Polish Bishops Will Not Consecrate Poland to Christ the King
#11
There is also an enthronement you can do to make Christ the King of your own house.

Reply
#12
I think my previous post explained pretty well why my initial enthusiasm waned somewhat. Like I said, actually consecrating Poland to Our Lord, especially under the title of Christ the King I see no problem with--in fact, I'm all for it.

The Jews when they said they had no King but Casar rejected His rule altogether, which is what is being ruled out in Quas Primas--every single creature, including temporal rulers are subject to Christ the King.

My point was that the king of Poland is a subject of Christ the King of kings--the office of King of Poland is below the actual office of Our Lord. That's why I used the Pope and bishop analogy. Installing Christ as the actual King of Poland seems to be a demotion and places Him on the same level as the temporal Polish government: it's like the Hussites who decided to elect Jesus Christ as their Pope (or so I've been told by some Moravians I know). That's why I like the actual consecration of Poland to Christ King of the Universe better--it lifts up Poland to Christ without diminishing the office of Our Lord. He is truly the King of the entire universe, not just those nations that have installed Him as such. To me this is the same as consecrating one's home to the Sacred Heart and giving an image of it a place of honor, whereas what is being proposed here seems to me akin to installing the Sacred Heart as the husband and father of the family.

Where am I going wrong here?

I think I would be more at ease with installing Jesus Christ as the King of a particular nation if I saw some historical precedence. I know Poland did the same with Our Lady, but to them a queen had a different role than a king, which is why the sovereign St. Jadwiga in the 14th century had the title of king rather than queen (if it was St. Casimir who gave her that title, it may be important that there was no Polish queen at that time--he was celibate by choice).

Also, let me say that I definitely understand the enthusiasm for it and I understand the intention behind it--to acknowledge that universal Kingship which already exists over every nation and Poland's obedience to it--which I also 100% support. I'm just wondering if this is a proper way to go about fulfilling that intention.
Reply
#13
Couldn't the consecration of Christ as the King of Poland be analogous to Christ's invisible headship over the Church? The Supreme Pontiff is the visible head of the Church and has true power. The actual king of Poland wouldn't lose any of his power by proclaiming Christ the King of his country. Christ would not become the temporal King of Poland because the earthly king of Poland already is its temporal king. As for the suggested title, might a compromise be made? How about, "Christ the King of Poland and of the Universe"? It's both immediate and all-encompassing.
Reply
#14
(10-01-2010, 02:14 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: I think my previous post explained pretty well why my initial enthusiasm waned somewhat. Like I said, actually consecrating Poland to Our Lord, especially under the title of Christ the King I see no problem with--in fact, I'm all for it.

The Jews when they said they had no King but Casar rejected His rule altogether, which is what is being ruled out in Quas Primas--every single creature, including temporal rulers are subject to Christ the King.

My point was that the king of Poland is a subject of Christ the King of kings--the office of King of Poland is below the actual office of Our Lord. That's why I used the Pope and bishop analogy. Installing Christ as the actual King of Poland seems to be a demotion and places Him on the same level as the temporal Polish government: it's like the Hussites who decided to elect Jesus Christ as their Pope (or so I've been told by some Moravians I know). That's why I like the actual consecration of Poland to Christ King of the Universe better--it lifts up Poland to Christ without diminishing the office of Our Lord. He is truly the King of the entire universe, not just those nations that have installed Him as such. To me this is the same as consecrating one's home to the Sacred Heart and giving an image of it a place of honor, whereas what is being proposed here seems to me akin to installing the Sacred Heart as the husband and father of the family.

Where am I going wrong here?

I think I would be more at ease with installing Jesus Christ as the King of a particular nation if I saw some historical precedence. I know Poland did the same with Our Lady, but to them a queen had a different role than a king, which is why the sovereign St. Jadwiga in the 14th century had the title of king rather than queen (if it was St. Casimir who gave her that title, it may be important that there was no Polish queen at that time--he was celibate by choice).

Also, let me say that I definitely understand the enthusiasm for it and I understand the intention behind it--to acknowledge that universal Kingship which already exists over every nation and Poland's obedience to it--which I also 100% support. I'm just wondering if this is a proper way to go about fulfilling that intention.

You don't know what enthronement means?
Reply
#15
(09-30-2010, 06:32 PM)Petertherock Wrote: "Then cried they all again, saying: Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber. "

... or in their case Putin.

Polish Bishops' Conference: We will not have this man to reign over us. Let Him be crucified. We have no King but Ceasar.

Well said. NO Bishops are today's pharisees. And they care more for the world, also be sure that this is also being done so as to not upset the chosen ones many of whom live in Poland and pull the strings of newchurch.
Reply
#16
There seems to be no higher learning at the "College" of Bishops!!!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)