Monday, 16 October 2017

School & RFID - Bad Combination

Two quotes of people a bit too caving in to school systems:

The first two issues, and several of the others that privacy advocates have broached, amount to concerns that schools will abuse the information provided by the RFID tags. That's possible, of course, but it's going to be difficult to convince school administrators of that, since it amounts to saying that they and their personnel aren't trustworthy.

Slate : Texas Schools Are Forcing Kids To Wear RFID Chips. Is That a Privacy Invasion?
By Will Oremus

Gonzalez, the school district's communications director, maintains that students have never had an expectation of privacy on campus. "By virtue of the fact that you are a student at a school, there is no privacy. ... It is our responsibility to know where every single one of those 3,000 students are while they are in our care during the school day." He has a point. A lot of things that would be rights violations if imposed on the population at large are perfectly acceptable in school settings.

RFID Chips Being Used to Track Students
Zoon Politikon with Holly Seeliger, added 12 Oct. 2017

Are they "perfectly acceptable in school settings"?


They would be so if the school represented free parents - a lot of them, but not the RFID chip. Nor leashes. We are men, not beasts, and that is something we have from day one of conception - not something we need to develop to.

So, if security cannot be guaranteed without these things, what about scrapping school compulsion?

Much of the vaunted benefits of having been to school (apart from knowledge which can be got elsewhere) is in fact only a herd mentality.

And as for convincing school boards, I recall something called the Cristeros, South of Rio Grande.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Hedwig of Poland

Russia Led My Blog Readers One Week

We'll see if they get discrete after I post this.

First take a look at three pictures:

My experience with Orthodox sensibilities tells me there is a reason why Russia is leading reader on this blog, this week. Take a page like "being argumentative with people who dislike that" - well, I am insisting on being a scholastic, not unargumentative like a hesychast. Or top of the posts, I have not left Father Aristobule Adams victor in a debate. A huge no no, if I were his parishioner. Also, what I have written on Latin (in three of the posts, But I AM a Latinist, And a Controversial One at That, More on Post-Alcuinic Latin) disrupts the ecclesiastical smugness of people proud of Church Slavonic not being totally cut off from language of the people "as Latin" - according to the Protestant, Anglican and therefore Russian Orthodox understanding on what was going on in the West.

Now, for the stats:

Australia 2 Austria 1 Belarus 1 Brazil 21 2 1 1 Cambodia 1 Canada 1 80 China 3 6 6 France 60 9 9 1 7 811 1 21 (-1) 37 4 2 4 2 8 11 55 1 21 (+1) Germany 8 1 1 2 1 8 1 2 2 6 1 Greece 2 2 Hong Kong 1 Hungary 1 Indonesia 1 Ireland 5 Italy 72 80 1 145 215 Japan 7 1 1 6 2 1 Netherlands 2 New Zealand 1 Norway 1 11 1 1 1 1 5 5 Peru 6 Philippines 1 Poland 8 7 Portugal 1 1 3 4 Romania 4 Russia 429 12 105 (+1) 21 (+1) 170 587 234 28 48 168 (+1) 8 42 84 (+1) 326 18 21 21 21 21 21 63 (-1) 42 42 (+1) 685 168 105 (+1) 42 (+1) 231 189 (-1) 9 282 5 653 South Korea 1 1 Spain 2 4 2 2 7 3 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 5 3 4 2 1 Sweden 7 Switzerland 3 Ukraine 9 2 1 52 4 21 (-1) 4 112 2 2 23 8 1 12 2 1 11 65 1 United Arab Emirates 1 1 3 United Kingdom 2 3 6 1 2 1 1 7 2 6 363 1 1 United States 10 5 2 45 5 4 2 74 1 56 12 5 153 13 152 155 8 13 1 7 86 8 147 (-1) 3 6 15 11 9 7 11 15 67.

8640 in seven days, 1234 and some per day! But if Russians want to consider the readings as "sub rosa", "under the seal of confession" or whatever, no thanks!

