Is Pope Leo XIV the Antichrist?

The idea that the Pope is the Antichrist has a long history in certain strands of Protestant theology, originating primarily during the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. 

Reformers such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others identified the papacy with the Antichrist described in Scripture, viewing the Roman Catholic Church’s claims of authority, its hierarchical structure, and certain practices as a corruption of biblical Christianity. 

This claim is often supported by passages such as 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, which speaks of “the man of lawlessness” who “opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God,” as well as Daniel 7:25 and Revelation 13, which describe a figure or power that persecutes the saints, changes times and laws, and receives worship. However, despite these interpretations, the Pope cannot be the Antichrist.

The Bible describes the Antichrist (or "man of lawlessness," "beast," etc.) primarily in these key passages (using ESV for clarity unless noted):

 Core Biblical Descriptions

- 1 John 2:18, 22: "Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come... Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son."  

  The spirit of antichrist also denies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (1 John 4:3; 2 John 7).

- 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8-9: "Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God... And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders."

- Revelation 13:1-8 (the Beast): A beast rises from the sea with ten horns and seven heads, blasphemes God, exercises authority for 42 months, makes war on the saints, and receives worship from all whose names are not in the book of life. It receives power from the dragon (Satan).

- Daniel 7:8, 20-25 (little horn): Arises among ten horns/kings, speaks great/blasphemous words against the Most High, wears out the saints, attempts to change times and laws, and is given authority for "a time, times, and half a time" (often interpreted as 3.5 years).

- Other traits: Performs counterfeit miracles/signs/wonders to deceive (2 Thess. 2:9-10); comes "in his own name" and is received by those who reject the true Christ (John 5:43); exalts himself greatly and magnifies himself (Daniel 8:25, 11:36); associated with a period of global deception and persecution before Christ's return.

The Antichrist figure is a future end-times deceiver who opposes Christ, promotes lawlessness, demands worship as God (or in God's place), blasphemes, and leads many astray with satanic power—often linked to a rebuilt temple desecration (the "abomination of desolation") and ultimate destruction by Christ at His second coming.

 Pope Leo XIV Background

Pope Leo XIV (born Robert Francis Prevost on September 14, 1955, in Chicago, Illinois) is the current Bishop of Rome, elected on May 8, 2025, as the 267th pope. He is the first American-born pope and the first from the Order of Saint Augustine. He previously served as a missionary in Peru (where he holds dual citizenship), prior general of the Augustinians, and prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops under Pope Francis. He is approximately 70 years old, known for a moderate/administrative style, focus on social issues like the poor and migrants, and interest in ethical questions around technology (e.g., AI). His motto draws from St. Augustine: “In Illo uno unum” (“In the One Christ, we are one”).

 Comparison: Why Pope Leo XIV Does Not Match the Biblical Antichrist

Pope Leo XIV clearly does not fulfill the biblical criteria for the Antichrist. Here's a direct point-by-point contrast based on Scripture:

1. Denial of Christ vs. Affirmation of Christ  

   The Antichrist denies that Jesus is the Christ and denies the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22; 4:3). Pope Leo XIV, as head of the Catholic Church, publicly confesses Jesus Christ as Lord, God incarnate, and the Savior—core to Catholic doctrine and his own Augustinian spirituality. He leads worship centered on Christ, not against Him.

2. Exalting Himself as God in the Temple  

   The man of lawlessness "takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God" (2 Thess. 2:4). No evidence exists of Pope Leo XIV claiming divinity or demanding personal worship as God. Popes teach they are servants of Christ and successors of Peter, not God Himself. Catholic theology distinguishes the papacy from divine identity.

3. Blasphemy, Lawlessness, and Global Persecution  

   The Antichrist utters proud words and blasphemies against God, makes war on the saints, and conquers them (Rev. 13:5-7; Dan. 7:25). Pope Leo XIV's public record involves pastoral leadership, calls for peace, care for the poor, and moral guidance—not blasphemy, lawlessness, or violent persecution of believers. He continues emphasis on Catholic social teaching, not opposition to God or the saints.

4. Satanic Power, False Signs, and Deception  

   The Antichrist comes "by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders" to deceive those who reject truth (2 Thess. 2:9-10). There are no reports of Pope Leo XIV performing miracles (false or otherwise) to lead people away from Christ. His role is that of a visible church leader within historic Christianity.

5. Timing and Context  

   The Antichrist appears in connection with a great "rebellion" (apostasy) and precedes Christ's return in judgment (2 Thess. 2:3, 8). He is tied to end-times global political/religious upheaval, a 42-month authority period, and widespread worship of himself/the beast. Pope Leo XIV was elected through a normal conclave in 2025 as a 70-year-old administrator in a continuing line of popes. His papacy shows continuity with prior Catholic leadership, not sudden apocalyptic rebellion or satanic takeover.

Some historical Protestant traditions or modern speculation have labeled the papacy (or individual popes) as the Antichrist due to interpretive views of prophecy (e.g., seeing the "little horn" or "beast" as a religious-political power). However, these are interpretive applications, not direct matches to the literal biblical descriptions of a singular future figure who denies Christ outright and demands divine worship with miraculous deception. Pope Leo XIV's life, teachings, and actions align with orthodox Christian confession rather than opposition to it.

In summary, the biblical Antichrist is a deceiver who rejects core truths about Jesus, exalts himself blasphemously, and uses satanic power for global apostasy and persecution. Pope Leo XIV affirms Christ, serves within the Church, and shows no such traits. Claims otherwise appear to stem from pre-existing anti-papal biases rather than a close reading of Scripture or the facts of his papacy. Christians are called to test spirits (1 John 4:1) and remain vigilant for the true signs, but equating every pope—or this one—with the Antichrist does not hold up under biblical scrutiny. 

The Rapture That Wasn’t: Debunking the September 23, 2025, Prophecy and the Biblical Case Against It

The Rapture That Wasn’t: Debunking the September 23, 2025, Prophecy and the Biblical Case Against It

September 23, 2025, has come and gone, and the skies remain as they were—no trumpets, no vanishing believers, no apocalyptic chaos. Yet, for months leading up to this date, a vocal subset of Protestant evangelicals insisted that today would mark the Rapture, the supposed moment when Christians would be whisked away to heaven before a period of tribulation on Earth. Social media buzzed with predictions, numerological calculations, and cherry-picked Bible verses, all pointing to this specific date. Now, with the prophecy unfulfilled, it’s time to examine the Rapture doctrine itself: its questionable biblical basis, its absence in early Christian teaching, and the misinterpretations of Scripture used to prop it up. This post will dismantle the idea of the Rapture, showing why it’s a relatively modern invention, unsupported by the Church Fathers, and why the passages evangelicals cite don’t hold up under scrutiny.

 The Hype Around September 23, 2025

For much of 2025, certain evangelical circles were abuzz with claims that the Rapture would occur on September 23. The date was tied to a mix of biblical numerology, astronomical events, and cultural anxieties. Some pointed to the Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah), which coincided with September 22–23, 2025, claiming it fulfilled prophetic patterns. Others cited supposed alignments of planets or speculative interpretations of Revelation’s imagery. Posts on platforms like X amplified these predictions, with users sharing complex timelines and quoting verses like 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and Matthew 24:36–44. The fervor wasn’t new—similar predictions have cropped up regularly, from the Millerites in 1844 to Harold Camping’s 2011 debacle. Yet, each failed prophecy leaves believers disillusioned and skeptics shaking their heads.

The Rapture, as popularly understood, is a doctrine claiming that Christians will be suddenly taken up to heaven, leaving the world to face a period of tribulation under the Antichrist. Popularized by books like Left Behind and figures like Tim LaHaye, it’s a cornerstone of dispensationalist theology, a framework that divides history into distinct periods of God’s dealings with humanity. But when we peel back the layers, the Rapture’s biblical and historical foundations crumble. Let’s explore why.

