Was Mary Saved?

A Protestant friend of mine related his struggle with the Catholic view of Mary's sinlessless, because Mary herself expressed that she needed a Savior, in Luke 1:46-47, when she proclaimed at the start of the Magnificat, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.”

I think that there's a simple response to this, which we find in Psalm 30:3, in which David proclaims, “You, LORD, brought me up from the realm of the dead; You spared me from going down to the pit.”  In that verse, David describes two different forms of salvation: God saves him from “the realm of the dead” by taking him out once he's already in there.  But He saved him from “the pit” by preventing him from going in the first place.

Think of sin as a mud puddle.  The usual way that we talk and think about God's salvation is the first way: He washes us free from the mud we're caked in.  But He can also save by keeping us from sinning in the first place. If He couldn't, we wouldn't pray, “lead us not into temptation” in the Our Father.

Of the two forms of salvation, which is more perfect?  The answer is obvious: it is more perfect to be saved from falling into sin then it is to be permitted to fall in, and repaired afterwards.  So, for example, in Psalm 22:21, when we hear the Psalmist cry, “Save me from the mouth of the lion,” there are two ways that God could answer this cry: by taking him out of the lion's mouth, or by preventing him from being ensnared at all.  Both forms are salvation, but the second is the more perfect salvation.  So yes, Mary is saved in the Catholic view.  And in fact, she's saved more perfectly than anyone else, because she's saved even from the temporary pain and self-damage of a life of sin.

To understand the majesty and the power of the Redemption, look at the lives of two people: Mary and St.  Paul.  In someone like Paul, we see the depth of the forgiveness of the Redemption: he killed Christians, but was brought out of his grave sins by the love of Christ, and forgiven a large debt (Luke 7:47).  This shows us that how low the Lord can reach to pull us out of sin.   In someone like Mary, we see the beauty of a life without any sin, venial or mortal, original or actual.  Remember, this is the way mankind was intended to live from the beginning, in God's Sovereign design.  This is how He originally made Adam and Eve.  And this is the life we'll live in Heaven.  So if Paul shows how low God can reach to save us, Mary shows how high He can elevate us.

Happy Feast of the Holy Family!

The Massacre of the Innocents and the Historicity of the Gospels

The first few days after Christmas Day are a surprisingly bloody affair. On December 26, we celebrated the Feast Day of St. Stephen, sometimes called “the protomartyr,” since he is the first Christian after the Resurrection to be martyred for the faith. Today, we celebrate the Feast of the Holy Innocents, which commemorates Herod's massacre of the children in the Bethlehem area.

Guido Reni, Massacre of the Innocents (1611)

The Biblical basis comes from Matthew 2:13-18, from sometime after the Magi visit Christ:

When the magi had departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you.  Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him."  Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt. He stayed there until the death of Herod, that what the Lord had said through the prophet might be fulfilled, Out of Egypt I called my son.  

When Herod realized that he had been deceived by the magi, he became furious. He ordered the massacre of all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had ascertained from the magi. Then was fulfilled what had been said through Jeremiah the prophet:  A voice was heard in Ramah, sobbing and loud lamentation; Rachel weeping for her children, and she would not be consoled, since they were no more.

The Infancy narratives found in Matthew and Luke's Gospels are some of the most often-attacked portions of the New Testament, on the basis of their alleged historical unreliability.  For example, James Martin, S.J., recently wrote:

The two Gospels that do mention what theologians call the "infancy narratives" differ on some significant details. Matthew seems to describe Mary and Joseph as living in Bethlehem, fleeing to Egypt and then moving to Nazareth. The Gospel of Luke, on the other hand, has the two originally living in Nazareth, traveling to Bethlehem in time for the birth and then returning home. Both Gospels, though, place Jesus' birthplace in Bethlehem.

It's true that Matthew and Luke both include details that the other omits, and that this can create problems in trying to construct an accurate timeline.  Of course, this is true throughout the Gospels.  After all, the whole point of having four different Gospel accounts is that each includes details the others omit (a Gospel that didn't do this would be merely repetitive).  But both Matthew and Luke's Infancy narratives include details that some scholars are calling foul about.

With Luke, the biggest problem raised is the timing of the Census mentioned in Luke 2:2 -- which I've addressed before.  With Matthew's Gospel, the biggest historical problem is the Massacre of the Holy Innocents.  Wouldn't something this horrendous warrant extensive attention from both Christian and pagan sources?   Shouldn't we expect to see a lot written about this?

No, actually.  This is a massacre of children in a tiny rural area on the periphery of the Roman Empire, a sadly frequent occurrence (even today).  The number of children killed may have been rather small in the scheme of things, perhaps a few dozen.  And from a Christian perspective, the Massacre of Holy Innocents was likely omitted by many accounts because it's tangential to the story of Who Jesus is, and why it's important to believe in Him.  At the least, this is why it doesn't come up often amongst Christians today, and there's little reason to think early Christians would be different on this count.

In any event, the question can be turned on its head.  St. Matthew's Gospel is written during the mid-first century, and it describes this massacre.  If such an event hadn't occurred, wouldn't we expect to hear an objection on that basis?  A man from Bethlehem of the right age would have been all that it would take to invalidate the historicity of the Gospel.

So even if the extra-Biblical testimony was totally silent, that wouldn't be particularly surprising.  But we actually do hear about the Massacre, and from a surprising source:  Macrobius Ambrosius Theodosius, a pagan Roman praetorian writing in the early 400s.  He mentioned in his Saturnalia that “On hearing that the son of Herod, king of the Jews, had been slain when Herod ordered that all boys in Syria under the age of two be killed, Augustus said, ‘It is better to be Herod’s pig than his son.’”

