17 January 2022

Extraordinary Form ORDO, and Ordinariate directions, for the Chair of Unity Octave

The Chair of Unity Octave ("Unity Week") starts on Tuesday January 18 and ends on Tuesday January 25.

This observance was begun by Anglo-papalists in the early twentieth century specifically to pray for the Unity of all Christians in communuion with the See of S Peter and S Paul. It was encouraged by a succession of Roman Pontiffs and endowed with indulgences (see below).

At a time when PF has launched a relentless attack upon Tradition within the Latin Church, it is surely even more important to pray for Unity. Surely, in the front of our minds ought to be, not the old 1960s-style Ecumenism of ecclesiastical bureaucrats from different ecclesial bodies cosying up to each other, but the urgent need for Unity to be restored within the Latin Church herself. 

The Chair of Unity has itself been converted into a sign and instrument of disunity: in this dreadful crisis, may God keep us and guide us.

                                              EXTRAORDINARY FORM

Before the 1960s, January 18 was the Feast of the Chair of S Peter at Rome (while February 22 celebrated his Chair, that is to say, his episcopate, in Antioch). The Feast of the Conversion of S Paul on January 25 still survives, even in the Novus Ordo.

In the Good Old Days, the Wantage Sisters ... who now comprise our Ordinariate Sisters ... the praying heart of the Ordinariate, as our Ordinary puts it ... used to publish an annual ORDO  "in strict accordance with the Use of the Western Church". This was widely used both in Anglo-Papalist churches and in Anglo-Catholic churches generally. The latest one was probably that of 1969, which I still have. Before January 18, the following information is printed:

                                               CHURCH UNITY OCTAVE BEGINS

Ad lib, during the Octave: one 2cl Vot M For the Unity of the Church. Cr (on Sunday only), Common Pref (pref Trin on Sunday). P[urple]

This will undoubtedly have been lifted from what was authorised for Roman Catholics in England, Scotland, and Wales on the very eve of the liturgical alterations of the late 1960s. What it means is that it is lawful to say daily one Mass of the Votive for Christian Unity (Ad tollendum Schisma if your Missal, like mine, is pre-1962; but the texts are the same in the 1962 Missal) on the Sunday within the Octave (even if it be Septuagesima); and also on each of the weekdays, because they are all (even the Conversion of S Paul) days occupied by III class feasts and so admit Second Class Votives. No Gloria, of course. Only one Collect; Secret; Postcommunion; is said ... in other words, no commemorations.

My own practice is to start the Octave with a (perfectly legal) Votive Mass of the Chair of S Peter on January 18 (Mass as on February 22 except that the Alleluia is said; the colour is white) and to conclude with the Mass for S Paul on January 25. It was the idea of linking up the two Roman Apostles which gave rise to the Octave.

Alleluia for the Chair of S Peter outside Lent and Septuagesima: Alleluia, alleluia. Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam. Alleluia.

I have thought it worth while providing this information because I do not think it is in the available Authentic Use ORDOs in Latin, English or French.

                                                            INDULGENCES

In the current Encheiridion: Plenary under the usual conditions for a Catholic who shall have taken part in any functions in the week; and shall have been present at the conclusion of this week (i.e. on 25 January). Partial for whosoever shall have devoutly recited an approved prayer for Unity.

                                                  
                                      ORDINARIATE 'DIVINE WORSHIP' MISSAL

The same Mass for Unity, of course, is provided for use in Liturgical English in the Ordinariates. The rubrics make clear that it can be said on any day except Solemnities, the Sundays of Advent, Lent, and Easter, All Souls, Ash Wednesday, Ember Days, Rogation Days, weekdays of Holy Week and of the Easter and Pentecost Octaves. Such votives ARE allowed BUT ONLY FOR "a real necessity or pastoral advantage" on Obligatory Memorials and the weekdays of Advent, Christmastide, Lent, and Eastertide. Pretty permissive, eh?






24 comments:

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Dear Father. The old prayers for unity were of such a quality and temperament that one understands why Paul VI ditched them (because ecumenism) along with all the other great prayers of The Raccolta.