My blog posts are PUBLISHED, not confided as to private only reading!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Hedwig of Poland*

* Or of Silesia.

18 Oct 2017 18:00 – 19 Oct 2017 17:00, 1497 :

Italy 72 France 83 : 3 56 1 4 1 1 7 10 Russia 862 : 1 149 104 7 42 22 21 65 21 2 151 22 106 43 106 Spain 2 1 1 1 Rwanda 2 China 1 1 Germany 1 1 2 Hungary 1 2 Brazil 5 1 4 1 2 1 3 8 1 1 1 1 1 United States 187 : 79 2 2 1 1 6 24 1 7 1 6 1 2 4 1 1 26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 9 2 1 United Kingdom 1 102 Australia 1 Ukraine 11 2 1 17 1 3 1 3 4 1 4 2 Belarus 2 4 Indonesia 1 South Korea 1 Japan 15 59 Chile 1 Netherlands 1 1 United Arab Emirates 5 Saudi Arabia 1 Poland 1 Senegal 1.

Friday, 13 October 2017

Bergoglio on Genesis 1

On quora I saw this link:

"'When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,' Francis said."

USA Today : Pope says evolution, Big Bang are real
Josephine McKenna, Religion News Service Published 11:47 a.m. ET Oct. 28, 2014 | Updated 2:56 p.m. ET Oct. 28, 2014

Before we can use this as proof against Antipope Bergoglio, we need a better source, since the article is claiming erroneously:

"In 1950, Pope Pius XII proclaimed there was no opposition between evolution and Catholic doctrine."

He claimed the Catholic Church does not forbid that ... somewhat different from saying Catholic doctrine can endorse that.

Here is a better source:

"When we read the account of Creation in Genesis we risk imagining that God was a magician, complete with an all powerful magic wand. But that was not so."

Casina of Pius IV, Monday, 27 October 2014

Note, this is evasive. God is all powerful, but He does not need an all powerful wand to be so. The denial of the all powerful wand is orthodox. Whether God Himself is all powerful, you cannot deny it with retained orthodoxy.

The question is, does the reference to magician and wand mean anything apart from God Himself being all powerful? Linguistically, grammatically, yes. If there were any known sect who claimed God was not all powerful in Himself, but He had in some other universe learned magic and acquired a wand making Him all powerful over ours, the words would certainly be to the point, and merit a respect as perfectly orthodox expression of Catholic teaching.

But not only is there no sect with that conviction (Mormons might be an exception according to what I have heard said from others, I have not heard it from them). The reference to Genesis, the fact he starts the sentence with "When we read the account of Creation in Genesis we risk imagining," means he is referring to a normal reading by a normal reader, if not the best one.

And in such a normal reading by a normal reader, the real issue is, God comes off as being in fact all powerful - and as doing things which have no natural and preexistent root, like magic pretends to do, but ordinarily cannot achieve.

This means, the words are in fact an attack on the Traditional reading of Genesis.

A very polemic one.

Now, the actual words of Pius XII do allow (supposing he was Pope and had that authority) that a non-Traditional view be defended, by someone both experienced in science and in theology. Same as with someone defending the Traditional one.

There are two conditions attached:

  • doing so with measure;
  • being willing to submit to the judgement of the Church

"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith"

[Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, 12 August 1950, the twelfth year of Our Pontificate.]

I am not only willing to submit to the Church's judgement, I am already doing so, that of the Council of Trent.

One can argue Pius XII had no right to formulate the words so that anyone might be tempted to think the condition necessarily meant a future judgement rather than the already existing one. But at least he did not claim directly to be referring to a future one.

As for doing so with measure, this cannot, given the already existing judgement by Trent on exegesis in general - with the implicatons this has for this matter - mean desisting from well merited rejection of ill thought through or not thought through or Atheist objections to the Traditional understanding.

It could mean ignoring an argument rather than dealing with it - and those who best know my work as a Creationist know I am not doing so.