Now, Macrobius gets certain historical details mixed up (Herod killed more than one son, but as far as we know, not during the Massacre; and the Massacre occurred in Judea, not Syria), but it's clear that the Massacre is something he's familiar with even as a pagan, and that it contributed to Herod's reputation as being particularly blood-thirsty.  And of course, the fact that Herod killed one of his wives and more than one son to avoid claimants to the throne makes it clear that he certainly was the type willing to murder some poor people's children to avoid the prophesied Messiah-King of the Jews.

With Macrobius' account, we find extra-Scriptural (and non-Christian) support for even the most seemingly-incredible detail: that Herod massacred a number of infants in an effort to find and kill the prophesied Messiah-King.  And as Matthew notes, this Massacre was foretold in the Book of Jeremiah.  It's also prefigured in the massacre of the innocents described in Exodus 1:15-17, occurring at the time of the birth of Moses.  All of this points to the fact that the Bible is both historical and prophetic.

Why Celebrate Christ's Birth, Instead of His Conception?

Since life begins at conception, why do we focus on celebrating the Birth of Christ, rather than His Conception?  After all, from a Catholic perspective, the Incarnation really occurs about nine months prior to Christmas.  Indeed, pro-life movements around the world have begun using March 25 as a day celebrating the life of the unborn, during the Feast of the Annunciation, nine months before Christmas.  And why do we pro-lifers throw birthday parties, instead of conception-day parties?  Why do we speak of being born again? Why measure our ages from the date of our birth, instead of conception?

I. The Conception and Birth of Christ

Agnolo Bronzino, Adoration of the Shepherds (c. 1538) (detail)

LifeSiteNews has a great article fittingly called, “If life begins at conception, why wouldn’t we celebrate the Incarnation instead of Christmas?”  That's a rather reasonable question, and LSN does a good job answering it:

To be sure, the Incarnation is celebrated in many churches, including the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern rites, on March 25th, quite appropriately nine months ahead of Christmas. But while the Incarnation (also known as the Annunciation) is observed in such cases as a great feast, it’s certainly not afforded the solemnity and pomp of Christmas.

And that’s the way it should be, I’d say.

Conception is hidden, private, intimate. When a couple realizes they have conceived a child, they are naturally filled with joy, but that joy is held between them.

As they reveal the happy news to family and friends, or the child makes herself known by the mother’s blossoming belly, the child’s presence is revealed more and more until she is ready to declare herself to the world.

While our joy at the conception of a child is often no less than at her birth, it is usually less conscious. It takes time for this amazing gift to strike us.

So, quite naturally, we reserve our greatest celebrations for the child’s birth.

Georges de la Tour, Adoration of the Shepherds (1644)

This is a very good answer, and one which finds plenty of support in early Christian writings.  For example, St. Fulgentius of Ruspe described Christmas as the day that “our King, clothed in His robe of flesh, left His place in the virgin’s womb and graciously visited the world.”  This description makes it clear that Christ was very much alive in the womb before Christmas, but that He wasn't really in the world yet.  

Likewise, Scripture puts a strong emphasis on the circumstances of the birth of Christ (Lk. 2:1-20), while we know basically nothing about the time and place of His conception (Gabriel prophesies it in Lk. 1:35, but we don't even know how quickly that prophesy came true).  Nevertheless, Scripture is quite clear that Christ is alive prior to His birth (as well as John the Baptist: see Lk. 1:39-45, and here).

II. Was Christ Eternally Begotten?

There's a great parallel to all of this in a dispute from the early Church.  The Arians denied that God the Son was eternally begotten of the Father.  Instead, they claimed that Christ became the Son at His Baptism, and pointed to passages like Psalm 2:7, Acts 13:33, Heb. 1:5, and Heb. 5:5 for support.  This heresy has had a resurgence amongst some Evangelicals; even John Armstrong used to teach it.

1st Council of Nicea - Arius is in brown

This heresy may seem like a minor quibble, but it's not.  If Jesus wasn't always the Son of God, then the core teaching of orthodox Christianity, the Trinity, is wrong.  But the Arians were wrong, and the First Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) condemned them for it.  The First Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) built on Nicea by adding a phrase to the Nicene Creed explaining that Christ is eternally-begotten, or “begotten of the Father before all worlds.” (For good measure, jolly old St. Nicholas actually slapped Arius in the face for denying the Divinity of Christ).

The reason that we can say that the Arians were heretics is that well before His Baptism, Christ affirms His unique Sonship; this is clearest in Luke 2:49, in which a young Jesus speaks of going about His Father's business.  This is about two decades before His Baptism, yet He's already the Son of the Father in a unique way.  Indeed, throughout every statement He ever makes about the Father, Jesus calls the Father “My Father” or “your Father,” but never “Our Father,” to make clear to us that He's the Son of the Father in a way that we aren't (see, e.g., John 20:17).  We're adopted as sons and daughters of God (Romans 8:17), but Christ is the Only-Begotten (John 3:16)

And St. John begins His Gospel with this beautiful insight into the Trinity, and particularly of the relationship between the Father and the Son (John 1:1-3):

Andrea del Verrocchio, Baptism of Christ (1475)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 

So Jesus doesn't become the Son of God at His Baptism, or even at His Birth.  He's the Son of God for all eternity, from “the beginning,” which is why God can speak of Himself in plural form clear back in Genesis 1:26.  

So what's going on with those passages which would seem to suggest He was begotten at His Baptism?  At His Baptism, what was hidden to the world (that the Son of God was among them) was made visible: that's the sense in which Hebrews and Acts say that Jesus is “begotten” at His Baptism.  But He was the Son of God before this, from all eternity.  Likewise, Christmas celebrates the point at which what was hidden to the world (that the Son of Mary was among us) was made visible.  But Jesus was the Son of Mary before this, from about nine months earlier.

So just as we might say that Jesus was twelve years old when He went up to the Temple (Luke 2:42), measured from His birth, without literally suggesting that He didn't exist prior to His birth, we see something similar in the way Scripture speaks of His Baptism.

