In the older calendar tomorrow is the Feast of Christ the King.
In His honour the usual Low Mass at 11.30am is being replaced by Missa Cantata here at St Catherine's.
Pope Pius XI instituted The Feast of Christ the King in 1925 for the universal church in his encyclical Quas Primas. He connected the denial of Christ as king to the rise of secularism. At the time of Quas Primas, secularism was rising, and many Christians (including Catholics) began to doubt Christ's authority and existence, as well as the Church's power to continue Christ's authority. Pius XI, and the rest of the Christian world, witnessed the rise of dictatorships in Europe, and saw Catholics being taken in by these earthly leaders. Just as the Feast of Corpus Christi was instituted when devotion to the Eucharist was at a low point, the Feast of Christ the King was instituted during a time when respect for Christ and the Church was waning, when the feast was most needed. In fact, it is still needed today, as these problems have not vanished, but instead have worsened.
Pius hoped the institution of the feast would have various effects. They were:
1. That nations would see that the Church has the right to freedom, and immunity from the state (Quas Primas, 32).
STILL RATHER RELEVANT TODAY.
2. That leaders and nations would see that they are bound to give respect to Christ (Quas Primas, 31).
PLEASE TAKE NOTE IN WESTMINSTER.
3. That the faithful would gain strength and courage from the celebration of the feast, as we are reminded that Christ must reign in our hearts, minds, wills, and bodies (Quas Primas, 33).
THE WORK OF EVERY CHRISTIAN LIFE.
Today, the same distrust of authority exists, although the problem has gotten worse. Individualism has been embraced to such an extreme, that for many, the only authority is the individual self. The idea of Christ as ruler is rejected in such a strongly individualistic system. Also, many balk at the idea of kings and queens, believing them to be oppressive. Some even reject the titles of "lord" and "king" for Christ because they believe that such titles are borrowed from oppressive systems of government. However true these statements might be (some kings have been oppressive), these individuals miss the point: Christ's kingship is one of humility and service. Jesus said:
You know that those who are recognised as rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to become great among you will be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you will be the slave of all. For the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mark 10:42-45, NAB).
and
Pilate said to Jesus, "Are you the King of the Jews?"... Jesus answered, "My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom did belong to this world, my attendants would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not here." So Pilate said to him, "Then you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say I am a king. For this I was born and for this I came into the world,to testify to the truth (John 18:33b, 36-37).
Thanks to Church Year for the historical notes (with my own comments!)
1 comment:
Fr, do you think it's inevitable that the Church's influence on Catholics (and the rest of society) will always ebb and flow? We speak of the good old days, but I actually wonder if they really existed.
It seems that even during the eras when Catholics were supposedly strong and were faithful to the Church, Pope Pius X and Pope Pius XII both wrote encyclicals which sought to warn of movements or ideas amongst the faithful which were dangerous (I'm referring to Pascendi Gregis and Humani Generis only because these are the ones I know of! Of course I know that there was quite a large gap between Pius X and Pius XII).
The devil is always trying to attack the Church, so won't the points made in Quas Primas always be relevant since human nature doesn't really change? Won't we always be fighting lukewarmness and modernism within the ranks?
Post a Comment