On September 15, 2022, Francis spoke to the bishops, priests, deacons, religious, seminarians and pastoral workers at the Cathedral in Kazakhstan. Everything he said can be summarized in these three sentences of his:
“Faith is not a lovely exhibition of artefacts from a distant past or a museum, but an ever-present event, an encounter with Christ that takes place in the here and now of our lives. So we cannot pass it on by simply repeating the same old things, but by communicating the newness of the Gospel. In this way, faith remains alive and has a future. As I like to say, faith is transmitted through the ‘mother tongue’.”
Let’s get into this. The opening bits are all good:
“Faith is not a lovely exhibition of artefacts from a distant past or a museum, but an ever-present event, an encounter with Christ that takes place in the here and now of our lives. So we cannot pass it on by simply repeating the same old things…”
Right. That would be the heresy of Pelagianism to think that we could, on our own, just repeat articles of the faith, or, say, rubrics in the liturgy. I think we’re all good with that. Otherwise, we could simply loop recordings, say, of the Council of Trent, and think that because of that we have saved ourselves. That would be stupid.
But then he continues and now we know what he really means, which is that Francis does want us to think like Pelagian heretics:
“…we cannot pass it [the faith] on by simply repeating the same old things, but by communicating the newness of the Gospel. In this way, faith remains alive and has a future. As I like to say, faith is transmitted through the ‘mother tongue’.”
Wow. A number of things here. He’s speaking in such fashion that we are falsely led to believe that the Faith, Sacred Tradition, is communicated necessarily and merely in new world-view contextualizing by human evangelization, indeed, through the “mother tongue”, a jab at the Traditional Latin Mass.
But while this seems to be the case — that we are to hand on the faith, and we are indeed to do all we can humanly speaking to evangelize others — this supposed “handing on” of the faith is instead only done as a favor to the evangelizers, so that they can grow in the charity necessary for any evangelization. The true “handing on” of the faith, the living content of the Traditiones , the ‘things’, if you will, of Sacred Tradition, the articles of faith (as Trent has it), all comes to us by way of the Holy Ghost. Trent has it that what the Apostles do in evangelizing, what we do, is wrought only quasi per manus, almost as if by hand. But the Holy Ghost is the One who actually “hands on” the living faith for us, the Truth, which comes to us with sanctifying grace, and therefore with hope, with Charity. God is love, always in the same way, for all, for each individual, “univocally” as the great Cardinal Siri put it in his most necessary book Gethsemane. This is the indwelling of the Most Holy Trinity.
This is more than any “mother tongue” or any insult to the Traditional Latin Mass can bring about. Cynically attacking the Most Holy Sacrifice of Jesus is not how we’re to go about receiving the faith from the Holy Ghost.
It seems that every chance, it seems every day, multiple times a day, is taken by Francis and his minion Cardinal Roche to demean Sacred Tradition so as to have it dumbed down to have it merely signify that which we do in whatever culture in whatever religion with what savior we imagine or not.
You have heard that it was said that by May 2023, there will be a total ban of the Traditional Latin Mass. It’s already been said that the TLM is no expression whatsoever of the Roman Rite (Traditionis custodes) and has no place whatsoever in the life of any parish (Cardinal Roche).
Saint Francis of Assisi in times of TLM (Traditional Latin Mass): “Man should tremble, the world should vibrate, all heaven should be deeply moved when the Son of God appears on the altar in the hands of the priest.”
Saint Pio of Pietrelcina, follower of Francis in times of TLM: “It would be easier for the world to survive without the sun than to do without the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.”
Contrast this with Pope Francis in Traditionis custodes, with his inescapable “logic” that the TLM is both illicit and invalid:
Pope Francis in times of rebellion: Pope Francis says in Traditionis custodes, his “document” smashing down the TLM, that the Novus Ordo (the New Order of Mass) is “the only expression of the lex orandi [Law of Prayer] of the Roman Rite.” That lex orandi is defined in the accompanying letter with the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Last Supper united with Calvary, with what specifically happens with the two Consecrations. There is no expression of that Sacrifice to be found in the TLM, says Pope Francis. In other words, the Sacrifice of Jesus in the TLM is both illicit and invalid because the only expression of the lex orandi, the Sacrifice of Jesus, is to be found with the Novus Ordo. But if one says that the Consecrations in the TLM are invalid, one is also saying that the Consecrations in any rite of Holy Mass are invalid. People have the pretense to say that they are “stunned” when I say that Traditionis custodes is an evil document. I have not changed my mind on that. If one denies Jesus, it is Jesus who will deny him before our Heavenly Father.
Cardinal Arthur Roche, follower of Pope Francis in times of rebellion: Roche published his Responsa ad dubia, (responses to [contrived] doubts), execrating this: “The exclusion of the parish church [as a venue for the TLM] is intended to affirm that the celebration of the Eucharist according to the previous rite, being a concession limited to these groups, is not part of the ordinary life of the parish community.” Jesus offered to our Heavenly Father in the territory of a parish has nothing to do with the life of the parish? Nothing? But if you say that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is irrelevant in one rite, you say that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is irrelevant in every rite, including the Novus Ordo. I am stunned that anyone would support the assertion under any given circumstances that the Sacrifice of Jesus is NOTHING.
The real reason for all of this attack on Jesus and His Sacrifice?
Both Pope Francis and his protégé, Cardinal Arthur Roche, are claiming that they can mess around with the lex orandi, the law of prayer, which they themselves define as the Sacrifice of Jesus.
