Monday, 28 April 2014

On ne calomnie pas une race ou un génôme - oeuvre du Créateur ...

... si on constate qu'une communauté ayant par exemple ce type raciale et vivant par exemple en situation minoritaire dans un pays étranger, ou même juste un sous-ensemble d'une telle communauté, a des mauvais moeurs.

Cette fois ci, je parle de Noirs et de Beurs qui sont a) immigrés en France, b) pas des Antilles (que j'eusse pu constater jusqu'ici) quand aux Noirs, c) en situation précaire. Précisons un peu plus: en situation tellement précaire qu'ils fréquentent les assoc. Mais pas tous.

Quelle est la tactique? Me dire "Jésus", fois après fois. Après ils peuvent prétendre sur quelque compte que je sois fou. Soit ils ignorent le fait que je fasse une démentie, que je dise que non, je ne me prends pas du tout pour Jésus. Soit ils prétendent que j'eusse été paranoïde ou que j'hallucine en les accusant de ça (facile de la part des gens qui se mettent d'accord en avance, aussi assez facile de la part des gens qui font discrètement à un endroit comme Georges Pompidou). Soit finalement ils peuvent me prendre à un moment épuisé ou interpréter malicieusement quelque chose que je dis.

Aujourd'hui, il y en a un qui a recommencé ce jeu à Georges Pompidou.

Si je viens de lui dire, la deuxième fois, qu'il n'a pas besoin de le dire chaque fois que je passe, il pourra prétendre que je voulais dire qu'il n'avait pas besoin de le dire "parce que je sais déjà que je le suis". Non, s'il n'a pas besoin de le dire chaque fois, c'est que si sa première excuse qu'il ne me visait pas était bonne, ça devient provocatif s'il répète les mêmes mots en me repassant. Il était un Noir, probablement du Corne d'Afrique. Comme ceux à Beauvais en 2011.

Ceci est donc, peut-être, en fin de compte, la base d'une accusation contre des assoc que j'ai fréquentées.

Recipes from Home and Abroad : Quelques astuces en culture générale
http://recipesfromhomeandabroad.blogspot.com/2011/05/quelques-astuce-en-culture-generale.html


  • On ne s'appelle pas forcément Jésus parce qu'on porte une barbe ou des cheveux aux épaules.

  • On ne s'appelle pas forcément Jésus parce qu'on critique Islam ou la secte de Kakouphilippe non plus.

  • Si on ne s'appelle pas Jésus - ce qui n'est pas mon cas - est si on est chrétien - ce que je suis - on n'aime pas être accueilli dans une salle où la moitié des noirs parlent de Yéésou quand il pointent vers toi non plus.


Le premier de ces constats est là au cas qu'il y aient des gens qui auraient eu pitié de mon apparence un peu hippie.

Le seconde de ces constats est là au cas qu'on aurait fait semblant par haine, pour revanche de l'honneur de tel ou tel faux prophète.

HGL's F.B. writings : Le PM de Versailles - avec des corrections
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2013/01/le-pm-de-versailles-avec-des-corrections.html


Le policier Ounoughi semblait "au courant" de moi en avance. Il semblait aussi très sécularisé. Peut-être comme beaucoup des Musulmans de la Tunisie vivant en France parce qu'ayant fui ou nés des parents ayant fui l'islamisme de certains parties de la population. De toute manière avide de m'imposer une paix entre les communautés, même si la trace me pointait, pas le moindre à travers lui-même, vers la communauté musulmane comme impliqué dans le harcèlement.

Celui-ci n'était pas en situation précaire, il avait du travail - dans le bâtiment:

New blog on the kid : Il me menaçait de me frapper parce qu'il n'avait pas des témoins
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/02/il-me-menacait-de-me-frapper-parce-quil.html


Celui-ci non plus, mais c'était leger:

[Ibid.] Harcèlement à Marguérite Audoux (Bibliothèque du III)
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/02/harcelement-marguerite-audoux.html


Ceci vient des gens aisés, pas immigrés, qui pourraient avoir quelque genre d'information ou désinformation sur ma personne:

[Ibid.] Il n’était pas trop considéré avec ses voisins?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/03/il-netait-pas-trop-considere-avec-ses.html


Ceci concerne une autre personne persécuté, vraisemblablement, et toute aussi sans recours que moi:

[Ibid.] Pourquoi les affiches de Sévérine (?) sont-elles déchirées?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/04/pourquoi-les-affiches-de-severine-sont.html


Voyez, il y a des gens qui sont en situation précaire. Il y a aussi des gens qui les reçoivent. Ceux-là ont presque toujours quelque rélation avec les communautés religieuses. Et quand ils sont cathos, souvent aussi avec l'admiration de l'Abbé Pierre. Boutique de la Solidarité à Beauvais faisait partie du réseau de l'Abbé Pierre. Moi, je n'aime pas l'Abbé Pierre. Il était pour la distribution des capotes, par exemple. À Versailles, le SOS Accueil, où j'avais été mal reçu par ces mêmes Beurs avant, ne faisait peut-être pas partie du réseau de l'abbé Pierre, formellement. Mais parmi des associeux comme ça, il y en a qui admirent Abbé Pierre. Ces gens qui admirent l'Abbé Pierre, qu'ils soient de son réseau ou non, accueillent très bien des accueillis lambda, ceux qui se laissent faire, qui acceptent que pendant la précarité ils font plus ou moins ce que veut l'assoc et sinon ils ont honte. Moi, j'ai voulu faire (et je le veux toujours) un truc qui n'a pas leur bénédiction. Sans la moindre trace de honte là-dessus. Ma vie n'appartenait pas aux services sociaux en Suède parce que je risquais la précarité. Ma vie n'appartient pas à eux non plus. Ils m'accueillent pour un café ou une douche, c'est bon, j'apprécie. Ils abusent leur situation vis-à-vis moi pour me poser des entraves, je n'apprécie pas. Il peut y avoir des gens parmi eux qui se trompent jusqu'au point de SE prendre collectivement pour Jésus ou pour les représentants légitimes de Jésus dans ma vie. Il y en a qui prennent la collectivité scientifique comme quasi divine en leur attribuant effectivement une omniscience impossible quand ils affirment que par exemple les étoiles les plus éloignés sont d'une distance de 13,5 milliards d'années-lumière de nous et qu'ils ont donc dû être là ou nous les voyons il y a 13,5 milliards d'années chronologiques. Moi, je refuse de prendre, que ce soit la collectivité des gens qui se veulent "responsables pour moi" ou que ce soit la collectivité des évolutionnistes ou héliocentriques ou d'autres matérialistes qui squattent les institutions scientifiques, je refuse de prendre ces collectivités là comme collectivement l'équivalent de Jésus. Peut-être il y a des gens qui sont tellement convaincus de cette supériorité collective, qu'ils ME prennent pour un mégalomane parce que je ne partage pas leur point du vue. Et au moins une fois - dans un accueil audessus des Halles qui a déménagé - j'ai entendu un accueillant dire à un accueilli à propos de quelqu'un (je ne voulais pas faire le parano et deviner qu'il s'agissait de moi) "il est un illuminé, ne l'écoutez pas". Ou si c'était "ignorez-le". Ou si c'était juste "il est un illuminé". Mais ces mots là, oui, ils ont été prononcés.

Je ne trouve donc pas exclu que et à Beauvais, et à Versailles, des accueillants aient répandu des rumeurs sur moi, selon lesquelles je me prenne pour Jésus, ce qui est faux. Je ne trouve pas non plus exclu que des accueillis aient pu décider de vérifier à eux-mêmes, selon leurs critères, si je suis un fou ou non. Je ne trouve pas non plus exclu que si on m'a décrit comme racialiste - un concept qui se dit souvent "raciste" de nos jours, inventé par Trotsky, qui imaginait avoir le premier trouvé le problème ou prétendait de le faire, mais le mot racialiste a priorité - que donc si on m'a décrit comme racialiste, ils sont comme cibles des vraiment tels, extra suceptibles et extra sur les qui-vive envers quelqu'un qu'ils soupçonnent d'être tel. Avoir une telle excuse est pourtant pas une justification morale pour le genre de harcèlement qu'ils m'ont fait. Ni juridiquement, pour le cas que la justice serait capable de prendre en compte une plainte par quelqu'un tamponné en avance comme un fou. Comme le montre le cas du PM à Versailles, je n'ai pas grand'chose à espérer de la justice française pour l'instant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
28-IV-2014

What did I write while or same day as the Crucifix Fell Down?

Correspondence of Hans-Georg Lundahl : Ticking Off Mark P. Shea

HGL's F.B. writings : audience (septem dierum - for seven days - de sept jours)

somewhere else : Ave Verum Corpus Natum ...

Now check what acts of Bergoglio were made known on that day and what he was proceding to since./HGL

PS, it seems the same day also a bank sent me a new cash card (not credit card, only linked to what is or will be on the account)./HGL

Update: I have got new news that it was actually next day, 24. However, that news can have been faked in order to cover up coincidence of date with revelation of Bergoglio's phone call.

Chesterton vs Chisholm

Not much else. So, check out what Bergoglio did the 24th, unless you think my words about psychiatry or Chisholm did anger Our Lord. Of course, check out other notable people too. Like Royalties and Presidents. Why not Sweden, for instance?/HGL

BUT, I found one newssource confirming it was indeed on the 23, Wednesday:

ABC News : Pope John Paul II crucifix crushes man to death in northern Italy
Updated Fri 25 Apr 2014, 2:36pm AEST
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-25/pope-john-paul-ii-crucifix-crushes-man-to-death-in-cevo-italy/5411980


Update 23 of May:

Supposing it had been April 24 the Crucifix fell down?

Pope Francis: "We are not alone in the Universe."
iron ZE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyRGfgbaCz0


Ajoutée le 24 avr. 2014


- 2013 - Pope Francis: "Jonathan, you are a messenger for all of us."
- APRIL 13, 2014 -Pope Francis: "We are not alone in the Universe." Rome -- In his homily, held this morning in St. Peter's Square, Pope Francis with great ease and amazement among the faithful present reveals: "Dear brothers, I wanted to tell all of you that we are not alone in the universe. Science has already made so much progress and will most likely soon will know our new brothers and sisters with whom we will exchange a sign of peace. On that day there will be wonder and remember that God is one and watching over us all. "
-----------------
Pope Francis,Dr Jonathan Reed


Why did he not send Dr Jonathan Reed to see Father Gabriele Amorth?