In these recent days, I was printing and also scanning a booklet about how the evidence from carbon 14 present in a sample is consistent with Biblical chronology, and especially, on the outer limits or close to such supposing the Biblical chronology to be counted with St Jerome, as in the Traditional Christmas Liturgy.

However, the words of Bergoglio seem, unwilling to submit to the Council of Trent and therefore the Church Fathers, and lack of respect for a Creationist claiming God who is all mighty was very well equipped in Himself, not by any wand, to do exactly what the text says, and seems to say prima facie.

In other words Bergoglio seems to be not fulfilling the conditions as given by Humani Generis for defending one or other option.

But perhaps his words are "a judgement of the Church"?

Look again in Humani Generis:

"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians."

Pius XII, supposing he was Pope, named Encyclical Letters and the act of deliberately judging, as criteria of what constitutes a judgement by a Pope (supposing Bergoglio could by some still be considered such).

Now, the act of 27 October 2014 was not an Encyclical Letter, was not directed to Theologians but to Scientists, was not pretending to judge, but to bow down to their judgement "You are addressing the highly complex subject of the evolution of the concept of nature. I will not go into the scientific complexity, which you well understand, of this important and crucial question." It cannot remotely be construed as constituting even on his part any attempt to definitely judge in favour of Evolutionist over Traditional reading of Genesis.

In other words, as it was not valid as a debaing defense against a Traditional exegete of Evolutionary exegesis, since being without measure, it is also not valid as a judgement of the Church. Even to those who suppose Bergoglio is "Pope Francis" and supreme judge.

Since I do not so suppose, I cannot consider this as a Filial Correction. I am not Filial to the man I already since 2014 consider as Antipope Bergoglio.

Note, the occasion was uncovering of a bust of a still living predecessor. One possibility is, Ratzinger whose bust was uncovered is "the first beast" and Bergoglio, who honoured it, is the second one. If so, accepting his "God is not a magician with an all powerful wand" would be part of taking the mark "on the forehead" (that is, imbibing the ideology into one's thoughts).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Edward the Confessor

Ps, my booklet is in French:

Publié en ligne, imprimable, à partir de ce blog ci, sur les limites de la récalibration de C14

Ce matin une dame m'a dit une chose

Après d'avoir demandé ce qui m'est arrivé pour être là, après aussi d'avoir entendu ma réponse "pour être encore là, ce n'est pas tellement ce qui m'est arrivé, mais ce qui ne m'est pas arrivé : d'avoir mes écrit imprimés et vendus", elle me lançait un petit mot quelque peu bidon.

"Avant de vivre de ton écriture, faut prendre des petits boulots".

Ce n'est pas ce que je pense. Je vais vous le dire pourquoi.

Avant de vivre de son écriture, il faut deux choses:

  • avoir écrit suffisamment de texte pour que ça donne un ou plusieurs bouquins
  • idéalement, l'avoir écrit bien, ce texte

Faire des petits boulots ne me permet ni à mieux accomplir l'une, ni l'autre:

  • le temps pour les petits boulots prendrait de temps de l'écriture;
  • c'est en écrivant, pas en faisant des petits boulots qu'on devient un bon écrivain.

Elle n'a pas voulu me croire que ça prendrait trop de temps. Mais oui : elle en faisant de petits boulots après sa retraite du salon de coiffure, elle coiffe encore, mais il s'agit de la coiffure bénévole à échelle limitée, il ne s'agit plus de coiffer des clients tous les jours.

Or, si j'arrive à écrire et à survivre, je n'ai pas à prendre des petits boulots pour survivre.

Alors, si j'ai déjà fait les deux choses qu'il faut pour vivre de son écriture, on se demande pourquoi ce n'est pas encore le cas.

Il y a une troisième chose qu'il faut. C'est pas donné qu'il la faut pour l'écrivain, ça peut être par une autre personne:

  • il faut que les textes soient imprimés et stockés (les exemplaires) en vue de vente.