Both Pope Francis and his protégé, Cardinal Arthur Roche, are claiming that they can mess around with the lex credendi, the law of believing, for the law of praying is the law of believing. They have it that Sacred Tradition, the law of believing, can be manipulated by the Magisterium of the Church, you know, a power thing, so that any divinely provided living faith coming to the soul from the Holy Ghost with sanctifying grace, with divinely provided charity, with divinely provided hope, is NOTHING. For these two ecclesiastics, times so change entirely that world views, perspectives are also so entirely changed that Sacred Tradition (Traditiones in the Council of Trent’s description) is to be defined as merely whatever they say it happens to be in changing times. They don’t discount any truth in any time, but do assert that what they say to be today’s truth is different, even contradictory to yesterday’s truth, but is nevertheless valid, and, indeed, the only truth that is true today. But that means there is no truth in any time ever. God is eternal truth. God is absolute truth. Trent says that the apostles seem to provide for the continuance of the truth as if by hand – tradere – quasi per manus, but do not of themselves do this, for this work of Sacred Tradition is wrought by the Holy Ghost.
The trashing first of the lex orandi, which action itself trashes the lex credendi, sets up a vicious circle, so that now, the Sacred Liturgy is given over to idol worship, providing then for false belief. Witness Pachamama of Francis, Nian of Cupich, Ganesh sycophancy spreading among priests on the Asian Subcontinent, et alii et cetera. Desecration of the Blessed Sacrament being almost ubiquitous.
This is damnable. It’s gotta stop. It’s gotta stop now. But who will say no to Satan and yes to Jesus?
The time is coming, very soon, in the midst of this great apostasy, when those who could simply grant the provisions in Canon 87 to dispense from disciplinary rules odious to the faithful (thus assisting them to get to heaven) will instead choose to do the power thing because, you know… POWER! Of course, they could also simply ignore Traditionis custodes and the Responsa ad dubia as illegitimate assertions of disciplinary actions and let the Lord’s Little Flock get on their way to heaven.
Imagine the punishment for spitting on Jesus and Mary:
Until some animal rights groups got involved a couple years back, there was a live “possum drop” festival every year just south of the parish, then right close to the parish church. Then it was gone. The possums were treated like royalty in their highly decorated perches with all the food and water and comforts they could possibly want. They were gently lowered from on high. Who knows why? It is what it is. Kind of harmless, especially to the possums.
Any possums now being dropped are toys in the secret of people’s homes. Some traditions don’t die out so quickly. I saw this the other day in one of the parishioner’s homes:
It’s difficult to get rid of human traditions.
But what happens when it’s Sacred Tradition that’s being treated like human tradition?
There’s not only more resistance to what is thought by innovators to be open to change, but that change actually is impossible regardless of what kind of resistance there is, though that resistance will be there, and it will be implacable.
Sacred Tradition is constituted by the articles of faith, the traditiones as the Council of Trent calls them in its first dogmatic decree of 8 April 1546 in its fourth session. That supernatural faith provided by the Holy Spirit is univocal and handed on as if by hand, like handing on a book, but is actually wrought by the Holy Spirit, very personal, with love, providing us hope. The Council mocked those who otherwise thought they could control the very Revelation of God, changing doctrine, changing morals, stripping away truth and love and hope, while thinking themselves to be in complete control. For its mockery, the Council used the phrase quasi per manus, almost as if by hand, so as to say:
“You think you have God’s Revelation in hand, but you do not. You think you can change doctrine and morals, but you cannot. The handing on of Sacred Tradition is wrought by the direct work of the Holy Spirit. It’s not just tradition, but Sacred Tradition. We’re talking about the unmanipulatable Truth of the Living God. No prestidigitations will be suffered. You do not have control of Sacred Tradition.”
But the innovators will not see that, will not hear that, will not be able to understand that. The innovators will continue to treat the Sacred Revelation of God Himself as a mere possum, which they treat as oh-so-precious, but which they think can ditch any time they want.
Example: The Holy Spirit teaches us all that Jesus taught us. Jesus taught us that at the Last Supper united with Calvary, He recites His Wedding Vows with His Bride the Church, this is my body being given for you in Sacrifice, my blood being poured out for you in Sacrifice, total self-giving, Jesus insisting that this brings us His body, blood, soul and divinity. This has been the teaching of the Church always as it is always the teaching of the Holy Spirit. This is the lex orandi, the law of prayer. This is therefore the lex credendi, the law of believing. This is SACRED TRADITION.
In Traditionis custodes Pope Francis admits that the lex orandi, the law of prayer, is THE TRADITION guaranteed by the custodians of that tradition — though, wait a minute, they are not the Holy Spirit, but mere men — Ooops! The lex orandi is defined in His own accompanying letter as the Sacrifice of Jesus in the Sacrifice of Holy Mass as brought about with the consecrations, say, Hoc est enim corpus meum quod pro vobis TRADETUR. Yep. But Pope Francis says that such a Tradition of Traditions in the Consecrations is not any kind of expression at all of the Latin Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of the lex orandi. Wait… What? And then elsewhere he says that it is not the mandate of the custodians of tradition to guard doctrine and morality, the deposit of faith. Wait… What?
Fine. I’ll stay with the Holy Spirit, and the “custodians” can attempt all they want to betray the Holy Spirit. They won’t get far at all. Nowhere. To be a good custodian means not to add to, nor take away from, nor change anything. They can expound upon. How authentic that is has to be seen. But that’s all they can do.
Speaking prophetically: Their attempts, say, a printed version of Traditionis custodes, will likely give rise to a culture in which that printed version will be dropped from a great height, and we’ll call that tradition “The Traditionis custodes Drop“. And then that will be made illegal by idiots, regardless of how well that hardcopy was treated as precious as it was being ever so gently lowered in all mockery. And then, being forced underground, people will participate in “The Traditionis custodes Drop” only in the secret of their homes. But they will do it. With joy. With mockery befitting the event. And they they will go to their churches in thanksgiving, participating in a public dropping. And they they will assist at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass, the TLM, being more custodians of Sacred Tradition than any of those congratulating themselves to be have ever been. And as all that drops, we raise the Lord on high:
I finally got around to looking at my diocesan emails on 26 July 2022. One came in on 22 July 2022 from a criminal defense attorney of many decades, who reprimands me without ever having spoken to me that I recall about two topics:
This is not a prosecutor. This person is simply emphasizing being an attorney of many decades. I don’t know why. And for who knows what reason, this attorney simultaneously copied this first instance communication to me also to some others:
to my Bishop
to my Metropolitan Archbishop
to this attorney’s own Pastor (a Jesuit) whom I can’t recall ever speaking with seriously about anything ever, and that parish is in a city hundreds of miles away
to a journalist employed by a news organization enjoying global reach, since, it is said, that journalist expressed an interest in writing about the “story.”
