24.1.08

Strauss II - Fledermaus Overture - Kleiber (1970)

I am an admirer of Strauss. Presnted for your enjoyment
"der Fledermaus" (the Bat).

Monarchs of Canada

Jovan-Marya Weismiller posted this last year, interesting.

Monarchs of Canada

With Her Majesty, Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, becoming Canada's longest lived Monarch on 20 December 2007 (at approximately 17h00 GMT if Buckingham Palace is to be believed), the question has arisen, "Which Monarch of Canada had the longest reign?" Of course, Buck House pointed out that she would have to reign until 2015 to surpass her ancestor Queen Victoria, but was the last Queen the longest reigning Monarch of Canada? No. And to illustrate the point, I decided to compile a list of all the Monarchs of Canada with their regnal dates as far as I could find them.

Here it is, along with the Dynasty to which each belonged: scroll down to Dec 21, 2007

Vive le Roy.
de Brantigny

Christological Vexillology in Louisiana

This article is from Andrew Cusack.



Christological Vexillology in Louisiana

SINCE BOBBY JINDAL, a traditional Catholic and sometime New Oxford Review contributor, today became the eighty-fourth Governor of Louisiana (sixty-first of the republican era), we decided to share with you the interesting development regarding the Louisiana state flag. Louisiana's flag consists of a pelican displayed with a scroll bearing the state motto of "Union, Justice, and Confidence". Heraldically, the pelican is known as a "pelican-in-her-piety" depicting the mother pelican piercing her breast to offer her own blood as sustenance to her children. The "pelican-in-her-piety" is a traditionally Christian symbol meant to parallel Christ's sacrifice, and so this is why you sometimes see representations of pelicans in churches. more



de Brantigny

Religious Liberty?

I was reading some of the Monarchist blogs out there, and I found this in "un roi, une loi, une foi" blog on religious liberty by the founding fathers...

Religious Liberty?

Even the Protestants said no.

Initially, Thomas Cushing, one of the delegates and Founding Fathers of the United States of America, suggested that an inter-religious prayer be said together before the inaugural session of the Continental Congress on 6 September 1774 at Carpenters' Hall in Philadelphia. more

23.1.08

The Escape...

17 April 1719.

Four Irish soldiers, one Major Gaydon, Captains Misset, O'Toole, and Wogan leave Strasbourg on horseback and head east. This is not exceptionally unusual as there are many Irish found in foreign armies on the continent. But these men have a special mission. The rescue of a princess. This certain princess is imprisoned in a castle in Innsbruck in southern Austria. Accompanying the soldiers are two women, the wife of Capt Misset to act as a companion to the princess and a servant named Jenny. Jenny has an important part to play in this rescue, because if it were to succeed she would be the principle ruse. Recently Capt Wogan has visited Innusbruck as an itinerant peddler and visited the princess who has agreed to the plan for the escape.

After a journey of 10 days they finally arrive in Innsbruck. The weather is bad, a pouring rain and driving wind. Fortunately this was the best weather for the plot to succeed.

Arriving at the castle they are met by the princess' servant named Chateaudeau, who taking Jenny with him, returns to the apartments of the princess where the princess and her mother await.The plan calls for Jenny and the princess to exchange places and clothes. Jenny will remain behind in the castle and feign illness until the party escapes south into Italy. Jenny however is noticeably taller than the princess and so has to remain abed if the disguise is to work. The princess on her part must wear slippers instead of shoes with heels; unfortunate in this weather. The princess, in Jenny,s cloak, slips out of the castle with the servant Chateaudeau and her jewels. Upon reaching the gate Chateaudeau says "Goodnight" loud enough for Capt Wogan, standing nearby, to hear. Then the princess, disguised as the servant Jenny, steps out past the guard and leaves the castle. The plan has worked perfectly... Thus far

Capt Wogan leads the princess to an inn where the others await them and they set off towards the Italian border. Going just a short way the discover that in the rush to go the princess has left her jewels in the inn! Captain O'Toole turns his horse about and speeds back to the inn that they had just left. It is the middle of the night. Capt O,Toole dare not pound on the door, but being a big man lifts the door of the hinges, grabs the jewels and leaves. Riding hard he catches up with the party on the road.


Poor Jenny keeps up the pretence of being the Princess as long as she can by remaining in bed pretending to be sick but finally the truth is discovered. The Castle governor send word to the next town to stop the party. As luck would have it Captains Missett and O'Toole trailed behind as the escape party's rearguard. Falling in with the messenger they treat him to refreshment at an inn where the poor fellow found it impossible to continue on horseback.

The escapees were having a hard time as well. The food was deplorable and for some reason almost uneatable. The were forced to make tea in a can that had previously held oil. The post horses they received were almost useless, ...and their coach broke down. Anything that could go awry did, except that after four grueling days they reached the border, and were safely in Italy.

And who is this Princess? She was Maria Klementyna Zophia Sobieska(1) daughter of Prince James Louis Henry Sobieski, and granddaughter of King Jan III, Sobieski (2)she had ben imprisioned in Insbruck by the Holy Roman Emperor by request of King George I, to prevent her marriage to the son of King James II of England (and VII of Scotland). Prince James Edward had, since 1701 been recognized as the true King of England. He would have been James III. He is remembered by his most common sobriquet, "Old Pretender".


