Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Sociodynamics Questioned (Read 1246 times)

Matthew · « **on:** July 31, 2022, 01:07:28 PM »

ELEISON COMMENTS DCCLXXXV (July 30, 2022) : SOCIODYNAMICS QUESTIONED

If “sociodynamics” is not yet a word to be found in any respectable English or American dictionary, it is nevertheless a reality parallel to aerodynamics. For just as there are objective laws of aerodynamics which must be carefully observed if any new make of aeroplane is not to crash immediately after it first takes off, so there are objective laws for the launching and survival of any society of human beings if that society is to survive and not crash to the ground. Now Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) was a brilliant American lawyer who played a leading part in the founding of the new nation of the USA in 1776, and, unless it is a spurious quotation, he said how new that nation was going to be – “We are going to show the world that it does not need cardinals or kings.” In other words, men can rule by themselves without divine authority, religious or civil, to back them. In brief, human government does not need God.

Thus at the heart of the new nation’s Constitution was the principle of dividing its government into its three branches, legislative (making of laws), judicial (judging by courts) and executive (applying the laws), so that, in the absence of a Higher Being to control government activity, each of the three human branches of government could act as a check upon the other two. Now from 1776 onwards, it cannot be denied that the new nation was so flourishing and prosperous that the 20th century has come to be called by many “the American century”, meaning to say that the USA then emerged as the leading nation of the world by its economic and political power, admired and imitated all over the world. Yet in the 21st century few serious observers can deny that in 2022 its President is essentially inapt for his high office, having been elected by a stolen or fake election. And that nation is on the brink of cινιℓ ωαr. What went wrong ?

A number of friends of the USA are asking themselves the question. For instance in an interesting article by Jeffrey Tucker https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-targets-the-real-enemy_4571651.html?utm_source=ai&utm_medium=search , the author argues that since the late 19th century there has been emerging inside the USA a fourth branch of government, growing in size, scope and strength, taking on a power of its own. It is now, he says, an unelected bureaucracy with some 432 agencies, employing nearly 3 million people who cannot be fired or controlled. For Tucker, the existence and harmfulness of this bureaucracy has been highlighted by a recent decision of the Supreme Court against one of the bureaucracy’s agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, which the Court decided was overreaching its powers.

For Tucker, this was an admirable case of the nation’s judicial power holding in check its executive power, fully in line with the nation’s Constitution. However, as another example of an agency of the same kind, escaping unduly from Constitutional control, he quotes no less than the Federal Reserve, legislated into existence in 1913 by Congress, but coming since then to govern the entire economics and politics of the USA (see these “Comments” for March 7 and May 23, 2022). Does Tucker realise what he is saying ? If he is right about these unConstitutional agencies, then for more than a century the main life of the USA has been doing an end-run around the Constitution of 1776, to evade its famous “checks and balances”.

But is that surprising after all ? Scripture says, “Better a live dog than a dead lion" – Ecclesiastes IX, 4.
All the more: better a pack of live dogs than a piece of paper. It was live judges on the Supreme Court who in 1973 discovered in the USA Constitution the “right” to abortion, live judges who in 2022 found that it is not there after all. It all comes back to live human beings. Who has the power to hold them in any real kind of check or balance ? “One Nation under God” used to appear on American coins. It is from God that came whatever once made the USA great, in any real sense in which it was truly great. And if the USA, or any other country, will not turn back to God, its human beings will tear it apart.

Kyrie eleison.

The rule of cardinals, kings may fail, of course, But human authority must have in God its source.

Charity · « **Reply #1 on:** July 31, 2022, 04:39:27 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on July 31, 2022, 01:07:28 PM

ELEISON COMMENTS DCCLXXXV (July 30, 2022) : SOCIODYNAMICS QUESTIONED

. And if the USA, or any other country, will not turn back to God, its human beings will tear it apart.

Kyrie eleison.

His Excellency may be rightly thanked for some words of wisdom in this latest E.C.. That said, I hope he would not hold out Garabandal and Valtorta as any true means/guides of turning back to God.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #2 on:** July 31, 2022, 06:15:57 PM »

Quote

His Excellency may be rightly thanked for some words of wisdom in this latest E.C.. That said, I hope he would not hold out Garabandal and Valtorta as any true means/guides of turning back to God.

