6.9.12

Democracy

I originally posted this in 2008, but as this election time returns I dug it out brushed it off and now repost it. It is not a comfortable nor popular position to take, however I feel it is a right one.

I also add this: In speaking to the author Carlos Caso Rosendi he told me that he has overheard priest speaking of Exorcisms that they had performed, and they have arrived at the idea that for every abortion committed Satan uses the blood as a key to unleash a demon from the pit. To which I make this observation: It was by a vote of 5 to 4 that the "right" to an abortion was "discovered" in the constitution.

Brantigny

Let us consider for a moment this postulation…

God’s plan of the created world may be described by a series of triangles, each one subordinate to the one above but sharing in similarities, that of having a base, and an apex..

The first and largest triangle is that of all Creation. At the apex is God, creator of the universe, and the base is his creation which (we believe) God created and all in it. While many would not have a problem with this description there are those who are atheistic, who do not (and obstinately will not) believe this. This teaching has been central to Christians, Jews and Muslims. This teaching also been challenged from time to time by Satan, from the very beginning. I will expound on this and its effects later.

The next triangle is that of the Church, with the Pope at its apex and the Church as its base. We see the apexes of these two triangles are directly below one another, and a vertical line may be drawn from God to the Pope which indicates Papal authority. Again while the truly faithful have no problem with this, the dissenters within and from without the Church including other Christian ecclesiastical communities argue that the Pope is merely a figurehead and that he is just the Bishop of Rome. They may even argue that he is the successor of Peter but is no more of an authority than any other Bishop. The attack on Papal authority began in earnest in 1154 with the Great Schism, through the Protestant Reformation (by Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, etc.) the American and most notably the French Revolution (i.e. Civil Constitution of the Clergy, destruction of religious orders, killing of Priests and religious, and attacks on the faithful of the Vendee ), Communist revolutions, (where the secular government is officially atheistic) to the “Me generation”, (free love and modernism), and the pressing for Priestesses by women, media and liberals.

The third triangle is that of the Crown. The apex is the King (or Queen, depending on the nation) with its base the national family. Again, a vertical line may be drawn from God through the Pope (and Church) to the triangle of the Crown. This line is indicative of the relationship between God and the Crowned head of a nation. It insinuates that this relationship is ordained by God for the governance of the subjects and that the Crown is responsible for those subjects to God.

The fourth and last triangle is the family triangle. The apex is the father. The base is the family and the children in that family. Again the line is drawn from God to the father of the family as the head of the household. I realize that in today’s society where the father is absent either by divorce, abandonment, dereliction, or unnatural circumstances he may not be viewed as the head of the family, this does not make him less so; on the contrary it increases his culpability to God.

Each of these relationships is a microcosm of the one above it. Therefore, logically it must be assumed that this is the model for mankind as ordained by God. Each has been in its turn been attacked by satan and each has suffered from these attacks to a greater or lesser degree. These attacks continue.

Let us begin with the first, the attack on God’s Creation. It began as Holy Scripture relates, in the Garden of Eden. When satan persuaded Eve to eat the “…fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise...” “...your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.”(1)In other words, Satan persuaded Adam and Eve that they really had no need of the God who had created them. The triangle was turned upside down for them (and us until Baptism) where their god is whatever and whomever they choose. This first attempt to change the direction of the triangle from pointing up to pointing down is a recurring feature of the attacks by satan on creation and on social order. It was this attack which set the tone for all future attacks, that of supplanting God with the creature and of assuming the authority of God for oneself.