This was done in the form of a non-witnessed non-affidavit rife with insults against my Bishop, and with no due process afforded to me whatsoever. As a courtesy to recipients of that email I suggest that there might be more to the story, and another side of the story. Who would’ve thought? I suggest that the veracity of the reprimand from this attorney is proportional to how much due process I was afforded by this attorney, who in so many words speaks of a lifelong commitment to making sure that those innocent until proven guilty had full access to due process rights. The irony is rather incisive: I was afforded no due process whatsoever by this same attorney.
This is all too sad.
Thomas More: “You threaten like a dockside bully.”
Thomas Cromwell: “How should I threaten?”
Thomas More: “Like a Minister of State, with justice.”
Thomas Cromwell: “Oh, justice is what you’re threatened with.”
“LifeSiteNews has learned from Keith Armato, a leading Catholic layman close to the situation, that the archbishop of Chicago had demanded for months now that the Institute [ICKSP] signs a document with five or six points. Among the points they had to sign – each priest individually – was that the Novus Ordo rite is the only true expression of the Roman rite. This formulation stems directly from Pope Francis’ own document Traditionis Custodes, an explanation that makes it clear that the traditional Roman rite has to disappear altogether.”
I mean, I don’t know what any of this even means. Pope Francis celebrated Holy Mass in the Ambrosian Rite of the Latin Rite up in Milan as recently as 2017. There are very many Rites in the Latin Rite. And what about the Congolese Rite, the upcoming Amazonian Rite, etc.?
Oh, I get it. Pope Francis is saying that the particular Roman Rite of the much more comprehensive Latin Rite only has one true expression, which is the Novus Ordo and not at all the Traditional Latin Mass. I see. He surely means that this refers not to validity but to liceity, not to the fact of the Most Holy Sacrifice being offered in the TLM (which always remains true), but only to his modus operandi of holding that the only legally acceptable way of offering Holy Mass in Roman Rite is by adhering to the Sacramentary of Novus Ordo instead of the Missale Romanum of the TLM. I get it.
Oh, but wait! Text without context is pretext, right? Let’s see… Ah yes! Here we go! From Traditionis custodes:
“Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique [“l’unica espressione”=only, sole] expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”
Oh, but wait! That’s not just a foundational disciplinary statement; that’s about doctrine, the very fact of the Sacrifice of Jesus being offered. Gotta put on the brakes and drill down into this. That “lex orandi” is the law of prayer which is the source and summit of the lex credendi, the law of believing. Is any of this defined for us in the broader context? Yes, indeed! Let’s turn to the accompanying letter of Traditionis custodes addressed to the bishops:
“Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice.”
That’s from paragraph 2 of the letter. It’s clear that Pope Francis admits that John Paul II and Benedict XVI consider the TLM to be a valid manner to offer “the Eucharistic Sacrifice.”
“Benedict XVI declared ‘the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and newly edited by Blessed John XXIII, as a extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi‘, granting a ‘more ample possibility for the use of the 1962 Missal’.”
That’s from paragraph 3 of the letter. It’s clear that Benedict speaks of “expressions” of the “same lex orandi,” which is thus defined by him as the Holy Sacrifice of Jesus.
“The Motu proprio recognized that, in its own right, ‘the Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite’. The recognition of the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V ‘as an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi‘ did not in any way underrate the liturgical reform, but was decreed with the desire to acknowledge the ‘insistent prayers of these faithful,’ allowing them “to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass according to the editio typica of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as the extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church.”
That’s from paragraph 4 of the letter. Again, it is crystal clear that the lex orandi, the law of prayer, refers to the Holy Sacrifice of Jesus present in any form, in any expression of the Roman Rite, of the Latin Rite.
But Pope Francis, with a slight of hand, you know, some prestidigitations, now has it in Traditionis custodes that the only expression of the law of prayer in the Roman Rite is the Novus Ordo, exclusive of the TLM. But if the law of prayer, literally the Holy Sacrifice of Jesus, is not to be found in any way with the TLM, Pope Francis is now saying that the TLM is an invalid Mass, no Mass at all. Nothing. No Sacrifice. No Sacrament. No Eucharistic Sacrifice. Nothing. It’s in fact an excommunicatable offence, for it is therefore only a simulation of a Mass, a simulation of a Sacrament.
I could never put my name to a document forcing me to deny Jesus in His very Sacrifice for me. Never!
Anyway, all this is why, in the Responsa ad dubia, it is said that the TLM has nothing to do with the life of the parish. Get it? Jesus’ Sacrifice has nothing to do with the life of the parish.
Sure, I might well be thrown out of the priesthood if I were ever to reject being forced to sign such a document, thus signing my ticket to hell if I did that. But I would be joyful in being thrown on the trash heap. Maybe I would finally have time to write about the Immaculate Conception. And in that I would most certainly rejoice. My voice of joy would be heard up to the heavens!
So, Cardinal Cupich, the Red Guard, in Chicago is entirely shutting down the Institute of Christ the King in Chicago, you know, because they offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Confession, Last Rites, the Faith.
Did they get due process for their incessant crimes of reciting the Creed?
This is absurd. A precedent of things to come. The Diocese of Charleston, just to the south of me, has also chosen this day to clamp down all the more. I’m guessing there will be many more and that the speed of closing down the TLM will increase: “You’re believers! Guilty!”