A total red herring! His Excellency made absolutely no reference to Garabandal or Valtorta in his latest EC. If, in his mind, "turning back to God" includes embracing the Poem and Grabandal, Williamson did not supply a hint of it here. No, the entire EC is directed at throwing off the bureaucratic deep state. Yours may be added to the many hundreds of ridiculous comments which make their way to the pages of CI.

de Lugo · « **Reply #3 on:** July 31, 2022, 07:09:19 PM »

Quote from: Charity on July 31, 2022, 04:39:27 PM

I hope he would not hold out...Valtorta as any true means/guides of turning back to God.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but shouldn't those who are attacking Msgr. Williamson also be attacking Msgr. Lefebvre with even MORE vigor?

A pro-Valtorta website reports:

"We have thus far addressed the top anti-Valtorta articles coming from what you could call mainstream Catholic publications. Now it is time to address the anti-Valtorta articles coming from traditional Catholic publications. First it is important to note that there are many learned traditional Catholic priests and lay faithful who are avid readers and defenders of Maria Valtorta's writings. Notable among them is the first spiritual director of the SSPX Econe seminary who had 40 years experience giving Ignatian retreats and who wrote the book entitled Rules for the Discernment of Spirits in the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola used extensively in all SSPX Ignatian retreats. This prelate was also a renowned retreat master and a professor at the SSPX Econe seminary. He was a very close friend and a confessor of Archbishop Lefebvre (whom many traditional Catholics revere). This man I'm referring to is Fr. Ludovic-Marie Barrielle, FSSPX. You can find a write-up of his on the SSPX seminary website here: Do I have a Vocation? By Fr. Ludovic-Marie Barrielle.

What is interesting is that he is known for instructing the SSPX seminarians to read Valtorta's work and he often said to them, “If you wish to know and love the Sacred Heart of Jesus, read Valtorta!”⁶ Archbishop Lefebvre talked about Fr. Barrielle in one of his sermons wherein he said, “Father Barrielle was very much in favor of this book of Maria Valtorta. He was convinced that it was absolutely true, that it could not be not true.”⁷ What is interesting is that on a holy card for the Requiem Mass of Fr. Barrielle, Archbishop Lefebvre wrote, “To dear Fr. Louis Marie Barrielle, our model spiritual guide, with our affectionate assurance of our faithful prayers”⁸ (signed Archbishop Lefebvre, 1983). Hence, the leading bishop and champion of traditional Catholics (Archbishop Lefebvre) called one of the highest and most revered clerics in traditional Catholic circles (Fr. Barrielle) “our model spiritual guide”, the latter of whom was an avid promoter of Valtorta's work and believed in its authenticity. Many traditional Catholic priests and lay faithful share the sentiments and theological opinion of Fr. Barrielle, FSSPX."

https://www.valtorta.org.au/refutation-of-anti-valtorta-articles.html

The implications if Valtorta is false here are twofold:

1) A 40-year retreat master who imported the Spiritual Exercises into the FSSPX, and personal confessor to Mesg. Lefebvre was himself incapable of discerning the spirits with regard to Valtorta;

2) If Msgr. Williamson is to be abused for promoting Valtorta, but Msgr. Lefebvre is not, this is suggestive of an agenda to defame the former (or else why not be consistent and also attach Msgr. Lefebvre?).

Charity · « **Reply #4 on:** August 02, 2022, 03:57:42 PM »

Quote from: de Lugo on July 31, 2022, 07:09:19 PM

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but shouldn't those who are attacking Msgr. Williamson also be attacking Msgr. Lefebvre with even MORE vigor?

The implications if Valtorta is false here are twofold:

1) A 40-year retreat master who imported the Spiritual Exercises into the FSSPX, and personal confessor to Mesg. Lefebvre was himself incapable of discerning the spirits with regard to Valtorta;

2) If Msgr. Williamson is to be abused for promoting Valtorta, but Msgr. Lefebvre is not, this is suggestive of an agenda to defame the former (or else why not be consistent and also attach Msgr. Lefebvre?).

I can understand how you would characterize my comment ("That said, I hope he would not hold out Garabandal and Valtorta as any true means/guides of turning back to God.") as an attack on His Excellency. I, however, would no more characterize it as an attack upon His Excellency than I would characterize it as an attack on him if I saw him passing out food at a luncheon which I believed to be rotten by telling others present that I hope he would not hold out any more of the rotten food for them. If, on the other hand, I chose to remain silent out of human respect or any other reason would my silence be serving a good purpose? Certainly, people are free to try to make the best use out of their God given powers of discernment in deciding whether the food is rotten or not.

