Wednesday, 30 November 2016

When a Private Person Does This, It is Harrassment


At least Melania Trump thinks so.

The Washinton Times : Melania Trump attorney threatens lawsuit over Barron autism video
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/29/melania-trump-attorney-threatens-lawsuit-over-barr/


The creator of a YouTube video that speculated whether 10-year-old Barron Trump is autistic has apologized to the Trump family in a new video posted Tuesday afternoon.

YouTube user James Hunter issued the apology after news broke that Melania Trump was threatening a lawsuit over the video. In a letter obtained by Us Weekly, Mrs. Trump’s lawyer, Charles J. Harder, said the video was a form of harassment and bullying. He reportedly demanded that Mr. Hunter remove the video or face legal action.

In his new video, Mr. Hunter said his suggestion that the youngest Trump suffers from autism “is in fact 100% false.”

“It was incredibly irresponsible of me to diagnose Barron Trump using a selection of misleading videos,” he said. “Many of the videos I used showed Barron Trump behaving like any normal kid would at 3 a.m. I falsely correlated him trying to stay awake and occasionally doing a quirky things, with him suffering from autism. This was incredibly foolish of me.

“My video was originally intended as an anti-bullying video, as I myself suffer from autism and wanted to educate people,” he continued. “Unfortunately, I completely misdiagnosed a person and ended up making a video that was


[Only quoting preview]

When someone is robbed of his freedoms because diagnosed as autistic, by someone authorised to misdiagnose, even if he also had a problem staying awake*, it is science.

Hans Georg Lundahl
III. District Townhall / Paris
St Andrew Apostle
30.XI.2016

* I may have been extra clumsy this morning, but I had been forced to leave a place where I had just woken up at 2am in the morning, and look for somewhere else./HGL

Bonum Festum Sancti Andreae Apostoli


Christifidelibus exopto./HGL

Apud Patras, in Achaja, natalis sancti Andreae Apostoli, qui in Thracia et Scythia sacrum Christi Evangelium praedicavit. Is, ab Aegea Proconsule comprehensus, primum in carcere clausus est, deinde gravissime caesus, ad ultimum suspensus in cruce, in ea populum docens biduo supervixit; et, rogato Domino ne eum sineret de cruce deponi, circumdatus est magno splendore de caelo, et, abscedente postmodum lumine, emisit spiritum.

Tuesday, 29 November 2016

Matthieu 28, pour un Calviniste


Le chapitre commence avec le récit de la Résurrection, bien-sûr. Mais il finit avec ceci:

Matthieu 28:16 Les onze disciples s'en allèrent en Galilée, sur la montagne que Jésus leur avait désignée.
17 En le voyant, ils l'adorèrent, eux qui avaient hésité à croire.
18 Et Jésus s'approchant, leur parla ainsi : " Toute puissance m'a été donnée dans le ciel et sur la terre.
19 Allez donc, enseignez toutes les nations, les baptisant au nom du Père, et du Fils et du Saint-Esprit,
20 leur apprenant à garder tout ce que je vous ai commandé : et voici que je suis avec vous tous les jours jusqu'à la fin du monde. "


Deux observations:

  • Les mots sont adressés aux autorités de magistère les supérieurs auparavant élues par Notre Seigneur, pas directement aux simples fidèles, et en plus ils contiennent le mention d'enseigner, de plus.

  • Ils contiennent la promesse d'être avec ce magistère tous les jours jusqu'à la fin du monde.


La fin du monde n'a pas encore eu lieu, donc, ce tous les jours jusqu'à la fin du monde doit nécessairement comprendre tous les jours jusqu'à maintenant.

Et ceci dit très clairement, que le magistère de l'Église est indéfectible.

Qu'en dit Calvin*?

So much the more intolerable is the wickedness of the Popish clergy, when they take this as a pretext for their sacrilege and tyranny.  Autant plus est intolérable la méchanceté du clergé papiste, quand ils prennent ceci comme un prétexte pour leur sacrilège et tyrannie.
 
They affirm that the Church cannot err, because it is governed by Christ;  Ils affirment que l'Église ne peut pas errer, puisqu'elle est gouverné par le Christ;
 
as if Christ, like some private soldier, hired himself for wages to other captains,  comme si le Christ, comme un soldat privé, se serait soldé pour d'autres capitaines,
 
and as if he had not, on the contrary, reserved the entire authority for himself, and declared that he would defend his doctrine, so that his ministers may confidently expect to be victorious over the whole world.  et comme s'il n'avait pas, au contraire, reservé toute l'autorité pour lui-même, et déclaré qu'il allait défendre sa doctrine, de manière que ses ministres puissent avec confiance expecter de vaincre tout le monde.


Précisément, s'il avait déclaré qu'Il allait défendre sa doctrine, Il l'avait aussi déclaré par moyen de qui, par ses Apôtres (et leurs successeurs), et avec combien d'assiduité, tous les jours.

Et le problème est que l'idée même d'une Réforme (telle que l'était la calvinienne à Genève, par exemple) présuppose qu'il y ait eu un lapse de temps quand le Christ n'aurait pas défendu sa doctrine avec toute assiduité, de manière que des erreurs puissent avoir eu temps de se glisser dedans. Ces prétendues erreurs que la Réforme prétendait éradiquer "en service du Christ".

Donc, l'idée de la Réforme Protestante est une idée totalement contraire au texte de Matthieu 28.

Qu'avait-il dit, ce Calvin, juste avant?

Even to the end of the world. It ought likewise to be remarked, that this was not spoken to the apostles alone; for the Lord promises his assistance not for a single age only, but even to the end of the world.  Jusqu'à la fin du monde. Il doit être remarqué aussi, que ceci ne fut pas dit aux apôtres seuls; car le Seigneur promet son assistance non seulement pour un seul âge, mais jusqu'à la fin du monde.
 
It is as if he had said, that though the ministers of the gospel be weak and suffer the want of all things: he will be their guardian, so that they will rise victorious over all the opposition of the world.  C'est comme s'il avait dit, que, même si les ministres de l'évangile soient faibles et aillent souffrir le manque en tout: il sera leur gardien, ainsi qu'ils surmontent victorieusement toute l'opposition du monde.
 
In like manner, experience clearly shows in the present day, that the operations of Christ are carried on wonderfully in a secret manner, so that the gospel surmounts innumerable obstacles.  Et pareillement, l'expérience montre clairement dans le jour présent, que les opérations du Christ soient continuées de manière secrète, afin que l'évangile surmonte d'obstacles innombrables.


Qu'a-t-il dit qu'il n'aurait pas dû dire? Ceci: "de manière secrète".

Pourquoi? Parce que l'Église est visible.

Que n'a-t-il pas dit, qu'il aurait dû dire, si son église était la véritable? Ceci: "jusqu'au jour présent".

Au lieu de "jusqu'au jour présent", il dit "dans le jour présent", admettant ainsi que l'évangile, telle qu'il l'imaginait n'avait pas de canal par exemple 50 ans avant, ou par exemple dans la jeunesse de Sire François de Sales, plus tard dit Seigneur de Boisy.**

Au moins pas de canal connu par lui-même.

Encore une chose, il semble avoir utilisé une mauvaise traduction:

"And, lo, I am with you always. ..." Ça veut dire "et voici, je suis avec vous toujours".

Mais la bonne traduction, c'est:

" ... et voici que je suis avec vous tous les jours jusqu'à la fin du monde. "

Toujours, c'est déjà trop pour la position calviniste. Toujours, c'est comme la papauté. Comme le disait le Concile de Vatican*** "perpetuos successores".

C'est quelque part analogue avec la perpétuité de tous les jours ici promise, mais pas identique. En 1939, entre le 10 février et le 2 mars, nul doute qu'il y a eu 20 jours sans pape.

Mais la promesse de Jésus-Christ est valable pas juste entre le 6 février 1922 et le 10 février 1939, et encore une fois à partir du 2 mars 1939 jusqu'à telle ou telle date°, elle est valable aussi pour les heures tardives du 10 février 1939 aux heures nocturnes et matinales du 2 mars la même année. Quand il n'y avait pas de pape, il y a eu pas mal d'autres évêques de l'église. Et tous, ou suffisamment, ont enseigné l'évangile pur - contrairement à Calvin.

Mais supposons que quelque part Calvin ne pouvait pas croire que l'Église catholique était la véritable? Avait-il alors le droit de fonder son propre église, comme il le faisait? Non. Il y a d'autres églises, bien que considérées comme sectes par l'Église catholique, qui, néanmoins ont gardé l'épiscopat et qui, au moment de la rupture avec Rome prétendaient au moins de continuer une tradition déjà existante.

Elles ne sont pas très nombreuses.

Les corps ecclésiastiques qui ont une prétention quelconque d'être là depuis le Jour de l'Ascension, depuis les 11 Apôtres de Mathieu 28, sont au nombre de cinq:

  • L'Église catholique apostolique romaine.
  • L'Église orthodoxe orientale, appelée par les Catholiques "schismatiques grécoslaves" ou parfois "hérétiques photiens".
  • L'Église copte, les monophysites qu'on appelle aussi Jacobites°°.
  • L'Église arménienne, une autre version du monophysitisme.
  • L'Église orthodoxe de l'Est, appelés par Catholiques comme par les autres Nestoriens.


Ceci sont les alternatives, dans lesquelles on peut d'une première approximation cerner l'Église du Christ, à partir du critère de Mathieu 28.

Toutes ces églises ont sept sacrements, pas trois comme les Luthériens, pas deux comme les Calvinistes.

Toutes ces églises sont épiscopales, reconnaissent donc des évêques au-dessus des simples prêtres, et qu'un simple prêtre ne peut pas ordiner un autre, contrairement à la doctrine presbytérienne.

Toutes ces églises demandent la confession sacramentelle dans la justification du pécheur qui est déjà baptisé.

Toutes ces églises vénèrent la Bienheureuse Vierge Marie (y compris les Nestoriens, qui disent Christotokos plutôt que Théotokos).

Toutes ces églises sont en pratique plus ou moins d'accord avec le concile de Nicée II : les premiers deux le reconnaissent comme Concile écuménique, les autres pratiquent la même chose - tandis que Calvin était plutôt d'accord avec les Iconoclastes, condamnés par Nicée II.

Toutes, sauf l'Église arménienne actuelle, peut-être, et y compris l'Église arménienne autrefois, confessent la présence réelle du Christ dans le Sacrement de l'autel.

Toutes, y compris l'Église arménienne actuelle, confessent que la Messe est un vrai sacrifice. Le seul sacrifice du Calvaire est rendu présent en chauque Messe valide. En chaque Messe validement célébré.

Toutes ces églises confessent aussi qu'à côté du texte biblique il y a la Tradition apostolique. Ce qui en plus découle logiquement de Mathieu 28.

Toutes ces églises ont aussi du monasticisme des deux sexes. Et à part les Nestoriens, me semble-t-il, requièrent le célibat d'un moine pour être élevé à l'épiscopat.

Les sectateurs de Calvin ont essayé de prendre contacte avec les Byzantins, ils ont eu une réponse un peu favorable, au moins pour leur personnes, par le patriarche Cyrille Loukaris, mais il y a une divergence si celui-ci favorisait leur doctrine, et ceux qui répondent en affirmatif le considèrent comme donc un mauvais patriarche, généralement. Ceux qui le soupçonnaient de le faire étaient ses adversaires à l'époque. Et à part Cyrille Loukaris, le Calvinisme a eu très peu d'appui chez les (si-dits) Orthodoxes.