This is about logistics. The priests are not themselves cancelled, but all their priestly activity is cancelled. Can they be, will they be welcomed anywhere else in the world? Pope Francis is watching closely. Remember, they say – “Credo…” – and so are guilty of the worst crime in the world. Who could, who would take them? And so it will be for the rest of us.
But maybe if the good priests would just be more like Blase and bribe the demons with blessings for the new year so as to be saved by these demons in the coming year:
Or – Hey! – maybe the good priests should be more like Father Pfleger, and use a Pachamama canoe for the Consecration at Holy Mass.
Or – Hey! – maybe the good priests should STOP saying the Hail Mary and the Saint Michael prayer after Holy Mass. I bet that’s the problem.
Or – Hey! – ….
No. The good priests should just continue being good priests, come what may. The Lord Jesus, Sovereign High Priest, will provide for them, certainly also the privilege of being with Him on the Cross.
So many good memories, many of them dramatic, in reestablishing the TLM in Lourdes, etc.
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not bad and evil. It does not send you to hell in mortal sin for having offered this Mass of the Ages. Priests shouldn’t be cancelled for offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
For those terribly offended by this analogy, consider:
When John the Baptist leapt for joy in his mother Elizabeth’s womb as he was sanctified by little Jesus in the womb of Immaculate Mary, this leaping was dancing for joy just as David danced for joy before the Ark of the Covenant. But this time, with John, the Ark is not a box, but Mary who carried God Himself. The preface even in the Novus Ordo speaks of John singing about the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world.
Commenters on the symbolic meanings of Juan Diego’s Tilma say that the posture, the stance of Mary depicts that she is actually moving, well, dancing, dancing for joy, and she also sings her magnificat, glorifying the Lord.
We recall Guardini’s and Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy, at play before the Lord, right?
One is free to enter into the Sacrifice of Praise, following the law by way of the Holy Spirit, which is not freedom to break the commandments, or the rubrics for that matter, but the freedom of the children of God who will joyfully follow the commandments. See Romans 3:31…
“Do we, then, nullify the law by faith? Certainly not! Instead, we uphold the law.”
So, let me offer a contrast. I have witnessed academic know-nothing professors in seminaries who, thinking themselves to be clever, sophisticated, ever so self-congratulatory, would go out of their way to change words in the Eucharistic Prayer (this all being Novus Ordo) and change all sorts of rubrics at Holy Mass, consistently, purposely, just so as to showcase that Mass is be an occasion by which to turn the sanctuary into a staging of narcissism. They turn the Law of Prayer, the Sacrifice of the Last Supper as united with Calvary, into an instruction to the seminarians about how, when they are priests, they too will be able to kick their parishioners in the face, relativizing to themselves that which is by it’s very nature is to be open to those who desire to be united to that Sacrifice of Jesus, and not privatized by narcissists.
Could it be that those bad and evil trads who say the black of the text and do the red of the rubrics at Holy Mass ever so rigidly, so very entrenched – because they’re all, ALL OF THEM, old meanies, right? – could it be that at least some of them are actually saying the black and doing the red because they have light and joyful hearts, truly joyful in the gift of joy from the Holy Spirit, and are absolutely enjoying the freedom of the children of God, freed because of not being forced to be narcissistic, freed because of being immobilized, nailed down, crucified with the Son of the Living God, dead to themselves so as to live for Jesus, to lead others not to themselves but to Jesus, because He’s the One, the only One?
Yes, that could be. It’s true in some small way with me. I’m so unworthy. But our Lord’s graciousness in having wretched me be His priest makes me all the more joyful. He’s so good and kind, and His Truth is overwhelmingly glorious, awesome, stunning… I don’t have the brain-power-band-width to distract myself about how cleverly I can enculturate my idiocy into what is by rights His Holy Mass so as to relativize the Holy Mass to myself, cheating myself and everyone else in The Lord’s Little Flock. They have a right to His Holy Mass. They don’t need my stupidity. I would feel terribly self-conscience in “creating my own Mass.” I want to be preoccupied not with myself, but with Jesus. He’s the One. He’s the only One.
And there’s this from Taylor. Great! He nails this perfectly. Lol. Well done, Taylor. Well done:
I’M SORRY! I APOLOGIZE! THERE’S LACE IN THAT PICTURE AT THE TOP OF THIS POST! OH NO!
The message is that the Traditional Latin Mass is evil, that Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is evil, and that abortion is the sacred sacrament of the pro-aborts that must be reverenced.
+Archbishop Arthur Roach (b. 1950) is the guy who presented the Responsa ad dubia, saying that Jesus, in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the TLM, has nothing to do with the life of the parish. Nothing. So don’t take note of any of that in parish bulletins, he said. He’s Pope Francis’ hatchet man to wipe the TLM off the face of the earth.
+Bishop Robert Walter McElroy (b. 1954) has a long history of being militantly pro-abortion. Read through the short article on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._McElroy. Obviously, he was chosen as a public smack-down of Archbishop Cordileone, who recently forbade Nancy Pelosi to receive Holy Communion because of equally strident pro-abortion machinations.
BTW, that picture up top was taken by yours truly. I did the logistics for soon to be Cardinal Burke for that pilgrimage Mass, with myself being the TLM chaplain at Lourdes at the time. I was able to bring back the TLM just about single-handedly to the Sanctuaries after Summorum Pontificum even before it officially came into effect. And I’m pro-life. I guess I’m bad and evil as well. No red hat for me! :-)
This is one of the best ever efforts of Tucker. Excellent summary of the way things are.
I’m looking for the bishops to say something, anything, with such clarity. And if any bishop actually believed that Jesus is the Son of the Living God and that the Most Blessed Sacrament is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus, that Bishop should personally be writing a lengthy heart-felt statement, full front page of their diocesan newspapers about Jesus and the Blessed Sacrament, about protecting the least of the brethren in the womb, the image of Jesus. They shouldn’t depend on Styrofoam CNS of the USCCB. That’s B.S. They need to lead their flocks. We’re literally dying out here.