Roswell Creatures are really something. But not necessarily what they claim to be. My tip is demons. It is not mine at first. Serafim Rose said the same thing./HGL

Yesterday Bergoglio seems to have thrown me out of the Church - insofar as he was Pope he did

I can hope Roncalli and Wojtyla did not go to Hell - a little faint hope. But I think if they are not there, they may still be in Purgatory and needing our prayers. However, there are pretty many signs of them having been heretics, so I do not advice anyone even to pray for them.

When it comes to canonising Francisco Franco Bahamonde, por Gracias de Dios Caudillo de España and José Antonio Primo de Rivera, possibly the Palmarian Pope was right about them. At least he showed better theological taste.

That said, I might as well explain why I am no longer Palmarian. I saw a note attributing to the Palmarian Catechism a statement that included the propositions (whether I get the words exactly right or not):

  • Antichrist sees the world from the FOURTH dimension.
  • The Blessed Virgin Sees the world from the EIGHTH dimension.


I have no doubt whatsoever that the Blessed Virgin has a better view of the Universe than Antichrist, but the Universe has THREE dimensions. Not four or eight. Up-down, right-left, front-back are how the three dimensions interact with our body. God also interacts with our soul, beside the dimensions of the Universe, through grace, or lack thereof. That is why I cannot take refuge with Palmarian Catholics against the requirement of devoutly honouring Roncalli and Wojtyla.

For Roncalli, the suspicion of heresy and damnation (a very grave one) rests on these propositions (not quoting exact words at all, only splitting hairs about the logical implications of them):

  • The Universe is governed by blind laws of necessity.
  • The laws of human morality are not governed by blind laws of necessity and therefore different from the laws of the Universe.*


I have no doubt whatsoever that freedom and responsibility do belong to us in morals, but we are not outside the Universe, and this would therefore be paradoxical if the Universe were governed without freedom and responsibility. It reminds me very much of Kant's heresy in saying that

  • free will must be denied us in the phenomenal world as scientifically observed; but
  • free will must be affirmed about us in the noumenal world as that which needs to be postulated for morality to hold together.


In so far as free will is a noumenal rather than a phenomenal thing, there is some grain of truth in his error, and in Roncalli's possible participation in these, but we see phenomenal traces of free will in apparent free acts, the freedom of which should NOT be explained away, precisely as we see phenomenal traces of anotehr noumenal thing, meaning, every time we hear someone speaking and open a book.

As to Wojtyla, the suspicion of grave scandal encouraging indifferentist heresies rests on the Assisi meetings of 1986 and 2002.

I am thankful I was in Rome in Pentecost or rather week before of 1986, before Wojtyla sullied the Vatican with the guilt from later on that year, when he came back from Assisi.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
28-IV-2014

* Update: Admitted, the direct assertion that the laws of the Universe are blind is attributed to people asserting the laws of morality are of that same sort, I found the quote:

But the mischief is often caused by erroneous opinions. Many people think that the laws which govern man's relations with the State are the same as those which regulate the blind, elemental forces of the universe. But it is not so; the laws which govern men are quite different. The Father of the universe has inscribed them in man's nature, and that is where we must look for them; there and nowhere else.


In reality the universe has its movements regulated either by direct action of God (daily motion of Universe around earth is a pretty clear example) or by the action of angels obedient to God and courteous to each other, the Sun being a probable example (unless also moved directly by God) and the stars very certain examples. Here is the Latin:

Verum opinionis error praebet frequenter errorem quod multi censeant rationes, quae singulis hominibus cum sua cuiusque re publica intercedant, iisdem legibus, quibus vires et elementa mentis expertia universitatis, posse gubernari; cum huiusmodi leges, alius quidem generis, illinc dumtaxat petendae sint, ubi Parens rerum omnium inscripsit, hoc est in hominis natura.


One can demand whether he demoted the naturalistic view of nature from his own expressed opinion by not putting "iisdem legibus, quibus vires et elementa mentis expertia universitatis revera gubernuntur, posse gurbernari" but only "iisdem legibus, quibus vires et elementa mentis expertia universitatis, posse gubernari" as part of an Accusative cum Infinitive which expresses the opinion of someone else. But if he was aware this opinion is wrong, he was faulty in promoting it en passant without warning in a clearer way against it. Note, I would hardly accept a canonisation of Benedict XV either. He did not formally say "earth may not be / occupy the centre of the universe", but when talking about Dante he said en passant "even if earth not occupy the centre of the universe". But there the demotion and reluctance to directly state the worng opinion is clearer./HGL

Friday, 25 April 2014

Answering Alec MacAndrew

I used to be good at grasping fairly simple physical explanations when "small" (say, five to ten). You know descriptions of how razor machines and such work. Perhaps they are approximations. I must admit that much of the physics and maths are beyond my level of being able to calculate graphs or analyses to double check. But this does not mean that concept is beyond me. I will partly defend Sungenis based on concept. Then I will pass on to my own explanation, which is not my own, but which I have from St Thomas Aquinas.

Sungenis* speculates about the physics at his hypothetical centre of mass, relying on purely classical mechanics. He claims that there is no reason that the Earth should not coincide with the centre of mass, and in his ball-universe model, indeed there isn’t, temporarily. But he fails to recognize that there is nothing to keep the Earth there.


IF it is centre of mass, earth would be stuck as firmly in there as a ball stuck in the centre of earth if it is hollow. Unless other bodies fell in towards the centre and ousted earth.

One other aspect is also part of it: other bodies cannot oust earth from the centre, because they are involved in a daily orbit around earth. Their velocities sidewards would - on his view at least - be too great for any one of them to fall inwards and oust the earth from the centre.

That is Sungenis' point.

The centre of mass of a system is a point in space and there is no reason to identify it with a particular body – no physical body has to “act as the centre of mass” or “be it” or “occupy it”, all phrases that Sungenis has used in various places in the past, and which show that he fails to understand the concept.


I think you have failed to understand his point. Earth is heavier than air, which is heavier than diffused molecules of hydrogen. If Earth is in the centre of gravity, it will not be ousted from it by its atmosphere, nor by interstellar matter, since none of these are heavy enough. It could only be ousted from there by an equally heavy or heavier body. Since centre of Mass is also centre of gravitation. But the available options would not be getting inwards since already in orbit all of them together around the earth.

I take the point about "no gravitation" as meaning "no gravitation any one direction more than any other direction". Not as meaning "no gravitation inward."

the gravitational field is not zero at the centre of mass (it can be zero in certain symmetrical systems, such as a uniform spherical shell or a spherical ball of perfectly uniform density, or a two body system of exactly equal masses - but it is not generally so)


The point of Sungenis would, as I understand it, be that by daily rotation around earth all other bodies form virtually a symmetrical system around it. So, if the question of "certain symmetrical systems" seems marginal to Alec MacAndrew - he puts it in parentheses - it is rather more like a central theme to "the Sungenis version of Newtonian physics."

Furthermore, Sungenis’s claim that the stars have “gravity [that] will affect how the Sun and Earth react to one another, especially if the Earth is put in the center of that gravity” [my bolding] is wrong, not just because the gravitational field at the Earth of all these stars is vanishingly small compared with that of the Sun, as we have seen, but because gravitational fields of individual bodies are vector-additive—that is, they can cancel each other out if they act from opposite directions—so that if the Earth were to be at the centre, these already minuscule gravitational fields from the stars would tend to sum to zero.


That particular claim is probably behind Sungenis' words about Earth having "zero" gravitation.

Along with definition of "gravitation" as a force tending to acceleration. Question is whether the "zero gravitation" would mean a force - possibly gigantic - preventing accelaration in any one direction, that is how I think Sungenis takes it, or zero force at all. That is how I think Alec MacAndrew takes it.

For my own part, I do not know if gravitation toward centre of mass or cancellation of gravitational directions would take over. I tend to the first one, supposing that Newtonian physics are at all true and even if they are partly false.

Let us sketch up a few scenarios, shall we.

Scenario 1:
There is Earth and there is the sphere of fixed stars (roughly) symmetrically around it.
Corrollary:
Nothing happens.
Scenario 2:
There is Earth and there is the sphere of fixed stars (roughly) symmetrically around it. There is also the Sun and it is bigger and hotter than Earth.
Corrollary:
Nothing happens.
Scenario 3:
There is Earth and there is the sphere of fixed stars (roughly) symmetrically around it. There is also the Sun and it is bigger and hotter than Earth. There is also the Moon.
Corrollary:
Nothing happens.
Scenario 4:
There is Earth and there is the sphere of fixed stars (roughly) symmetrically around it. There is also the Sun and it is bigger and hotter than Earth. There is also the Moon. There is also some sort of gravitation.
Corrollary:
Supposing the gravitation is strictly Newtonian, the most massive object will plummet down into the centre of gravity and stay there. Earth will in that case simultaneously be fried and pushed to the side. Moon will fall into this as well, but Sun will be in the Middle.

This will increase the gravitational pull toward the middle and the Sphere of Fixed Stars will collapse. This is the reason why Newtonian and Mechanistic explanations tend to avoid a Sphere of Fixed Stars. Newton to Olbers, one tried to pretend universe had - at least as a disc of stars with greater tightness - an infinite extension, however unthinkable and counterintuitive and impossible THAT is, so one could pretend the gravitational pull on each stars by each other star was everywhere (not excepting any outer borders even) balanced out by an equal gravitational pull from the other side. After Olbers and through one (but not only possible) explanation of red shift, one now instead sees the inward force of gravitation balanced by an outward thrust from the Big Bang.

Supposing instead the gravitation is Aristotelian, there are two kinds of mass (correponding to light and heavy elements in Aristotle): leptomass and barymass.

Earth is less massive in total mass than the Sun. BUT the Sun may have a surplus of leptomass over barymass. In that case it will not plummet down to the centre of gravity. Even the Moon might have a slight surplus of leptomass over barymass and will not plummet down into it. Earth may be, not indeed the most massive body, but the most massive body with a surplus of barymass over leptomass. This is how Aristotle, Lucretius and a few others motivated Geocentricity physically.

The Fixed Stars would of course be the ones which had the greatest percentual surplus of leptomass, hence they would be furthest up and out. This poses a bit of a problem whether they stay in place at all or whether they expand, further and further up, through their positive lightness.