After the marriage of Princess Klementyna and Prince James, they had a son. Naming him Charles Edward Louis Philip Casimir. He is destined to lead the "45" Jacobite rising as "Bonnie Prince Charlie".

(1) All female names in Polish end with an A even the surname hence Sobieska.
(2) Title style, (Latin), Joannes III, Dei Gratia rex Poloniae, magnus dux Lithuaniae, Russie, Prussiae, Masoviae, Samogitiae, Livoniae, Smolenscie, Kijoviae, Volhyniae, Podlachiae, Severiae, Czernichoviaeque, etc.

Source: The Jacobite Rising of 1745, by Stevenson, Longman House Ltd. Essex, England 1968.

Now maybe some of the ghosts will leave me sleep!

Vive le Roy.
Brantigny


The photos for this post are from Thomason Photography photographed in different places. His Facebook page is here...

Democracy, Monarchy and the Fourth Commandment

Some time ago some one sent this to me; I copied it and stuck it in my files. I am sure it is posted somewhere on the web if I have it, and if I need to, I will remove it. I did not write this. I pass it along because I agree with it.

Democracy, Monarchy and the Fourth Commandment

by Solange Strong Hertz

In the earliest days of the Church St. Jude the Apostle found himself
"under a necessity to write to you: to beseech you to contend
earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." His letter,
brief and to the point, was read publicly to the Catholic
congregations of that day and eventually became one of the canonical
books of the New Testament, so there is no reason to believe that the
plural "you" is not directed to us as well. Perhaps it is directed to
us primarily, destined as we are to live in the latter times when the
faith would be tried most severely. St. Jude warns that into the
Church "there have crept in some men (who were written of long ago
unto this judgment), impious, turning the grace of our God into
lasciviousness, and denying the only sovereign Ruler and our Lord
Jesus Christ."

In other words the Apostle pinpoints here the first
stirrings of the revolt against Christ the Universal King which rages
today, begun by men who "defile the flesh and despise dominion and
blaspheme majesty." He characterizes them as blaspheming "whatsoever
things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know like
dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted. . . . raging waves of the
sea, foaming out their confusion, wandering stars: to whom the storm
of darkness is reserved forever. . . . These are murmurers full of
complaints, walking according to their own desires, and their mouth
speaks proud things, admiring persons for gain's sake."

St. Jude says that these rebels against God's rule "have
gone in the way of Cain," the murderer at the dawn of human history
who, as related in Genesis, "went out from the face of the Lord and
dwelt as a fugitive on the earth at the east side of Eden. And Cain
knew his wife, and she conceived and brought forth Henoch: and he
built a city and called the name thereof by the name of his son
Henoch" (Gen. 4:16-17). This Henoch is not to be confused with the
later one who "walked with God" and for his great faith "was
translated that he should not to see death (Heb. 11:5) . . . into
paradise," in order that he might return at the end of time to preach
"repentance to the nations" (Ecclus. 44:16). The name Henoch means
"dedication" or "initiation" and it is clear that the two men
exemplified the beginnings of two very different ways of life.

Cain and his progeny could have accepted God's mercy like Adam and Eve
and returned to serving God as best they could in humanity's new
fallen state until the advent of the promised Redeemer, but such was
not their choice. By building an independent city and naming it after
his son instead of after his father, who transmitted to him life and
authority received from God, Cain broke radically with his
antecedents. Repudiating the natural framework erected for him
beforehand by God in the past, he set his hopes on an inchoate future
which disavowed all debt to his father, originating with his son,
fruit of his own loins. Cain, in other words, was not a
traditionalist, but a modernist, a purveyor of what is now known as a
"living tradition" which creates itself in accordance with changing
times and circumstances. Breaking radically with the past, he ignored
the hereditary principle by which God transmits authority from himself
downward from father to son.

Turning his eyes exclusively to the future, he sought to
reverse the natural law by transferring to children reared in his own
image, the duty he owed his parents. He would dedicate himself, not to
serving God, but to "leaving the world a better place" for his
progeny. Cain was the prototype of those parents who idolize their own
offspring as projections of themselves, mercilessly saddling them with
their own ambitions. By founding a city for himself which he named
after his son, Cain formally rejected the divine law laid down for
society in its beginnings. He would fulfill the divine injunction to
"increase and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and rule over.
. . all living creatures that move upon the earth" (Gen. 1:28), not
for the purpose of serving and glorifying God, but for that of
serving and glorifying himself by ordering society according to his
own way of thinking.

Dedicated to a utopian future of his own making, divorced
from the past and originating with himself, he could look forward to
assuming responsibility for "saving the environment," controlling the
weather, regulating population growth, equalizing the sexes,
safeguarding children's rights, eliminating poverty and doing all the
things designed to transform the fallen world into a neo-paradise. As
his own arbiter of morality he would, when expedient, declare evil
good by legitimizing vices. In other words, Cain was the father and
exemplar of modern democracy, which takes its authority only from man
and holds its elected representatives answerable to men rather than to
God.

The secular world government now in the making can trace
its line of descent directly to Cain, who, even before murdering his
brother Abel, had already declared his independence by opting to
worship God in his own way, making an offering of "fruits of the
earth" to which God "had no respect." Becoming "exceeding angry" at
the divine displeasure and envious of Abel, whose offering God had
accepted, Cain was reminded by God of the inviolable freedom of his
will: "Why art thou angry and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou
do well, shalt thou not receive? But if ill, shall not sin forthwith
be present at the door? But the lust thereof shall be under thee, and
thou shalt have dominion over it."