The Satanic side threatens to burn the Most Blessed Sacrament as the Satanists push for abortion at Catholic churches following the leak of the possible SCOTUS decision on Roe v Wade. An entire tabernacle was just stolen from a Catholic Church. Here’s a picture before it was stolen:
And here’s a screen shot of the website of that church advertising The Forbidden:
Good for that priest for doing what is generally FORBIDDEN in the Church, the offering of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. So many of our bishops are doing everything they can to kick Jesus in the face. But to speak for Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament, to speak for the least of the brethren, the image of Jesus? What happened to our priorities? It’s God first! Instead, it’s all about the murder of the little ones in the womb for medical reasons of obtaining “vaccines.” That’s all good, they say.
As I say, Tucker nails it like no bishop has. Well worth the listen, that video up top.
LifeSite has a good article on the machinations hurting the Latin Mass community and hurting Father Michael Rowe. I met Father Rowe a number of times decades ago. Very enthusiastic for the faith. I hate that this is happening to him and to the faithful. I recall the letter of Saint Athanasius to his flock:
“May God console you! …What saddens you …is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises, but you have the apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle-the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way …You are the ones who are happy: you who remain within the church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day. Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”
Here’s a recent Mass:
These are just good Catholics. Why bother them? Their church is more than doing well. They made untold capital improvements with really a lot of money. This is just so sad. A sign of the times.
I’m that overwhelmed altar boy. I’m that priest offering Mass in Latin. But it seems that every day (Cardinal)(Arch)bishops are dictatorially, tyrannically forbidding Latin and ad orientem worship in the Novus Ordo, which directly contradicts the validly celebrated ecumenical council of Vatican II and directly contradicts both the Institution of the Missal (otherwise called the GIRM) and also the in-line rubrics printed in the Altar Missal, not to mention Post-Conciliar Papal interventions such as Paul VI’s Iubilate Deo, none of which was never rescinded. These (Cardinal)(Arch)bishops hypocritically shriek: “To hell with Vatican II and all post-Conciliar reform! I’m the one! I’m the only one!”
So, as (Cardinal)(Arch)bishops forbid such things, the question is this: can they do this legitimately? Are they acting ultra vires, beyond their powers?
The answer comes from expert Canon Lawyers and Liturgists. No. It’s not legit. But then they are quick to add: “But if you don’t submit to their tyrannical hatred of Christ, they have a thousand ways to F*** you up. And they will. And they have always done this: “No one in Rome is going to take the side of the law, or stand with Christ Jesus, and certainly they will not come to your rescue. Get over it.”
So, my question is this: If everyone is compliant with effeminate (Cardinal)(Arch)bishops steamrolling over the Sacred Liturgy, over Christ, over Jesus’ priests, who is it that will ever stand alongside Jesus in His trials? Anyone? Ever? Jesus doesn’t say, “Blessed are you who ran away so as not to stand with me in my trials.” No. He said: “Blessed are you who have stood by me in my trials.”
A priest who offers the TLM rejoices to be the beneficiary of a continuous river of the Living Tradition of the Church flowing into one’s heart and soul and mind. The outward rubrics and words and actions of the TLM act as invitation into that Sacred Tradition. One’s response in assenting to the faith is like unto the littlest of children squealing in joy in recognition that the love into which one is drawn is – how to say it? – is that to which one has always been drawn by the Lord. It is a homecoming in the sense of being at home for the first time, knowing that one belongs to the great family of faith whom you love and who loves you. This is not some sort of political ideology as it called by Pope Francis so coldly, so cruelly. No.
I am a newbie to such things, so perhaps my rejoicing is too exuberant, but, no, one can never rejoice in the Sacred Mysteries too much. Here’s what happened:
Here I am, offering Holy Mass on the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul, getting to the end of the collect, the opening prayer, all about Saint Paul, as one might expect, and the rubric states that one is to continue without concluding that prayer so as to begin another another prayer all about Saint Peter, only then adding the conclusion for both together. Usually the first prayer has it’s own conclusion and then whatever other even multiple commemorations are brought together with their own singular conclusion. So, this is quite jarring in it’s childlike simplicity. I almost laughed out loud. This is so cool.
Here’s the deal. Peter was Pope while Paul was merely Saul. Peter was already believing in the Jewish Messiah, Christ Jesus, Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception at the time Saul became a believer. The tables would, however, be turned. Now the believing Paul was going to have to reprimand extremely severely the one upon who Jesus founded His Church, for Peter had not just become idiot Peter, but Peter who “stood condemned” (Galatians 2:11). Condemned means condemned to hell. Put it this way:
If Paul had not reprimanded Peter, Paul would go to hell for not reprimanding Peter, and Peter would continue on his merry way of political correctness right to hell (as judged by the Holy Spirit, and the Scriptures cannot lie).
If Paul had reprimanded Peter, as he indeed did, then he would continue on as Saint Paul, even if Peter did not take the correction and so continued on his way to hell.
We rejoice both that Paul reprimanded Peter and that Peter stood corrected, with now both being saints.
This is also true for the Secret Prayer and the Prayer after Communion. Two prayers with one conclusion each time.
Not only that, but on the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter a month later the same thing happens, but in reverse. There is a prayer involving firstly Saint Peter, and then Saint Paul, but under one conclusion, for the Collect, the Secret, the Prayer after Communion.
It’s so very Catholic to correct and admonish one another. We must help each other get to heaven.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of blustering going on these days. There is horrific heresy and blasphemy and idolatry and leading people into sin and the constant attacks on doctrine and morality and liturgy and the spiritual life from the powers that be across the pond. You offer a correction “to his face” as Paul says of his correction of Peter, but these days you are met with effeminate butt hurt tantrums. Whatever. I don’t care about hurt feelings. I care about helping people get to heaven, even if they don’t want that help right now. Parrhesia, anyone?
