 |
Christ the King! Ghent Altarpiece |
In 1969, the Feast was transferred in just one more of a flurry of liturgical changes issued by Pope Paul VI in his motu proprio Mysterii Paschalis.
Liturgically speaking, the sung Proper of the Mass, the Introit, Gradual, Alleluia, Offertory and Communion of both Missals are the same. The Collect, Secret/Super Oblata and the Postcommunion are quite different and Father Z takes these apart and highlights the change emphasis as a result of these changes.
The scripture readings though are different. According to the Roman Missal of 1962, we read an Epistle from the Letter of St. Paul to the Colossians, 1:12-20 while the Gospel is that of St. John 18:33-37. In the Revised Lectionary for the Ordinary Form, we read in Year A for the Lesson, Ezekiel 34:11-12,15-17; the Epistle is from the First Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians 15:20-26,28 and the Gospel is from St. Matthew 25:31-46. In Year B, our current year as this is written, we will read the Lesson from the prophet Daniel 7:13-14, the Epistle from the Apocalypse of St. John, 1:5-8 and the Gospel is from St. John, 18:33-37. In Year C the Lesson is II Samuel 5:1-3, the Epistle is St. Paul's Letter to the Colossians 1:12-20 (as in the EF, above) with the Gospel from St. Matthew 25:31-46. The Responsory (the correct name for the "Responsorial" psalm) and the Gospel verse vary, if sung from the Graduale Romanum, 1974, they are static as in the Proper referred to above.
The scripture readings though are different. According to the Roman Missal of 1962, we read an Epistle from the Letter of St. Paul to the Colossians, 1:12-20 while the Gospel is that of St. John 18:33-37. In the Revised Lectionary for the Ordinary Form, we read in Year A for the Lesson, Ezekiel 34:11-12,15-17; the Epistle is from the First Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians 15:20-26,28 and the Gospel is from St. Matthew 25:31-46. In Year B, our current year as this is written, we will read the Lesson from the prophet Daniel 7:13-14, the Epistle from the Apocalypse of St. John, 1:5-8 and the Gospel is from St. John, 18:33-37. In Year C the Lesson is II Samuel 5:1-3, the Epistle is St. Paul's Letter to the Colossians 1:12-20 (as in the EF, above) with the Gospel from St. Matthew 25:31-46. The Responsory (the correct name for the "Responsorial" psalm) and the Gospel verse vary, if sung from the Graduale Romanum, 1974, they are static as in the Proper referred to above.
An unfortunate reality is the rupture of dates, never asked for or anticipated by the Council Fathers. It is all very unfortunate that we continue on different pages in the Rite(s?) and something that can be hoped for is some future harmony. Which is best?
There are arguments for both; on a personal note, and I would never presume to be an expert liturgist, but I can see the reasons for the original decision by and liturgically for the change; there is a reason behind Pope Paul VI's argument. However, Pope Pius XII had a reason for instituting this feast and if he believed that it was the eschatological dimension that was necessary to associate with it, he would have done so. That eschatological event is the Gospel for the Last Sunday after Pentecost so the debate is moot it is there. The feast was instituted to tell us, now, in this secular world that Christ is King of the Social Order in the here and now, not just in that which is to come.
In the last paragraph of Father Z's article while finding it hard to "find fault" with the new prayers he goes on to write that "The change of placement of the feast and the change of theology of the prayers probably reflect the soft approach to Communism adopted by Rome in those years, called ostopolitik." When we compare the prayers, there is a clear de-emphasis on "triumphant language and imagery " It was as if "the writers of the newer prayers did not want to give the impression that Christ was to be accepted as Lord and King by political entities in this earthly existence."
There are arguments for both; on a personal note, and I would never presume to be an expert liturgist, but I can see the reasons for the original decision by and liturgically for the change; there is a reason behind Pope Paul VI's argument. However, Pope Pius XII had a reason for instituting this feast and if he believed that it was the eschatological dimension that was necessary to associate with it, he would have done so. That eschatological event is the Gospel for the Last Sunday after Pentecost so the debate is moot it is there. The feast was instituted to tell us, now, in this secular world that Christ is King of the Social Order in the here and now, not just in that which is to come.
In the last paragraph of Father Z's article while finding it hard to "find fault" with the new prayers he goes on to write that "The change of placement of the feast and the change of theology of the prayers probably reflect the soft approach to Communism adopted by Rome in those years, called ostopolitik." When we compare the prayers, there is a clear de-emphasis on "triumphant language and imagery " It was as if "the writers of the newer prayers did not want to give the impression that Christ was to be accepted as Lord and King by political entities in this earthly existence."
 |
| Fr. F.W. Faber, Cong.Orat. |
Somebody around the Vatican thought that they had a better idea and they convinced a Pope that it was, just like the Octave of Pentecost.