Là, je ne vois pas en quoi des petits boulots pourraient très bien m'aider. Si en faisant des petits boulots, j'arrivais à avoir un appartement, ça m'aiderais à stocker, en vue de vente.

Mais, le fait de vivre de mon écriture ne dépend normalement pas du fait d'être moi-même celui qui imprime et stocke et vent tout. Il y a une chose qu'on appelle en français "droits d'auteurs" et en anglais (et suédois) "royalties". Il me semble possible de vivre des gens qui vendent et qui m'envoient partie des revenus. Et je viens de mettre mes textes à la disposition de tout et chacun qui voudrait faire ça, en précisant que de mon point de vue, il ne s'agit pas d'un contrat de droits exclusifs pour un éditeur, et en revanche, les "royalties", les droits d'auteurs, seraient volontaires de la part de chaque éditeur.

Cest vrai, "voluntary royalties" sonne mieux que "droits d'auteurs volontaires" parce que en "droits d'auteur" on parle de "droit" ce qui normalement veut dire un droit opposable. Si je faisais un contrat exclusif, si l'éditeur vendait suffisamment, et s'il refusait de m'envoyer de l'argent, alors le droité étant opposable, je pourrais lui faire un procès, parce qu'il aura violé les termes du contrat.

Par contre, en faisant comme j'ai prévu, si un éditeur fait d'argent et ne m'envoie pas un centime, je ne peux pas lui faire un procès, mais lui non plus ne peut pas me faire un procès si je trouve un autre éditeur ou plusieurs et il ne peut pas leur faire le procès non plus, comme s'ils avaient violé une exclusivité lui appartenant.

Ceci je n'ai pas tout expliqué à la dame. Par contre, je vous l'explique, chers lecteurs.

Vous avez, tous et chacun, au moins par rapport aux textes qui relèvent de mes propres droits, ce droit ci:

  • éditer commercialement et m'envoyer partie
  • éditer commercialement et ne pas m'envoyer partie
  • éditer plutôt domestiquement que vraiment artisanalement
  • éditer idéellement et distribuer gratuitement
  • éditer idéellement et charger vos coûtes des copies.

Je dis, pour ceux des textes qui relèvent de mes propres droits. Je suis bien-sûr conscient que pour un dialogue sur quora ou youtube, vous devriez avoir aussi l'accord de l'autre personne en dialogue.

Et pour un fanfic sur un roman ou une série ou autre publication pertinent à un auteur vivant ou récemment décédé vous avez aussi besoin de l'accord de l'auteur ou de ses ayant-droits. Ma "Chronicle of Susan Pevensie" fait figurer Father Brown et Doctor Watson, pour lesquelles les droits d'auteurs sont déjà expirés, mais aussi encore davantage Susan Pevensie (relève de C. S. Lewis), Audoin Errol (relève de J. R. R. Tolkien) et au moins George Kirrin (celle qui est Claude dans la traduction française, relève d'Enid Blyton). En plus, ce roman là n'est pas fini, peut-être encore autant de chapitres à écrire - et si oui, alors pas en me levant à six heures pour faire des petits boulots!

La plupart de mes 5000 ou davantage articles sur ces blogs (je n'exaggère pas) ne font pas partie des 70 à 80 chapitres déjà existants de Chronicle of Susan Pevensie et pas non plus des dialogues cités sur quelques-uns (idéalement la plupart) de ces blogs:

Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl, HGL's F.B. writings, Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere, Répliques Assorties.

Déjà, leur masse en messages ou articles est d'un ensemble de seulement 1052 messages, ensuite, pas mal des deux derniers ne cite pas extensivement d'autres personnes, mais renvoie juste à des youtube ou des questions quora faits par d'autres, et le texte à part ce renoie est de moi.

Donc, "5000"-80-1052 = 3868, vous avez au moins 3868 articles qui relèvent de mes propres droits. Première langue anglais, deuxième langue français, et d'autres langues, suédois, allemand, latin, même des langues que j'ai pas très bien apprises encore, comme espagnol ou italien.