In either case their staying in relative places would require a Designer. Either for designing a limit beyond which even lightness cannot expand or for mixing precisely enough barymass into the Stars for them to stay at a fixed distance from Earth, or else for the Stars to stay in their angular places relative to each other while their whole sphere is expanding.

Lucretius who did not think there was a God was not very attentive to his own Geocentric astronomy.
Scenario 5:
There is Earth and there is the sphere of fixed stars (roughly) symmetrically around it. There is also the Sun and it is bigger and hotter than Earth. There is also the Moon. There is also some sort of gravitation. There is also rotation.
Corrollary:
In this case even Newtonian gravity might not be incompatible with Geocentricity.


Now - precisely at scenario 5 - look at Alec's resumé of Gary's answer to Robert:

Sungenis has already been shown by Gary Hoge, that there are no observable motions in the universe that could offset the overwhelming gravitational attraction of the Sun, moon, and planets on the Earth.


Is the daily motion of the Universe around the Earth "observable" in MacAndrew's language? It is any way observed, the colloquial terms for those very common observations being "day" and "night".

Is there a problem with this theory? Well, where does the rotation come from. Not how we observe it, we observe it as day and night, but where it comes from.

Lucretius thought Moon and Sun and stuff were just gliding around because they were lighter.

Aristotle and St Thomas find that God can explain the rotation - as in observed daily rotation of the Universe around Earth - as efficient cause thereof.

Newtonian laws of movement?

Problem is, a circular movement is not a uniform movement. Therefore even without any friction, it would not be generated and then automatically ongoing, since changing direction is a kind of acceleration. And each body would be changing direction.

Conservation of angular momentum?

Can it be derived from Newton's laws of motion? As it is experimentally observed, it is usually concerned with solid circular objects rotating around their centres. Not with objects separate from each other rotating around common centres in the void. Even two stones united with a rope (or three with three ropes, like the Bolas of Argentinian Gauchos) as being united by a rope (or three) are in a sense solids. Every observed instance on earth sooner or later stops.

Back to Sungenis' theory now.

If we make a model of the solar system, and use bodily arms between sun model and earth model, so that earth on model is moved by arm from the sun on model, we can indeed fixate earth and this will make sun on model revolve around earth precisely as earth would otherwise revolve around sun.

My take on Sungenis' is that his take on Mach is that this happens in dynamics of Solar System according to Classic Newtonian Model, if and when Earth is for instance fixed into the Centre of Gravity.

My problem with that (and I suspect if Sungenis read this in Mach it is there in Mach) is that this does not take into account that in Newton's model Earth is not moved around the Sun by a physical arm, a body of metal shaped as an arm. But rather by the evasive (and regularly so) equilibrium between its two movements. The one being the movement sidewards and tangential through inertia, the other being the movement inward and radial through gravitation. And both movements or theoretical such equalling out into a movement which is insofar accelerating as it is changing direction.

Now the fixation of earth on a model would make the mechanic arm in the sun move the sun around the earth instead of other way round. But the fixation of Earth in a place in the Universe would involve its lacking a sideways movement relative to the Sun and its lacking an inwards movement relative to the Sun and therefore no movement making an equilibrium between them would arise either.

A movement of the Sun around Earth as per year - apart from this being an abstraction since the main movement of the Sun around Earth is per day, but if we supposed for a moment Earth was rotating so only yearly movement were to reckon with - would in a Newtonian model require this movement to be the result of Sun's sideways movement, determined by its inertia determined by its mass, and the Sun's inwards movement into the Earth, determined by Earth's (or some centre of gravity's situated around it) superior attraction.

However, the Newtonians do find a consistency between the Sun's Mass as used for it being close around Centre of Gravity for Earth and the same as used for it being close around Centre of Gravity for the orbits of Kuiper Belt or Jupiter, Venus or Mars.

For Sungenis to be correct in the main would require that exactly as much inferior as the Earth is by itself to the Sun, so much superior is the Earth with the Centre of Gravitation to the Sun, when it comes to exerting gravitational pulls. Improbable? Yes, if the explanations are purely mechanistic. Possible? Exactly under one precise condition, if a God with a sense of humour made it so.

But this was, as said, ignoring that according to Geocentrism as usually understood, indeed defended by Sungenis himself, as well as me, the main movement of the Sun around the Earth is its daily movement. Its yearly movement is a movement in relation to the Zodiac. This in its turn remaining true whether Sun and each star are every day going West around us and Sun being slower than the stars or Heaven is going West, carrying the Sun with it, while Sun is going East making a full circle around the Zodiac per year.

This would add the further quirk that it is NOT the movement of the Sun which corresponds to what Earth would have been doing if Sun were centre of its system. And yet the correspondence is somehow there.

Now, one can ask oneself, if Geocentrism in Newtonianism is so improbable, why not ditch Geocentrism?

Well, is Heliocentrism in Newtonian explanations very much more probable? If it is sufficiently probable to function without God, maybe there is no God. Then - without God that is - Geocentrism is pretty certain to be impossible.

Could now the Heliocentric and Newtonian system function without God regulating it? Newton did not think so. Laplace is famus for having said he found this hypothesis superfluous. However his cosmology is famous for being less easy to read and check up on (these days at least) than his very famous cosmogony, in which the solar system is supposed to have began as a whirling disc of gas and matter, which then condensed into the planets. That cosmogony (and its prequel in Big Bang) I knew by age eight, before being a Christian, and having momentarily forgot about God. I learnt all this in MARS** where I was the most junior member.

But is this very probable? Look at this:

[ISS] Don Petit, Science Off The Sphere - Water Droplets Orbiting Charged Knitting Needle
SpaceVids.tv·
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyRv8bNDvq4


How many orbits did you count per droplet before the equilibrium of inward and sideward movements changed from orbitting to frankly inward movement and droplet attached to the knitting needle? Not billions, right?

Well, I think the mechanics for movements of heavenly bodies must include, not just a design going on from creation, but also present movers, at least as regulating the movements and stopping collapse by gravitation. And if there are movers capable of that, they are also capable of effecting the quirks - which are very decorous - of Tychonian Geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Marc / Friday of Easter Octave
25-IV-2014
Also 59th Birthday of
Robert Sungenis

* Alec's attack here cited is on:

“Here Comes the Sun”
How the new geocentrists persist in scientific and logical errors
by Alec MacAndrew
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Here-Comes-the-Sun-Alec-MacAndrew.pdf


** MARS-bulletinen / Malmö astronomi- & rymdfartssällskap
Malmö astronomi- & rymdfartssällskap (utgivare) Malmö : Malmö astronomi- & rymdfartssällskap (MARS), 1966-1980 Svenska.
http://libris.kb.se/bib/1548270


M A R S == M=Malmö, the location, third Swedish city after Stockholm and Gothenburg, A=astronomi- needs no translation, S=-sällskap = society, but what about R=rymdfarts-? Well, it seems the society was originally also about space voyages. Even though Malmö hardly is Cape Canaveral. Did not quite reckon on that in 1966 when the society was founded. I was an active member 1976, after my grandpa's death. By then I was eight. But 1980 when I came back to Malmö, not only was I a Christian but the society was no longer (or not very much longer) in existance. Its traces now is this bulletin preserved in libraries.

Il y en a qui ME considèrent comme polyglotte? Mais ses neuf langues à lui sont plus polyglottes que les miens!

Euh ... que les miennes.*

L'homme qui parlait 9 langues
Babbel France
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOwnWCL61Rc


My comment to him:

Felicitations!

If we go by "nation languages", we have both 9 languages we master, but if we consider them as dialects of larger groups, you have at least four such and I have only Latin and Germanic. You have some dialects of those, but Gaelic and Hebrew on top of just those groups!

Hat tip!

* Je me suis rendu compte de la faute très tard, pas avant de m'être déjà mis sur le train entre Nanterre et Paris. Normalement je le fais déjà pas ou quand je le fais je le corrige en rédigeant l'écrit ou quand je publie avec cette faute, je le vois avant de mettre le lien sur FB, je reviens pour le corriger. Mais pour quelqu'un qui parle surtout les langues Germaniques (qui ont un pluriel unitaire pour les adjectifs et les articles, comme un quatrième genre grammatical - le singulier comportant aussi le neutre), et surtout en Français qui manque déjà le féminin pluriel en quelques formes ("aux" au lieu d'un *"ales", "des" au lieu d'un *"déles") ... c'est comme ça que la polyglottie peut handicaper un peu la correctitude dans les langues. Le français a un mot "le diocèse" qui est très mauvais grec, très mauvais latin, très mauvais italien ou espagnol, je l'ai donc trouvé plus correcte en disant "la diocèse". Pourtant, "le diocèse" est du très bon allemand: "das Stift", ce qui est assurément la raison historique de ce masculin en français. Car le français est du latin parlé par des germanophones, à la base. Clovis aurait dit "das stift" ou "dat stift" et Charlemagne l'aurait dit aussi à Aix-la-Chapelle./HGL

Cornelius and Assisi Meeting

A statue of gigantic dimensions, imitating the crooked cross of Wojtyla (a k a John Paul II) was being erected in honour of the latter and his theology (radically opposed, perhaps, to that of triumphal crucifixes so often seen in pre-Gothic, Romance or Byzantine, Church Art) and fell over and broke and killed a young man.

When some of his relics - blood from him kept in tin foil, I think - were brought to Lourdes, it was as if water nymphs said they did not want the man of Assisi meeting and of the crooked cross there. Lourdes was flooded. Even for weeks, I think I recall. At least for days.

Dave Armstrong, however, defends Assisi meeting.

Dave Armstrong
Let's imagine asking a primitive biblical Canaanite; "which idea of God are you attributing to your idols?" What could he answer? Could he answer "ipsum esse subsistens," "esse per se et non per partecipationem"? (I don't want to say that there were not also truly pagan gnostic mythologies). We can understand biblical maledictions against idolatry, to preserve true religion among Jews. But we must believe that God also loves the Canaanites and othersunbelievers and that he also offered salvation to them.

There were no Satanists at Assisi. Obviously the acts of natural religon that can prepare for grace must be compatible with all natural law; so we must exclude sexual or magic practices etc. But in Assisi the issue was the prayer.
My Comment
If you ask FSSPX critics, certain of the Pagans were in Assisi precisely doing magic.

Now, if we get to Canaan, it is true that Paganism was worse than certain later ones.