Refusing this merciful overture, Cain proceeded to the
slaughter of his brother and incurred God's curse, which greatly
increased the woes of his already fallen nature. The "culture of
death" had begun. Hereafter not only would he find the earth
unfruitful, but "a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be upon the
earth," with no fixed abode and bereft of saving grace. Going "out
from the face of the Lord" (Gen. 4:3-16), he broke off all
communication with heaven to begin constructing his utopia, the city
of Henoch which would turn out to be the prototype of all the
democratic secular states of the latter times, founded as they are on
the renouncement of hereditary authority derived from God.

Cain's aberration is, alas, inevitable once man turns away
from his Creator, for by virtue of being created in the divine image,
he craves to be like God by the very force of his nature. Programmed
to act in union with his divine exemplar, he wants to know, to love,
to enjoy, to judge, to rule, to create. In other words, he wants to do
everything God does. Man's incorporation into the Second Person of the
Blessed Trinity, made possible by the Incarnation in the fullness of
time, would only intensify these cravings, which can be wholly
satisfied only in the Beatific Vision. To reach this eternal goal,
however, God's image and likeness in us demands unqualified obedience
to the divine Original, to be "therefore perfect as also your heavenly
Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:48). That is why loving God with our
whole mind, soul and strength is the first and greatest of the
Commandments. Any willful desire to act like God apart from Him is
therefore the fundamental disobedience, the very essence of sin.

Nevertheless, always resembling God, even in our waywardness
we cannot do anything which does not somehow reflect the divine image
and likeness in which we were created. We still want to generate and
terminate life, to govern, to legislate, to reward and punish, to
organize and to measure out and distribute favors and goods as God
does, but to do so independently, not as His other Christs within the
divine plan, but as we see fit, according to our own earth-bound
vision of power and glory. Ultimately we turn to building our own
artificial world and manufacturing our own virtual reality. Enclosing
ourselves in a one-dimensional, horizontal universe from which that
other dimension, the hereditary vertical line to God, is ignored on
principle, we destroy all possibility of getting a proper perspective
on our real position in creation. Hereditary government, on the other
hand, is designed to preserve society in both its vertical and
horizontal dimensions, uniting the generations of men to one another
by uniting them all to God. It provides the political cement without
which society inevitably disintegrates into its myriad natural components.

Cain's uni-dimensional dream began coming to full flower in
the twentieth century under the name of Democracy. It is the only
political system the world has ever known which makes every man his
own sovereign by declaring him free and equal to all others, and thus
able to exercise tyranny over everyone else. Tage Lindbom, in The Myth
of Democracy, puts it thus: "There is nothing a priori, nothing
anterior to democratic power; no ideas of truth, no notions of good or
bad, can bind the Popular Will. This `will' is free in the sense that
it stands above all notions of value. It is egalitarian because it is
reared on arithmetic equality. In the traditional order there was a
qualitative duality, because there was a divine Source of power, a
higher Will that always allowed room for forgiveness, consolation,
charity. The Popular Will knows none of this; its sentences are
implacable. It is not open to any appeal, it listens to no demand for
grace, no plea for compassion. Like the Sphinx, the Popular Will is
immovable in its enigmatic silence. The democratic myth is now
complete in its sham `trinitarian' unity. Mankind is free, equal and
almighty."

How to escape the toils of Democracy? Lindbom writes, "The
retreat into private life is one of the main avenues of escapism; it
is the passive expression of the experience of powerlessness. But
another way of escapism expresses a more active and compensatory
attitude: this is when people experience great democratic leadership,
the charismatic aspect of the democratic myth. Powerlessness is never
better concealed than when people place themselves in the shadow of a
great leader, those momentous personas with whom the people can
identify. There are almost no limits to the generosity and the hopes
-- but also to the deceptions -- that the democratic masses invest in
their leaders, their father figures." [1]

Thus the natural law inevitably reasserts itself because of
every man's innate need of paternal authority, a fact which may serve
to explain why democratic governments dissolve so easily into
dictatorships. An outstanding example of this is Napoleon Bonaparte.
Rising to power by proclaiming "La Revolution c'est moi!" he embodied
all the principles of the democratic rebellion, but ended by placing
an imperial crown on his own head and establishing a hereditary
dynasty for his self-constructed new empire. This natural craving for
monarchy is what will eventually drive the world's most exuberant
godless democracies to acclaim the Antichrist as their supreme father
figure.

Today the universal acceptance of government separated from
religion has spread Cain's independent city over the whole earth. As
we have seen, not only civil organizations, but the Holy Catholic
Church herself has slipped within its political orbit now that two
conciliar Popes, following the lead of the Second Vatican Council,
have endorsed on three separate occasions the godless United Nations
as an international authority. In none of these momentous
declarations was the Universal Kingship of Christ the King, "appointed
heir of all things" (Heb. 1:2), mentioned even in passing as a
political factor, let alone acknowledged as the sole true hope of the
world.

