Monday, 29 February 2016

As Someone Said : You Catch More Flies with Honey than with Vinegar

1) New blog on the kid : As Someone Said : You Catch More Flies with Honey than with Vinegar, 2) Creation vs. Evolution : A Pretty Vile Attack on "Christian Fundamentalists" - but a Parodic One, 3) Great Bishop of Geneva! : Apostatic Rejection of "Fundamentalism" in 1994, 4) Dwight Makes a Calmer Attack on Catholic Fundies

Lita Cosner is a heretic. She does not believe Christ founded a Church with a Magisterium and promised to be with the Church, more precisely with the Magisterium all of the two thousand nearly years that have lapsed since Ascension Day.

Who would in normal times have been best qualified to tell her so?

Well, a Jesuit, someone like Father Brown, might come to mind.

Now, a possible Jesuit from Fordham University (it might be a man from another order, but Fordham is Jesuit and as Jesuits are into education and the priest - supposing his orders were valid - said he was planning to become an educator, he is very probably a Jesuit - supposing St Ignatius, St Robert Bellarmine, St Francis Xaver and Suarez could recognise the order that recently was under Arrupe and Wojtyla as "Jesuit general" and as "Pope"), a probable "Jesuit" then from Fordham wrote her.

Did he tell her how good it is that Protestants are at least Creationists?

Did he appreciate the good work she was doing and others were doing at both exegetics and science, like Catholic priests have been known to appreciate the Hebrew lexica of a Lutheran?

No, not quite so.

He accused her and the rest of the team of being hateful. He accused her and the rest of the team of brainwashing children, those of them who have such, that is.

His words bore very little resemblance to what was even remotely wrong with CMI even very seldom (like when John Gideon Hartnett promotes Heliocentric cosmology once every six months or so, or when their very licit and laudable tota scriptura is unfortunately, for once, about once a year, a bit too harshly attached to the indeed heretical and condemned thesis of sola scriptura) and none at all to what a real Catholic would have to answer on that.

And what he believes and cares about bears a MUCH higher resemblance to the Progressive Protestantism (of the Porvoo Communion style) from which I fled into the Catholic Church.

After seeing this site, it has become abundantly clear to me, and others who I have forwarded, that these pages of "blasphemy and immoral substance" is a complete contradiction to God's wishes.

He is guessing about God's wishes in an absence of reference to God's commands. A monk or nun is commanded to stay a monk or nun, is commanded to pray the hours, to stay (at least usually) in the monastery, to get along with others in the monastery as to their merely human frailties, and a few things more like that. Within such a framework, it makes perfect sense on more than one occasion to ask oneself (or if possible ask God) what God wishes one to do, concretely.

Holy Writte does not specify that brother so and so shall volunteer to wipe up the toilet after brother this and that was ill, but no command in Holy Writte or in Tradition contradicts brother so and so guessing that that is what God wishes of him.

But pushing this kind of empathy with God to the point where you set out to contradict what God has explicitly revealed is of course a diabolical illusion. And as obviously not what monks or nuns are encouraged to do.

Faith in Christ is to be discovered, and upheld in beliefs the of love and goodness faith provides. It is not to be beaten into one's head while ignoring any other thought, omitting information, blocking the opportunity for an opposing issue, bashing other human beings, spitting in the face of contextual backings, and distorting one's own mind in effort to stand upon a fanatical, blasphemous, dangerous, intolerable, hateful, bigoted, spiteful, vengeful, painful, etc. ideology that is truly a perversion of everything Christ stands for.

He presumes to know:

  • what Creationists do to stay Creationist;
  • that Christ Himself, despite being ("in his cultural context" as such Liberal Protestants like to say) Creationist stands for certain values (like Victorian gentlemen in philosophical debate) the correct interpretation of which has no real connexion with what Christ actually said, but with how people nowadays stand for these values, and that this correct interpretation of these values excludes Creationism.

I do NOT recognise the Oblate of Mary Immaculate for whom I did Catechism while converting about age 20. I very much DO recognise the progressives of the Swedish then State Church, like their way of dealing with questions like female "priests" or a bit later (after I left) "gay unions", the registered partnerships of which they DO "bless".

But there is a little pearl of quintessential apostasy which even Progressives among Lutherans have so far tended to miss out on (as far as I got their message, which might be in a lacunary fashion, and apart from extremes like the proto-Arischer Christ Adolf von Harnack):

As a Christian your responsibility is to the New Testament. This is the Word which God had sent Christ to confer upon us. To put in VERY simply, the Old Testament was the best of the worst. What I mean when I say this is that 2000+ years ago, people and little to no understanding of how the world worked and often supplemented folklore and "guesses" into oral stories in an attempt to make something coherent (and more believable). That being said (whether you have the courage, knowledge, insight, common sense to admit that or not), the Bible, as a tool of man, invented by man, for man, is and will always be corrupted and impure, simply for the basic reason that mortal hands can never reach the level of divinity. Man cannot understand or comprehend Divinity. To claim that anything created by the hand and minds of a non-deity (regardless of the deity one believes in seeing how Fundamentalist consider the book not the Lord) would not be corrupted by editing, censorship, misunderstanding, and blatant ignorance is foolish and borderline psychotic.

On reconsideration, his attitude is after all shared by Porvoo Communion progressives. The difference is they apply this to the Gospels and the New Testament as well. Logically.

Now, there is a problem in the Apostasy from Biblical inerrancy. It directly involves the kind of "man-therefore-NOT-God" dualism which also tends to deny the Incarnation. Which means, he is touching very clearly on an Apostasy from belief in the Divinity of Christ. From Dualism, as usual.

Actally, Protestants do (and Porvoo more than Evangelicals) tend to look ascance at people guessing what God wishes from them personally in such and such a moment. They would say that the human guess cannot in itself be identical to God's expression. They would say that hearing God's voice within your mind is a dangerous illusion, we cannot know God as a personal friend, only as a historic and invisible reality, like we know about bacteria as invisible enemies we cannot at all know by quarreling with them. A Catholic may piously hope that if he's anyway bound to do such guessing, God may use it - if he prays about that - so it does not lead him astray. But to the conventional Protestant, as they have been for centuries, this is too much of a confusion between the human and the divine, precisely like the idolatry of worshipping anthropomorphic deities.

The ultimate consequence of this Protestant mindset has been to attack the possibility of hagiographers to know what God wnated them to write and therefore to attack Bible belief too. Hence this Apostate's:

the Bible, as a tool of man, invented by man, for man, is and will always be corrupted and impure, simply for the basic reason that mortal hands can never reach the level of divinity

And if the Bible was the word of God, as Pope Leo XIII said? More precisely, in such a manner that God is author of every clause and sentence of which the hagiographer is human author.

Well, that is a bit like the Incarnation, isn't it? It is a bit like the finger writing in the sand in John chapter 8 being the "finger" who wrote the decalogue on stone tablets, twice over (Exodus 31 and 34, the two givings of the tables being a type of Old and New Covenant, Aron's idolatry a type of Caiaphas' apostasy).

But there is more likeness to Progressive Protestants here.

What I mean when I say this is that 2000+ years ago, people and little to no understanding of how the world worked and often supplemented folklore and "guesses" into oral stories in an attempt to make something coherent (and more believable).

Bible as word not of God, but of man, not of man at his best, but of men more ignorant than we are. Have I not heard that somewhere before, where "priests" were not called "Father" because of a Protestant disliking of that word?

I think I very much do have heard that before, in such a context.

That was the kind of people I was converting FROM, age 16 to 20. No wonder the Bishop of Stockholm wanted to delay my conversion. He was perhaps trying to apostatise his diocese TO that. Fortunately for me, he could not stop me from meeting Catholics who were, despite such a Bishop in such a diocese (no longer really part of the real Catholic Church), still Catholic. I was received into the Church, or what appeared as such, at a date in 1988 before Archbishop Lefèbvre had as yet been "excommunicated". And by a priest who, while celebrating Novus Ordo from obedience, still had no qualms about saying Archbishop Lefèbvre was not totally wrong.

But after reading CMI for a few years, I can consider the claim of this "priest"* of having done so - at all, he doesn't say "for years" - at least if meant to imply "with fairness" somewhat spurious.

You use every logical fallacy ever, and have even seen to invent new ones, purely to falsely assert your claims.

It is not logically fallacious to assert that a historic account from a credible source - God's word being that, and Genesis having some claim of being credible even as a human word - which has been attacked as incompatible with science remains credible if one can show that the attacks are unfounded. And it is not a logical fallacy to assert that for instance the attack from Carbon 14 dating giving dates prior to Biblical creation is unfounded if one can** ascribe such overlong ages as due to athmospheric Carbon 14 rising at some point and back then being lower than we can observe now. And so on for quite a few of their refutations of supposed invalidations of the Bible. I have in several years found no real fallacy. Except when incidentally very rarely defending Heliocentrism, which is not their core subject.

