touching, and you can read it here.

I’m not saying any particular work like this poem is relevant to MCR’s possible new concept. (let’s not be political here, but also be honest: Israel wars are a delicate matter to bring up). We’re solely working with symbolism and history. Please keep that in mind.

MCR has touched on war thematics before in many occasions (I will not mention all of them, as I believe that as a fandom, we’re aware of that, and we can help new fans to understand it if needed. This text is already TOO LONG). Maybe it’s time for them to talk about some conflicts again, literal or metaphorical? Let’s wait and see.

Oh, one last thing. There’s actually a whole another navy air test and evaluation squadron, the Antarctic Development Squadron Six (VXE-6 or ANTARCTIC DEVRON SIX, commonly referred to by its nickname, The Puckered Penguins). They’re based on California (lmao) and their motto is… Well, “Courage, Sacrifice, Devotion”. Uriel kinda left behind again, huh. I’m sorry sweetie.

Again, I apologize if this last section (or even the whole thing..haha…) looks far-fetched, but I just… had to take it out of my chest, sorta? Sorry.

That concludes our Archangel Theory. Thank you if you took your time to read through it all.

List of things to maybe expect in the future:

Something on Feb 1 / Feb 2

Two more angel statues, being them related to Uriel and Michael in some sort of way. I’ve tried to find any suitable matches but… there’s just too many, and as we’ve seen it may even not be officially claimed which angel is portrayed. So let’s wait and see.

More pagan symbolism?

Something about War??

Cryptid posts related to UK and paganism, January 17th and January 24th.

## EDIT (01/12): about new mcr cryptid posts...

If you’re following MCR new updates, as for now you’re aware of the United Kingdom Stuff going on... Interesting coincidences (or is it?) about those:

Both posts were made on the same day the lunar cicle changes. This month, the moon shows up a different form every friday, so maybe prepare you heart for January 17th and 24th. Also, I believe they’re using London time for the updates. in fact, the most recent post (the video with theban alphabet) was posted only 30 minutes after midnight in London. So I’m adding that to our list of things to expect in the future.

Also, someone at warner might be in trouble right now. the ig account for Warner Music Artistic Services (@wmas) posted a variation of the video posted by MCR, only a day later, featuring another order for the theban caracters, a slightly different UK flag (it was somehow merged with a picture? it’s difficult to tell), and a new frame that consists of a forest, similar to the one Gerard posted on his own instagram, and the one featured as background for the skeleton holding a witchcraft-related dagger photo from 2 weeks ago. Differently from the previous mcr video, which was silent, this one featured a sound, if my ears are not mistaken, a very dramatic C# note played on piano or organ (church instruments, huh. funny. but it could be worse, at least is not a G note...)

The video was labeled as LFG, that could mean a million of things. the most relevant ones, I believe, could be “Looking For A Group”, a classic D&D/RPG term (If I close my eyes long enough I can hear distant circus music playing in my head, for I have compared the four archangels to a holy RPG party weeks ago...)or “London Forest Gate”, a neighbourhood in London. please tell me if you have any ideas about what else it could mean, haha....

This video was deleted, but you can still find it around on twitter.

Well, that’s it for now. I’ll keep updating this post as more content is released. Keep running!

#my chemical romance #mcr #mcr theory #mcr 5 #california 2019 #mcr reunion

174 notes · View notes

artificialqueens · 5 years

Text

Follow Ev'ry Rainbow ('Til You Find Your Dream) (branjie) - writworm42

A/N: Last chapter, Vanessa really messed up at Mass. This chapter, the shitteth hath hitteth the faneth.TW for religion/Catholicism again in this chapter.

Thank you thank you thank you Holtz for beta-ing <3

“Reverend Mother, I swear, it was an accident, I didn’t mean to–”

“Sit down please, Vanessa.” Mother Nina sighed, gesturing to the chair across from her desk. Vanessa swallowed hard.

She was no stranger to that chair or what it meant. Unlike the early days of her convent life, the chair across from Mother Nina’s desk was no longer a comfortable place to sit, something to anchor Vanessa while she talked about her feelings and her progress relating to God. No, recently, her relationship to that chair, Mother Nina’s desk, the entire office had changed. It wasn’t a safe place anymore. Now, it was a place Vanessa got called into, instead of one she voluntarily rushed to talked to Nina in. Now, it was a place where she got read a list of things she’d done wrong, instead of one where she was praised for her strengths.

It was a place she went to when she was not in trouble, Vanessa, which somehow was the worst thing to hear–because she wasn’t just a bad nun, she was one that was so bad that instead of just punishing her or disciplining her, Mother Nina had to sit her down and have a chat.

Vanessa never used to hate their chats. She never used to dread them or come away from them feeling worthless.

But things felt different now.

Especially since lately, Postulant Directress Ra’jah always seemed to join them.

There was a certain satisfaction that Vanessa got from seeing Postulant Directress always having to stand during these meetings. A petty kind of vindication that never faded, as unbecoming as it probably was. Vanessa had always gotten the sense that Ra’jah hated her–she wasn’t exactly kind to any other postulants, or anyone else in the convent, for that matter, but she always seemed a little extra surly when dealing with Vanessa. Vanessa supposed she couldn’t blame her; Ra’jah was a woman who was incredibly devoted to justice, and to her, the best way to mould young nuns who would bring it upon the world was to instill strong, inflexible values through harsh, inflexible rules.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t harsh inflexibility that brought Vanessa to the convent, and it wasn’t what she intended to allow her to continue in it. Sure, she could have done what most of the other postulants did, kept her head down and pretended to agree with the Directress purely to get by, but that wasn’t the kind of person Vanessa was, nor was it who she wanted to become. So instead, she kept arguing, kept fighting, kept stubbornly staying the way she was.

