Search This Blog

Thursday, July 6, 2023

On Papal Authority: Did Pope Paul VI Renouncing the Tiara have more than a Symbolic Meaning?

The last papal tiara, renounced by Pope Paul VI at the conclusion of Vatican II

Fr. Tom Collins and I have been having an interesting exchange about the crisis in the Church. He recently sent me the comment below about papal authority and the "tiara." I found it thought-provoking. Many seem to think that Pope Paul VI shunning the papal tiara was a good idea. Who needs all that pomp and circumstance anyway? When the pope placed it on the altar he called it the, “renunciation of human glory and power” and “the new spirit of the Church purified.” 

Really? 

Is that what we've seen since then: a "new spirit" that has given us a "Church purified?"

Please, no laughing! It's too tragic!

Let's stop and think for a minute. The Apostle of Common Sense, G.K. Chesterton, has this to say about fences which applies here to the papal tiara:
There exists...let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
So what exactly did the papal tiara represent? And who was cheering on as it was reduced to a museum piece? What was the use of it? 

Fr. Tom offers this explanation:
Note that some also wonder whether the act of Paul VI in giving up the papal tiara, which indicates the pope’s authority to teach, sanctify and rule, had more than a symbolic significance. An act of hubris can be misconstrued as an act of humility. And renunciation of the exercise of authentic authority is welcomed by those who are seeking ways to become “liberated” from accountability to the truth. Also, such renunciation of authority also allows for pastoral negligence, as the “supremacy of conscience” is used as an excuse both to acquiesce to the legitimacy of sin-seared consciences and to absolve pastors from having to exercise their awkward responsibility to admonish sinners. And with Catholics left free to presume that all of us will eventually go to heaven, pastors can be relegated to being merely sacramentally-enhanced social workers and/or spiritual activities directors on the good ship, Salvation.

Paul VI’s act of renunciation could also have been an indication of a major shift away from the traditional Petrine ministry into a new paradigm incrementally yet increasingly confined within the parameters imposed by secular premises, perspectives and priorities. The crowd appeal of relevance could thus be allowed to eclipse appreciation of the sacred and sanctifying disciplines of Divine Revelation proclaimed by the Church.

In all of this, we need to reverently and contritely consign ourselves to God’s mercy, whiletaking decisive steps of prayer and fasting to cooperate more fully with that mercy and to deepen our hunger and thirst for that righteousness found only by abiding more deeply in
the mystery of Christ crucified. 

You can read about Pope Paul's action here. You can see that particular tiara at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. 

We live in a world that has destroyed monarchy. England's monarchy is nothing but a symbol and a tourist attraction. Was the move to eliminate Christian monarchies and raise secularist governments also an act of raising secularism above religion? In the U.S. we now have a demented man with the power of a kingly tyrant. Did the abdication of the "kingly" power of the pope, in the image of the Christ the King help achieve the rise of secular tyrants with the hubris that they are almighty rulers?

Furthermore, did Pope Paul VI's action contribute to the chaotic crisis in the Church today by renouncing the tiara and the authority it represents? We call Jesus Christ "the King." Did the pope, Christ's vicar on earth, help to bring Christ down from His throne by shunning His crown? And who now has usurped that throne? What do you think, readers? 

41 comments:

  1. Papal tiara and papal tea party with his stuffed animals

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is no doubt that renouncing the Tiara is symbolically, perhaps mystically connected to the advent of the Conciliar Church. And we have lost our way in this Church.

    What is needed now is recognition, renunciation, repentance, return - as in the last equivalent crisis, of the Arians.

    It seems to me the Arian crisis and the Conciliar have that in common - a fatally mistaken view of Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Renunciation of the Papal tiara is a denial of the Kingship of Christ visible in the person of the Pope, as well as His rightful place as Ruler of all in heaven and on Earth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cynthia, I agree. It is the ceremonial equivalent of the liturgical decision for the Priest to turn around - back to Jesus, facing “the people”.