Any and seemingly all "evidence" you provide is provided from similar pro-creationist sites,

False. They do not boycott their colleagues any more than an Evolutionist Institution would boycott its Evolutionist colleagues, but they are not limiting themselves to these. They do refer to what Evolutionists have to say, pretty often.

all of which take actual facts out of context in order to misguide people into your beliefs.

When it comes to things like culpability and innocence, taking a fact out of its due context, especially if often thought to imply another context, is very dishonest. But when it comes to science, either context does not mean very much, or it is very largely ignored by the Evolutionist and Heliocentric community as well, as context in their business would be like philosophical context of ideas.

By context, the so called Father Jason presumably means "the big picture". And by "the big picture" he presumably means, in extension, if not intention of phrase, the world view into which the facts are projected by conventional scientists.

I am afraid, saying this about this "priest" is not likely to catch any fly at all.

I will not end with all vinegar. I will now turn to Lita Cosner. A heretic, but not an apostate. And very capable of responding to apostasy.

I believe our central point of disagreement is about the nature of the Old Testament. You say that the Old Testament was ‘the best of the worst’, and that in those times, people supplemented folklore and guesses to explain things of which they were ignorant. But that completely contradicts the New Testament’s view of the Old Testament—and you did say that as Christians we have an obligation to the New Testament.

She is really making the best of "Father Jason". She is somehow presuming he meant to the "New Testament as we have it in writing". He probably meant to sth like "values of the New Testament" or some such thing.*** But for more honest people than him, she is giving a point.

So what about when Peter says, “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by that Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:20–21). What about when the author of Hebrews says, “God… spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways” (Hebrews 1:1). How can you claim to love the New Testament while dishonoring the Old Testament which is the foundation for literally every doctrine in the New Testament? And see this chart of Bible cross references—the blue are to the Old Testament, and the red are to the New Testament. Tell me how to untangle them, and I’ll listen to your argument about how we should respect the New Testament in isolation to the Old. But it’s impossible.

From: Priest calls CMI heretical
by Lita Cosner
Published: 27 February 2016 (GMT+10)

She failed only to mention that the idea of "respect[ing] the New Testament in isolation to the Old" is an Albigensian one. It is a Jewish prejudice about Catholicism/Christianity - a relative of mine was astonished to hear that monks recite the Psalms of David each day. And an Albigensian tenet about their own religion back then.

She made a few points, reminding of some I have a few years back heard about "cafeteria Catholics":

You say that “man cannot understand or comprehend Divinity”, and you’re absolutely right—but God has stooped down to our level, and while His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts, He has revealed Himself to us through His Word, and through His Son. So we can know what He has revealed, because the whole purpose of revelation was so we could understand.

Your view of what it takes to be a Christian is most certainly not a biblical one. But then again, anyone can decide what is truth for themselves and call it whatever religion they like. Our knowledge of God, our fallen state and what is required for salvation is derived only from Scripture. It’s not a salad bar where one can pick and choose what one wants to believe. Our Saviour, the Lord Jesus most certainly believed in the Old Testament as real history. He affirmed a real Adam and Eve (The NT called Jesus the Last Adam), a global Flood, (which he paralleled with Second Coming), Jonah’s three days in the belly of a fish that He used to foretell the three days and night He remained dead before His resurrection. So, if you think Jesus is wrong about such things, then by any definition it would be hard to call oneself a Christian. Unless you have made up your own definition of what Christianity is, which it appears that you have indeed done.

I disagree ONLY with one word.

Our knowledge is derived from ALL OF Scripture, but not ONLY from it. Christ, in Scripture, affirmed the Natural Law:

Matthew 7:11
If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him?

Luke 11:13
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father from heaven give the good Spirit to them that ask him?

The places above also affirm that this natural knowledge of the law is NOT sufficient to save ourselves from Hell.

But in fact, Scripture cannot contradict the natural law, if it is correctly understood. St Paul also affirms the natural law, even in the fallen state:

Romans 2:14,15°
[14] For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,

This place acknowledges that with natural law, if acted out, those ignorant of God may be saved, if that is not their fault.

Scripture can and often does contradict current fads and heresies about what the Natural Law says about such and such a thing.

Christ also affirmed the Magisterium:

Luke 10:16 [adressing the seventy-two°°]
He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

But hearing the Magisterium being identical to hearing Christ has an obvious limit. One cannot be hearing that magisterium when a priest is directly contradicting what the original priests heard Christ say. One cannot presume "John Paul II" in 1992 represented the same magisterium as St Peter (aptly quoted by Lita) or as Pope Leo XIII (Providentissimus Deus, quoting §20):

For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Monday after III Lord's Day in Lent

* The priest whom I converted for was certainly validly ordained, since he certainly had been ordained before the Novus Ordo. The "priest" who wrote CMI may have been ordained in (or ordained by a bishop consecreated in) a rite which is new, not that of the Church and invalid. ** Yes, even just CAN, that is enough in the presence of a good historical claim. There is no need for CMI to use C14 to actually prove young ages of Cro Magnon. All they have to do is prove the measurements of C14-content is compatible. That said, they do use it to disprove the millions of years attributed to some fossils. *** And he's not meaning values like finding soap fairly secundary or like giving generous alms in private either, I fear. ° Credits to St Thomas Aquinas for quoting this in the Summa, I didn't know it by heart! °° Context is also key in understanding what kind of person can do what kind of thing, like context in whom Christ adressed certain words to.

Sunday, 28 February 2016

Ça veut dire quoi "blogspot"?

1) Ça veut dire quoi "blogspot"? · 2) C'est quoi un URL? Doit-il être en bon français? Non, mais unique! · 3) Non, Daniel Hamiche, leur site n'est pas piraté!

Un paroissien de St Nicolas du Chardonnet me demanda ce midi ce que "blogspot" voulait dire. Je répliquai, sommairement, que c’est un site hébergeur sur lequel sont hébergés des millions blogs. Donc, pour retrouver précisément les miens, il faut mettre aussi ce qui est avant :



Par contre, sur blogspot il y a aussi:
par Erin Manning (qui est une bloggueuse Novus Ordo conservatrice) ou
(bon, il a payé pour éviter ce de “blogspot” dans son URL) ou
… deux bloggueurs que vous connaissez déjà à St Nicolas du Chardonnet, non?

Par contre, j’aurais pu approfondir, si ce qu’il voulait dire était pourquoi ça s’appelle “blogspot”.

Spot veut en anglais au début dire tâche. Vous savez les endroits décolorés de leur couleur d’origine par méprise.

Ensuite, certains animaux ont le Moyen Âge reçu un nom en « spotted » = tâché. Parce que pour le symbolisme médiéval, cet endroit d’une autre couleur que les environs paraissait comme une marque symbolique d’une honte.

Ensuite, les animaux gardent ces appellations quand le symbolisme s’affaiblit. Donc « spot » devient pas juste la tâche involontaire, mais aussi des endroits volontairement d’une autre couleur. Ou peut-être la vraie explication est autre, mais celle-ci semble vraisemblable.

Et au moins depuis le XX siècle, “spot” veut aussi dire “endroit” ou “site”. « What a nice spot » ou « what a jolly spot » ou quelque chose sont des exclamations qu’on entend quand on aime l’endroit où l’on se trouve. Ou l’inverse : « what a dreary spot ! » pour un endroit en béton avec un voisinage inimical ou quelque chose.

Peut-être parce que les endroits sont marqués sur les plans. On a fait un « spot » sur le plan pour l’endroit, donc, l’endroit s’appelle « spot » aussi.

Et c’est le sens “endroit” qui est en cause. Blogspot = endroit pour un blog OU endroit pour des blogs. Le service hébergeur est un endroit pour des blogs (en des millions, pas mal confisqués par des faiseurs de publicité et qui vont être rasés par l’hébergeur si signalés), et chaque URL qui contient la partie "" est l’endroit pour UN blog.*

Et un blog = un weblog (abrégé par réanalyse : web+log = weblog = we+blog, autre prononciation, et "blog" comme le verbe "blogguer"). Donc un journal (log) visible sur le réseau (the web).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris V
III Dimanche du Carême

* Skyrock est un autre hébergeur, mais, il me semble, français et davantage ado.

Saturday, 27 February 2016

Good news on Justina Pelletier front (link)!