Not that she didn’t work on herself or her flaws; no, she was still very keen on that. But unlike Directress Ra’jah, Vanessa didn’t see spirit or enthusiasm as a flaw. She doesn’t see why she shouldn’t curl her hair from time to time, given it keeps the frizz down, or why she shouldn’t sing in the sanctuary when she’s alone, given that she does it during Mass.

So what if it meant she had to take on extra chores, or a penitential fast, or get blamed for having sacred silence imposed on the whole group for an entire night? If it meant she could stay herself–her real self, the self that felt God and fought for God and loved Him, too–then it was worth it.

So what if Directress Ra’jah didn’t see it that way? She was standing sandwiched in the back corner of Mother Nina’s office, and Vanessa was seated, waiting for her reprimand.

It was almost enough to make her fear dissipate.

Almost.

Look, we’re not saying you definitely gonna fail, but at this point, with all the foolishness you pull… A’keria’s words rang in Vanessa’s ears, making her feel dizzy.

What if this was her final warning?

Or worse, the final straw?

“Mother, I swear–” she started again, but again, Mother Nina cut her off, ignoring the indignant scoff from Directress Ra’jah behind them.

“It’s alright Vanessa. You’re not in trouble.”

The more Vanessa heard that line, the more in trouble she felt.

Especially when Ra’jah was letting out an indignant snort behind her.

“Postulant Directress…” Mother Nina started, but rather than a sharp warning, her voice was soft, like she was trying to reason with her. That wasn’t not out of character for Mother Nina–Vanessa didn’t think she’d ever heard Mother Nina yell or snap at someone. Still, at least that would mean that she wasreally not in trouble, that she wasn’t about to get reprimanded.

She knew better by now, though, so she kept her mouth shut and tried not to cry.

“We know you don’t mean poorly, Vanessa. We know. You’re a good nun at heart, and you bring a lot to the convent…”

A spark of hope ignited in Vanessa’s chest, despite the fact that she knew she should know better, that she knew that there was always a but waiting around the corner.

“You got courage, I’ll give you that.” Ra’jah chimed in behind Vanessa. “What?” the woman scoffed, noticing Vanessa’s shocked expression. “I give credit where credit’s due. You always got good ideas, and you’re second to none in terms of understanding social justice and your enthusiasm for our outreach missions.”

Vanessa couldn’t help the smile that spread on her face, joy blossoming in her soul. To heck with but ; Vanessa had never been praised like this by Ra’jah before, and she was going to enjoy it.

“But…”

Then again, Jesus did say that pleasure was temporary.

“… We’re wondering about all the other aspects, the ones that you tend to struggle with. Do you know which ones we’re talking about?”

Vanessa suppressed a laugh. Of course she knew–she knew she was always late, that she always daydreamed, that she didn’t carry herself with the severe solemnity some of the sisters liked to see in their juniors. She knew she didn’t spell too well, and that she didn’t always finish her homework in time.

But she had courage, and good ideas, and a second-to-none understanding of social justice, in addition to enthusiasm.

Surely, those counted for something?

She realized with a jolt that Mother Nina was still talking, and snapped to attention just to see a certain light in the older woman’s eyes die a little, no doubt realizing that Vanessa hadn’t been listening.

“What did Reverend Mother just say?” Ra’jah sniffed, and all affection for her that Vanessa had just grown dried up on the spot.

“She said… She said that she’s… Worried… About how I behave, about whether or not I’m able to fit the demands and duties of a nun in addition to the qualities and intentions of one.”

Both of the other women relaxed, and so did Vanessa, hoping the internal sigh she let out was subtle enough that Ra’jah and Mother Nina wouldn’t notice.

Sometimes, it paid to hear the same lecture over and over again.

Still, that didn’t mean she didn’t make an effort for the rest of the reprimand, and so she steeled herself and forced herself to listen, forced herself to absorb every word.

She owed it to both Mother Nina and Ra’jah, for their willingness to repeat the same things over and over again until she got it.

–

Vanessa started as she turned out of Mother Nina’s office, almost tripping over A’keria as she exited.

“Shhh, shh!” Silky clamped a hand over Vanessa’s mouth before she could cry out, pressing a finger to her own lips. “We ain’t supposed to be here, you know that.”

“That was a long one, huh?” A’keria watched as Vanessa straightened up. “You alright?”

Vanessa shrugged. She wasn’t, not really, and she knew that both Silky and A’keria already knew that, so what would be the point of saying it out loud? Besides, she couldn’t let them think she was actually as upset as she was–that would make them pity her, and she didn’t want that.

What she wanted was to be able to please everyone, but she already knew that was off the table, so what was the point of making them sad about it?

“Good.” A’keria nodded, and then before Vanessa could ask what they were going to do next, she was being whirled around and having her ear pressed to the door.

“I just don’t think she’s an asset to the abbey.” Ra’jah’s voice was clear and distinct, her words making Vanessa’s breath catch in her throat.

“She tries her best…”

“And? She whistles, she climbs trees, she’s always late–”

“But her penitence is real. And she makes us laugh, which in these times is incredibly valuable.”

Vanessa’s heart lifted a little, hope suddenly breaking through and spurring her on to keep listening.

She was valuable. She would incredibly valuable.

Maybe she’d be okay after all?

But the thought had come too soon, and her bubble burst almost as fast as it had grown.

“Well, then, how do we solve a problem like her? How do we make her listen, make her understand? We’ve given here this lecture so many times…”

“I know. And I know you’re frustrated, Sister. I just… She has so much to give, Sister, and effortless joy like hers is easier to crush than you’d think. I don’t want to give up on her just yet.”

“I don’t think of it as giving up, Reverend Mother. I think of it as letting free.”

Vanessa didn’t listen to what Mother Nina had to say in response, whether it was agreement or another argument in her favour.