Avec 3868 articles, on peut faire combien de bouquins, genre collections d'essais? Il y a des collections d'essais par Chesterton qui comprennent environ 20.

Mais vous voulez peut-être dire que Chesterton (dont les droits d'auteurs sont expirés, il mourut en 1936) est connu, moi non? Bon, avec des petits boulots on ne se fait pas connaître, à part peut-être par des réseaux, genre synagogues ou loges. Et ce n'est pas de ces gens là que j'ai un quelconque espoir réaliste d'être imprimé, de toute façon.

Je ne vois pas très bien pourquoi cette dame aurait eu l'intérêt de me dire "avant de vivre de ton écriture, faut prendre des petits boulots". À part le soupçon que quelque réseau sur cette localité là lui aurait déjà parlé de moi, et que la phrase "avant de vivre de ton écriture" était juste pour faire joli.

Il y a des métiers pour lesquels on doit commencer en amassant d'argent, souvent pendant des années. Vu que je suis déjà 49, je n'ai pas ce genre d'années à gaspiller pour des préparations, ni le droit (au moins pas prudentiellement) de brader ce que j'ai déjà fait contre une telle démarche.

Si un jour j'imprime commercialement, même à petite échelle, mes écrits, moi-même, ce ne sera pas parce que j'aurais amassée d'argent patiemment pendant des années par petits boulots. Ce sera alors, par contre, parce que quelqu'un d'autre aura commencé à imprimer mon œuvre, m'aura envoyé d'argent dessus, ayant bien-sûr gagné suffisamment lui-même, et alors j'aurais peut-être un jour la possibilité de faire mes propres impressions en plus grande échelle que quelques exemplaires une semaine, quelques exemplaires une autre. Sans de forcément pouvoir vendre, souvent des cadeaux aux amis et aux bienfaiteurs - ou aux gens qui m'intéressent par leur position.

Et quand aux réseaux qui ne voudraient pas que d'autres commencent à imprimer mes écrits, je les condamne. Y compris ceux qui semblent autrement être de l'Église catholique. C'est eux qui ont retardé le bon retournement de mes affaires.

Et si quelqu'un prétend que mes écrits ne sont pas bons, alors, lui-même sera peut-être pas mon éditeur, je lui demande juste de ne pas empêcher d'autres, y compris dans sa famille, de le devenir. Encore une chose : ceci était sur ma propre situation, mais je ne suis pas nombriliste, la plupart ne sont pas sur moi non plus.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
100e Anniv. de Fatima

Wednesday, 11 October 2017

Angelic Movers of Celestial Bodies Revisited (Link)

Posted on January 15, 2016

It is almost too ridiculous to mention, but some Internet sites actually use this image, from the Serbian Vysoki Decani Monastery, as “proof” of early visitations by aliens from space. ... Anyone who knows the basics of Eastern Orthodox iconography, however, should recognize that those two images are just stylized representations of the sun (at left) and the moon (at right). ... At left is the sun, which is commonly personified by placing a face within it, or sometimes, as here, the body as well. You can see that aside from the rays emanating at left, the image of the sun has a round shape. ... Here is the moon, with another little figure within to personify it. It has the shape of the crescent moon. Two stars are added to show the connection with night.

The writer, looking back from the 20:th and 21:st Centuries, could be chosing the word "personify".

The iconographer could have been thinking of Angelic movers. We have other indications too, like the three young men in the oven speaking TO sun and moon and a few more, like, in this case of sun and moon, Joshua had done in chapter 10 and verse 12 of his book. We have - West of 1053 - St Francis of Assisi calling them "our brother, Mister Sun" and "our sister Moon". If it was just personification as rhetorical figure, it was at least a very pervasive one, those centuries.