CBS Boston : Justina Pelletier’s Family Sues Boston Children’s Hospital
February 25, 2016 3:23 PM

I disagree with Vox Cantoris on One Thing

His blog post started out by calling Bergoglio "Pope". That I disagree with. So did a few others commenting under it.

Vox Cantoris : Pope [sic scripsit!] Bergoglio! Shall we look at what she did?

As he admired Emma Bonino, I start to get some kind of an idea WHAT kind of family had to flee Italy from the Fascists. Not from the Nazi occupation which happed after Bergoglio was born, but from the Fascist régime.

Son père, Mario Josè Bergoglio, est un immigré italien venu du Piémont et arrivé en Argentine en 1927 ou plus probablement début 1929 (les biographes ne s'accordant pas sur la date réelle de cette immigration)7, et sa mère, Régina Maria Sivori, née en Argentine, est fille d'immigrés italiens venant de Ligurie8.
7) Arnaud Bédat, François l'Argentin: le pape intime, raconté par ses proches, Éditions Flammarion,‎ 2014, p. 237
8) De Lavagna, sur la côte ligure, la même ville d'origine que l'ancien footballeur italo-argentin Omar Sívori, qui est un de ses lointains cousins ; cf. « François, un pape presque italien » [archive],, 16 mars 2013.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio nació en el seno de una familia católica el 17 de diciembre de 1936, en el barrio porteño de Flores, siendo el mayor de los cinco hijos del matrimonio formado por Mario José Bergoglio (contador, empleado en el ferrocarril),10 11 nacido en Portacomaro, provincia de Asti, que tuvo que emigrar de Italia debido al avance del fascismo;12 y Regina María Sívori (ama de casa), nacida en Buenos Aires, hija también de inmigrantes procedentes del Piamonte y Génova.13 14 María Elena Bergoglio es la única de sus hermanos todavía con vida.12
10) «El largo camino de amor y entrega de Francisco». ¡Hola!. 18 de marzo de 2013. Consultado el 24 de marzo de 2013.
11) El nuevo papa Jorge Mario Bergoglio - L'Osservatore Romano
12) Mastrolilli, Paolo (17 de marzo de 2013). ««Jorge está en contra de los regímenes y fue culpa del fascismo que nuestro padre emigrara»». La Stampa. Consultado el 23 de marzo de 2013. *
13) Tango e battesimo, fidanzata e vangelo l'alfabeto misto di papa Francesco (en italiano)
14) Los parientes italianos del papa Francisco

What Fascist régime? That of 1927 or 1929. The year after the secret police was formed (which unlike accusations during Matteotti hearing did not yet exist in 1924)? Or the year in which Mussolini negotiated a deal with a REAL Pope for the Kings of Italy?

His father was a railway worker. That was NOT illegal in Fascist Italy.

But some railway workers were Communist or Syndicalist. Either of which was illegal. Communism, because it denied private property. Syndicalism, because the Fascist state claimed to replace Syndicalism with State guarantees against too arbitrary dealings on part of the employers. State arbitrations to replace the strike and lockout tools thitherto used by large employers and their employees.

Now, additionally, Italian Fascism did NOT endorse abortion, while Communism did and perhaps some syndicalists did too. Or simply didn't care about it as much as about syndicalism. There are poor people who would not abort, but who admire even abortionists if they do sth good for poor people or come off to them as trying to do so. Let us be precise about different Fascisms being different. 1935, German Nazism allowed or even decreed abortion if mother was considered hereditarily ill. But Italy had no abortion legalisation under Fascism: The fascists banned literature on birth control and increased penalties for abortion in 1926, declaring both crimes against the state.

See this paragraph:

Fascism sought to accommodate Italian conservatives by making major alterations to its political agenda;– abandoning its previous populism, republicanism, and anticlericalism, adopting policies in support of free enterprise, and accepting the Roman Catholic Church and the monarchy as institutions in Italy.[114] To appeal to Italian conservatives, Fascism adopted policies such as promoting family values, including promotion policies designed to reduce the number of women in the workforce limiting the woman's role to that of a mother. The fascists banned literature on birth control and increased penalties for abortion in 1926, declaring both crimes against the state.[115] Though Fascism adopted a number of positions designed to appeal to reactionaries, the Fascists sought to maintain Fascism's revolutionary character, with Angelo Oliviero Olivetti saying "Fascism would like to be conservative, but it will [be] by being revolutionary."[116] The Fascists supported revolutionary action and committed to secure law and order to appeal to both conservatives and syndicalists.[117]
114) De Grand, Alexander. Italian fascism: its origins and development. 3rd ed. University of Nebraska Press, 2000. p. 145.
115) Fascists and conservatives: the radical right and the establishment in twentieth-century Europe. Routdlege, 1990. p. 14.
116) Zeev Sternhell, Mario Sznajder, Maia Ashéri. The birth of fascist ideology: from cultural rebellion to political revolution. Princeton University Press, 1994. p. 190.
117) Martin Blinkhorn. Fascists and Conservatives. 2nd edition. Oxon, England, UK: Routledge, 2001 p. 22.

1926, same years as formation of Secret Police. One or three years before Mario Josè Bergoglio emigrated to Argentina. Without which he would not have met Bergoglio's (you know which one I mean) mother.

Bergoglio hating Fascists would be the equivalent of me if I positively relentlessly hated Jews. Without one of them, ma would not have met dad. But the circumstances were not very nice for my mother, when it came to that Jew. Difference, I think Mario Bergoglio may have done a bit more than my ma to get in trouble. The Fascists whom he fled from may have had better reasons for their action than that Jew had.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Saturday after II Lord's Day in Lent

* La hermana del Papa: «Es también por esta razón que él jamás apoyó a Videla. Ayudó a muchos perseguidos» - Comparing Videla to Mussolini is an insult to Il Duce. Videla was a Capitalist version of Stalinism, where Catholic Church played a similar role to Sergian Orthodoxy in Stalinism (with much more leeway for doctrinal Orthodoxy under Videla, no doubt) : Videla's régime took away children from parents in hordes. Swedish Fascists have a way of admiring Il Duce and Perón. I myself admire or respect Edelmiro Julián Farrell. But NOT Videla. And I do not compare Il Duce to him.

Friday, 26 February 2016

Q posed and diversely A : How Can the Larger Sun Revolve around the Smaller Earth?

First, Sungenis came out with a pdf and blog post on galileowaswrong on the theme:

Question posed by Sungenis
How Can the Larger Sun Revolve around the Smaller Earth?

He introduces Newton
This question is one of the most frequently asked in regard to a geocentric universe. Since the sun has 99% of the mass of the solar system, it seems counterintuitive that it could revolve around the tiny Earth, especially when we see smaller moons revolving around larger planets.

This objection is not without merit. If our world were confined to a sun, Earth and planets, it would certainly be the case that the smaller planets, including Earth, would revolve around the sun. This is precisely why Newton believed that the Earth revolves around the sun. He limited his physics to our solar system.

But Newton was smart enough to realize that if he expanded his system to include the forces in the rest of the universe, he agreed that the Tychonic geocentric system would be viable. Here is what he said in Proposition 43:

Newton proposition 43:
In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the Sun…

Since this force is equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly remain in equilibrium between these two forces and be at rest. And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest, as in the Tychonic system.

Sungenis comments on Newton
Notice that Newton specifies that there must be “another force…that acts on all bodies equally.” Well, that “force” appears when the universe is allowed to rotate around the Earth. That universal “force” acts upon every celestial body and keeps them in their daily rotation around the fixed Earth.

Read the rest here:
How Can the Larger Sun Revolve Around the Smaller Earth?
Posted by galileowaswrong on Feb 19, 2016

He introduced Newton, a proposition which Dr Luca Popov later says didn't make it into Principia, but ignored St Thomas Aquinas' explanation.

To which that was not a mystery. Since, Earth is NOT a mechanism either for own movement or Sun's movement or even of Moon's movement. Earth is still, since put in non-motion by God, and celestial bodies move, along with the daily motion of "the spheres" (as St Thomas thought) or the aether, by God moving it, and relative to the daily motion by angels moving them around it.

Here are a few excerpts with my comments.

A reference to Popov's explanation from Sungenis
If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho’s in which the Earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year, and in general relativity this enormous motion would create forces akin to gravitation, which would act on the Sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory.

That is (I comment)
if daily rotation of aether is at speed of Sun. If it is at speed of stars, it is Sun who goes a full circle eastward each year.

That is also (I comment)
assuming the stellar distances are verified. Note that cosmic distance ladder is based on "its first rung" which is parallax. In conventional cosmology, parallax is based on Earth's yearly orbit around Sun, or supposed such. If Earth is still, it is stars that move.