If, on the other hand, one day His Excellency comes to believe that the fruits of Garabandal and Valtorta are rotten/coruupted as many on this forum believe them to be, he might even thank those who not only believed them to be, but openly stated so. Still, on the other hand, if I ever come to believe -- fat chance -- that Garabandal and Valtorta with all their endless verbiage/messages are worthy of belief I will turn around and thank His Excellency for standing strong in doing his part to spread the news.

As per your twofold "implications if Valtorta is false" let me say this:
1) I think it remains an open question as to whether or not Fr. Barrielle in your words "was himself incapable of discerning the spirits with regard to Valtorta." The fact that he may have favored her does not necessarily mean that he was incapable of discerning the spirits in a way contra to her.
2) I very seriously doubt that Bp. Williamson would ever accuse me openly or even privately of having "abused" him for promoting Valtorta. If you or anyone else thinks I have -- well, fine -- so be it.
As for Abp. Lefebvre, I think it would be quite a stretch to say he favored Valtorta. No doubt, an inference may be drawn that he did, but inferences are not facts. The good archbishop had many years to make more than one definitive statement on her in no less a manner than Bp. Williamson has done. I know of not a single docuмented instance of him ever having done so, but rest assured if it can be credibly established that he endorsed her in anywhere near the manner that Bp. Williamson has, I would with all due respect have no hesitancy in openly disagreeing with him.

de Lugo · « **Reply #5 on:** August 02, 2022, 04:38:09 PM »

Quote from: Charity on August 02, 2022, 03:57:42 PM

I can understand how you would characterize my comment ("That said, I hope he would not hold out Garabandal and Valtorta as any true means/guides of turning back to God.") as an attack on His Excellency. I, however, would no more characterize it as an attack upon His Excellency than I would characterize it as an attack on him if I saw him passing out food at a luncheon which I believed to be rotten by telling others present that I hope he would not hold out any more of the rotten food for them. If, on the other hand, I chose to remain silent out of human respect or any other reason would my silence be serving a good purpose? Certainly, people are free to try to make the best use out of their God given powers of discernment in deciding whether the food is rotten or not.

If, on the other hand, one day His Excellency comes to believe that the fruits of Garabandal and Valtorta are rotten/coruupted as many on this forum believe them to be, he might even thank those who not only believed them to be, but openly stated so. Still, on the other hand, if I ever come to believe -- fat chance -- that Garabandal and Valtorta with all their endless verbiage/messages are worthy of belief I will turn around and thank His Excellency for standing strong in doing his part to spread the news.

As per your twofold "implications if Valtorta is false" let me say this:
1) I think it remains an open question as to whether or not Fr. Barrielle in your words "was himself incapable of discerning the spirits with regard to Valtorta." The fact that he may have favored her does not necessarily mean that he was incapable of discerning the spirits in a way contra to her.
2) I very seriously doubt that Bp. Williamson would ever accuse me openly or even privately of having "abused" him for promoting Valtorta. If you or anyone else thinks I have -- well, fine -- so be it.
As for Abp. Lefebvre, I think it would be quite a stretch to say he favored Valtorta. No doubt, an inference may be drawn that he did, but inferences are not facts. The good archbishop had many years to make more than one definitive statement on her in no less a manner than Bp. Williamson has done. I know of not a single docuмented instance of him ever having done so, but rest assured if it can be credibly established that he endorsed her in anywhere near the manner that Bp. Williamson has, I would with all due respect have no hesitancy in openly disagreeing with him.

Dear Friend-

My only point was to seek consistency:

Many of those who abuse Msgr. Williamson (not necessarily you) for his position give l'Abbe Barrielle a pass. Why is that? It was l'Abbe Barrielle who said Valtorta was a path to God before Msgr. Williamson said it (in fact, since l'Abbe Barrielle was the spiritual director in Econe when Msgr. Williamson was in formation there, I'm quite certain that is where the latter got it), yet he remained spiritual director in the seminaire under Msgr. Lefebvre until he died, without anyone complaining to Msgr. Lefebvre about it.

If that consistency is lacking, then it is reasonable to ask oneself why.