Conclusion

The image that I think captures this well is of a gift under a Christmas tree.  The gift is already there, and if you receive it in the mail, you already own that gift prior to unwrapping it.  But the celebration is of the moment that you unwrap it, and encounter it in a certain way for the first time.

Certain things are totally private, and conception is one of them (even parents don't know the exact moment of conception -- there's something mysterious and beautiful about the fact that it's known to God alone).  We may get excited at seeing the wrapped presents placed under the tree, knowing what they herald.  But we quite reasonably celebrate the point at which the presents are unwrapped,  and we come face to face with the Gift.

Day 7: O Emmanuel

Tonight's O Antiphon is the last one, and it's the most famous and probably the most beautiful.  It's “O Emmanuel.” The name Emmanuel.means “God with us,” and it's taken from Isaiah 7:13-14, in which Isaiah says,

“Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”

The most incredible insight to the name (and title) Emmanuel was one I discovered last year.  Here's what I wrote on it last Christmas:

Emmanuel is unique, in that it is prophetic, in a way, of the name of Christ. Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis, in Volume 1 of Fire of Mercy, Heart of the Word (a particularly fitting book to quote from, since I started reading it after getting it for my dad for Christmas), spoke about the radical significance behind Matthew's translation in Matthew 1:24 of Emmanuel from Hebrew, the language the Jews considered sacred, to Greek, the language of the Gentiles and the world.  He sees in this translation a parallel between the Old and New Covenant, and how God is viewed under each.  From there, he says:

“On the subject of Jesus as "translator" of God, Fray Luis de Leon, the Spanish Dominican who was also a great writer, has left us an unforgettable formulation in his treatise on The Names of Christ. He says that the sacred Name of God in the Old Testament, יהוה, the unpronounceable tetragrammaton, is found again in the Hebrew name of Jesus, ישוע, with the addition of the radicals from the verb "to save" and the vowels necessary to pronounce the divine Name. In this way, while the Name of God is so holy, mysterious, and pure that it cannot be pronounced by a human mouth, the addition of Christ's divine will to save mankind "translates," that is, transfers, the sanctity of God to our level as creatures and at last makes it possible for us, too, to pronounce God's true Name, which cannot be any other than Jesus, and thus be saved,  All else that we subsequently come to know about God rests on this primary revelation: He is the One who saves us in Jesus.”

It's an amazing insight.  Now, go back to the prophesy in Isaiah 7:14.  The name Emmanuel means "God with us," and the name Jesus explains how and why God is with us.  That is, He's with us in the Person of Jesus Christ, and He's with us to save.

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

The traditional Latin Antiphon is:

O Emmanuel, Rex et legifer noster,expectratio gentium, et Salvator earum:veni ad salvandum nos,Domines, Deus noster.

Which means, in English:

O Emmanuel, our King and our Law-giver,
Longing of the Gentiles, yea, and salvation thereof,
Come to save us, O Lord our God!

It corresponds, of course, to the first verse of O Come, O Come, Emmanuel:

O Come, O Come, Emmanuel,
and ransom captive Israel,
that mourns in lonely exile here
until the Son of God appear.

And the English version used in the Antiphon today:

O Emmanuel, king and lawgiver,
desire of the nations, Savior of all people:
Come and set us free, Lord our God.

And finally, here are the Dominican student brothers at Blackfriars in Oxford singing the Latin plainchant:

Is This the End of the Christmas Season, or the Beginning?

Terry Mattingly of GetReligion has a great column about the “two Christmases.”  As he notes, for the Church, the Christmas season runs from Christmas Day (December 25) to Epiphany (January 6).  These are the famous Twelve Days of Christmas.  But in secular society, the Christmas season runs from around Thanksgiving until December 25.   So this Sunday marks either the end of the Christmas season (for secular culture), or the First Day of Christmas (for the Church).

It's an important difference, and one in which he notes many Christians tend to side with the world, rather than the Church:

“Unfortunately, most Americans -- especially evangelical Protestants -- have so distanced themselves from any awareness of the Christian calendar that their decisions about that kind of question have been handed over to the culture,” said the Rev. Russell D. Moore, dean of the theology school at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.

Many evangelicals fear the “cold formalism” they associate with churches that follow the liturgical calendar, and the result, he said, is "no sense of what happens when in the Christian year, at all." Thus, instead of celebrating ancient feasts such as Epiphany, Pentecost and the Transfiguration, far too many American church calendars are limited to Christmas and Easter, along with cultural festivities such as Mother's Day, the Fourth of July, Halloween, Thanksgiving and the Super Bowl.

As the piece notes, this is particularly problematic for Evangelicals, but I think we Catholics can be guilty of this, too.

The Difference Between the Two Christmases

For the world, what we've just gone through was the Christmas season, and it's tied to (at best) being nice, and making time for family and friends, or (at worst) non-stop marketing, shopping, and fighting off loneliness and despair with a credit card.

It's fitting that this Sunday marks the end of the world's Christmas season, because this is the climax of their efforts.  This is the day when we come together and share all of those presents, and where we take some time off of work to be with our families.  Once the presents are opened, and our families have started to annoy us again, it's back to our ordinary routines.  Santa Claus, the central figure of this Christmas, is already gone by Christmas morning.

But for the Church, this Sunday should mark a beginning, not an end.  It marks Christ's Advent into the world where, for the first time, we could behold the Savior of the World in the Flesh, as the rich and the poor, the Magi and the shepherds alike, fall to their knees.  The period we just went through wasn't the Christmas season, because Christ hadn't come yet.  It was the Advent season, in which we've prepared for Christ's coming.