Parallax is ONLY a distance measure if either Earth has a unique motion around Sun making for it OR if all these stars share a unique motion with Sun around Earth. But if Earth is still, we can rule out the first. If angels can move celestial bodies, the latter is superfluous as an explanation to the movement falsely referred to as parallax. Angels could be imposing "parallel" but very much smaller movements. Which of themselves tell us nothing of how far the stars are away.

So here we have, the two greatest systems of physics developed by mankind both saying that a geocentric system is viable. How much more evidence do we need?

My comment:
How about the METAPHYSICS of St THomas Aquinas, even greater than Newton and Einstein? And of course it counts on angelic movers.

Sungenis p. 16
Using Mach’s principle, we will show that the observed diurnal and annual motion of the Earth can just as well be accounted as the diurnal rotation and annual revolution of the Universe around the fixed and centered Earth.

My comment:
But there IS NO observed annual and diurnal motion of the Earth. There is only a concluded such!

ONE major point about Geocentrism is that Earth being still, cosmos moving daily around Earth, Sun changing its place over cosmos annually are what in fact we OBSERVE.

MUCH of the physics is over my head.

But what is not over my head is that it presumes that circles can go on being drawn by bodies moved by gravitation and inertia only.

This is not what we observe in the experience of Don Petit.

And I would like to know, if Popov, Sungenis (or their opponents David Palm and Alec Mac Andrew) can show some valid mathematical reason why the parallel of electromagnetic attraction and inertia stops after 10 - 20 circles around charged knitting needles, in no gravitation or low gravitation environment, while their own mechanics (common both to nearly all Heliocentrics and to these modern Geocentrics who differ from me) of gravitation and inertia (also based on masses) can go on ad infinitum?

Because, obviously circles that are by now into n° 7215 after creation for annual movement and perhaps 2,635,279 or sth for daily movement (at least not under 2 million) are movements resembling either a continual intention of moving the things OR a perpetuum mobile, which the Don Petit experiment does not seem to parallel.

Science off the Sphere: Dancing Droplets
Physics Central

I here give a version which I hope is slow motion, so that for each droplet you can count how many turns it takes around knitting needle. I got it (on another video of this experiment) to 10 for some, 20 for some, between for some (or I lost count, but the droplets finished by clinging to knitting needle).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Day after St Mathias

Thursday, 25 February 2016

Good News from Palestine! Nativity Church! (Link)

mail . com : Palestinians renovate church at Jesus' birthplace

Bonum festum Sancti Matthiae Apostoli

lectoribus christifidelibus exopto.

Quand je fais de la pub pour CMI, je dis que leur site est en anglais

Globalement c'est vrai, mais j'ai oublié de dire qu'il y a aussi une page dédiée aux autres langues, qui dirige vers d'autres pages pour chaque langue, dont le français:

CMI : French

Sur mon propre blog créationniste, également globalement en français*, j'ai aussi une page qui redirige vers des messages (sur d'autres blogs, normalement mes blogs généraux successifs et mon blog geek) en français:

Creation vs. Evolution : Pour francophones tendance monoglottes, sur d'autres blogs

Par contre, cet index là, et l'index des messages anglais sur le blog même, ne sont pas à jour, pour l'instant. Mais c'est un début.

Bonne fête de St Mathie!/HGL

* En anglais, bien sûr! J'ai trop peu dormi cette nuit!

Tuesday, 23 February 2016

So Bergoglio said that of Montini?

I was expecting to find something like Zika virus debate words taken out of context, as Red Cardigan had led me to expect.

Here is the question, and here is the answer, with the source in Catholic News Agency:

Paloma García Ovejero, Cadena COPE (Spain):
Holy Father, for several weeks there’s been a lot of concern in many Latin American countries but also in Europe regarding the Zika virus. The greatest risk would be for pregnant women. There is anguish. Some authorities have proposed abortion, or else to avoiding pregnancy. As regards avoiding pregnancy, on this issue, can the Church take into consideration the concept of “the lesser of two evils?”

Pope Francis:
Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to throw someone out in order to save another. That’s what the Mafia does. It is a crime, an absolute evil. On the ‘lesser evil,’ avoiding pregnancy, we are speaking in terms of the conflict between the fifth and sixth commandment. Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape.

Don’t confuse the evil of avoiding pregnancy by itself, with abortion. Abortion is not a theological problem, it is a human problem, it is a medical problem. You kill one person to save another, in the best case scenario. Or to live comfortably, no? It’s against the Hippocratic oaths doctors must take. It is an evil in and of itself, but it is not a religious evil in the beginning, no, it’s a human evil. Then obviously, as with every human evil, each killing is condemned.

On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, or in the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear. I would also urge doctors to do their utmost to find vaccines against these two mosquitoes that carry this disease. This needs to be worked on.

CNA : Full text of Pope Francis' in-flight interview from Mexico to Rome

added by myself.

OK, what did Montini do? Bergoglio answers: Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape.

OK, what exact contraceptives? Condoms? Did he allow nuns to use condoms by telling rapists, "please, here is a condom, use it if you want to rape me"? Or did he allow nuns to use some contraceptive prior to rape occasion, like a pessar? Or did he allow nuns to use a pill that kills a fresh embryo, a human person?

The first seems very unlikely. The second would either be derogatory to chastity or occasionally also kill. The latter is a very early abortion, at least in the cases when embrya have come into being.

No, I do not admire Montini for that idea.

Avoiding pregnancy is not sinful when it is a result from avoiding sex.

When you are raped, that is not an option.

So, once you are raped, you do not have any right to "avoid pregnancy" from that rape, like by using a pill afterwards.

That is especially true for nuns, who should set an example.

A raped nun has not forfeited the rewards of virginity, if she has not consented to the rape. A raped nun who becomes a mother, can remain a perfectly good nun.

If newborn children were offered up to monasteries during the Middle Ages, for the better upkeep of them, for their better upbringing, a nun who, after rape, bears a child, has a right to offer her child to the monastery, or to another monastery.

Merlin is said to have been born by a nun who was raped by the devil. And yet, he did not become the Antichrist.

But perhaps Bergoglio misspoke? He confirms it : avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, or in the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear.

It is alas clear he meant, unlike what Red Cardigan had led me to believe, that we are talking of avoiding them by illicit means. Contraceptives. And you can guess which ones.

It was perfectly clear and remains so that the nuns did not have such a right.

But Bergoglio perhaps has not got it that pills taken after a rape are a very early abortion?

Well, in that case he has a very bad grasp on medicine. Which also comes out from this comment : I would also urge doctors to do their utmost to find vaccines against these two mosquitoes that carry this disease. Vaccines are against microbes, not against mosquitoes. A mosquito will sting you whether you have antibodies against it or not. But it is microbes which will not succeed in infecting you if you have sufficient antibodies against it.

This reminds me of the "qui sibi imposuit nomen" ... Montini took, wrongfully, the name Paul VI. In Latin capital letters PAULUS PP VI or PAULUS PP. VI. We shall only be dealing with PAULUS PP, and let us note, first that using "U" instead of "V" as capital letter for "u" is nonstandard, second that abbreviating Papa as PP is not so standard as to be unavoidable. Pius XII was abbreviating pp. in minuscules. And Paul V (or was I looking at Cum ex Apostolatus by Paul IV) was not abbreviating but writing out as Papa : PAVLVS Papa V (or if it was PAVLVS Papa IV).

Now, can you guess the ASCII Code value?

P 80 80 640
A 65 140 5 026
U 85 220 10 666
L 76 290 16
U 85 370 21
S 83 450 24
32 480 26
P 80 560
P 80 640

Obviously, had he used PAVLVS, he would even with PP have come up to 668. But was ASCII Code relevant for him? He died 6 of August 1978. Computers used what has since become known as ASCII back as early as ....

From early in its development,[39] ASCII was intended to be just one of several national variants of an international character code standard, ultimately published as ISO/IEC 646 (1972), which would share most characters in common but assign other locally useful characters to several code points reserved for "national use." However, the four years that elapsed between the publication of ASCII-1963 and ISO's first acceptance of an international recommendation during 1967[40] caused ASCII's choices for the national use characters to seem to be de facto standards for the world, causing confusion and incompatibility once other countries did begin to make their own assignments to these code points.

39 "Specific Criteria," attachment to memo from R. W. Reach, "X3-2 Meeting – September 14 and 15," September 18, 1961
40 R. Maréchal, ISO/TC 97 – Computers and Information Processing: Acceptance of Draft ISO Recommendation No. 1052, December 22, 1967

Now, sorry, Red Cardigan, I don't know how Zuhlsdorf deals with this, but the man you call Pope Francis and the man you call Pope Paul VI were endorsing mortal sins, acts which are in themselves perverted and intrinsically evil.