      Delete
  4. I have come to the view the view that Paul VI and his conciliar successors were anti-popes because they taught heresy, specifically the heresies of Vatican II.

    The office of Pope is part of the Church's divine constitution, created and given by Our Lord. Thus, the nature of that constitution and of that office is both natural and supernatural. That supernatural aspect cannot be changed by mere humans. There is a given-ness of it. The office of Pope cannot be enlarged to include an active Pope and a passive Pope Emeritus (sorry, Benedict XVI). Nor can the mystical Body of Christ be dis-integrated from the the Catholic Church to merely subsist in the Catholic Church but also be in schismatic and heretical ecclesial communities (sorry, Lumen Gentium authors). The latter is ecclesial dysmorphia and could not have been dreamed up without centuries of social compact theory and other enlightenment delusions.

    So Paul VI's renunciation of the papal tiara only had symbolic effects. The actual, true, real nature of the papacy did not change. But the symbolic effects did create some real consequences.

    I think the way to think of this renunciation is as an attempted typological reversal. The pope is a vassal king to Christ the King. The pope's kingship is not the same kingship as Christ the King's. I'm not sure how to describe it, perhaps as a vassal kingship. Or to the extent that the pope participates in Christ's Kingship, he is doing it as His vicar, which is kind of like a regency, except the pope isn't regent over Our Lord, but is a mere servant.

    Christ's Kingship is the fulfillment of the typos of King David. What was David before he was a king? A shepherd. So I read Paul VI's renunciation not merely as a temporal renunciation of a form of government of the papal states but in a more typological renunciation.

    What does it mean when a vassal king renounces the idea of kingship? Can the King continue to rely on that vassal king? This particular King knows all, but what would an earthly king think about the vassal king who renounces the idea of kingship? That king must infer that the vassal king has rejected his own superior kingship.

    This act of renunciation by Paul VI is a bigger problem than people realize.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Antny,
      That is a very good, helpful contribution. Thanks for it.

      And it is a bigger problem than people realize - including myself until I read this post and attached comments.

      Delete
  5. Is the photo of Pope Pius XII shown in reverse? Since when does any cleric, let alone the Pope, bless with his left hand? And doesn't a bishop wear his ring on the right hand?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like his right hand to me

      Delete
  6. From removing the crown of the Vicar of Christ to “just call me Jorge.” Pretty clear the agenda.
    The British monarchy is far from just titular. Think Privy Council and the City of London.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for the heads up, Bill. I'm obviously not very observant. It was reversed. I found the correct orientation and changed it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The title Vicar of Christ has now been consigned to history.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Pope Paul VI was the last Pope to be crowned in a coronation ceremony.
    Starting with his successor, JP I in 1978, all have been inaugurated, not coronated.
    The Tiara, visible symbol of total Papal authority and responsibility, has been rejected by Conciliar Church.
    The three-crown Tiara represents the triple power of the Pope: father of kings; governor of the world; Vicar of Christ.
    Another interpretation is of three-fold Papal authority: Universal Pastor; Universal Jurisdiction; Universal Temporal Power.
    Another interpretation of the three-crown Tiara is that it represents the Churches Militant; Suffering; Triumphant.
    Another interpretation is that the three-crown Tiara represents three-fold duties to teach; sanctify; govern the Church.

    The abandonment of this at the dawn of the Conciliar age is obviously of great significance - connecting the symbol to the reality.

    Of this, SSPX has this to say: "Thus in the symbol of the papal tiara, we can easily see the struggle that Arbp LeFebvre and his priestly Society of St Pius X have continually waged against the error of collegiality and staunchly defended the true rights of the papacy. So we echo the sentiments of Catholics everywhere: bring back the papal tiara, and all that it entails with it, for Christ the King, His Church and His Vicar.

    http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/papal_tiara.htm

    ReplyDelete
  10. I hope Fr. Collins is not implying or saying outright that the Tiara is an essential mark of the Office of Pope, the renunciation of which is a renunciation of the Papacy itself, rendering its Seat ... vacant.

