Posted on 10/29/2017 12:05:02 PM PDT by ebb tide
Why did Pope Pius XI, when he established the Feast of the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ with his encyclical Quas Primas un 1925, not choose for it the last Sunday of the liturgical year (as Paul VI did later for his new mass), but rather the Last Sunday in October?
If it can’t be in the hand, then why did Christ pass around bread to the 12 to break?
Meanwhile, actual preaching of Jesus and His incredible gift to us gets short shrift in favor of religious in-fighting - ironic.
So you prefer the 1970, post-Vatican II change to the Feast’s timing: from Pius XI’s original intent on the Sunday before All Saints Day to the new time on the Sunday before Advent? Is that what you meant?
It is a wonderful way to close out the prior liturgical year and is a reminder that Christ lives and reigns for all eternity.
Give him CREDIT that he got Catholics to read the BIBLE.
“I doubt you do if you reject Communion with the Catholic Church.“
Eternal life is in Christ alone - not in a church.
I am in fellowship with those who are His. I witness to those who satisfy themselves with less than Him.
Although a wonderful sentiment, this is not what Pius XI had in mind. Pius XI intent was to reinforce Traditional Catholic teaching that ALL men are subject to Christ the King..here and now. As the 2014 link in the OP states:
Pius XI’s intention, as can be gleaned from n. 29, is to emphasize the glory of Christ as terminus of His earthly mission, a glory and mission visible and perpetuated in history by the saints. Hence the feast falls shortly before the Feast of All Saints, to emphasize that what Christ inaugurated in His own person before ascending in glory, the saints then instantiate and carry further in human society, culture, and nations. It is a feast primarily about celebrating Christ’s ongoing kingship over all reality, including this present world, where the Church must fight for the recognition of His rights, the actual extension of His dominion to all domains, individual and social.
It is not surprising that Paul VI changed the timing and the focus to more closely align with the false ecumenical teachings of Vatican II rather than Traditional Catholic teaching. Also from the 2014 link:
From this vantage, which certainly does not sound like the language of Dignitatis Humanae [Vatican II] or the postconciliar diplomacy of the Church, it is hard to resist thinking that the eschatological perspective betrays weak knees before the challenge of modern secularization, as well as hesitation about the perceived “triumphalism” of the earlier papal social teaching. In other words, the kingship of Christ is palatable and proclaimable so long as its realization comes at the end of time, and does not impinge too much on the political and social order right now—or on the Church’s responsibility to convert the nations, invigorate their cultures, and transform their laws by the light of the Faith. This suspicion is confirmed by an examination of changes made to the liturgy for this feast, where direct references to Christ’s kingship over States and rulers have been suppressed, as Michael Davies documents in The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty (Long Prairie, MN: The Neumann Press, 1992), 243-51.
The post-Vatican II church has no desire to proclaim the true Catholic teaching of the Social Kingship of Christ. That teaching is not PC. It's not ecumenical. So it moved the date and changed the focus of the Feast Day. The only thing that shocks me is that it still exists.
“Come on, at least try and make rational statements ...”
..................
“For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” I Corinthians
Both Sundays for the feast in question are acceptable so why are you arguing? You have lost me and it is best to not agree.
Do not post to me anymore please. Thank-you.
I prefer not to waste my time, so don't worry, I wont post to you anymore.
I am surprised some FRpers make such a big deal over a feast day.
That's because you repeatedly miss the forest for the trees.
OK, now I won't post to you anymore.
Yeah, people who throw whole books of the Bible into the garbage can are the ones qualified to accuse someone else of thinking the Gospel is foolishness. You're a barrel of laughs, I'll give you that.
If you honestly believe someone arguing that the entire Bible is important rather than just the Jewish Pharisee Rabbi Approved Luther Subset of Scripture is proving they think the Gospel is foolishness, get comfortable with hearing the words, I never knew you
I've got no theological beef in portraying a crucifix. Not sure why you'd say that.
Yeah, people who throw whole books of the Bible into the garbage can are the ones qualified to accuse someone else of thinking the Gospel is foolishness. You're a barrel of laughs, I'll give you that.
Can't say I've ever thrown any book of the Bible into the garbage can. Hallucinate much? If you honestly believe someone arguing that the entire Bible is important rather than just the Jewish Pharisee Rabbi Approved Luther Subset of Scripture is proving they think the Gospel is foolishness, get comfortable with hearing the words, I never knew you
Simply assertions with no facts.
Luther Derangement Syndrome on full display in your post. As I posted above played out in your post.
So you use a Catholic or Orthodox Bible rathter than a King James?
Sorry buddy; it’s not worth exchanging words with you when you deny indisputable facts because they don’t fit your I-hate-non-Catholics narrative.
Buh-bye.
rash, ah, I see the problem. you have a caracature of reality, instead of what actually exists.
This of course has nothing to do with your previous assertions, which remain false.
And none of that will get you to heaven bro. It is Christ alone.
If you substitute all that other stuff, it’s on you bro.
I (a Missouri Synod Lutheran) go to my wife’s Catholic Church with her pretty regularly. And our daughter goes to Catholic parochial school, and my wife teaches there too.
While I certainly still have major areas of disagreement* with Catholicism, and especially the present Pope, fortunately, most Catholics are not this (as in the article) medieval.
*I must admit to being particularly irritated about the every week prayer if not sermon message that I must be welcoming and giving to “immigrants and refugees”. Really. This when my own wife is an immigrant, and she would be the first to say how generally accepting most Americans are (of legal immigrants and refugees.) I’m of a mind to ask my wife’s priest when was the last time aborted children have been mentioned. Or citizens pushed out of the U.S. workforce by the “Cheap Labor Express”.
OUCH!!!!
A lot of “ouches” today bro. 👋
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.