Regarding Msgr. Lefebvre, he gave a cautionary spiritual conference warning against reading Valtorta, but did not prohibit it, nor did he sauvage l'Abbe Barrielle for reccomending it. His response was "one and done."

Consistency would look like this (i.e., giving him the same treatment many give Msgr. Williamson): Msgr. Lefebvre was wholly irresponsible and negligent in the spiritual formation of his seminarists for allowing l'Abbe Barrielle to poison them with Valtorta. That he warned the seminarists once, yet allowed l'Abbe Barrielle to continue preaching Valtorta shows he did not take formation seriously, and was an unreliable spiritual guide.

Certainment, I do not believe this for a second, but for those exagerrating the matter about Msgr. Williamson, why not also about l'Abbe Barrielle and Msgr. Lefebvre?

It seems to me this is a "tempest in a teacup," designed to defame Msgr. Williamson (otherwise the inconsistency is inexplicable).

It is not my cup of tea, as you say, but neither is Agreda nor Emmerich (both of whom were on the index). For me, I choose public revelation and only the plus fort revelations en privee (Fatima, Lourdes).

hollingsworth · « **Reply #6 on:** August 02, 2022, 09:01:21 PM »

This thread is no longer about HE's latest EC. As it has been so many times in the past, a couple of CI morons take the topic in an entirely different direction.

Charity · « **Reply #7 on:** August 02, 2022, 09:25:09 PM »

Quote from: de Lugo on August 02, 2022, 04:38:09 PM

Dear Friend-

My only point was to seek consistency:

Many of those who abuse Msgr. Williamson (not necessarily you) for his position give l'Abbe Barrielle a pass. Why is that? It was l'Abbe Barrielle who said Valtorta was a path to God before Msgr. Williamson said it (in fact, since l'Abbe Barrielle was the spiritual director in Econe when Msgr. Williamson was in formation there, I'm quite certain that is where the latter got it), yet he remained spiritual director in the seminaire under Msgr. Lefebvre until he died, without anyone complaining to Msgr. Lefebvre about it.

If that consistency is lacking, then it is reasonable to ask oneself why.

Regarding Msgr. Lefebvre, he gave a cautionary spiritual conference warning against reading Valtorta, but did not prohibit it, nor did he sauvage l'Abbe Barrielle for reccomending it. His response was "one and done."

Consistency would look like this (i.e., giving him the same treatment many give Msgr. Williamson): Msgr. Lefebvre was wholly irresponsible and negligent in the spiritual formation of his seminarists for allowing l'Abbe Barrielle to poison them with Valtorta. That he warned the seminarists once, yet allowed l'Abbe Barrielle to continue preaching Valtorta shows he did not take formation seriously, and was an unreliable spiritual guide.

Certainment, I do not believe this for a second, but for those exagerrating the matter about Msgr. Williamson, why not also about l'Abbe Barrielle and Msgr. Lefebvre?

It seems to me this is a "tempest in a teacup," designed to defame Msgr. Williamson (otherwise the inconsistency is inexplicable).

It is not my cup of tea, as you say, but neither is Agreda nor Emmerich (both of whom were on the index). For me, I choose public revelation and only the plus fort revelations en privee (Fatima, Lourdes).

Thanks de Lugo for the nice reply. Your point is well taken.

As per your comment, I must admit that my "cup of tea" is most definitely Venerable Maria de Agreda.

And as for Bp. Williamson I should mention that I was one of his most staunch and open defenders regarding the h0Ɩ0h0αx affair. I also traveled from the U.S. to Brazil to consult with Dom Tomás de Aquino Ferreira da Costa (presently Bishop de Aquino) at the specific request of Bp. Williamson who was most grateful for my having honored his request.

Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Sociodynamics Questioned (Read 1246 times)

Matthew

Eleison Comments - Sociodynamics Questioned

Charity

Re: Eleison Comments - Sociodynamics Questioned

hollingsworth

Re: Eleison Comments - Sociodynamics Questioned

de Lugo

Re: Eleison Comments - Sociodynamics Questioned

Charity

Re: Eleison Comments - Sociodynamics Questioned

de Lugo

Re: Eleison Comments - Sociodynamics Questioned

hollingsworth

Re: Eleison Comments - Sociodynamics Questioned

Charity

Re: Eleison Comments - Sociodynamics Questioned