    It's important to be clear, because there are many who are being led out of the apostolic Catholic faith in many various ways in all the confusion.

    Sick, injured, not dead.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Not likely since he is not a sedevacantist. I sent him the discussion. Perhaps he will reply.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. My take is that the setting aside of the Tiara and the attendant Coronation ceremony is a visual expression of the Conciliar deviations.

      I have been reading in my Angelus magazine about early Church debates about Theotokos, Mary, her connection to the Advent of God as Man in the person of Jesus Christ. You can’t possibly believe correctly about one unless you also believe correctly about the other. And it took centuries of debate and heroic saintly defenses of Truth for the Dogmas to be ultimately established in Creeds. Centuries. In that time there were all the important heresies that threatened to split and destroy the Catholic Church in Her infancy. But it didn’t happen, because God was with Her, and Her members and Truth prevailed (of course) in the end.

      What *did not* happen? Blanket declarations of Sede Vacante against any Pope or Bishop or Priest or Religious who took the “wrong side”. The Truth was fought for *within*. The Apostolic Line held.

      I see the current Conciliar deviations in precisely the same way. Fight the good fight within, in the long, arduous slog that will no doubt exceed our lifetimes by generation(s) - plural. Bring medicine to the sick. That is the way.

      Delete
  12. Mary Ann, may I ask that since the SSPX hierarchy publicly state Bergoglio is pope; do believe the SSPX clergy and lay faithful who hold to the '22 sedevacantist position are in error? And what about the '58 sedes within the SSPX? Does it really matter if the See is vacant or not?

    ReplyDelete
  13. What happened to the papacy and infallibility in 1452 when Nicholas v (dum diversas) declared that African patterns could be held in "perpetual servitude" creating a secular kingly negative precedent whose after shocks are still being felt.

    Perhaps setting down the "kingly crown" and taking up only the shepherd's crook (Humanae vitae) and the Servant persona can still constitute vicar of Christ on earth.

    ReplyDelete
  14. (correcting previous typo)
    What happened to the papacy and infallibility in 1452 when Nicholas v (dum diversas) declared that African pagans could be held in "perpetual servitude" creating a secular kingly negative precedent whose after shocks are still being felt.

    Perhaps setting down the "kingly crown" and taking up only the shepherd's crook (Humanae vitae) and the Servant persona can still constitute vicar of Christ on earth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some things are open to debate. There is room for disagreements, room even error (as you hi-lite in your example … one of many I’m sure).

      I do not, however, think there is room to accept “laying down” the kingly crown”. That kingly nature is simply part of who the Pope is. Antny did a real nice job in the comments above explaining this - he compared the Pope to a “vassal King”; I compare him to “Viceroy - “ruler exercising authority for a King in a King’s colony”.

      Laying his royal nature down does not separate Peter from the Papacy, per se, any more than did Peter fleeing persecution in Rome on the Appian Way. But … Peter has to return, yes. The Popes have to pick up the crown again, also yes.

      Laying down the crown ceremonially, visually, perhaps mystically, changes the essence of the Papacy from Vicar of Christ the King, Viceroy of heaven to a simple shepherd - reflecting in the Papacy the de-sacralizing of the Liturgy. This cannot stand, it is not sustainable.