#624

Almighty and everlasting God, whose will it is that all men should be saved and that none should perish, look upon the souls that are deceived by the guile of Satan, in order that the hearts of them that have gone astray may put aside all the perverseness of heresy, and, being truly repentant, may return to the unity of They truth. Through Christ our Lord. Amen

That is a prayer that is Good, True, and Beautiful.

Stephen said...

I do not know what the collect is for the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter in the Extraordinary Form, but the Vatican's website has this posted for the collect in the Ordinary Form: "Praesta, quaesumus, omnipotens Deus, ut nullis nos permittas perturbationibus concuti, quos in apostolicae confessionis petra solidasti." Grant, we pray, almighty God, that no tempests may disturb us, for you have set us fast on the rock of the Apostle Peter's confession of faith.
and this too:
SOLEMN BLESSING
May almighty God bless you,for he has made you steadfast in Saint Peter’s saving confessionand through it has set you on the solid rock of the Church’s faith.
R. Amen.

Now, no Orthodox would object to this understanding of Matthew 16:18, the basis for the alleluia you posted "Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam." Yesterday, we in the east celebrated the Feast of the St. Peter's Chains, and sang this: Tone 2 Kontakion (St. Peter) "Christ the Rock radiantly glorifies the Rock of Faith,//the first-enthroned of the disciples;//He calls us to honor the miracles wrought through Peter’s chains,//so that He may grant us forgiveness of our sins." Which underscores just how seriously Orthodox take St. Peter in the economy of salvation. But you know that.

So my question to you Fr. H is, are there any prayers in the Latin Rite (either form) that speak with a greater specificity about Peter's role in the Church? Because, from what I can tell, there is NO(as in ZERO, NADA, NICHTS) difference between east and west in what we both pray about St. Peter, and that what is considered to be Peter's unique charism and role in the economy of salvation is attributed to all the successors of the apostles.

So where is the fuss liturgically? What I am looking for is liturgical data to support faith requirements as stipulated in Pastor Aeternus. I mean, I get the classic ultramontanist interpretation of Matthew 16:18, but that interpretation is certainly NOT re-enforced by the collect and other prayers of the latin rite regarding St. Peter; rather (dare I say it), it is an orthodox and catholic (both small case) one that comes ringing through in east and west. Unless there are prayers I am missing? and so I turn to you.

Carol said...

Stephen,
There is a prayer in the Latin liturgy which is relevant to your question. Here is the Collect of the Feast of the Chair of St Peter in Rome (18 January):
1920 Missal Collect:
Deus, qui beáto Petro Apóstolo tuo, collátis clávibus regni celéstis, ligándi atque solvéndi pontifícium tradidísti: concéde; ut, intercessiónis ejus auxílio, a peccatórum nostrórum néxibus liberémur
O God, Who by delivering to the blessed Apostle Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, didst give him the power of binding and loosing: grant that, by his intercession, we may be freed from the bonds of our sins”.

The thinking behind it (now lost to Novus Ordo Catholics) is that while St Peter's Chains represent the bondage of sin, his Keys provide liberation from it. This doctrine is expressed with an epigrammatic starkness typical of the Roman Rite, in contrast to the more florid expressions of the Orthodox Churches.


Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Dear Stephen. Perhaps you are not aware the Orthodox used to have quite a different understanding of the status and role of Saint Peter.

https://veniaminov.blogspot.com/2004/11/and-you-can-quote-me-eastern-papal.html

In the old Raccolta ("revised" by Paul Vi owing to ecumenism) there is an example of what you seek;

Prayer #484 O glorious Saint Peter, who, in return for thy lively and generous faith, thy profound and sincere humility, and thy burning love, wast honored by Jesus Christ with singular privileges and, in particular, with the leadership of the other apostles and the primacy the whole church....grant that we may ever remain most closely and sincerely united to the Roman Pontiff, who is the heir to thy faith and and of thy authority, the one, true, visible Head of the Catholic Church, that mystic ark outside of which there is no salvation...