Instead, she ran. A’keria and Silky didn’t chase after her; it would get them in trouble, and they could always check in with her later. Either way, Vanessa was grateful for it. She didn’t need people hounding her, asking her questions, asking if she was okay or what was going through her mind, what she was going to do; she didn’t know the answer to any of those questions.

Fridges. Her heart pounded and mind spun as she ran, ran through the convent, down the halls, over the staircases, past the dormitory. She ran to the one place she could think of, the one person she knew would know all the answers that she didn’t have at the moment.

Please, she thinks as she collapses at the statue’s feet, Please, Mary, what the fuck am I going to do?

The statue of the Virgin Mary before her stays silent, Her eyes turned down at Vanessa, their brown rings somehow as kind as her wooden hands, pressed together in prayer over her heart, seemed to be soft.

“Please.” Vanessa’s plea came out as a whisper, one that was dangerously close to a sob.

Let yourself cry, my child.

Maybe it was her own thoughts, not Mother Mary’s; either way, she obeyed them, hiding her face in her hands.

“Please, M-mother Mary, p-please. I can’t–I can’t leave, please, please save me, please let me stay. I just…” she stopped, the words suddenly drying up in her throat.

She knew what she wanted–why couldn’t she say it out loud?

Or maybe it wasn’t meant to be.

Please, Mother Mary. I just want to help people. I just want to do God’s work to change people’s lives. Please let me do that.

She stays kneeling for a while, repeating the prayer in her head, occasionally letting her request turn to thanks turn to formalized prayers, anything that comes to her. If she hadn’t been so desperate, the irony probably would have struck her as funny–there she was, relying on her spontaneity to drive the sincerity of her prayers, when her spontaneity had been the thing that got her into trouble in the first place.

After a while, though, all of her prayers started to blend, and staying in the convent became a background thought.

For some reason, though, she couldn’t bring herself to leave–not yet.

She had something else she had to get off of her chest first.

Please, Mother Mary… I don’t know why, or how, but I need you to watch over that woman in the brook. Her and her daughter and whoever else she has at home.

Amen.

When she came out of the sanctuary, Silky and A’keria were waiting again, but this time, they didn’t ask for any explanation, only nodded and took Vanessa in their arms.

“This ain’t gonna be goodbye, guys. I promise.” Vanessa smiled as they separated, determined not to cry anymore, and even thought she could sense the hesitation in her friends, they nodded, playing along like she needed them to.

But the brave face could only last so long, and so after lights out, when all the nuns had retreated to their rooms for private prayers and a good night’s sleep, Vanessa laid flat on her bed, hands folded in prayer, and cried.

She dreamt of chasing frogs in the brook that night, and woke up feeling an almost hazy sense of peace.

#rpdr fanfiction #brooke lynn hytes #vanessa vanjie mateo #nina west #branjie #lesbian au #musical theatre challenge #follow every rainbow #writworm42 #musical theatre au #s11 #ra’jah o’hara

5 notes · View notes

pamphletstoinspire · 7 years

Photo

Catholic Philosophy - Part 4 - General Articles - Does God Sympathize with our Sufferings and Joy?

"Jesus wept"—John 11:35

The gospel speaks of Jesus, God in the flesh, as having shared sorrow, pain, joy, and love with his disciples and followers. So the question which has been posed, "does God sympathize with our sufferings and joy?" seems to have an immediate answer within the gospels. Yet, Catholic theologians and philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas have held the notion that God has no passions. Are they correct or did they make a mistake? Given the biblical evidence it seems that they are mistaken, but a closer look at the nature of God helps to reveal the solution to this puzzle and proves that the medieval philosophers were correct.

The following article is the context of a private debate I had with a secular philosopher of religion at the University of Texas. Our philosophy class had read and debated on an article written by Charles Hartshorne entitled, "The Divine Reality: A Social Conception of God". Essentially, the article was an attack on the Catholic dogma of the impassibility of God. Impassability is traditionally defined as the lack of passion, although some of the ancient philosophers (such as Aristotle) used the term to describe unchangeableness. I engaged in a debate with the professor about Hartshorne’s problematic views during class and we continued our debate through e-mail.

The following text is written in a question and answer format. Essentially, I took the material from my professor’s previous email and turned it into a question and an answer format for my e-mail reply. My professor’s views are given in the ‘objection’ section of the question. I then answered the objection with a biblical quote (‘on the contrary’) and a philosophical answer (‘I answer that’).

The issue of God’s emotions is a very complicated one and would require an enormous amount of effort to fully answer (if it is even possible). Therefore, I was not able to answer the question to the satisfaction of my professor. Ultimately, the idea of God’s sympathy hinges on an acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity, which cannot be proven by natural reason. Nevertheless, whenever one delves into a mystery of Catholicism there is always intellectual fruit to be savored.

The following response to my professor will make more sense to the reader if they have previously read Hartshorne's argument against God's passability. However, for those who are not philosophically or theologically trained to root out error in philosphical papers, I wouldn't advise reading it. There are a lot better things to read than Hartshorne's books.

Question 1: Does God sympathize with human joy and love?

Objection: (my professor’s comment)

...I should say that I think what St. Thomas means by God's experience of "joy" in His creatures is quite different than the way we use the term or, more to the point, what Hartshorne has in mind in speaking of God's sympathetic experience of our own joy.

I answer that,

Aquinas believes that it is not in the nature (the properties) of God to sympathize with the experience of pain and suffering in the same way that we do. By this I mean that God’s impassible nature is such that there is no existence of passions (desires) that a human would have. I still contend (and I’d like you to provide proof against this view from the Summa Theologica or Summa Contra Gentiles if you disagree) that Aquinas believed God has emotions (not passions) such as joy and love.