      Delete
  15. If the tiara don't fit you must acquit.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous, I corrected the photo. The original one I had of Pius XII was reversed. I just didn't catch the error. I'm always grateful for a little help from my friends.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mary Ann, I've watched A Man For All Seasons quite a few times and we know St. Thomas More is in heaven because he remained true to the Catholic Church's teaching; Norfolk, not so much. This isn't about judging someone's conscience, it's about truth. Within the SSPX, both clergy and lay faithful hold opposing positions. The hierarchy publicly profess with their lips that Bergoglio and his five predecessors are true popes, yet their actions say otherwise. Also within the SSPX, both clergy and lay faithful, there are '22 sedes and '58 sedes. Only one of these three positions can be true. I would argue that the mere 50+ years of existence of the SSPX's irregular canonical status together with Abp. Lefebvre's statements (which pointed to both the R&R and the sede position) clearly points to the truth of '58 sedevacantism. Any other position contradicts not only the SSPX's existence, but their actions these past five decades.

    Also, the disunity among SVists (which is only about how to get or receive a valid pope) is one more piece of evidence of the truth of sedevacantism. The disunity among the SSPX group who claim all post conciliar popes valid, have really no excuse for their disunity.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Debbie, I've read some of the links you've posted and the SSPX position and I still find the sedevacantist position unconvincing. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it more convincing. Give it a rest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps you might consider banning SVists from your comments section if you're not willing to engage in the arguments but instead choose "uncharitable" responses like "give it a rest". My comments, like other sede commenters, are not intended solely for the OP, but for all who may read them.

      I doubt you'll publish this comment, understandably so, but it's good enough that you see it dear Mary Ann.

      Delete
    2. Hardcore 1958 sedes are like the followers of medjugorge, garabandal and bayside. You can respectfully disagree with them, point out their errors, and present all the official Church condemnations all you want but they’ll still keep beating the dead horse. It’s really sad, pathetic, and like the aforementioned alleged apparitions, 1958 sedevacantism eventually becomes an unhealthy obsession that eventually takes over their Catholic faith.

      Delete
    3. Lukewarm sedes would be better? Reminds me of what my protestant "husband" said during my conversion, "the marriage cannot last unless you're a nominal Catholic". He divorced me soon afterwards.

      Thanks for the compliment Andrew!

      Delete
    4. Debbie,
      To a Catholic, the compliment is not “hardcore 1958 Sede”. The compliment is “hardcore Catholic”.

      The definitions and implications are not the same.

      Delete
    5. You accusing 1958 sedevacantists of not holding the Catholic faith whole and entire Aqua?

      How about the '58 sede clergy within the SSPX? Are they not Catholic either? Or the '22 sedes such as yourself? Not Catholic?

      Delete
    6. Debbie,
      As you infer from your response, the true compliment lies in being a hardcore Catholic, “whole and entire”.

      I agree.

      Delete
  19. Debbie, you keep expressing dismay but you obviously haven’t read the extensive and fully explanatory links Mary Ann provided … because you aren’t responding to anything in them. Everything within them concisely explains the contra opinion to Sedevacantism. You need to understand the opposing argument, which cannot be contained on a postcard in a few simple sentences and respond to that accordingly.

    For instance, one extract - quote - :

    “Archishop Lefebvre, in his knowledge of Roman politics and supernatural wisdom, knew the major issues which took place during Vatican II: he presided over the Coetus, that group of bishops who counteracted the modernists from the Rhine countries. Unlike the sedevacantists, the saintly Archbishop was not scandalized by the awful twists made to the Faith and the Mass under the name of ecumenism. He resisted modernist Rome as a lion, and yet recognized the authority of the Roman Pontiff. He acted in the way a good child would do by resisting a father who would ask him to go out stealing, although he still acknowledges him to be his father.”

    He was there from the beginning. He was at the heart of the organized resistance from the beginning. He knew every name involved personally, worked with them personally, experienced the aftermath personally. And his response to all of that is a Society of Priests tasked with protecting and spreading Sacred Tradition to small fry like me and mine. His actions are well reasoned and fully sourced, once you investigate. His personal sanctity is beyond dispute and the fruits of his labors are souls being saved *who might otherwise have left for disillusionment*.

