24.9.10

The Baptismal gown of St Louis IX

A treasure of our Church. I have had many arguements with family members who claim that the Church could end poverty if it only would sell off it's riches. my answer is and has always been, who could afford it, and if they can afford it why didn't they use that money to end poverty? Here is an obscure post from a Catholic Blog, Gypsy at Heart... I have used some of the article

The treasury of Notre Dame ...is filled with ornate gold reliquaries dating between the 11th and 17th centuries, St. Louis' white robe and religious chain, huge wooden vestment cabinets painted with colorful scenes from St. Louis' life, and a collection of tiny ivory cameos of every Pope from St. Peter to Pope Benedict XVI...

Jhesu+Marie,
Brantigny

How the King behaved himself towards the poor and towards men of religion


The life of Saint Louis IX instructs us in what it means to be a Christian Monarch, and a father.

Jean Sieur de Joinville relates:

...THE King loved God and His sweet Mother so well that if anybody within his reach used any foul language or lewd oath about God or His Mother, the King caused them to be very severely punished. For this I saw him cause a goldsmith at Cesarea to be put on a ladder in his shirt and breeches, with the entrails of a pig hung round his neck, right up to his ears. I heard say, after I returned from over-seas that he had a burgher of Paris seared through the nose and lips for the same offence, but I did not see it. And the holy King said, " I would gladly be branded with a hot iron, on condition that all lewd oaths were done away with out of my kingdom."

I was about twenty-two years in his company; and never heard him swear by God, nor by His Mother nor by His Saints; but whenever he wanted to affirm anything, he used to say, " Truly it was thus," or " Truly it shall be thus."

Never did I hear him name the devil, unless it were in some book where the name came in, or in the life of the Saints of whom the book was speaking. And a great disgrace it is to the realm of France, and to the King who allows it, that a man can hardly open his lips without saying " Deuce take it!" and a great abuse it is of language to devote to the devil a man or woman who was given to God at baptism. In the household of Joinville, whoever uses such an expression, pays for it with a buffet or a slap, and such bad language has been almost entirely put down.

Before he went to bed, he used to send for his children, and would tell them stories of the deeds of good kings and emperors; and he used to tell them that they must take example by people such as these. He would tell them too, about the deeds of wicked rich men, who by their lechery and their rapine and their avarice, had lost their kingdoms. "And these things," he used to say, " I tell you as a warning to avoid them, lest you incur the anger of God."

He had them taught the Hours of Our Lady, and caused the Hours for the Day to be repeated to them, in order to give them the habit of hearing their Hours when they should come into their estates.

The King was so liberal an almsgiver, that wherever he went throughout his kingdom, he made gifts to poor churches, to lazar-houses, to alms houses, to asylums, and to poor gentlemen and gentlewomen.

From his childhood up, he was compassionate towards the poor and the suffering; and it was the custom that, wherever he went, six score poor should always be replenished in his house with bread and wine, and meat or fish every day. In Lent and Advent, the number was increased, and many a time the King would wait on them, and place their meat before them, and would carve their meat before them, and with his own hand would give them money when they went away.

Likewise on the high vigils of solemn feasts, he would serve the poor with all these things, before he either ate or drank.

Besides all this, he had every day old broken-down men to dine and sup with him, and had them served with the same food that he himself was eating. And when they had feasted, they took away with them a certain sum of silver.

Over and above all these things, the King used every day to give large and liberal alms to poor men of religion, to poor asylums, to the sick poor, and all sorts of poor colleges, to poor gentlemen and married women and spinsters, to fallen women, to poor widows, and to women in child-bed, and to such poor as by reason of old age or sickness were unable to labour or pursue their trade in number past all telling. So that we may say that he was herein more fortunate than Titus, Emperor of Rome, of whom old writers tell us, that he was passing sorrowful and downcast, because of one day in which he had conferred no benefit.

He asked me whether I washed the feet of the poor on Shrove Thursday; and I replied No, that I thought it unseemly. And he told me that I ought not to contemn it, for God had done it. "For you would find it very hard to do what the King of England does, who washes the feet of lepers and kisses them."