I have been saying things like "perhaps Homer introduced a less evil Paganism, perhaps the Achaeans were not so much praying to Zeus the Kronide, but to Kronos of the crooked minds and he changed that for Zeus the Kronide" or "perhaps Hindoos behind forgetting of Flood" (attempted such, I think, since later Puranas - or Puranas I consider later than Mahabharata - talk of a flood where Vishnu previously to the Krishna Avatar was in a Fish Avatar) "perhaps Hindoos behind attempt of forgetting the flood had some excuse that all the Flood story they knew distinguished Enlil the Flood perpetrator and "god of worder" from Enki the Flood saviour and "god of wisdom" ... in other words they were moving away from clearly evil Paganisms.

But if Homer and Vyasa could have such excuses, nevertheless their overall theology was still full of errors, like making a seemingly good Zeus be, not indeed the first rebel, but still a rebel against that rebel, or like making Destruction rather than Sanctification the work of a third person of a pagan trinity concept. And so also Kabbalah while retaining the primary Hebrew tradition of the Trinity (a secret up to the Incarnation of God the Son) also taints that truth with things like the 22 or the eleven times two sephiroth. And with Antichristianity. And Homer reserves ascension of souls into Heaven for the souls of demigods or secret gods (like Hercules or Castor and Pollux or Saturn of Italy or Romulus), and Vyasa preaches an ultimate recompensation for detachment which is "beyond reward and punishment". But if these men were excused, by being before Christ and far from Israel, nevertheless, their followers today may not have such excuses.

The followers of Vyasa are usually not Christians. The followers of Homer or Plato - or rather former such - usually are. On what exact ground must we suppose that the followers of Vyasa are all and singly excused? None as far as I know.

But Canaaneans, they knew the right religion before they mostly fell away to idolatry. Rabbis will say that Melchisedec was Shem and not a Canaanean. Haydock comment calls that a foolish position. I have not checked longevity charts based on Septuagint for feasability. Now, Melchisedec had the true religion, or Abraham would have been guilty for participating in it. Melchisedec had the true religion, or King David would have been a false prophet for admitting as his Lord (and shepherds of Bethlehem adoring Him on his behalf also admitted Him as their and as David's Lord) one who was priest according to the order of Melchisedec. Melchisedec was of the true religion, or St Paul or St Barnabas (whichever of them wrote Hebrews) would have been wrong to attribute this priesthood to Christ. And yet Melchisedec was priest in Salem which was a city of the Canaanean Jebusites.

A Canaanean worshipping Ba'al would have had as much excuse for it as a previously Catholic Eichmann for - not indeed joining the Nazi party as such but for - apostasising to certain cults popular in certain Nazi circles. Such as divinisation of the Swedish king Odin.

Jebusites did not do that. And they were close enough neighbours to less decent Canaaneans. Og of Bashan was evil, but Balaam was not an idolater, perhaps. What excuse had Jericho? None, as far as I can see.
Dave Armstrong
We don't forget that God doesn't give impossible orders. If natural law orders man to be religious, we have two solutions.

  • A) God tolerates vain oservance of a lot of ignorant people, substantially not idolatrous.

  • B) God orders to be religious without giving the means to be religious.


But we cannot admit B.
My Comment
God gave the population of Jericho the means to be religious by their neighbourhood with Jebusites. God also offered them the time to repent while Joshua had gotten back the spies hid by Rahab. They stood as one man behind their King who forbade them all contact with Israelites.

Now Jericho was close shut up and fenced, for fear of the children of Israel, and no man durst go out or come in.

Sounds like Albania under Enver Hoxha. One person had no part in this iniquity. Her name was Rahab. She was spared. And her situation was pretty close to a that of a secret Christian in Albania.

Was Wojtyla alias John Paul II sure that none of those he invited to Assisi, on friendly enough terms with him, was to his own community an obstacle to the faith, like Enver Hoxha or like that King of Jericho?

Was he sure all of them were named Cornelius? How come he did not baptise all of them then? Was he sure none of them was an evil Pharao to whom he should have said "Let my people go!"

How could he be sure of such a thing?

Ordinarily, God gave each and every religion present in Assisi the means of conversion, either by Christians among them or by Christians close by them.

A pure soul will be given the means proper for his case. We cannot say beforehand that such and such a religion is the former religion of some convert saint who did some part of his or her sanctification under it and THEREFORE it is ordinarily speaking a proper means for sanctification of a non-Christian.

I can give a Hindoo (if I come across one, per internet, I am not seeking for them) the history of Mahabharata as an approximation of pre-Flood history - Moses not giving the details for what happened after Tubal-Cain's time (and it is not very probable he "remained in office" or even alive in Nod up to the Flood either) but resuming as "all flesh was corrupt" and a few things like that. But I am not giving him Bhagavad Gita as an approximation of Theology, nor "aoom" as an approximation of Amen.

Wojtyla on his part seems to have been certain God was accepting the invited Hindoo's belief in Bhagavad Gita spirituality and practise of Hindoo mantras as precisely that, and not just for some particular Hindoo, but in general for a Hindoo who has not decided to become a Christian.

God has given them the means to be religious. But they have not taken it. Not visibly so we can say they have taken it. Visibly, they have taken another road, one which we must dread as leading to perdition, and Wojtyla was inviting them to take it.
Dave Armstrong
We must not forget also that God dispenses his grace to this concrete man after original sin: and God knows the difficulties of building a natural theology.
My Comment
It is very much less easy if you deny Geocentrism. Assume earth is as still as it looks like.

For one thing this confidence in the truthfulness of the Creator is a real part of natural theology. For another thing, the mechanism behind Universe swirling around us each day and including detachable pieces (like Sun, Moon, Jupiter and so on not being glued to specific spots on the Zodiac, and even α Centauri shows some detachment by zero point 76 arc seconds between extremes), very clearly argues a might and a mind behind this order in speeds that would doom our handiworks to explosion.

One can be very sure this is not a destroyer. One can be very sure this is not first cousin of whatever spirit guides the movements of the sun (daily or around zodiac, both models are there for you). One can be very sure it is spirit, not body. Ordered and not chaotic. Awake and not dreaming.

There was a time when St Paul said of philosophers (worded as of Pagans generally, but often understood as of specifically philosophers) that they were without excuse. And of each sect, it was precisely the philosophers that were invited to Assisi.
Dave Armstrong
[Quoted St Thomas]
St Thomas on Cornelius
Objection 3. Further, when that which precedes is corrupted, that which follows is corrupted also. Now an act of faith precedes the acts of all the virtues. Therefore, since there is no act of faith in unbelievers, they can do no good work, but sin in every action of theirs.

On the contrary, It is said of Cornelius, while yet an unbeliever (Acts 10:4-31), that his alms were acceptable to God. Therefore not every action of an unbeliever is a sin, but some of his actions are good.

...

Reply to Objection 3. Unbelief does not so wholly destroy natural reason in unbelievers, but that some knowledge of the truth remains in them, whereby they are able to do deeds that are generically good. With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith.
My Comment
So, Cornelius, like Nathanael while reposing under the fig tree, was not quite instructed in all apsects of the faith. But he was not an unbeliever.
Quoting Bible and Haydock
1 Now *there was a certain man in Cæsarea, named Cornelius, a centurion of the band, which is called the Italian,

2 A religious man, and one that feared God, with all his house, giving much alms to the people, and praying to God always:


Ver. 1. A cohort, with the Romans, was a body of infantry 500 strong. There were ten cohorts in each legion. There were, generally speaking, two centurions appointed to the command of each cohort. (Bible de Vence)

Ver. 2. A religious man, and one that feared God. He was not a Jew, yet believed in one God. --- Always, that is, frequently praying, and giving alms. In the Rheims Testament we find this note: "Hereby it appeareth, that such works as are done before justification, though they suffice not to salvation, yet are acceptable preparatives for the grace of justification, and such as move God to mercy. ... though all such preparative works come also of grace." These Douay divines did not hold with the Quenellists that a true faith, or the habit of faith, must needs be the first grace. (Witham) --- Cornelius religiously observed the law of nature, and the principal points of the Jewish moral law, though he did not profess Judaism. (Calmet) --- He was an admirable example of virtue before his knowledge of Christianity. He feared God, and brought up his family in the same holy fear. He was leader of the first band, and consequently had the eagle, the Roman ensign, carried before him. Four hundred men were under his command. (Tirinus) --- "His former goodness could no longer avail him, unless he were, by the bond of Christian society and peace, incorporated with the Church; he is therefore ordered to send unto Peter, that by him he may learn Christ, by him he may be baptized." (St. Augustine, lib. i. de bap. chap. 8.) --- Alms. Nothing is more efficacious than the alms of a man, whose hands have not been defiled by injustice. It is a clear stream, refreshing in the heat of day, and imparting verdure to every plant that is near it. It is a fountain springing to eternal life. It is a tree, whose branches reach even to heaven, and which produces its eternal fruit in abundance, when death has removed from you all that is temporal. Waste not, then, your treasures in selfish gratifications, the fruit of which is sorrow; but feed the poor, and the hungry. Plant and sow in their hands, and your produce will be great; no soil is more fertile. (St. Chrysostom, hic. hom. xxii.)
Further comment on Cornelius
So, he was to the Old Testament what Noahides are to latter day Judaism. Or what para-Christians, aconfessional, perhaps Mormons and Baptists like Kent Hovind, are to Catholic Christianity.

Anima naturaliter christiana. Kent Hovind had no help from Roman Catholic tradition when speaking of the drunkenness of Noah, and yet he greed with Haydock rather than with Calvin. But Cornelius was, to the Old Testament religion, even more than Kent Hovind is to Catholicism. Kent Hovind has a historical prejudice against Catholicism. He believes Foxe. Cornelius had no prejudice against the Temple - which was an Old Testament image of the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

So, why was Kent Hovind not invited to talk about where the true Church is and why were people as far from him as dedicated Jove and Apollo worshippers would have been to Cornelius invited not even to debate on where the truth is, but to pray according to their false traditions? Dave Armstrong gave an answer, but I think I have already refuted it. Will look, maybe some point I forgot ... not really for the moment, but I will deepen the answer a bit.
Dave Armstrong
[Quoted St Thomas]
St Thomas on faith of Gentiles
I answer that, As stated above (5; 1, 8), the object of faith includes, properly and directly, that thing through which man obtains beatitude. Now the mystery of Christ's Incarnation and Passion is the way by which men obtain beatitude; for it is written (Acts 4:12): "There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." Therefore belief of some kind in the mystery of Christ's Incarnation was necessary at all times and for all persons, but this belief differed according to differences of times and persons. The reason of this is that before the state of sin, man believed, explicitly in Christ's Incarnation, in so far as it was intended for the consummation of glory, but not as it was intended to deliver man from sin by the Passion and Resurrection, since man had no foreknowledge of his future sin. He does, however, seem to have had foreknowledge of the Incarnation of Christ, from the fact that he said (Genesis 2:24): "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife," of which the Apostle says (Ephesians 5:32) that "this is a great sacrament . . . in Christ and the Church," and it is incredible that the first man was ignorant about this sacrament.

