Archbishop Coleridge vs Christ the King: open letter from a fellow biblical scholar

Dear Mark, you remember the scene before Pontius Pilate:

• They cried out, “Take Him away, take Him away! Crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no King but Caesar.” (John 19:15)

You’ll remember, Mark, that you were at the Pontifical Biblical Institute. I was there as well, at the same time, for years. We both got degrees at the PIB. Surely we had coffee together on the odd occasion. Surely we tripped over each other in the PIB library. Indeed, you did your doctorate on – what was it? – the infancy narratives in the Gospel of Luke. There’s no saying you don’t know about the Scriptures or the references to Jesus as King in those infancy narratives of Luke’s Gospel. As an Archbishop, surely you know who Jesus is. And while you might protest that you don’t go in for pomp and ceremony, but rather you appreciate Jesus as King on the Cross, you nevertheless present this so incredibly ambiguously that you might just reject everything that is also mentioned in the LifeSite video above. Saint Pius X intensely disliked ambiguity, especially in matters of the faith, condemning ambiguity as just another facet of Modernism.

Meanwhile, this lowly priest in the tiniest of back-ridge parishes, in union with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, the Sacred Liturgy of the Church, this priest, yours truly, has always hailed Christ Jesus, Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception, as King of kings, Lord of lords, Prince of the Most Profound Peace. What the hell are you doing, my fellow Scripture Scholar? What are you doing as high priest in the Church?

But, Mark, I get it, I’m just a Catholic, so let’s take a look at what a non-Catholic says about Jesus as King:

There’s a few nuances in there that I would adjust, but I think that this Preacherman Lockridge get’s the plot.

For good measure, let’s add this, a poster in a soup kitchen at which I volunteered for some years:

And “I AM” can add “I AM THE KING OF THE JEWS.” Get that, Mark? If so, why not accept Him as King in a multitude of ways because of His being King on the Cross? Or is that the only place? So maybe you don’t get it…

And why is that, Mark? The “Jews” thing? Don’t like that? You’re a clever man. You were in the Secretariat of State of the Holy See. You should be sensitive to Jewish / Catholic relations. Let’s see:

• Jesus said: “Salvation is from the Jews”
• Saint Paul said: “They are Israelites; theirs the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.” (Romans 9:5).

Let’s see… let’s see… trying to figure this out… Hey! I know, Mark, let’s get back to your doctoral thesis in context:

• “Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of David His father, and He will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” (Luke 1:30-33)

But you knew all that, didn’t you, Mark, all that stuff about being the Divine Son of King David and receiving the throne of that Kingship, all that stuff about ruling over the House of Jacob forever, all that stuff about His Kingdom having no end?

Jesus did say that His Kingdom is not of this world, sure, but that refers merely to worldly ways of doing things, not to the fact that Jesus is King as our Creator, therefore also through Natural Law, and surely through the visible Church. The video up top is very much worth the listen. But Mark, you know all this, right?

I think I’ll listen not to you in your High-Priest-ness, Mark, but rather to Preacherman Lockridge above.

Meanwhile, Mark, why not recite the following with me. I’m sure you’re familiar with it, and have led people in its recitation. Mean what you say:

Most Sweet Jesus, Redeemer of the human race, look down upon us humbly prostrate before Thine altar. We are Thine, and Thine we wish to be; but to be more surely united to Thee, behold each one of us freely consecrates ourselves today to Thy Most Sacred Heart.

Many indeed have never known Thee; Many too, despising Thy precepts, have rejected Thee. Have mercy on them all, most merciful Jesus, and draw them to Thy Sacred Heart.

Be Thou King, O Lord, not only of the faithful children, who have never forsaken Thee, but also of the prodigal children, who have abandoned Thee; Grant that they may quickly return to their Father’s house lest they die of wretchedness and hunger.

Be Thou King of those who are deceived by erroneous opinions, or whom discord keeps aloof, and call them back to the harbor of truth and unity of faith, so that there may be but one flock and one Shepherd.

Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism, and refuse not to draw them into the light and kingdom of God. Turn Thine eyes of mercy towards the children of the race, once Thy chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may it now descend upon them a laver of redemption and of life.

Grant, O Lord, to Thy Church assurance of freedom and immunity from harm; give peace and order to all nations, and make the earth resound from pole to pole with one cry; praise to the Divine Heart that wrought our salvation; To it be glory and honor forever. R. Amen.

//////////////////// Can’t do it, can you Mark? No. Why not? Isn’t it that you have totally rejected Christ Jesus and the image of God described as Male and Female, marriage and family? Did you actually say that active homosexuality is just great because we cannot make a distinction between the sin and the sinner so it’s all good? Just wow.

Also, and just to say, this rejection of the Christ the King peculiar to you, Mark, means that, for instance, there is no “conscience clause” that is acceptable when the State demands something immoral, you know, like the vaccines researched, and or developed, and or tested on organs freshly ripped out of live babies. No “religious exemption,” right, Mark?