When any of the benefices of Holy Church escheated to the King, before bestowing it, he would first take counsel with good persons of religion and others; and after consultation he would bestow the benefices in good faith, honourably and according to God. Nor would he give any benefice to any cleric, unless he resigned all the other Church benefices that he might hold.

In all the towns of his realm where he had never been before, he would seek out the Preachers and Grey Friars, if there were any, and desire their prayers.

From the very first, when he came into his kingdom and to years of discretion, he began building monasteries and various religious houses, amongst which the Abbey of Royaumont bears the palm for eminence and renown.

He founded the Abbey of St. Anthony near Paris; and the Abbey of St. Matthew of Rouen, into which he put women of the order of Preaching Friars; and that of Longchamp for women of the Minorite order; and endowed them highly. He allowed his mother to found the Abbey of Liz by Melun-sur-Seine, and that of Pontoise, which is called Maubuisson.

He founded several almshouses: the Almshouse of Paris, that of Pontoise, and that of Compiegne and of Vernon, and endowed them highly; besides the Grey Friars Nunnery of St. Cloud, which his sister, my Lady Isabel, founded by his leave.

Also he founded the Blind Asylum near Paris to receive the blind of the city of Paris, and had a chapel built for them to hear divine service. And the good King built the Charterhouse outside Paris, and assigned sufficient revenues to the monks who dwelt there for the service of Our Lord. Shortly afterwards he had another house built outside Paris, which was called the House of the Daughters of God, and caused a great number of women to be boarded there, who by reason of poverty had fallen into the sin of wantonness, and granted them four hundred pounds' worth of revenue to support them. Also in many places of his kingdom he founded houses of female Begouins, and gave them revenues to live upon, and gave orders to admit such as gave promise of a chaste life.

Some of his kindred used to grumble at his liberal almsgiving, and because he spent so much on this kind of thing; but he used to say: " I would much rather be extravagant in alms, for the love of God, than in the pomp and vainglories of this world."

Yet, though the King spent so much in charity, his daily household expenses were none the less very great. He lived in a free and open-handed style at the parliaments and assemblies of barons and knights; and the hospitality at his Court was so courteous, generous, and plentiful that nothing like it had been known for a long time past at the courts of his predecessors.

The King loved all people who devoted themselves to the service of God and wore the religious habit, and all such as came to him were secure of a livelihood. He made provision for the Brethren of Carmel, and bought them a site on the banks of the Seine in the direction of Charenton; and he built a house for them, and bought them vestments and chalices and all the things needful for performing divine service.

Next, he provided for the Austin Friars, and bought them a grange belonging to a burgher of Paris, with all its appurtenances, outside the gate of Montmartre, and had it turned into a monastery for them.

He provided for the Brethren of the Bag, and granted them a site on the Seine, over against St. Germain des Prés, where they took up their quarters; but they did not stay long there, for they were soon suppressed.

When the Brethren of the Bag were provided for, another sort of Brotherhood sprang up, called the " Order of White Mantles," and demanded that the King should help them to settle in Paris; and to harbour them he bought them a house and several old sites round about, close to the old Temple Gate at Paris, not far from the Weavers' quarter. These White Monks were put down by the Council of Lyons, that Gregory X held.

Again there came a new sort of Friars, who entitled themselves " Brethren of the Holy Cross," and wore the cross on their breasts; and they begged the King to help them. The King did so readily, and lodged them in a street called Temple Crossing, which nowadays is called the street of the Holy Cross.

Thus did the good King fence about the city of Paris with men of religion...


God help our noble Duc d'Angou. Grant him a long life and restoration to the ancient throne of France.

Dieu le Roy!
Brantigny
Coupled with the next post below it will seem that I am bashing Anglicans and Muslims. I am not. I post this in the spirit of Christian love. I am not advocating the burning of qur'ans, or going to war on Anglicans, but my message is ecumenical. Not the new ecumenism of V-II of embracing the differences and acknowledging the similarities, but the ecumenism which welcomed the sinner and dwelt on conversion.