But wait, there’s more! And the more is what those who attack the faith say they want. Paul brings Peter back into unity with divinely revealed faith. We find out unity in the Living Truth who is Christ Jesus.
And that’s why you never hear anything good about Jesus which isn’t ambiguous or immediately contradicted in obscene ways. They say Jesus is not the Way, not the Truth, not the Life.
And mind you, I’m not being hateful or causing hate. Rather, they have rejected Jesus and I’m just pointing that out. Those who hate the truth and are always spouting lies hate it when you repeat back to them what they say and do. Whatever with them…
I will stay with Jesus who is personally the Way, the Truth, the Life.
For his homily on Epiphany, Pope Francis spewed words of disdain for those who believe and worship as the Church has always believed and worshipped, and reductively characterized the magi as those we should imitate in their vacuous desire (in Francis’ mind) for all that is new New NEW NEW! NEW!!! (here). I was going to fisk that out, but it’s all too depressing.
Instead, I’d like to share with you what happened to me, yesterday, January 7, the day after Epiphany. This event took place as I read the Gospel “toward the North”, as they say. The Mass prayers and readings were those of Epiphany. The Gospel was that of the magi falling down in adoration of the Christ Child, offering their gifts.
Firstly, note that whenever I begin Holy Mass, I don’t know what I’m going to preach about. I like to be available to the Holy Spirit even though Pope Francis declares that this would have to be impossible for me, offering the Ancient Rite as I do. Perhaps my lack of preparation is presumption, laziness, careless neglect, even sinful. Certainly my parishioners tell me frequently enough that I’m never at a loss for words, never an unspoken thought kind of thing. But throughout the day before Mass I am in a state of begging the Holy Spirit to instruct me as I preach. I know that I myself have nothing to say, no matter how much I might prepare. I am nothing. I must, as it were, give the mic to the Holy Spirit. I hope that is not blasphemy. Obviously, I am inept at everything I do. But I hope that sometimes something for some souls will help point them to virtue and truth. So…
Whilst reading the Gospel… it’s like my heart – suddenly, with the words about the magi falling down in adoration – it’s like my heart was actually ripped from my chest and it was everything I could do not to fall to my knees. But then, right then, right there, there was a rubric written out right in the very text of the Gospel that the priest reading the Gospel is to fall to his knees in adoration with the magi!
I did so, so happy to have some seconds to recover after my heart was ripped out of my chest. Rising again, I didn’t want to make a spectacle of myself. I forced myself to continue reading. My voice faltered. I got choked up, I teared up. I was, despite the words of Pope Francis against priests who offer the Ancient Rite of Holy Mass… I was “surprised by the Holy Spirit.” And now I knew what I was going to preach about, namely, what happened to the gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh brought by the magi.
I wasn’t there with the magi. I don’t know what happened to their gifts. I’m just telling you my ♬ experience ♬ my feelings ♬
When I say that it was like my heart was ripped out of me, what I’m trying to say is that my veiled eyes were less veiled, my heart was made less dull. I was convicted, as it’s said, by the Holy Spirit. I knew myself to be so unworthy to be in the presence of these great men and the total solidarity they had with the Holy Family. But I wasn’t concentrating on myself. It was all about their urgency to adore the Christ Child and then the dire straits they were in to provide those gifts to be used for the members of the Body of Christ, the boys who would be slaughtered in place of Jesus.
Here’s the deal. I think these wise men were Jews descended from Jews who stayed behind in Babylon after the Cyrus sent the Jews back to Jerusalem. I think these wise men knew all the prophesies about the Messiah, the Suffering Servant, the Lamb of God who will save His people and the whole world from sin, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Son of God.
Their gifts mirrored everything in the Jewish Scriptures, that the Divine Christ was to be Priest, Prophet and King. You can categorize all the Scriptures into those three categories. Gold is for the only King who would always be eager to provide for His subjects, Frankincense is for the Priest who would Himself be the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, myrrh is for a Prophet who would be killed for speaking Truth and should therefore have his body packed with myrrh for burial. But wait. No. He might die, but He was to rise from the dead. So… wait… what?
They already knew the Child King was to be born in Bethlehem, but purposely went out of their way to shake up filthy, wretched, demonic, murderous King Herod, and all the rest of Jerusalem with him. These wise men already knew that they themselves should be killed by Herod for speaking of this new King. They already knew that Herod would want to kill the Child King, a rival King incomparably greater than him. But they knew Herod could never do such a thing. They fully believed it would have to be the babe Himself who would later lay down His life for His people, for the whole world. They were just provoking Herod and all the people on purpose, so that the event wouldn’t go by unnoticed even from the beginning. I love that.
And the gifts? They brought them knowing what would have to happen regardless of whether they provoked Herod and all Jerusalem with him. No matter what, it would soon be known that the Messiah was now born as the one and only King of the Jews. Herod would still try to kill Jesus, the Savior. Herod would still try to kill all the infant boys two years old or under. They knew that before they even started their journey.
Their gifts were brought, it seems to me, for the Holy Family to give to the families of those whose boys would die for Jesus. Those boys wouldn’t grow up to provide for their families, for their then elderly parents, but those families would now have gold to provide for themselves as they became older. The families of the boys being slaughtered by Herod would, unlike Jesus in future times, need the myrrh for packing around the corpses of those infant boys for their burial. The families of the boys, shaken by these events, would offer that frankincense in honor of Jesus who had been among them, in honor of the prayers of the lives of the infants slaughtered for Jesus. Joseph received a dream from an angel about the impending slaughter: “Take the child and His mother and flee to Egypt! Do it! Do it now!” What are they going to do with gold too heavy, frankincense too abundant, myrrh for a day so long in the future when it would not be used by Mary anyway (for she knew her Son would rise from the dead and she would not be at the tomb with Mary of Magdala early Sunday morning). The Holy Family didn’t have caravans of camels, but only a donkey for Mary and her newborn.