The Catechism explains that in Advent, the Church “makes present this ancient expectancy of the Messiah, for by sharing in the long preparation for the Savior's first coming, the faithful renew their ardent desire for his second coming.200 By celebrating the precursor's birth and martyrdom, the Church unites herself to his desire: 'He must increase, but I must decrease.'”  Just as you tidy up for a party, and tidy up a lot for an important party, the birthday of Christ Himself, His Visit to each and every one of us, should motivate us to clean house.  And cleaning house involves throwing out our old sins, and making space for Christ to come in.

With this view, Christ is Our Guest, and we want Him to stay with us forever.  So Dec. 25 celebrates His arrival, and we savor this arrival in a special way for days, culminating on either January 6 (the traditional date of the Feast of the Epiphany), Epiphany Sunday (the nearest Sunday to January 6), or even Candlemas (February 2, for those cultures that really like Christmastime).

In a nutshell, here's what I'd say are the two most important differences between the liturgical calendar and the secular one:

1. One makes Christmas something we do for Christ, while the other makes it something He does for us. The world's version focuses on our efforts (our shopping, caroling, and the like), while the Church's version focuses on Christ's entry.
   
2. The world's view of the Christmas season is largely without Christ.  That is, all but the last day are a celebration of something we're calling “Christmas,” without the Nativity.  What exactly are we celebrating December 25 that's different than what we were celebrating, say, Dec. 20? By de-emphasizing the utter centrality of the Nativity to Christmas, the focus starts to come off of Christ.  Whether it's shifted towards family or shopping, that shift's still a disaster.

As Mattingly notes, this has hit Evangelicals the hardest.  With a cultural suspicion of Advent and the whole notion of “liturgical seasons, ” Evangelicals end up turning to the world for their seasons and holidays.  The most shocking example (at least to me) was my discovery that when Christmas falls on a Sunday (as it does this year), many Evangelical churches simply cancel church services.  David Gibson reports for the Wall Street Journal:

Nearly 10% of Protestant churches will be closed on Christmas Sunday this year, according to LifeWay Research, and most pastors who are opening up say they expect far fewer people than on other Sundays. Other reports suggest that churches across the board are scaling down their services in anticipation of fewer worshipers.

"We have to face the reality of families who don't want to struggle to get kids dressed and come to church," Brad Jernberg of Dallas's Cliff Temple Baptist Church told the Associated Baptist Press. Similarly, Beth Car Baptist Church in Halifax, Va., is planning a short service featuring bluegrass riffs on Christmas music. "I'll do a brief sermon, and then we're going home," said Pastor Mike Parnell.

I suppose that this avoids the risk that worshiping God would get in the way of the purpose of secular-Christmas... to be with your family.

The Real War on Christmas

The secular “Christmas” season is a time of strife, with the infamous “war on Christmas” specials that Fox runs annually.  But the real “war on Christmas” that we should be worried about is the one I just described, the internal destruction of Christmas by Christians. 

Let me give two examples of what I mean here.  The first one comes via Matt Archibold, and is about a dispute over whether or not two bus drivers were allowed to decorate their buses with Christmas decorations.  One of the bus drivers defended the decorations by saying, “This is totally not a religious thing. This is about Christmas.”  Yikes.  This should be a wake-up call for Christians who want Christmas to be, you know, about Christ.  We should be uncomfortable with both sides of the “war on Christmas”: those who want Christmas stamped out of public life, and those who want Christmas hollowed out into something harmless to secularist bigots. 

The second example is a more general one: the ongoing debate over whether we should say “Merry Christmas!” or “Happy Holidays!”  Reality check : the word “holiday” is just a shortened form of “holy day.”  Christmas is a holiday, Fourth of July is not (hopefully).  But “holiday” has come to mean simply “vacation,” because that's how we treat our holidays.  This is most obvious in the UK, where vacationing (anytime of year) is often described as “going on holiday.”  But we Americans are guilty of it as well. If we weren't, we wouldn't be so upset about the phrase “Happy Holidays,” because it'd be a religious phrase.  If “Happy Holidays” has been sterilized to the point that secularists have no trouble using it, well, that's partly our own fault.

Conclusion

So if this Sunday is to be an end, let it be an end to the secular celebration of “Christmastime” one and for all.  Take this Christmas as an opportunity to start fresh by welcoming Christ as your Guest both for the day, and for the Christmas season, and forever.  

Day 6: O Rex Gentium (O King of the Nations)

Tonight's O Antiphon is “O Rex Gentium,” meaning “King of the Nations,” or “King of the Gentiles.” The idea is that the Messiah would be King, not only of the Jews, but the Gentiles as well: that is, of all nations.  For example, Isaiah prophesied of the Christ (in Isa. 2:4),

“He shall judge between the nations, and shall arbitrate for many peoples; they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”

And God says, in the Messianic prophesy in Isaiah 48:6,

“I will also make You a light of the nations
So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

This latter prophesy is explicitly applied to Christ by the priest Simeon in Luke 2:32.  This fulfills a theme we see thought the Old Testament from Genesis onwards-- that the Jews are chosen as God's people not only for their own good, but for the good of the Gentiles as well, so that all nations can come to Christ (see, for example, Gen. 22:18). Christ clearly fulfills this by opening the covenant to the Gentiles, just as He promises throughout His earthly ministry (see, for example, John 10:16).  And this mission of bringing all nations to Christ continues in the Church (Mt. 28:19-20).

St. Matthew notes of Christ that it's “in His name the Gentiles will hope,” and that this is in fulfillment of “what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet.” (Matthew 12:15-21, referring to Isaiah 42:1-4).  And  St. Paul talks about this repeatedly, particularly in his Letter to the Romans. One of the best explanations comes from Ephesians 2:16-18,

“And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.”

So, ironically, it's right here on the Cross, with a plaque reading  “Jesus Christ, King of the Jews” above Him (John 19:20), that the doors of the Church were opened to the Gentiles in a radical way.

The traditional Latin Antiphon is:

O Rex Gentium, et desideratus earum,
lapisque angularis, qui facis utraque unum:
veni, et salva hominem,
quem de limo formasti.