But I'll remind you of an earlier post*, where I not only linked to but also quoted and translated a passage from Riccioli, in which he expressed that the position of heavenly bodies having in actual fact, not just in rhetoric figure of speech, movers of angelic nature was very common among learned men too. Here we have an indication from piety, as the poetry of St Francis and the icon of these Serbs are expressions of.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Maternity of the Blessed Virgin

* New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?

This Blog is Not About Interior Locutions or Visions

I happened to see part of why Vassula Rydén was excommunicated by Ecumenical Patriarchate - supposing the man claiming the title can excommunicate anyone.

These leaflets were distributed in Orthodox Churches, and clearly give the impression that Vassula Ryden is an Orthodox Christian. But any educated Orthodox Christian reading this should immediately be put on their guard by terms like “locutions” and “interior visions”, because such things are prima facie evidence of what is called in Russian prelest and in Greek plani, that is, spiritual delusion. Such things should immediately be checked with an experienced spiritual elder (starets, geron, gerondissa) before proclaiming them to the world.

I do not know whether Vassula is or is not checking her visions with a spiritual director. I do know, her words are about what she claims to know from prophecy.

Anyone reading this blog should know, I am writing from natural knowledge : as a Christian, as a cultivated Westerner.

If Vassula hears a voice from God saying that Greek Orthodox are Christians, she should perhaps check that with a Roman Catholic priest. I don't mean one from Vatican II establishement.

If I am saying Greek Orthodox are Christians, I am not saying what they are before God and not claiming to know it. I am merely saying that, like the real Christian Church, the Roman Catholic one, they believe Jesus rose from the Dead, they have traditions about who the Four Gospellers were (I am not sure the tradition about St Luke being one of the seventy is right, it does not seem to be shared by the Roman Catholics, but I have also not seen any condemnation of it), and they have a claim of at least material Apostolic Succession (yes, using the distinction of a false Church having real succession in sacramental character, but not jurisdiction, of bishops), like the Eastern Schismatics or Heretics known as Jacobites or Copts, Armenians, and Nestorians, like at least some later Western schismatics, like Utrecht Jansenists, before union with OLd Catholics.

If I am saying Latin nouns and pronouns have, like Latin adjectives, six cases, I am also not comparable to Vassula Rydén, I am simply a student of Latin.

And if I say Latin was used in France like Church Slavonic is used in Serbia or Ukraine or Russia, i e with a pronunciation adapted to the popular language and how it pronounces the words which are the same as the learned one, I am saying this as one knowing what Alcuin meant for Carolingian renaissance.

Anyone who claims anything in this is plani or prelest should concentrate on my arguments, not on asking whether I have visions and am telling them to a spiritual director.

Why am I saying this? Because I have experience with certain shall we say pastoral tricks of certain of them : withholding criticism and "awaiting confession", judging before hearing what it is about (or so it seems from my side), playing around with excommunications.

You know, if I am sure the world was made not many hours before Adam and Eve, 7200 or 7500 years ago, I am also not having this from visions, but from Mark 10:6, from the Roman Catholic Latin Rite Christmas liturgy with chronology of St. Jerome, from - for the other number - the chronology of Georgius Syncellus.

Human knowledge and human logic does not need constant checkups from spiritual directors, and does also not need spiritual warnings, like the one involved in coincidence with previous post, where the first digits in first draft, those of the post ID, were three consecutive sixes. And by human, I do not mean human as in human against God, I mean human as in humanly normal recipient of Church doctrine, a human believer, not a prophet or a charismatic.

There is one thing about prophecy which makes it look very mean to me that anyone would dream of asking whether I am a real or a fake one. A real prophet must take no money for his prophecy. If my writing were prophecy, I would have no right to take one cent for it. It is not, and I do have this right.

And, in case someone thinks "oh, why did he make that association, we did not think such a thing at all about him", silence and turning the back is mental torture. It leaves one guessing what the other guy is really up to. I may have guessed wrong about this or that or other guy. Someone might think it is even superstitious of me to take a triple six coincidence as a spiritual warning from someone. But if I am guessing wrong about EVERYONE, how come those who could have talked to me about the arguments have persisted in engaging in silence, how come those who could have helped me make money from my learning and talent as debater and philosopher have instead engaged in ... not replying when I bring this up?