 The Rapture: A Modern Invention

The idea of a pre-tribulation Rapture, where believers are snatched away before a seven-year period of chaos, is conspicuously absent from Christian teaching for the first 1,800 years of the Church’s history. It emerged in the 19th century, largely through the work of John Nelson Darby, a British preacher and founder of dispensationalism. Darby’s system, which gained traction in America through the Scofield Reference Bible, introduced the notion that God’s plan for Israel and the Church are distinct, with the Rapture marking the Church’s exit before God resumes His work with Israel.

Before Darby, no major Christian theologian—Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant—taught a secret Rapture. The Church Fathers, from Ignatius of Antioch to Augustine, spoke of the Second Coming of Christ as a single, visible event, not a two-stage process with a clandestine removal of believers. For example, Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 AD), in his work Against Heresies, describes Christ’s return as a universal, unmistakable event where the righteous are judged alongside the wicked. Similarly, Augustine in City of God (Book XX) discusses the resurrection of the dead at Christ’s return, with no mention of a prior Rapture. The Didache, an early Christian text from the late 1st century, instructs believers to prepare for Christ’s return and the final judgment, not an escape from tribulation.

The absence of the Rapture in early Christian thought is telling. If it were a core biblical doctrine, we would expect to see it in the writings of those closest to the apostles. Instead, the Church Fathers consistently taught that Christians would face trials and persecution, even in the end times, as part of their witness to Christ. The idea of an escape hatch before tribulation would have been foreign to them.

 Why the Rapture Isn’t Biblical

To understand why the Rapture lacks biblical grounding, we need to examine the Scriptures themselves. The doctrine hinges on a handful of passages, primarily 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17, Matthew 24:36–44, and 1 Corinthians 15:51–52. Proponents argue these texts describe a sudden, secret event where believers are taken to heaven. However, a closer look reveals these passages are about the Second Coming and the resurrection, not a separate Rapture event.

 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17: The “Caught Up” Misinterpretation

The most-cited Rapture passage is 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17:

> “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.”

Rapture proponents claim this describes a secret event where believers are whisked away. But the text suggests the opposite. The imagery—a cry of command, an archangel’s voice, and a trumpet—points to a loud, public event, not a stealthy one. The Greek word for “caught up” (harpazo) implies being seized or taken, often used in contexts of sudden movement, but it doesn’t inherently mean disappearance or secrecy. In fact, the passage parallels descriptions of the Second Coming, where Christ returns visibly to judge the world (e.g., Matthew 24:30–31).

The phrase “to meet the Lord in the air” is also misunderstood. In ancient culture, “meeting” a dignitary (Greek: apantesis) often meant going out to greet a ruler and escorting them back to the city. Paul’s audience would have understood this as believers rising to meet Christ as He returns to Earth, not being taken away to heaven. The focus is on reunion with Christ, not escape from tribulation. Early commentators like John Chrysostom (c. 349–407 AD) interpreted this passage as describing the resurrection at Christ’s return, not a separate event.

 Matthew 24:36–44: One Taken, One Left?

Another key passage is Matthew 24:36–44, particularly verses 40–41:

> “Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left.”

Rapture advocates interpret “taken” as believers being raptured to heaven. However, the context of Matthew 24 undermines this. The passage is part of the Olivet Discourse, where Jesus describes His Second Coming and the judgment of the nations. Verses 36–39 compare the event to the days of Noah, where the flood “took away” the wicked in judgment, while Noah and his family were preserved. Similarly, “one taken” likely refers to being taken in judgment, not salvation. The Greek word for “taken” (paralambano) can mean being received or taken away, depending on context, but here it aligns with the flood imagery of removal for judgment.

The Church Fathers, such as Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313–386 AD), understood Matthew 24 as describing the Second Coming, where Christ gathers His elect for salvation and judges the unrighteous. There’s no hint of a pre-tribulation escape. The idea of “one left” as those abandoned to tribulation is a modern imposition, not a first-century understanding.

 1 Corinthians 15:51–52: The Resurrection, Not a Rapture

Rapture proponents also cite 1 Corinthians 15:51–52:

> “Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.”

This passage describes the resurrection of the dead at Christ’s return, not a secret Rapture. The “last trumpet” connects it to other eschatological passages, like Revelation 11:15, which describes the final trumpet at Christ’s victory over the world. The transformation “in the twinkling of an eye” refers to the change from mortal to immortal bodies, not a disappearance from Earth. Early Christian writers like Tertullian (c. 155–240 AD) saw this as the resurrection at the end of the age, consistent with the broader biblical narrative of a single, climactic return of Christ.

 The Broader Biblical Narrative

Beyond these specific passages, the Rapture doctrine clashes with the Bible’s overarching eschatology. Scripture consistently portrays the end times as a time of trial for believers, not escape. Jesus warns in John 16:33 that “in the world you will have tribulation,” and Revelation 7:14 speaks of saints who “have come out of the great tribulation,” implying they endure it. The idea of a pre-tribulation Rapture contradicts passages like 2 Thessalonians 2:1–4, which states that the “day of the Lord” will not come until the “man of lawlessness” (the Antichrist) is revealed, suggesting believers will be present during these events.

The Rapture also disrupts the biblical unity of Christ’s return. The New Testament speaks of one Second Coming, where Christ returns to judge the living and the dead (Acts 1:11, Revelation 19:11–16). Inserting a separate Rapture event creates a convoluted timeline not supported by the text. The early Church expected to face persecution, as seen in the martyrdoms of the apostles and early Christians, and saw suffering as part of their witness (Romans 8:17).

 Refuting Rapture Proof-Texts

Let’s address other passages often cited by Rapture proponents and show why they don’t support the doctrine.

 Revelation 4:1: The “Come Up Here” Fallacy

Some claim Revelation 4:1, where John is told, “Come up here,” symbolizes the Church’s Rapture. This is a stretch. The verse is part of John’s visionary experience, not a prophecy about the Church. The text says nothing about believers being taken to heaven, and the Church Fathers, including Victorinus of Pettau (c. 270 AD), saw this as John’s personal call to receive the revelation, not a broader eschatological event.

 Luke 17:34–35: Another “Taken” Misreading

Similar to Matthew 24, Luke 17:34–35 describes one person being taken and another left. As with Matthew, the context points to judgment, not rapture. Jesus compares the event to the days of Noah and Lot, where the “taken” were destroyed (e.g., by the flood or fire). The disciples’ question, “Where, Lord?” (v. 37), and Jesus’ response, “Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather,” reinforce the idea of judgment, not salvation.

 Daniel 9:27: The Misapplied Seventy Weeks

Dispensationalists often tie the Rapture to Daniel 9:27, claiming it predicts a seven-year tribulation after the Church’s removal. However, most Church Fathers, including Jerome (c. 347–420 AD), interpreted Daniel’s seventy weeks as fulfilled in Christ’s first coming, not a future tribulation. The “he” in Daniel 9:27 likely refers to Christ, who established a new covenant, not an Antichrist making a future treaty. The Rapture’s reliance on this passage stems from dispensationalist assumptions, not biblical exegesis.

 The Church Fathers and the End Times

The Church Fathers’ writings provide a critical lens for evaluating the Rapture. They unanimously taught a single Second Coming, often emphasizing endurance through persecution. Justin Martyr (c. 100–165 AD) in his Dialogue with Trypho describes Christ’s return as a time when believers are gathered and the wicked judged, with no mention of a prior Rapture. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD) in his Treatise on Christ and Antichrist expects Christians to face the Antichrist, not be spared from him.

Even chiliasts (those who believed in a literal thousand-year reign of Christ), like Irenaeus, saw believers enduring tribulation before Christ’s return. The idea of a secret Rapture would have contradicted their emphasis on martyrdom and perseverance. The absence of the Rapture in their writings isn’t due to ignorance—they were steeped in Scripture and apostolic tradition—but because the doctrine didn’t exist.

