Terror of Demons

My absolute favorite title given to Joe is 'Terror of Demons'. How awesome of a name is that! It's even better than St. Anthony of Padua's 'Hammer of Heretics'. Yet, no matter where I've looked, I have not been able to find where and how the title originated. So, rather than giving an historical explanation, I offer a more reflective one:

Consider first what the word 'terror' means to you. In today's world, I imagine it's pretty common for us to conjure up images of the acts of radical islamists - Terrorism. So, the question is: "Is this the same kind of terror that Joe instills in the hearts of the demonic?" You might be surprised, but I say yes.

What makes terrorism an effective tool in war? It is unexpected, it attacks without distinction, and it usually goes for the weakest and most vulnerable in a society. Joe is the same with the demonic. Demons do not know where and how he will "strike" next, and he certainly doesn't seem to too selective of the kinds of demons he smites. As Teresa of Avila said, "To other saints the Lord seems to have given grace to succour us in some of our necessities, but of this glorious saint my experience is that he succours us in them all" (Autobiography Chapter 6). In other words, Joe isn't at all too picky about which demons he liberates us from.

Now, obviously, this is far from justifying the use of terrorism as a means of physical warfare. It's one thing to act violently towards innocent human beings made in the image and likeness of God; it's totally another to wage spiritual warfare with demonic spirits who have rejected the Gift God's Presence. So, as we approach the Solemnity of St. Michael and other the Holy Archangels this Saturday, let us call upon them with Joe to do spiritual battle on our behalf during this very tumultuous time in our Church's history.

One Mother, Two Roots

Last week, I shared a part of a homily of St. John Chrysostom where he demonstrates that Mary is a daughter of David. This week, I share a paragraph from St. Augustine's work The Harmony of the Gospels, where he indicates that in addition to being a daughter of David, she is also a daughter of Aaron:

Thus, too, even if one were able to demonstrate that no descent, according to the laws of blood, could be claimed from David for Mary, we should have warrant enough to hold Christ to be the son of David, on the ground of that same mode of reckoning by which also Joseph is called His father (Luke 2:33, 41, 48). But seeing that the Apostle Paul unmistakably tells us that Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh (Romans 1:3), how much more ought we to accept without any hesitation the position that Mary herself also was descended in some way, according to the laws of blood, from the lineage of David? 

Moreover, since this woman's connection with the priestly family also is a matter not left in absolute obscurity, inasmuch as Luke inserts the statement that Elisabeth, whom he records to be of the daughters of Aaron, was her cousin (Luke 1:5, 36), we ought most firmly to hold by the fact that the flesh of Christ sprang from both lines; to wit, from the line of the kings, and from that of the priests, in the case of which persons there was also instituted a certain mystical unction which was symbolically expressive among this people of the Hebrews. In other words, there was a chrism; which term makes the import of the name of Christ patent, and presents it as something indicated so long time ago by an intimation so very intelligible.

And if Mary is a daughter of Aaron, then she too is a descendent relative of Eleazar (Numbers 20:22-29). And if she is in relation to Eleazar, then her heavenly, bodily resurrection along with Jesus and Joseph was prefigured as I wrote about in the post on the Solemnity of the Assumption.

Son and Daughter of David

This past Saturday, we celebrated the Feast of the Nativity of Mary, and the Gospel reading was the genealogy of Jesus according to Matthew. Now the question is, why read the genealogy of Jesus (which traces Joe's lineage, not Mary's) on the feast of Mary's Nativity?

Tomorrow, we will celebrate the Memorial of St. John Chrysostom, the great Greek Doctor and Father of the Church. It seems to me an appropriate time to share his thoughts on the importance of Joseph's lineage and perhaps an explanation for reading Joe's genealogy for Mary's birth. This is from his second homily on the Gospel of Matthew (7-8). As a side note, he also mentions a "mystical" reason for Joseph's lineage in this homily; you can read it in the third homily.