In the discussion of the Trinity I explained that the persons of God (Father, Son, and Spirit) experience love and joy on an infinite level. Catholics believe that humans can experience love and joy also (as derived from the creator) but without the infinite bliss of God. In this sense, I argued, that our experience of love and joy are analogous to God’s love and joy. Perhaps I do not understand your objection, but I still do not understand why our joy and his joy are incompatable to the point where God does not "sympathize" with our joy. I maintain that our experience of joy (such as the joy of faith or the joy of marital love) may not be equal to the bliss of God, but it is still recognizable to him. If we read a beautiful poem about the joy of romantic love to God, I think he would identify and sympathize with the "feelings" of joy and bliss as well as the joy of relationship between two people who love each other.

Question 2: Does God sympathize with distinct human emotions such as pain and suffering?

Objection 1:

...Even granting that God can rejoice (in the ordinary sense of the word) in our actions, Aquinas does not think that He sympathetically experiences our pain and suffering and is saddened by them, which is of course the flip side of the coin of Hartshorne's desirable dependence claim.

On the contrary,

Scripture records in the Prophet Isaiah that the messiah is "the suffering servant".

I answer that,

From the outset I must admit that I cannot philosophically prove to you (by way of arguing from natural religion) that the concept of the Trinity is true. Of course, I did mention that I would only answer your ad homenin arguments on Catholic grounds, so I’ll continue my argument. I speculate that it is not necessary for God to empathize with our pains and sufferings by way of his own nature. By this I mean that it is not in his nature to sympathize with our sufferings and pain by way of experience. In fact I think God’s omniscience and omni benevolence provide him a way to understand the "badness" of pain and suffering without recourse to experiencing the pain and suffering on a first hand level.

Hartshorne would probably argue that this knowledge of evil and suffering by way of omniscience and omni benevolence is not the same as our experience of evil and suffering. I must concur with this view, and I think Aquinas would too. We must acknowledge that the experience of pain and suffering (and especially the grief that may result from sinning and repentance) cannot be known experientially to God by way of his nature. His divine nature is incompatible with the experience of sin and the effects of the human states of grief, pain, suffering etc.

I believe that it is not necessary for God to experience these emotions and indeed it is impossible for God to experience sinning. Basically, the effects of sin (of the angels and men) made it possible for man to suffer. Since this was not the will of God, it shows that it is not of the necessity of the divine nature to experience sympathetic grief, suffering, repentance etc. With the introduction of sin into the world by way of the free will of angels and men, God chose to incarnate the second person of the Trinity. This provides divine access to human nature and the experiential knowledge of suffering, grief etc. This leads into the next problem you posed, the problem of a Triune God.

Question 3: Is the doctrine of the Trinity nonsensical and is God Triune?

Objection 1:

...The doctrine of the trinity seems to strike pretty much everyone who is not antecedently committed to it as nonsensical.

Objection 2:

I think it is, as I said, little more than a contradiction dressed up in very fine language… To put it mildly, they seem to me very close to a good deal of fancy talk about square circles

Objection 3:

[There is a problem with the idea that] God the Father was not crucified nor even incarnate, while the Son was both

Objection 4:

[There is a problem with Jesus being] subject to temporality.

On the contrary,

Scripture reveals the Triune nature of God by stating in the Gospel of John, "baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost and I will be with you always to the end of the world."

I answer that,

The doctrine of the Trinity can be admitted to be incomprehensible and unimaginable to the philosopher of natural religion. The doctrine of the Trinity, however, does not contain true internal contradictions of logic. Instead, the properties of God (such as his nature, hypostasis and person) only seem to bear contradictions from the vantage point of fallible human nature. Therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity is an article of faith and derives its basis from the words of Christ and the teaching of the Church and not from human wisdom.

Reply to Objection 1:

The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be proven by the philosophy of Natural Religion. I agree that such a doctrine must be antecedently admitted as true without the possibility of ever fully resolving its difficulties. The doctrine of the Trinity is called "a mystery of faith" and I am sure such a term results in scoffing by the skeptic. However, it strikes me as plausible that if an infinite God exists then we cannot hope to fully understand his nature. Scripture records that we are made "in the image of God" and as such, we can only understand God by what he reveals and by the similarity between the universe, God and ourselves. I do sympathize with the skeptic who feels that the Trinity raises more problems than it solves; the Trinity can only be believed antecedently by faith.

Reply to Objection 2: I have addressed this question in the main body of my answer. I admit the Trinity to be incomprehensible to the philosopher and an article of faith. I will address the apparent contradictions as best I can.

Reply to Objection 3: This seems to be a problem with personal identity. In response, I will define the Catholic definitions of the Trinity. It is said that God is one nature (the divine Nature) and three persons. By nature, it is means that the powers of God and qualities of divinity (impassability, knowledge, power, goodness, absolute veracity and other "great-making" qualities of "that which nothing greater can conceive") are God’s nature. Yet, in God there are three persons who possess the exact same divine nature. This means that the persons of God (a person is an individual substance of rational nature according to Boethius) are individual in the sense that the Father is distinct from the Son by way of relative opposition. It is said by Aquinas that, "a real distinction between the divine relations can come only from relative opposition. Therefore two opposite relations must needs refer to two persons: and if any relations are not opposite they must needs belong to the same person [within the Trinity]." Thus the Father and Son have an eternal relation of paternity and filiation in which the Father eternally generates the Son (or the Word if you prefer) by way of Intellect. The Holy Spirit is a person in that the eternal love of the Father and Son "cause" (spirate is the theological term) the Holy Spirit. Thus we say that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds (caused by spiration) from the Father and the Son.

This seems unimaginable and I confess it can’t be imagined because there is no parallel within the nature of the world to compare it with (which is why it can’t be philosophically explained or arrived at). I will now explain the doctrine in comparison with humans to help clear up any confusion. Humans have one person (who we are) and one nature (what we are). The doctrine states that God is one nature (what he is) and three persons (who he is). This is the sense in which Catholics profess ‘One God’ but three persons. I maintain that there is not a parallel to human nature in which we can compare God. I posit the identity of God within his three persons such that each can be distinctly admitted be the rational personal God. Yet, because they share the same identical nature it can be said that the three identities of the Trinity are still the one Divine Nature. Thus it is validly stated in the Nicene Creed, "We believe in one God".