 Why the Rapture Persists

If the Rapture is unbiblical and absent from early Christian teaching, why does it remain popular? Several factors contribute. First, dispensationalism’s spread through the Scofield Bible and popular media like Left Behind has embedded the idea in evangelical culture. Second, the Rapture offers psychological comfort—an escape from suffering in a chaotic world. Third, selective readings of Scripture, divorced from historical and cultural context, allow proponents to project modern ideas onto ancient texts.

The September 23, 2025, prediction is a case study in this phenomenon. By blending biblical passages with speculative numerology and current events, proponents created a compelling but baseless narrative. When the date passed without incident, many likely shifted to new predictions, as history shows with past failed prophecies.

 Conclusion: A Call to Biblical Fidelity

The failure of the September 23, 2025, Rapture prediction is a reminder to approach eschatology with humility and caution. The Bible calls Christians to readiness for Christ’s return (Matthew 25:13), not to speculate about dates or expect escape from hardship. The Rapture, as a doctrine, lacks biblical support and historical precedent, relying on misinterpretations of Scripture and a 19th-century theological innovation. The Church Fathers, grounded in apostolic teaching, saw the Second Coming as a singular, glorious event, not a two-stage process with a secret Rapture.

As believers, we’re called to endure trials, proclaim the gospel, and await Christ’s return with hope, not fear. The next time a date-specific prophecy emerges, let’s remember the words of Jesus: “No one knows the day or the hour” (Matthew 24:36). Instead of chasing speculative timelines, let’s live faithfully, trusting in the One who will return to make all things new.

---

 References

1. Augustine of Hippo. City of God, Book XX.

2. Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies, Book V.

3. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho.

4. Hippolytus of Rome. Treatise on Christ and Antichrist.

5. Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures.

6. John Chrysostom. Homilies on First Thessalonians.

7. Tertullian. On the Resurrection of the Flesh.

8. Victorinus of Pettau. Commentary on the Apocalypse.

9. Jerome. Commentary on Daniel.

10. The Holy Bible, English Standard Version.

11. Witherington, Ben III. The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism, and Wesleyanism. Baylor University Press, 2005.

12. Ladd, George Eldon. The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture. Eerdmans, 1956.

 

Deification of Charlie Kirk: Blasphemy, Division, and the Misrepresentation of Christian Virtue

 

A Critique of the Deification of Charlie Kirk: Blasphemy, Division, and the Misrepresentation of Christian Virtue

The assassination of Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative activist and founder of Turning Point USA, on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University, has sparked a wave of eulogies and tributes from conservative Christians, evangelical leaders, and even Catholic figures like Cardinal Timothy Dolan. Kirk’s death has been framed by many as a martyrdom, with some going so far as to compare him to biblical figures like St. Paul or St. Stephen, or to suggest he is now in heaven, a saintly figure whose life exemplified Christian virtue. This narrative, however, is not only problematic but also deeply offensive to the core tenets of Christianity. Kirk’s public persona, marked by divisive rhetoric, alignment with white supremacist talking points, and a rejection of Christ’s teachings on love and forgiveness, stands in stark contrast to the qualities of a martyr or saint. Cardinal Dolan’s comparison of Kirk to a “modern-day St. Paul” is particularly egregious, as it elevates a polarizing political figure to a status reserved for those who embody the selfless, sacrificial love of Christ. This essay will critically examine the deification of Charlie Kirk, argue that his actions and beliefs disqualify him from martyr or saint status, and highlight the blasphemy inherent in such comparisons, particularly in light of Christianity’s call to love one’s enemies and uphold moral integrity.

 The Deification of Charlie Kirk: A Misguided Narrative

Following Kirk’s tragic death, conservative evangelical leaders and political figures swiftly moved to cast him as a Christian martyr. Pastors like Rob McCoy of Godspeak Calvary Chapel and Jackson Lahmeyer of Sheridan Church labeled Kirk a “martyr for truth and freedom,” comparing him to St. Stephen, the first Christian martyr of the New Testament. President Donald Trump echoed this sentiment, calling Kirk a “martyr for truth and freedom” and ordering flags to be flown at half-staff in his honor. Cardinal Timothy Dolan, in a September 19, 2025, appearance on Fox & Friends, went further, declaring Kirk a “modern-day St. Paul,” a missionary and evangelist who embodied Christ’s teaching that “the truth will set you free.” These pronouncements, while emotionally charged in the wake of Kirk’s assassination, reflect a troubling trend of conflating political activism with spiritual sanctity.

The term “martyr” in Christian tradition refers to someone who dies for their faith, bearing witness to Christ through their sacrifice. St. Paul, one of the most revered figures in Christianity, was a transformative apostle who spread the Gospel across the Roman Empire, enduring imprisonment, persecution, and eventual martyrdom for his unwavering commitment to Christ. To compare Kirk, a political commentator known for his confrontational style and polarizing views, to such a figure is not only a stretch but a distortion of Christian theology. Kirk’s activism, while rooted in his evangelical faith, was primarily political, focused on advancing a conservative agenda through Turning Point USA and its faith-based arm, TPUSA Faith. His rhetoric often targeted marginalized groups, including racial and religious minorities, and the LGBTQ+ community, fostering division rather than unity. This stands in direct opposition to the Christian call to love one’s neighbor and pray for one’s enemies, as articulated in Matthew 5:44: “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

 Cardinal Dolan’s Blasphemous Comparison

Cardinal Timothy Dolan’s declaration that Charlie Kirk was a “modern-day St. Paul” is particularly troubling, given his position as a prominent Catholic leader. St. Paul’s life was defined by his radical conversion from a persecutor of Christians to a tireless advocate for the Gospel, preaching a message of universal love and redemption. His epistles emphasize humility, reconciliation, and the unity of all believers in Christ, regardless of social or ethnic divisions (Galatians 3:28). Kirk, by contrast, was known for his combative style, often engaging in debates designed to “own” his opponents rather than foster understanding. His rhetoric, which included disparaging remarks about Black women, working women, and Martin Luther King Jr., as well as his rejection of empathy as a “made-up new-age term,” is antithetical to the Pauline model of Christian witness.

Dolan’s comparison is blasphemous because it elevates a figure whose actions often contradicted Christ’s teachings to the status of one of Christianity’s greatest saints. By doing so, Dolan risks blurring the line between Catholic evangelization and partisan politics, a move that deepens divisions within the Church and undermines its moral authority. As noted in a National Catholic Reporter article, Dolan’s remarks contribute to the Catholic right’s “insatiable need to spiritually gaslight” the public into accepting Kirk as a model of perfect Christianity, destroying the ability to view his death with nuance. The Catholic Church has long grappled with issues of moral credibility, particularly in light of its handling of clergy abuse scandals. For a cardinal to equate a divisive political figure with St. Paul only further erodes trust in the Church’s ability to uphold authentic Christian values.

 Charlie Kirk’s Divisive Legacy

Charlie Kirk’s career was marked by a meteoric rise from a teenage activist to a leading voice in the conservative movement. Founding Turning Point USA in 2012 at the age of 18, Kirk built a platform that resonated with young conservatives through campus tours, viral debates, and a media presence that included The Charlie Kirk Show. While he initially focused on fiscal conservatism, his rhetoric grew increasingly intertwined with evangelical Christianity and Christian nationalism, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic. Kirk’s establishment of TPUSA Faith in 2021 and his partnerships with megachurch pastors signaled a shift toward a more overtly religious agenda, one that sought to “reclaim the country for Christ.”