To remind mankind of the proper order of human society, God
laid down the Fourth Commandment, telling Moses, "Honor thy father and
thy mother, that thou mayst be long-lived upon the land which the Lord
thy God will give thee" (Ex. 20: 12). There was no need to specify the
duties of parents towards their children, for they share with animals
the natural instinct to care for their young, and fallen nature, as
evident in the case of Cain, inclines readily enough to project its
selfish concerns onto those who take their source from us and to whom
we are in no way indebted for our own being. Only to the Fourth
Commandment does God attach a specific reward. To the "long life"
promised to filial piety both in this world and the next, the second
promulgation of the law in Deuteronomy adds as an extra incentive,
"that it may be well with thee," inferring political security and
tranquility as well.

Yet how many Catholics today exhibit Cain's strange
forward-thinking by maintaining that any debt they owe their parents
is discharged by the care they bestow on their offspring, on the
grounds that "the future belongs to the children" – as if times still
existing only in their imaginations automatically take precedence over
the past and the present, which have already taken definite shape or
are about to. St. Thomas, on the other hand, points out that our
first duty is actually to our parents, even before that to husband or
wife. There is no comparison between these obligations, for what we
owe our spouses or our children is limited, but to our parents we are
indebted under God for life itself, a gift which is eternal and can
never be entirely repaid either here or hereafter. We come into this
world forever indebted for our very existence, not to our descendants,
but to all our ancestors as we are to God.

The Fourth Commandment occupies a pivotal position in the
Decalogue. Standing after the strictures dealing directly with God
which were inscribed on the first tablet of the Law, it introduces
those dealing with our neighbor which were inscribed on the second.
Because, as the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches, natural
fathers "are, so to say, images of the immortal God," the Fourth
Commandment stands at the head of the second tablet in the name of all
those who represent Him in this life. "He that feareth the Lord
honoreth his parents, and will serve them as his masters that brought
him into the world" (Ecclus. 3:8). Inasmuch as "Those who govern the
state, to whom are entrusted power, magistracy or command are also
called fathers," as well as "those to whose care, fidelity, probity
and wisdom others are committed, such as teachers, instructors,
masters and guardians," or "aged men advanced in years," the Fourth
Commandment reduces all society to one extended family under God,
where the highest political virtue is obedience.

The Fourth Commandment was man's first written
Constitution, and it has never been superceded. Of divine
institution, it requires no amending to perfect it or bring it up to
date, for it is rooted in the natural law laid down by the Creator,
building not on the individual as the basic political cell of society,
but on the family. Because the family is a pyramidal organization
patterned on the Blessed Trinity, governed by a father at the head of
a mother and their offspring, there can be no question of "equality"
between its members. It follows that the ideal form of human
government is therefore monarchical, with a King at the head of a
Queen and their subjects, reproducing at its summit the same
hierarchical organization as that of its basic cells.

Writing to the King of Cyprus on kingship, St. Thomas
Aquinas forthrightly declared monarchy to be "the best of governments,
" a pronouncement ratified by Pope Pius VI in modern times in the
allocution he delivered on the occasion of the execution of Louis XVI
of France. St. Thomas says that inasmuch as "the welfare and safety
of a multitude formed into a society lies in the preservation of its
unity, which is called peace" and "it is manifest that what is itself
one can more efficaciously bring about unity than several . . .
therefore the rule of one man is more useful than the rule of many.
Furthermore it is evident that several persons could by no means
preserve the stability of the community if they totally disagreed. . .
. So one man rules better than several who come near to being one.

"Again, whatever is in accord with nature is best, for in
all things nature does what is best. Now, every natural governance is
governance by one. In the multitude of bodily members there is one
which is the principal mover, namely, the heart; and among the powers
of the soul one power presides as chief, namely, the reason. Among
bees there is one king [queen] bee and in the whole universe there is
one God, Maker and Ruler of all things. And there is a reason for
this. Every multitude is derived from unity. Wherefore, if artificial
things are an imitation of natural things and a work of art is better
according as it attains a closer likeness to what is in nature, it
follows that it is best for a human multitude to be ruled by one
person." This is why God "promises to His people as a great reward
that He will give them one head and that `one Prince will be in the
midst of them' (Ezech. 34:24; Jer. 30:21)."

St. Thomas only strengthens his case by pointing out that
if, according to Aristotle, "it is the contrary of the best that is
worst, it follows that tyranny is the worst kind of government. . . .
For the same reason that in a just government the government is better
in proportion as the ruling power is one -- thus monarchy is better
than aristocracy and aristocracy better than polity -- so the contrary
will be true of an unjust government, namely, that the ruling power
will be more harmful in proportion as it is more unitary. . . . Danger
thus lurks on every side. Either men are held by the fear of a tyrant
and they miss the opportunity of having that very best government
which is kingship; or they want a king and the kingly power turns into
tyrannical wickedness." To be delivered from tyrants, "the people must
desist from sin, for it is by divine permission that wicked men
receive power to rule as a punishment for sin." [2]

In the final analysis good government rests on the practice of filial
piety in all ranks of society. The Catechism of Trent says that "if
God promises rewards and blessings to grateful children, He also
reserves the heaviest chastisements to punish those who are wanting in
filial piety," and cites the old Law in support. Both Exodus and
Leviticus lay down, "He that curses his father or mother shall die the
death" (Ex. 21:17; Lev. 20:9). The Book of Proverbs says, "He that
afflicts his father and chases away his mother is infamous and
unhappy. . . . He that curses his father and mother, his lamp shall be
put out in the midst of darkness," and "The eye that mocks at his
father and that despises the labor of his mother in bearing him, let
the ravens of the brooks pick it out and the young eagles eat it!"
(19:26; 20:20; 30:17).