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Dear Stephen. According to the 1945 The New Roman Missal of Father Lasance, God chose Pope Francis to rule us Catholics.

See page 482 of The Good Friday Liturgy

The same order is observed in the supplications that follow.

Let us pray, also, for our most blessed Pope N., that our Lord and God, Who hath chosen him in the order of the episcopacy, may preserve him safe and unharmed to His holy Church, to rule God's holy people.

Michael said...

Stephen,
Thank you for your points. I seem to remember that those becoming Orthodox may be required to deny that Peter was the prince of the apostles. The Vespers Antiphon for the Chair of St Peter (Tu es pastor ovium, Princeps Apostolorum, tibi traditae sunt claves regni caelorum) does call him this. I suppose it all depends what princeps means, or meant at different times and places.
Michael Cullinan

Chrysologos said...

Ad: MJGNM

Perhaps I am a bit too pedantic, but I would interpret the Collect you quote as affirming the Lord God chose Francis for episcopacy in Argentina, and then His permissive will acquiesced to his transfer to Rome.

Stephen said...

No Orthodox would deny that Peter was prince of the apostles, nor that the See of Rome and its Bishop have held a unique and pre-eminent place as in the Church. Our prayers indicate, as per the collect I referenced from the Vatican for the feast, that the rock referenced is the profession of faith which Peter was the first to articulate.

And, it is all very rational for any such a prince to lay claims and to promote his see, as did such great Saints as Leo and Gregory. The issue, in part, is to what degree Churches elsewhere, in particular those of apostolic origin and high administrative status, recognized those claims and accepted them as such, and why. We in the east have had a great many bishops and saints defend many claims that others have discounted or rejected (you may be familiar with the concept of "toll houses", for example) primarily because we don't pray anything about toll houses (recognizing how axiomatic is the notion of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. It just is.)

One would think that, if ultramontanist claims were so universally held by all from antiquity, they might have found their way into prayers that were commensurately universal and ancient (say, just as a rule of thumb, before the publication of Unam Sanctum). After all, Pope St. Stephen claimed earlier than Leo that "none shall judge the Holy See." Such a phrase clearly could enable papal maximalists over the centuries, and even now such as those who dominate the court of the reigning Pope, to think that no limits exist as to what a Pope can do with the Latin rite, or any rite for that matter. Is that in fact what Catholics believe?

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Dear Stephen. You claim that the rock referenced is the profession of faith which Peter was the first to articulate.

But that is not who/what the rock is.

( pre AD 250) Tertullian "On Modesty"

page 160 The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, Jurgens

I now inquire into your opinion, (to see) from what source you usurp this right to the Church.

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, Upon this rock will I build My Church, to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom; or, Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens, you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? On you, He says, will I build My Church; and, I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and, Whatsoever you shall have loosed or bound, not what they shall have loosed or bound.


Instead of what appears to be a reflexive gainsaying of evidence supplied to you as per your request, you might take some time to read a bit more deeply in the subject.

"Jesus, Peter & The Keys, A Scriptural handbook on the Papacy" by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgen and Rev. Mr. Daivd Hess is an extensive compendium on Scripture and Tradition which has convinced even prominent protestants of the role of position, privilege and prominence of the Pope per Jesus Christ.

Ian Watt said...

Would the principle of subsidiarity be of any use in resolving the question of papal power? For example, universal jurisdiction means, at least in theory, that Rome can act as a final court of appeal for any Christian if all others have been exhausted. Such an application of universal jurisdiction would seem to be suggested by subsidiarity. Would this 'version' of universal jurisdiction be acceptable to the Orthodox?

Stephen said...

Mick, I do not seek to promote my opinion, and look to persuade you or anyone to agree with it; rather, I invite you on my journey to understand Christ through His Holy Church. So, where does one look first to know the mind of the Church, to know the correct interpretation of Scripture and the meaning of Revelation? I submit to you the best source is the liturgical life of the Church, first and foremost. And, with regards to what the correct interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is, what does Holy Mother Church pray? The Vatican's website has this posted for the collect of the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter, Jan 18, in the Ordinary Form: "Praesta, quaesumus, omnipotens Deus, ut nullis nos permittas perturbationibus concuti, quos in apostolicae confessionis petra solidasti." Grant, we pray, almighty God, that no tempests may disturb us, for you have set us fast on the rock of the Apostle Peter's confession of faith.

