I think the prequel guides us as to what happened here.
Somebody downunder actually tries to sue the mythical 'faithful slave'.
In response, their lawyer nearly admits that the whole concept is bogus. They've been repeating this phrase like a mantra for over a century as The Ultimate Authorization for their continuing fraud - but never really defining it in any sensible fashion. and then, Gee Whiz, somebody actually tries to sue the "Slave'? !!!!
So, they define it in a specific way ( c'est moi, in effect). However, there could be a very handy change here, legal-wise.
In the past, they liked using a cliche about 'properly caring for Christ's belongings' i.e. cash, buildings, etc.
That might be changed.... if being given authority over all His belongings is future. Nothing to sue for here, folks. Come back after the Great Trib, if you're still around. Somebody else is responsible, not us.
That said, I will be curious to see what they actually say about the UN. Being very blunt might cost them down the road, as they grovel before some human rights types, looking for intervention. Like with Russia.