However, Kirk’s version of Christianity was heavily influenced by Christian nationalism, a belief system that merges evangelical faith with patriotism and seeks to impose Christian values on public institutions. He endorsed the “Seven Mountain Mandate,” a concept popular in charismatic evangelical circles that calls for Christians to dominate seven spheres of influence: religion, family, government, education, media, arts, and business. At a 2020 Conservative Political Action Conference, Kirk praised Trump for understanding these “seven mountains of cultural influence,” a statement that aligned him with the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), a movement advocating for modern-day apostles to lead Christians in transforming society into a “dominion of Christ.” This ideology, as noted by scholars like Matthew Taylor, represents a more aggressive vision of social change than traditional evangelicalism, often embracing extreme theologies that prioritize power over humility.

Kirk’s rhetoric frequently included dog whistles associated with white supremacy. He opposed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, claiming they persecuted white people, and embraced the Great Replacement Theory, which stokes fear about immigrants replacing white populations. He defended white privilege and criticized Critical Race Theory, framing these issues in ways that appealed to racial anxieties. As Baptist News pointed out, Kirk’s rhetoric contained “a cacophony of racist dog whistles,” aligning him with the broader Trumpian ideology that often scapegoated minorities for political gain. Such positions are fundamentally at odds with the Christian commandment to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Mark 12:31) and to welcome the stranger (Matthew 25:35).

 The Rejection of Christian Love and Empathy

One of the most glaring contradictions in Kirk’s public persona was his rejection of empathy, a cornerstone of Christian ethics. In a 2022 statement, Kirk declared, “I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up new-age term that does a lot of damage.” This dismissal is profoundly un-Christian, as Jesus’ ministry was defined by empathy—compassion for the marginalized, the sick, and the sinner. The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) exemplifies this call to show mercy to those who differ from us, regardless of social or ethnic boundaries. Kirk’s belittling of empathy, coupled with his disparaging remarks about Black women and the LGBTQ+ community, reflects a selective application of Christian principles that prioritizes political ideology over moral integrity.

Furthermore, Kirk’s approach to his opponents lacked the charity and forgiveness that Christ modeled. While he claimed to engage in “civil discourse,” his debates were often performative, designed to humiliate rather than persuade. This stands in stark contrast to Jesus’ command to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Kirk’s rhetoric, which often vilified liberals, progressives, and minorities, fostered division rather than reconciliation. His criticism of churches that failed to oppose COVID-19 lockdowns or that avoided controversial sermons further illustrates his preference for confrontation over unity, a far cry from the peacemaking spirit of the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:9).

 The Misuse of Martyrdom and Sainthood

The rush to label Kirk a martyr or saint reveals a broader issue within conservative evangelicalism and the Catholic right: the politicization of Christian theology. Martyrdom, in the Christian tradition, is not conferred upon those who die for political causes, no matter how sincerely they profess their faith. As The Conversation notes, a Christianity historian questions whether Kirk’s death qualifies as martyrdom, given that he was killed at a secular university for reasons that remain unclear. The absence of a clear religious motive for his assassination undermines the claim that he died for his faith. Instead, conservative leaders have framed his death as an attack on Christianity itself, a narrative that fuels a sense of persecution among evangelicals who already view themselves as under siege by secular culture.

This persecution complex, as discussed in Forward, reflects a theological paradox: if Christians are not suffering, are they truly faithful? By casting Kirk as a martyr, leaders like Rob McCoy and Luke Barnett tap into this narrative, portraying his death as evidence of a spiritual battle against “radical left political violence.” Such rhetoric risks escalating political tensions and legitimizing calls for vengeance, as warned by experts like Matthew Boedy, who note that “spiritual warfare” language was a significant factor in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. The deification of Kirk thus serves a political purpose, rallying conservatives around a figure who symbolizes their cultural and religious grievances.

 The Catholic Perspective: Kirk’s Incomplete Journey

Reports that Kirk was considering conversion to Catholicism, as noted by Bishop Joseph Brennan of Fresno, add complexity to his story but do not justify his elevation to saintly status. Kirk’s admiration for Catholic ideas, such as his defense of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and his attendance at Mass with his wife at St. Bernadette Parish in Scottsdale, suggest an openness to Catholicism. However, as Catholicism.org emphasizes, the Catholic Church has consistently taught that there is no salvation outside the Church, and Kirk’s lifelong Protestantism and evangelical beliefs place him outside this framework. The suggestion that he could be canonized, as posed by some Catholic commentators, is “objectively scandalous” and reflective of a modernist tendency to overlook doctrinal differences in favor of ecumenical sentiment.

Even if Kirk was “this close” to converting, his public actions did not reflect the fullness of Catholic social teaching, which emphasizes the dignity of all persons, regardless of race, religion, or orientation. His rejection of empathy and his alignment with Christian nationalist ideologies, such as the Seven Mountain Mandate, are incompatible with the Church’s call to promote justice, peace, and the common good. Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s description of Kirk as a “martyr for Jesus Christ” in a non-canonized sense is equally problematic, as it glosses over Kirk’s divisive rhetoric and assumes a level of spiritual purity that his actions do not support.

 The Danger of Blasphemy and Division

The deification of Charlie Kirk is not only a theological error but also a dangerous precedent that risks further polarizing American Christianity. By elevating a figure who championed divisive and exclusionary rhetoric to the status of martyr or saint, conservative leaders and figures like Cardinal Dolan undermine the Gospel’s message of universal love and reconciliation. This trend aligns with the broader rise of Christian nationalism, which, as The Guardian notes, seeks to impose an explicitly Christian identity on the United States, often at the expense of pluralism and democratic values. Kirk’s adoption of NAR-influenced ideas, such as the Seven Mountain Mandate, reflects this shift toward a more aggressive, power-oriented Christianity that prioritizes cultural dominance over humility and service.

For Catholics, Dolan’s remarks are particularly disheartening, as they risk aligning the Church with a political movement that contradicts its teachings on social justice and the dignity of all persons. The Reddit community r/Christianity expressed outrage at Dolan’s comparison, with users calling it “idolatry and blasphemy” and accusing conservative Christians of “destroying the Gospel” by promoting Kirk as a saintly figure. These reactions highlight the broader disillusionment among Christians who see such rhetoric as a betrayal of the faith’s moral foundations.

 Conclusion: Reclaiming Authentic Christian Witness

Charlie Kirk’s assassination was a tragedy, and his death should be mourned as a loss of human life. However, the rush to deify him as a martyr or saint, and Cardinal Dolan’s comparison to St. Paul, is a profound misstep that distorts Christian theology and exacerbates division. Kirk’s legacy, marked by divisive rhetoric, alignment with white supremacist talking points, and a rejection of empathy, does not align with the Christian virtues of love, forgiveness, and humility. True martyrdom and sainthood are reserved for those who embody Christ’s teachings, including the difficult command to love one’s enemies and pray for those who persecute. By elevating Kirk to such a status, conservative leaders and Catholic figures like Dolan risk undermining the Gospel and alienating those who seek an authentic, moral Christian witness.

Christianity calls its followers to a higher standard—one of compassion, reconciliation, and justice. Kirk’s life, while marked by a professed faith, fell short of this standard in its public expression. Rather than sanctifying his memory, Christians should reflect on his death as a call to reject division and embrace the transformative love that Christ modeled. The Church, both Catholic and evangelical, must resist the temptation to conflate political activism with spiritual sanctity and instead uphold the radical, inclusive love that lies at the heart of the Gospel.