Today we are beset with those who would challenge Gods authority by rationalism, by claiming all things are equal, or by replacing God with a society which lionizes the person, popularity, and possessions over God. This is a society where God is minimilized in order to elevate the status of mankind to exalted positions. Once again we see the triangle inverted. Too often these persons are exalted because they espouse popular (but false) teachings and ideas, lead a perverse lifestyle, challenge authority, or are in the media spotlight. They are elevated because they speak with an authority which they do not possess. To pervert mankind and to create his parody satan must destroy the Church. To do this he must convince the faithful that the Pope is not God’s anointed on earth, chosen to tend the sheep of the Church militant. As mentioned before, his attacks have come in the form of the Great heresies (2), are repackaged resold as Eastern mysticism, Mormonism, Freemasonry, Scientology, Wicca, Satanism, etc. Today the attacks arrive in the form of unnecessary liturgical changes, the desire by the laity to be in control of the church and from sex offending priests and religious. It comes in the form of the protestantization of churches, the design of new churches which deemphasize the Blessed Sacrament by hiding the tabernacle away from the faithful. In each case they move to remove the Divine and replace it with the mundane.

In a like manner as the church the various Crowns have been attacked. Democracy has been taught to us as being the end all in as a form of government. It is rarely if ever mentioned that there can be no true democracies above a very local level. For example the current president (G.W. Bush) tells us in every speech that America must move ahead as the beacon of democracy(3).In this he carries the message started by Woodrow Wilson to make the “World safe for Democracy” (4). Wilson overlooked the fact that Belgium, England and Japan were (and are) monarchies, and that the United States is formally styled a Republic.

The most graphic example and overt attack by satan against monarchy was the attack against the monarchy and first daughter of the church, France. Before I begin I will relate some scripture passages which I believe demonstrate that authority comes from God to the ruler to rule over his (or her) subjects. “ Pilate therefore said to him, "You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?" Jesus answered him "You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin." (John 19 10-11) (4)Jesus is "the prince of the kings of the earth." (Apoc.1:5). (5) "For the nation and the kingdom that will not serve thee, shall perish" (Is.60:12)(6) "Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resists the power,resists the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil." (Romans 13:1-3) (7) "Give ear, you that rule the people…For power is given you by the Lord, and strength by the most High, who will examine your works, and search out your thoughts" (Wisdom 6: 3-4)(8) "By me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things, By me princes rule, and the mighty decree justice." (Proverbs 8:15-16)(9) As we see not only does the authority to rule come from God but those rulers are required to be examined by that same God. This is in direct conflict with the writings of Rousseau who stated “The people are sovereign and authority lies in them.” So we have a problem, a trauma really, who is sovereign, man or God? Again Rousseau writes¸ “Law is the expression of the General Will of the people and this is indicated by numbers.”(votes?) Rousseauist democracy makes a God of the People, makes might prevail over right, makes the votes of a hundred fools or villains prevail over those of fifty saints or men of genius. (10) Yet this is the same ideology which propels forward the engines of democracy. To Rousseau and others of the French revolution, all things being equal, which ever plan receives the most votes, no matter how despicable it may be it must be adopted because it is a consensus. This democratic philosophy presupposes that the people can never make a mistake or that if it does it can be rectified either by more votes or by force. Rousseauist dogma, it must be called that for it is a religion, is defended by those who are indoctrinated from their youth to believe these ideas. In France this lead to the decapitation of the King and Queen, their closest relatives, and death by abuse and starvation of the Dauphin. Why? Because this satanically imposed democracy could not afford to lose control of Power. A most striking personage is Robespierre who literally had the power of life and death over the people of France. “…your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods”. It was by vote that the King, and Queen were executed on trumped up charges. It was by vote that the Dauphin was allowed to enter into such degradation. It was by vote that Priests, Nuns, and religious were executed. It was by vote that the Vendee was invaded and ravaged. No one person could be charged with culpability with these atrocities. The triangle had been inverted. One last thing is important here. The King was and should be regarded as the father of his people. In martyring him the ground work was laid for the destruction of the family. (It should here be remembered that it was by vote that Jesus was crucified.)