Proverbs also makes note of a "generation that curses their
father and does not bless their mother, a generation that are pure in
their own eyes, and yet are not washed from their filthiness, a
generation whose eyes are lofty, and their eyelids lifted up on high,
a generation that for teeth has swords and grinds with their jaw-teeth
to devour the needy from off the earth and the poor from among men"
(30:11:14). What better description of the modern state divorced from
the Church founded by God the Father to regulate it? There is no
reason to believe that the same punishments which fall on individuals
for infringements of the Fourth Commandment do not fall on the state
as well, where the sin of disobedience is all the more deadly for
being collective and committed in the name of freedom and civic virtue.

Mankind cannot plead ignorance of filial piety, because God
became incarnate in order to teach us himself how to practice it.
When on finding Him in the Temple after an unexplained absence of
three days, His blessed Mother asks her twelve year old divine Son the
reason for His untoward behavior, He replies by asking, "How is it
that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be about the things
that are my Father's?" (Luke 2:49). This is the very first utterance
of the Word made Flesh recorded in Scripture, and it reveals filial
obedience as the mainspring of the mission of the Second Person of the
Blessed Trinity as man on earth. This virtue not only underlies our
Lord's whole life from His Incarnation to His Ascension into heaven,
but by it was made possible our Redemption and ultimate glorification.
His very birth in Bethlehem, the city of His ancestor David, occurred
there as a result of His parents' obedience to Caesar's authority.

At the time He was found in the Temple, when He seems to
have been ready to embark on His public ministry, He stated clearly
what He would repeat constantly throughout His preaching in Galilee
and Judea, namely that His entire life on earth was lived in obedience
to His heavenly Father. Furthermore, that first public statement of
His mission as emissary of His Father, delivered in God's Temple while
yet a child, He illustrated on the spot by giving a concrete example
of obedience which could only have been meant for our instruction.
After telling us that His parents "understood not the word that he
spoke unto them," Scripture makes a point of the fact that "he went
down with them and came to Nazareth: and was subject to them."

Apparently there must have been some alternative to His
going home. Perhaps the brilliance of "his wisdom and his answers" to
the theologians among whom His parents found Him had opened up an
opportunity to remain In Jerusalem for study in the schools there. By
the age of twelve our Lord had furthermore attained his majority under
Jewish law, making it not inconceivable that as far as His human
will was concerned, He was not only disposed to begin His ministry at
this juncture, but was actually preparing to pursue it by listening to
the doctors "and asking them questions" (Luke 2:43 ff.). He does not
do so, however, but returns with his parents to Nazareth, recognizing
in their wishes the expression of the will of His heavenly Father.
If this were not so, why would Scripture lay so much emphasis on His
returning home and being subject to them, which under the
circumstances was only to be expected ?

In obedience to His Father's will our Lord lived the next
eighteen years in obscurity, presumably plying the carpenter's trade
He learned from St. Joseph. When He finally emerges into public view
on the banks of the Jordan, where He has come to be baptized by His
cousin St. John the Baptist, "Behold the heavens were opened to him:
and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and coming upon him,
and behold a voice from heaven saying: This is my beloved son, in whom
I am well pleased" (Matt. 3:16-17). From that point on, throughout
the three years of His public ministry until His death on the Cross,
our Lord never ceases emphasizing that everything He does and says is
in obedience to His Father:

To the Jews persecuting Him for healing on the Sabbath He
says, "My Father worketh until now, and I work. . . . Amen. amen, I
say unto you: the Son cannot do anything of himself, but what he seeth
the Father doing: for what things soever he doth, these the Son also
doth in like manner. . . . I can do nothing of myself. As I hear, so
I judge: and my judgment is just: because I seek not my own will, but
the will of him that sent me, (John 5:17, 19, 30). At the last Feast
of Tabernacles our Lord tells the Jews again, "My doctrine is not
mine, but his that sent me," and before entering on His Passion He
reminds His disciples, "The word which you have heard is not mine: but
the Father's who sent me. . . . As the Father hath given me
commandment, so I do. . . For I have not spoken of myself, but the
Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say and what
I should speak. . . The things therefore that I speak, even as the
father said unto me, so do I speak" (John 7:16; 14:24,31; 12:49-50).

Inasmuch as our Lord is not only the promised Redeemer, but
also the supreme model of the behavior God expects of man, created in
the divine image and therefore commanded to be nothing less than
"perfect as his heavenly father is perfect," we may deduce that any
declaration of independence on man's part spells automatic separation
from God. As the only begotten Son of God the Father, Jesus Christ is
the divine epitome of hereditary monarchy, of the derivation of
authority from above by filiation. He is the universal ruler because
He is by nature God's Son, who receives "all power . . . in heaven and
in earth" (Matt. 28:18) from His Father. Even we as ordinary
Christians can participate in the divine life only by way of
filiation, becoming God's children by adoption. "And if sons, heirs
also: heirs indeed of God and joint heirs with Christ . . . the
firstborn amongst many brethren" (Rom. 8:17, 29).