And suppose the nuns were only given condoms. Using them is such an evil that a wife can only be excused from mortal sin in doing so if submitted to spousal rape - which in such a case becomes a very clear evil monstrosity. How could then a nun honestly tell a rapist "please use this first"? Of course, she could not.

If you answer "she could if afraid of AIDS", well, that infection came after him:

AIDS was first clinically observed in 1981 in the United States.[34] The initial cases were a cluster of injecting drug users and homosexual men with no known cause of impaired immunity who showed symptoms of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), a rare opportunistic infection that was known to occur in people with very compromised immune systems.[205] Soon thereafter, an unexpected number of homosexual men developed a previously rare skin cancer called Kaposi's sarcoma (KS).[206][207] Many more cases of PCP and KS emerged, alerting U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and a CDC task force was formed to monitor the outbreak.[208]

In the early days, the CDC did not have an official name for the disease, often referring to it by way of the diseases that were associated with it, for example, lymphadenopathy, the disease after which the discoverers of HIV originally named the virus.[209][210]

From :
[34] Mandell, Bennett, and Dolan (2010). Chapter 169. Referring to bibliography Mandell, Gerald L.; Bennett, John E.; Dolin, Raphael, eds. (2010). Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett's Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases (7th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-443-06839-3.
[205] Gottlieb MS (2006). "Pneumocystis pneumonia—Los Angeles. 1981". Am J Public Health 96 (6): 980–1; discussion 982–3. doi:10.2105/AJPH.96.6.980. PMC 1470612. PMID 16714472. Archived from the original on April 22, 2009. Retrieved March 31, 2009.
[206] Friedman-Kien AE (October 1981). "Disseminated Kaposi's sarcoma syndrome in young homosexual men". J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 5 (4): 468–71. doi:10.1016/S0190-9622(81)80010-2. PMID 7287964.
[207] Hymes KB, Cheung T, Greene JB, et al. (September 1981). "Kaposi's sarcoma in homosexual men-a report of eight cases". Lancet 2 (8247): 598–600. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(81)92740-9. PMID 6116083.
[208] Basavapathruni, A; Anderson, KS (December 2007). "Reverse transcription of the HIV-1 pandemic". The FASEB Journal 21 (14): 3795–3808. doi:10.1096/fj.07-8697rev. PMID 17639073.
[209] Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (1982). "Persistent, generalized lymphadenopathy among homosexual males". MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 31 (19): 249–251. PMID 6808340. Retrieved August 31, 2011.
[210] Barré-Sinoussi, F.; Chermann, J.C.; Rey, F.; et al. (1983). "Isolation of a T-lymphotropic retrovirus from a patient at risk for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)". Science 220 (4599): 868–871. Bibcode:1983Sci...220..868B. doi:10.1126/science.6189183. PMID 6189183.

So, no, Red Cardigan, I gave "the Pope" the benefit of the doubt. As you asked here:

And Sometimes Tea : Giving the pope the benefit of the doubt

And I conclude, Montini was probably not a Pope at all, but if he was, his act which Bergoglio commended was treason against the sheep entrusted to him. Bergoglio is even worse, since not doing it discreetly with some nuns in Africa, without most Catholics knowing, but rather getting the word published on Catholic News Agency, for every internet reader all over the world to read.

For my own part, I have already written off Montini as possible Pope, if I knew what he wrote about "obiter dicta" in connexion with Biblical inerrancy, I might be formally certain.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Médiathèque Astrolabe
St Peter Damian
Bishop and Doctor

Update: according to Le blog de Jeanne Smits - and she's a journalist - comenting on this affair, the Sisters in Congo were sent a pill. In other words, Montini committed murders. At least for those taking pill after rape already occurred, probably for some others too./St Matthias' Day/HGL

Monday, 22 February 2016

Some people cannot imagine European limits (warning, article contains grossness)

Here we get an example, possibly:

A BOOZED-UP plane passenger on a flight to the UK dropped his trousers and urinated in the aisle.

Horrified onlookers watched in disgust as Jinu Abraham went to the toilet in front of them on the jet heading from India to Birmingham.

The 39-year-old hospital porter became aggressive and had to be restained by cabin crew until the plane landed and he was arrested.


An European who gets drunk usually does not loose inhibitions to the point of posing that they pose in front of people and urinate.

I saw one probable Muslim do so, when obviously drunk, and by Muslim I do not mean he was practising, I am referring to his community, in the winter of 2010. We were both enjoying the hospitality of a soup kitchen in front of St Nicolas du Chardonnet, when he did so, I asked one of the girls who were our hostesses to fetch some water in a bucket, I cleaned up the stairs of the Church after him.

We cannot say this is inherent in alcohol, since for one thing Europeans - that is Christians living in Christian cultures - when drunk hardly ever do so, especially not after just two whiskies.

So, probably, having culturally a lower opinion of alcohol, they expect to do and in fact do, behave worse when drunk than we would.

On the other hand, their take on what "in front of people" means may be very much more restrictive than ours.

When I had to puke and shit with diarrhaea* night between Saturday and Sunday, I ran to the edges of the park for the one, and a bit into it for the other (there was obviously no toilet in sight). But the two men who were standing by might consider I did so "in front of" them.

When it is in the middle of the night, like after midnight or close to two and streets are empty, when I have to pee, I take the gutter, so it is washed away by the next water cleaning up the gutter in the morning. Some French think they have to turn to a wall, even in the middle of the night. Obviously, some Muslims might think I was as gross as that man on the plane - except I wasn't on a plane.

However, I said the exemple was just possibly such. We might see another explanation:

Abraham later said he had drunk two whiskies, that he was on anti depressants and could not remember anything about the ordeal.

What if the antidepressants had enhanced the effect of the whiskies?

Those things are vile.

Or, perhaps, the explanation might be as simple as the man trying to get to the toilet, finding it occupied and not being able to hold on.

And finding even that too embarrassing to say.

A kind of conspiracy theory crossed my mind : he could have acted, like in order to comment on my behaviour.** In that case, his behaviour is perfectly coherent. But that might be a bit farfetched, right?

Except that, once, someone did sth like that, a bit more probably to me, since in Paris: back in 2010, I had peed between cars in a rainweather, verifying first no one was watching and really having no possibility to hold back any more, having searched for a toilet too long already. Next evening or one of the next evenings, I found urine at exterior of St Nicolas du Chardonnet Church which parish I then frequented. My conclusion was, someone was plotting to "give me a taste of my own medicine" and to treat my behaviour in a plight as a provocation to be retaliated on. Perhaps because trying to "perfect" my behaviour. I feel rather degraded by even suspecting people stoop to that to give me a lesson.

With the reason behind my brief digestive illness, I have, alas, no doubt that someone had agreed between them to give me a lesson. Perhaps because I had drunk beer two nights earlier, same place.*

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Peter's Chair at Antioch

Source for quotes: The Sun : Drunk NHS man pulls down trousers and URINATES on plane flying to UK
By SAM CHRISTIE, 12:40, 22 Feb 2016

* Too much sugar. My last beer before the event was more than 48 hours previous, and it was one beer, so it was not the reason. I had after that beer, returning to same locality, been offered mostly sugars instead of money. Possibly someone thought me a drunkard and wanted to give an antabus effect - but too much sugar will have bad effects, even without alcohol. By sugars I mean : two crêpes by one lady, another man gave one bag with Pago juice, diluted, perhaps, with chocolate biscuits, which were most of my meal, probably 300 or 500 g, four pieces of jelly, a chocolate muffin which I saved for later, and cookies most of which I saved for later, which I am thankful for, next person gives another juice and a yoghurt which is sweet and vanilla taste, then he turns back, or it is another, who gives the sandwiches. Not one penny. As if they were counting me as an alcoholic and counting on antabus effect of sugar. ** The kind of immigrant who will plot to give a man too much sugar because he has taken one beer might conceive such plots too.

Sunday, 21 February 2016

Ex Professeur

Mais davantage fier du "x" que du "prof".


Quand, un autre siècle, j'étais professeur, pour une semestre, je me suis fait avoir.

Ma matière et ma manière de l'enseigner, je ne taxais pas au politiquement correct.

Mon existence là, oui.

Je déteste l'idéologie selon laquelle pas seulement une école peut prendre un professeur qui est homosexuel, mais aussi obliger les parents à encore avec ça envoyer les enfants et jeunes à cette école. Et si je n'ai pas été ce prof - je suis hétéro - j'ai fait involontairement figure de ce prof. On mentait, au moins parmi les élèves. Et j'étais empêché de me plaindre pour calomnie.