You may quibble that this does not align with a view expressed once by Tertullian, or a Father of the Church. But that is why I look first to Liturgy.

Carol said...

What you say is right, Stephen, about looking in the liturgy to find the truth about the Catholic faith. But that does not apply to the Novus Ordo liturgy because it has silenced or watered down the expression of the faith in many instances, particularly "sensitive" areas regarding Ecumenism.

The Novus Ordo Collect you quote is an example which does not express clearly the spiritual authority of St Peter over the whole Church, both East and West. That is why I reproduced (above)the Collect from the 1920 Missal in which the Keys of the Kingdom are a symbol of this universal jurisdiction given by Christ only to St Peter and his successors.

That is the meaning of this Collect, but it has been rejected by Protestants, Orthodox and Neo-Modernists in the Novus Ordo regime who reiterate the words of the Gospel but put their own interpretation on it.
It is worth remembering that the modern Church no longer prays for the extirpation of heresy or the preservation of the faithful from being led astray from the true path of salvation by the wiles of Satan.

Go figure. You are wasting your time if you look in the Novus Ordo liturgy for a full expression of the Catholic faith.

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Dear Stephen. This past one-half century, the Church has courted the approval of the world - its ancient and permanent enemy - and in so doing it has forced "Triumphalism" to walk the plank off The Barque of Peter; but that "Triumphalism" was a accusation against Holy Mother Church leveled by her ancient enemies when it is the case, however, that Triumphalism is part and parcel of the Divine Deposit of Faith (at least as insofar that I understand it) and has not a whit to do with arrogance.


What is arrogant is to arrogate power to one's own self - which is a distillation of what the Protestant Revolution was all about.


There is no arrogance, but there is a defensible and sensible Triumphalism in effect when even such relatively modern sources, such as the1952 text, Dom Orchard's, "A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture," proclaims the gigantic and Salvific Truth:


The Bible as The Church's Exclusive Possession:


It is a teaching of the Church that the Old Testament Scriptures were transferred to her ownership by Christ himself in view of her position as the new 'Israel of God' and the heir of the OT promises; and that the New Testament Scriptures being written within the Church by some of its members for the benefit of all (or more precisely, within the society of the Catholic Church by Catholics for Catholics), are likewise her exclusive property, of which she is the absolute Owner, Guardian, Trustee and Interpreter....


The Church, being the divinely appointed trustee of the whole deposit of revelation, holds the Scriptures as her very own. They are part of the patrimony or dowry that she has received as the Bride of Christ...


+++++++end quote+++++++=


There is danger in treating with protestant Bibles and, especially, is there danger in protestant exegesis for it is not infrequently the case that one ends-up reading protestant eisegesis.


It took the modern Ecclesiastical Praxis of Ecumenism and Indifferentism to create a fog of liberty gigantic enough to obscure the Salvific truth that it is Holy Mother Church, and Holy Mother Church alone, who owns the Bible, Lock, Stock and Barrel.


Because I am the same age as Israel, I am old enough to remember the Ecclesial Orthopraxis prior to the lamentable 1960s when there was not one Catholic Prelate or Priest who publicly praised protestants and their denominationally ideological approach to Holy Writ.


Now, I must write that I am not attacking individual protestants who read and revere Holy Writ but it is quite clear to Catholic men of a certain age that were a protestant to become an expert in Scripture, he would cease to be a protestant.


If that be Triumphalism, make the most of it.

P.S. I was born into the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and I require no journey anywhere to discover who Jesus is or what He intended.

I will note that the first time Jesus spoke to Simon bar Jonas He told him He was going to change his name to rock, long before Simon confessed that Jesus was the Messias;

And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said thou are Simon son of John, you will be called Cephas (Rock) with is interpreted Peter.

Bon chance Stephen

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Dear Stephen. I could post other examples but this supplies what you are seeking.