St. Paul points out that even as Man our Lord derives His authority
as the scion of a hereditary human monarchy, "of the seed of David,
according to the flesh," (Rom. 1:3). The Sacred Humanity itself was
descended from a divinely established royal line of kings destined to
endure forever, for God had sworn to its progenitor David, "Thy seed
will I settle for ever, and I will build up thy throne unto generation
and generation" (Ps. 88:4). Even after this monarchy lost its temporal
rule over Israel, an angel is sent from heaven to announce His birth
to Mary, a princess of the Davidic line espoused to Joseph, one of its
princes. The angel tells her that her Child "shall be great and shall
be called the Son of the most High, and the Lord God shall give unto
him the throne of David, his father: and he shall reign in the house
of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end" (Luke
1:32-33).

Thirty-three years later, about to be crucified, this royal
Son of God testifies to the truth of the angel's words by telling the
Roman Procurator who sentenced Him, "I am a king. For this was I born,
and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to
the truth" (John 18:37). Before the civil authority He declares
himself to be the universal king beheld by the prophet Daniel "in the
vision of the night," to whom God gave "power and glory and a kingdom:
and all peoples, tribes and tongues shall serve him: his power is an
everlasting power that shall not be taken away: and his kingdom that
shall not be destroyed. . . . And that the kingdom and power and the
greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven may be given to the
people of the saints of the most High: whose kingdom is an everlasting
kingdom, and all kings shall obey him" (Dan. 7:14,27).

Before this can take place, however, Daniel foresaw the rise
of a contender for the title of universal kingship, one who "shall
speak words against the most High One and shall crush the saints of
the most High: and he shall think himself able to change times and
laws, and they shall be delivered into his hand until a time, and
times, and half a time" (Dan. 7:25). This enemy's rule our Lord
clearly predicted to the unbelieving Jews when after telling them, "I
am come in the name of my Father and you receive me not," He added,
"If another shall come in his own name him you shall receive," (John
5:43). In other words, our Lord pinpoints autonomous, self-appointed
rule as the hallmark of the anti-Christ king to come. Acting "in his
own name," the Antichrist will be recognized by the fact that he will
rule independently, outside the great royal dynasty which God
established for himself under David, which produced the Sacred
Humanity of the Messiah and which there is no reason to believe has
not survived until now. Psalm 88 expressly records the solemn
promise, confirmed many times in Scripture, which God made to David:

"I have found David, my servant: with my holy oil I have
anointed him. . . And I will make him my first-born, high above the
kings of the earth. I will keep my mercy for him forever: and my
covenant faithful to him. And I will make his seed to endure for
evermore: and his throne as the days of heaven: and if his children
forsake my law and walk not in my judgments: if they profane my
justices and keep not my commandments: I will visit their iniquities
with a rod and their sin with stripes. But my mercy I will not take
away from him nor will I suffer my truth to fail. Neither will I
profane my covenant: and the words that proceed from my mouth I will
not make void. Once have I sworn by my holiness: I will not lie unto
David: HIS SEED SHALL ENDURE FOREVER. (vs. 21-36).

In Ascendances Davidiques des Rois de France, the Marquis
de la Franquerie says, "Thus God swore an irrevocable oath to David
that his descendants would reign till the end of time, and the terms
of this renewed oath are such that they apply not only in the double
mystical and real sense to the person of Christ, the Son of God, God
himself, who in fact will reign eternally, but to the racial line
itself. What happened to them? What throne do the descendants of
David and those kings who ruled over the chosen people of the Old
Testament occupy?" This throne would be that of France, a nation
which, according to Pope Gregory IX was prefigured by the ancient
tribe of Judah.

Over the centuries a strong tradition has persisted that
Clovis, the first of the French kings, whose reign marked the
beginning of the Holy Roman Empire, was indeed a descendant of David.
Researching the bases of the tradition, the Marquis unearthed evidence
that the line of David survived the Babylonian conquest in the four
daughters of Sedecias, the last ruling king of Judah. One of these,
Tea-Tephi, married Heremon, a collateral descendant of David's line,
and this royal couple were the progenitors of the early kings of
Ireland and Scotland and eventually of all the Christian kings of
Europe from Clovis on down. That the French monarchy, beginning with
the Merovingians and passing collaterally to the Carolingians and
Capetians, is the only royal family in world history to have ruled in
an unbroken salic succession of males for over 1300 years, argues
for extraordinary divine predilection, to say the least. Not to
mention the fact that on one occasion God himself intervened in the
person of St. Joan of Arc to preserve the integrity of the line when
it was threatened by absorption into that of the English.

St. Remi, the Apostle of the Franks, had been appointed
papal legate to the French nation newly constituted under Clovis by
Pope St. Hormisdas, who wrote him, "We confer on you all our powers
for the entire kingdom of our dear spiritual son Clovis, whom by the
grace of God you have converted along with his whole nation by an
apostolate and miracles worthy of the days of the Apostles." At the
Baptism of his convert Clovis, St. Remi had declared prophetically,
"Know that the kingdom of France is predestined by God for the defense
of the Roman Church, which is the only true Church of Christ. . . .
This kingdom shall one day be great among all others. It will include
the limits of the Roman Empire and will submit all peoples to its
scepter. . . . It will endure until the end of time. It will be
victorious and prosper as long as it is faithful to the Roman faith,
but it will be severely chastised whenever it is unfaithful to its
vocation." He ended with these words: "May from this race arise kings
and emperors who, confirmed in truth and justice now and in the future
according to the Lord's will for the extension of Holy Church, will
reign and increase daily in power, thus deserving to sit on the throne
of David in the heavenly Jerusalem, where they will reign with the
Lord throughout eternity. Amen."