Which means, in English:

O King of the Gentiles, yea, and desire thereof!
O Corner-stone, that makest of two one,
Come to save man,
whom Thou hast made out of the dust of the earth!

It corresponds to the final verse from O Come, O Come Emmanuel:

O Come, Desire of the nations, bind
in one the hearts of all mankind;
bid every strife and quarrel cease
and fill the world with heaven's peace.

And the English version used in the Antiphon today:

O King of all the nations, the only joy of every human heart;
O Keystone of the mighty arch of man:
Come and save the creature you fashioned from the dust.

And finally, here are the Dominican student brothers at Blackfriars in Oxford singing the Latin plainchant:

Occupy Occupy?

I don't understand why I haven't seen this suggested as a political movement yet:  why don't the people who dislike Occupy D.C. simply occupy the “occupation”?  That is, just go down to the protest, and occupy tents while their owners are out.  When they come back and demand their tent back, declare that property is theft! 

I'm not seriously advocating it, of course, I just think it'd be funny as something akin to performance art.  And I'm also genuinely curious about how the average Occupier would respond to their tent being infringed upon in this way.  Complain that you've illegally infringed upon their rights to private possession of property?  Notify the police that you're sleeping where you're not supposed to?  I can only imagine that the police would enjoy the irony of someone trying to evict a trespasser from their illegal encampment.

Then again, this is only funny if you expect the Occupiers to be consistent in any shape or form.  While I appreciate the economic grievances that the Occupiers are venting, one thing I've learned from walking past (or through) McPherson Square every weekday for the last few months, it's that there are a lot of views being represented there, many of which seem wildly inconsistent with one another.  For example, here's the anarchist flag they have flying over the camp:

And here's the sign proclaiming that “Islam is the Way” sign that was, for a long time, the only sign visible from the western edge of the encampment:

If you don't get why that's funny, there's an old Islamic proverb, “Better sixty years of tyranny than a single night of anarchy.”   So maybe intellectual consistency isn't the strong-suit of the Occupiers.

Day 5: O Oriens (O Rising Sun)

Tonight's O Antiphon is “O Oriens.”  The Latin word “Oriens” literally means “Dawn,” “Rising Sun,” or “East.”  The “O Oriens” prophesy comes from Isaiah 9:1-7,

Holman Hunt,
Christ the Light of the World (1854)

But there will be no gloom for her that was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zeb'ulun and the land of Naph'tali, but in the latter time he will make glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations.

The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined.  

Thou hast multiplied the nation, thou hast increased its joy; they rejoice before thee as with joy at the harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.

For the yoke of his burden, and the staff for his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, thou hast broken as on the day of Mid'ian.

For every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult and every garment rolled in blood will be burned as fuel for the fire. 

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” 

Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.

So the coming Messiah will arrive as a Child, will be associated with Galilee, and His Advent will be like the dawn breaking forth.  And this, of course, is exactly how the New Testament describes Christ.  Zechariah prophesies that his son, John the Baptist, will be a forerunner for the Messiah, proclaiming  (Luke 1:76-79),

“And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways,  to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins, through the tender mercy of our God, when the day shall dawn upon us from on high to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.”

And St. John's Gospel is quite clear on this identification of Christ (John 1:5-9):

The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light. The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.

But the clearest identification with Isaiah 9 is when Matthew explicitly tells us that Christ fulfills this prophesy (Mt. 4:12-16):

Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee; and leaving Nazareth he went and dwelt in Caper'na-um by the sea, in the territory of Zeb'ulun and Naph'tali, that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “The land of Zeb'ulun and the land of Naph'tali, toward the sea, across the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles -- the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, and for those who sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned.”

By the way, this depiction of Christ as Oriens is also why Catholic churches historically face east: ad orientum.  It's from building churches to face towards the East, towards the Oriens, that we get the word “orientation.”

The traditional Latin Antiphon is:

O Oriens, splendor lucis aeternae,
et sol justitiae:
veni, et illumina sedentes in tenebris,
et umbra mortis.

Which means, in English:

O Dayspring, Brightness of the everlasting light,
Son of justice,
Come to give light to them that sit in darkness,
 and in the shadow of death!

It corresponds to the sixth verse from O Come, O Come Emmanuel:

O Come, Thou Dayspring from on high,
and cheer us by thy drawing nigh;
disperse the gloomy clouds of night
and death's dark shadow put to flight.

And the English version used in the Antiphon today:

O Radiant Dawn, splendor of eternal light, sun of justice:
Come, shine on those who dwell in darkness
and the shadow of death.

And finally, here are the Dominican student brothers at Blackfriars in Oxford singing the Latin plainchant:

The Catholic Connection to Hanukkah

Last night marked the first night of the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah (or Chanukah).  What you may not know is the connection between Hanukkah and Catholicism.  Namely, the festival of lights celebrates the events of 1 and 2 Maccabees, which Catholics and Orthodox consider Scripture, but Protestants and Jews don't.  I'll let Professor Jon Levenson, professor of Jewish studies at Harvard Divinity School, do the explaining:

The Roman Catholic tradition honors these Jewish martyrs as saints, and the Eastern Orthodox Church still celebrates Aug. 1 as the Feast of the Holy Maccabees. By contrast, in the literature of the Rabbis of the first several centuries of the common era, the story lost its connection to the Maccabean uprising, instead becoming associated with later persecutions by the Romans, which the Rabbis experienced. If the change seems odd, recall that the compositions that first told of these events (the books of Maccabees) were not part of the scriptural canon of rabbinic Judaism. But they were canonical in the Church (and remain so in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communions).

And so we encounter another oddity of Hanukkah: Jews know the fuller history of the holiday because Christians preserved the books that the Jews themselves lost. In a further twist, Jews in the Middle Ages encountered the story of the martyred mother and her seven sons anew in Christian literature and once again placed it in the time of the Maccabees.

