The Party of the New Circumcisers

A few weeks ago a friend sent me a post from a priest I know who was suggesting 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 should meet their inevitable demise. In a follow-up post a few days later, he shared a meme in which Satan takes Jesus up a high mountain (during the temptation) and says, “All of this can be yours if you just get 2 vaccines.”

Unchecked zeal

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. I have noticed most of his energies of late have been directed into talking/writing about COVID, and to an even greater degree about vaccination, in an almost “prophetic” manner.

I am in the unusual position that most of my close circle is comprised of orthodox and traditional Catholics, many of whom staunchly and as a matter of conscience have made the decision not to be vaccinated. With the government and the world barreling down on them and the looming prospect of mandatory vaccinations in many spheres of life – as well as vaccine passports and the like – I 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.

Careful of overreach

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, to predict the death of millions of people who have vaccinated, and that they would die outside of a state of grace as a result. He does this 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 come from 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, we do need to deal with these issues. From its founding the Church has been discerning proper ways to live out the faith in the light of Revelation, as well as how to exercise its authority, stamp out heresy, and uphold orthodox teaching – this is nothing new.

I wouldn’t put the issue of the role of vaccination or masking among Christians on the same level as some of the doctrinal crises within the early Church, but it is a contentious issue in today’s Church among the faithful, and it has pastoral implications.

Judaizers of the early Church

The precursor to subsequent ecumenical councils happened around 50 AD due to the division within the Church, particularly among Jewish Christians, regarding the issue of circumcision for Gentiles. The Judaizers were a party of Jewish converts to Christianity who emphasized the necessity of retaining the Jewish customs, especially circumcision, in order to be saved. They also sought to impose this on the new Gentile believers, which is where the crisis in the mixed community in Antioch came to a head. In his letter to the church at Galatia (where the Judaizers were also spreading their “mischief”), St. 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 Hebrew law in Christ Jesus, and of grace, in the service of love for 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)

What is known as the Council of Jerusalem was convened to deal with this issue. St. 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. That passage says that “the believers among the circumcised 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 whether one was circumcised or not. Circumcision was thus not a prerequisite for being saved, as the Judaizers claimed.

Opposing the Judaizers

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 the Judaizing zealots who came down to Antioch he withdrew from doing so until he was confronted by Paul. Though Peter and Paul were of the same mind in terms of principles, the practical conduct of believers and how to enforce it was what was in question.

Paul forcefully abjured any possibility that such discrimination be allowed to take place within the body of believers, and St. Peter in true humility recognized 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, 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 issue of the day for the apostolic Church 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 Church speaks

The Magisterium, even if it 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.

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

But those (primarily online) New Circumcisers who saddle one’s vaccination status with a soteriological element should be opposed to their face for spreading mischief to the weaker brethren. As I said in an earlier post, Extra-Catholica Jansenism, being more Catholic than the Church is a bad stance: “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.