The New Circumcisers

 

A few weeks ago a friend sent me a post from a priest I know who was purporting that anyone who chose to “take the jab” (putting “vaccine” in quotes) would “probably be dead in two years” due to the antibody priming that was programmed into the jab. As if this wasn’t jarring enough, he exhorted those who did take this course of action to repent of doing so before they meet their inevitable demise. A follow-up post a few days later was the sharing of a meme in which Satan takes Jesus up to a high mountain (during the temptation) with the words “All of this can be yours if you just get 2 vaccines.”

I should say that this is a priest with a large and devoted following whose zeal and commitment to traditional Catholicism I admire. I would consider him unorthodoxly orthodox. I have gleaned some helpful teaching and admonishments in the past from him to live a more moral life, especially in regards to the practical application of the faith and how to live a traditional Catholic life. We have had text exchanges in the past, and he has said masses for us. That being said, unchecked zeal can be a precarious thing, and I have noticed most of his energies as of late have been directed into talking/writing about COVID and vaccination to a greater degree in an almost “prophetic” manner.

I am in the strange position of most of my circle being comprised of orthodox and traditional Catholics, many of whom who staunchly and as a matter of conscience have made the decision to not be vaccinate against COVID. Because it seems the government and the world are barreling down on them with the looming prospect of mandatory vaccinations in many spheres of life, vaccine passports, and the like, I would suspect many find solace and support in circles in which people feel similarly and hold similar views. These are all people of good will with a “live and let live” attitude who value freedom of conscience, personal liberty and autonomy. Because of my limited scope, I don’t know if this is a large or small contingent in the general populace, but from where I stand, it’s sizable.     

We all make choices and must accept the consequences of those choices; that is one thing. It is, however, quite another when a member of the clergy purports in a shocking and public manner predicting the death of millions of people who have vaccinated, and that they would die outside of a state of grace as a result, with no verifiable basis. I want to see traditional Catholicism grow and flourish, but not due to things like this. I would go so far as to say it is a wildly precarious position to put oneself in as a priest, and largely irresponsible to the state of souls, especially given that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has approved the moral licitness of receiving the vaccine. 

Though this may be a limited vantage point of spoiled American Catholicism that has the luxury of debating such things while our brother and sister Christians in Afghanistan, China, and Nigeria are being jailed and slaughtered for their faith, they do need to be dealt with. The Church has been dealing with how to live out the faith in the light of Revelation, and how to exercise its authority, stamp out heresy, and uphold orthodox teaching, from its founding.

While I wouldn’t put the issue of the role of vaccination or masking among Christians on the same level as some of the ‘crises’ within the early church community, it is something in which one finds contention within the church today among the faithful with pastoral implications. 

One of the first precursors to subsequent ecumenical councils was called in 50 AD due to the division within the Church over the issue of circumcision for gentiles among Jewish Christians. The Judaizers were a party of Jewish converts to Christianity who emphasized the necessity of retaining the Jewish customs, especially circumcision, to be saved. They also sought to impose this on the new Gentile believers, which is where the crisis in Antioch comes to a head. In his letter to the church at Galatia (where the Judaizers were also spreading their “mischief”), Paul takes a forceful tone for he sees the threat of a “little leaven” that has the potential to ruin the whole batch of dough:

“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion is not from him who called you. A little leaven leavens all the dough. I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine; and he who is troubling you will bear his judgment, whoever he is. But if I, brethren, still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? In that case the stumbling block of the cross has been removed. I wish those who unsettle you would mutilate themselves!” (Galatians 5:6-12).

Paul also re-asserts the primacy of freedom from the law in Christ Jesus, and of grace, in the service of love to one another:

“For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another take heed that you are not consumed by one another” (Galatians 5:13-15) 

At the Council of Jerusalem, Peter recounts his encounter with Cornelius who was a God-fearing Gentile. Cornelius was sent by the Holy Spirit to Peter to make sense of his vision in Acts 10 in which Peter is commanded to “kill and eat” what he had previously regarded as unclean. When Peter preaches to Cornelius and his household that “God shows no partiality” (v. 34), and to underscore the new covenant which is still being fleshed out among the believers, the Holy Spirit comes upon the Gentiles gathered there and reference is made to “the believers among the circumcised” who “were amazed” that the uncircumcised would receive this gift. As the saying goes, one should not “major in the minors” and so baptism (which is, in fact, necessary for salvation) is carried out regardless of the whether one was circumcised or not (not a prerequisite for being saved, as the Judaizers claimed).

Paul’s famous “I opposed Peter to his face” encounter is recorded in Galatians 2 in reference to Peter’s lack of integrity over this issue. Peter had previously eaten with Gentile converts (the uncircumcised) but out of fear of the judgment of the circumcision party and zealots who came down to Antioch, withdrew from doing so until being confronted by Paul. Though Peter and Paul were of the same mind in terms of principals, the practical conduct of believers and how to enforce it was what was in question.  

Paul forcefully adjurated any possibility that such discrimination be allowed to take place within the body of believers, and St. Peter in true humility recognizes the justice inherent in such a rebuke. The authority to declare that Gentile believers are saved by faith not by circumcision or the law comes from Peter, who holds the authority to make such declarations for the Church.

However, as to quell contention among the two groups, James advances the pastoral initiative in Acts 15:28 “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.” What were these necessary things? “That you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity” (Acts 15:29).

The issues of the day for the early believers around 50 AD was whether the non-circumcised would be saved. In 2021, as a result of the mischief of a few who end up laying a “greater burden” than is necessary on the faithful, the issue in the aforementioned circumstance is whether or not the vaccinated will be damned (on its account). The Magisterium, even if She has taken the more “liberal” approach in warranting to allow for those who wish to get vaccinated without fear of sin, should give solace to those faithful who wish to do so without threat of scruples or scandal. 

As for being judged in the court of opinion by the faithful who continue to fuel the fire of these kinds of erroneous assertions from celebrity priests, I have not been subjected. This is because my friends and those I associate with are largely, as I said, people of good faith and good will who happen to have come to a different stance than I have by way of their conscience. 

But for those (primarily on-line) New Circumcisers that saddle one’s vaccination status with a soteriological element, they should be opposed to their face for spreading mischief to the weaker brethren. Extra-Catholica Jansenism is a bad look for the Church. “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.” (Gal 5:6). For every idle word tweeted or posted, they will be forced to give account at the Judgment.