Before there was a Pope, before there was a King there was a family. Adam and Eve created the first family. In order to make a family one must produce children. Not to dwell on the mechanics of the thing suffice it to say that children were produced by one man and one woman. The church in it’s infinite wisdom says that any other way of conception is unnatural. Unfortunately now it is possible for a woman to conceive through artificial means, by fertilizing the woman’s egg with male sperm artificially in a test tube. Women no longer are satisfied to be married to a man, and have children. It inflicts too much of a strain on her private life. Contraception has lead to abortion of unwanted pregnancies. Women who cohabitate with other women want children, and have lobbied to be allowed to be “married” through legal means. Men too while not able to carry a baby, lobby to adopt children to start families. Their arguments have become so common that the population has tuned them out and worse, they have been so rationalized as to be seen as a lifestyle that is as equal to a normal and natural lifestyle. Abortion too has reared its ugly head as Prophesied by Pope Paul VI. Unwanted pregnancies are just done away with like a murphy in golf.

We have an additional attack which presents us with the theory that “It
Takes a Village to Raise a Child” (11) This theory presents us with government controlling the family, but it does not stop there, All over the nation schools have declared that the parent does not have the right to be in charge of their child’s education, that they know best what a child needs to learn.(12) A certain candidate for president has presented us with “sex ed. for kindergarten.” (13) The family triangle has been inverted .

As each triangle has been inverted, the role of God in the life of man has diminished. No longer is the universe an orderly succession of the passing of authority from God to Pope and Church, God to King and Nation, or God to father and family. The path of this parody we are led to believe is the God to the members of the church who in turn grant the Pope authority to be in charge. We are instructed next, that it is the nation who forms governments and provides the authority to the Government to govern. (14) In other words authority comes from God to the people to provide authority to the ruler. (we see how fallacious is this.) …And lastly we are now informed that a family is whatever and whomever decides to get together for what ever short or long of a time, regardless of sex, (not gender, which is a grammatical term). We are told that all relationships are valid and equal. (“Judge not and be not judged” the only Sacred Scripture a liberal knows). Is is presumed that children have rights which may supplant that of the parent.(15) That children should not even be spanked for disobedience (16) Thus we have the breakdown of the family and through that breakdown the order of the universe, and that which was ordained by God. (17)These are some of my reasons for considering Democracy whether in government, Church, or family as being unsupportable.


Dieu le Roy!
Brantigny

(1) Genesis Chapter 3, 3-6 Douay-Rhiems Bible
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/01003.htm
(2) see, The Great Heresies, Catholic Answers, http://www.catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp
The Circumcisers (1st Century), Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries), Montanism (Late 2nd Century), Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century), Arianism (4th Century), Pelagianism (5th Century), Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century), Nestorianism (5th Century), Monophysitism (5th Century), Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries), Catharism (11th Century), Protestantism (16th Century), Jansenism (17th Century). All which (except Protestantism which fractures itself in some form or the other each day) are heresies.
(3) Yahoo News, Pat Buchanan opinion, Ideology was Bush’s undoing. http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20071127/cm_uc_crpbux/op_334488
(4) Douay-Rheims Bible
(5) Ibid.
(6) Ibid.
(7) Ibid.
(8) Ibid
(9) Ibid
(10) Article, Forerunners of the French Revolution, posted on Le Fleur de Lys Too
http://lefleurdelystoo.blogspot.com/2007/10/forerunners-of-french-revolution-part_1438.html
(11) Text of Hillary Clinton Speech, Tuesday, Aug. 27, 1996 Associated Press ,
http://www.libertynet.org/edcivic/hillatxt.html
(12) The Education Establishment: The Teacher Unions,
http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=document&documentID=1733
(13) Barack Obama , …on sex education for kindergarteners. July 18, 2007 1:13 PM ABC News' Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/sex-ed-for-kind.html
(14)
Declaration of Independence, 1776, …Governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government…,
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html
(15) Children’s Rights Movement, Wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_rights_movement#Controversy
(16) Mass. Considers Outlawing Spanking. CBS/AP, Nov. 28, 2007 Boston Mass
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/28/national/main3547690.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_3547690
(17 Genesis Chapter 1, 1-31 Douay-Rhiems Bible
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/01001.htm

Note: More of a oligarchy than of a republic.