    The info in these links is a good *intro* to the view opposing Sedevacantism. There is much more, but it is enough.

    https://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-sedevacantist-position-summarized.html?m=1

    Once again, we may agree on many of the facts and premises while we disagree on conclusions. That is obvious in the extract I hi-lited above.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This Tiara topic and responses to it were interesting to me. Talking about it (in general) with my wife, however, she had a different perspective which I’ll share.

    Her response was driven by her morning’s devotions: “I think what is needed more of is the virtue of simplicity”.

    Then she referred to quotes from St Francis De Sales, comparing simplicity to astuteness -

    “True simplicity is like that of children who think, speak and act candidly and without craftiness”. Alternatively … “‘Astuteness’ is nothing but a mass of artifices, inventions, craft and deceit …”. And finally “The simple soul has no other aim than to please God, and not creatures, except as the love of God requires it. Therefore, it cannot bear to be turned aside from its purpose of keeping close to God and winning more and more of His (infinite) love for itself”.

    - end quotes -

    Good advice, that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Addendum: My Bride wanted me to pass on that she didn’t mean to hi-lite astuteness’ “craftiness and deceit” part of the quotes, nor was she making any such judgement on me or anyone else commenting. The “astuteness” quote actually missed her main point which was about dwelling in simplicity, rather than knowledge … in verses such as II Cor 11:3. “3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”

      Thanks MA, for letting me share this.

      Delete
  21. During the great western schism (1378-1417) I'm sure there were those who spent the whole time trying to convince everyone else that the pope they were following was the true pope and that everyone else was going to hell because they were following a false pope (they probably told themselves that the only way to end the crisis was to convert everyone to their opinion) as well as those who used the crisis of three popes to prove that there was really no pope and that the Catholic Church was false/had ended. Since had a 25% chance of being right, someone was--but do you think they received a higher place in heaven for that? Do you think Jesus Christ said well done for arguing about who was pope vs. saving a soul, preaching the gospel, performing a corporal/spiritual act of mercy? What converts people to the faith? What gives glory to God?

    Be not emulous of evildoers; nor envy them that work iniquity. 2 For they shall shortly wither away as grass, and as the green herbs shall quickly fall. 3 Trust in the Lord, and do good, and dwell in the land, and thou shalt be fed with its riches. 4 Delight in the Lord, and he will give thee the requests of thy heart. 5 Commit thy way to the Lord, and trust in him, and he will do it.

    https://www.drbo.org/chapter/21036.htm

    [22] Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? follow thou me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 5:37
      What you say here is so very true. 2,000 years of controversy, fighting all that time for Christ and the Faith. Controversy comes and goes … the Church remains (in time and eternity).

      It reminds me that the greatest point of contention when Our Lord manifested Himself in public ministry, was that He did not match the expectations of His Apostles, disciples, the curious, the religious leaders … so much disappointment in those whose heritage told them Messiah will be “this”, but this man says that he is not “this”, but “that”. When Jesus presented the crucial John 6 Bread Of Life Discourse, He lost the vast majority of His followers. They say Judas initiated his betrayal of Jesus due to the words of John 6. And at the fulfillment of John 6, Judas left and consummated the betrayal at the breaking of Bread (Our Lord).

      None of this was as expected. The conquering David, prophesying His own death?! Eat His flesh?!

      But the Catholic Church was established on this probing question and consequent answer of our first Pope:

      “13… Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
      15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

      And from that answer, the Divine Keys of Heaven were directly given to Peter and his successors.

      “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God”.

      That is the crystalized essence of our RC Faith.

      I will not let anyone or anything divert me from that central driving purpose.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous says: "Do you think Jesus Christ said well done for arguing about who was pope vs. saving a soul, preaching the gospel, performing a corporal/spiritual act of mercy?"

      Yes, I do: St. Catherine of Siena.

      Catherine of Siena is one of the outstanding figures of medieval Catholicism due to the strong influence she had in the history of the papacy and her extensive authorship.[9] She was behind the return of the Pope from Avignon to Rome,.....