Le prof (bien antérieur à moi) qui me disait "non, on ne peut pas démentir, ce n'est pas solidaire avec les pédés" - un peu après d'avoir quitté quand même le poste, j'ai compris que son fils était parmi les calomniateurs.

Hans Georg Lundahl
II Dimanche de Carême

Saturday, 20 February 2016

Il y en a qui ne veulent pas comprendre

Ce matin, je faisais la manche devant une boutique qui allait ouvrir à 10 h.

Un homme me vient quasi engueuler pour me demander ce que je faisais là. La manche, répondis-je. Et je me préparais à quitter l'entrée, si c'était lui qui allait ouvrir.

"Ça serait plus facile devant la gare" me lance-t-il.

Si j'avais voulu faire la manche TOUTE la journée, sans doute (à moins d'être chassé de là).

Mais, en fait, je dépense la plupart de la journée en bibliothèque pour correspondre, pour lire, pour réchercher, pour écrire. Alors, les heures avant l'ouverture d'une boutique me vont très bien.

En revanche, c'est sympa de gagner quelque chose par ça. C'est entre autre chose pour ça que j'offre quelque chose pour mes bienfaiteurs, à savoir des url de blogs pour leur offrir, pas en exclusivité, mais en quelque manière en première, l'accès à mes écrits.

Et là, je me souviens d'un autre commentaire bidon, quelqu'un qui me demandait où j'accessais le wifi. Non, je n'ai pas besoin de wifi, mais de bibliothèques ou des cybers ou des deux.

Par contre, son souci avait été un peu plus réaliste s'il avait eu raison dans ce que je soupçonne qu'il sous-entendit : que je dépense la plupart de la journée en mendiant.

Non, ce sont des heures matin et soir, avant l'ouverture et après la fermeture des bibliothèques où j'ai accès.

Il semble y avoir des gens pour qui le fait de ne pas avoir un patron est censé être soit un supplice, soit un vice. Non, les patrons eux-mêmes, par exemple.

Moi aussi, je travaille en quelque manière (quoique je n'aime pas ce mot français qui vient de tripalium, torture, pour décrire ce que je fais intellectuellement). Sans avoir un patron. Comme eux (à moins de compter leur banques comme des patrons!)

Mais quelques-uns y voient un mal, et veulent me punir pour ça. Moi, j'y vois un bien.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Samedi de Quatre-Temps
de Carême

Friday, 19 February 2016

mâine (hiperlegătură)

Newsnet Creştin : † Noi proteste pentru susținerea familiei Bodnariu în patru orașe din România, Germania și Norvegia!

Principle of limitation? NOMa? What would Augustine say?

I was just writing to Dimond Brothers that in an encyclical by Benedict XV, the passage relating to Heliocentrism being just possible correct or rather Geocentrism being just possibly incorrect is not at all the matter of the encyclical.

The encyclical was an endorsement of Dante. More precisely, of Divina Commedia. He did NOT expressis verbis endorse De Vulgari Eloquentia or De Monarchia, which contain Dante's ideology in clear ideological terms. He did not for that matter endorse La Vita Nuova, which might be taken to be about an illicit passion (nor did he condemn it as doing so). He chose Divina Commedia [henceforth abbreviated DC].

It is a peace of theology fiction. It contains pieces of Medieval science some of which we can be sure are wrong, although it is less certain these are involved in DC - apart from crystalline spheres. By this encyclical Benedict XV maintains that Dante while writing theology fiction was not overstepping his bounds, was not "lying about things pertaining to God", since everyone knew and knows it is meant as fiction. The dream setting was a typical code for "don't take this as Gospel truth".

The list of things he cites would include Dante knowing nothing of Harvey, not sure how that is irrelevant for DC, but that is because I haven't read all of it. And in that list, which is a list of concessives embedded in an "even if" clause, comes the concession to modern critics of Dante who would say his cosmology was flawed.

He maintains that DC retains its edifying quality despite any possible errors of science, including in that area.

Benedict XV was not involved in making any specific point about each of these scientific discoveries, real or just presumed, he was not sifting, he was just thinking of what a modern reader would perhaps be aware of like a difference in Dante's learning from ours. That was the point, this did not matter.

I had said this to them a few years earlier, but this time I added that DC was, in his book, licit presumable even if it included admiration for an enemy of the Church - namely Henry VII. My new point was, even some errors about things involving morals do not ban us from reading DC by DA.

Obviously, what he says in that encyclical is not (as I had said earlier too) concerned with taking sides about the matters he regarded as scientific possible advances. Any single example of that list would be to the encyclical an obiter dictum.

Now, Galileo not only takes it that the Bible also has obiter dicta, but he cites St Augustine as support for his theory.

He even interprets a point of Trent that way.

I found this here:

Could There Be Another Galileo Case?
Galileo, Augustine and Vatican II
Gregory W. Dawes
University of Otago, New Zealand

[6] A helpful starting point for our discussion of Augustine's position is Ernan McMullin's excellent essay on Galileo's hermeneutics. In this essay, McMullin tries to spell out the interpretive principles which Augustine outlines in De Genesi ad litteram. Among the principles which Augustine employs, McMullin argues, is one which he calls the "principle of limitation." As articulated by McMullin, this states that "since the primary concern of Scripture is with human salvation, texts of Scripture should not be taken to have a bearing on technical issues of natural science" (1998: 298). The key text here is one found in chapter nine of book two of Augustine's commentary, where he deals with the question of "the form and shape of heaven according to Sacred Scripture." Here Augustine states that while "in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the truth, but . . . the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail for their salvation" (1982: 2.9.20).

[7] This passage from Augustine is one of those cited by Galileo in his letter to the Grand Duchess (Finocchiaro: 94-95). In describing this as a "principle of limitation," McMullin is certainly offering a correct description of Galileo's intention. In a way which echoes his predecessor Johannes Kepler (60-66), Galileo understands Augustine's remark to mean that biblical authority should not be invoked in debates about astronomy. He develops his argument by making, in effect, two points. Galileo's first point is that it was not the intention of the sacred writers to teach astronomical matters. As he writes,

it is the opinion of the holiest and most learned Fathers that the writers of Holy Scripture not only did not pretend to teach us about the structure and motions of the heavens and the stars, and their shape, size, and distance, but that they deliberately refrained from doing so, even though they knew all these things very well (Finocchiaro: 94).

Nor was it the intention of the Holy Spirit, who inspired the sacred writers, to teach us about the working of the heavens:

the Holy Spirit did not want to teach us whether heaven moves or stands still, nor whether its shape is spherical or like a discus or extended along a plane, nor whether the earth is located at its center or on one side. . . . But if the Holy Spirit deliberately avoided teaching us such propositions, inasmuch as they are of no relevance to His intention (that is, to our salvation), how can one now say that to hold this rather than that proposition on this topic is so important that one is a principle of faith and the other erroneous? (Finocchiaro: 95).

[8] These statements could be read as nothing more than an application of Augustine's words, cited above (1982: 2.9.20), regarding the purpose for which Scripture was given. But Galileo's second argument takes this idea further. He not only argues that the purpose of Scripture is different from that of the natural sciences; he draws the conclusion that the authority of the Bible is effectively limited to matters with which the natural sciences cannot deal.

I would say that the authority of Holy Scripture aims chiefly [principalmente] at persuading men about those articles and propositions which, surpassing all human reason, could not be discovered by scientific research or by any other means than through the mouth of the Holy Spirit (Finocchiaro: 93-94).<4>

Galileo's attempt to limit the range of matters with regard to which biblical authority could be invoked is also evident later in the letter, when he makes reference to the Council of Trent (1545-63). The Council had decreed that in matters of faith and morals (in rebus fidei et morum) no one should presume to interpret the Bible in a way that is contrary to the teaching of the Church or to the consensus of the Church Fathers. In paraphrasing this passage Galileo makes a significant addition (not evident in at least one English translation, i.e. Finocchiaro: 109): he speaks of "those passages alone which are matters of faith or of morals" (quei luoghi solamente che sono de Fide, o attenenti a i costumi; emphasis mine). What Galileo wishes to highlight is what he sees as the restriction implicit in the Council's words.<5>

I have found this council canon cited here, even if note 5 doesn't open:

Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent
The Fourth Session
Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year 1546.
English translation by James Waterworth (London, 1848)

Praeterea ad coercenda petulantia ingenia decernit, ut nemo, suae prudentiae innixus, in rebus fidei et morum ad aedificationem doctrinae Christianae pertinentium, Sacram Scripturam ad suos sensus contorquens, contra eum sensum, quem tenuit et tenet sancta mater Ecclesia, cuius est iudicare de vero sensu et interpretatione Scripturarum Sanctarum, aut etiam contra unanimen consensum Patrum, ipsam Scripturam Sacram interpretari audeat, etiamsi huiusmodi interpretationes nullo umquam tempore in lucem edendae forent. Qui contravenerint, per Ordinarios declarentur, et poenis a iure statutis puniantur.