But after sin, man believed explicitly in Christ, not only as to the Incarnation, but also as to the Passion and Resurrection, whereby the human race is delivered from sin and death: for they would not, else, have foreshadowed Christ's Passion by certain sacrifices both before and after the Law, the meaning of which sacrifices was known by the learned explicitly, while the simple folk, under the veil of those sacrifices, believed them to be ordained by God in reference to Christ's coming, and thus their knowledge was covered with a veil, so to speak. And, as stated above (Question 1, Article 7), the nearer they were to Christ, the more distinct was their knowledge of Christ's mysteries.

After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above (Question 1, Article 8). As to other minute points in reference to the articles of the Incarnation, men have been bound to believe them more or less explicitly according to each one's state and office.
Examples in ad 3
Reply to Objection 3. Many of the gentiles received revelations of Christ, as is clear from their predictions. Thus we read (Job 19:25): "I know that my Redeemer liveth." The Sibyl too foretold certain things about Christ, as Augustine states (Contra Faust. xiii, 15). Moreover, we read in the history of the Romans, that at the time of Constantine Augustus and his mother Irene a tomb was discovered, wherein lay a man on whose breast was a golden plate with the inscription: "Christ shall be born of a virgin, and in Him, I believe. O sun, during the lifetime of Irene and Constantine, thou shalt see me again" [Cf. Baron, Annal., A.D. 780. If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: "Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth."
My Comment
Does this sound like Hindoos or Muslims present in Assisi? No. They were not just outside the full confession of the faith as not having heard about it, they were opposed to confessing certain truths of the faith, since they had heard of these and had refused to abandon the errors opposed to them.

It sounds very much more like what Tolkien and probably the Beowulf poet believed about Beowulf: he did not know the true God, but neither did he actively worship the false gods. Nowhere in the Beowulf poem does it say he divinised such kings and royalty of Uppsala as Odin, Niord, Frey (all on King list) or Thor. Nowhere does it say he himself sacrificed to them, although he did not either actively distance himself from Heathen worship if there was such among Danes in his presence or even among his people. THAT is the kind of character of whom one can reasonably hope he has implicit faith. There is less hope for his uncle Hygelac if instead of listening to Monks in Christendom he plundered them. That is, if he is identic to Chlochilaicus. But it does not say Beowulf was part of that raid - neither in that chronicle, nor in the poem. Neither in the text about himself, nor in the text about his uncle.

Now, it is theoretically possible there are Hindoos and Muslims who do so - that is oppose themself to confessing truths of the faith, as said - because they have not heard the Gospel with ENOUGH support. Without taking sides in the Feeneyite controversy, one can say some are already justified before abandoning such and such an error. Whether or not such can remain justified if not abandoning these errors before they die.

But such justification is before the eyes of God. The Church judges about non-believers (not directly judging* unbaptised, which is why Hovind is probably no heretic in the full sense, since probably not validly baptised, but judging about - as in judging them to be outside the Church, and as judging them unfit to receive the Sacraments) according to their visible acceptance or rejection of truth. And the guests of the Assisi meeting were in that sense not judgeable as having access to Sacraments of the Church. Nor did they come, like a still unbelieving Augustine, to hear the Rhetoric of an Ambrose. In ways that could convert him. They were invited precisely as leaders of false religions.

But here I come to some substance again:
Dave Armstrong
We have now to deal bravely with a decisive issue, because HERE is the difference between Assisi and modernism, false ecumenism, panchristianism etc.

The issue is about the contents of implicit faith: any faith, more or less explicit, must have contents - more exactly, supernatural revealed contents -, otherwise it would not be faith, but human thought. According to modernists, religion is the emerging of religious feelings: for modernists, the content of this feeling is not important: a good existential outcome of this religious sentiment is sufficient. So they reason: "Are you contented or satisfied to be a Buddhist or to practice Your homemade religion? Let this sentiment emerge! If you let your religious sentiment emerge, you are a Christian, even though you are not conscious of being a Christian."

What is the difference between implicit faith, as we have learned by St.Thomas, and this modernist conception? The differences concern dispositions of the subject, and the object itself. Man knows, by natural reason, that he must pursue his utimate end; man knows this end is good, lovely; so he desires to pursue his ultimate end. Grace manages to get into this natural desire, and so this natural desire becomes supernatural; this is the psychological beginning of the act of faith. There are already important differences between the Catholic and modernist conceptions of faith.

God himself reveals the means of act of faith, the objective contents, even though this knowledge may be not completely explicit. Gods acts in two manners:

  • 1) with his natural providence; an unbeliever can admire the creation (Rom. 1:20: ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind's understanding of created things) and believe (but he may also not believe); or God sends a missionary to the unbeliever.

  • 2) with an immediate supernatural inspiration: we can read the autobiography of some convert, and admire their reflections. But we cannot exclude mysterious inspirations in the hearts of a lot of umbelievers: may we think that a poor primitive in Amazonia or in Asia is forgotten by God?


In both cases, a truth, a content, a supernatural - implicit or explicit - revelation, is proposed to man. A good will wants, "chooses," all these means God revealed to her.
My Comment
True enough as far as it goes.

But any concrete organised non-Christian religion contains a lot of things NOT revealed by God at all (that includes Judaism and non-Catholic Christianities).

This means that a belief in what is revealed by God in a non-Christian religion is not the same thing as believing all of it.

In the Protestant religions I left**, "the Bible is the word of God" is indeed revealed by God. Tenets such like "Albigensians were true Christians persecuted by the Catholic Church" or "the Bible has ONLY 66 books, Maccabees and Tobit are no part of it" or "the true Church is invisible, hence you must get out of the Catholic Church claiming to be a visible Church and you must do that VISIBLY in communion with our or a similar but not identic sect" are very much not revealed by God and were very much not believed by me even when I was pro forma a Protestant.

Obviously, I could not without changing my tenets for more anti-Catholic errors have become a Pastor.

And as obviously, the ones invited to Assisi were in their false religions precisely pastoral functionaries.

But here endeth my attempt to refute Dave Armstrong, and I hope readers will get on and think about it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Marc, Easter Octave Friday
25-IV-2014


* Judging - like condemning or forgiving or acquitting about faults those who are unbaptised, that the Church does not.

** Calvinism as denial of freewill or of Real Presence or of both is rather a Protestant religion I never believed in. Not as if I omitted profitng from such parts of my heritage, rather it was not even part of my heritage.

Thursday, 24 April 2014

Solange Strong Herz on Geocentrism and Denial Thereof

The following passage makes me glad that my favourite convert from Puseyism was not Cardinal Manning but Cardinal Newman. Not an adept of Scientism. But here* is Solange Hertz on Cardinal Manning:

Cardinal Manning, one of the famous converts from Anglicanism brought into the Church by the Oxford movement, is a fairly representative case. In his popular book The Internal Mission of the Holy Ghost, written in the 1870’s, he writes in perfect good faith,

From the moment that the motion of the earth was established as a scientific truth, the Church has accepted it. And why? Because the Church has no revelation of physical science. No revelation whatever is made of astronomy. The Book of Joshua uses the language of sense and not the language of science in saying that the sun stood still. Therefore faith and theology are in no way implicated and in no way in conflict.


Doesn’t this sound familiar? The good Cardinal-Archbishop of Westminster didn’t hesitate to throw the entire weight of his office behind heliocentrism, despite a total absence of documented proof that the Magisterium of the Church has ever accepted heliocentrism, let alone that heliocentrism has been proven scientifically. Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus, promulgated in 1893, staunchly defended the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, but did nothing to remedy the situation because it allowed considerable leeway to accommodated meanings and interpretations. With science permitted to go its own way unchecked and to wield so unprecedented an influence over the minds of Christians, it’s no wonder that less than a half century later G. K. Chesterton would see no reason why a Catholic could not accept the equally unproven theory of theistic evolution, now openly preached by the new conciliar religion.


If men like Palm and The O'Floinn and Mark Shea think that Geocentrics are contradicting Church teaching, part of the blame goes to Cardinal Manning. Part of the blame goes to those that brought his thoughts too much to the forefront of English Catholicism. And part of it goes to predominance of English in the Western Civilisation, hence also of English Catholicism in Catholicism.

But Cardinal Manning was not Pope. He was not adressing the whole Church. And English Catholic Tradition since Cardinal Manning is not in every detail identic to Catholic Universal Tradition.

Pope Benedict XV clearly taught a book of fiction can convey Theological truth correctly, despite being inaccurate in natural sciences. I agree Dante was not up to date on the flow of blood through the body. As to him possibly being wrong, also on place of the Earth in the Universe, that was only admitted as a concession, it was NOT the subject on which the Pope was teaching in the Encyclical. Just this yesterday morning I had a letter from Dimond Brothers on that matter.

Until then [Galileo's time] the whole world, both Christian and pagan, believed that our earth was the center of the universe and that the entire cosmos revolved around it, because geocentricity is a truth of the natural order revealed by God from Adamic times. Inasmuch as it’s impossible to see what’s actually going on in outer space without standing outside the universe, this truth is a proper object of revelation. God had to reveal that He had set His earth at the center of the universe because, although, like Aristotle, we might be led to deduce this from simple observation, we could never be certain of it for lack of conclusive empirical proof, given the fact that we have no stable point of reference outside ourselves by which to judge relative motion between us and other heavenly bodies.


Here I do not quite agree. Was Geocentricity revealed or co-revealed to Adam?

In the Gospel some "psychology of unjust judges" is what I would call co-revealed. Unjustly lazy people sometimes do start doing what they should if nagged at. But was the world totally ignorant thereof until Jesus said that?

Perhaps in some sense the psychology of unjust judges was unknown before Jesus mentioned it. And yet, this was not exactly what Our Lord was revealing and intending to reveal to us. But even so, it remains true.

So, I am certainly not saying Adam was ignorant of Geocentricity. Nor that God and he never mentioned it before their familiarity was broken by the Fall. I am rather saying Adam could have wondered and God said something like "of course". It was in that case "co-revealed" rather than per se revealed.

But normally speaking, the senses should be enough to convey to us the truth of Geocentricity. It is true that we have no perception of the matter by watching the Universe from the outside - so we have no corrective to the senses in such a direct manner should they be wrong. But that fact in turn suggests pretty clearly we have no reason to assume they are wrong.

The reasons given are consciously or unconsciously assuming there is no God or He doesn't move the Heavens around us each day "because that's not His job" and that there are no angels or they are not moving planets, "because that's not their job".

But what if these are if not actual "jobs" as sons of Adam experience after the Fall (there have been moments when writing has been made so to me, through persecutions of low intensity and thus improbable detection where I am writing - even if writing is my own personal ideal of hobby = work), it could still be their appointments? That ruins all the physical argument for Heliocentrism.

And the optical ones are dependent on physical assumptions about, for instance, α Centauri.

There are two kinds of optical arguments that would not do that, both depending however on spacecraft (not necessarily manned) and therefore on the honesty of NASA. One is if:

  • all parallaxes measurable from here are confirmed in distance calculations (like c. four light years for α Centauri) by parallax measured from Mars.

    The other is if:

    • either earth has been observed vacillating each year from a spacecraft presumable to be moving rectilinearly,

    • or spacecraft has been observed zigzagging from earth, although presumed to proceed rectilinearly. So that apparent zigzagging would be parallactic.


The first I have heard has not been a priority to observe, and the second I have been asking for years, and got only one very brief "of course" from an astronomer who did not care to explain his source - perhaps it was only his obvious conclusion (as obvious to him as to me) from the Heliocentric view of the cosmos he didn't doubt.

But assume now that Cardinal Manning had to be answered on the account of Bible not formally teaching Geocentrism in the Book of Joshua.

The author could have used "the language of appearance" when telling about the event. The problem posed is whether the miracle worker could have either - while working a miracle on behalf of God - been ignorant of the proper words to use or taken into account his human listeners' impressions all the while ostentatiously adressing what ostentatiously needed adressing.

If Heliocentrism is true, why did he not say "earth, cease from the rotation"?

Assume the story is false, it becomes apparent to any modern why: he would not have known enough. But assume it is false, and you are no longer Christian.

Assume it is true, and his choice of words become problematic to say the least, or rather impossible, unless Geocentrism is true.

Normally a simple observational truth like Geostasis (Geocentricity once you discover the earth is round) would not have needed such a strong proof from the veracity of a miracle worker while working a miracle. But if the story is true - and as a Christian I cherish no doubt thereon (even Cardinal Manning didn't) - the reason would be that God foresaw the Heliocentric errors before they came into fashion. Precisely as Jacob and Esau refuted horoscopes probably before such came into fashion (for the greater benefit of an Aurelius Augustinus on his way to becoming Saint Augustine of Hippo - and many after him).

The Gospel contains so much comment on Paganisms not known in Palestine at the time. Could not some Old Testament books contain pertinent comment on the latter day paganism we see?

One of the Puranas says an Avatar of Vishnu saved a King from the Flood ... and that Avatar was a fish. Matsya in Sanscrit. Now, this Sanscrit word for fish sounds a bit like the Hebrew word for Christ (Mashiac'h). And the early Christians, without any knowledge of either Sanscrit or Puranas, described the Christ as ΙΧΘΥΣ - Ιησους Χριστος Θεου 'Υιος Σοτηρ. The abbreviation means - fish. The Babylonian Myth of the Flood (long since forgotten by the time of Christ, but unearthed in ceramic tablets with cuneiforms) also refers to Christ: Shamash the Sun God miraculously provided bread for those on board Ziasudra's or Utnapishtim's ark. Christ is called the Sun of Justice and He has given bread miraculously. Turning water to wine was a speciality of Dionysus - but Christ did it, in Cana. Defeating death was predicated of Hercules. Raising dead was predicated of Aesculapius. Both of these came true of Christ.

I think there are two attitutdes possible about these parallels : God gave some prophetic content to the false myths, and sometimes to some true events (like Ulysses' homecoming, prefiguring Christ's return to defeat an Antichrist who is like unto the evil suitors and like unto the worst of them**, and Penelope, like the Church, remained faithful until rescued), and therefore we see a kind of prophecies fulfilled in Christ. The other is the charge that Christianity plagiarised the mythologies. If that were so, how come Gospels succeeded in covering more of them than Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion put together, in less space and with at least as much if not greater coherence?

And in the same way, either we ought to believe the Book of Joshua says Heliocentrism is a Pagan error, or we would be condemned to say Heliocentrism proves the Book of Joshua a Christian error. The latter, I utterly reject. The compromises, I find them less interesting.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Marc / Easter Friday***
25-IV-2014

* The Scientific Illusion
Solange Strong Hertz
http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Hertz2.pdf


** Antinous, son of Eupeithes. Is it not ironic and sadly emblematic of Paganism that much later Hadrian made the Empire adore his drowned ephebe Antinous? In a way this shows forth that the worship of Paganism, when not given directly to devils, is given in some way to Antichrists.

*** Not sure whether the Friday in the Easter Octave or the Feast of a Gospeller prevails. For Saints George and Fidelis I think it is the Easter Octave that prevails, so they or one of them is celebrated Monday next week, but for St Marc I am not sure.

Chesterton vs Chisholm

Let us have a look at George Brock Chisholm shall we ... I will not be quoting Chesterton all along, but I defy any to say I misrepresent his position. He would for one thing have agreed that there is something to the contribution of "everyman", so he would not have minded me quoting wikipedia on him:

Brock Chisholm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brock_Chisholm


Quoting from wiki
After the war, Chisholm pursued his lifelong passion of medicine, earning his M.D. from the University of Toronto by 1924 before interning in England, where he specialized in psychiatry.
Comment
Could what he went through or did have something to do with his specialisation?

Let us see the list of WW-I Snipers, shall we:

World War I snipers
Australia Billy Sing
Britain Hesketh Hesketh-Prichard
Canada 
  • Brock Chisholm
  • Henry Norwest
  • Grey Owl
  • Johnson Paudash
  • Francis Pegahmagabow
  • Joseph Gregory
Newfoundland John Shiwak
New Zealand Richard Travis
United States Herman Davis


I met a sniper in Denmark. He had done his work in the Bosnia-Hercegovina war. He had killed a sniper who was Serbian and who was shooting down people who passed to get water. He still recalled it. He also was a user of cannabis.

Looking at someone through binoculars who cannot see you, and shoot him dead, that does something to you. And Brock Chisholm was into that business.

Other question, where did he study medicine?

In Canada. In a place where native minorities who had other beliefs or sometimes just other customs than the English speaking public were being targetted. Brock did avoid specialising in psychiatry there, but he came from that area. An area where it was seen as vital to the mental health of a young Inuit or Indian to be taken away from his parents, and where sometimes tuberculosis in resident schools were seen as a not too regrettable solution for the Native Problem.

As already outlined, the Catholic Church, despite accusations by Kevin D. Anett did not share that attitude. But perhaps - at least in some ways - Chisholm did.
Quoting from wiki
After six years in general practice in his native Oakville, he attended Yale University where he specialized in the mental health of children.
Comment
And what is Yale ...?

It is a Puritan, New England University, like all of Ivy League. His specialisation into the mental health of children seems to indicate he took similar views as the Government of Toronto in those years.
Quoting from wiki
During this time, Chisholm developed his strong view that children should be raised in an "as intellectually free environment" as possible, independent of the prejudices and biases – political, moral and religious – of their parents.
Comment
Chesterton insisted that God had given precisely the parents the right and duty to look after what prejudices and biasses their children were brought up in. And that an education free from bias simply did not exist.

Chisholm simply took the attitude prevalent in his Canada as to children of Inuits, Indians and Catholic French-Canadians and applied them a bit more broadly.

Chesterton would not have agreed with applying them to Indians and Inuits, let alone Catholic French-Canadians.
Quoting from wiki
At the outbreak of the Second World War, Chisholm rapidly rose in stature within the Canadian military and government.
Comment
Ill boding.
Quoting from wiki
He joined the war effort as a psychiatrist dealing with psychological aspects of soldier training, before rising to the rank of Director General of the Medical Services, the highest position within the medical ranks of the Canadian Army. He was the first psychiatrist to head the medical ranks of any army in the world.
Comment
Ill boding.

It seems very clear he "had had to" acquire some cynicism as a sniper and was more than willing to pass it on to soldiers.

And to psychiatrists.
Quoting from wiki
In 1944, the Canadian Government created the position of Deputy Minister of Health. Chisholm was first the person to occupy the post and held it until 1946.
Comment
He did not use it, then, to end forced sterilisations on indigenous and on French Canadians. Because that did not end until the seventies.
Quoting from wiki
That same year, Chisholm took his views to the international scene, becoming the Executive Secretary of the Interim Commission of the World Health Organization, based in Geneva, Switzerland. He was one of 16 international experts consulted in drafting the agency's first constitution. The WHO became a permanent UN fixture in April 1948, and Chisholm became the agency's first Director-General on a 46–2 vote.
Comment
That so many doctors voted for him in that assembly is distinctly illboding for those chosen to participate.

As previously said, the Physicians' Trial at Nuremberg was derisory. 20 were indicted, one was condemned.
Quoting from wiki
Chisholm was now in the unique position of being able to bring his views on the importance of international mental and physical health to the world.
Comment
Mental health first?

Looks like him. And looks bad.
Quoting from wiki
Refusing re-election, he occupied the post until 1953, during which time the WHO dealt successfully with a cholera epidemic in Egypt, malaria outbreaks in Greece and Sardinia, and introduced shortwave epidemic-warning services for ships at sea.
Comment
Even Antichrist must do some good things to some - otherwise he is not accepted.
Quoting from wiki
Chisholm was a controversial public speaker who nevertheless had great conviction, and drew much cynicism within the Canadian public for comments in the mid-1940s that children should not be encouraged to believe in Santa Claus.
Comment
Chesterton and Tolkien very definitely were against him, then. And I think Christopher Tolkien was none the worse for it.
Quoting from wiki
Calls for his resignation as Deputy Minister of Health were quelled by his appointment as Executive Secretary of the WHO, but his public perception as "Canada's most famously articulate angry man" lingered.
Comment
Thank God some sensible people were calling for his resignation.
Quoting from wiki
While Chisholm was Director of the UN from 1948–53, he was quoted as saying "To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas."
Comment
Before definitely accusing him of saying such evil words, I would like a source. Beyond wiki. But to judge from the rest, this is not improbable.
Quoting from wiki
Chisholm was an Honorary President of the World Federalists of Canada, ...
Comment
Unfortunately, I believe the wikipedians on this one.
Quoting from wiki
... President of the World Federation of Mental Health (1957–1958) and an Honorary Fellow of a number of prestigious medical associations.
Comment
Unfortunately I have no trouble imagining this is the literal truth.

Both his involvement with international psychiatry (and this would probably have put him in a position to collaborate with Soviet Union's political Psychiatry, of which Christians, both as adult individuals and as children taken away from parents, were often enough victims), and his position to contaminate more than one medical association, including many prestigious ones, with his pestilential heresies about Mental Health.
Quoting from wiki
In 1959, the American Humanist Association named him Humanist of the Year. He received numerous honorary degrees, and was made a Companion of the Order of Canada in 1967.
Other article
The American Humanist Association (AHA) is an educational organization in the United States that advances Humanism, a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms the ability and responsibility of human beings to lead personal lives of ethical fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity. The mission of the American Humanist Association is to be a clear, democratic voice for Humanism in the United States, to increase public awareness and acceptance of Humanism, to establish, protect and promote the position of humanists in American society, and to develop and advance humanist thought and action.
Comment
I believe the American Humanist Association was able to do such a thing, yes. Even if as Unitarian Chisholm was not technically "without theism or other supernatural beliefs".
Quoting from wiki
Chisholm married Grace McLean Ryrie on 21 June 1924, and had two children, Catherine Anne and Brock Ryrie. He died on 4 February 1971, in Veterans' Hospital, Victoria, British Columbia, after a series of strokes. He was a Unitarian.
Comment
He married? He did some one thing as a normal man would?

Wait. He was married when he was 28. His wife was presumably not older than he (the wiki does not state her brith year). He was not early widowed or the wiki would have stated it. And yet they had only two children? Sounds as if they promoted contraception to me.

After all this, I would not have been surprised if he had been confessing Atheism or Agnosticism, and I am not surprised he was Unitarian. He was definitely not a Catholic, nor an Orthodox (at least not as previously to Romanides, who, like Brock Chisholm, favoured Puritan Ivy League over Oxford.

I will now quote the person through whom I came to hear of his cursed name.

too bad they do not call folks who are for abortion with some mental disorder. but if you pray a lot, they have a disorder for that, if u watch professional sports 'ALOT that not a disorder, if you pray lots of rosaries, that an obsessive disorder. sure looks like brock Chisholm got his way. every priest in America was taught in the seminary about the poisons of brock Chisholm most priests have wept about what Chisholm has done to America


The priests of US in the Catholic Church correspond, therein, [Update, I looked again at the quote: The priests of US in the Catholic Church do not correspond, in weeping over Chisholm ]pretty much to the Romanides denial of natural law and diagnostication of all non-Eastern-Orthodox religion as psycho-biological disorders.

But Chisholm himself was not priest, he was not Catholic, he was not Orthodox. He was a World War I sniper, he was a shrink, he was a Unitarian of so undevout cut (not like George MacDonald) that he was elected Humanist of the Year.

When he said that Malaria is an unpleasant, sometimes lifethreatening, even otherwise incapacitating disease, this is a medical fact. When he gave solutions for how to get rid of Malaria, he was also talking about Medical Fact. But when he spoke about Children's Mental Health, and against parents forming their children and against encouraging children to believe in Father Christmas, well, this was no longer anything like medical, nor anything like factual. It was his ideology. It needs to be opposed, and doing so is not an affront to science if that word means the study and knowledge of facts. I do not know if Chisholm actually said the follwing words or not, though I have little reason for real doubt, beyond the prejudice of rather letting guilty go than hanging innocent:

"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas."

I do not really know if he said these words. I do however know that people saying those words would have found his ideas about Mental Health very congenial to their evil plans.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Easter Week Thursday
24-IV-2014

Tuesday, 22 April 2014

John Cornwell's Incompetent Fan Club Claims Vatican went Nazi

1) Great Bishop of Geneva! Would Sunday Laws Forbit Sabbath Keepers to Buy and Sell?, 2) New blog on the kid John Cornwell's Incompetent Fan Club Claims Vatican went Nazi

Here is the incompetent fan club:

Religious Matrix : Vatican Nazis
Jan 17 2012 | Charlie Adams
http://religiousmatrix.com/archive/vatican-nazis/


English journalist and author of "Hitler's Pope" John Cromwell stated: "Pius XII "had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by Germany. ... But even if his prevarications and silences were performed with the best of intentions, he had an obligation in the post-war period to explain those actions"


First of all, if they like John Cornwell, it is pretty incompetent to call him John Cromwell. I actually first suspected an Ulster Scot eager to defend the honour of his ancestor Oliver the Tyrant. No. John Cornwell who wrote the book was actually raised Catholic, then fallen away, and is now a Catholic again. Yes, there are Catholics who do not like Pius XII ... I do not share the usual reasons, like those given by John Cornwell, though he is less idiotic in this quote than some who said the same thing twice over and claimed Pius XII had no right to keep silent under the war either.

John Cromwell as a contemporary is into films, not journalism. John Cromwell as into journalism died well before the period we talk about. John Wesley Cromwell was a negro and a freed man before becoming a journalist. He was born in 1846.

But the incompetent fan club may have missed the part where John Cornwell says "had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by Germany. ... But even if his prevarications and silences were performed with the best of intentions" although they actually quote it. Are they even quoting it correctly? Did John Cornwell use the word "prevarication" here? Possibly, see wiktionary:

  • 1) (now rare) Deviation from what is right or correct; transgression, perversion.
  • 2) Evasion of the truth; deceit, evasiveness.
  • 3 - 5) [combinations of above or Roman legal background to both having same word]


I only knew the first sense. Rare though it be.

So, on top of being silent - which Pius XII was - he was also deceitful? To whom? To Hitler, if to anyone, he had a correspondence with Truman! But Hitler already knew that Pius XII was not in his fan club, so that was hardly deceitful to him either.

In 2009 John Cromwell later described Pope Pius XII as a sympathizer of the Nazi party.


Here is what he actually wrote in 2009:

Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture > Volume 78 > Issue 01 >
Hitler's Priests: Catholic Clergy and National Socialism. By Kevin P. Spicer. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2008. xvi + 374 pp. $34.95 cloth.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=4261880&previous=true&jid=CHH&volumeId=78&issueId=01


Above review continues onto a page nominally belonging to Religion, Identity, and Politics in Northern Ireland: Boundaries of Belonging and Belief. By Claire Mitchell. Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 2006. xii + 179 pp. $29.95 paper.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=4261868&next=true&jid=CHH&volumeId=78&issueId=01


On the latter page:

Hitler offered the Catholic Church in Germany more teachers, more school buildings, more Catholic pupil places. At the same time, as was known to Catholic bishops and indeed to Pacelli [=later Pius XII] and the then-Pope, Pius XI, Hitler was withdrawing wide-ranging educational benefits from Jews. Hitler's generosity toward Catholic education in Germany coincided with the mass dismissal of Jewish teachers and university professors and a drastic reduction in Jewish pupil places. Pacelli and the hierarchy's willingness to accept educational benefits from the selfsame source of power that withdrew them from Jews signaled an eloquent collusion with, if not intentional endorsement of, Jewish persecution. Hence they behaved like fellow travelers to the Nazi cause: aloof from Hitler's ideology while accepting his beneficence.


Would you consider this is very well resumed in the following and already quoted? Here again:

In 2009 John Cromwell later described Pope Pius XII as a sympathizer of the Nazi party.


I would not. I would however very much say that if Jews had always been so decent to Catholics under régimes like Roman Pagan Emperors, like Persian invaders in Palestine (where the Palestinian Catholics of the time were mostly their own kin), like Protestant and French-Revolutionary and Communist powers, and even in US, as Pacelli and the hierarchy was here being to the Jews, in profiting from their malefactors without ANY direct abettal of the malfaisance, then Catholic Antisemites would have been pretty rare.

Have no Jews whatsoever profited from the Third Republic in France where Ferry and Combes were ruining Catholic education? On the contrary, they have supported the Third Republic and its persecution against Catholic clergy teaching Catholic pupils in a Catholic way.

And has France not right now a Jewish minister of education* who has declared he wants Catholicism out of the way so he can have a Republic with a Spirituality of what he calls freedom? France has that. [Update: had, 2 April he was replaced by Benoît Hamon] Presumably he would call Catholicism the religion of Knechtschaft, as the Nazis did many times, despite initial conveniences for Catholic education.

So, if we are to accept Cornwell's criteria, we must ask Catholics to be Antisemite in retribution for all that the Jews have done? Or shall we, simply, rather not accept Cornwell's criteria? Maybe kinder to the Jews, isn't it?

Let's get back to the incompetent fan club. Let's give them one credit: Alban Schachleiter was indeed a Benedictine abbot and he did indeed shake hands with Hitler. But this was not totally with the Vatican's blessing (ok, handshakes are not counted and registered, one would not even be excommunicated for shaking hands with Antichrist, at least not as long as he was not identified and excommunicated as such**, but I mean his general attitude):

A year later however, Schachleiter was writing to Oswald Spengler lamenting the impact of Erich Ludendorff and his anti-Catholic followers on the movement—following the refounding of the NSDAP in early 1925 the stronghold of the Nazi movement in Bavaria would no longer be Munich but rather the Protestant regions of Mittel- and Oberfranken. Schachleiter increasingly distanced himself from the NSDAP in the mid-1920s, although he maintained an idealised image of Hitler personally.

Schachleiter continued for years to be angry at Ludendorff's anti-Catholic crusade following the putsch of November 1923—after maintaining his weekly Schola Gregoriana at the Allerheiligen-Hofkirche in Munich until 1930, he then moved to a newly built country house in Bad Feilnbach where he was still living when Hitler came to power in 1933. In late spring Schachleiter wrote to Cardinal Faulhaber—"it seems to me to be a catastrophe that the Holy Church stands aloof from the new freedom movement, whose triumph I foresaw, and that the massive uprising of the volk, which is now lifting our poor fatherland out of its misery and shame, may well go down in history as a triumph of Protestantism." Faulhaber forbade Schachleiter from performing masses within the archdiocese, and Schachleiter reluctantly refused Hitler's request for him to come to Berlin on 20 March 1933 to perform a personal mass for the fuhrer. Hitler visited in mid-May to personally congratulate Schachleiter on his 50th anniversary as a Benedictine. His invitation to sit among the Nazi dignitaries at the Nuremberg party rally in 1934, which he accepted, (and an enduring image through Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will), showed him "on the sidelines as the Nazis' striking, yet thoroughly secularized, performative aesthetic played out before him."

From 1933-1936 Schachleiter spent much energy campaigning against what he saw as peripheral Nazi personalities directing the Nazis in an anti-Catholic and anti-Christian direction—and particularly the ideology advanced by Alfred Rosenberg. Schachleiter regarded this as a restraint on a renewal of wide-ranging Catholic support for the NSDAP. Schachleiter eventually wrote more than two dozen appeals to a variety of Nazi officials, including Hans Lammers, but was ignored. In September 1936 he admitted privately to a friend that, "a believing Christian can no longer participate [in the NSDAP]; they do not want believing Christians in the party." Publicly he continued to profess loyalty to the Führer and to the church, despite Hitler and his regime's continual persecution of Christians in the Third Reich.

Following his death in June 1937 the Nazis ordered a state funeral arranged by Bavarian minister-president Ludwig Siebert.


And since he died in 1937, he did not see the worst of the régime. Since he was born in 1861, he was already 72 years old by the Machtübername. And Hitler had been a nicer fellow during the Bierhallenputsch than - at least politically - he became later.

Now, Cornwell also wrote, at the end of his book review:

Professor Owen Chadwick, the recognised authority on church history in the period, has written that Kaas's vote for Hitler's dictatorship is "one of the most controversial acts of German history." Kaas would have been horrified had anyone accused him of being a brown priest, and yet he did more to support Hitler's regime than all the brown priests put together.


Before that he had noted that Kaas was the spiritual and political leader of the Catholic Centre Party. A non-Nazi and previously anti-Nazi party. But which dissolved itself to get the concordate going. His comparable figure in Austria, Father Ignaz Seipel (a Jesuit) had not done the same mistake, nor were his lay successors Dollfuss and Schuschnigg doing so. And just in case anyone thinks for a second I am a Nazi, my loyalties are with the Christlich-Soziale Partei of Austria. As well as with Zentrumpartei in Germany, the one that Kaas dissolved. Without being against Schachleiter - who alas had too little influence on Nazi politics, and Erich Ludendorff and Rosenberg and Bohrmann (Hitler's minister of education, like Peillon* is Hollande's) and Himmler*** had too much influence on it.

On 7 April, directly after the third meeting of the working committee, Kaas once more left Berlin and headed for Rome. The next day, after having changed trains in Munich, the Prelate happened to meet Vice-Chancellor Papen in the dining car. Papen officially went on skiing holidays to Italy, but his real destination was Vatican City, where he was to offer a Reichskonkordat on his government's behalf. Kaas and Papen traveled on together and had some discussions about the matter on the train. After their arrival in Rome, Kaas was received first by Pacelli on 9 April. One day later, Papen had a morning meeting with Pacelli and presented Hitler's offer. Cardinal Pacelli subsequently authorized Kaas, who was known for his expertise in Church-state relations, to negotiate the draft of the terms with Papen.

These discussions also prolonged his stay in Rome and raised questions in Germany as to a conflict of interest, since as a German parliamentarian he was advising the Vatican. On 5 May Kaas resigned from his post as party chairman, and pressure from the German government forced him to withdraw from visibly participating in the concordat negotiations. Though allegedly the Vatican tried to hold back the exclusion of Catholic clergy and organisations from politics, Pacelli was known to strongly favour the withdrawal of all priests from active politics, which is Church position in all countries even today. In the end, the Vatican accepted the restriction to the religious and charitable field. Even before the Roman negotiations had been concluded, the Centre Party yielded to increasing government pressure and dissolved itself, thus excluding German Catholics from participating in political life.

It is alleged° that Pius XI favored Hitler as a "bulwark against Communism" and therefore signed the Reichskonkordat through which Hitler gained international respectability. Relevant documents have only been made available by the Vatican since 2003, but there remains no evidence of that. On the other hand it has been argued that the Pope faced the alternative of either signing a concordat or provoking another Kulturkampf by not giving the Catholics a legal basis to defend themselves. Later on, the concordat was the basis for formal complaints about the Third Reich's measures against the Church.


But after citing Schachleiter, the page by Charlie Adams is seriously wrong:

Adolf Hitler greets Muller the "Bishop of the Reich" and Abbot Schachleitner. ... Reich Bishop Ludwig Müller, Berlin, 1934 ... National Bishop Friedrich Coch giving a Hitler greeting in Dresden, 10 December 1933 Dresden pastor Friedrich Coch is one of the leading men of the "German Christians" in Saxony. [Picture captions.]


Charlie Adams, are you even aware that "Muller" alias Ludwig Müller and Friedrich Coch are Protestants?°° They owed no allegiance whatsoever to the Vatican, did you know that?

Ludwig Müller (23 June 1883 – 31 July 1945) was a German theologian and leading member of the "German Christians" (German: Deutsche Christen) faith movement. In 1933 he was imposed by the Nazi government as Reichsbischof (Reich Bishop) of the German Evangelical Church (German: Deutsche Evangelische Kirche).

Life

Müller was born in Gütersloh, in the Prussian province of Westphalia, where he attended the Pietist Evangelical Gymnasium. He went on to study Protestant theology at the universities of Halle and Bonn. Having finished his studies, he worked as a school inspector in his hometown, from 1905 also as a vicar and assistant preacher in Herford and Wanne. In 1908 he became parish priest in Rödinghausen. At the outbreak of World War I, he served as a Navy chaplain in Wilhelmshaven.

After the war, Müller joined the Stahlhelm paramilitary organization and continued his career as a military chaplain, from 1926 at the Königsberg garrison. He had been associated with Nazism since the 1920s, supporting a revisionist view of "Christ the Aryan" (or a "heroic Jesus") as well as a plan of purifying Christianity of what he deemed "Jewish corruption," including purging large parts of the Old Testament.


And here is the other one:

Friedrich Otto Coch (* 11. Dezember 1887 in Eisenach; † 9. September 1945 in Hersbruck) war ein deutschchristlicher Bischof.

Seit 1927 war Coch Vereinsgeistlicher der Inneren Mission und Leiter des Preßverbandes der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Landeskirche Sachsens. 1931 trat er in die NSDAP ein, wurde Gaufachberater in Kirchenfragen in Sachsen und Führer der Arbeitsgemeinschaft nationalsozialistischer Pfarrer. 1933 wurde er als Landesbischof in Sachsen eingesetzt, war jedoch seit Ende 1935 weitgehend entmachtet. Er starb nach dem Krieg in US-Internierung.

Über Coch als nationalsozialistischen Pfarrer und Bischof 1934 gibt es Aufzeichnungen des oppositionellen Geistlichen Martin Giebner


There is no English wiki about him. But Coch and Müller were the kind of Protestants that both Prussia and Nazism preferred over Catholicism - and that amply explains how come Cardinal Bertram and others were eager not to give provocation. The Centre Party had been founded to defend Catholics against the persecution of Otto von Bismarck, known as Kulturkampf (note that Coch had Otto as a middle name).

Why is there no English wiki? Perhaps because English speakers are primarily Protestants and as such not eager to seek out the Liberal Protestant roots of Nazism.

Here is another picture caption from Charlie Adams:

An Archbishop with the Nazis

Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, head of the Diplomatic Corps, attending the Nuremburg Party Rally in September 1933.

According to Dr. Paul O'Shea, Orsenigo, as Dean of the Corps, it was the Nuncio's role to lead the Corps at all major government functions. After 1935 Orsenigo did not attend major government propaganda displays.


Honest to cite that bit of after 1935! But does Charlie Adams even note how depressed Orsenigo looks in September 1933? Seriously, this man is too eager to condemn Catholicism to even look correctly at his own evidence!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Easter Tuesday
22-IV-2014

* Vincent Peillon, for those unaware of the [previous] situation here. Knechtschaft is German for Servitude or Slavery. Update: on April 2 2014 he was replaced by Benoît Hamon, as far as I know not Jewish. Peillon was from Alsatia and could probably speak German, but Hamon is a Breton.

** And as vitandus. To be avoided. One can be excommunictaed in diverse degrees, and some are not condemned to public shunning.

*** Wikipedian article on Schachleiter cites Catholicism and the Roots of Nazism, Hastings, p.133, for stating that "[f]ollowing the commemorative activities of 10 June 1923, which included a massive rally in honour of Albert Leo Schlageter, staged on Munich's Königsplatz and attended by 20-30000 activists—a Catholic memorial mass was held immediately after the rally in St. Boniface Abbey, organised exclusively by the NSDAP which was presided over by Schachleiter. ... Schachleiter delivered a eulogistic sermon that was remembered as having a powerful impact—a young and devoutly pious Heinrich Himmler joined the NSDAP in the wake of Schachleiters eulogy." But Himmler was not really Schachleiter's man, was he: "In 1923–24, Himmler, while searching for a world view, moved away from Catholicism and furthered his interest both in the occult and in antisemitism. Germanic mythology, reinforced by occult ideas, became a substitute religion for him. Himmler found the NSDAP appealing because its political positions agreed with his own views."

° Wikipedian editor after the one saying this adds a question "who?" - I could point to Serbs like JBQ in the following (from a blog mirroring my debates, mainly):

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on the Anti-Vatican Smut that Came from Avro Manhattan to Serbs / my codebator not being guilty of it
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-anti-vatican-smut-that-came-from.html


°° Can a Protestant heretic on earth remain Protestant after getting to Hell? Not sure. But whether Coch and Müller are still Protestants down in Hell, they were so while supporting Nazism.