 References

- National Catholic Reporter, “Cardinal Dolan calls the late Charlie Kirk ‘a modern-day St. Paul.’ I’m not making this up.”, September 19, 2025[](https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/cardinal-dolan-calls-late-charlie-kirk-modern-day-st-paul-im-not-making)

- CNN, “Conservative evangelical church leaders are calling Charlie Kirk a martyr after his killing,” September 15, 2025[](https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/15/us/conservative-evangelical-leaders-charlie-kirk)

- The Conversation, “Can Charlie Kirk really be considered a ‘martyr’? A Christianity historian explains,” September 16, 2025[](https://theconversation.com/can-charlie-kirk-really-be-considered-a-martyr-a-christianity-historian-explains-265283)

- Forward, “Was Charlie Kirk a martyr? Here’s why Christians are divided and Jews should care,” September 15, 2025[](https://forward.com/news/769333/charlie-kirk-christian-martyr-debate/)

- The New York Times, “Charlie Kirk’s Christian Supporters Mourn Him as a Martyr,” September 11, 2025[](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/us/charlie-kirk-martyr-conservative-christians.html)

- Catholic Answers Podcasts, “What Charlie Kirk Gets Wrong About Catholicism,” January 7, 2025[](https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/what-charlie-kirk-gets-wrong-about-catholicism)

- The Guardian, “‘The devil is not gonna win’: how Charlie Kirk became a Christian nationalist martyr,” September 20, 2025[](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/20/charlie-kirk-martyr-christian-nationalist-movement)

- Angelus News, “How ‘close’ was Charlie Kirk to becoming Catholic?”, September 19, 2025[](https://angelusnews.com/voices/kirk-conversion/)

- Christianity Today, “Charlie Kirk Rallied Young Christians into a Political Movement,” September 12, 2025[](https://www.christianitytoday.com/2025/09/charlie-kirk-college-christians-campus-politics/)

- The Washington Post, “Opinion | I’m an evangelical Christian. There’s danger in casting Charlie Kirk as a martyr,” September 19, 2025[](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/09/18/charlie-kirk-evangelical-christian-martyr-politics/)

- USA Today, “Religious Americans are divided over Charlie Kirk. But they all agree on this,” September 16, 2025[](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2025/09/16/faith-communities-charlie-kirk-after-assassination/86119352007/)

- Los Angeles Times, “Some Christian nationalists mourn Charlie Kirk as a martyr, seek vengeance,” September 12, 2025[](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-09-12/charlie-kirk-christian-right-martyr-vengeance)

- Townhall, “Cardinal Dolan Calls Charlie Kirk a ‘Modern-Day Saint Paul’,” September 21, 2025[](https://townhall.com/tipsheet/amy-curtis/2025/09/21/cardinal-dolan-charlie-kirk-n2663650)

- Baptist News, “Here’s the real context for understanding Charlie Kirk,” September 18, 2025[](https://baptistnews.com/article/heres-the-real-context-for-understanding-charlie-kirk/)

- Catholicism.org, “On Charlie Kirk, from a Compassionate and Genuinely Catholic Perspective,” September 13, 2025[](https://catholicism.org/on-charlie-kirk-from-a-compassionate-and-genuinely-catholic-perspective.html)

- Christianity Today, “Died: Charlie Kirk, Activist Who Championed ‘MAGA Doctrine’,” September 11, 2025[](https://www.christianitytoday.com/2025/09/died-charlie-kirk-maga-doctrine-tpusa-political-activist/)

- Catholic News Agency, “Cardinal Gerhard Müller calls Charlie Kirk a ‘martyr’ for Christ, rebukes ‘satanic celebration’ of death,” September 19, 2025[](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/266657/cardinal-muller-calls-charlie-kirk-a-martyr-for-christ-rebukes-satanic-celebration-of-death)

- Reddit, “r/Christianity: Cardinal Dolan calls the late Charlie Kirk ‘a modern-day St. Paul.’ I’m not making this up,” September 20, 2025[](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1nmagn2/cardinal_dolan_calls_the_late_charlie_kirk_a/)

- Newsweek, “Charlie Kirk’s Christianity Was the Christianity of the American Founding,” September 17, 2025[](https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirks-christianity-was-christianity-american-founding-2131325)

- Arizona Republic, “Charlie Kirk wanted Christian faith to be his legacy. What did he believe?”, September 14, 2025[](https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2025/09/14/charlie-kirk-christian-religious-beliefs-shaped-advocacy/86116403007/)

- USA Today, “Charlie Kirk wanted Christian faith to be his legacy. What did he believe?”, September 14, 2025[](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2025/09/14/charlie-kirk-christian-religious-beliefs-shaped-advocacy/86116403007/)

- National Catholic Reporter, “Bishop Barron paints Charlie Kirk as Christlike. That’s not based in reality,” September 17, 2025[](https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/guest-voices/bishop-barron-paints-charlie-kirk-christlike-thats-not-based-reality)

- Catholic Answers Magazine, “Charlie Kirk: Friend to Catholics,” September 10, 2025[](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/blog/charlie-kirk-friend-to-catholics)

- Los Angeles Times, “Contributor: Why Christians rush to label Charlie Kirk a martyr,” September 12, 2025[](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2025-09-12/charlie-kirk-martyr)

Pope Leo XIV and Speaking in Tongues

Pope Leo XIV’s homily, delivered on September 1, 2025, during the Holy Mass for the opening of the General Chapter of the Order of St. Augustine at the Basilica of Sant’Agostino in Campo Marzio, Rome, offers a profound reflection on the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church and its members. 

Central to the homily is a discussion of the phenomenon of glossolalia, or speaking in tongues, as understood through the lens of St. Augustine’s theology and its relevance to the contemporary Church. This essay will explore the homily’s key themes, provide an English translation of relevant excerpts, explain the concept of glossolalia, and analyze St. Augustine’s perspective, as well as broader Church teaching, on why this phenomenon was necessary in the early Church but less so today. The discussion will draw on the homily, St. Augustine’s writings, and authoritative Church sources to provide a comprehensive understanding.

 Pope Leo XIV’s Homily: Context and Themes

The homily was delivered at a significant moment for the Augustinian Order, marking the start of their General Chapter, a time of discernment and renewal. Pope Leo XIV frames the Eucharist as a moment of grace, invoking the Holy Spirit to guide the Augustinians’ deliberations. He emphasizes three key virtues—listening, humility, and unity—as essential for the work ahead, drawing heavily on St. Augustine’s reflections on Pentecost and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The homily integrates scriptural references, particularly Acts 2:1-11, which describes the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and connects these to the Augustinian charism of communal discernment.

A pivotal section of the homily addresses glossolalia, referencing St. Augustine’s Sermon 269. Pope Leo XIV uses this to encourage the Augustinians to see themselves as members of the Body of Christ, capable of “speaking all tongues” through their unity and mission. Below is an English translation of the relevant excerpt from the homily:

> “Meditating on Pentecost, our Father St. Augustine, responding to the provocative question of those who asked why, today, the extraordinary sign of ‘glossolalia’ is not repeated as it was once in Jerusalem, offers a reflection that I believe can be very useful for the task you are about to undertake. Augustine says: ‘At first, each believer […] spoke all languages […]. Now the whole body of believers speaks in all languages. Therefore, even now, all languages are ours, because we are members of the body that speaks.’ Dear brothers and sisters, here, together, you are members of the Body of Christ, which speaks all languages. If not all the languages of the world, certainly all those that God deems necessary for the fulfillment of the good that, in His provident wisdom, He entrusts to you. Therefore, live these days in a sincere effort to communicate and understand, and do so as a generous response to the great and unique gift of light and grace that the Father of Heaven grants you by calling you here, precisely you, for the good of all.”

This passage highlights the shift from the miraculous, individual gift of glossolalia in the early Church to a broader, communal understanding of “speaking all tongues” through the Church’s unity and mission. Pope Leo XIV uses Augustine’s insight to underscore the importance of communication and mutual understanding within the Augustinian community, suggesting that the Spirit’s gift of tongues is now manifested through the Church’s collective witness.

