The feast of Christ the King is a relatively recent feast. It was instituted in the year 1925 by Pius XI. It is often remarked today that this feast is now at odds with our political and social reality: at a time when monarchs were being swept away like ninepins, the Church institutes the Feast of Christ the King. While there may be a valid observation, the intentions of the pope at the time lay in a very different direction. He was trading in three concepts connected with a Christian understanding of kingship.
The first and strongest concept was a biblical one: Kingship was one of the three important institutions in ancient Israel a medieval one, prophesy and priesthood being the other. The evangelists are at pains to link Jesus with the line of King David. He was born in Bethlehem of the house of David, three of them insist. Even at baptism we are reminded of the royal link: As the baby is anointed we say: "As Christ was anointed priest, prophet and king, so may you live always as a member of his body, sharing everlasting life."
The second concept is closely linked to the biblical one, the medieval understanding of kingship. In the medieval world, the king was a vital link between God and his people. He was almost a divine figure, a sacramental symbol; he was anointed king at his installation in the same way as priest are anointed at their ordination. This anointing authorised the king to make representation to God on behalf of his people on the one hand and, on the other hand, it enabled him to reveal the will of God to his people.
To the medieval way of thinking, the King formed a bridge between God and man, and, to the medieval mind at any rate, it was the most natural bridge imaginable. His office was sacramental, in a strong sense, his power and influence was not confined to this world. Consequently, Pope Pius decided to revive this ancient symbol. Perhaps this ancient imagery of kingship held some promise in attempting to understand the relationship of Christ to the world of the 20th century.
But his third reason for introducing the feast is far more interesting and perhaps far more significant. As you know, in the 1920s Europe was just beginning to rise from the ashes of the Great War, as they then called it. The human race had witnessed destruction and barbarity on an entirely new and frightening scale. Over ten million human beings died as a direct consequence of combat. The 1914-1918 war was billed as 'the war to end all wars'. This earth shattering event, combined with the Russian Revolution of 1917, generated fear, fatigue and great pessimism among the peoples of western Europe. Yet by 1925, a mere seven years after the ending of this major calamity, a new and more lethal polarisation was emerging. In the confused and humiliating aftermath of defeat, a new and very dangerous set of demagogues were already emerging as potential leaders in many parts of Europe. In fact, by 1925, all of the principal figures who will bring catastrophy to Europe are already either in place or waiting in the wings. A particular form of political leadership was taking shape, sweeping away the old royal houses throughout Europe. And the impulse, the driving force behind such their unprincipled quest for power was simply the love of power.
That then is the immediate background to the institution of this feast. In establishing this feast Pius XI was making a point. He was proposing a new model for leadership: the only power worth having, or worth fighting for is the privilege of serving our brothers and sisters. Power that hasn't service as its beacon is ultimately destructive. This is the clear teaching of Jesus who tells us explicitly that he came 'not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.' As he tells us in today's gospel, his kingdom is not of this world. This is the attitude that must inform those who follow in the steps of the master. We will be judged on the way we served our people, not on the way we ruled over our people.
Home