In order to keep this reply relatively short, I will assert that the second person of the Trinity (Jesus) has two natures, which are joined within his one person (theologians call this a hypostasis of his human nature with the Divine Nature). Thus we can correctly say that the person of the Son was made incarnate while the person of the Father was not made incarnate. We still call both persons the one God because of their common Nature. From here it follows that the person of the Son could suffer and die while the person of the Father did not suffer or die.

Of course, there are problems with the existence of two Natures within the person of Christ and we are left to ponder whether the hypostasis can resolve this problem. Perhaps I can address this issue at a later time.

Reply to Objection 4

The relation of time to eternity is a restriction on man but not on God. We see the divine plan as unfolding within temporality such that we can say God became flesh at time X. The eternal nature of God demands the complete actualization of God within eternity. As such we can properly say God lives in an "ever-present now" such that he sees everything as present. The effects of God (incarnation) are thus seen from our vantage point as unfolding in time while to God they are ever-present. As such, our way of seeing God is the manner in which we see God interact with temporality. I theorize that the God-man Jesus was susceptible to temporality by way of his "person" and human nature but not by way of his eternal nature. Jesus’ divine nature consumed all eternity in an ever-present now, yet his human nature allowed him to interact with temporality. So while he resided on Earth, his humanity interacted with temporality while his divinity co-existed within him in the ever-present now. From the vantage point of eternity (where is Jesus body after the ascension? Did Jesus’ body leave temporality during the ascension into heaven?) I must admit my ignorance.

#catholic philosophy

2 notes · View notes

anthonychiozza · 5 years

Text

Cultural Atheism: Response To A “None”

By: Anthony Chiozza

Illustration Source: Professor Mark Thornhill granted permission to run his cartoon via email.

Reprint from: 10/16/2017

I Am A Sinner About two years ago I wrote a commentary on the current social moral order called, “Cultural Atheism and The Death of The West.” This is a response to one of the comments I received. I was not aware that the piece had any comments at all. I apologize for not responding in a timely manner.There is quite a bit to unpack, so I have broken his comment down into sections in which I respond to his question, or statement. Question: In the spirit of open debate. How are we to know you are not damaged? Response: I am damaged. I am the worst sinner I know. We are all damaged to varying degrees because of the fallen state of man. Whether you accept the pretense of the fall in the Garden of Eden, or not, if one cannot recognize that one's self is inclined towards things that are not good for the self, or others necessarily, then that person will lead a very hard life. I am inclined to stay in a state of Grace as much as possible. I frequent confession as much as I can. Question: In your closing you stated “These poor souls, addicted, brain damaged, and increasingly programming themselves to continue in the downward spiral are truly not fit by their own evolutionary faith.” Where have you been given the moral authority to make this assessment? Response: I am also a poor soul, and in much need of prayers. I am glad you brought this point up because something is in grave need of clarification. I am in no way judging any individual on their internal moral standing with God. I am observing the general actions of society, the rejection of the Church and her Bride Jesus Christ. This results in a judgement based on those external actions compared to God’s Law. Specifically, that moral authority comes from Jesus, when He gave that same authority to Peter with the Keys to Heaven, and to the other apostles as well in the form of forgiving, or retaining sins. The Church, which has been granted the same authority Jesus had, expects me to preach the Truth of Love through actions. I must use the talents God gave me to point to the Truth. I would be a coward otherwise. Faith and Reason Further, I am grateful for your courage to ask the difficult questions. I am well aware that this answer may not suffice to someone that does not believe in dogma. I myself believe that the Logos made Himself Truly manifest as the second person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ. He did this because He does, in fact, love us. My Faith is based not on pure blindness, but also on reason. The Church believes in the use of both Faith and reason. Either one standing alone is a grave error. Thus, my authority to speak on the morality of the West comes from Faith and reason. Part of my reasoning is based on well respected scholars in academia which have confirmed that documents such Ignatius of Antioch’s letters, Polycarp’s letters, and Just Martyrs works are in fact legitimate historical documents. This is further evidence to support the historical Jesus than evidence for someone like Alexander the Great, and other well known historical figures. We also have the writings of the historian Josephus on Jesus and the fall of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD. I am well aware that even with the historical evidence, I am still accepting on Faith that Jesus is in fact who He said He was. The Logos. The Son of God in the flesh. A Thought Experiment Another example of my reasoning is based on the actions of early Catholics. One can reason that Early Christians, the first apostles included, were willing to suffer and die for a belief which essentially outlines eternal joy. However, this religion also made heavy demands on the early Catholics to carry their cross. Catholics can not give into certain illegitimate pleasures. This task of keeping oneself pure, confessing, being humble, and in many cases being butchered as a martyr seems very unreasonable, unless the miracles that converted the pagans were real. Let’s conduct a thought experiment. Let us suppose I walk into a rowdy bar one evening where all kinds of drinking, drug use, and impure behavior is taking place. I stand up on the table, and I yell that everyone should knock it off right now, or they will go to hell. In absence of a miracle to prove my point, I would be thrown out of the bar, and probably beaten for good measure by people that are of an equivalent mindset of the very pagans that were converted in Rome. A good Priest I know gave just this example. Falsifiable Scientific Confirmation & Conversion