 Understanding Glossolalia

Glossolalia, derived from the Greek words “glossa” (tongue or language) and “lalia” (speech), refers to the phenomenon of speaking in languages unknown to the speaker, often associated with divine inspiration. In the New Testament, glossolalia is most prominently described in Acts 2:1-11, where the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, speak in various languages, enabling people from different nations to hear the Gospel in their native tongues. This event is often interpreted as a reversal of the Tower of Babel, where human languages were confused (Genesis 11:1-9), symbolizing the restoration of unity through the Spirit.

Glossolalia can take two forms in Christian tradition:

1. Xenoglossia: Speaking in recognizable human languages without prior knowledge, as seen at Pentecost.

2. Ecstatic Speech: Uttering unintelligible sounds or words, often associated with prayer or worship, as described in 1 Corinthians 12-14, where St. Paul discusses the gift of tongues in the context of spiritual gifts.

In the early Church, glossolalia served as a sign of the Holy Spirit’s presence and power, authenticating the apostles’ mission and facilitating the rapid spread of the Gospel across linguistic and cultural barriers. It was a visible manifestation of God’s action, demonstrating the universality of the Church’s message.

 St. Augustine’s Perspective on Glossolalia

St. Augustine, a pivotal figure in Western Christianity, offers a nuanced interpretation of glossolalia in his Sermon 269, which Pope Leo XIV cites. Augustine addresses the question of why the dramatic sign of glossolalia, as seen at Pentecost, is no longer prevalent in his time (late 4th to early 5th century). He argues that the gift of tongues was necessary in the early Church to signify the universal mission of the Gospel but is no longer needed in the same way because the Church itself has become the embodiment of that universality.

In Sermon 269, Augustine states:

> “In the beginning, each believer […] spoke all languages […]. Now the whole body of believers speaks in all languages. Therefore, even now, all languages are ours, because we are members of the body that speaks.”

Augustine’s reasoning is rooted in his ecclesiology, which views the Church as the Body of Christ, encompassing all believers. At Pentecost, glossolalia was a visible sign that the Gospel was meant for all nations, breaking down linguistic barriers. By Augustine’s time, the Church had spread across the Roman Empire, incorporating diverse peoples and languages. The miraculous gift of tongues was no longer necessary because the Church’s very existence—its unity in diversity—fulfilled the same purpose. The “speaking of all tongues” now occurs through the collective witness of the faithful, who, as members of Christ’s body, proclaim the Gospel in every language and culture.

Augustine further emphasizes that the true sign of the Spirit’s presence is not miraculous phenomena but love and unity. He writes in Sermon 269:

> “As then the different languages that one person could speak were the sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit, so now it is the love for unity […] the sign of His presence. For as spiritual people rejoice in unity, carnal people always seek conflicts. […] What greater force of piety is there than the love for unity? You will have the Holy Spirit when you consent that your heart adheres to unity through sincere charity.”

For Augustine, the Spirit’s work is most evident in the Church’s unity, which transcends cultural and linguistic differences. The miraculous gift of tongues was a temporary sign, appropriate for the Church’s infancy, but the mature Church manifests the Spirit through communal love and mission.

 Church Teaching and Papal Perspectives

The Catholic Church’s understanding of glossolalia aligns closely with Augustine’s view, emphasizing its historical role and its transformation into the Church’s universal mission. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not explicitly address glossolalia but discusses the gifts of the Holy Spirit, including charisms like speaking in tongues, as graces given for the building up of the Church (CCC 799-801). The Catechism underscores that these gifts are subordinate to charity, echoing Augustine’s emphasis on love as the ultimate sign of the Spirit (CCC 800).

Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical Dominum et Vivificantem (1986), reflects on the Holy Spirit’s role at Pentecost, noting that the gift of tongues symbolized the Church’s mission to proclaim the Gospel to all nations. He writes:

> “The miracle of tongues on the day of Pentecost, described in the Acts of the Apostles, is a sign of the gift of the Spirit who enables the Church to speak to all peoples in their own languages.”

Paul VI suggests that the Spirit’s action continues through the Church’s preaching and sacramental life, not necessarily through miraculous signs like glossolalia. This perspective reinforces Augustine’s view that the Church itself is the enduring “tongue” of the Spirit.

Pope John Paul II, addressing charismatic renewal movements, acknowledged the legitimacy of glossolalia as a form of prayer but cautioned that it must be exercised in an orderly manner, as St. Paul instructs in 1 Corinthians 14. In a 1998 audience, he stated:

> “The gift of tongues, as described in the New Testament, can be a form of prayer or praise, but it must always serve the common good and be subordinate to charity.”

John Paul II emphasized that charisms like glossolalia are not ends in themselves but tools for building up the Church, aligning with Augustine’s focus on unity and love.

Pope Francis, in his 2014 address to the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, further clarified the role of glossolalia in modern times. He encouraged charismatics to use their gifts to foster unity, not division, stating:

> “The gift of tongues is a gift of the Spirit, but it must always be at the service of the Church’s unity and mission. It is not about personal exaltation but about building up the Body of Christ.”

Francis’s remarks reflect the Church’s consistent teaching that glossolalia, while valid, is not essential to the Church’s mission today, as the universal spread of the Gospel has been achieved through the Church’s institutional presence and missionary activity.

 Why Glossolalia Was Needed in the Early Church

In the early Church, glossolalia served several critical functions:

1. Evangelistic Tool: The miracle of Pentecost enabled the apostles to communicate the Gospel to diverse peoples, overcoming linguistic barriers. This was essential in the Church’s infancy, when it needed to establish its universal mission in a multilingual world.

2. Sign of Divine Authentication: Glossolalia was a visible sign of the Holy Spirit’s presence, confirming the apostles’ authority and the truth of their message. In a time when Christianity was a new and often persecuted movement, such signs bolstered the faith of believers and attracted converts.

3. Symbol of Unity: The reversal of Babel through glossolalia symbolized the restoration of human unity in Christ. It demonstrated that the Gospel was for all nations, fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah 66:18-19 that God would gather all peoples.

 Why Glossolalia Is Not Needed Today

According to Augustine and subsequent Church teaching, glossolalia is less necessary today for several reasons:

1. The Church’s Universal Presence: By the 4th century, the Church had spread across the known world, incorporating diverse languages and cultures. The need for miraculous linguistic gifts diminished as the Church itself became the vehicle for universal proclamation.

2. Maturity of the Church: Augustine viewed the early Church as in its “infancy,” requiring visible signs like glossolalia to establish its credibility. The mature Church, however, relies on the sacraments, preaching, and the witness of charity to manifest the Spirit’s presence.

3. Primacy of Charity: Both Augustine and modern popes emphasize that love and unity are the true signs of the Spirit. Glossolalia, while a valid charism, is subordinate to the greater gift of charity, which unites the Church across all differences.

4. Institutional Structures: The Church’s established structures, including its clergy, scriptures, and translations of liturgical texts into various languages, have rendered miraculous linguistic gifts largely unnecessary for evangelization.

 Pope Leo XIV’s Application

Pope Leo XIV’s homily applies Augustine’s insights to the Augustinian Order’s General Chapter, urging members to embody the Spirit’s gift of “speaking all tongues” through their communal discernment and mission. He suggests that the Augustinians, as part of the Body of Christ, carry forward the Pentecost miracle by communicating the Gospel in ways that transcend cultural and linguistic barriers. This is not through miraculous speech but through listening, humility, and unity—virtues that enable the Church to “speak” to all people.

The homily also reflects broader Church teaching by prioritizing the Spirit’s guidance in fostering unity. Leo XIV’s call to “communicate and understand” echoes Augustine’s emphasis on charity as the true language of the Spirit. By invoking Pentecost, the Pope reminds the Augustinians that their work is part of the Church’s ongoing mission to proclaim the Gospel universally, not through extraordinary signs but through the ordinary, yet profound, witness of a united community.