June 29, Feast of The Holy Apostles Sainst Peter and Paul;

Gradual ...Alleluia, alleluia, V Matt 16:18 Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church. Alleluia.

Source: Daily Missal with vespers for Sundays and Feasts by Dom Gaspar Lefevbre O.S.B. of The Abbey of St. Andre
1925

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Catholic News Agency:

On June 29 the Church celebrates the feast day of Sts. Peter & Paul. As early as the year 258, there is evidence of an already lengthy tradition of celebrating the solemnities of both Saint Peter and Saint Paul on the same day. Together, the two saints are the founders of the See of Rome, through their preaching, ministry and martyrdom there.

Peter, who was named Simon, was a fisherman of Galilee and was introduced to the Lord Jesus by his brother Andrew, also a fisherman. Jesus gave him the name Cephas (Petrus in Latin), which means ‘Rock,’ because he was to become the rock upon which Christ would build His Church.

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Greek Orthodox Church of America

Apolytikion of Veneration of the Chains of Ap. Peter
Second Tone

Without leaving Rome, thou didst come to us by the precious chains which thou didst wear. O foremost of the Apostles. And venerating them with faith, we pray: By thine intercessions with God, grant us great mercy.

Kontakion of Veneration of the Chains of Ap. Peter
Second Tone

Now Christ God, the Rock, doth glorify the rock of faith, illustriously, in calling all to celebrate the dread wonders of the most precious chains of Peter, the first and chief of the disciples of Christ our God, Who granteth forgiveness of sins unto all.

Stephen said...

Carol, can you point out to me please exactly where and how in the Collect from the 1920 Missal, which you reference above, that "the Keys of the Kingdom are a symbol of this universal jurisdiction given by Christ only to St Peter and his successors", as you claim? Certainly the east can be more florid and the west more precise, as you say, but where is the precision here in this collect that make it easy and clear to go from the words of the collect to the interpretation you posit? If this is all you have, you are asking the reader to make assumptions that you may find obvious, but do not exist in the plain words of the Collect.

Stephen said...

Ian, I do believe you are onto something, but perhaps with this caveat: universal jurisdiction could mean, both in practice and in theory, ONLY that Rome can act as a final court of appeal for disputes among heads of Sui juris churches. This is a role with real power. I think it rather unmanageable and unfair if all Christians have an immediate right to appeal to the highest court without having their case first heard and resolved in those Churches more local to them. Thus, territorial disputes as now between Moscow and Constantinople could use a court of last resort, but it in the absence of such, we are forced to rely on the old Quaker nostrum: "How do two Quakers resolve a quarrel between them? Wait till one of them dies." On the flip side, one wonders if the Orthodox patriarchs, in attendance at Vatican II and with attendant status, could have/would have slowed down the liturgical innovations of Paul VI and his minions, or stopped them even. A loss on all sides, for sure.

Now, this rather focused understanding of universal jurisdiction, I would say, is not shared by the reigning Pope and his court, nor recent popes and their courts. PF, to put it charitably, takes a maximalist position, and if this is indeed the default position arising from Pastor Aeternus (and not that of an Adrian Fortescue), Orthodox would batten down the hatches and, as we are now more than ever, be hyper-sensitive and vigilant to any of our own hierarchs acting as tyrannical despots liturgically, and pray for our western brethren as you endure the trials and tribulations of this time.

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

"The Shape of The Liturgy" by Dom Gregory Dix.

Page 370

... the old term natale is still used in this fourth century calendar, on February 22nd, Natale Petri de Cathedra, the "birthday' (or inauguration) of "St Peter's Chair- that annual commemoration of our Lord's charge to S. Peter - 'Upon this rock I will found My Church."

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Dear Stephen. Prayers are not polemics. You have had your queries responded to but you appear to not appreciate the answers but, rather, seek our surrender to your ideologies.

https://www.defendingthebride.com/church.html

is a link that explains such things as the Keys and grasping what the biblical texts are referreenicng could be of assistance to you if you keep an open mind.