5.9.12

François I, A Renaissance King of France

Francis I, also called Francis of Angoulême who was born Sept. 12, 1494, in Cognac, France became the first of five monarchs of the Angoulême branch of the House of Valois. A true patron of the arts and scholarship, a humanist, and a knightly king, he waged campaigns in Italy 1515–16 and fought a series of wars with the Holy Roman Empire 1521–44.

Francis was the son of Charles de Valois-Orleáns, comte d’Angoulême, and Louise of Savoy. On the accession of his cousin Louis XII in 1498, Francis became heir presumptive and was given the Duchy of Valois. With his sister Marguerite, he was raised by his mother, who had been widowed at the age of 20 and whom he deeply revered; he knelt whenever he spoke to her. No one had as much power over him as these two women. Idolized, he grew up following his own whims, without discipline and more infatuated with chivalrous romances, songs, and violent exercise than with classical studies. He was greatly admired by the gay, young circle of his mother’s cultured court for his athletic build and the elegance of his demeanour and manners. His need for female companions stemmed from this upbringing, as did his lack of realism and his chivalrous imagination.

Louis XII, distrustful of Francis, did not allow him to dabble in affairs of state but sent him off at the age of 18 to the frontiers, which had been attacked in force. There, Francis learned more about warfare and, being of a sensual nature, about the licentiousness of camp life than about how to govern the state or, even more, to govern himself. Shortly before his death, Louis XII married him to Claude, his 15-year-old daughter. On Jan. 1, 1515, at the age of 20, Francis became king of France.

His quick and shrewd mind, his amazing memory, and his universal curiosity compensated for his inexperience. But, because he was outgoing and trusting and incapable of dissembling, he was always a bad politician. The pomp of the Reims coronation, the sumptuous cortege of the solemn entry into Paris, and the lavish feasts revealed his love of ceremony and also pleased the people of Paris, who had been disheartened by a long succession of morose and sickly sovereigns.

Louis XII had left an army prepared to reconquer the Duchy of Milan. This ill-fated dream of recovering his great-grandmother Valentina Visconti’s heritage—which had been lost, retaken, then lost again—fascinated Francis in his turn. Ambitious for glory and urged on by turbulent young nobles, he made sure of peace with his neighbours, entrusted the regency to his mother, and galloped off to Italy.

At the bloody Battle of Marignano, charging at the head of his cavalry, he defeated the reportedly invincible Swiss mercenaries of Duke Massimiliano Sforza and his ally Pope Leo X. After the victory, by his own wish, he was knighted by the captain who had fought most bravely: Bayard, the most famous chevalier of his time.

The Pope received his conqueror in Bologna. Surrounded by his glittering pontifical court and by his famous artists, he dazzled Francis with concerts, banquets, and theatrical performances. The Pope offered him a Madonna by Raphael and negotiated a concordat that returned to the Pope the benefices of the rich church of France, while the nomination of prelates was assigned to the King, who was desirous of strengthening his authority over a clergy grown too acquisitive and independent.

Buoyed up by a victor’s prestige, the King spoke as a sovereign, using for the first time the formula of absolute power: “For such is our pleasure.” Prosperity permitted him to grant a princely pension to Sforza, as well as to Leonardo da Vinci and other artists who brought masterpieces to his court. He also signed a perpetual peace treaty with the Swiss and bought back Tournai from Henry VIII of England. And, as a pledge of unalterable friendship, the first-born royal child, Princess Louise, was affianced to the Habsburg prince Charles, heir to the Netherlands and, at 16, the new king of Spain.

Everything forecast a great reign. Francis I formed a brilliant and scholarly court at which poets, musicians, and learned men mingled with rough noblemen from the provinces whom idleness was making dangerous. He welcomed lovely ladies at court, saying, “A court without women is a year without spring and a spring without roses.” The arts, elegance, and chivalrous gallantry served to refine the licentious manners of the court.