 Conclusion

Pope Leo XIV’s homily on September 1, 2025, offers a rich theological reflection on glossolalia, drawing on St. Augustine’s insight that the Church itself is the fulfillment of the Pentecost miracle. Glossolalia was a vital sign in the early Church, enabling evangelization and symbolizing unity, but its necessity has diminished as the Church has grown into a universal institution. Augustine and subsequent Church teaching, as articulated by popes like Paul VI, John Paul II, and Francis, emphasize that the Spirit’s presence is now most evident in charity and unity. Leo XIV applies this to the Augustinian context, urging members to embody the Spirit’s gift through their communal life and mission. This understanding underscores the Church’s enduring role as the Body of Christ, speaking all tongues through its universal witness.

 Sources

- Pope Leo XIV, Homily for the Opening of the General Chapter of the Order of St. Augustine, September 1, 2025[](https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/it/homilies/2025/documents/20250901-messa-sant-agostino.html)

- St. Augustine, Sermon 269

- Catechism of the Catholic Church, 799-801

- Pope Paul VI, Dominum et Vivificantem, 1986

- Pope John Paul II, Audience with the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, 1998

- Pope Francis, Address to the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, 2014

- Holy Bible, Acts 2:1-11, 1 Corinthians 12-14, Isaiah 66:18-19

Did Jesus 'Diss' Mary in Matthew 12:46-50, Mark 3:31-35 & Luke 8:19-21?

In the synoptic Gospels—Matthew 12:46–50, Mark 3:31–35, and Luke 8:19–21—Jesus responds to the announcement of His mother and brothers seeking Him by declaring that those who do the will of God are His true family. This response has been interpreted by some as a dismissal of Mary, His mother, and His biological family.

However, a careful examination of the textual, historical, and theological context reveals that Jesus’ statement is not a rejection of Mary or His kin but an expansion of familial identity to include all who obey God’s will. This interpretation aligns with the broader theological theme of spiritual kinship in the New Testament, emphasizing inclusion in God’s family through faith and obedience.

Textual Analysis

In Matthew 12:46–50, while Jesus is teaching, His mother and brothers stand outside, seeking to speak with Him. Jesus responds, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” and, pointing to His disciples, says, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Matt. 12:48–50, NIV). Similarly, Mark 3:31–35 records Jesus saying, “Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother” (Mark 3:35, NIV). Luke 8:19–21 offers a parallel account, with Jesus stating, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice” (Luke 8:21, NIV).

At first glance, Jesus’ rhetorical question and redefinition of family might appear to marginalize Mary and His biological relatives. However, the absence of any explicit rebuke or negative language about Mary suggests otherwise. Instead, Jesus uses the moment to teach a broader theological truth. As Nolland (2005) observes in his commentary on Matthew, “Jesus is not denying the significance of His biological family but is rather extending the concept of family to include those who share in His mission and obedience to God” (p. 515). The inclusive language of “brother, sister, and mother” elevates the status of His followers, aligning them with the intimate familial roles traditionally reserved for biological kin.

Historical and Cultural Context

In first-century Jewish culture, family ties were central to social identity and religious life. To redefine family in spiritual terms was a radical yet inclusive move by Jesus, reflecting the eschatological reorientation of relationships in the Kingdom of God. Keener (1999) notes that Jesus’ statement reflects a “new community of faith” where “spiritual bonds supersede but do not negate biological ones” (p. 374). Mary, as depicted in the Gospels, is consistently portrayed as a faithful servant of God. In Luke 1:38, she responds to the Annunciation with, “I am the Lord’s servant. May your word to me be fulfilled” (NIV), demonstrating her alignment with God’s will. Thus, far from dismissing Mary, Jesus’ statement implicitly includes her as a model of obedience, as she exemplifies the very criterion He establishes for spiritual kinship.

The cultural expectation of honoring one’s parents (Exod. 20:12) further supports the view that Jesus does not intend to dishonor Mary. France (2007) argues that “Jesus’ words affirm rather than negate Mary’s status, as her life of faith places her squarely within the redefined family of God” (p. 490). By emphasizing obedience to God’s will, Jesus elevates Mary’s spiritual role while extending the same honor to all who follow God.

Theological Implications

Theologically, Jesus’ redefinition of family underscores the universal call to discipleship and inclusion in God’s covenant community. The New Testament frequently employs familial language to describe the relationship between believers and God (e.g., Rom. 8:15–17; Gal. 4:4–7). In this context, Jesus’ statement aligns with the broader biblical narrative of adoption into God’s family through faith. As Blomberg (1992) explains, “The true family of Jesus consists of those who respond to God’s call with obedience, a category that includes Mary but extends beyond her to all who follow God’s will” (p. 208).

This interpretation is reinforced by the portrayal of Mary elsewhere in the Gospels. In John 19:25–27, Jesus entrusts Mary to the care of the beloved disciple, indicating His continued care for her. Additionally, Acts 1:14 depicts Mary among the disciples praying after the Ascension, suggesting her active participation in the early Christian community. These passages affirm that Mary remains within the circle of those who do God’s will, consistent with Jesus’ teaching in the synoptic accounts.

The Bible verses where Jesus speaks about those who do the will of His Father being His mother and brothers are found in the following passages:

- Matthew 12:46-50 (NIV): While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” - Mark 3:31-35 (NIV): Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” - Luke 8:19-21 (NIV): Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.” He replied, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.” These passages emphasize that Jesus considers those who follow God’s will to be His true family, highlighting a spiritual kinship over biological ties.

The Meaning of Spiritual Kinship

Jesus’ declaration that “whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Matt. 12:50) conveys a profound theological truth: obedience to God creates a spiritual family that transcends biological ties. This does not diminish Mary’s unique role as the mother of Jesus or her faithfulness but rather includes her as a paradigm of discipleship. As Stein (1996) notes, “Mary is not excluded but is instead the archetype of those who hear and obey God’s word” (p. 245). By following God’s will, believers are adopted into a divine family, sharing the same spiritual intimacy with Jesus as His earthly family.

This teaching has practical implications for Christian community. It emphasizes that faith and obedience, rather than lineage or status, define membership in God’s family. As Green (1997) observes in his commentary on Luke, “Jesus’ redefinition of family creates a community where all who obey God are united as kin, fostering a sense of belonging and mutual responsibility” (p. 336). This inclusive vision invites all people to participate in God’s redemptive plan through faithful obedience.

Conclusion

In Matthew 12:46–50, Mark 3:31–35, and Luke 8:19–21, Jesus does not dismiss Mary or His biological family but redefines family to include all who do God’s will. This teaching affirms Mary’s exemplary faith while extending the privilege of spiritual kinship to all believers. Far from a rejection, Jesus’ words elevate Mary as a model of obedience and invite others to join her in the family of God. Through faith and submission to God’s will, believers become brothers, sisters, and mothers to Jesus, united in a divine community that transcends earthly ties.

References

Blomberg, C. L. (1992). Matthew (New American Commentary). Nashville, TN: Broadman Press.

France, R. T. (2007). The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Green, J. B. (1997). The Gospel of Luke (New International Commentary on the New Testament). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Keener, C. S. (1999). A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Nolland, J. (2005). The Gospel of Matthew (New International Greek Testament Commentary). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Stein, R. H. (1996). Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Satan Hates Mary

The Blessed Virgin Mary is an important figure in Catholicism and Christianity in general. Unfortunately, her importance may come across as worship to our separated friends in the Protestant fundamentalist faith. They often see our devotions and attention to Mary as blasphemous or as an attempt to equate Mary with Jesus as some co-savior.

We know this is not so. Mary cooperated with God in His salvific mission.  However, we must wonder why there is so much hate for Mary.  The vitriol against Mary by Pentecostals, Evangelicals, and others can be offensive and troubling. How can these people who claim to follow Christ have so much hate for His Mother?