Beginning with Clovis' royal consecration as "Christ's
lieutenant" with a holy oil miraculously produced on the occasion and
administered by St. Remi in Reims Cathedral in 476, the kings of
France are the only monarchs to have been thus chrismated. The Marquis
de la Franquerie writes, "Only for the kings of France did the Church
institute the ceremony of consecration which rendered them God's
representatives in the temporal order and heads of all other
sovereigns. She declared them -- which is true historically -- the
elder sons of the Church. The special liturgy she instituted is quite
remarkable, as well as the prescribed prayers." For instance: "May
the king be honored over the kings of other nations. . . . May he be
the most powerful of kings. . . . May successors to his throne be born
from him throughout the ages to come."

Speaking of the king of France in his commentary on the First Book of
Kings, Pope St. Gregory the Great wrote, "The king receives the
sacrament of anointing, because anointing is indeed a sacrament."
According to the Abbé Bayot in a study written on the bicentennial of
the death of Louis XV, "The royal consecration attaches the royal
power to the sovereignty of Jesus Christ and thus makes of it the
pedestal of the divine Monarchy, which is unique and universal. It is
the sanctification of that organ and that function." And the
scholarly Benedictine Dom Besse declared, "The consecration made the
Prince a man of the Church, his sovereignty appearing to be a holy
function."

Constituted a quasi-bishop in the temporal order, the French
king was therefore appropriately clad for his coronation in a deacon's
dalmatic and was for centuries recognized by the other rulers of
Christendom as their suzerain. A decree of the Republic of Venice in
1558 gives as the commonly accepted reason for his preeminence the
fact that he was anointed by an oil come down from heaven. It is
worth noting that the constitutional monarchs who were for a time
installed on the French throne after the execution of Louis XVI may
have been ceremonially crowned (as was even Napoleon), but they were
never anointed or consecrated by any prelate of the Holy Catholic Church.

The only exception was Charles X, the Duke of Artois, younger brother
of Louis XVI, who was properly consecrated at Reims by the Archbishop
in 1825. The last of the true French kings, he was soon forced to
abdicate by the revolution of 1830, but heaven bore witness to his
legitimacy by curing through his royal touch the first eleven victims
of scrofula who according to ancient tradition presented themselves to
him on the occasion. The power to cure this disease, known as "the
king's evil," was a charism bestowed on the royal line beginning
with its founder Clovis. Exercised for centuries, it always proved
miraculously effective, provided only that the monarch was in the
state of grace.

Popes from Clovis' contemporary Athanasius II on down
formally acknowledged the preeminence of France as the eldest daughter
of the Church. St. Gregory the Great said, "The kings of France are as
much above other sovereigns as are sovereigns above ordinary
individuals." Long after the French Revolution, at a Consistory on
November 29, 1911 during which four French prelates were elevated to
the Cardinalate, St. Pius X prophesied that "the people who made an
alliance with God at the baptismal font of Reims will repent and
return to her original vocation. . . Her faults will not go
unpunished, but she shall never perish. . . ." To this day an
abundance of prophecies circulates concerning a Great Monarch of the
divinely instituted royal line who, in conjunction with a Great Pope,
will restore Christian order in the world after the demise of the
Antichrist. The fact remains that the death of Louis XVI's little son
the Dauphin not only has yet to be proved, but there is considerable
evidence that he survived to adulthood and left numerous progeny whose
descendants are very much alive today.

It is only to be expected that like God His Father, God the
Son would never delegate His power as Christ the King by way of
popular election, but only by filiation, as His own power was
received. Because it is based on the family, the divinely instituted
natural basis of society, true royalty rests securely on both divine
and natural law. It follows that human institutions which are based on
the family and promote it are consonant with God's will and can expect
to receive His blessing; whereas those which are not based on it, in
many cases even presuming to war against it, are doomed to disappear
simply because they are contrary to natural law and the will of God.
Existing outside ordained reality, the principle of death is in them.
Christ the Universal King clearly manifested His will when He set up
His temporal world government on a divinely instituted monarchy
perpetuated through one family chosen from on high to produce the
world's rulers, be they kings or emperors. This was the Holy Roman
Empire of Christendom, now fallen for a time to its satanic
counterpart, Universal Democracy, which takes as its sole authority
"We, the People," whom it has declared free, equal and independent of
God.

In 1978 the Marquis de la Franquerie was made privy to a
collection of letters written in 1972 by one of Bl. Padre Pio's
confidants and secretaries. Therein the saint was quoted as saying,
"Without the royal power of David, the Church is falling into
decadence under the power of the serpent's spirit, which is raising
its proud head over that of the head of the Church. . . . The royal
power is a divine power which brings down serpents. Republics on the
other hand raise up the serpent spirits which sacrifice the people of
God, preventing them from raising themselves to the God of heaven. . .
. This is Europe's sickness today under the republics."