A final and more definitive example of why it is reasonable to believe is because of the Eucharistic miracle in Lanciano, Italy. Then over one thousand years later the example of the Eucharistic miracle in Poland. The Eucharist, otherwise known as what appears to be bread and wine after Consecration, is in fact really the body and blood of Jesus Christ made truly present for us to become one with Him.This is taken on Faith, but God knows that the weakness of our own state of being will prevent us from seeing this Truth. Doubting Thomas needed to put his fingers into Christ's wounds before he would believe. Jesus has done no less for us modern men. Thus, the scientific study conducted by highly skeptical, atheist scientists identified that both sets of DNA from these two separate events were exact matches. This lead to at least one scientist's decision to leave atheism behind and become Catholic. I am aware for most people this is still not enough evidence, through reason, to explain where I get my authority to make such a general judgement on Western society, but I would simply ask them a question in return. Where do you get your authority to make judgments on the moral standing of other individuals' actions, and your own? If one is honest with the self, that is a difficult question to answer. The Founding Fathers Are Not Impeccable Question: I am a Pagan I believe in our country’s preamble to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Where is it written that to pursue pleasure is a satanic act? Response: I don’t personally grant any sense of infallibility, and impeccability to the Founding Fathers of the United States. Although some of Christendom's principles were retained regarding some laws when the founders created the Constitution they failed to recognize all of God's Law and authority. Obviously, you can’t murder even though some find it pleasurable, and pursue that very act for their own pleasure. These sets of moreys go back to the Greeks and elsewhere in various civilizations, but these ideas were certainly vastly improved on by Christendom. I consider this lack of clarification on religion, and morality to be one of the Founding Father’s biggest mistakes, and one that will lead to the downfall of this nation. Other scholars of that time in the University system, protestant and Catholic alike agreed with that opinion. Error Has No Rights Question: Are you asserting that life is misery and suffering and that only by understanding that can we be spiritually free? Response: No. That is another heresy Catholicism had to deal with when converting pagans. Pleasure is something we derive from an act, or thought. That act, or thought has to meet right reason. Right reason consists of following certain moral principles laid out by the Church God gave authority to. If I engage in the marital act with my wife in order to be united with her in Love, and to produce children, that act meets right reason. Even if the act is solely for the unitive purpose, because we know she is not at a time of month where she will bear a child, it still meets right reason. If we choose to avoid pregnancy using NFP because of some dire circumstances, which the Church has explained, we are still using right reason. If I go seek pleasure in another woman, destroy my family, and the hearts of my children, this does not meet right reason. If I eat three pieces of cake a day this does not meet right reason. If I eat one small piece a day, enjoy that pleasure, and do not continue to indulge, it meets right reason. God wants us to have pleasure, but just as science has shown regarding the human brain, the pleasure center over indulged, will lead to serious problems. I am sure you know individuals you might have judged to be selfish. What is it that makes them this way? Statement: If so I believe you are headed towards the Buddhist school of thought.

Response: Some Buddhism does overlap with the Catholic Faith, but the more correct way of saying it would be that Buddhism is correct in some aspects, and wrong in many others. The most obvious being that you can’t pull yourself up by your own bootstraps spiritually, because this in itself is an act of pride relying on self. You must ask for the help of something outside of yourself. This is precisely why we see certain archetypes in some of the literature I am sure you have read. Question: Also you state in your article ” This is best demonstrated by simply suggesting that, perhaps, God does exist. Maybe, just maybe, there might be some evidence for that. ” Which would squarely put these people in the camp of agnosticism. Response: I am not saying they are agnostic. The point is that there is typically an anger response rather than a reasoned response. Perhaps they claim atheism, but quietly are agnostic and this is the reason for that emotional lashing out. I am aware of the difference. The general premise of this article is that, practically speaking, most people behave like someone that would truly manifest atheism brought to its logical conclusion philosophically. That conclusion being, I am my moral authority, and those morals can change on a dime to suit my whim. Thus, we have the idea of moral relativism which is expressed on some spectrum by many individuals within society. Statement: Agnostics are not moral relativist. They are people who have chosen to believe much like I have that dogma is not the answer. Dogma in itself is what separates the religions. ( I realize that is merely a statement of fact.) Response: Agnostics certainly are moral relativists. By choosing to believe what you believe to be correct morally, based on your own thoughts, or even the thoughts of other men, is moral relativism from the view of Christ's Church. You may live your life by a certain code of conduct, and even manage not to flip on a dime, but from Christ's lens the rejection of some His Laws is moral relativism. Jung, for example, has some good ideas, but to follow a man that claimed just to be a man as a moral authority seems like a mistake.

The same could be said about my own set of beliefs, given Jesus was not who He said He was. I do believe He is in Fact the Logos made manifest. This is where the very authority comes from that gives me the ability to say, “I am not the one that is the moral relativist.” Further, dogma must exist for the idea of moral relativism to exist outside of a culturally subjective form, because otherwise there is no constant to compare relativistic thought to in its absence. The Faith in the Law we were handed from Moses came from the Trinity. Moses never said this is the Law I created, or this is my Law. He said it was the Law God gave him. Jesus further points out in the New Testament that the Pharisees themselves do not believe that Moses wrote the Old Testament. If they had believed, they would have lead their lives very differently. It can thus be said that the Pharisees were morally relativistic as well. They followed the letter of the Law for their own gain, but not the heart of the Law. I am well aware of the general definition of moral relativism being subjective based on one being a part of a particular culture, but that is clearly not what I am speaking about here. Further, I have listed reasonable criteria to believe the Catholic Church has the authority of God behind it.

Statement: It is my personal belief that Carl Jung was the most correct when he assigned archetypes to the great humanistic experience. This is to understand that God (which I refer to as the universal energy or spirit) Appears different to all individuals egos based on their current residence in the space time continuum. Meaning the more time and experiences you actually have in this universe the greater your difference of opinion about what God truly is will be from your contemporaries. Agnostics that find a belief in a higher power are not satanist. The only reject dogma in a logical search for a personal contact with a living holy spirit which is the creator or architect of the universe.