But Francis decries such an experience as impossible to the priest who offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of Jesus, in the Ancient Rite. We priests must be rejecting the surprises of the Holy Spirit. We cannot be convicted by the Holy Spirit.
Pope Francis, you are wrong. Why limit the Holy Spirit? Be surprised that the Holy Spirit can also enliven the heart and soul of a wretch like me even whilst offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Ancient Rite. I am a sinner, a terrible sinner. But the Holy Spirit is more powerful than I am. I hope, Pope Francis, that you do not doubt that the Holy Spirit can work even with me, wretch that I am.
Be joyful, Pope Francis.
I can’t help myself. It’s just my ♬ feelings ♬ again. But this comes to mind about the rhetoric of Francis when he prejudicially lumps together all those who offer and assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Ancient Rite:
Miss McCarthy replied that Lillian Hellman was “a bad writer, overrated, a dishonest writer.” When Mr. Cavett asked what was “dishonest” about Miss Hellman, Miss McCarthy answered, “Everything.” Miss McCarthy continued, “I once said in an interview that every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.'”
Does that sound like I’m criticizing Pope Francis? Yes, I suppose it does. Does he deserve it for the good of his own soul? Yes, I suppose he does. You know, Galatians 2:11 and all that. Be of good heart.
Thanks go to the many who collaborated to bring this extremely helpful if utterly sardonic extended bit of humor to light. Even the length is cynically sarcastic, mimicking the useless verbosity of the Bergoglio-esque modus operandi. One is overwhelmed, suffocated, convinced by the massive weight of the horror, the truth, setting one free, ever so humorous, but ever so sad. But I love it. Totally.
Ultimately, is this useful? Should this actually be used against the insistence of some (arch)episcopal sycophant of Francis? I mean, it would be difficult for, say, a Cardinal Cupich to deny the truths of this humor. But do we set up a precedent? Are we to be “disobedient” with sarcasm?
I mean, I don’t know, let’s figure this out. What is the law when the mens legislatoris (the mind, the intention, of the legislator) is so extremely, excruciatingly clear regardless of what some “It’s-only-the-text-of-the-actual-precept-canon-lawyer” has to say?
I would challenge any (arch)bishop and/or Canon lawyer to read that piece linked above. It’s humorous, but there is a deadly, deadly, deadly serious side to it. The accuracy and completeness and nuance of the citations are stunning, overwhelming. This is academia at it’s best, interpretation of the law at its best. This goes right to the heart of the Church, the Sacred Heart of the Church. This is about the salvation of souls. Sometimes humor speaks more loudly than direct commentary. But this is all direct commentary simultaneously. Yikes! Congratulations to this author, to the translator, to the publisher. Awesome. Great work.
The author, by the way, has been out in the peripheries more than Bergoglio could ever dream of being out in any peripheries. This guy absolutely cares for the sheep and lambs of the Lord’s Little Flock in every way. He gets it. The “authenticity” of this guy makes him someone to be reckoned with. He’s a giant of a Catholic among Catholics. And he has all the degrees in the world. All the street-cred of a true believer.
And after wading though this, I’m quite convinced that this sarcasm is also intended by Francis and +Roche. In other words, for Francis and +Roche, this is what is actually happening:
“If you conservative idiots are so stupid as to take Traditionis custodes and the Responses to the Dubia by the CDW seriously, then you’re not even worth taking seriously. Go ahead and hyper-obey, all angry and cynical, which is where we want you to be. But if all y’all are smart enough to catch on to our “no-law-is-a-good-law” way of going about things, then, by all means, we got you where we want you. Go ahead and do whatever you want with the TLM. Celebrate it all the time. We don’t care. That’s not the point. What we want is for you to ignore all law, to ignore the Church, to get into the habit of ignoring any Pope who comes along in the future. We are baiting you, and you have taken the bait. Hahahahaha!”
But what Francis and +Roche don’t understand is that true believers have the wisdom to see through the demonic cynicism. We will remain believers. We will continue to follow all just laws, all just precepts. We will continue to follow Jesus. We won’t be doing any demon idol worship. And Jesus has the last laugh as we use Francis and +Roche against themselves and still remain with Jesus. :-)
So, just to be clear: There is no TLM or any Sacrament or Sacramental of the Ancient Rite which is either invalid or illicit. We know the mens legislatoris, diabolically cynical as it might be. It’s all gaslighting. To them, it’s humorous. But I’ll remain deadly serious about the salvation of souls with Jesus, who was absolutely deadly serious.
Can you imagine saying Holy Mass on the front lines for the guys and putting the demon-idol Pachamama in front of them? I can’t. I won’t. The demonic hierarchy can go to their own place. I will not follow. I will remain with Jesus, by His grace, in His joy.
“May God console you! …What saddens you …is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle-the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?
“True, the premises are good when the apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way …You are the ones who are happy: you who remain within the church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.
“No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.
“Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.
“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”
“St. Athanasius lived in the 4th century and was the bishop of Alexandria in Egypt for 46 years. Banned from his diocese at least five times, he spent a total of 17 years in exile. The famous convert to the Church, Cardinal John Henry Newman, described him as a “principal instrument after the Apostles by which the sacred truths of Christianity have been conveyed and secured to the world.” Often referred to as the Champion of Orthodoxy, St. Athanasius was undoubtedly one of the most courageous defenders of the Faith in the entire history of the Church. If anyone can be singled out as a saint for our times, surely it is St. Athanasius. The [above] letter of his could, almost word for word, have been written yesterday. [Even today.]
Comment of Arise!:
In the day of Saint Athanasius, the vast majority of bishops, so wimpy, didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ Jesus. And they wanted to kill Athanasius, chasing him into the desert on multiple occasions. If Christ is divine, then they have to keep the commandments. They didn’t want that.