According to the writer of the letters, "Padre Pio knew that
France holds concealed a power which will reveal itself at the
appointed hour. Only the royal power, the one God gave David, is
capable of regulating the government of the peoples. Without the royal
power of David, duly recognized and set in its proper place, Padre
used to tell me, the Christian religion lacks the indispensable
support on which to rest the truth of God's Word. Men's madness
attempted to kill royalty. The world is still paying for it today,
because without the true king promised by God from among David's
descendants, God's power no longer abides in the hearts of ministers
and heads of state. But Satan draws advantage from replacing the royal
power of the living David. How great will be the world's misfortune
before men realize this truth! The truth today is to be found with a
few chosen, hidden men, but in these men reside all the powers of the
living God, who wishes and is able to destroy all usurpers of true
power."

[1] Tage Lindbom, The Myth of Democracy, Eerdsmann Publishing Co.,
Grand Rapids, Mich., 1996, pp. 85, 88-89.

22.1.08

The death Of Louis XVI

Due to my not posting due to illness I neglected to post on the martyrdom of His Most Christian Majesty, Louis XVI, I apologize and by way of making itright. I will redirect you to my friend Elena-Maria Vidal. From whom I borrow from all too much but her eloquence and prose is much better than mine. Read the articles listed at the end of her post as well.






January 21, Saint Agnes day, is the dies natalis of the Roi-Martyr, when two hundred and fourteen years ago, Louis XVI was taken from the Temple prison to be guillotined. more


(above left)...Coronation painting of
Louis XVI, King of France and Navarre


Vive le Roy!
Vive le Roy!
Vive le Roy!

de Brantigny

Sick

I have been sick since last Friday, probably with the flu and Iam sure I will die soon, mercifully. I haven't posted since and I am sorry. i do have two in the works.

de Brantigny

Liturgy reform: No going back

Ok, Now I know the real reason... This is not tongue in cheek this is a real editorial. My comments are mine. I am posting this, and sickened at the same time.

http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2007d/122807/122807u.htm

Issue Date: December 28, 2007

Liturgy reform: No going back

When the definitive history of the Second Vatican Council is finally written, beyond all squabbles over the council’s actual intent, one undisputed fact will stand -- that taking up the draft for the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy as the first focus of debate had a decisive impact on the tone and direction the council took in all its subsequent deliberations. Though the discussion was liturgy, the real subject was ecclesiology (Oh!)-- the church’s understanding of itself.

By invoking the church in biblical terms as the pilgrim people of God and as the body of Christ, Vatican II set the stage for a crucial shift away from the juridical “perfect society” embodied in the unabashedly monarchical church of Trent. (Oh!) Nowhere would this be reflected more clearly than in the way the church prayed. The throne room protocols of the Tridentine Mass, the elevations, barriers, brocade, structures and language separating clergy from laity gave way to a worshiping community in which all the baptized were called to full, conscious, active participation. A new way of worshiping marked the beginning of the end of the vertical ecclesiology that for 500 years had shaped every aspect of the church’s life and ministry around hierarchical and clerical preeminence. (Away from the vertical? Huh?) The council carried the same biblical imagery and expansive approach into the major constitutions on the church and the church in the modern world.

For those who still ask if any of this matters and who might care, the recent book by Archbishop Piero Marini looking back over his 20 years as the personal liturgical planner for Pope John Paul II and, until recently, Benedict XVI, gives a glimpse into the tensions within the inmost circle of church leadership over liturgy as an expression of church identity on the world stage. Marini, most eloquent in his support of Vatican II reforms, managed to survive as the chief choreographer of events at which John Paul II presided. Those events were often richly inculturated, inclusive and ecumenical liturgies marked by full participation by the laity. John Paul II, known for his love of theater, evidently acceded to Marini and was in the end blessed by a remarkable funeral under Marini’s direction. (So that was the reason, and all along I thought he had been Pope! Dopey me! DOH!)

If liturgy has characteristically been below the radar for most Catholics, opponents of Vatican II knew from the outset that the one way to preserve Trent was to halt liturgical reform. To look back over the 42 years since the close of the council is to see that progress in the reform has been real but slow, and to admit that any awakening of Catholic laity to their full baptismal identity is still in the future. At the same time, those devoted at many levels to a pre-Vatican II model of the church have worked hard to bring down many aspects of liturgical reform. Frustrating the process of vernacular translations, crimping the rubrics for Mass to accentuate the ordained and, most recently, restoring the Tridentine rite, (He is the Pope right?) are among the more visible signs of successful retrenchment. (Not to mention it is most a beautiful and worshpful litergy, which lifts the soul skyward. But who am I? Not but a retrenching tool![pun intended])

But there really is no turning back. “Vatican II helped us to rediscover the idea of the priesthood as something universal,” Marini said in an interview. “The faithful don’t receive permission from priests to participate in the Mass. They are members of a priestly people, which means they have the right to participate in offering the sacrifice of the Mass. This was a great discovery, a great emphasis, of the council. We have to keep this in mind, because otherwise we run the risk of confusion about the nature of the liturgy, and for that matter, the church itself.”

What they have always known in Rome is important for all of us to know: Liturgy is the visible expression of the arrangement of power. (Oh!) The 2,500 bishops of Vatican II, perhaps surprising themselves, began the process of opening up the church to its own members and to the world. We all have a say in the kind of church we are. The reform of the church was a struggle worth undertaking more than 40 years ago, and it is a challenge each of us, in our own way and in our own faith communities, should prize and not lose sight of today

Emphasis is mine.

...And now I understand. It is just all about empowerment and a new way to worship.

de Brantigny