The King Who Chose the Cross: A Critique of Naturalistic Humanism
NC Register publishes a commentary by Matt D’Antuono that compares Shakespeare’s Henry V with Christ’s kingship, culminating in a meditation on the Cross. The article’s stated aim is to reflect on the “weight of the crown” and the “eloquent word of the Cross.” However, from the perspective of integral Catholic faith, this piece is a masterclass in theological evasion, reducing the sublime, dogmatic reality of Christ’s Kingship to a vague, naturalistic humanism. It presents a Christ who is a moral exemplar and inspirational leader, but not the God-Man whose royal authority demands the submission of all human powers and whose sacrifice on the Cross is the sole, propitiatory atonement for sin. The analysis exposes a bankruptcy of doctrine, a silence on supernatural truth, and an implicit embrace of the modernist errors condemned by St. Pius X.
1. Factual Deconstruction: A Christ of Sentiment, Not Dogma
The article constructs its argument on a literary parallel between a fictional English king and the historical God-Man. It states:
“Another great king, on the eve of a historically decisive battle — in fact, it was the most important battle — was with his small band of followers… This king, also, wrestled with his fate… He, too, cannot sleep, but what a different sort of battle he plans to fight.”
This framing is factually and theologically catastrophic. It places Christ’s agony in Gethsemane and His ensuing crucifixion on the same plane as a human king’s pre-battle anxiety. The “different sort of battle” is never defined in supernatural terms. There is no mention of the supernatural combat against the powers of Hell, the satisfaction of divine justice, or the opening of the gates of Heaven. The article’s Christ “bears the sins of the world” in a vague, metaphorical sense, not as the Victim of propitiation whose blood alone “cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7).
The climax is the equation of Henry’s St. Crispin’s Day speech with Christ’s “word of the Cross.” The article claims:
“This word and the battle are one, and this battle is ‘freshly remember’d’ in flowing cups every day, and the cups flow with the blood of the victoriously defeated king who triumphed over death by means of his own death.”
This is a sentimental distortion. The “flowing cups” of the Mass are not a vague memorial of inspiration; they are the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary made present, the sole means by which the faithful participate in the fruits of the Redemption. The article’s language of “strange surrender” and “instrument of death” strips the Cross of its juridical and salvific meaning as defined by the Council of Trent. It presents a Christ who “triumph[ed] over death by means of his own death” as a mere historical fact of inspiration, not as the unique, once-for-all sacrifice that merited grace and destroyed the power of Satan.
2. Linguistic & Rhetorical Analysis: The Tone of Modernist Evasion
The language is consistently vague, emotional, and avoids precise theological terminology. Key Catholic doctrines are conspicuous by their absence:
- No mention of the Blessed Trinity: Christ’s kingship is presented as a solitary, heroic struggle, not the act of the Second Person of the Trinity, consubstantial with the Father, who “offered Himself… to God the Father” (Quas Primas).
- No mention of the Church: The “band of brothers” is an abstract, spiritualized concept. There is no reference to the Mystical Body, the hierarchical structure willed by Christ, or the necessity of the Church as the “one dispenser of salvation” (Quas Primas). The article’s Christ invites us to “be his brothers” outside of any ecclesial context, echoing the modernist error of reducing the Church to a mere “consciousness of faith.”
- No mention of grace or the sacraments: The victory is achieved by “bearing the Cross” in a general sense. There is no reference to sanctifying grace, the sacraments as the ordinary means of salvation, or the Mass as the re-presentation of the sacrifice. This is classic Modernism, which “under the guise of more serious criticism… aims at such a development of dogmas as appears to be their corruption” (Lamentabili Sane Exitu, I).
- Silence on the Social Reign of Christ: The article is entirely “spiritualized.” It says nothing of Christ’s dominion over nations, laws, and public life, a doctrine defined by Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas. The kingly duty described is internal and personal, not social and political. This omission is a direct rejection of the papal teaching that “the State must… publicly honor and obey Christ the King” (Quas Primas).
The tone is one of personal, subjective meditation (“we are allowed to hear his final word”), not objective, doctrinal proclamation. This reflects the Modernist principle that faith is an internal religious sentiment, not an assent to revealed truths proposed by the Church’s authentic Magisterium.