Well, the hate is definitely based on ignorance. However, hate for Mary is also demonic. Satan hates the Virgin Mary with passion. In Genesis 3:15 God tells the serpent, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers;
he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.” Here God is speaking of Eve and Mary.  How do we know this?  Well for one, Eve was the one present and was the one who listened to the serpent's lies. Moreover, we know Mary is referred to here as well because of what God says will happen in the future tense (Lumen Gentium 55).  He says that the woman's offspring will strike or crush the head of the serpent. Some Bibles have a feminine pronoun written instead, but this is due to possibly an error in the pre-Vulgate Latin versions of the Sacred Scriptures or a confusion on what pronoun to use because some Hebrew texts do have a feminine pronoun.  However, this is beside the point because the text in Genesis still emphasizes the important role of Mary.

This statement in Genesis 3:15 would not make sense if it referred to a mere descendant of Eve. If Adam and Eve fell for the serpent's lies, then what makes us think their descendants will do the opposite?  This offspring mentioned has to be human, but also strong enough to resist the serpent. Of course, we are referring to Jesus Christ who is Son of Man (Adamah/Adam) and Son of God (Luke 1:35, Luke 19:10). Jesus was truly human and truly divine. Because of this, He resisted the serpent when he came with his lies in the desert (Matthew 4:1-11).  While being human, Jesus never sinned, unlike Adam and Eve (2 Corinthians 5:21).  So clearly we see that this offspring mentioned to the serpent with Adam and Eve present was referring to Jesus.

As we know, Jesus did not fall from the sky nor did He materialize into space, time and matter spontaneously.  Rather, Jesus was born unto us via a woman named Mary (Isaiah 7:14, Luke 1:26-28). God could have done it any other way, but He did it this way in keeping with the statement made in Genesis 3:15. This is why Mary is so important to Christianity and why we Catholics put her on a pedestal as our Queen.  Mary herself foretold of the devotion that will be given to her for generations (Luke 1:48).  Mary saying 'yes' to God and giving birth to the Christ child was indeed a big strike to the head of the serpent.  This "enmity" materialized on the moment the archangel Gabriel told Mary of God's plans for her to carry His Son and her acceptance of that plan.

It is no wonder why Satan hates Mary.  She is not only human but also the Immaculate Conception who said yes to God.  As we know, Satan hates humanity (Wisdom 2:24).  If he hates humanity so much and is envious of us, then how much more would he hate the human who brought Christ to the world. This human happens to be a female. This is the woman the serpent is going to have enmity with.  The serpent hated Mary so much that he waited to attack her and devour her child (Revelation 12:4-5; 13-17). Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI writes:

After the original sin, God addresses the serpent, which represents Satan, curses it and adds a promise: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel" (Gn 3: 15). It is the announcement of revenge: at the dawn of the Creation, Satan seems to have the upper hand, but the son of a woman is to crush his head. Thus, through the descendence of a woman, God himself will triumph. Goodness will triumph. That woman is the Virgin Mary of whom was born Jesus Christ who, with his sacrifice, defeated the ancient tempter once and for all. This is why in so many paintings and statues of the Virgin Immaculate she is portrayed in the act of crushing a serpent with her foot. (http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/angelus/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20091208.html)

Satan hates Mary because of her devotion and her 'yes' to God.  Mary to Satan is a "cosmic party pooper" who ruined his fun in regards to deceiving humanity while watching us behave like non-human animals instead of the children of God which is what we are (Galatians 3:26).  However, he has no power over her and cannot defeat her.  He has no power over us who remain under her mantle despite waging war against us (Revelation 12:17).  Mary is indeed an important figure in Christianity. She was mentioned before she even existed and is mentioned again in the last book of the New Testament as this powerful Queen who wears the sun as clothing, stars as a crown and stands on the moon (Revelation 12:1).  Anyone who hates Mary is aligning him or herself with the offspring of the serpent.  We must love Mary, not hate her if we are to call ourselves Christian.  She is important to our faith.  Mary is not a goddess or a co-savior. The Catholic Church has never taught this and never will. However, we must acknowledge Mary's important role in our redemption and salvation. In the Church, we call this 'hyperdulia' which is a special veneration given to Our Lady, Our Queen, and Our Mother.  Mary is indeed 'blessed among women' and the Lord's favorite who is full of His grace (Luke 1:42, Luke 1:28).

Those who are with Christ must love Mary. We must cherish her and have devotion to her. As St. Maximilian Kolbe said, "Whoever does not wish to have Mary Immaculate as his Mother will not have Christ as his Brother."

Only Satan hates Mary and anything that has to do with her.  She and her Son have crushed his proud head.

AVE MARIA, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc, et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.



   

And they shall pick up snakes...

Many of our separated brethren often misinterpret Mark 16:17-18  which says that "they will pick up snakes.."  Because of this misinterpretation, many 'pastor's pick up poisonous snakes or walk among them in an attempt to prove their faith in God, or God's power to protect them.

While the idea seems noble, it is offensive to God.  Jesus said that we should not tempt the Lord.  The above verse is not a command to go and bother snakes!  It is meant to show that in the case danger does appear before a messenger of Christ, nothing will stop that messenger because God will protect him/her.

Unfortunately, a 'pastor' named Mark Wolford was poisoned when a snake bit him on the thigh.  He passed away due to the poison.

The best way to show Faith in God is by living the Faith, not bothering dangerous animals that can kill you!!!

Source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/veteran-snakehandling-pas_n_1559762.html?ref=topbar

Pentecost

Today we celebrate Pentecost or the day when the Catholic Church was publicly officially born.  The Blessed Virgin Mother Mary and the Apostles gathered in an upper room and prayed for 9 days.   They then received the Holy Spirit who descended upon them as tongues of fire.  


They received the gifts of the Holy Spirit as well as the gift of tongues so that people could understand them in their native language as they preached the Gospel of Christ. (Acts 2)  


Pentecost means the 'fiftieth day' and was the day on which the 'Feast of Weeks' or 'Shevout' was celebrated.  On this day, all Jews recalled the day the Commandments were given to Moses 50 days after their Exodus from Egypt.  There was a big harvest on this day.  


Jesus had promised the Holy Spirit to the Apostles.  He told them that the Helper or Paraclete will come to them reminding them of all He has taught them and will guide them in Truth.  (John14:15-31)  These are important verses that are ignored by our separated brethren who often claim that the Catholic Church is corrupt and apostate.  In America's infancy, groups such as the Finneyites rose up preaching a form of "primitivism," or what they called a return to the "original Christianity."  We see many of their sects today such as the Baptists, Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Methodists, Evangelicals, Mormons, Adventists and so on.  


Anyone who believes that Christ's Catholic Church became corrupt is basically calling Jesus a liar.  If Jesus indeed promised that the Spirit would guide the Church in Truth, how can it become corrupt?  How can the Church fall away from Christ?  This is a misconception our separated friends must really meditate on and throw away as ignorant rhetoric from the harsh anti-Catholicism that existed in the past - post reformation into America's infancy.   

   

• Let us pray for the Holy Spirit to come once again and renew the Catholic Church and the world.  
• Let us pray to the Holy Spirit to rid the Church of scandals; to rid the Church of her Judas's who continue to betray Jesus.  
• Let us pray for the Holy Spirit to renew our Faith in this Year of Faith and to restore or give the gift of Faith to those who lost it or never bothered to open it.  
• Let us pray to the Holy Spirit to tell us what to do in these trying times.  To instruct us how to confront with love and reason the ideas of today such as Relativism, Atheism, Secularism, Homosexuality - Marriage rights issues, Feminism, Indifferentism, Personhood distortions.  

Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and enkindle in them the fire of your love, sent forth your spirit and they shall be created and you shall renew the face of the earth.  


O, God, who by the light of the Holy Spirit, did instruct the hearts of the faithful, grant that by the same Holy Spirit we may be truly wise and ever enjoy His consolations. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.