I could have been off the street years ago, as a writer and composer, if certain people had made commercial editions of selections of my writings.

I am instead faced with loneliness, "reassuring" faces but hardly any argument on topics I relish from those that do get around me (some exceptions, not many), and of course poverty. What I want is not someone showing "reassuring". What I want is ... socially ... discussions ... economically ... printing and selling my "blogs"* or playing for paying public my composition.

I also think this coming up of Vassula Rydén is significant, because I am a Swede. I am her countryman. I have been attacked by shrinks in our country. I have also been faced with one or two (among them perhaps, but my memory is not sure there) either one or two Orthodox or (more sure) at least someone knowing them, on I am not Vassula Rydén, I don't know what to think of her excommunication, I have no need of being compared to her in terms of what above quote**.

Similarily, if someone thinks I am wrong on any more controversial topic, like my identifying Göbekli Tepe with Nimrod's Babel, I want this person to talk to me, not to talk to God about "correcting me" without ever confronting me himself. There was a thing St. John Chrysostom said about excommunicating lightly. I would consider certain priests (not humanly totally sure who, but not much in doubt either) to be playing around with such games when they would in a more normal pastoral been arguing instead.

I know that Russian Orthodox Church was psychiatry friendly before the Revolution, and now consider this to be an error of Russia, among the ones which Our Lady prophecied at Fatima, hundred years ago. I also know both Trad Catholic priests and simply diocesan but Vatican II ones are, not just more psychiatry friendly statistically than they should be, but also more ecumenic with Russian Orthodox than they would normally have been 100 years ago. I therefore think it is possible for shrinks to persecute me socially via Russian Orthodox, and for Russian Orthodox to do so via Catholic clergy here. There are also Catholic clergy here who have taken to a nutty idea from some War veterans of Afghanistan : the idea that Fundamentalism in general, as approach to religious texts, including the Bible, is what is behind the terrorist threat. And yes, I recently approached one or two of them with a YEC material, the one given in previous post, in French. So, if excommunication as a toy and an insincere menace is their game, well, they would have a motive.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Maternity of the Blessed Virgin

Here is this previous post, its post ID has no three sixes now any more, I made a new draft:

New blog on the kid : Publié en ligne, imprimable, à partir de ce blog ci, sur les limites de la récalibration de C14

* Technically wrong. Blogposts, not blogs. No one blog, except perhaps some few very short ones, could as such be a book : several blogposts from several different ones would certainly be able to be several books. ** From this blog : and this blogpost here:

Khanya : Bad theology: Vassula Ryden and Benny Hinn
19 March 2011

Publié en ligne, imprimable, à partir de ce blog ci, sur les limites de la récalibration de C14

Lien vers la première page: C14, limites, devant – 16
October 11, 2017 ~ antimodernista

Après, suivre les autres pages avec les autres scans, dans les commentaires.

Titre : C14, limites de la récalibration / par rapport à la chronologie de St. Jérôme.

Davantage de livres en français:

Livres en Français
September 2, 2016 ~ antimodernista

Pour chaque nouveau, j'ajoute un lien vers la page principale dans les commentaires./HGL

Monday, 9 October 2017

Why I Have Not Signed Correctio Filialis

One reason: I am not adressing a fairly clear Antipope as "father".

As to content, I consider anyone who has not rejected Bergoglio yet should at least study Correctio Filialis.

Here is Bishop Fellay on the matter:

SSPX news & events : Bishop Fellay: Why I Signed the Correctio Filialis
September 26, 2017

And, if you do not find it in your heart to reject Bergoglio straight away, you should consider signing the Correctio./HGL

Saturday, 7 October 2017

If the Quotes are Genuine, I am Glad I did NOT Directly Recommend Trump in Primaries

I can perhaps live with having been wrong on who was worst between him and La Clinton, if it should be the case.