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: I want you to take a good look at this picture. Besides it being an outstanding photo of our fantastic pope, I want you to take special notice of his gentle non-threatening gaze, as well as the stole worn around his neck.

A stole is a large piece of cloth worn around a clerics neck. It is a symbol of his ministry and spiritual authority. It is modeled after the Jewish prayer cloth called a tallit. The tradition obviously comes down to us from the apostolic age, as Jewish apostles wore tallitot (plural for tallit) while preaching the gospel to Gentiles. This is why the stole is seen as a symbol of authority to Christians.

Anyway, this particular photograph is very interesting because you see the pope was sitting in Westminster Abbey, when it was taken, where he was to address the spiritual leaders of the Church of England. Westminster Abbey is the primary place of worship for Anglicans. It's sort of like the Anglican answer to St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. The stole he wore around his neck was not his normal stole. It was the one worn by Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903 AD). Pope Leo XIII was the pope who elevated John Henry Newman to the office of cardinal-deacon, so since the pope would beatify Cardinal John Henry Newman two days later, it somewhat explains his use of Pope Leo's stole. However, there is a deeper symbolism here, and this pope is well known for teaching through symbols. Pope Leo XIII was also known as the pope who officially declared Anglican religious orders invalid...


...Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.-- Apostolicae Curae, 36...

I will welcome the joining of the Anglican communion with the Catholic church. My thoughts are this, where will those who left the church for personal convenience go to if that happens.

God will sort this out. Hopefully it will be in my lifetime.

Jhesu+Marie,
Brantigny

Update, Islam, religion of peace

I could only imagine the reaction that the Church would receive if the Pope called for a new crusade... and yet the world has to put up with this...

Mohammedan cleric calls for beheading Dutch politician

...Just a few short weeks ago, a rather obscure pastor in Florida, Terry Jones, calls for a public burning of the koran.

Cries of condemnation came from all quarters. From both Republican and Democrat politicians (to include the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton); to the US Commander on Afghanistan, General David Petraeus; to foreign governments; to mobs of mohammedan thugs threatening 'Holy War', other than the one currently under way against The Great Satan.

But when Australian-born moslem cleric Feiz Muhammad calls for the beheading of Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders, very few eyebrows were raised by the very same politcians, military leader foreign governments or mobs.

This particular cleric of peace has stated that Wilders is "this Satan, this devil, this politician in Holland." He also went on to say that anyone who talks about Islam like Wilders has done, deserves to be executed by beheading.

Wilders Freedom Party produced the 2008 film Fitna which accuses islam of inciting violence and has included images of terrorist attacks with koranic quotations...


More...

Religion of Peace?

Jhesu+Marie
Brantigny

21.9.10

Imperial Women's Order of St. Anastasia

August 20, 2010 Head of the Russian Imperial House H.I.H. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna established the Imperial Women's Order of St. Anastasia and approved its Statute.

The Order was established in honour of the Holy Great Martyr Anastasia, who was executed for confessing the Christian faith in 304 during the persecution of Emperor Diocletian, and in memory of the namesake of her first queen of the Romanov Anastasia Romanova (1530 - Moscow, 7 / 20 August 1560).

Daughter of Roman Yurevich Zakhar'in - St George and Ulihi Feodorovna, Anastasia Romanova 3 / 16 February 1547 entered into a marriage with Tsar John IV Terrible. Her marriage to the Tsar was predicted by St. Gennady of Kostroma. She was crowned Holy marriage by Metropolitan of Moscow Macarius. Queen Anastasia exerted a beneficial influence on John IV and enjoyed his warm love and deep respect. First their son Prince Dimitri was killed during the pilgrimage of the royal family in Ferapontov Monastery in 1553. In 1554 Queen Anastasia produced the Tsarevich John, who was killed in 1581. 31 May 1557 Anastasia Romanova gave birth to the future St. Tsar Theodore I Ioannovich. Anastasia Romanova suddenly fell seriously ill in Mozhaisk autumn 1559, and after much agonizing suffering, died in Moscow on 7 / 20 August 1560.