Fascinating stuff.  Even more fascinating is the fact that Jesus celebrated Hanukkah (John 10:22).  As I've argued before, this is a good reason to view 1 and 2 Maccabees as Scripture, since it's the only potential Scriptural source for the festival.

Day 4: O Clavis David (O Key of David)

Tonight's O Antiphon is “O Clavis David,” which means “O Key of David.”  It's a reference to Isaiah 22:19-23, and the rise and fall of a man named Eliakim.  In this passage, God removes Shebna from his position of power as Master of the Palace, replacing him with Eliakim:

Peter Paul Reubens, St. Peter (1612)

I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house."

What an amazing prophesy!  There are two images here: the Key of David, which refers to authority over the House of Israel, and the Peg, which refers to Eliakim's longevity.  And it's to a man named Eliakim, whose very name means “God will raise up.”  How fitting, right?  Well, let's read the next thing that He prophesies (Isaiah 22:24-25):

And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father's house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. In that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken.

Wow.  The radical juxtaposition of these two prophesies should leave us a bit unsettled.  God is choosing to empower Eliakim, despite knowing that Eliakim will ultimately disappoint Him, and will be set aside. The pressures of the office will eventually prove to be too much for him, and Eliakim's glory will fade.

This seems pretty bleak.  I'm reminded of three things:

• First, of Percy Blythe Shell's sonnet Ozymandias.  The poem tells of a traveler discovering a plaque reading, "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings :Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"   But he finds the plaque within the midst of a colossal wreck.  All that's left of Ozymandias' empire is ruins.
  
• Second, of modern politics.  We Americans cast our hopes onto the latest politician, only to find them burn out in disgrace, unable to shoulder the burdens of success.  We hurry to place a key on the next man's shoulder, only to watch him crumple from the weight.
  
• Finally, of The Myth of Sisyphus.  Albert Camus, the atheistic French existentialist, declared life to be meaningless.  He compared it to the Greek myth of Sisyphus, who was cursed by the gods to continually push a boulder up a mountain.  Yet every time he made it to the top of the hill, the boulder would roll back down, and he'd have to start over.  That, to Camus, was life.  A constant and meaningless struggle.  

As I said, all of this seems intensely dark.  God permits men to rise and fall, and we're left wondering at the meaning.  But this apparent meaningless isn't the final word.  Christ is.

Lorenzo Veneziano,
Christ Giving the Keys to St Peter (1370)

When Christ enters the picture, we see the Key of David finally enter into safe hands, of the One who won't “be cut down and fall,” as Eliakim was. Israel will no longer be left to the whims of the ambitious, but will be governed by the eternal God.  And He puts in place an Apostle, St. Peter, giving him the keys (Mt. 16:18-19):

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

So the Keys, the very symbol of authority, were handed to the first pope, Peter.  But what makes this so radically different from the time of Eliakim is that instead of prophesying Peter's downfall, He declares that “the gates of Hades will not overcome.”  While Israel was tossed back and forth, the Church is built upon Rock.

And why won't the Gates of Hell overcome?  Because while Christ gives Peter the Keys, He doesn't lose them Himself.  In other words, Jesus doesn't become any less God because He entrusts Peter with authority.  Peter's not stealing Christ's power.  Christ is working through Peter.  We see this from the Book of Revelation, which clearly shows us that Christ hasn't lost His Authority.  In the Book of Revelation,  Christ presents Himself this way: as “He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens” (Rev. 3:7), and declares, “I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.” (Rev. 1:7)  As He promises the Apostles: “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Mt. 28:20).  Empires rise and fall, but the Church stays on forever, because Christ is King.  This is why participation in the life of the Church is a participation in the eternal Kingdom of God.  And it's one more reason to be thankful for Christmas, the birth of Our King.

The traditional Latin Antiphon is:

O Clavis David, et sceptrum domus Israel,
qui aperis, et nemo claudit; claudis, et nemo aperuit:
veni, et educ vinctum de domo carceris,
sedentem in tenebris, et umbra mortis.

Which means, in English:

O Key of David, and Sceptre of the House of Israel,
That openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth,
Come to liberate the prisoner from the prison,
and them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death.

It corresponds to the fifth verse from O Come, O Come Emmanuel:

O Come, Thou Key of David, come,
and open wide our heav'nly home,
make safe the way that leads on high,
that we no more have cause to sigh.

And the English version used in the Antiphon today:

O Key of David, O royal Power of Israel,
controlling at your will the gate of heaven:
Come, break down the prison walls of death
for those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death;
and lead your captive people into freedom.

And finally, here are the Dominican student brothers at Blackfriars in Oxford singing the Latin plainchant:

Is the Shroud of Turin Authentic?

Italian researchers with the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development are claiming that the Shroud of Turin couldn’t have been a Medieval forgery, because the available technology to forge it wasn’t existent. And what they’re suggesting produced the image (a flash of light) is incredible.  From a Telegraph article summarizing the researcher's claims:

"The double image (front and back) of a scourged and crucified man, barely visible on the linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin, has many physical and chemical characteristics that are so particular that the staining ... is impossible to obtain in a laboratory," concluded experts from Italy's National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development. 

The scientists set out to "identify the physical and chemical processes capable of generating a colour similar to that of the image on the Shroud." They concluded that the exact shade, texture and depth of the imprints on the cloth could only be produced with the aid of ultraviolet lasers – technology that was clearly not available in medieval times. 

The scientists used extremely brief pulses of ultraviolet light to replicate the kind of marks found on the burial cloth. 

They concluded that the iconic image of the bearded man must therefore have been created by "some form of electromagnetic energy (such as a flash of light at short wavelength)." Although they stopped short of offering a non-scientific explanation for the phenomenon, their findings will be embraced by those who believe that the marks on the shroud were miraculously created at the moment of Christ's Resurrection. 