Response: “Any that reject Jesus Christ and His Church are the first born of satan.” This paraphrase was said by some of the early Church Fathers. That does not necessarily mean that someone engaged in the honest exploration of the Truth is the first born of Satan. For example, we would never say that about Saint Augustine on his journey to grasp at the Truth honestly. Surely he was a sinful man like anyone else, but that reference would never be used because he converted. There are many other cases like his, but someone that knows precisely what the Church teaches, has been a witness to the Truth of Love in its fullness. If they continue to openly reject it, they are in fact in Satan’s camp whether they like to admit it to themselves, or not. I don’t say this out of false charity, but out of Love. I know my assessments are correct for other reasons as well. Specifically, when I read the Ten Commandments, and works like that of Thomas Aquinas, I know that by following God's Laws I am fulfilling the greatest expression of God’s Love in the world. I see how breaking that Law is for my pleasure, and how that doing the opposite of those Commandments causes someone else pain. The Church and Scripture further break down those Ten Commandments into their nuanced components that are missed by many that claim to be Christian. There are many things that are actually sinful, which are a part of those Ten Commandments, that many people miss without the guidance of the Church. In short, my pleasure, which does not meet right reason, will cause myself, or another person's pain. Some people may consider it arrogant to tell others how they should consider living their lives. However, if you find yourself on the opposite side of a Christian trying to explain their Faith, and possibly charitably correcting you, of all people, consider two things. One, it is incredibly difficult to actually explain to someone else how they should live their life because you are terrified of the typical reaction you know you are going to receive. You will not win any popularity contests, and find yourself quite friendless. Two, if someone really considers themselves a Christian look at it from Penn’s perspective from comic duo, “Penn and Teller.” Penn says you should be offended if a Christian does not approach you and nicely tell you about their Faith. In light of what they supposedly believe it means they don’t really care about you, and could hardly really be considered a Christian. His exact words were, “How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize?”

The fact is I know the Faith I hold to, and the authority it carries, comes with a cross for each individual. Jesus said if we were to follow Him we must pick up our cross. He even said if we love our parents, wives, or children more than Him, which means loving them more than His Law, we are not fit for His Kingdom. You see, if we don’t love His Law first, we can’t really love them because we are not being honest. It is a false love we show, which is simply a going along to get along mentality. Sometimes, the most difficult aspect of following Christ’s Way is charitably correcting our own family, when we know the reaction will not be good no matter how nice we are about it. Choosing to be Catholic is not easy. It makes serious demands, and it takes a lot of courage to constantly assess your own interior motives. It takes further courage to explain the Truth to others. Christ's authority was rejected as well, and He was crucified. How many souls could someone as sinful as myself possibly convince, if Jesus Himself was put to death by the crowd? I expect nothing less for myself. I am a fallen human being myself, in need of Communion, and confession, because even though I see this Truth, I still need God’s help to live His Truth. Please pray for me brothers and sisters. God bless.

youtube

#Atheist #None #AtheistNone #Catholic #Bible #bibleverse #biblequotes #holy bible #conservative #republican #democrats #democrat #repuclicans #maga #president #protestant #infowars #alex jones #red pill

0 notes

truthandlove · 7 years

Text

What is the Gospel About?

Lance Wallnau say many things that sound great. He was/is a big promoter of the "7 Mountain Mandate" - where Believers take over the levers of power (in 7 areas such as education, entertainment, politics, etc). Its appealing because it is a motivating "yes we can - we can win" kind of message. And who doesn't want to be all about winning, even the devil wants to win.

But lately I'm seeing that you just CAN'T BUILD THE KINGDOM OF GOD ON THE FOUNDATION OF BABYLON. You cannot make a "clean and Christianized version of Babylon." By that I mean, what if we suddenly made America this "moral majority"? Of course we want more godly education system and all that. But I'm talking about Christians running all these big institutions.. OF THIS WORLD. We're just gonna end up making a new celebrity class, only this bunch of celebrities (a Babylonian system of "luminaries"), all saying "praise Jesus" will just make it cliché.

In the same vein, what if all the Christians were the billionaires and could donate all kinds of money to every good cause! God will show us all how to make massive amounts of money so we can take things over for a change! Wouldn’t that be wonderful! But what if we have not transformed the underlying systems of banking, interest, and so forth, it is a Christian-looking-morality layered over the methodology of Babylon. “Well, isn’t that what “redeeming the time” looks like?”, one could ask. No, the Kingdom if far deeper than that as it has a whole approach to money that is something more profound that simply using the existing money methods to do nice and helpful things.

In this "7 mountain mandate" triumphalism, "victory" largely looks like packed out Christian concerts instead of Adele concerts, etc. Just a switch from secular brands to Christianized brands. BUT THE HEART FOR GOD can get lost in all of that. It is just a change of the surface morality, and the same people that JUST WENT WITH THE CULTURE AROUND THEM, and no different in this vision, they are just floating along with a much more Christian version of whatever culture is around them.

"The spiritual life cannot be made suburban! It is always frontier and we who live in it must accept and even rejoice that it remains untamed.” - Howard Macey

True Christianity has always been counter-culture. When Rome tried to co-opt Christianity into Roman Catholicism it was the biggest perversion ever, for over 2,000 of years to date - just MUDDING THE WATERS of salvation and truth, with a INSTITUTION of Jesus, and a fake pious Jesus, not the radical outlaw Jesus the New Testament actually portrays -- one so dynamically loving that any and all traditions and hallowed institutions were instantly SWEPT ASIDE for the sake of following EVERY SINGLE WORD from His Father.

"There is a judge for the one who rejects Me and does not receive My words: The word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. I have not spoken on My own, but the Father who sent Me has commanded Me EXACTLY WHAT to say and EXACTLY HOW to say it. And I know that His command leads to eternal life. So I speak EXACTLY what the Father has told Me to say.” - Jesus in John 12:49

Jesus lived in both radical dependence and radical obedience to His Father out of the love-oneness they shared.