The frail queen Claude, gentle and pious, bore a child each year. Francis respected her and sought her advice. In the meantime, he loved the dark-haired comtesse de Châteaubriant, without, however, foregoing nocturnal escapades with his childhood companions, who had now become his ministers and his favourites.

Francis toured France tirelessly, showing himself to people who had never seen a king. He was constantly travelling on horseback, winter and summer, whether well or ill. He became familiar with everything: men, roads, rivers, resources, and needs. During his travels, he emptied prisons, curtailed the abuses of judicial powers by the nobles, lavished largesse on the people, and provided games and processions for them, speaking to them in his grand manner, warmly and openly: “My friends, my beloved ones . . . .”

Popular, happy, the father of two sons, he was the most powerful sovereign in all Christendom when, in 1519, the German emperor Maximilian died. The election as emperor of Maximilian’s grandson Charles spelled ruin for Francis I, for Charles, who was already king of Spain, now encircled France with his possessions.

Nineteen years old, secretive, cool-headed, and a clever politician, the Emperor had his mind set on a universal monarchy. His chief obstacle was the King of France. A mortal hatred emerged from this rivalry, leading to 27 years of savage warfare, interrupted by truces that were invariably violated. In 1520, on the Field of Cloth of Gold near Calais, where both displayed unprecedented magnificence, Francis vainly sought an alliance with Henry VIII.

Hostilities between Charles V and France began in 1521 in the north and in the Pyrenees, while the two brothers of the King’s mistress were losing Milan. The soldiers remained unpaid, and the army was disintegrating. The King, unconcerned, arose late, paid little attention to his council, and gave orders without seeing that they were carried out. Money disappeared into thin air. A few paymasters were hanged, though in vain.

In 1523 the King demanded the return to the French state, according to law, of the vast provinces that the great feudal duke Charles de Bourbon thought he had inherited from his wife. Incensed, Bourbon turned traitor and joined the Emperor’s service, claiming that the French, weary of the prodigality of their sovereign, would rise up on an appeal from him. Commanding the imperial army, he invaded Provence, was driven back near Marseille, and withdrew toward Italy. Francis I was pursuing him when he learned of the death of his wife Claude, at the age of 24, exhausted from seven pregnancies. The death of his second daughter followed soon after. Meanwhile, the English and the Germans were advancing in the north. In vain, his mother begged him to return: “Our good angel has abandoned us. Your horoscope forecasts disaster!” At the Battle of Pavia in 1525, defeated and wounded, he was taken prisoner. “Madame, to inform you of the rest of my misfortune, I have nothing left to me save my honour and my life.”

As the price for the King’s freedom, the Emperor demanded one-third of France, the renunciation of France’s claim to Italy, and restitution to Bourbon of his fiefs, with the addition of Provence. “I am resolved to endure prison for as long as God wills rather than accept terms injurious to my kingdom!” replied the King.

Imprisoned in a dismal tower in Madrid, the recluse composed melancholy poems, songs, and letters to his subjects, heartrending in their humility and their tender nobility. The mortifying defeat, the dangerous situation of his country, and the confinement aggravated his habitual migraines, the consequence of old wounds and of newly contracted syphilis. When he was struck down by an abscess in his head, his people, loyal in bad fortune as in good, prayed for him. The Archbishop of Tournon said a mass at his bedside, in the presence of his sister Marguerite, who had hastened to Madrid.

Although Francis finally recovered, he did not cease to suffer. His personality changed. Sudden reversals of mood, excesses of severity and clemency, inconsistencies in his statesmanship and in his personal behaviour marked him; his mind sometimes wandered.