"We are not at the conclusion, we are composing pieces of a fascinating and complex scientific puzzle," the team wrote in their report. 

Prof Paolo Di Lazzaro, the head of the team, said: "When one talks about a flash of light being able to colour a piece of linen in the same way as the shroud, discussion inevitably touches on things like miracles and resurrection." "But as scientists, we were concerned only with verifiable scientific processes. We hope our results can open up a philosophical and theological debate but we will leave the conclusions to the experts, and ultimately to the conscience of individuals."

The article contains a good summary of earlier scholarship both for an against the Shroud's authenticity, and notes that the “Vatican has never said whether it believes the shroud to be authentic or not, although Pope Benedict XVI has said that the enigmatic image imprinted on the cloth "reminds us always" of Christ's suffering.”

It would be amazing if the Shroud could be shown to be authentic, and it would be undeniably disappointing if it were shown to be a forgery.  But as the pope has suggested, whether this is what it seems to be or not, it's a great reminder of Christ and His Suffering regardless of authenticity.  In the Catholic Information Center, where I go for daily Mass, there's a picture of the Shroud, with the words “Your Face, O LORD, I will seek” (Psalm 27:8).  Amen.

Day 3: O Radix Jesse (O Root of Jesse)

Tonight's O Antiphon is “O Radix Jesse,” which means “O Root (or Shoot, or Flower) of Jesse.”  In other words, the Messiah will come from Jesse's lineage.  We hear this title for the Messiah in Isaiah 11:10: “In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious.”  St. Paul applies this verse to Jesus in Romans 15:12.

But Isaiah 11:10 isn't the only place we see a reference to the Root of Jesse.  A few verses prior, we also see reference to it in Isaiah 11:1-5, the same passage that points to the Messiah as Sapientia (Wisdom) and Adonai (Lord).  I personally prefer the Douay-Rheims translation of Isaiah 11:1, which reads, “And there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root.”

So the Messiah will be both the Flower of David (or Branch of David) and the Root of David.  But how can this be?  Jesus points out this paradox Himself, when He spoke about the Messiah's relationship to David in Mark 12:35-37,

Christ the True Vine, Greek Icon (16th c.)

While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:“‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?” The large crowd listened to him with delight.

And in Revelation 22:16, we hear:

“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

The answer, of course, is found in the Incarnation.  St. Luke lays the answer out in the genealogy of Jesus (Lk. 3:23-38), tracing Jesus' lineage back through Jesse (Lk. 3:31), all the way to Adam, who he describes as the “son of God” (Lk. 3:38).  In other words, Jesus is the Creator of Jesse, and of all mankind (John 1:3).  In that sense, He's the Root of Jesse, and the Root of David, and in a certain sense, their Ancestor.  But He's also their Descendant through the Incarnation.  He chooses to be born of Mary, who is married to St. Joseph, of the lineage of Jesse and David (see Lk. 3:31 and Mt. 1:5-6).  This detail is so important to the understanding of Who Christ Is that it's the first thing St. Matthew tells us in his Gospel.  The first lines we read are: “A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Mt. 1:1).

There's an incredibly beautiful 16th century hymn about this prophesy, Es ist ein Ros entsprungen, which means literally, “A Rose has sprung up.”  Protestants purged the parts about Mary, leaving us with a still beautiful hymn, Lo, How a Rose E'er blooming.  You can listen to the traditional version here, or Sufjan Stephen's rendition here.  And you can find the lyrics to both versions here.

The traditional Latin Antiphon is:

O Radix Jesse, qui stas in signum populorum,super quem continebunt reges os suum,quem gentes deprecabuntur:veni ad liberandum nos, jam noli tardare.

Which means, in English:

O Root of Jesse, which standest for an Ensign of the people,
At Whom the kings shall shut their mouths,
Whom the Gentiles shall seek,
Come to deliver us, do not tarry.

It corresponds to the fourth verse from O Come, O Come Emmanuel:

O Come, Thou Rod of Jesse's stem,
from ev'ry foe deliver them
that trust Thy mighty power to save,
and give them vict'ry o'er the grave.

And the English version used in the Antiphon today:

O Flower of Jesse’s stem,you have been raised up as a sign for all peoples;
kings stand silent in your presence;
the nations bow down in worship before you.
Come, let nothing keep you from coming to our aid.

And finally, here are the Dominican student brothers at Blackfriars in Oxford singing the Latin plainchant:

How Mary Built the Temple that King David Couldn't

Yesterday's First Reading was about King David, and his plans to build a Temple for the Lord, to store the Ark. It begins (2 Samuel 7:1-3):

Now when the king dwelt in his house, and the LORD had given him rest from all his enemies round about, the king said to Nathan the prophet, "See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells in a tent." And Nathan said to the king, "Go, do all that is in your heart; for the LORD is with you."

But that night, Nathan hears in a dream that David shouldn't go ahead.  God hasn't asked David to build him a Temple, and has something better in mind. Namely, God sends a message to David, via Nathan, saying (2 Sam. 7:11b-16):

Moreover the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.  He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever.


I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men; but I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.'"

This prophesy was of both David's son Solomon (1 Kings 6:1), and of Christ (Hebrews 1:5).  When it comes to Jesus, the Temple of Christ is His Body.

“The Lord is With You”

But here's what I missed, until Fr. Ruskamp pointed it out in his homily yesterday.  When David wanted to build a Temple for God, and create a glorious place, fitting of the Ark of the Covenant, Nathan initially approved by saying, “Go, do all that is in your heart; for the LORD is with you” (2 Samuel 7:3).  Compare this with the way the angel Gabriel greets Mary in Luke 1:26-33, from yesterday's Gospel reading:

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!" But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end."