Religion and morality will always be the most devious enemies against true Christianity - purely following Christ as Savior and Lord. The Kingdom of God is made up of a CHILDLIKE TOTAL TRUST - a complete faith that is not against reason, but surpasses reason because it is TRULY IN LOVE with God and enraptured with the Grace Father God provided through the incarnation/life/death/resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

In the 1950's America had a very SEEMING MORAL CULTURE. But we see that it was not truly God-ANCHORED, for the social engineering of the 1960's easily swept it away and sabotaged morals and families with free love, with drugs, with the Rock revolution. We see that most of these "good" and "moral" people were must just PASSIVELY FLOATING ALONG in a much more moral climate than we have today. And when the cultural norms where manipulated to change, their life was quickly undermined to GO WITH THE FLOW.

Listen carefully: no one who simply goes with the flow shall enter the Kingdom of God. Whether that flow is Judaism. Whether that flow is conservative and full of morals. Religion does not save you. Being culturally moral does not save you. Instead a TOTAL GRASPING ONTO CHRIST FOR DEAR LIFE - as your ONLY hope - is what saves you, by transferring your sin/death/failure for Christ's righteousness/life/victory.

We grab onto Jesus "with both hands" as it were, letting go of evertrhing else - our old identity, our status and respectability in the Babylonian world systems, of our accomplishments, of our own attempts to be good, ethical or moral.

An apparent return to a moral culture COULD be the worst thing ever, for it could usher in a dangerous FOG of religiosity whereby we comfort ourselves that we are good, when ONLY CHRIST Himself is Good! Anytime smug self-assurances sweeps in, there is supreme danger.

"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven" -- Matthew 7:21

Saving faith takes the ACTION to believe and entrust your being into Christ's hands to save (Just as Chrsit Himself said to the father, "into YOUR hands, I commit my Spirit.) and then a life filled from then on with ACTIONS congruent with that core choice/declaration/commitment is the natural result from an INNER transformation, not a surface morality.

1 John 3:4-10 states: Everyone who practices sin, practices lawlessness as well. Indeed, sin is lawlessness. But you know that Christ appeared to take away sins, and in Him there is no sin. No one who remains in Him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has seen Him or known Him.

Little children, let no one deceive you: The one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as Christ is righteous. The one who practices sin is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the very start. This is why the Son of God was revealed, to destroy the works of the devil.

Anyone born of God REFUSES to practice sin, because God’s seed abides in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil can be distinguished: Anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

So yes, we see that a life rejecting sinful behavior flows from embracing Jesus as Lord. But you can put on a surface moral code of ethical behavior - for a short time - WITHOUT having any inner transformation! You are a poser, a moral faker -- ultimately just a hypocrite in a very real danger of hellfire. You are conforming behavior to moral codes without a HEART JOINED TO MESSIAH. Which is exactly why the Bible emphatically warns, writing to those inside the church in the city of Ephesus:

"Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is IN you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!" - 2 Corinthians 13:5

Christianity is always in danger of degrading into a religion - into a code of behavior that is very moral looking. Christianity is being head over heels in love with the God who loves you and saved you - the Bible is CLEAR on this! A person who is IN LOVE WITH JESUS does not have to try to be moral! Read that again!

Instead of trying to adjust external behavior to fit some codified set of rules, but lives AS jesus Himself lived - IN LOVE WITH FATHER GOD and listening to His voice with eager and whole-hearted intent to jump into obedient action, regardless of the culture, regardless of anyone else's judgement, regardless of the cost. The Kingdom of God is only filled with those that DARED to love God... BACK!

If we "take over" these mountains of politics and education and entertainment media, etc. we will find ourselves IN EXTREME DANGER of just creating another version of Babylon with Christian trappings all over it, but without LAVISH LOVE for Messiah, just the clever counterfeit of a standard of morality that we can all agree on. In such a condition, the Kingdom is lost, is obscured, even right in the apparent "triumph" or a moral culture over this nation.

Pray for God to make this DISTINCTION so clear to you. The distinction between morality and pursuing everything good - as you see and understand it - versus pursuing the INTIMATE LOVE with Jesus that the Bible and Song of Songs talks about. The Family of God is make of those that want to be in a FAMILY - a forever home where the voice of God and ways of God are AT HOME IN THEIR HEARTS, not just an enthusiastic wave of imaging that our own best efforts to be moral can approximate the Kingdom of God. Religion is having morality IN you. Christianity is having Jesus IN you. When you have Jesus, you have far MORE than morality, you have holiness and righteousness, not of your own making, but the righteousness that comes from God for it IS God:

The moral person says, "I am trying hard to live up to your law, Jesus, and my self-effort demonstrated how important it is to me as evidence of my love – my desire to be recognized as pleasing to you."

The Christian, follows Christ, and says: "I DELIGHT to do your will, God. Its' my entire reason for living! And here's why: Your law is within my HEART." (Hebrews 10:7 and Psalm 40:8)

And again: "I run (eagerly pursue, quickly obey) in the path of Your commands, God, because You have set my heart FREE!" (Psalm 119:32)

One is duty to morality but not with a heart set free by the transformation of Grace. The other is being IN LOVE with Jesus. Obedience to God that pleases God can only flow from open-hearted trust that is grateful and responsive! Anything less demonstrates that you don't really experientially KNOW God - you have missed His heart and what He has actually done for you.

Conclusion: all the cleaning up of Babylonian (worldly) systems, from education through entertainment will make a less-corrupt and more moral world, a cleaner culture. And this is an attractive Goal. It makes simply GOING WITH THE FLOW all nice and sweet on the surface. However it still FALLS SHORT of making a grace-transformed heart that more deeply changes the world through inviting other hearts to be enraptured in the loving embrace of their savior, forgetting about morality and respectability and ethics, and purely PARTAKING of Oneness with their Holy Savior.

0 notes