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, —wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,—whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,—hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

[I have reworked this from my first scratch, since originally misrecalling as if the phrase was absent.]

As Gregory Dawes rightly says, the word solamente is not there.

[9] Perhaps the clearest indication of Galileo's desire to limit biblical authority is to be found in a third set of passages, where he discusses what should be done when the results of the natural sciences seem to come into conflict with the Bible. Galileo first adopts the traditional line - for which he also cites Augustine - that biblical authority should not be invoked in opposition to the firmly established results of natural enquiry (Finocchiaro: 96, 105). But he then goes further in suggesting that biblical authority should not be invoked to oppose any claims that might be firmly established in the future.

I should think it would be very prudent not to allow anyone to commit and in a way oblige scriptural passages to have to maintain the truth of any physical conclusions whose contrary could ever be proved to us by the senses and demonstrative and necessary reasons. (Finocchiaro: 96)

The same point is made later in the letter, where Galileo attributes his view (somewhat rashly, it seems) to the Church Fathers.

The intention of the Holy Fathers is that in questions about natural phenomena which do not involve articles of faith one must first consider whether they are demonstrated with certainty or known by sensory experience, or whether it is possible to have such knowledge and demonstration [o vero se una tal cognizione e dimonstrazione aver si possa]. When one is in possession of this [la quale ottenendosi], since it too is a gift from God, one must apply it to the investigation of the true meanings of the Holy Writ at those places which apparently seem to read differently. (Finocchiaro: 105; see also 110).

Here, too, Galileo refers to matters which might be established in the future. It is not only matters which have been demonstrated with certainty which are - in practice - to be exempted from the authority of the Bible. It is also matters which are capable of being "demonstrated with certainty or known by sensory experience."

Gregory Dawes is very right in saying "somewhat rashly".

If we look at the quote from St Augustine, given here embedded in the commentary of Dawes:

The key text here is one found in chapter nine of book two of Augustine's commentary, where he deals with the question of "the form and shape of heaven according to Sacred Scripture." Here Augustine states that while "in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the truth, but . . . the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail for their salvation" (1982: 2.9.20).

If God did not intend to instruct us "in things which would be of no avail for their salvation", this does not mean that we can assume He allowed any author to make any direct error about them either. If that had been the case, He would not have been truly author. Note, verbal inspiration does not in any way take away freewill from the human authors.

Whatever God says with exactitude about anything, even for ill, will not in itself (unless specifically stated, as not so with Pharao's hardened heart, but too so with Nebuchadnezzar's seven years of madness) take away freewill from human actors who need to do exactly the right thing in order for God's word to be true.

God has other ways of bringing about exactitude than taking away freewill. He is, for instance, the root cause of its freedom.

I like to give as analogy what CSL writes about God as a novelist. A novelist doesn't ignore what his characters want to do. He just writes the novel so that characters do what they want to do while the novel goes where the author wants. NOTE, it is not the Bible, but the total of creation and of created existence which is the parallel to the novel. The Bible's inspiration would be the equivalent of a novelist speaking to his characters. Truthfully - and by some means included in its action. Say that I write a paragraph about Susan Pevensie (yes, I am not very original, I write fan fiction of what another - C. S. Lewis - already invented), and next to it on the paper I write a true paragraph about sth which is true in the novel (whether generally outside it or not). This does not make Susan Penvensie in my novel grasp this as a message from me. So, I would (and I won't, I'm not the hero whose truth she needs to hear!) have to write some other thing in which this paragraph was conveyed somehow from me to the characters in the novel.

Now, God knows me and you and sundry and the real Pope and the real Antichrist and the real first men and everything else, and, point in case, the real Gospellers and Moses and Joshua far better inside out before He decided to create them. THis may seem a paradox. God has from all eternity known them. And God has from all eternity decided to create them. THere has never been an actual time in which God already knew them but hadn't decided to create them. BUT the ones He did decide to create, He knew much better than I know anything about Susan Pevensie or my own Spivvins (I invented a secret for him I bet CSL had not thought of, when HE kept Spivvins' secret as much though not as heroically as Eustace). This means that though in the creation He granted them they and we all enjoy exactly the same freewill as when God studied them (or us) He chose to create precisely those whose precise freedom woul give the exact precise effect for His word to be entirely true. This includes freedom of naming and freedom of action for Antichrist - but it also includes the freedom of thought and expression of the hagiographers. Nothing they chose to think or express (and sometimes in voluntary and loving obedience to dictations or admonitions - these are not the same - from God), would be their word, in those sacred texts, in such a way that it was not also God's own.

So, no, Galileo means that the Holy Ghost did not want to instruct the hagiographers, and St Augustine is saying the opposite, He did very much instruct the hagiographers, but also tell them not to waste many words on those matters.

In cases like Heliocentrism and Darwinism, I think their most explicit rejections in Holy Bible were very much included for our salvation - for us not to swallow Galileo's attitude or catastrophic practical consequences of the theories therein rejected (like questioning special creation of Earth due to proposed, not so much vastness of universe - that was known - as its supposedly non-perspicacity from our point of view, or like treating men like cattle, because both are supposed to have evolved from sth lower even than cattle).

And Heliocentrism turns Thomistic philosophy and knowability of the visible creation upside down too. That would be why Saint Robert Bellarmine, better informed than Galileo, condemned the thesis in 1616 (Galileo himself got a warning not to repeat it, not a condemnation or even vehement suspicion of his person, like in 1633). Unless one should rather say that he gave a blanket approval for using Bible in science (if done without hasty interpretations) - because it is the Bible, simple as that.

Now, St Augustine would not allow us to take this or that passage in the Bible without all the rest and build a remote cosmological description on it as if the passage had been given as a text book. But neither would he have allowed us to go with Galileo and treat the passage as if text books could be written correctly while actually contradicting what the passage actually, well analysed, says. Unlike encyclicals of Benedict XV, there are no obiter dicta in Holy Writ. If they are very unconcerned with the salvation of people in one time (or seem to be, when we look only at theological debates, might be less so if we could see and sometimes we do glimpse, what they meant for poetry), they may even so be extremely concerned with the salvation of people in our time.

And Dawes actually tells us so, straight off:

[11] What may we conclude? Galileo's Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina contains a variety of assertions about biblical authority, which stand in some tension with one another. But there can be little doubt that in this letter Galileo was attempting to impose limits on the scope of biblical authority. Indeed his preferred view seems to alternate between the weak and the strong positions espoused, respectively, by McMullin and Pera. What I want to argue is that neither position - neither a principle of limitation nor a principle of independence - can plausibly be attributed to Augustine. It is worth noting that McMullin himself seems uneasy with doing so. He does so only with the concession that Galileo holds to a much broader form of that principle than Augustine would have accepted. Augustine holds only that Biblical authority should not be invoked when it comes to "technical issues of natural science" (emphasis mine), while Galileo suggests it should not be invoked with regard to any kind of natural knowledge (1998: 306). But this is a slippery distinction. At what point, for instance, does a knowledge of nature in general, where Augustine does invoke the authority of Scripture, fade over into "technical issues of natural science," where apparently he would not? In any case, a close examination of De Genesi ad litteram suggests that Augustine's position is not accurately described as a "principle of limitation," in any sense of those words. Unlike Galileo, Augustine is not interested in limiting the authority of the biblical writings. He therefore holds to an entirely different principle, with a rather different set of implications. Augustine's hermeneutical principle in the matter of what we would call science and religion is better described as a "principle of differing purpose." It corresponds to only the first of the two points made by Galileo.

[12] It would be easy enough to show that Augustine does rely on Scripture for knowledge about the natural world, knowledge which we might describe as "scientific."<7> But that would only suggest that Augustine does not espouse the strong form of the principle of limitation (Pera's "principle of independence"), as McMullin rightly suggests. Augustine does not distinguish natural and revealed knowledge by arguing that they deal with subjects which never overlap. He would have no time for Gould's NOMA principle! ...