It's just astonishingly clear. At the end, Gabriel explicitly references God's promise in 2 Sam. 7:11-16 that He'd establish David's throne forever.  But given this, how can we deny that his greeting, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” fulfills what had been promised but deferred to David?  Mary is going to build (in her womb) the Temple that David didn't get to build.  

A Worthy Builder

Nicolas Cordier, King David 

Don't overlook how beautifully all of this Ark imagery is tied in with the idea of the Temple.  We can see this in two different ways. First, as we've just seen, the passage being alluded to in Luke 1:26-33 is 2 Samuel 7:1-16.  But this part came almost directly after the next parallel we see, between Luke 1:39-56 and 2 Samuel 6:2-14.  Both the Old Testament passages and their New Testament fulfillments occur one right after another. That can hardly be ignored as a coincidence.

Second, David makes clear that the Temple is needed because of the Ark. Listen to how he justifies the need for a Temple: “See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells in a tent” (2 Sam. 7:2).  He wanted a worthy dwelling for the Ark.

And God doesn't disagree with this rationale.  In fact, He blesses David for his good intentions.  But He forbids David from doing the building, because David was “a man of war, and has shed blood” (1 Chronicles 28:3). The builder of the Temple needed clean hands.  That God chose Mary, of all the women who have ever lived, to not only build the New Temple, but be the Gate of that Temple, and the New Ark, is an incredible testimony to her purity and sinlessness.

The Woman of Rev. 12, Revisited

Finally, this sheds more light on the identity of the glorified Woman from Revelation. It does this in two ways.  First, Luke 1 (read through the lens of 2 Samuel 6-7) once again ties the Temple, the Ark, and the Mother of God together, just as we see in Rev. 11:19-12:3,

Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.

And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.

The Woman gives birth to Jesus Christ (Rev. 12:5).

The objection to reading this passage as referring to Mary is that some of the details don't fit Mary very well: they fit the Church better.  This is true, but 2 Sam. 7:11b-16 contains the answer to this objection, as well.  Some of the details don't fit Christ well at all (for example: “When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men”), and fit Solomon better.  Protestants have no trouble recognizing that the solution isn't that it's Solomon or Christ, but both:

Moreover, it is certain that God never anticipated that his beloved Christ would “commit iniquity,” and therefore possibly need “chastening” with the “rod of men” (2 Samuel 7:14). In a number of ways, for example, Isaiah 53 affirms the utter perfection of Jehovah’s servant, Jesus Christ. This portion of 2 Samuel 7:14-15, therefore, obviously applies to Solomon alone.

The prophecy plainly encompasses, however, a far grander scope than that of Solomon’s day, as is suggested by the “last words” of David himself (2 Samuel 23:1ff) and the comments of several inspired New Testament writers.

So 2 Samuel 7 is about Solomon and Jesus, but some details only apply to One or the other.  Why shouldn't Rev. 11:19-12:17 be understood the same way in understanding the Woman as Mary and the Church?

Day 2: O Adonai (O Lord)

Tonight's O Antiphon is “O Adonai,” which means “O Lord,” and is one of the Divine titles used in the Old Testament.  Because the name YHWH was considered too sacred to even speak, pious Jews would often replace the Name with Adonai, meaning Lord, instead.  In Isaiah 33:22, the prophet Isaiah says:

For the Lord is our judge,
the Lord is our lawgiver,
the Lord is our king: he will save us.

He uses the word YHWH there, but it would have been spoken as Adonai.  Bear that in mind when reading Isaiah 11:1-5, and its promise of the coming Messiah.  Again, I've bolded the relevant part for today's Antiphon:

Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse,
And a branch from his roots will bear fruit.
The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him,
The spirit of wisdom and understanding,
The spirit of counsel and strength,
The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.
And He will delight in the fear of the LORD,
And He will not judge by what His eyes see,
Nor make a decision by what His ears hear;
But with righteousness He will judge the poor,
And decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth;
And He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth,
And with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked.
Also righteousness will be the belt about His loins,
And faithfulness the belt about His waist.

In other words, Isaiah is promising that the coming Messiah will do the things that Adonai does, serving as Judge (John 9:39), King (Luke 23:3) and Lawgiver (Matthew 5:21-48).  Jesus fulfills each of these (as the Scriptures I just cited to show), as we'll see more clearly at the Final Judgment (Revelation 19:15-16).

All of this points to something even more radical: the coming Messiah would be the Lord, Adonai, God Himself.  The New Testament shows us clearly  how this was fulfilled (Philippians 2:5-11):

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.  

Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

St. Paul is referencing another part of Isaiah (Isaiah 45:22-23), in which God Himself says:

Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth;
For I am God, and there is no other.
I have sworn by Myself,
The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness
And will not turn back,
That to Me every knee will bow,
every tongue will swear allegiance.

By applying this passage to Jesus, St. Paul is making it pretty clear that Jesus Christ is not from God, but IS God.   He IS Adonai, YHWH.

The traditional Latin Antiphon is:

O Adonai, et dux domus Israel,
qui Moyse in igne flammae rubi apparuisti,
et ei in Sina legem dedisti:
veni ad redimendum nos in brachio extento.

Which means, in English:

O Adonai, and ruler of the House of Israel, Who didst appear unto Moses in the burning bush, and gavest him the law in Sinai, Come to redeem us with an outstretched arm!

It corresponds to the third verse from O Come, O Come Emmanuel:

O Come, O Come, Thou Lord of might,
Who to thy tribes on Sinai's height
in ancient times didst give the law,
in cloud, and majesty, and awe.

And the English version used in the Antiphon today:

O Sacred Lord of ancient Israel,
Who showed yourself to Moses in the burning bush,
Who gave him the holy law on Sinai mountain:
Come, stretch out your mighty hand to set us free.

And finally, here are the Dominican student brothers at Blackfriars in Oxford singing the Latin plainchant: