Unlike others in so-called “traditional” Catholic media who give every appearance of prioritizing their personal brand and popularity above most everything else, I’m going to buck conventional wisdom by providing readers with the conclusion right out of the gate:
In light of the current #ChristIsKing craze, I do not stand with Candace Owens, rather, in charity, I invite her, and others like her, to stand with me in defense of His Sovereign Rights as fellow members of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
That out of the way, let’s rewind.
Christ is King is currently trending on social media, and not just (or even primarily) among Catholics. That’s the good news, and this I mean quite literally: The immutable truth that Jesus Christ is King is the Good News concisely stated.
Giving rise to this phenomenon, as many of you likely know, is the situation concerning conservative political commentator Candace Owens.
On November 3, 2023, Owens invited the rath of certain powerful Jews, as well as some stupid goyim who dutifully carry their filthy water, by daring to post the following on Twitter:
No government anywhere has a right to commit a genocide, ever. There is no justification for a genocide.
Why would this statement – a widely agreed upon principle of International Law, firmly founded upon the Natural Law – anger certain Jews, despite the fact that Owens did not name any particular person, nation, or event?
In a word, guilt.
As Candace Owens wrote, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had only just begun carrying out what has become the widespread slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians in Gaza – the greater number of which are women and children – and this in response to an attack on Israel (October 7, 2023) that many credible persons justifiably suspect was deliberately allowed to take place with the foreknowledge and consent of Israeli leadership.
Among those incensed by Owens’ denouncement of genocide was Ben Shapiro, the yarmulka wearing uber-Zionist founder of The Daily Wire, the media outlet that, at the time, published her content.
After a bit of fencing with Shapiro on social media, Owens posted a Tweet on November 14, 2023, with the Beatitudes followed by the statement, “Christ is King.”
Refusing to tiptoe through the Jewlips like a good little shiksa, Owens continued publicly stating “Christ is King,” which, to no one’s surprise, led to her being charged with the hate crime di tutti hate crimes, antisemitism.
On March 22, the situation came to a head as The Daily Wire announced that it had severed ties with Owens.
In the days since her termination, “Christ is King” has been all the rage on social media among so-called “Christian conservatives,” and while it is satisfying, on some level, to witness reference to the Kingship of Christ going viral, all news is not entirely good.
For instance, any number of self-identified Christians (Protestants), and even some self-identified Catholics (of the conciliar kind) – a minority of each in my estimation – have joined the Jews in denouncing Owens as an antisemite. Others are criticizing her for allegedly stating “Christ is King” in an antisemitic, or overly aggressive, way.
NB: The expression “the Jews” as employed throughout this article is to be understood in the same sense as in various parts of the New Testament, e.g., “The doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews.”
Before we continue, let’s take a look at what antisemitism is, what it is not, and what, in our day, it’s typically meant to express.
According to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary, “Semitic” means “1. Of or connected with the language group that includes Hebrew and Arabic,” and 2. “Of or connected with the people who speak Semitic languages, especially Hebrew and Arabic.”
Simple enough.
“Anti-semitic,” therefore, must refer to a form of racism, or hatred, directed toward persons native to Israel or any of the twenty-five other Middle Eastern nations for which Arabic is the official language. In other words, antisemitism is not a form of religious bigotry, nor does it target just one group in particular.
Ah, but not so fast.
According to this same dictionary, “Antisemitic” is defined as: “Characterized by prejudice, hostility, or discrimination towards Jewish people on religious, cultural, or ethnic grounds; anti-Jewish.”
So, what happened?
Evidently, the word “antisemitic” has effectively been trademarked (just like Nazi®, Holocaust®, and Hitler®) by those who exercise undue control over media, government, and finance, such that only the Jews (and their goyim servants) now own the exclusive right to level the charge of antisemitism against others – however they wish, whenever they wish.
How did the Jews get away with this linguistic heist?
By invoking Nazi®, Holocaust®, and Hitler®. That’s how this vicious cycle of perpetual victimhood works.
In practical terms – that is, with respect to its most common usage – the charge of “antisemitism” is weaponized and deployed with impunity as a tool for belittling, persecuting, and cancelling anyone who stands in the way of leftwing, socialist, Jewish political ambitions, e.g., the furtherance of abortion rights, promotion of the LGBT agenda, perpetration of the climate hoax, feeding the Zionist beast while excusing all of the ruthless activities associated with it, just to name a few.
Are self-described “Jews” monolithic in this sense? No, of course not. There are some Jews (rare cases, to be sure, and mostly among the Orthodox) who are politically conservative, e.g., they are anti-socialist, anti-abortion, and anti-homo. Some are even anti-Zionist.
That is not to say, however, that substantial unity doesn’t exist among the Jews.
Despite the fact that only 26% of self-identified Jews in the U.S. claim to “believe in God as described in the Bible,” and a solid majority consider religion “Not too/Not at all important” (See Pew Research Survey), the foundation upon which contemporary Jewish identity stands is a very specific religious conviction, namely, the rejection of Jesus Christ and hostility toward the mission that He gave to His Church. [NOTE: “Messianic Jews,” despite their Judeo-schizophrenia, are but a brand of heretic.]
Opposition to Christ, and Christian culture more broadly, forms the solitary, non-negotiable, unifying principle that binds all of today’s self-identified Jews, including the most secular among them, even if only on a subconscious level.
It is in this context that Candace Owens is being falsely accused of antisemitism, and it is for this reason that “Christ is King” is currently trending.
Among those persons now “standing with Candace,” no small number, including some Catholics, have been hash-tagging “Christ is King” as if it is nothing more than a cheap political slogan. Some incredible imbeciles are even attaching it to their cultlike devotion to Donald “Warp Speed” Trump, who recently denounced Florida’s six-week abortion ban as a “terrible thing and a terrible mistake.”
In the vast majority of cases, however, it seems that “Christ is King” is being bandied about on social media by persons who, although apparently sincere, are largely unaware of what Our Lord’s Kingship actually entails. Candace Owens, who is Protestant, is one of them. She has lots of company too, including a good many “conciliar” Catholics, all of whom, one presumes in charity, just don’t know any better.
One such commentator is Lila Rose, founder of the pro-life organization, LiveAction.
On March 25, Rose posted a video on YouTube attempting to explain “How Christ is Truly King.” She promoted the video on Twitter by posting the following excerpt taken from the transcript:
Christ did not come to establish political reign here on earth. He chastised the followers who asked it from Him, saying, “My Kingdom is not of this world.” It is not the Christian project to idolize social or political power, demanding special respect or position from others *because* “Christ is King.” In fact, this is the opposite…
The content of Rose’s video only went from bad to worse as she waxed conciliar, saying, “This idea of like Christians versus Jews is already weird, a weird construct that’s incorrect.”
As we will discuss momentarily, this would be news to Saints Peter and Paul!
My take on the current “Christ is King” social media phenomenon is this:
Well-formed Catholics should treat it as an opportunity to engage and edify those sincere individuals who are tweeting “Christ is King,” but who are confused, or lack knowledge about, what the Sovereign Rights of Our Lord actually entail in their fullness.
On Easter Sunday, Michael Matt posted a video that could have done just that.
In some ways, he addressed Lila Rose’s testimonial fairly well, most notably by calling attention to Quas Primas, the vastly under-appreciated Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, whereby he established the Feast of Christ the King. For example, Michael did a good job of clarifying that Our Lord was speaking of the origins of His Kingship, not its proper dominion, when He said, “My Kingdom is not of this world.”
That said, he left out of consideration some of the Holy Father’s most salient teachings, which although lacking popular appeal, speak most directly to the present situation.
At one point, Michael Matt states:
The Kingship of Christ must be acknowledged. So, along with Pius XI in Quas Primas, Candice Owens is defending what the Catholic, she’s not Catholic, not Catholic, but more Catholic than 90% of the Catholics out there. She’s defending what the Church has always taught, that “not only private individuals but also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ the King.”
Fair enough. Earlier in the video, however, he rightly criticized those who are stating “Christ is King” while evidently relegating His Kingship to “a pious devotion that has no teeth.”
That observation is entirely valid. In fact, it applies rather well to every single Protestant who ever uttered the phrase. At this, we come to what Michael Matt chose not to say, which just so happens to be precisely what sincere persons like Candace Owens and others most need to hear:
The “teeth” in this case can be found in but one place alone, namely, the Holy Roman Catholic Church. As Pius XI taught:
The Church has the right from Christ himself to teach mankind, to make laws, to govern peoples in all that pertains to their eternal salvation. The Church, founded by Christ as a perfect society, has a natural and inalienable right to perfect freedom and immunity from the power of the state … she cannot be subject to any external power. (cf. Quas Primas 24, 31).
Yes, Michael Matt is correct, “The Kingship of Christ must be acknowledged.” By failing to state exactly what that means in practical terms, however, he’s as guilty as anyone of tossing “Christ is King” around as if it is merely a pious devotion.
As the above teaching from Quas Primas indicates, apart from recognition of the unique rights and privileges granted by Christ to the Roman Catholic Church alone, simply saying that “Christ is King” is not only toothless, it’s essentially meaningless.
As such, can it really be said, as Michael Matt does, that Candace Owens is teaching what the Church has always taught?
No, it cannot. She’s a Protestant. If she believed and was able to teach what the Church has always taught concerning Christ’s Kingship, she’d be Catholic. Simply saying “Christ is King” barely even scratches the surface of Church teaching on the matter. It’s like a professor citing the title to a textbook without cracking the cover.
Now, let’s go to the very heart of this situation, a place very few are willing to go, namely, the Kingship of Christ vis-à-vis the Jews.
While others are busy reassuring the Jews that they have nothing to worry about when they hear refrains of “Christ is King” echoing all around them, I have a very different take, a Catholic one:
The Jews damned well ought to bristle at mention of the Holy Name of Jesus Christ and His Kingship. There is a reason that, for them, “Christ is King” is like holy water raining down on a demoniac – they are engaged in battle against Him!
According to Michael Matt, however:
This doctrine of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with hate, has nothing to do with the Jews. Nothing to do with the Jews!
No, it certainly is not about hate, but make no mistake about it:
The Kingship of Christ has much to do with all peoples and, in a particular way, with the Jews, a people whose most significant unifying principle, as stated, lies in their collective opposition to Our Lord and His Kingdom on Earth.
And just what is His Kingdom on earth?
As the Holy Father Pius XI tells us very plainly in Quas Primas, “The Kingdom of Christ on earth is the Catholic Church,” she who enjoys “perfect and perpetual immunity from error and heresy,” and whose destiny is “to be spread among all men and all nations.” (cf., art. 12, 22)
The Jews are, by definition and by choice – albeit some more directly and more consciously than others – diametrically opposed to the Kingship and Kingdom of Christ!
Far from having “nothing to do with the Jews,” Pope Pius XI made it a point to stress the fact that the Kingship of Christ is prophesied – by Jews to Jews – throughout the Old Testament. He went on to cite the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and “the testimony of the Prophets” – Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, and Zechariah – all of whom attest to Christ the King as He who was foretold to the Jews as the Ruler who shall sit upon the throne of David forever. (ibid., art. 8,9)
And how did the Jews receive their King?
St. Paul tells us:
“The Jews both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men” (cf. 1 Thess. 2:15).
So much for Lila Rose’s claim that “Christians versus Jews is a weird construct.”
Rather than correcting her silly error, however, Matt offered what he called “a little catechism lesson on what Catholics actually believe and have always believed.” He then launched into a saccharine apologetic on behalf of the Jews, one that the ADL would likely gladly endorse:
Right from the Cross, Christ says, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” You know what? That is, He forgave them. He forgave the Romans. He forgave the Jews, right? He forgave everybody involved from the Cross. So, we’re going to say, “Well, yeah, Jesus did that, but we’re not going to, we’re going to call them Christ killers” from now on? What kind of sense does that make? It makes none.
Maybe I missed something, but as far as I know, Candace Owens isn’t being widely accused of calling anyone a Christ Killer, but as long as Michael brings it up…
In addition to what St. Paul plainly stated above, St. Peter likewise convicted the Jews, saying, “The author of life you killed, whom God hath raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses” (Acts 3:15).
Were Saints Peter and Paul (and the Holy Ghost, for that matter) somehow unaware of Our Lord’s words of forgiveness spoken from the Cross? Were they mistaken? Evidently, Michael Matt thinks so.
My unsolicited advice to him: If you’re going to offer “a little catechism” on the Jews, don’t pussyfoot around; acknowledge what Sacred Scripture plainly states and either explain it (if you’re able) or keep your trap shut.
It should go without say that Saints Peter and Paul were not accusing every single Jew then alive of killing the Lord Jesus.
Nor is one personally indicting every single self-identified Jew alive today by observing the undeniable fact that the Jews are at the forefront of every godless enterprise on the planet – e.g., abortion, homosexuality, pornography, the transgender movement (which is even outlined in the Talmud!), etc. – a laundry list of evil that verifies what St. Paul stated: The Jews are adversaries to all men.
As the above-mentioned tally of diabolical initiatives indicate, the Kingship of Christ vis-à-vis the Jews concerns much more than just matters of patrimony and prophecy, it also involves contemporary incursions against the Divine and Natural Law.
As Pope Pius XI teaches:
Concerning the universal dominion of our Redeemer, it is a dogma of faith that Jesus Christ was given to man, not only as our Redeemer, but also as a Lawgiver, to whom obedience is due. (cf. Quas Primas 14)
At this, we’ve come full circle, back to the dust-up between Candace Owens and the Jews, the backdrop of which is the Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.
I recently listened to a lengthy debate between several experts on the Zionist movement and the conflict between Jews and Palestinians, both past and present. (It is available HERE for those interested.) On the pro-Israel side was a man called Professor Benny Morris, one of the most prominent and highly regarded Israeli historians and apologists.
At multiple points in the debate, Morris gave voice to the unabashed lawlessness of the Zionists. He states:
International law is meaningless… Conflicts are not solved by international law or in accordance with international law… The law is irrelevant… Forget international law and all the UN resolutions.
The above represents just a sampling of such quotes, and the attitude they express accurately conveys the posture of the Jews toward Christ the King, the Divine Lawgiver: They consider themselves not just above the law, but also masters of the law.
This is so, not only as it concerns Zionist terrorism and thievery, but also as it pertains to the Jews’ 2,000-year running commitment to constructing the City of Man over and against the City of God, the Kingdom of Christ on earth, which is the Catholic Church, through which Our Lord exercises His Sovereign Rights, reigning and ruling, most especially through His Vicar, the Roman Pontiff.
To avoid this truth, while allegedly standing up for the Social Kingship of Christ, is to make of Our Lord a King without a Kingdom, which is precisely what Michael Matt is doing. He’s not alone, however.
Taylor Marshall also got into the game with a cringeworthy video of his own titled, “CHRIST IS KING is NOT Hate Speech!”
No, “Christ is King” is not hate speech, it’s Catholic speech, but rather than making this known to those well-meaning Protestants who are tweeting it with abandon, he chose to blather on like a Baptist without any mention of the Holy Roman Catholic Church as the Kingdom of Christ on earth, saying:
“Christ is King” is a term of loving adoration for Jesus Christ who saved us from our sins. Me, Taylor Marshall, a filthy sinner – mortal sins, venial sins, stacked up over years, decades – washed away in the divine mercy of the blood and water flowing from His pierced side on the Cross. That is my King. I love Him. You love him.
“Christ is King” is a term of loving endearment? Like Hell it is! Sugar Pie and Honey Bunch (with a tip of the hat to the Four Tops) are terms of endearment, “Christ is King” is much more than that.
Worse still is Taylor’s testimony that his sins have been washed away – not by the Sacrament of Confession, not in the bosom of Holy Mother Church, not via absolution received from a Catholic priest acting in persona Christi – but rather straight from the Cross.
And you thought Marshall converted to Catholicism!
What we are witnessing here is the fact that standing with Candace Owens, in light of her persecution at the hands of the Jews, is low hanging fruit for so-called traditionalist podcasters in search of followers and fame.
Standing with Christ the King, however, is another story. Defending the fullness of Catholic doctrine concerning His Sovereign Rights and His Social Reign requires one to point to truths that are sure to alienate the greater number of “Christian conservatives,” e.g., the eminent freedom of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the singular authority of the Vicar of Christ to rule on the King’s behalf, and the utter folly of religious freedom as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
In other words, all indications are that Matt and Marshall (and likely others), in light of the Candace Owens affair, made a business decision, namely, to portray Catholic doctrine on the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ as if it is common to all who call themselves “Christian,” when there can be little doubt that both of them know better.
In some ways, one can understand why men like Michael Matt and Taylor Marshall are reluctant to call the Protestants’ attention to the Catholic Church, the Holy Roman Pontiff, and her error-free doctrines.
They have painted themselves into a corner insofar as they are building their brands on a series of lies, namely, that the globalist operation presently in occupation of the Vatican is the Catholic Church; that the man at its helm, the raging heretic Bergoglio, is the Vicar of Christ, and Vatican Council II – Nostra Aetate, Dignitatis Humanae and all – is an exercise of the Supreme Magisterium.
I too would be embarrassed to point Protestants in the direction of Rome if I held those diabolical lies to be true! Even they know that the conciliar operation isn’t of Christ!
In any case, as for me, I do not stand with Candace Owens, rather, in charity, I wish to invite her to stand with me in defense of the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King as a fellow member of His Kingdom on earth, the Holy Roman Catholic Church. May Almighty God, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, give her the grace to do so soon.
As for the Jews whose feathers she ruffled, one can do no better than to draw from the words spoken by Pope St. Pius X to Theodor Herzl, the so-called “Father of Zionism.”
The Jewish religion was the foundation of our own, but it was superseded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot concede it any further validity. The Jews, who ought to have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ, have not done so to this day. Just know this: We have Churches and priests ready to baptize all of you.