Les synodes de Iassy en Moldovie et de Jérusalem ont répété des vieux condemnations du Catholicisme romain, mais ajouté pas mal de cpndemnations doctrinales visant le Protestantisme, et aussi directement le Calvinisme.

Retenue par les Orthodoxes Roumains était la suggestion de changer la langue liturgique, ils célébraient avant en Vieux Slavon, et ont introduit la langue roumaine ou vallaque.

Monsieur mon bienfaiteur d'hier, si vous lisez ceci, convertissez-vous. Ne restez pas Calviniste! Et merci encore une fois pour la pizza! Elle était très bonne!

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Veille de Saint Andrée Apôtre
29.XI.2016

* N'ayant pas son texte sans doute français en original, je prends le texte de studylight, une traduction anglaise, ou américaine, et retraduis en français. ** Celui-ci dira à son fils, le grand connu François de Sales, le Saint évêque de Genève, que le Calvinisme est une religion plus jeune que lui-même, il l'avait vu naître. *** Il y en a eu un : 1869-70! ° Une date en 1950, si Pie XII est déchu de la papauté cette année, comme le disait Michel Colin qui prit le nom Clément XV, ou encore le 9 octobre 1958, s'il restait pape à sa mort. °° Pas à confondre avec les Jacobites dans la politique anglaise, ceux qui se sont soulevés contre les premier usurpateurs hannovériens, comme en 1713 ou 1745.

Bad News for France


I got this bad news in a plea for a signature, which will be given:

Two recent events illustrate this trend.

On the occasion of World Down Syndrom Day, a beautiful video entitled "Dear Future Mom" was broatcasted for several days on some French TV channels. But the French television authority (CSA) considered that broadcasting such a message of support, to reassure women expecting a baby affected with Down Syndom, "was not of public interest", and therefore asked the TV channels to stop broadcasting the spot.

The 7 young people affected with Down syndrom and featuring in this spot sued the CSA's decision, but the Conseil d'État rejected their plea. It considered that the CSA's decision was well-founded and that the content of the TV spot message was "inappropriate" for such a broadcasting. The children’s smiles might “disturb” women who have had abortions... The case may go to the European Court of Human Rights.

The second threat comes from the French Parliament in which a Commission just passed a bill targeting pro-life websites displaying a message intended to dissuade women from having an abortion.

This bill, which contains only one article intends to extend the notion of "impediments" to abortion and creates a new crime of "digital interference" to abortion. The mere dislay on a website of, for instance, information about the risks of having an abortion, or an attempt to convince women that there are other solutions than abortion would be considered, with the new law, as a criminal offense punishable by up to 2 years of imprisonment and €30,000 fine.

This bill will be examined by the French Parliament in public debate on Thursday, December 1st .


The other bad news was about a month ago, when Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet proposed to make it a crime to preach that the laws of God (or of a Sacred Text) are more obliging than the laws of the French Republic.

"For example" she argued, "if you preach that a woman is worth half as much as a man, because the Qoran says so, you are to be charged with this crime" (equality between men and women being one law of the French Republic).

Obviously, if the proposed ban on digital interference with abortion becomes another law of the Republic, this means that preaching that it is a good thing to dissuade from abortion becomes an offense too.

Imagine a parish and a blogger. Next year.

A blogger commits the "crime" (as it would be termed) of "digital interference". His parish (or his ex parish) initially supports him, without much further comment from the parish priest.

Then support wavers. A parish priest can then be telling his parish the blogger did a good thing. If he doesn't, the support will vanish, the little that remains. On Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet's terms, that would be another offense.

Thus, law by law or rather pseudo-law by pseudo-law (because laws contrary to the law of God are no laws, notwithstanding any legislations or legislation attempts by a Republic or other entity), the persecution of Christianity and of a Pro-Life stance is prepared in France.

Next year, 2017, is 112 years after 1905, the year when Clémenceau made another bad law which put Catholics out of the law and led to policemen actually killing Catholic parishioners who were trying to defend their parishes, like the evil Reformations in the North of Europe also did (Sweden-Finland, Denmark-Norway, England and Scotland).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Vigil of St Andrew Apostle
29.XI.2016

Monday, 28 November 2016

En réponse à un argument de Mgr Williamson


Le blog La Question : Mgr Williamson : réponses aux erreurs des sédévacantistes
13 février 2014
https://lebloglaquestion.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/mgr-williamson-reponses-aux-erreurs-des-sedevacantistes/


Traduit ou excerpt de Mgr Williamson Commentaire Eleison – 25 janvier 2014 et 1er février 2014

Argument sédivacantiste
Le Modernisme est « la synthèse de toutes les hérésies » (Saint Pie X). Or, les Papes Conciliaires furent tous des modernistes « publiques et manifestes », c’est-à-dire des hérétiques d’une nature telle que Saint Robert Bellarmin déclarait qu’ils ne pouvaient être membres de l’Église, et à plus forte raison en être la tête.

Réponse de Mgr Williamson
Aux jours de Saint Bellarmin les choses étaient beaucoup plus claires, à savoir « publiques et manifestes », qu’elles ne le sont de nos jours où c’est la confusion qui règne dans les esprits et les cœurs. L’hérésie objective des Papes Conciliaires (c’est-à-dire ce qu’ils disent) est publique et manifeste, mais ce n’est pas le cas de leur hérésie subjective ou formelle (c’ est-à-dire leur intention consciente et résolue de nier ce qu’eux savent être l’immuable dogme catholique). La preuve de leur hérésie formelle ne peut être obtenue que par une confrontation avec l’autorité doctrinale de l’Église, par exemple l’Inquisition ou Saint Office (quel que soit son nom). Mais le Pape est lui-même l’autorité doctrinale la plus haute de l’Église, au dessus et au-delà de la Congrégation pour la Doctrine de la Foi. Comment donc pourrait-il être lui-même prouvé coupable d’appartenir à cette classe d’hérétique dont on suppose qu’elle seule peut le rendre incapable d’être le chef de l’Église?

Qqs observations
que je fais à propos de cette réponse.

1)
Dire que tel ou tel aspect d'une question était beaucoup plus clair avant, c'est très souvent vrai pour les positions prises en société.

Ce n'est pas vrai pour les essentialités de la liberté ou de la responsabilité de l'âme.

Si à l'époque de St Robert Bellarmin un homme ayant une formation qui se veut épiscopale pouvait être présumé immédiatement coupable si par exemple il voudrait contredire la chronologie biblique, soutenir des préadamites et ainsi de suite, parce qu'on avait déjà le jugement contre Isaac de la Pereyre, alors, on le peut maintenant aussi.

Si à l'époque de Pape Urbain VIII, après son jugement contre les thèses abjurées salutairement par Galilée, on pouvait immédiatement présumer un homme ayant une formation épiscopale coupable s'il voulait soutenir comme un donné hors doute que la Terre bouge autour d'elle-même et autour du Soleil, chaque jour et chaque an, on le peut ajourd'hui aussi.

Les signes qu'un homme a une certaine pensée sont toujours les mêmes, il l'exprime, il le réexprime, il le maintient si contredit, il le maintient s'il est confronté à un argument contre.

Les choses à ne pas croire sont aussi les mêmes.

Benoît XV n'a pas osé s'exprimer clairement en In Praeclara Summorum pour l'héliocentrisme, encore moins dans une encyclique dédiée formellement à l'astronomie. J'y reviens.

Pie VII a juste ouvert l'Index Librorum, les livres de Settele et autres prétendant que l'héliocentrisme serait prouvé ont sorti quasi des portes de cette prison de livres. Mais il a aussi dit qu'ils doivent annoter ces livres avec les preuves de l'allégation - une fine pique pour stimuler le débat, pas pour le faire étouffer, d'une part comme avant, d'autre part dans le sens exactement contraire.

Il semble avoir dit qu'on est libre de soutenir l'héliocentrisme dans sa forme présente, à l'époque, mais pas qu'on le soit à la tenir ou croire.

Léon XIII n'a pas nommé l'héliocentrisme de nom, les solutions qu'il vient de suggérer sont telles qu'un géocentrique peut s'en emparer aussi, et furent dites avant sa citation par des géocentriques.

2)
Dire qu'une certitude morale à partir des dires du pape présumé tel auparavant ne suffirait pas pour le présumer comme non-pape, c'est contredire le sens de St Robert Bellarmin. Oui, il a bien dit ça, mais il ne peut pas l'avoir voulu dire, car ... oui, on sait, Mgr Lefèbvre a préféré Cajétan à St Robert. Par contre, les sédivacantistes préfèrent St Robert à Cajétan en ceci.

3)
Dire qu'on devait avoir la certitude juridique de l'hérésie subjective et formelle avant de considérer quelqu'un comme non pape contredit au moins un example dans l'histoire de l'Église. Liberius (Libère en français?) était raisonnablement suspect de l'hérésie par le fait d'avoir signé une formule de Sirmium, on ne savait pas laquelle, et ça a suffi pour qu'on accepte l'antipape auparavant tel Félix II comme pape. Or, il est saint, une fois que le pape avait dit qu'il n'avait signé que sous contrainte et une formule ambigue pourrant être accepté en sens orthodox, alors Félix II se retire, Libère redevient pape, et il y aura un deuxième règne de Félix II, parce que après Libère, Félix II à son tour redevient pape. Et il est un saint.

29 Julii ... Romae, via Aurelia, sancti Felicis Secundi, Papae et Martyris; qui, ab Ariano Imperatore Constantio, ob catholicae fidei defensionem, e sede sua dejectus, et Cerse, in Tuscia, occulte gladio necatus, gloriose occubuit. Ejus corpus, inde a Clericis raptum, eadem via sepultum fuit; postea vero, ad Ecclesiam sanctorum Cosmae et Damiani delatum, ibidem, Gregorio Decimo tertio Summo Pontifice, repertum est sub altari, una cum reliquiis sanctorum Martyrum Marci, Marcelliani et Tranquillini, atque in eodem loco, pridie Kalendas Augusti, simul cum eis reconditum. In quo etiam altari inventa fuerunt corpora sanctorum Martyrum Abundii Presbyteri, et Abundantii Diaconi; quae, non multo post, ad Ecclesiam Societatis Jesu solemniter translata sunt pridie natalis eorum. ...


Or, si la présomption qui se trouve même erronée d'une chute en hérésie d'un pape réellement tel, si ça a suffi pour qu'un antipape devienne pape, alors la présomption matérielle d'une hérésie réellement telle peut bien suffire pour regarder un pape comme déchu ou comme n'ayant pas avoir été même pape.

4)
Dire que le pape est lui-même l'autorité doctrinale la plus haute de l'Église vaut bien pour un pape qu'on ne peut pas raisonnablement même suopçonner d'hérésie. Par contre, Innocent III, me semble-t-il, était le pape qui avait dit "prima sedes a nemine judicatur, nisi deprehendatur a fide devia".

Ou il l'avait de Decretum Graziani, comme le précise la wikipedia italienne (article Conciliarismo):

Decretum Magistri Gratiani (1140-1142 ca.): « Papa a nemine est iudicandus, nisi deprehendatur a fide devius».


Que cette idée ait été abusée par le conciliarisme ne la rend pas caduque.

Même, elle a été réitérée avec un peu de variation par Pape Paul IV (article Cum ex apostolatus officio):

1. Nos considerantes rem huiusmodi adeo gravem, et periculosam esse, ut Romanus Pontifex, qui Dei, et Domini Nostri Iesu Christi vices gerit in terris, et super gentes, et regna plenitudinem obtinet potestatis, omnesque iudicat, a nemine in hoc saeculo iudicandus, possit, si deprehendatur a fide devius, redargui, et quod ubi maius intenditur periculum, ibi est plenius, et diligentius consulendum, ne pseudoprophetae, aut alii etiam saecularem iurisdictionem habentes, simplicium animas miserabiliter illaqueent, innumerabilesque populos eorum in spiritualibus, aut temporalibus curae, et regimini commissos, secum in perditionem, et damnationis interitum trahant, nec aliquando contingat Nos abominationem desolationis, quae dicta est a Daniele Propheta, in loco sancto videre, cupientes, quantum cum Deo possumus, pro nostro munere Pastorali vulpes vineam Domini demoliri satagentes capere, et lupos ab ovilibus arcere, ne canes muti videamur nequeuntes latrare, et perdamur cum malis agricolis, ac mercenario comparemur.


C'est à dire, Paul IV veut donner un cadre juridique à ce qui est du jugement d'un pape hérétique. Pour qu'on ne soit pas dans la situation qu'un pape pris en flagrant délit de déviation de la foi puisse ne pas être jugé. Ou qu'il ne puisse pas être jugé.

Sa solution est qu'un homme ayant tombé en hérésie ne peut pas devenir pape.

Pour ce qui est de cet "ayant tombé" si après il se repentit, c'est de jure ecclesiastico, mais pour ce qui est de cet "ayant tombé" si on sous-entend "est reste maintenant" en hérésie, c'est de droit divin.

C'est là-dessus que je base le droit et devoir de ne pas accepter Bergoglio comme pape.

5)
Une hérésie très palpable, quasi banal à constater, chez Bergoglio avant la prétendue élection était de considérer que la plupart des mariages sont invalides, faute de consens vraiment libre, faute de maturité.

Il n'y a pas doute que c'est en partie ça aussi sa base en Amoris Laetitia.

Or, la réponse "aux jours de Saint Bellarmin les choses étaient beaucoup plus claires, à savoir « publiques et manifestes », qu’elles ne le sont de nos jours où c’est la confusion qui règne dans les esprits et les cœurs," risque précisément de partager l'erreur ou une forme possible de l'erreur de Bergoglio.


Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St. Sosthenes de Corinthe
28.XI.2016

Saturday, 26 November 2016

Found on Quora - Answering Here


As an atheist, what would you do if your teen wanted to convert to Christianity?
[picking out one answer:]

Ernest W. Adams
Ernest W. Adams, curious about religion, believer in none.

Written Nov 3
“Ethiopian Orthodox, Syriac, or snake-handling? Monophysite or diaphysite? What’s your take on the Albigensian Crusade? Legitimate holy war, or bigoted sectarian genocide? Would you call King Henry VIII a Protestant, or simply a heretical Catholic?

“You can be a Christian when you know more about Christianity than your old man does. And one more thing: no evangelism. I won’t have you bothering other people about their religion. Trying to change someone’s religion is one of the most offensive things you can do; wars have been started by it.”

Answering
in the hope some teens do convert and get if needing that questionnaire, these answers:

"Ethiopian Orthodox, Syriac, or snake-handling?"
Roman Catholic. "Sedevacantist" but technically not such, since accepting Vatican in Exile / Pope Michael.

"Monophysite or diaphysite?"
Dyophysite, monypostasist about Christ, and as usual monophysite and triypostasist about God.

In other words, Calchedonian Trinitarian.

"What’s your take on the Albigensian Crusade? Legitimate holy war, or bigoted sectarian genocide?"
Legitimate war against bigotted sectarians making snake handlers look sane.

"Would you call King Henry VIII a Protestant, or simply a heretical Catholic?"
He was personally a schismatic, slightly heretical Catholic, but favoured Protestants to get rid of better Catholics opposing his changes.

"You can be a Christian when you know more about Christianity than your old man does."
An old man with such an attitude can always imagine he knows more than he does.

He can also be missing the essentials and be avoiding the issue by trying to pretend these side issues unsolvable - which they are not.

"And one more thing: no evangelism."
Depends on his calling and circumstances.

Priests and monks and nuns need to evangelise.

Catholics surrounded by non-Catholics need to evangelise or withdraw, even if laymen.

"I won’t have you bothering other people about their religion."
Your teen, like anyone else, needs to obey God more than men, should there be a conflict.

You seem to be providing one.

"Trying to change someone’s religion is one of the most offensive things you can do;"
It seems some parents not getting over their sons or daughters becoming or remaining Christian and becoming Catholic to remain Christian (when faced with l o t s of info, provided on terms like "you can be a Christian when you know more about Christianity than your old man does,") should take this more to heart than teens simply evangelising.

And sometimes, it is not even the parents who behave like that, but networks feeling solidarity with the parents who might be slighted.

Some young people have not had opportunity to marry according to religion of their conversion, due to parents thinking they should change him first, so he could marry according to family background. This is atrocious, and even more so if a network sympathising with parents but without their initiative has been doing such things.

"wars have been started by it."
Not all wars are evil, not every term of peace is good.

Friday, 25 November 2016

Election Regret : Why Did Catholics Not Know of Darrell Castle?



A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics : Traditional Catholic Principles for Voting via the SSPX July 27, 2016
https://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2016/07/27/traditional-catholic-principles-for-voting-via-the-sspx/


Castle 2016 : Campaign Platform
Charting America’s Course as a Free and Independent Nation
http://castle2016.com/platform/

Pour éviter un malentendu


Dans le métro, je viens de donner un panneau en carton avec des liens internet à un homme qui m'avait engagé en conversation.

Ça veut dire qu'il peut lire mes blogs, comme tout le monde.*

Ça veut dire qu'il peut donner l'adresse de mes blogs à qui il veut, y compris la dame étrangère.

Ça veut dire que l'URL peut être partagé avec qui on veut.**

Par contre, ça ne veut pas dire qu'il pourrait disposer de mes blogs contre mon gré, comme j'ai eu l'impression désagréable que quelqu'un avait pris un geste comme ça, avant que le type de site que j'annonçais fût quelque mois plus tard enlevé du ouaibe.*** Juste au cas au, juste pour clarifier.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre BU
Sainte Catherine
25.XI.2016

Alexandriae sanctae Catharinae, Virginis et Martyris, quae, ob fidei Christianae confessionem, sub Maximino Imperatore, in carcerem trusa, et postmodum scorpionibus diutissime caesa, tandem capitis obtruncatione martyrium complevit. Ipsius corpus, in montem Sinai mirabiliter ab Angelis delatum, ibidem, frequenti Christianorum concursu, pia veneratione colitur.

* Mes haiku sont déconseillés à du public sous l'âge de 13.

** Mais pas être interdits à qui il voudrait peut-être les interdire.

*** Il s'agissait du site groups.msn.com/Antimodernism, de février 2009 les groups.msn.com n'existent plus.

Thursday, 24 November 2016

Gratitude is Due


Remember this, readers?

Rosary for Catholics in Iraq, please! (a forward)

I saw on FB a news link to Iraqi Christians rebuilding a Church or reconsecrating a Church.

I couldn't find it, just now, but saw this:



Time to rattle rosaries again, in gratitude this time?

Or shall we still wait for a full liberation of Mosul's Christians first?

Or shall we pray in gratitude for what is gained while praying on for the Christians still not back in their places?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St John of the Cross
24.XI.2016

Tuesday, 22 November 2016

Opponents are Wrong, Here


mail dot com : Turkey withdraws child marriage bill, submits it for review
November 22, 2016
https://www.mail.com/int/news/europe/4775744-turkey-withdraws-child-marriage-bill-submits-revie.html


Opponents argued that the bill amounted to a pardon for statutory rape if the perpetrator was married to his victim and would disrupt efforts to prevent child marriages and sexual assault on children. They maintained that it would, for example legitimize the practice of men taking brides as young as 13 or 14.


The Catholic Church has for centuries allowed girls as young as 12 to marry.

And, NOT JUST when there had been premarital sex.

The one thing that really should change in bill is, marriage should be lowered back to 12 - and then the crime statutory rape should be limited to cases under 12 or men not intending to marry, or when consent is lacking, but that would be normal rape or sexual abuse, not statutory./HGL

Bonum Festum Sanctae Caeciliae


Christifidelibus exopto, praecertim musicis et parturientibus./HGL

Sanctae Caeciliae, Virginis et Martyris, quae ad caelestem Sponsum, proprio sanguine purpurata, transivit sextodecimo Kalendas Octobris.

I do love a good debate (here on Proofs for Existence of God)


Theologyweb : Thread: The misuse of science by William Lane Craig and othe Christian apologists.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?11839-The-misuse-of-science-by-William-Lane-Craig-and-othe-Christian-apologists


page 100 · page 101 · page 102 · page 103

Friday, 18 November 2016

Meanwhile, Shilly Shallying : Bergoglio


Four cardinals* have asked a dubium about Amoris Lætitia. The procedure is perfectly normal. And Bergoglio is not willing to meet all cardinals in the upcoming consistory, probably because he doesn't want to answer. I know this from a German blog, but the first of these posts shows a thing in English, which picture will be shown here:



Click to enlarge.

Here are the three posts, on Beiboot Petri:



Those of you speaking German, enjoy!/HGL

PS, I discovered a text of the dubia. Now inserted as item number 0, according to computer convention - which is really not a very good one, since 0 is no number./HGL

PPS, no, rather as O, as in Origo!/HGL

* The designation is moot if previous Popes have not been such, of course.

Thursday, 17 November 2016

Is Homeschooling Legal under Zionist Legislation in Holy Land?


I'd like to know. Because some things in that corpus of law books seems less ideal, so not sure./HGL

Less Down Syndrome, No Murder, No Maiming - Possible?


By murder, I mean abortion.

By maiming, I mean sterilising parents.

By less, I mean that if pregnancies with Down go on at present rate, but without abortion, we would be overwhelmed by how many people have Down syndrome.

There is exactly ONE way to have fewer such pregnancies, without selective maiming : YOUNGER MARRIAGES, esp. YOUNGER MOTHERS.

A statistics I read a few years ago* (ten, fifteen or so), compared the risk for Down (even on the individual level it is a risk, since living with people having that condition can be quite a task) for mothers at 20 vs mothers at 40. No longer sure if the comparison was for first time mothers or included those having already born, I think it was for first time mothers.*

At age 20, the risk was 1:10,000.
At age 40, the risk was 1:100.

The age of the father was not quite unimportant. Augment the risk as per mother's age with 11% for each decade a father is above 35. Here is my calculation as to how this works out:

Mother age 20, father up to 35: 0,0001
Mother age 20, father 45: 0,000111
Mother age 20, father 55: 0,00012321
Mother age 20, father 65: 0,0001367631

Mother age 40, father up to 35: 0,01
Mother age 40, father 45: 0,0111
Mother age 40, father 55: 0,012321
Mother age 40, father 65: 0,01367631

So, father's age makes some difference, mother's a lot.

I think this stat is about mothers bearing child for the first time. Why? Because all ovula (with their genetic setup of ideally 23, sometimes 24 chromosomes) are produced well before she becomes a mother, when she was a fetus, during the pregnancy. Unlike male production of semen, it cannot be affected by older balls. An ovulum is not gaining any chromosome because it gets older. Male semen does not get old, it is its source which does. But for Down syndrome, it is the lesser risk factor, by far. So, female ovula are either correct or faulty from start. This would either not show any difference by age, which is not the case, or, the difference by age must come from less good ovula getting more exposed at ovulations.

That is, if an ovulum was bad and on the outside of the ovary, it was eliminated well before the woman became old enough to be a mother, it was elminated while she was a fetus.

But if it was bad and further in, it was somewhat less likely to be eliminated.

The ovula further in are more likely to be exposed the more ovulation a woman has had before. That means, if she loses most ovulations by menstruation (or by early miscarriage, including by deliberately murdering by day after pill or by an effect of the other pill if taken too late), the ovulations she has at 40 are likelier to involve one of the ovula further in.

This means, that whether the statistic was about first births only or about any birth, the women at forty are less at risk if they have born children before.

If the stat was about first births only, obviously those bearing a 5th child or a 10th child or a 20th child at 40 are less at risk, since not included in the statistic.

If the stat was about any birth, those bearing a 1st child at 40 would be above and those bearing a 5th or 20th child at forty well below the medium risk.

And this brings us to another part of today's society : girls are, through feminism, encouraged to get a carreer of their own before "chosing to have a child", they are (like boys, through sexual liberalism) encouraged to indulge in sex without "so chosing", they are in most Western countries (and some states of United States) legally barred from marrying before 18 (Italy imposed that on Rome, after taking it in 1870, Communists imposed that on the former Czar Empire, after 1917, some states had already gone some way that way - including both Czars and Scandinavian Monarchies, many states followed, France lifted the age barrier from 15 to 18 in 2006, I read about it when I was considering going back to a gipsy girl whom I had known when she was 14 in 2005).

Over and above legal barriers to marriage, the wages today are so low on the average, that is formerly speaking "on the male side", because women are supposed to contribute a wage too ("for their own freedom"!) and entry into "active life" (as per breadwinning**) has been highly delayed for many.

If there were no abortions, we would all see the price of this in very much more people with Down syndrome.

But abortion is not a solution, because it is murder. And sterilising some is maiming, a crime, besides the heredity in Down is not related to any specific mutation, therefore this most drastic conatal disease is not strictly speaking a hereditary disease. The ones that give us babies with Down syndrome cannot be known beforehand, since usually not having such themselves.***

Even if one parent should have Down (as happens in rape), this does not even guarantee the child will have so. During the splicing of chromosome setup when sexual cells are produced, the cells from which they are produced will have three chromosomes 21, therefore part of the sex cells will have one, part of them 2 chromosomes 21. This will work out as a one in two chance of transmitting a dominant mutation. So, with one parent having Down, the risk should be about 1:2, 50%, with both parents having Down, 3:4, 75%.

Note, even a 75% chance of someone having Down when born is no reason to murder him during pregnancy.

And even less is testing if both parents are aged, and agreeing to murder if there is a risk.

The ONE way to have fewer feti and babies with Down syndrome without either murder or maiming, fewer than those coming to being (but mostly aborted, that is murdered) now, is to reverse the "progress" which has considerably delayed child bearing for so many women in the West compared to 100 years ago.

Girls should marry and bear children earlier, families with children be less dependent on two wages, marriage age should be lowered for both sexes (also for other reasons), but especially for girls.

As to those who do advocate murder, I leave the response to CMI (on their better note today):

The UK (with many other countries also falling into this category) appears to be a society of contradictions, with a person’s value apparently only assigned at birth! Attack a person with Down’s syndrome for their disability and it’s called a hate crime, rightly dealt with by the condemnation of society and the full force of the law. Yet develop a test to screen them out of society and murder them in the womb and most don’t bat an eyelid! [Footnote:] Ironically as I write this article it is National Hate Crime Awareness Week in the U.K., 8–15 October 2016, and Prime Minister Theresa May has released a statement saying, “Hate crime has no place in Britain. … everybody living in this country is equal”. May, T., Hate Crime Awareness Week 2016: Theresa May’s message, gov.uk, accessed 11 October 2016.


Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Gregory the Thaumaturg
17.XI.2016

Link to the article by CMI:

CMI : An inconsistent society—An upside down° view of Down's syndrome abortion
by Phil Robinson | Published: 17 November 2016 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/down-syndrome-abortion


* Yes, I know, it is lousy Academic style to give a statement without being able to show the reference. Sorry, happens. I think the subject is important enough for these things to be stated even with bad academic style. ** Some countries with good study purse/study loan systems, like Sweden used to have, do in fact make it possible for someone to raise children while on study loan / study purse rather than earning wages. *** I recall a very misinformed poster by National Socialists, showing some rather ugly people with presumably Down syndrome and asking why eugenics is considered so criminal. ° I recall an Orthodox priest who observed that "the N-word, Noitroba, is backward thinking." It is.

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

Propter dicentes meam esse propriam theoriam angelos mouere celestia corpora


Postilla de Genesi
http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/xgn01.html
Sive Aquinatis, sive ignoti auctoris, excerptum ex capite primo Geneseos.

Sequitur, dixit autem Deus, fiant luminaria in firmamento caeli.
Agitur de ornatu firmamenti, et quantum ad fieri, et quantum ad situm, et quantum ad motum, secundum quem est distinctio diei et noctis, et temporum, ibi, et dividant diem et noctem, et quantum ad effectum, ibi, ut luceant in firmamento.

Quantum igitur ad fieri et situm dicit, fiant luminaria in firmamento.
Hoc intelligatur de firmamento large, non de eo in quo sunt stellae fixae; quia in eo non sunt sol et luna. Sed accipitur firmamentum pro loco stellarum sive erraticarum sive fixarum. Ista autem luminaria quamvis nondum exprimantur propriis nominibus, exprimuntur tamen in suis effectibus. Unde sequitur, et dividant diem et cetera. Praesentia enim solis facit in hemisphaerio uno diem, et ejus absentia noctem. Item secundum ista non tantum est indicium diei et noctis, sed serenitatis et tempestatis, et ex interjectione diversarum nubium fiunt sol et luna diversi coloris, et ex diversis eorum coloribus deprehenditur serenitas vel tempestas, secundum illud quod dicitur, mane rubens caelum notat imbres: sero, serenum. Ratio vero est, quia quando sero rubet caelum, nubes sunt in oriente ad oppositum, ac ideo sol in mane invenit eas, et sibi propinquas dissolvit. Quando autem in mane sunt nubes longe a sole, et oppositae, non potest sol eas dissolvere, et ideo fit pluvia. Sunt etiam in tempora, nam secundum quod sol est in diversis signis, variantur tempora anni quatuor, atque in quolibet tempore stat sub tribus signis. Tempora autem sunt ver, aestas, autumnus, hyems. In vere stat sub ariete, tauro, geminis. In aestate sub cancro, leone, virgine. In autumno sub libra, scorpione, sagittario. In hyeme sub Capricorno, aquario, piscibus. Et sunt ista signa diversae portiones caeli, sub quibus suo motu pertransit sol in zodiaco; et denominantur sic a stellis, quae in illis portionibus sunt sitae secundum aliquam similitudinem ad illa ex quibus sumuntur ista nomina. Luna etiam sub istis signis diversificat tempora vel qualitates aeris. Sunt etiam in dies et annos. Nam suo motu diurno sol facit dies continue, et suo motu in orbe proprio et annuo facit annos, secundum quod movetur ab oriente in occidens in duodecim mensibus.

Postmodum describit ea, quantum ad effectum vel actum,
et intrinsecum, qui est ipsius luminaris in se, et extrinsecum, qui est in aliud.

Unde sequitur, ut luceant in firmamento caeli,
ut legatur intransitive, quasi dicat, quod est caelum:

et illuminent terram:
unde describitur et quantum ad actum interpolatum, qui est illuminare.

Et tunc subdit, fecit Deus duo luminaria.
Agitur de istis luminaribus distincte, postquam indistincte de illis actum est. Et primo agit de majoribus per se, secundo de minoribus per se, ibi, et stellas, et simul de utrisque ibi, ut luceant. Dicitur vero Deus fecisse duo luminaria magna, quia magna utique sunt ambo in se considerata: licet unum ad aliud relatum sit minus illo, ut luna quam sol: unde sequitur, et luminare minus, ut praeesset nocti. Sicut mons aliquis dicitur magnus absolute, et respectu majoris montis dicitur parvus. Luna ergo in se magna est, et aliter, cum decrescit, et aliter cum est integra, res disponit: cerebrumque augmentat pecorum, et animalium marinorum viscera, arborumque medullas et ossium, et sic est etiam virtute magna.

Luminare majus, ut praeesset diei.
Sol enim major est luna quantitate et virtute. Quod quantitate, patet ex eo, quia est a nobis remotior, et tamen apparet major: cum tamen a remotiori res videantur minores, sicut homo super campanile videtur, quantitate unius corniculae. In virtute etiam excedit, quia omnino illuminat et lunam et stellas, et vivificat omnia: unde dato quod stellae et luna etiam ex se luceant, tamen ex hoc apparet solaris lucis et virtutis suae excellentia, quia earum lumen sua praesentia absorbet.

Et stellas.
Agit de minoribus, quas posuit in firmamento, et ad illuminationis effectum; unde sequitur, et posuit eas in firmamento, ut lucerent super terram. Quod quidem dicit, non quia luceant super aquas, et in aere simpliciter, sed quia earum lux magis apparet in terra. Vel forte, quia radius non illuminat, nisi in aliquo solido impingat: atque ideo, quia terra magis solida est, ideo magis resultat lumen ab ea, vel circa eam, ut praeessent diei et nocti. Non respectu solis et lunae, sed respectu illuminationis,

propter quod sequitur:
et dividerent lucem ac tenebras,

non complete et integraliter,
sicut lux primo facta, vel sol: sed incomplete, quia incompletam illuminationem faciunt, quae sufficit ad necessitatem; nec est tanta, quod excludat animalium quietem. Lux enim magna est sensuum aperitiva, et sic cum somnus sit retractio et clausio sensuum, lux intensa quiescere non sinit: ideo est temperata de nocte, et commendatur ex hoc et aliis multis finibus.

Sequitur,
vidit Deus, quod esset bonum, et factum est mane et vespere dies quartus.

Si autem quaeritur,
utrum sol et luna et stellae differant specie ab ipsis orbibus et caelis: quamvis non possumus habere magnam super haec certitudinem, credo tamen, quod differant specie: et probatur ex Scriptura, quae dicit ea facta in quarta die, caelum autem in secunda. Non enim verisimile est, quod eadem specie fierent in diversis diebus. An vero inter se differant specie? Dicitur id facile sciri non posse: bene videmus tamen diversitatem effectuum, quia una stella infrigidat, alia inflammat; una humectat, alia desiccat. Ex qua diversitate possumus arguere diversitatem speciei, sed non certitudinaliter: nam videmus mirabiles diversitates in aquis, et tamen secundum philosophum, omnis aqua omni aquae est eadem specie. Videmus etiam mirabiles diversitates in vino: aliud est rubeum, aliud album, aliud dulce, aliud amarum etc.; et tamen omne vinum, omni vino idem specie dicitur, unde in omni vino consecratur: et omnis aqua eadem specie est omni aquae, unde in omni aqua baptizatur. Licet autem illud non sit demonstrabile, tamen est possibile. Si autem quaeritur, utrum sol et luna sint majora caeli luminaria? Respondetur, quod Augustinus movet hanc quaestionem libro 2 super Genesim ad litteram cap. 16, et refert opiniones quorumdam dicentium, aliquas stellas esse majores illis, licet propter earum majorem remotionem appareant minores. Et subdit dicant quicquid velint, nos credimus illa esse majora, quae magis commendat Scriptura; et certe hoc concedent nostris oculis, quod patet magis lucere ista duo super terram. Quaerit eodem libro cap. 15 Augustinus, utrum luna fuerit facta plena: et arguit, quod sic, secundum aliquos, quia non debuit esse imperfecta; et neutram partem asserit. Tamen Magister historiarum dicit, quod fuerit facta plena, quod probat per aliam translationem, quae dicit, luminare minus in inchoatione noctis: in principio autem noctis non apparet nisi plena, quia tunc est soli opposita diametraliter. Si tamen non fuit plena, non est inconveniens, quia ista imperfectio non esset in ea, sed in oppositione ad solem; in se enim fuit perfecta.

Quaerit etiam Augustinus de caelis,
an sint animati, libro 2 super Genesim cap. ultimo, et nihil determinat. Tamen Damascenus libro 2 inquit: nullus animatos caelos existimet: inanimati enim sunt et insensibiles.


Quod ad mentem et Sancti Thome et Episcopi Tempier non excludit eos esse motos ab angelis. Quamuis istud sepe subintelligitur a citantibus uerba hec "inanimati enim sunt et insensibiles." Vide enim hec sequentia:

Ad tertium sic proceditur.
http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth1065.html#31347
Videtur quod luminaria caeli sint animata. Superius enim corpus nobilioribus ornamentis ornari debet. Sed ea quae pertinent ad ornatum inferiorum corporum, sunt animata; scilicet pisces, aves et terrestria animalia. Ergo et luminaria, quae pertinent ad ornatum caeli.

2 Praeterea,
nobilioris corporis nobilior est forma. Sed sol et luna et alia luminaria sunt nobiliora quam corpora plantarum et animalium. Ergo habent nobiliorem formam. Nobilissima autem forma est anima, quae est principium vitae, quia, ut Augustinus dicit in libro de vera Relig., quaelibet substantia vivens naturae ordine praefertur substantiae non viventi. Ergo luminaria caeli sunt animata.

3 Praeterea,
causa nobilior est effectu. Sed sol et luna et alia luminaria sunt causa vitae, ut patet maxime in animalibus ex putrefactione generatis, quae virtute solis et stellarum vitam consequuntur. Ergo multo magis corpora caelestia vivunt et sunt animata.

4 Praeterea,
motus caeli et caelestium corporum sunt naturales, ut patet in I de caelo. Motus autem naturalis est a principio intrinseco. Cum igitur principium motus caelestium corporum sit aliqua substantia apprehensiva, quae movetur sicut desiderans a desiderato, ut dicitur in XII Metaphys.; videtur quod principium apprehendens sit principium intrinsecum corporibus caelestibus. Ergo sunt animata.

5 Praeterea,
primum mobile est caelum. In genere autem mobilium, primum est movens seipsum, ut probatur in VIII Physic., quia quod est per se, prius est eo quod est per aliud. Sola autem animata movent seipsa, ut in eodem libro ostenditur. Ergo corpora caelestia sunt animata.

Sed contra est
quod Damascenus dicit in libro II, nullus animatos caelos vel luminaria aestimet; inanimati enim sunt et insensibiles.

Respondeo dicendum quod
circa istam quaestionem apud philosophos fuit diversa opinio.

Anaxagoras enim, ut Augustinus refert Lib. XVIII de Civ. Dei,
factus est reus apud Athenienses, quia dixit solem esse lapidem ardentem, negans utique ipsum esse Deum, vel aliquid animatum.

Platonici vero posuerunt
corpora caelestia animata. Similiter etiam apud doctores fidei, fuit circa hoc diversa opinio.

Origenes enim posuit
corpora caelestia animata.

Hieronymus etiam idem sentire videtur,
exponens illud Eccle. I, lustrans universa, per circuitum pergit spiritus.

Basilius vero et Damascenus
asserunt corpora caelestia non esse animata.

Augustinus vero
sub dubio dereliquit, in neutram partem declinans, ut patet in II supra Gen. ad Litt.; et in Enchirid., ubi etiam dicit quod, si sunt animata caelestia corpora, pertinent ad societatem Angelorum eorum animae.

In hac autem opinionum diversitate,
ut veritas aliquatenus innotescat, considerandum est quod unio animae et corporis non est propter corpus, sed propter animam, non enim forma est propter materiam, sed e converso. Natura autem et virtus animae deprehenditur ex eius operatione, quae etiam quodammodo est finis eius. Invenitur autem corpus necessarium ad aliquam operationem animae, quae mediante corpore exercetur; sicut patet in operibus animae sensitivae et nutritivae. Unde necesse est tales animas unitas esse corporibus propter suas operationes. Est autem aliqua operatio animae, quae non exercetur corpore mediante, sed tamen ex corpore aliquod adminiculum tali operationi exhibetur; sicut per corpus exhibentur animae humanae phantasmata, quibus indiget ad intelligendum. Unde etiam talem animam necesse est corpori uniri propter suam operationem, licet contingat ipsam separari.

Manifestum est autem quod anima caelestis corporis non potest habere operationes nutritivae animae,
quae sunt nutrire, augere et generare, huiusmodi enim operationes non competunt corpori incorruptibili per naturam.

[Nota hic quod precessus scientie astronomice, necnon Tychonis Brahe observationes et posteriores hoc reliquit adminus dubium]

Similiter etiam nec operationes animae sensitivae corpori caelesti conveniunt,
quia omnes sensus fundantur super tactum, qui est apprehensivus qualitatum elementarium. Omnia etiam organa potentiarum sensitivarum requirunt determinatam proportionem secundum commixtionem aliquam elementorum, a quorum natura corpora caelestia ponuntur remota.

[Etiam hic.]

Relinquitur ergo quod de operationibus animae nulla potest competere animae caelesti nisi duae, intelligere et movere,
nam appetere consequitur sensum et intellectum, et cum utroque ordinatur. Intellectualis autem operatio, cum non exerceatur per corpus, non indiget corpore nisi inquantum ei per sensus ministrantur phantasmata. Operationes autem sensitivae animae corporibus caelestibus non conveniunt, ut dictum est. Sic igitur propter operationem intellectualem, anima caelesti corpori non uniretur.

Relinquitur ergo quod propter solam motionem.
Ad hoc autem quod moveat, non oportet quod uniatur ei ut forma; sed per contactum virtutis, sicut motor unitur mobili. Unde Aristoteles, libro VIII Physic., postquam ostendit quod primum movens seipsum componitur ex duabus partibus, quarum una est movens et alia mota; assignans quomodo hae duae partes uniantur, dicit quod per contactum vel duorum ad invicem, si utrumque sit corpus, vel unius ad alterum et non e converso, si unum sit corpus et aliud non corpus. Platonici etiam animas corporibus uniri non ponebant nisi per contactum virtutis, sicut motor mobili. Et sic per hoc quod Plato ponit corpora caelestia animata, nihil aliud datur intelligi, quam quod substantiae spirituales uniuntur corporibus caelestibus ut motores mobilibus. Quod autem corpora caelestia moveantur ab aliqua substantia apprehendente, et non solum a natura, sicut gravia et levia, patet ex hoc, quod natura non movet nisi ad unum, quo habito quiescit, quod in motu corporum caelestium non apparet. Unde relinquitur quod moventur ab aliqua substantia apprehendente Augustinus etiam dicit, III de Trin., corpora omnia administrari a Deo per spiritum vitae. Sic igitur patet quod corpora caelestia non sunt animata eo modo quo plantae et animalia, sed aequivoce. Unde inter ponentes ea esse animata, et ponentes ea inanimata, parva vel nulla differentia invenitur in re, sed in voce tantum.

Ad primum ergo dicendum
quod ad ornatum pertinent aliqua secundum proprium motum. Et quantum ad hoc, luminaria caeli conveniunt cum aliis quae ad ornatum pertinent, quia moventur a substantia vivente.

Ad secundum dicendum
quod nihil prohibet aliquid esse nobilius simpliciter, quod tamen non est nobilius quantum ad aliquid. Forma ergo caelestis corporis, etsi non sit simpliciter nobilior anima animalis, est tamen nobilior quantum ad rationem formae, perficit enim totaliter suam materiam, ut non sit in potentia ad aliam formam; quod anima non facit. Quantum etiam ad motum, moventur corpora caelestia a nobilioribus motoribus.

Ad tertium dicendum
quod corpus caeleste, cum sit movens motum, habet rationem instrumenti, quod agit in virtute principalis agentis. Et ideo ex virtute sui motoris, qui est substantia vivens, potest causare vitam.

Ad quartum dicendum
quod motus corporis caelestis est naturalis, non propter principium activum, sed propter principium passivum, quia scilicet habet in sua natura aptitudinem ut tali motu ab intellectu moveatur.

Ad quintum dicendum
quod caelum dicitur movere seipsum, inquantum componitur ex motore et mobili, non sicut ex forma et materia, sed secundum contactum virtutis, ut dictum est. Et hoc etiam modo potest dici quod eius motor est principium intrinsecum, ut sic etiam motus caeli possit dici naturalis ex parte principii activi; sicut motus voluntarius dicitur esse naturalis animali inquantum est animal, ut dicitur in VIII Physic.


Et hec ex condemnationibus Episcopi Tempier:

VII : 25 (212). Quod intelligentia sola uoluntate mouet celum.


Cum nota mea:

[VII:]25 (212) - Deus enim est qui sola uoluntate mouet totum celum.


Et:

XII:1 (92). Quod corpora celestia mouentur a principio intrinseco*, quod est anima ; et quod mouentur per animam et per uirtutem appetitiuam, sicut animal. Sicut enim animal appetens mouetur, ita et celum.**

...

XII:3 (102). Quod anima celi est intelligentia, et orbes celestes non sunt instrumenta intelligentiarum set organa, sicut auris et oculus sunt organa uirtutis sensitiue.

...

XII:6 (213). Quod natura que est principium motus in corporibus celestibus est intelligentia mouens. -Error, si intelligatur de natura intrinseca*, que est actus uel forma.


Cum notis meis:

Ad XII:1 et XII:6 *Hec fuit prima positio aquinatis, set emendauit credendo, sicut restat licitum intelligentia mouens esse principium extrinsecum habens orbes ut instrumenta, non ut organa.

Ad solum XII:1 **Appetens enim deum qui tunc esset primus mouens solum inquantum summum bonum desideratum et non actiue, quod falsum est.


Non condemnauit angelos mouere corpora celestia ut principium extrinsecum, uel coniunctum ut mouens ad motum, non condemnauit celum totum moueri a Deo ut ab eum uoluntate mouenti.

Patet autem propter simultaneitatem cum Thoma Aquinate, propterque similitudinem idearum cum aliqua condemnata, non esse per obliuionem quod Stephanus Tempier eas theses non condempnauit, set quia eas non iudicauit condempnabiles.

Hans Georg (Ioannes Georgius) Lundahl
Bibliotheca Vniuersitaria
Nemetoduri
in die Sancte Gertrudis Virginis
16.XI.2016

Some Readers from Four Days


10.XI.2016 12.XI.2016 14.XI.2016 16.XI.2016
Total 508Total 596745 open (last 24 hours)
105 hidden (yesterday and today, whereof 2 yesterday)
850 en total
Total 1388
I-V
I-V 389:
United States 10 4 14 204 1
France 18 5 14 2
Ukraine 29 2 5 8
Japan 21
Spain 7
Germany 6 1
Spain 4
Réunion 4
Brazil 3
Greece 3
Poland 1 2
Portugal 1 1
Australia 2
China 2
Thailand 2
Canada 2
Sweden 2
Argentina 1
Australia 1
Curaçao 1
Algeria 1
Finland 1
United Kingdom 1
Switzerland 1
Jordan 1
Vietnam 1
United States 158 44 12 156
France 5 7 12 3 1
Portugal 1
India 4
Australia 2 2
Germany 2 2 1
Greece 2
Ireland 2
Poland 2 1
Portugal 2
China 1 2 1
Ukraine 9
Netherlands 4 2
Ireland 3
Philippines 3
Spain 2 10
United Arab Emirates 1
Canada 1
Czech Republic 1
Germany 1
United Kingdom 1
Japan 1
Spain 11
France 4 6 3 2 11
United States 4 10 82 152 15
Greece 2
Ukraine 6 119 3 4
Australia 1
Canada 1
China 1 1 1
Portugal 1
Romania 1
Japan 9 1
Germany 2 1
Brazil 1
Denmark 1
Egypt 1
Indonesia 1
Belgium 1
Vietnam 1
Colombia 1
India 1
South Korea 1
Nigeria 1
France 39 5 24 14 2
United States 29 153 148 21 219
Singapore 11 15 15 14 22
Germany 5 6 5 1
Ukraine 4 2 73 2
Portugal 3 1 3 2
Australia 2
Ireland 2
Japan 2
Canada 1 20 1
China 1 1
Poland 1 5 1
Russia 12
Nigeria 3
India 2
Romania 2
Thailand 2
Greece 1
Mexico 1
Netherlands 1
Serbia 1
Slovakia 1
VI-X
VI-X 62:
Canada 1 19
France 1 9 1 1 1
Ukraine 8
United States 4 1
United Kingdom 2
Turkey 2
Brazil 2
Netherlands 2
Brazil 1
Greece 1
India 1
Iraq 1
Bulgaria 1
Sri Lanka 1
Poland 1
Cyprus 1
Germany 1
France 1 3 2
United States 1 3 1
Cambodia 1
Kuwait 1
Netherlands 5
Egypt 2
United Kingdom 2
South Korea 2
Argentina 1
Hong Kong 1
Serbia 1
Ukraine 1
[One missing]
United States 166 1 4
France 12 3 4 1
Ukraine 4 4 1 2
Bangladesh 1
Germany 1 1
South Korea 1 1
Luxembourg 1
Poland 1
Russia 1
Thailand 1
Turkey 2
Indonesia 1
Italy 1
Philippines 1
Thailand 1
Poland 2
Romania 1
[Overview yesterday 0, today 79, stats last 24 hours No stats yet, check again later. Auf Deutsch (auf Antimodernism und später]
Singapore 15 11 17 15 15
France 2 6 1 1
Germany 1 4 2
United States 1 1
Yemen 1
Ukraine 3 1
China 1
Indonesia 1
Netherlands 1
South Africa 1
Serbia 1
China 2
Argentina 1
Lithuania 1
Mexico 1
XI-XV
XI-XV 24:
United States 1 1 1
Ukraine 8 1
France 3 1 2
Austria 1
Australia 1
Brazil 1
China 1
Réunion 2
France 12 1 3 2 1
United States 5 2 3 1 1
Netherlands 2
China 1
India 1
Italy 1
Ukraine 1 1 1 1
Senegal 1
Ukraine 6 3 2
Turkey 2
France 1 1 2 2 2
United States 6 4 1
Hungary 1
Belarus 1
Morocco 1
South Africa 1
Singapore 13 13 14 15 13
France 4 2 1 1
China 1
United States 1 4
Ukraine 2
Germany 1
XVI-XX
XVI-XX 14:
United States 2 3
France 2 1
United Kingdom 2
China 1
Croatia 1
South Korea 1
Serbia 1
[Three blogs missing]
United States 4 4
France 1 1
Japan 1
Germany 2 6
Ukraine 1
[Two missing]
United States 3
Ukraine 2 2 2
Greece 1
France 6
Croatia 2
[Two missing]
Singapore 17 16 12 15
Ukraine 3
France 2
Greece 1
United States 1 2
Germany 1
Croatia 1
India 1
[One missing]
XXI-XXV
XXI-XXV 17:
United States 1 2 1
Ukraine 8
Russia 2
Bulgaria 1
Colombia 1
Germany 1
[One blog missing]
Brazil 1
France 2 3 1
Turkey 1
United States 1
Ukraine 1
[One missing]
United States 2
Germany 1
Russia 1
[Three missing, one overview yesterday 0, today 4, last 24 h No stats yet, check again later: Vecka vij]
Singapore 15 18 14 17 12
United States 1 4
Ukraine 4
Russia 2
Canada 1
Algeria 1
Turkey 1
XXVI-XXX
Ukraine 1
[Four blogs missing]
Ukraine 1
United States 1 22
Germany 1
[One missing]
France 1
Ukraine 2
[Three missing]
Singapore 18 16 11 16
Germany 1
[One missing]
XXXI-XXXVI
France 1
[Five blogs missing]
Germany 1
Ukraine 6
[Four missing]
[Five missing, one overview yesterday 2, today 20, last 24 hours No stats yet, check again later: En français sur Antimodernism] Singapore 15 12 13 15 11
Netherlands 3
Belgium 2
[One missing]


What does it look like?

French young people getting to know my blogs and spreading them by word of mouth?

Or network after network telling other network after network "look, here is this homeless guy who is blogging, it might be a problem, what do you think?"

And that other network in that other country then getting around to study blogs of mine, very systematically, with great coordination?

I think the latter. If these same networks are ALSO telling young people either in France or US or most place else, at least where I could imagine going not to read my blogs for some reasons, these networks qualify as my enemies./HGL

PS : here is from a fifth day. You decide if it confirms or not:

Update 18.XI.2016
 
Total 1038 I - V 756 VI - X 75
(or 1148, counting hidden views of deretour, or 1210 counting further those on musicalia) 
United States 30 61 239 5 248
France 19 15 4 3
Belgium 3
Germany 2 2
Ireland 2
Romania 2
Sweden 2 1
Singapore 2 3 2 3 2
Ukraine 2 52
Argentina 1
Japan 21
United Arab Emirates 5
Portugal 4
Canada 3
United Kingdom 3 1 3
Australia 2 1
Switzerland 1 1
Malaysia 1
Serbia 1
Russia 2
Nigeria 1
Thailand 1
 
Ukraine 6
France 2 2 1 1
Singapore 2 2 4 3 2
China 1 1
United States 32 4
Brazil 1
United Kingdom 1
Lithuania 1
Malaysia 1
India 2
Germany 1
Algeria 1
Philippines 1
Pakistan 1
Portugal 1
Russia 1
 
XI - XV 37  XVI - XX 95 (four blogs)  XXI - XXV 32 (62 hidden, probably)

United States 3
Singapore 2 2 3 2 2
France 1 1
Canada 19
Australia 1
Russia 1
 
Japan 67
United States 3 1
France 2
Netherlands 2
Singapore 2 3 3 3
United Arab Emirates 1
Greece 1
Israel 1
New Zealand 1
Croatia 2
Russia 2
Macedonia (FYROM) 1
 
Singapore 2 2 3 4 2
Ukraine 10
Russia 6
United States 2
France 1
 
XXVI - XXX 13 (four blogs) XXXI - XXXVI 30

Singapore 2 3 2 2
Ukraine 4
 
Germany 3 1
Singapore 2 2 4 3 3
United Arab Emirates 12

Quaesiui an contra patres loquutus sim, dicendo de Turri Babel quod sit intenta ut navis spatialis?


Et consultaui quid dixerint Sanctus Augustinus, necnon, aut Sanctus Thomas, aut ignotus homo quem eum putauerunt multi legentes ante.

Sancti Augustini
QUESTIONUM IN HEPTATEUCHUM LIBRI SEPTEM
http://www.augustinus.it/latino/questioni_ettateuco/index2.htm


Ad sinistram cliccandum est in signum dictum "liber 1".

Quid est:
Hic coepit esse gigans super terram.

18. (10, 8)
Quaeritur quomodo dictum sit de Nembroth: Hic coepit esse gigans super terram; cum gigantes et antea natos Scriptura commemoret. An forte quia post diluvium novitas generis humani reparandi denuo commemoratur, in qua novitate hic coepit esse gigas super terram?

De Phalech,
quomodo in diebus eius divisa sit terra.

19. (10, 25)
Quaeritur quid sit: Et Heber nati sunt filii duo; nomen unius Phalech, quia in diebus eius divisa est terra; nisi forte in diebus eius linguarum illa diversitas exstiterit, per quam factum est ut gentes dividerentur.

Quod ait:
Et erat omnis terra labium unum.

20. (11, 1)
Et erat omnis terra labium unum, quomodo hoc potest intellegi, quando superius dictum est quod filii Noe, vel filiorum eius distributi essent per terram secundum tribus et secundum gentes, et secundum linguas suas 12, nisi quia per recapitulationem postea commemorat quod prius erat? Sed obscuritatem facit quod eo genere locutionis ista contexit, quasi narratio de iis quae postea facta sunt, consequatur.

Quod ait:
Aedificemus nobis turrem cuius caput sit usque in caelum.

21. (11, 4)
Venite, aedificemus nobis civitatem, et turrem cuius caput erit usque in caelum. Si hoc se posse crediderunt, nimium stulta audacia et impietas deprehenditur. Et quia ob hoc Dei vindicta secuta est, ut eorum linguae dividerentur, non absurde hoc cogitasse creduntur.

Quibus dicat Dominus:
Venite descendamus et confundamus linguam eorum.

22. (11, 7)
Venite, descendamus, et confundamus ibi linguam eorum, ne audiat unusquisque vocem proximi; utrum ad Angelos Dominus hoc dixisse intellegitur? An secundum illud accipiendum est, quod in exordio libri legitur: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram 13? Nam et quomodo postea dicitur singulari numero: Quia ibi confudit Dominus labia terrae 14; sic et illic cum dictum esset: Faciamus ad imaginem nostram; in consequentibus tamen non dictum est: Fecerunt, sed: Fecit Deus 15.

"Ignoti autoris" vel Sancti Thomae Aquinatis
Postilla in libros Geneseos
a capite VI ad caput XI
http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/xgn06.html#90284


Erat autem terra labii unius.
Hic redit ad narrandum causam divisionis linguarum, quae fuit culpa superbiae aedificantium urbem et terram Babylonis. Et primo refertur culpa, secundo justitia Dei culpae illius punitiva et superbiae intentionis eorum dissipativa, ibi: descendit autem dominus. Dicit igitur, labii unius. Labium et lingua sumuntur hic pro linguae effectu, id est, pro loquutione, eo modo quo per causam effectus significatur.

Cumque proficiscerentur de oriente, invenerunt.
An omnes tunc simul recesserunt et in Sennaar insimul venerunt, an solum principaliores ex eis cum aliquibus sibi annexis, non plene claret ex hoc loco. Licet enim infra dicatur, scilicet quod inde de Babylone dispersit eos dominus in universas terras, hoc potest dici, aut quia causa dispersionis omnium fuit ex illo loco, aut quia principaliores ibi erant et inde dispersi sunt, et in eorum divisione et dispersione divisae sunt gentes, quarum ipsi erant duces; quia nec alia potest dari ratio quomodo tunc omnes discesserunt de Babylone. Non est enim dubium quin plures ibi tunc temporis remanserint. Refert autem Magister quod Philo in libro quaestionum super Genesim narrat, quod ex tribus filiis Noe, adhuc ipso vivente, fuerunt viginti quatuor millia virorum praeter parvulos et mulieres. Sed videtur quod longe plures fuerunt. Noe enim, secundum literam nostram et Hebraicam, vixit usque ad exitum Abrahae de domo patris sui. Nam a diluvio usque ad ejus exitum computantur trecenti septuaginta duo anni. Noe autem vixit ultra hunc numerum per tres annos. Tempore autem illo facta erat grandis populatio Chananaeorum et diversarum gentium et regnorum. Praeterea populus Israel in minus quam ducentis annis multiplicatus est in Aegypto usque ad sexcenta millia virorum praeter parvulos et mulieres. Quid ergo mirum si in trecentis quinquaginta annis Noe sit facta multiplicatio longe ultra viginti quatuor milia virorum?

Invenerunt campum, idest planiciem, in terra Sennaar.
Possibile est quod duabus ex causis de oriente recesserant. Primo scilicet ut magis accederent ad medium terrae habitabilis, ut exinde possent melius circumquaque diffundi, et regi a principalioribus, quasi in medio populorum regendorum manentibus. Secundo ut redirent ad terram in qua manserant Adam et primi patres eorum. Quacumque autem ex causa fuerit, est notandum quam mirabili ordine variavit Deus principales sedes patrum et divini cultus, et regnorum mundi. Nam primo fuit in Paradiso. Secundo creditur fuisse in Hierusalem sive circa Hebron, ubi et Adam legitur esse sepultus. Tertio faciente domino quod arca post diluvium versus orientem subsideret, fuit in oriente. Quarto rediit circa Hierusalem, licet tunc aliquamdiu fuerit in Aegypto. Deinde sub Christo cultus Dei diffusus in omnes, quantum tamen ad principalem sedem per Graecos venit ad Latinos, exinde rediturus ad omnes, et praecipue ad Judaeos.

Dixitque alter ad proximum suum, venite et cetera.
Non est credendum quod Sem et ceteri sancti patres illius temporis in hoc consenserunt, et quamquam aliquis ex eis ad opus extrinsecus compelli potuit, praecipue cum videatur quod Noe adhuc viveret: quia secundum literam nostram, a diluvio usque ad ortum Phaleg in cujus diebus divisa est terra, non sunt nisi anni centum triginta et unus: et usque ad mortem ejus sunt trecenti quadraginta: Noe autem post diluvium vixit trecentis quinquaginta annis, decem scilicet post mortem Phaleg. Ex modo autem isto loquendi innuitur quod aliqui fuerunt principales incitatores aliorum ad hoc aedificium; et etiam quod ex magno affectu, et cum multa et communi concordia hoc fecerunt.

Faciamus nobis civitatem et turrim,
idest turres, singulari pro plurali. Vel turrim vocat capitulum civitatis factum ad modum turris. Triplici autem ex caussa videntur ad hoc opus moti. Primo scilicet ex cupiditate regnandi, et tyrannicam potentiam super universam terram exercendi in urbe illa, quam scilicet et inexpugnabiliter et insuperabiliter fundare intendebant. Secundo ex ambitione nominis et famae ex hoc apud omnes obtinendae. Unde et hic dicitur: et celebremus nomen nostrum. Tertio secundum quosdam, ut consimile diluvium si accideret, evaderent: et ideo usque ultra nubes turrim voluerunt elevare, ut illuc diluvium non posset attingere.

Pertingat usque ad caelum,
idest usque ad supremam regionem aeris: quod caelum vocatur, vel quod secundum sensum caelo videtur esse conjunctum. Vel hoc dicunt secundum praesumptionem superbiae suae.

Descendit autem.
Nota quomodo hic et alibi Scriptura de Deo loquatur, quasi de uno temporali domino, qui de sublimi loco suo descendit ad videndum opera subditorum suorum, ut corrigat et reformet quicquid est corrigendum et reformandum in eis. Nota etiam quod in hoc modo loquendi docet rectum et ordinatum processum judicii. Nam culpa prius debet esse certa judici: et ideo oportet ut ipse vel ad se convocet judicandos: aut, si hoc modo bono fieri non potest, quod ipse per se vel per subdelegatos judices ad loca eorum accedat. Deus autem dicitur descendere ad videndum, pro quanto aspectus suae sapientiae et justitiae fertur ad videndum et puniendum crimina subditorum suorum. Dicit autem filii Adam, ut innuat quod isti erant similes Adae superbienti et ad scientiam sive sublimitatem attingere cupienti.

Et dixit: ecce unus est populus et cetera.
Hoc intellectualiter dixit Deus intra se et etiam ad Angelos suos. Notatur autem in his verbis caussa rationabilis et condigna perturbandi conatus et intentiones istorum. Erant enim sic affectuosi et irrevocabiliter intenti ad perficiendum opus incoeptum, et ad obtinendum id quod ex ipso opere finaliter intendebant, quod per fortes manus obstaculum a praedictis revocari non possent. Et quia ex unitate linguae et ex concordia voluntatum ad malum, robur vehemens assumebant, idcirco dixit Deus: ecce unus est populus et cetera. Et ex his subinfert poenam confusionis linguarum esse optimam ad turbandum eorum intentum et conatum. Et ad Angelos loquens subdit, venite igitur. Confusio enim linguarum potuit saltem quo ad aliquid fieri ministerio angelico. Vult autem Scriptura per hos vel consimiles modos loquendi ostendere quod Deus facit per Angelos ea quae per ipsos fieri possunt. Dicitur autem Deus hic descendere per efficaciam aut effectum potentiae suae in illa in quae agit. Loquitur autem sic ut sensibilius et terribilius hominibus ingerat Dei praesentiam et justitiam punitivam.

Ut non audiat unusquisque,
idest ut non intelligat, nec audiendo discernat.

Vocem proximi sui,
quicquid intendit significare per eam.

Et idcirco vocatum est nomen ejus Babel, quia ibi confusum est et cetera.
Babel enim interpretatur confusio. Divisio autem linguarum confusio linguarum dicitur, quia ex hoc lingua unius fiebat alteri confusa et inintelligibilis. Nota circa hoc, quod judicium est unum de universalibus judiciis Dei super genus humanum; et est tertium illorum universalium quae in super genus humanum; et est tertium illorum universalium quae in Scriptura sacra leguntur. Nam primum est inflictio mortalitatis. Secundum est diluvii exterminium. Nota, inquam, primo rectam correspondentiam ejus ad culpam pro qua est datum. Erat enim in illis perversa pax et unitas Deo valde contumeliosa, ipsisque damnosa, et electis onerosa et periculosa. Sicut enim nihil melius quam omnes insimul fortissime uniri in Deo et in omni bono: sic nihil pejus quam omnes fortissima conspiratione uniri ad malum. Sicut etiam Deo nihil magis honorificum quam quod omnia sibi soli ut summo capiti cohaereant et subjiciantur, nihilque aliud defendere aut magnificare appetant, nisi Dei imperium ac principatum. Et e contra nihil Deo contumeliosius ac intolerabilius, quam quod omnes Deo et ejus regno neglecto, aliquod caput et regnum sibi statuant toto posse. Erat ne ergo tolerandum quod homines paulo post tantum diluvium de novo propagati, unum vilem tyrannum, scilicet Nemroth, quasi unum caput omnium statuerent, et intra unam urbem, pro uno totius mundani regni capite conarentur quasi in aeternum fundare? Sicut autem superbis ad omnem machinationem semper intentis, magnitudo potestatis aderat valde nociva: sic quam plurimum expedit eis quod talis potestas aut omnino tollatur eisdem, aut saltem confringatur, et dividatur et impediatur. Scimus autem quod humanae dominationis potestas ex unica et concordi hominum multitudine consurgit et corroboratur; et ideo, quando superbe et pertinaciter conspirant ad malum, multum eis expedit quod dividantur. Sicut etiam electis plurimum prodest habere multos inductores et quasi compulsores ad bonum, sic eis est periculosissimum et multum onerosum, cum verbo et facto, doctrina et exemplo ab omnibus instigantur et compelluntur ad malum. Et sicut jucundum est electis potentiam et gloriam reproborum videre humiliatam et annullatam: sic valde est onerosum quando contrarium vident; et praecipue si in aeternum aut in tempus nimis longum semper excresceret aut perduraret. Quid autem aptius et pulchrius ad praedictorum impiam unitatem et potestatem dissecandam et confringendam, quam linguarum divisio et confusio? Per hanc enim fit ut ampliorem societatem homo habeat cum sua carne, quam cum hominibus, quorum linguae sunt sibi mutuo barbarae et ignotae. Per hanc etiam factum est ut his qui Deo non obediebant, et subditi non solum eis non obedirent, imo nec eorum monita vel praecepta intelligere possent. Praedicta autem non solum pro illo tempore docuerunt et profuerunt: sed etiam pro toto tempore quo superbia mundi regnat. Secundo nota ejus poenalitatem tam quoad malos, quam quoad bonos. Bonis enim est valde poenale quod non possunt communicare cum sanctis vel doctis universi orbis, saltem per literas et per scripta, nec docere se mutuo possunt, nec ad invicem consolari, nisi communicent in una aliqua lingua. Unde et ultra hoc est eis valde poenale, quod doctrinam salutarem fidei non possunt in omnes nationes cito disseminare, nec jam disseminatam, prout expedit, irrigare. Communiter autem quantum ad malos et bonos est valde poenosa res; quia ex diversitate linguarum oritur facilitas discordiarum atque bellorum, et difficultas stabilis nexus diversarum nationum in unum. Si autem quaeritur, quomodo a principio unus intellexit alium sine notitia linguae? Unde enim scivit quod per eamdem vocem intenderet significare illud quod ipse? Potest dici quod hoc, sicut et alia, factum est miraculose et forte etiam per quamdam rationalem conspirationem, per quam ex conformitate locutionis aliorum ejusque linguae ad suam, advertebat quod idipsum significare volebant. Si autem ultra quaeratur, an per hoc miraculum sit solum facta variatio in vi motiva linguae, aut etiam ultra hoc in imaginatione et intellectu? Dicendum quod in omnibus simul; quia ex habitibus illarum trium partium integratur una perfecta habituatio ad loquendum hanc vel illam linguam. Oportet enim quod sciat significata propria vocum illius linguae formandae et seriose connectendae. Tertio nota pro mysteriis, quod divisio linguarum moraliter designat divisionem et contrarietatem vitiorum et vitiosorum, qui quantumcumque videantur uniti, impossibile est quin concordialiter discordent, quia pravus alios non diligit nisi solum propter seipsum. Allegorice autem signant divisionem schismatum et haeresum, et culturam diversorum idolorum: in quibus unitas fidei in varias linguas errorum fuit multipliciter scissa. Sicut autem urbs et turris Babylonica significat omnes sedes superbiae, sic Nemroth omnia capita ejus: et secundum hoc potest multiplicare mysteria tam moralia quam allegorica juxta numerum et processum principalium sedium et capitum superborum.

Are CMI Ever Wrong on Exegesis? Well, Yes.


They are wrong whereever they differ notably from Church Fathers or the Catholic Church.

Exegesis with Russell Grigg:
http://creation.com/whats-in-a-name


We should be wary of using passages of Scripture as ‘proof texts’ which were not written with this purpose in mind. However, the rest of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, reveals the doctrine of the Trinity to us (e.g. Matthew 3:16–17). We can look back into Genesis and see that the terms and words Moses used by divine inspiration are not inconsistent with later revelation, but in fact foreshadowed later teaching on the Trinity.