The Emperor persisted in his exorbitant claims. Resigned to die in prison, the King abdicated in favour of his eldest son. France judged this abdication to be the worst possible move. The Dauphin was too young; the country was lost without its leader. No matter what the cost, he would have to return home. The French ambassadors, with nominal cooperation by the King, concluded the harsh Treaty of Madrid. He signed it in January 1526, declaring that the word and signature of an imprisoned knight were valueless and that it was beyond his power to dismember his kingdom. Still bedridden, he was betrothed by proxy to Eleonora, widow of the King of Portugal and sister of his jailer. The wedding was to seal the reconciliation of the two rulers and was to follow execution of the treaty. As a last condition, Francis had to deliver his two eldest sons, seven and eight years old, as hostages.

The surrendered provinces refused to divorce themselves from France. The Emperor, furious with the perjured King, held the children prisoner for four years. His army plundered Italy and captured Pope Clement VII. Francis could not openly engage in the war that was again flaring up everywhere against Charles V. Doomed to disavow his promises to his secret allies, he fled from their envoys, either going on hunting trips from forest to forest or travelling around the country, building fairylike castles that he occupied only fleetingly and founding the free and secular Collège de France. Anne, duchesse d’Étampes, “the most beautiful of learned ladies, and the most learned of beautiful ladies,” replaced Madame de Châteaubriant, more as a companion than mistress.

Their raging hatred impelled Charles and Francis to challenge each other to a duel, which was, however, prevented. During one of the King’s relapses, his mother reached an agreement with Margaret of Austria, the Emperor’s aunt, to stop this deadly struggle. The ensuing Treaty of Cambrai softened that of Madrid. In order to get his children back, Francis had to abandon his allies, give up Italy, and pay 2,000,000 gold crowns. His foolish expenditures had emptied the treasury, and the ransom was collected only with difficulty. Finally, however, the little princes were able to attend their father’s political marriage to Eleonora in 1530.

In 1531 the King’s mother succumbed to the plague. Marguerite, having married the King of Navarre, lived at some distance. The King, grown tragically old, in 1533 presided over the marriage of his second son, Henry, to Catherine de Médicis, the niece of Clement VII.

When religious strife broke out in France, the King—tolerant, an epicurean, an admirer of the Dutch Humanist Erasmus, and patron of the great satirist Rabelais, as well as a reader of Philipp Melanchthon, the Reformer—tried to moderate the growing fanaticism. Both his sister and his mistress supported the Reformation, whereas his ministers were zealous Catholics. But the Reformers were considered republicans, and the burnings at the stake began. For five years he delayed the extermination of the Waldensian sect, only signing the order without reading it when on his deathbed.

The war with Charles V was resumed in 1536. Bereavements within the family came in quick succession. The Dauphin died at the age of 18—poisoned by Charles V, it was believed. The third son, the most dearly loved, died of the plague. One of Francis’ last diplomatic achievements was an alliance with the Turks against the Emperor.

Henry VIII, by turns friend or enemy, died in January 1547. Francis, younger by two years, still had time to found the port of Le Hâvre, to send Jacques Cartier to Canada, to reform the judicial system, and to decree the use of French in all legal documents.

Wasting away with fever, dying, he wandered from castle to castle, carried on a litter. Finally, on March 31, 1547, the knight-king died. Notwithstanding the personal afflictions of the last 20 years of his life, Francis was to his countrymen and to the succeeding generation le grand roi François.

par Marcelle Vioux


Jhesu+Marie,
Brantigny

Radio Maria, Stepahnie Mann, and the English Reformation

Stephanie Mann has posted some podcasts narrated by her on Radio Maria about The English Reformation that I have found enlightening and factual. Thus far she has posted on the following themes:

August 4, 2012 – The English Reformation Today: Why Is It Relevant?

August 11, 2012 – Before the English Reformation

August 18, 2012 – The Break From Rome

August 25, 2012 – The Protestant Reformation Comes to England

September 1, 2012 – England Reunites with Rome

Just click on the links to listen. I have intellegence that this Saturday's the topic will about Elizabeth I: The Via Media and Catholic Recusancy.

Jhesu+Marie
Brantigny