      I believe God raises up Saints for just such purposes.

      Delete
    3. Debbie,
      I see parallels with St Catherine of Siena - she who worked for the restoration of the Papacy in Rome - I see it in the tireless efforts of loyal Arbp LeFebvre, who established his Priestly Society of St Pius X to defend Tradition, and thereby aid the Papacy to return from its deviations to its intended purpose one day. Like St Catherine, he was willing to risk everything for the deviated Papacy and Church as Christ intended. He then controversially ensured his efforts would endure beyond his own life into the realm of “Catholic Time”. The controversy of his day is now seen today as a mark of his saintly heroism. Loyal, faithful, godly, serene, attached with fervent devotion to the Church’s Constant Magisterium. He will be declared a Saint one day, I think.

      I do not see similar parallels in ‘58 you-know-what, nor in those who advance its baleful cause in Christendom, for reasons previously well defined and discussed ad nauseam.

      Delete
    4. Aqua, finally something we can agree on. I think Abp. Lefebvre may one day be a Saint too....but of the St. Vincent Ferrer variety. 😉

      Delete
  22. Debbie, you are quite welcome. Keep on beating that dead horse. It's pretty much already disintegrated to ash but with a few more 1958 side propaganda posts, you'll have every particle of that dead horse's remaining ashes beaten into microscopic particles, smaller than a covid virus. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Debbie,
    "Between the years 1367 and 1374, Catherine devoted herself to helping the sick and incarcerated of Siena.[26] With her help in the Hospital of Santa Maria della Scala and within the neighborhood that she was living, Catherine's acts of charity became well-known. This led to her being known as santa donna, or a holy woman. This reputation of holiness eventually led to her involvement in politics and a hearing with the pope.[27]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Siena#Main_sanctuaries

    What reputation for holiness do you or your associates have that would give you influence with anyone let alone the pope? Had Catherine of Siena spent her time the way you and your associates do I seriously doubt she'd have had any more influence than you all have. She left the Dialogues. Your group will leave Novus Ordo Watch -- a collection such as the devil might make of the other guy's sins. Your associates justify themselves by saying they are opening people's eyes and speaking the truth. But what happens to most of their readers--do they become better Catholics or do they feel justified in leaving/never joining the Catholic Church and remaining in their own sins? Or do they become like you, a preacher of 'there is no pope' whatever that means when he is right there in front of all our faces waiting for some SCS among us to persuade him to leave Avignon? What did Christ do in similar circumstances? Did He go around rallying anyone against Caiaphas? What did the apostles do? Did they say the Jewish authorities were no longer authorities because they killed the Messiah? No. They told them they must repent. You all insist you are Catholic, but Jesus Christ went about doing good. He glorified God. What good are you and your associates doing that would cause anyone to praise God because of your works? It is foolish to think that any good will come out of ridiculing and humiliating your neighbor. Most likely they are only earning their own damnation (Matthew 5:22-24 and 18:6) as well as contributing to the damnation of many of their readers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 6:12 - I appreciate your perspective on St Catherine. There was a reason she was blessed and had the Pope’s ear. I think her unseen charity was what defined her in her times as a living saint worthy of the Pope’s ear.

      It recalls to mind this -

      “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

      38 This is the first and great commandment.

      39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

      40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
      (Matt 22:37-40)

      And

      “31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

      32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

      33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

      34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

      35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

      36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

      37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

      38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

      39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

      40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
      (Matt 25: 31-40)

      The Divine Judge Himself lays it out plainly: THIS, Love, is the standard of His coming judgement. When we stand there alone to receive our sentence - it is this, by Divine Revelation.

      *”Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

      Love is the currency of that Realm. We practice now, so that this becomes our consuming fire in unseen but also practical ways - while time remains.

      Delete
  24. NOW might have the letter of the law on their side, but, like the devil, they do not have the spirit of the law.

    ReplyDelete