"But [how] is it manifest that [Christ] is of David? one may say. For if He was not sprung of a man, but from a woman only, and the Virgin has not her genealogy traced, how shall we know that He was of David's race? Thus, there are two things inquired; both why His mother's genealogy is not recited, and wherefore it can be that Joseph is mentioned by them, who has no part in the birth: since the latter seems to be superfluous, and the former a defect.

Of which then is it necessary to speak first? How the Virgin is of David. How then shall we know that she is of David? Hearken unto God, telling Gabriel to go unto a virgin betrothed to a man (whose name was Joseph), of the house and lineage of David (Luke 1:27). What now would you have plainer than this, when you have heard that the Virgin was of the house and lineage of David?

Hence it is evident that Joseph also was of the same. Yes, for there was a law, which bade that it should not be lawful to take a wife from any other stock, but from the same tribe (Numbers 36:6-9). And the patriarch Jacob also foretold that He should arise out of the tribe of Judah, saying [that] there shall not fail a ruler out of Judah, nor a governor out of his loins, until He come for whom it is appointed, and He is the expectation of the Gentiles (Genesis 49:10).

Well; this prophecy does indeed make it clear that He was of the tribe of Judah, but not also that He was of the family of David. Was there then in the tribe of Judah one family only, even that of David, or were there not also many others? And might it not happen for one to be of the tribe of Judah, but not also of the family of David?

Nay, lest you should say this, the evangelist has removed this suspicion of yours, by saying, that He was of the house and lineage of David.

And if you wish to learn this from another reason besides, neither shall we be at a loss for another proof. For not only was it not allowed to take a wife out of another tribe, but not even from another lineage, that is, from another kindred. So that if either we connect with the Virgin the words, of the house and lineage of David, what has been said stands good; or if with Joseph, by that fact this also is proved. For if Joseph was of the house and lineage of David, he would not have taken his wife from another than that whence he himself was sprung.

What then, one may say, if he transgressed the law? Why, for this cause he has by anticipation testified that Joseph was righteous, on purpose that you might not say this, but having been told his virtue, might be sure also that he would not have transgressed the law. For he who was so benevolent, and free from passion, as not to wish, even when urged by suspicion, to attempt inflicting punishment on the Virgin, how should he have transgressed the law for lust? He that showed wisdom and self-restraint beyond the law (for to put her away, and that privily, was to act with self-restraint beyond the law), how should he have done anything contrary to the law; and this when there was no cause to urge him?

Now that the Virgin was of the race of David is indeed from these things evident; but wherefore he gave not her genealogy, but Joseph's, requires explanation. For what cause was it then? It was not the law among the Jews that the genealogy of women should be traced. In order then that he might keep the custom, and not seem to be making alterations from the beginning, and yet might make the Virgin known to us, for this cause he has passed over her ancestors in silence, and traced the genealogy of Joseph. For if he had done this with respect to the Virgin, he would have seemed to be introducing novelties; and if he had passed over Joseph in silence, we should not have known the Virgin's forefathers. In order therefore that we might learn, touching Mary, who she was, and of what origin, and that the laws might remain undisturbed, he has traced the genealogy of her espoused husband, and shown him to be of the house of David. For when this has been clearly proved, that other fact is demonstrated with it, namely, that the Virgin likewise is sprung from thence, by reason that this righteous man, even as I have already said, would not have endured to take a wife from another race."

Only a carpenter?

This past Monday, we celebrated the US holiday of Labor Day, and it just so happens that Joe is the patron saint of laborers. Why? You might say, "Well, because he was a carpenter," and you have answered well.

But WAIT, THERE IS MORE!!! Check out this great article on a deeper meaning of Joe being a τέκτων.


*********************************
FYI, because I have begun the very busy year of 2nd Theology in seminary, I will probably be sharing more "interesting finds" over the next couple weeks. I ask for your prayers through the intercession of Joe who taught Jesus the Faith (Deut. 6:4-9, 20-25, Luke 2:51-52).