I ask how it could possibly be that the bishops of today believe in the divinity of Jesus, for they, almost to a man, deny the least of the brethren, that what we do or don’t do to the least of the brethren we do or don’t do to Christ Jesus Himself. Abortion is great as long as we get “vaccines” for our selfish selves!
“Throw Jesus off His Altar, our of His Church. Install the demon-idol Pachamama, Abomination of Desolation, to whom to the least of the brethren are sacrificed! Don’t respect Jesus in the Sacrifice of the Mass that has been offered since the time of the Apostles! Do get the abortion-tainted “vaccine”!
Canon 1373 – A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.
Some notes on terminology:
“animosities” – This generally refers to riling people’s emotions to such a point that their emotions rule their reasoning capacities. We would normally call this inciting prejudice. However, this wouldn’t be an evil if it were to be directed at someone who, until he absolutely repented, couldn’t be trusted for anything whatsoever, such as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao. So, the question is as to whether there is that which, in the law itself, helps us to distinguish what kind of animosity it is with which we’re dealing.
“hatred” – “In the words of the Scriptures, “I loved Jacob, but I rejected Esau” (Romans 9:13). God hates the sin and the sinner in such manner that He provides all that is needed for the sinner to repent and stop the sin, stop being a sinner, now being loved. Hatred can be a tool of love. So, the question is as to whether there is that which, in the law itself, helps us to distinguish what kind of hatred it is with which we’re dealing.
Distinguishing factors in the law:
Whenever we find a subordinating conjunction, we must needs pay attention, as it promises to make the necessary distinction for us. We find the legally significant word – “because” – in this law. Thus: “BECAUSE of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them.”
The punishment to be imposed irregardless of the simple fact of inciting animosities or hatred or to also to provoke disobedience in those who are subject to such acts of power or ecclesiastical ministry is, however, subject to the veracity of “some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry” actually being legitimate, that is, lawful, and does not issue from someone acting ultra vires, that is, beyond their powers, beyond their lawful capacities. Did Pope or Prefect or some subsequent bishop anywhere in the world act ultra vires, beyond their powers?
Once it is decided by an ecclesiastical court that no one was acting ultra vires and that the alleged perpetrator is actually guilty of a crime before God and man, then “an interdict or other just penalties” are to be imposed.
As even Wikipedia points out, “an interdict today has the effect of forbidding the person concerned to celebrate or receive any of the sacraments, including the Eucharist, or to celebrate the sacramentals.” That can be tantamount to condemning someone to hell. And I have always said that a “just penalty” would include whatever comes to the imagination of the powers that be, including burning at the stake.
Mind you, for many decades untold numbers of priests have NOT been put under interdict – as that might involve discovery on both sides as appeals are made – but rather priests have simply been marginalized with no due process and with no court at all. And anyway, how do you make an appeal when everyone on up the ladder have already been acting ultra vires on the very point under contention?
So, priests simply trying to do the right thing have been taken out of assignments, their living quarters taken away, having their pay cut, then their insurance cut, and then a request for the priest’s dismissal from the clerical state is made to the Holy See because the cleric is a “liability.” That’s granted, though usually with a fake ultimatum: Either you will spend the rest of your life in a “treatment center” for nothing that needs treatment (fidelity to Christ and the legitimate authority of the Church) or you will be dismissed from the clerical state. Just like that.
Oh, and that picture at the top? That’s the chopping block and axe used for the decapitation of Saint Thomas More in the most civilized of societies, of course. “Most civilized” always refers to the most blood-thirsty.
Anyway, back to any priest thinking about disobedience to Traditionis custodes and to the “legislation” of the answers to the CDW Dubia. I always go back to Aquinas on the law: If a law is unjust, is evil, it is therefore not a law, and is not to be obeyed or disobeyed, but ignored, for it is nothing. Of course, no sycophantic powers that be are going to listen to Aquinas, or Natural Law, or Divine Law, or Canon Law. No, they’re just going to make you feel their power, like Judas demonstrated his “power” over Jesus.
We can pray that bishops invoke Canon 87 in favor of the salvation of souls. One would think that this is what it’s all about, right?
Do I think that Pope Francis and the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship (CDW) are acting ultra vires with Traditionis custodes and the Dubia responses? Yes. I’ve written on this quite extensively. I think these documents of Traditionis custodes and the Dubia reponses are an insult to Christ Jesus and His Sacrifice of the Mass and that, in this case, the underlying evil is such that it colors any obedience to the unjust law, such that one is complicit in the underlying evil.
By the by, there are other things
I’m not going to give absolution to someone who has no repentance, having them receive Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin. That’s called sollicitation to sin, an automatic excommunication for a priest hearing confessions. I’m not going to do it. Any demand that I do such a horrible thing is illegitimate, acting ultra vires. I’m just going to ignore that.
I’m not going to participate in the Synod on Synodality. I’ll have nothing to do with New Ways Ministries other than to tell them that they must repent. That’s it. They know the doctrine and morality of the Church. They know the Sacred Scriptures. The Holy See gives them a stage to promote their horror. To demand that I participate in this is acting ultra vires. I’m just going to ignore that. — et cetera, almost ad infinitum…
As Thomas More said at the end of the trial by which he was unjustly condemned, it wasn’t because of his not taking any oath that he condemned, but rather, and simply, it was because of the marriage. And in this case, with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we are dealing with the marriage of Christ and His Immaculate Bride, the Church, with the consecrations being His wedding vows. But the response I’ve heard right through the decades is that we are NOT to use our reason and our faith, but we are instead to have Jesus’ Truth filtered for us by brave theologians. Pfft.
This isn’t rocket science. Insulting Jesus is bad and evil and I’m not going there. No discussion.
What I have done here is to invoke the legitimacy of Galatians 2:11:
“When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.”
Invoking Galatians 2:11 is a supreme act of charity and justice and mercy. Am I to be condemned for that? Jesus will also have something to say about any powers that be acting ultra vires.
I don’t care about unjust penalties in this life, whatever the cost. I want to go to heaven.