As for polemics, I will now disengage after quoting the great Dom Gueranger:

Dom Gueranger “The Liturgical Year” Wednesday after Trinity Sunday


…Turning our thoughts, for a moment, to the Greek Church, how different is the spectacle! She is motionless from the sterility that is in a branch severed from the trunk. She retains, like so many withered leaves, the ancient forms of her liturgy, which has indeed an imposing unity, but it is the unity of schism. The very Heresy which here in our own country celebrates its unmeaning Supper in the Cathedrals built by our forefathers,—is it more out of place than the lifeless Schism of the East, which so scrupulously keeps up the ancient forms, which are its condemnation, and makes a parade of Vestments which sit so awkwardly on rebels? What life can the members of such a Church derive from these dead forms of worship?

No: she alone is Mother, who knows how to meet the wants of her children, for her affection tells her not to give to delicate ones the food that suits the strong. She alone is the Bride of the Lamb, who has the instinctive talent of making in each period of time the most of the treasure of her Spouse, the priceless Pearl he has committed to her care; and to this end she hesitates not to modify, if need be, her dearest practices her most cherished schemes for good; yea, and changes the delights and grandeurs of her queenly supremacy for the hard work of battling with the enemy of her Lord and her children…

Carol said...

Stephen,
I am intrigued at your mention of “the plain words”. But words – whether in the Bible or the Liturgy - do not exist in a vacuum. Their importance lies in their meaning which can only be known by how they are interpreted in their context. Let us look at the 1920 Collect again, and I will explain how it contains all you need to know about universal jurisdiction.

What I think you are missing here is the symbolism of the Keys as a metaphor for spiritual authority. All ancient cultures, including in Our Lord’s time, understood such symbolism. In ancient Greek culture, the Temple Key was a symbol of priestly authority. The key-holders of temples have a long tradition going back to the Mycenaean age and were of the highest social or cultic status. The Roman god Janus, King of latium, was a key-holder of the vast universe, and he is pictured in iconography holding a key in one hand. These are just some examples among many.

When this Collect was placed in the Roman Missal, its meaning of universal jurisdiction (i.e. the legislative and juridical authority to define doctrine and govern the liturgy) was understood as the common teaching of the early Fathers and Doctors of the Church, of the Roman Pontiffs, of Ecumenical Councils, provincial synods, of theologians and of canonists.

All this is well documented in the scholarly book The Early Papacy by Fr. Adrian Fortescue.
So, it is part of the sound tradition of the Church as expressed in the Council of Trent and, more recently in the First Vatican Council.

For traditional Catholics who read these words of the Collect, it is as if a light bulb instantly flashes in their minds and illuminates this truth of the Faith. There is, then, no need of further explanation or additional words to be added to the Collect. Everyone, apart from dissenters, knows the significance of the Keys!

Stephen said...


Carol, sounds rather gnostic, “only be known”, “everyone…knows”. A little too much Dan Brown, frankly. Second, it says nothing about how the loosing and binding is attributed to just St. Peter and his successors, and not to all bishops as successors of Peter for proclaiming the true faith. Finally, if you truly did believe all that, how is it that you so easily take it upon yourself to judge the deficiencies of the Ordo of the Bishop of Rome? You thereby elevate your own individual interpretation above that of the Pope, as perhaps a Protestant might.

Stephen said...

Michael, I've never heard of the requirement that converts to the Church must deny that St. Peter was the prince of the apostles, perhaps because Orthodox consider St. Peter to be the Prince of the Apostles. Here is a commonly used service for the reception of a convert. http://www.stlukeorthodox.com/html/liturgicaltexts/receptionofconverts.cfm

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Dear Carol. Don't waste your time with Stephen.

You believe this about Peter and The Keys


http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm

whereas Stephen believes this about the keys


http://www.oodegr.com/english/papismos/kleidia1.htm

Catholics say only Peter received the Keys because- well, because that is what Jesus said about His decision to give only Peter the Keys - but the Orthodox thinks everybody else misunderstands Jesus and He gave the keys to all - even though that is not what Jesus chose to do or say

C'est la vie.