A couple of thoughts while sitting in a pew awaiting the start of Mass this afternoon:[Hat tip to Anon.]
(1) What is the point of celebrating a feast like Christ the King? Christ the President, maybe? Christ the Team Leader? Christ the Speaker of the House? Given the rich blessings of having embraced liberal democracy as the ideal form of government on earth, and the model for ecclesial relations within the Church, what is “Christ the King” other than an embarrassing anachronism from dark preconciliar times -- from which we have thankfully evolved?
(2) There was a time, not so long ago, when communion was received with far less regularity than it is today. When I was in Catholic elementary school in the fifties, I was taught that frequent confession was crucial, for to receive communion with a mortal sin on one’s soul was itself a mortal sin and an insult to the Son of God, who kindly consented to bring His grace to that soul,only to find it soiled with sin. It was therefore far better to refrain from receiving communion if one had reason to think his soul was in such a state. Such self-control showed a proper reverence toward the transubstantiated substance of the host: our unconsecrated hands did not touch the host, and our corrupted souls did not pretentiously consider themselves entitled to His grace in their present state. That was the way it was, in the fifties and throughout the history of the Church -- prior to 1964. Today, however, when the only mortal sin left seems to be scrupulousness, we show less reverence toward the Holy Eucharist than ever before. How ironic then, that in this age, when we hold the Son of God in our grubby hands and pop Him in our mouths like a peanut – an age of diminished respect for, even of lack of recognition of, the sanctity of the host – even in such a tainted and diminished time, the Communio crew -- theologians from Ratzinger to Schillebeeckx -- have all put greater emphasis on Holy Communion than ever – notably more than did the Church of the twenty prior centuries. Is there a disconnect here? One that even our separated (decapitated?) brethren, whose kind regards are so important to contemporary Catholic self-esteem, could discern ? Could it be summarized as actions speaking louder than words ?
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Thoughts before Mass on Christ the King and the Blessed Sacrament
A reader sent me the following thought-provoking ruminations this past weekend:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Being politically correct is not just a secular notion it has invaded the Church.
There are good democracies and there are bad monarchies. But monarchies, ceteris parabus, are more likely to respect individual rights, and the thriving of the realm, than are democracies. This is a startling proposition for the average American to entertain. Now retired UNLV professor of economics Hans-Hermann Hoppe develops it in his ground-breaking book *Democracy: the God that Failed.* While he prefers monarchy to democracy, Prof. Hoppe's favored form of government is none at all--at least none wielding a monopoly of violence over a territory. He favors "natural order anarchy."
The Feast of Christ the King is not a remnant of a very by-gone era and, in fact, is barely pre-conciliar. It was instituted in 1925 by Pope Pius XI to combat the growing secularism and atheism of his time.
If to recognize Christ as King is no more than to recognize Him as Lord in a broader sense. If to do so offends our political sensibilities, it is perhaps all the more a reminder that our religion is a radical call.
Dan
Judging from the posted reader's second comment "(2)," I was under the impression that the first comment "(1)," was intended in a sarcastic voice. The danger of sarcasm, of course, is that it can be easily taken literally and thus completely misunderstood.
My view is that the reader is wondering how ironic it is that we still have on the calendars a feast of Christ the King, when those at Mass no longer behave as though they believe they are in the presence of their King. Rather, they act more like they were at a local town hall meeting or Rotary Club program.
"It was instituted in 1925 by Pope Pius XI to combat the growing secularism and atheism of his time."
God bless Wikipedia -- almost but not quite a direct quote -- without attribution, alas!!
Anonymous' point is not completely clear, so I will only add the following: the feast day may be relatively recent, but the idea that it was meant to celebrate is as old as the Church itself. Furthermore, as the Wikipedia quote indicates, feast days are often instituted out of a sense of necessity: if it is deemed necessary to remind Catholics that Christ is King, it must be perceived that this basic belief of Catholics is being undercut by something or other.
In Pius XI's day, Catholics (and not just the laity) were being influenced by a modernist ideology based in "secularism and atheism." – and, I would add, subjectivism, idealism, and indifferentism. Today, the foe is still the same, but the extent of its influence among theologians (Rahner, Balthazar, and de Lubac, to name three) and Church leaders over the past ninety years is frightening. In my opinion, and perhaps that of the writer as well, Vatican II was in many respects the validation of the modernist ideology. Certainly one indicator of this validation would be the abandonment of the primacy of Jesus Christ as the king of humanity in its SOCIAL aspect. Such is the fruit of Dignitatus Humanae, as vigorously pursued by Pope Montini in the years following.
When formerly Catholic states throughout Europe made official a process of secularism that had been gathering momentum throughout the twentieth century, and sought to transform themselves into secularist liberal democracies or republics of one sort or another, the vicar of Christ, fortified by Fr Murray's Americanist illusions, happily capitulated. His pusilanimousness has been ratified by his successors -- in contradiction to the doctrine of previous CENTURIES. And that is why the Solemnity of Christ the King is an empty gesture these days, if not a hypocritical one.
"theologians from Ratzinger to Schillebeeckx -- have all put greater emphasis on Holy Communion than ever – notably more than did the Church of the twenty prior centuries. Is there a disconnect here?"
Well yeh, I'd say so. What interests the Communio crew is not the transubstantiated reality of the Eucharist -- altogether too "Catholic" a notion -- but the symbolic significance of the communitarian ceremony.
When reality is treated as symbolism, it ceases to be reality, and becomes "Moby Dick" -- becomes, that is, a prism which reflects different colors to different individuals, and finally comes to be absolutely nothing in itself.
This is private authority -- the essence of protestantism, modernism, post-modernism, and every philosophical denial of the significance (or even existence) of objective reality since Kant.
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
Ralph,
"It was instituted in 1925 by Pope Pius XI to combat the growing secularism and atheism of his time"
was not taken from Wikipedia but from the Catechist Manual for year C, Feast of Christ the King,in Foundations in Faith, published by RCL. The text has both a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur, though some might consider it left of center.
I didn't think the point was so controversial that the source needed to be cited. What difference would it have made if I had gotten it from Wikipedia?
If it is a fact, draw from it what you will.
Benedicat te Deus.
Dan
Anonymous Dan,
The Wikipedia quote, fyi, since you didn't look at it, is "Pope Pius XI instituted the Feast of Christ the King in 1925, in response to growing nationalism and secularism." Almost word for word.
It is really a niggling point to make, and I only made it because I failed to understand the significance of establishing the age of the feast day in the first place. After all, it is clear that the anonymous author's point is not mainly about the feast day, but about the irony of the Church's continuing to celebrate the feast day in view of the fact that it has largely abandoned the doctrine that gave rise to the feast day in the first place. Reread it if you don't want to take my word for it.
I didn't see the reason for scoring a small, rather distracting rim shot of a point when it was, if you will, beside the point anyway.
Ralph,
It seems to me that the institution of the feast at this late date shows not only that it is not a feast of long-standing in the tradition but also that the modern church sees the need to reemphasize the idea of Christ as King. The citation was from a recent and decidedly post-V2 text for the RCIA and the substance of the lesson was very much the Kingship of Christ. This is hardly "abandoning the doctrine."
If that is a niggling point, I apologize.
To imply that I go to Wikipedia for my religious instruction is not very complimentary. You are the one who went to Wikipedia, not me.
Cessent lites.
Anonymous Dan
"How beautiful on the mountains, are the feet of the messenger announcing peace, of the messenger of good news, who proclaims salvation and says to Zion, 'Your God is king!"
(Is 52:7)
Post a Comment