I can not be blamed Hilary's main opponent was Trump : I recommended other Republicans (Santorum and Rubio). I did not know about a certain third party candidate until it was over. And, as I am not a US citizen, I did not cast any ballot for Trump or anyone else.

WARNING: Trump Is The Antichrist! Testimonies From MANY Christians!
Brother James Key | Ajoutée le 18 janv. 2017

That said, I hope he - James Key - could be wrong about Trump being that bad. I even more hope that there is no RFID chip plan.

Snopes : Chip on Your Shoulder
'Obamacare' health care legislation does not require that anyone be implanted with RFID microchips.


Oct 3rd, Mark of the Beast: Antichrist Trump Ordered Bio-ID to Replace SSN ID
Brother James Key | Ajoutée le 4 oct. 2017

We so far have the words of Trump. Biometric. Could mean photo and finger print./HGL

Friday, 6 October 2017

Islam has a Problem, in Common with Pharisees, Sorry, Sadducees : Christ has the Solution

Source : FB : Islam Exposed - The Original
10 juin ·/ Heaven of Islam, are you interested?

Screen shots of video:

Islam allows a woman who is divorced by her husband saying "I divorce you" to marry another man. Islam, like Christianity, also allows a widow to marry another man. In the Old Testament, a widow without male children was, first option, supposed to marry the brother (in practise could be another kinsman if no brother was available or brother didn't want her), so the new husband's first son would legally count as his nephew, as son of the old husband.

This means, a woman can legally have more than one husband, successively. However, this is about this life. In Resurrection of the Body, all live eternally thereafter, and obviously a woman cannot in eternity be having sex with several different men. Still, it is possible that she is resurrected among the blessed, and so are all of her successive, real, husbands.

So, the Jews who thought (without support in any text of the Old Testament, you cannot find that thought supported by a direct proof text i n their own Biblica Hebraica, even if they might consider this or that as an indirect proof text), you get to have sex if you are judged worthy of eternal bliss, they had a problem. Who would a woman be married to in eternity? No, actually, when I look, the guys who were posing the problem were not Pharisees, the sect we call Jews today, they were Sadducees, a sect among Kohanim, though not all Kohanim were Sadducees. They were not what we call Orthodox Jews.

They used this problem to deny the Resurrection.

Here is how Our Lord Jesus Christ dealt with them: Mark 12, 24-25.

And He did not tell them "you fake the Tawra", He asked them "do you not know the Scriptures?"

He did not say their scribes were writing what they had not read, he said their exegetes were imagining things contrary to what they had read and were continuing to read.

It is possible that Pharisees - the ones we call Jews today - agree with Our Lord on this one. I don't know what their successor Maimonides says about it. If so, everyone there was a bit wiser than the Mollah we just saw, and probably also the texts he is using.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Bruno

PS : it is also the 13th anniversary of my arrival to St James in Galicia, Compostela. And, no, it was not in order to be a monk, though I admire St Bruno, that I did the pilgrimage, and it was not monasticism, though I admire it, which I prayed for as a Christian pilgrim (no reason to confuse this with Hajj of Muslims, I am not hoping for any seventy virgins in paradise!)/HGL

PS 2 : someone on a FB group mentioned the video from which the two screenshots are has been edited. It could be - they said - he was only mentioning a position he did not share, he could have been ironic about it, and the clues about that could have been edited out. Does anyone have the original video conference by him?/HGL

PS 3, next day : here is same cleric saying same thing, first, then another clip:

Same clip as part of above video:

Saudi Cleric: Muslim Men to Enjoy upto 19604 Women in Paradise
TheGreenPastures | Ajoutée le 18 sept. 2013

Other clip, reflecting, their attitude to lying and to psychiatry:

Muslim Cleric How to Lie about Islam
RadioFreeLondon | Ajoutée le 30 oct. 2013

and of course to beer and wine, not directly my grandfather or Gilbert Keith Chesterton!/HGL