Exegesis with the Church Fathers, Saint Thomas Aquinas and (whatever that is worth!) 3 or 4 out of 6 Reformers in 1517 (I am not sure if Münzer believed the Holy Trinity, and I am sure the two Sozzini disbelieved it, while Luther, Zwingli and Oecolampadius all believed it).

We must bear two things in mind:

  • The ultimate author of the whole Bible (all 72 books, or 73 if you count Baruch as separate work from Book of Jeremiah) is God.
  • According to St Thomas Aquinas, though the Hebrew people were not yet allowed to know God was the Blessed Trinity, Moses, Aaron, all priests (even up to Zacharias the husband of Elizabeth and even Hannas and Kaiaphas), all true prophets, as well as all Davidic kings (instructed from start by Samuel, no doubt, unless David had a revelation independently of Samuel first) knew this or knew of this, even if disbelieving. They also knew they could not openly talk about it to the normal Hebrew faithful.


The first means that Russell errs on too much historic and situational exegesis. Saying that such a word to its first hearers positively excluded such an interpretation from situation is one thing, but saying their situation as now known does not encourage us to see it as interpretable in such a way is another.

God knew of every situation in which Holy Writte would be applied or misapplied, before Moses wrote one Iota of either Job or Genesis.

When Moses was perhaps chosing between "a tower so high it reaches heaven", "a tower which reaches heaven", "a tower so high its top reaches heaven" and "a tower the top of which was meant to reach heaven", God decided he should chose the one which is not just compatible with a skyscraper but which would to some readers of the 20th and 21st Centuries AD suggest a three step rocket (only the top of which goes into space and which looks a lot like a tower before takeoff).

And so, even if God hadn't revealed the Trinity to Moses (which He had, however), God would be author of a choice of words which can proof text the Blessed Trinity.

The second thing is straightforward, there was a time for keeping secrets (Old Testament era) and there is now a time for divulging them (New Testament era).

Ecclesiastes 3:7
A time to rend, and a time to sew. A time to keep silence, and a time to speak.

Luke 12:3
For whatsoever things you have spoken in darkness, shall be published in the light: and that which you have spoken in the ear in the chambers, shall be preached on the housetops.


The main instance beeing the major things to be believed openly in New Testament era, but under symbols for many and under secrecy for few in Old Testament era, namely Trinity and Incarnation of the Word for our Salvation.

This means of course that what is now claimed among Jews as being secret tradition of the Aaronite priests, namely most often Lurian Kabbalah, is not the secret tradition, since it misses the main thing, and in the case of specifically Lurian Kabbalah even distorts part of what was openly believed, namely difference between God and His creatures.

Also, that the Jewish cult of keeping secrets should not be imitated by Christians, most specially not in the type of Freemasons (who are really no longer Christians, but apostates from their baptism) and Templars (who are really a type of Freemasons, condemned even before Freemasonry, on the Ecumenical Council of Vienne in Isère.

Apart from this point, Russell Griggs was of course right in the article, though.

Is my own hunch of Tower of Babel being a project of a rocket too diverse from Church Fathers?

They had in fact not seen a rocket. And one of them, St Augustine, precisely while reminding us that we must stick to the Church Fathers did encourage further research, especially as some passages of prophecy would be clearer once the fulfilment approached.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Saint Gertrude
16.XI.2016

Checking on not contradicting all Church Fathers, by the way:

Haydock comment in chapter 11 has little. Ver. 4. Famous before; Hebrew lest, &c.; as if they intended to prevent that event. (Haydock) --- Their motive appears to have been pride, which raised the indignation of God. Nemrod, the chief instigator, might have designed the tower for a retreat, whence he might sally out and maintain his tyranny. (Menochius) Ver. 6. In deed. This seems to be spoken ironically; though the effects of weak mortals, the sons of Adam, when pursued with vigour and unanimity, will produce great effects. These builders had conceived an idea of raising the tower as high as possible, hyperbolically, to touch heaven. (Haydock) / George Leo Haydock and Menochius are good priests, but not all of the Church Fathers./HGL

Next double check on Sts Augustine and Thomas gave me this:

Quaesiui an contra patres loquutus sim, dicendo de Turri Babel quod sit intenta ut navis spatialis?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2016/11/quaesiui-contra-patres-loquutus-sim.html


Note:
Faciamus nobis civitatem et turrim,
idest turres, singulari pro plurali. Vel turrim vocat capitulum civitatis factum ad modum turris. Triplici autem ex caussa videntur ad hoc opus moti. Primo scilicet ex cupiditate regnandi, et tyrannicam potentiam super universam terram exercendi in urbe illa, quam scilicet et inexpugnabiliter et insuperabiliter fundare intendebant. Secundo ex ambitione nominis et famae ex hoc apud omnes obtinendae. Unde et hic dicitur: et celebremus nomen nostrum. Tertio secundum quosdam, ut consimile diluvium si accideret, evaderent: et ideo usque ultra nubes turrim voluerunt elevare, ut illuc diluvium non posset attingere.

Pertingat usque ad caelum,
idest usque ad supremam regionem aeris: quod caelum vocatur, vel quod secundum sensum caelo videtur esse conjunctum. Vel hoc dicunt secundum praesumptionem superbiae suae.


Both the security motive and the "secundum praesumptionem superbiae suae" go very well with rocketry. Have you seen any trailer or poster with the text here?

"Mankind was born on Earth. It was never meant to die here. The end of Earth will not be the end of us. Go further. Mankind's next step will be our greatest."

Interstellar (2014)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692/taglines


Some angels will have been going "where have we heard that one before?" "Ubinam istud iam audiuimus?" "Wo haben wir daß schon gehört?" in all 6000 languages which exist today./HGL

Tuesday, 15 November 2016

Ultra-Brief Reply to David Palm on Observational Evidence for Strict Geocentrism


New blog on the kid :Ultra-Brief Reply to David Palm on Observational Evidence for Strict Geocentrism · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica :Sungenis, this is weak.

Before enjoying (or fretting over details in) Sungenis' reply, namely:

Galileo was Wrong : More Palm Reading from David, the “Not So Science Guy”
http://galileowaswrong.com/more-palm-reading-from-david-the-not-so-science-guy/


I go and look up what from top of pdf looks like title of David Palm's opusculum, entitled:

Geocentrism Debunked : Equivocation, Thy Name is Geocentrism
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/equivocation-thy-geocentrism/


Here is a splendid opening paragraph:

At the heart of neo-geocentrism lies a deliberate equivocation. And Robert Sungenis’s “must read” reply to my article “It Really Is That Simple: Geocentrism Lacks Basic Evidence” is built entirely on this equivocation. He deploys it, as the geocentrists always do, to deflect attention from the fact that he was unable to produce any observational evidence in support of strict Geocentrism.


And of you noted the paragraph, unlike rest of the little work, is not talking about whether scientists consider "Geocentrism" or just "geocentrism" a possibility, it is rather about whether there is SOME observational evidence in support of strict Geocentrism. That is why it is so much more splendid than the rest.

Let's follow Palm's example and define words or phrases:

"strict Geocentrism"
theory holding that the Earth is strictly in and of itself, not just as per chosen frame of reference, centre of universe, and immobile, both as to yearly and as to daily motions, both of which then belong to Sun rather than to Earth.

"observational evidence"
Evidence gained by observation or evidence consisting of observations. That is sightings, hearings, tastings, smellings, feelings (yes, I know, temperatures are more often measured by sightings of thermometer contraptions, but the feeling "it is cold" or "it is hot" remains observational).


This means that sightings, feelings in and of themselves suggesting either that Earth is still or that the Sun moves are observational evidence for strict geocentrism.

True, they are habitually discounted by Heliocentrics. But they are there.

Here is how you get observational evidence for strict Geocentrism. You don't look into science books.

You see to it to be outside one morning at sunrise (Summer mornings are more comfortable as to temperature, less comfortable as to hour of sunrise, unless you were partying the night before and intend to go to bed AFTER doing the observation).

Or rather, before sunrise.

You also see to it, either to note in advance where the East is, or to remark (before sunrise) where it starts to get lighter. The direction where it starts to get lighter (unless you are unhappy enough to make a UFO sighting, to avoid which I recommend holy water and a rosary, or even bringing an exorcist along to the experiment) is the East. More or less. It might be somewhat more like North East by East in Summer. It might be somewhat more like South East by East in Winter. At either Equinox, it is likely to be due East.

Now, if you are not impatient, if you are not harrassed by the kind of stressing situations each day that are likely to make you impatient, if you have no diabetic trouble, nor any trace of it, if you pray your daily Rosary and so on, this is when you wait and look.

After a quarter of an hour or half an hour or whatever, there will be Sunrise.

This means that against the edge of sight to the East, you will see the Sun rising. When it starts to rise only top edge over horizon, you will be able to look at it. Also, enjoy how there is an edge between light and dark parts of heaven, and how the light starts pushing the dark back towards the West, until there is no dark part of heaven left above the edge of sight, also known as horizon.

This is direct observational evidence for strict Geocentrism.

Note, it is not absolute proof for strict Geocentrism. When the Heliocentrics discount this, they are not postulating the impossible. If Earth were turning around its own axis, as they claim, their explanation for why we nevertheless see this remains possible.

However, possible is not good enough.

If I said that the earliest Lautstand of Proto-Indo-European were like pre-Verner early Germanic, it would be possible. See this article of mine. But one Nelson Goering asked me, reasonably enough from the point of view which sees Proto-Indo-European as a unitary Proto-Language, why this possibility should be preferred, since not very probable, literally he asked:

Can I ask what the point of this would be? Even if we can notate the necessary sound changes, it doesn't seem very likely that we'd have shifts of (for instance) *t > *d and then *þ > *t in basically every branch _but_ Germanic.


His question is in the middle of the article, since it was originally posted as an OP with comments in a FB group and comprises among other comments my answer to his question.

In other words, even if Heliocentrics can say they CAN explain this observational evidence for strict Geocentrism in Heliocentric terms, what is the point? That does make accepting Heliocentrism subtler, but not more probable.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Albert of Cologne
Dominican Friar and Bishop
15.XI.2016

Other little pearl from Palm, same work and link:

It is a deeply dishonest equivocation for the geocentrists to continue to claim that somehow General Relativity “allows for” strict Geocentrism, when General Relativity inherently excludes Geocentrism’s most fundamental premises. It’s like arguing that Hinduistic polytheism – in which there are many gods and which inherently excludes the idea that any one god has ultimate supremacy over the others – somehow “allows for” the existence of just one God, with all the other “gods” being no gods at all. Or, coming at it from a different angle, perhaps an even better analogy would be to argue that atheism – which contains a rejection of theism right in its name – somehow “allows for” the existence of God.


Hinduism has a philosophical concept Ishvara or Ishwar (note that this is not the name of any single Hindoo deity) which corresponds to the just one God. Atheism in its modern version actually has its answering names for the five ways of St Thomas. Their god(s) of ways 1-2-3 is "matter/energy". Their god for cosmological argument is "failure of anything which according to the structure of matter/energy and already existing amalgamations of them can fail" - in other words, destruction, survival of the fittest/natural selection. Their god for "most noble" is either "nothing, nobility is a human illusion" or "most developed", that is "man" or according to some the future results of transhumanism. Sure, the Hindoos and Atheists don't allow for the Christian God. And part of the reason might be that Prima Via works best in this way if the universe really has ONE unified turn around Earth valid for all of the mobile univere above Earth, for all except the equally immobile (I suppose) Empyree beyond the Pearly Gates./HGL