Jhesu+Marie,
Brantigny

20.9.10

Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and Mary Magdelen all "bapstised into the Mormon Church"

Researcher Helen Radkey has discovered what she believes to be records for proxy temple ordinances performed on behalf of Mary (Jesus’ mother), Jesus Christ, and Mary Magdalene. Ms. Radkey writes,

“’Mary Mother of Jesus,’ the spouse of ‘Joseph’ ‘of the House of David…’ was baptized and confirmed a member of the LDS Church by proxy on December 9, 2009 in the Idaho Falls Idaho (LDS) Temple. She was subjected to initiatory temple ordinances on December 16, 2009; an endowment ceremony on December 26, 2009; and a sealing to parents on January 7, 2010—all rites occurred in the Idaho Falls Idaho Temple.”

While Ms. Radkey found “Joseph” listed as Mary’s spouse, the submission form indicated Mary’s “Husband #1″ was “God the Father.”

Ms. Radkey says her research also turned up recent proxy temple ordinances on behalf of Jesus Christ, though he is identified in the records as “Jesus Christian” and “Jesus Cristian.” Ms. Radkey explains the records show that Jesus was baptized by proxy on April 8, 2010, and after initiatory and endowment ordinances, was finally sealed to his “spouse” “Mary Magdelena” on April 9, 2010 – all at the Salt Lake City Temple. The same proxy ordinances were performed for “Mary Magdelena” on the same dates in the same LDS temple.

Ms. Radkey found a record for “Heavenly Father” as well:

“There was a separate listing in New Family Search, on March 2, 2010, for ‘Heavenly Father’ with his ‘personal identifier’ given as 21JV-899. Details of any marriage sealing of ‘Heavenly Father’ to ‘[The Virgin] Mary [The Virgin]‘ were marked ‘Not available.’ Individual LDS ordinances for ‘Heavenly Father,’ like baptism, confirmation, initiatory and endowment rituals, were tagged ‘Needs more information.’

“By March 10, 2010, roughly a week later, the name of ‘Heavenly Father’ had vanished from record 21JV-899, and ‘Heavenly Father’ was no longer listed as Mary’s spouse on record 9HFF-PVQ for ‘[The Virgin] Mary [The Virgin].’ …

“Record 21JV-899 for ‘Heavenly Father’ now shows ‘[Unknown Name] (-) Living.’ The LDS ordinance section of this entry currently reads: ‘This individual is living, and his or her ordinances cannot be displayed. To obtain this information, have the person contact his or her ward or branch clerk.’”

I would be surprised if the LDS Church approved (or would ever approve) proxy temple ordinances for Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ, so please don’t misunderstand me to be suggesting that these records and ordinances had official sanction. However, doesn’t this make you wonder?

■What led any Mormon to think and act on the notion that Jesus Christ needs proxy temple ordinances like baptism by the “proper authority,” endowments, and temple marriage? According to Mormonism, if Jesus is a god he’s already obtained those essential requirements for exaltation, hasn’t he?
■Why would Jesus’ mother need proxy ordinances performed on her behalf? If temple ordinances were part of the early Christian church (as the LDS Church claims) wouldn’t Mary have participated in her own ordinances while she was living?
■What would cause someone to identify Mary’s “husband #1″ as God the Father? Is this the logical conclusion to which a Mormon has come based on the teachings of Brigham Young and other early LDS leaders?
■As Ms. Radkey asks, “Why was ‘Heavenly Father’ listed in New FamilySearch—not only as the spouse of Mary—but as a living being who could possibly need LDS ordinances?

Does LDS doctrine naturally lead to this kind of thinking about God?


When someone takes a brick out of the teachings of the Church, one has to remove also the brick which supported that removed brick. Eventually you no longer have a church teaching because all the bricks have been removed. When that happens you just make it up as you go along.

This is some pretty shakey theology. I'm pretty sure that Jesus got Baptised by John the Baptist. I read that... in Scripture.

Jhesu+Marie,
Priez per nous.
Brantigny

This article is from a non-Catholic non Mormon site, owned by a former member of the LDS, called Mormon Coffee