3. Theological Confrontation: The Dogma That Is Missing
From the unchanging, integral Catholic faith before 1958, the article commits fundamental errors by omission and misrepresentation:
a) The Nature of Christ’s Kingship: Pius XI, in Quas Primas, dogmatically defines Christ’s kingship as proper, universal, and demanding public obedience. “His reign… extends not only to Catholic nations… but His reign encompasses also all non-Christians… the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.” The article’s Christ is a king without a kingdom, a sovereign without subjects, whose “brothers” are a voluntary fraternity of the inspired. This is a denial of the royal dignity of Christ as a truth of faith, reducing it to a pious opinion.
b) The Purpose of the Cross: The article presents the Cross as an inspiring “word” and a “strange surrender.” Catholic doctrine, defined by the Council of Trent, states that Christ’s death was a true and proper sacrifice of expiation and propitiation for the sins of the whole world. “This is the bread which came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever” (John 6:58). The “flowing cups” are the Blood of the New Testament, which “shall be shed for many unto remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). The article’s silence on the sacrificial, atoning nature of the Cross is a denial of the core of Catholic soteriology.
c) The Necessity of the Church: By speaking of being “brothers” of Christ in an individualistic, non-ecclesial sense, the article promotes the Modernist error condemned by St. Pius X: that the Church is not a necessary, visible society founded by Christ, but a “moral entity” born of the “consciousness of faith” (Lamentabili Sane Exitu, 54, 52). The true “band of brothers” are the members of the Mystical Body, incorporated through baptism and governed by the legitimate hierarchy, which the article ignores.
<d) The Obligation of Public Order: Pius XI is explicit: “Let rulers of states therefore not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ… The annual celebration of this solemnity will also remind states… that all power in heaven and on earth is given to Christ the Lord.” The article’s Christ has no claim on public order, laws, or education. This is a capitulation to the secularism condemned in the Syllabus of Errors (Errors 39, 77, 80) and in Quas Primas itself: “the secularism of our times, so-called laicism, its errors and wicked endeavors.”
4. Symptomatic Analysis: The Fruit of the Conciliar Apostasy
This article is not an isolated error; it is the logical product of the “abomination of desolation” standing in the holy place (Matt. 24:15). Its characteristics are those of the post-conciliar “Church of the New Advent”:
- Hermeneutics of Continuity in Action: It uses traditional language (“King,” “Cross,” “blood”) but empties it of its dogmatic content. This is the precise method of Modernism: “under the pretext of a more profound interpretation… they pervert the very notion of faith” (Pascendi Dominici Gregis).
- Naturalistic Reduction: The supernatural realities of the Incarnation, the Atonement, and the Kingship are translated into the natural categories of moral inspiration and heroic example. This is the “cult of man” replacing the worship of God.
- Omission as Doctrine: The article’s silence on the Social Kingship of Christ, the exclusive salvific role of the Church, and the sacrificial nature of the Mass is not accidental. It reflects the systematic silencing of these doctrines by the conciliar sect, which has embraced the errors of religious liberty, ecumenism, and the separation of Church and State condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus (Errors 15-18, 77-80).
- Emotionalism over Dogma: The appeal is to feeling (“what joy filled Our heart,” “how much our Savior cost us” – phrases ironically echoing Pius XI but devoid of their doctrinal context) rather than to the intellect’s assent to defined truth. This is the “devotion of the senses” replacing the “devotion of the mind” in the true faith.
Matt D’Antuono, with his credentials in “philosophy” and association with the “Friars of the Renewal” (a post-conciliar group), represents the new breed of “Catholic” intellectual: well-read in literature, adept at sentiment, but utterly ignorant or hostile to the integral Catholic dogmatic tradition. His book title, Thus Spake the Christ, is a blasphemous parody, implying a new, personal revelation beyond the deposit of faith.
Conclusion: The Necessity of the True Feast
The article is a symptom of the catastrophic loss of the sense of the supernatural. It presents a Christ who is a “king” only in metaphor and a Cross that is an “instrument” only in a poetic sense. This is the Christ of Modernism, “a Christ… not of history, but of faith” (Lamentabili Sane Exitu, 27), a Christ who “did not teach that He was the Messiah” (ibid., 28), a Christ whose kingdom is “not of this world” in the sense of having no claim on it.
In stark contrast stands the immutable faith defined by Pius XI in Quas Primas, which the article studiously ignores:
“His reign… extends… to all non-Christians… the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ… Let rulers of states therefore not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ… the annual celebration of this solemnity will also remind states… that all power in heaven and on earth is given to Christ the Lord.”
The “king who chose the Cross” of the article is a phantom. The true King, Jesus Christ, “the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever” (Heb. 13:8), chose the Cross as the sole means of our redemption, established a visible Church to perpetuate its sacrifice, and demands the submission of all human authority to His divine law. To reduce this to a meditation on “inspiration” is not piety; it is apostasy. The faithful are called not to a vague “brotherhood” with a symbolic king, but to the catholic faith and the public profession of Christ’s royalty in the face of a world and a “conciliar sect” that have cast Him out. The article’s silence is the loudest condemnation: it has no Christ to offer but the one forged in the fires of Naturalism, a Christ who is not the King of the Quas Primas feast, but the idol of the “abomination of desolation.”
Source:
The King Who Chose the Cross (ncregister.com)
Date: 02.04.2026