Talk:Christ the King

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Altarpiece illustration[edit]

I'm not going to change this without being able to source it, but I believe the Ghent altarpiece illustration is meant to portray God the Father and that Christ the King is portrayed elsewhere on the altarpiece. PatriciaT (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page itself has a ref that says:
the identity of the central figure is unclear and has led to much debate. Several theories include that it is Christ in triumph and shown as a priest,[5] God the Father, or the Holy Trinity amalgamated into a single person (the fact that the figure is wearing a triple tiara might lend some credence to this theory).
So another picture is needed. History2007 (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

moniker[edit]

That's far too slangy a word to use in an encyclopaedia!--Sdoerr (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amillenialism[edit]

I would be good to frame Christ the King in the amillenialism vs. millenialism debate. Another thing would be to point out how Christ the King has played a prominent role in the fight against secularism. ADM (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Spirit the King[edit]

There are certain traditions in Eastern Christianity which tend to call the Holy Spirit as King. It would be a good idea to investigate how this works out in the overall theology of the royal Trinity. ADM (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listing Catholic churches and schools named "Christ the King"[edit]

Adds little to the value of the article, and it ignores the ecumenical realities of the current day. Many Episcopalean, Lutheran, and other churches are named Christ the King today! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.7.146 (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christus Rex[edit]

Christus Rex redirects here, which might be okay except that this article doesn't mention that this is the term used for what is sometimes termed the "Anglican (or even Lutheran, so I hear!) crucifix". For those who don't know, in certain High Church Anglican and Lutheran sanctuaries, the altar's centre of attention is a sculpture of Jesus Glorified, in his role as King of Kings, wearing fine robes and "hovering" over, not nailed to, the Cross of Calvary. Here is a nice example of the Crucifix and Christus Rex juxtaposed.

I'm not a hardcore wikipedian so I wouldn't know where to start, but I can offer assurance that the Christus Rex is a commonly employed liturgical trapping amongst Anglo-Catholics, and I encourage any with the time and resources to do so to add at least a mention of it to this article! 76.19.26.248 (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest finding a reference or 2 supporting that meaning of the phrase, and then writing a section or an article about it. Here's a useful resource on how to write an article. Sophus Bie (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded, that's what I was looking for as well with this article and was disappointed. A google image search lends credence to this, as around half of the results depict the so-called "Anglican crucifix". A shame it doesn't mention it, and that anyone tries to add something to an article who isn't a die-hard wikipedo gets deleted for reasons that essentially boil down to "because I said so" from some raging control freak who spends eighteen hours a day editing Battlestar Galactica articles. PenitentWhaler (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

School names[edit]

Someone commented above that the school names add little to this page - and I think that is right. Unless there are reasons not to, I will soon move the school names out to a separate page. History2007 (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Christ the King. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christ the King. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger[edit]

Srnec proposed merging this article into "kingly office of Christ", but never initiated a discussion of the proposal at either talk page. Mainly as a matter of administrative convenience, I suppose the proposal should be discussed and some resolution agreed to, if possible. So I'll start it off with first impressions:

I've actually heard of this title, probably because it's so widely-used for the name of various churches and cathedrals. I've never given the subject of either article much thought. Most of the theological discussion occurs at "kingly office of Christ", which sounds more encyclopedic, but at the same time less-intuitive, since this title is probably more familiar. There's significant overlap between the two, which is what must have prompted the merger proposal. Looking at page views, "Christ the King" has received about 130 views per day over the last 90 days (significantly more since the merger proposal was made last month), while "kingly office of Christ" has received about 9 views per day.

Page views alone should not be determinative, and I have little doubt that a large number of the page views at this article are due to people looking up churches with the name. However, if the articles were merged as is, people looking for information about those churches would be redirected to "kingly office of Christ", where there would be a long list of examples of churches and cathedrals using the formula "Christ the King" and none using "kingly office of Christ", and this might seem confusing. The list could be split off as a separate topic by moving most of the theological discussion here into the other article. However, is that a desirable result?

I see four valid options for proceeding with this proposal.

  1. Merge this article into "kingly office of Christ", leaving "Christ the King" as a redirect;
  2. Merge "kingly office of Christ" into this article, leaving that title as a redirect;
  3. Move or copy non-duplicative theological content from this article into "kingly office of Christ", leaving this article chiefly as a list of places or things with the title, "Christ the King"; or
  4. Leave the two articles as-is, without any merger of contents.

With respect to the first option, merging this article into "kingly office of Christ", I think that would probably be a mistake, mainly because it doesn't seem like a very intuitive title, compared with "Christ the King"; if people seeking either a theological discussion or cultural uses of the title are going to arrive at the same article, it would make sense for them to be directed to the more familiar title; from this perspective, I think that option 2 is better. Option 3 may be appropriate if the two articles remain separate, but I think duplicating rather than moving the overlapping content may be the better course, because the title itself still requires some explanation, and at first glance the discussion of the title "Christ the King" in this article doesn't seem excessive as an explanation. Removing it would make the list less useful, and require readers to go to another article in order to understand why the subject of this article is important. That seems like an undesirable result. However, I don't see much of an objection to duplicating the theological content from this page in the other article, to the extent that it's not already covered there. Option 4 avoids the thorny issue of which title to prefer, but leaves two relatively small and overlapping topics separate. Since there is a hatnote to "kingly office of Christ" here, and that article still has a very small number of daily page views, I suspect that readers would benefit more from having the contents of both articles in the same place. Considering all of these factors, option 2 makes the most sense to me: merge the contents of "kingly office of Christ" into this article, rather than the other way around: readers looking for that rather unintuitive title would be redirected here, and find the theological discussion they're looking for. But what do other editors think? P Aculeius (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Option 5: Merge Kingly Office into Threefold office with a link from here to the relevant section. The first sentence of "Kingly Office" describes it as one of the Threefold offices. The other two, of prophet and priest are discussed at some length, but king seems to be given relatively short-shrift with a link to the Main. Moving Kingly Office to Threefold completes that article, puts "king" in a broader context, and seems, to me at least, a bit cleaner. Manannan67 (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha[edit]

Hihihi 2001:4452:2DE:6900:1D38:4183:B49F:A302 (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christ_the_King&oldid=1206677990"