And later:

To test this idea, we need to find a passage which deals with something corresponding to a "technical issue of natural science," so that we may examine Augustine's attitude to the authority of Scripture in such a case. The only clear example I can find in De Genesi ad litteram is in another passage from book two, where Augustine tackles the question of whether the sun, moon and stars are of equal brightness. As he writes,

certain persons are also wont to ask whether the luminaries of heaven, that is, the sun, moon, and stars, are in themselves equally bright, on the supposition that the unequal distances from earth may cause them to appear with greater or lesser brilliance to our eyes. Those who hold this opinion have no hesitation in saying that the brightness of the moon is less than that of the sun, by which, they say, it is illumined. Concerning the stars, they go so far as to maintain that many are the size of the sun, or even larger than it, but that they appear small because of their greater distance (1982: 2.16.33).


[13] How, then, does Augustine respond to this question? His initial response might seem to be in accordance with McMullin's principle of limitation, that is to say, the principle that "texts of Scripture should not be taken to have a bearing on technical issues of natural science." In Augustine's words, "for us it would seem sufficient to recognize that, whatever may be the true account of all this, God is the Creator of the heavenly bodies." In other words, the true account may be left to the natural philosopher to decide; all the Christian need do is to acknowledge God as Creator. Yet the words which follow suggest that Augustine's view is not so simple. For he immediately adds: "And yet we must hold to the pronouncement of St. Paul, There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another of the stars; for star differs from star in glory [1 Cor 15:41]." In other words, whatever position one accepts, Augustine insists it must be compatible with 1 Corinthians. If he truly held to a principle of limitation, he would not have regarded 1 Corinthians 15:41 as having a bearing on this matter at all.

I can only concur.

Anyone who is presented with an extra corny misapplication of a very well known text from De Genesis ad Litteram Libri XII can from exactly same book quote a shorter and more to the point one:

"And yet we must hold to the pronouncement of St. Paul, There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another of the stars; for star differs from star in glory [1 Cor 15:41]." [Said in context of discussing cosmology.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Ember Friday of Lent

Answering Krzystof Charamsa

Who is he?

A priest who is not just same sex attracted but confesses to being in a (presumably) sodomitic relationship.

What happened? He got fired (I haven't read all the details, normally he should be defrocked, but what interests me is what he said).

And, what did he say?

I want the Church and my community to know who I am: a gay priest who is happy, and proud of his identity. I’m prepared to pay the consequences, but it’s time the Church opened its eyes, and realised that offering gay believers total abstinence from a life of love is inhuman.

From: Catholic Vote : Vatican’s firing of gay priest puts “Who am I to Judge” to the test
Stephen White on October 3, 2015

And what is my answer. To his wanting people to know who or what he is, that is not my business. To his being proud, that is not my business. To his being willing to pay the consequences, that is not my business. This is not primarly said as fraternal correction to save his soul from sin and damnation, but as polemics, to save other souls from heterodoxy.

What I want to answer is this: "it’s time the Church opened its eyes, and realised that offering gay believers total abstinence from a life of love is inhuman."

And the answer is that the Church, as far as ordinary believers are concerned, with no vows of chastity, never HAS been that inhuman.

Or not to recently.

Montini of unhappy memory said something about homosexuals being "called to chastity". He did not put it as "called to some degree of chastity as anyone else", but as "called to chastity", which may very easily be interpreted as called to celibacy and sexual abstinence.

No, a person who is same sex attracted traditionally has a choice whether he thinks abstinence or doing it with a person of the opposite sex the worse chore. Traditionally he or she has a choice whether to prefer his lack of spontaneous attraction of sexual nature to someone of opposite sex or to prefer his lack of willingness to be alone and abstinent.

Also, abstinent does not always mean alone.

However, if a gay man, self identified or rumoured by others as being in the closet says he doesn't want to be alone, as long as he is not obliged to celibacy, he traditionally has and even now should have the choice whether to prefer a chaste friendship with someone his own sex or to prefer making a marriage with the opposite sex, i e with someone of it and therefore not having to be abstinent.

The rules for who can marry whom do not state "a heterosexual, not even slightly bisexual, man, with a heterosexual, not even slightly bisexual woman", they state "a man with a woman". There are conditions beyond that (man at least 14, woman at least 12, traditionally, neither bound by a valid previous marriage to a person still alive, neither having vowed finally celibacy, both [or neither] being baptised, both [or neither] being Catholics, both intending to do what the Church intends with marriage, viz. Genesis 1:28, Matthew 5:31-32, Ephesians 5:22-33, and to parent together as in Ephesians 6:1-4).

So, Krzystof Charamsa put the problem in entirely the wrong terms - unless the "Church" he belongs to differs from the Catholic Church which Christ founded, as its Tradition has been for two millennia. I believe it does, and that Montini of unhappy memory chose words that COULD be interpreted as the Church had always believed, but WOULD be interpreted by many as what Charamsa (if we take his words at face value) is complaining about.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre Univesity Library
Ember Friday of Lent

Thursday, 18 February 2016

So, am I a suspect, before I go on citing others?

1) New blog on the kid : King James and Mary Tudor, the cat, the dog, the cog, 2) Some of the Main Suspects, 3) So, am I a suspect, before I go on citing others?, 4) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hebrew Gematria for Harry - retort given and withdrawn

Let's take ASCII Code first:

H 72 70 2 630  H 72 70 2 620
A 65 130 7 040  G 71 140 3 043
N 78 200 15 670  L 76 210 9 663
S 83 280 18   U 85 290 14
G 71 350 19   N 78 360 22
E 69 410 28   D 68 420 30
O 79 480 37   A 65 480 35
R 82 560 39   H 72 550 37
G 71 630 40   L 76 620 43

670 for HANSGEORG (anything with more space or more lower case adds 32s and gets far off). 663 for HGLUNDAHL (adding dots and spaces after initials adds 78s - 46+32 - after each). Worst news for HANSGEORG is that counting units lands in between on both 18 and 37 (which multiplied give ... you know what or you check), as is also the case with BERGOGLIO. But the sum does not end on that product (unlike with BERGOGLIO). Worst news for both versions is that their mean is 666.5. A good reason to keep my familiar "Hans Georg" side and my formal "H. G. Lundahl" side distinct, not to allow them to even out to a mean. If you see what I mean.

Even if 666.5 is one half away from that value, I wish to stay more on the two versions that are three or four units away from that value. Not on their mean value.

Iohanan Georgios Mikael Elitzur Lun Dal and Iohanan Ie'or Mikael Elitzur Lun Dal have been tried with Hebrew gematria. I think one of them ended on 886, but neither on 13:18 of Apocalypse. That is, on the number value mentioned in it. I might be one who does have understanding (Douay Rheims does not translate "wisdom" as a personal quality of the one adding up, only as an objective quality of the adding up itself).

Greek? Ιωάννης (ο Βαπτιστής/ο Ευαγγελιστής, both are my patrons) contains ω which has the value 800. Phew, too high!

And Γεώργιος (also my patron) does so too.

Straight transliteration of my name is Λουνταλ. Note this is New Greek pronunciation rules, pronouncable either Lundal or Loodal. In ancient Greek it would have been pronounced Luntal, thus not a transliteration. And the Ancient Greek transliteration (at least according to reconstructed pronunciation) would be Λουνδαλ.

What about h in Lundahl? spiritus asper is not written out in interior of words, in Swedish this h also is not an h per se, but marks a is long, a Germanising spelling, and α is same letter for long and short A.

So, what are the values of Lundahl? First modern Greek, then to replace τ with δ minus 300 and plus 4:

Letters Unit(s) Tens Hundreds Hundreds Σ Tens Σ Unit Σ total Σ other Σ
Λ   30  400 30 1 700 881
ο   70  300 70 = 1 180 - 300
υ   400 = 700 50  001 = 581
ν   50    30  = 881 + 4 = 585
τ   300   = 180
α 1
λ   30

But, Itaque qui se existimat stare, videat ne cadat.

While writing above, I had to go through an identity check on the computer again*. I take that with some resentment as someone trying at Nanterre University Library to check if I am coherent while writing this. And since this is not the first time it happens, I take this as a kind of harrassment.

That reminds me of another suspect, but more on that one later. Just - don't take the RFID-chip.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Thursday after
I Lord's day in Lent

* Le proxy moz-proxy:// demande un nom d'utilisateur et un mot de passe. Le site indique : « Connexion Internet »

Tuesday, 16 February 2016

Le sceptique sans principe logique (apparente, au moins)

J'avais fais un panneau:


CREATION.COM (English) (and, somewhat, Protestant)

(English, my blog)

(en français, mon blog, ou bref:

Un homme entre dans la locale de libre service. Darwin lui inspirait de la confiance.

- Moi non, j'ai plus de confiance en Moïse.

- Je n'ai pas de confiance en des gens qui écrivent et qui se prennent pour des dieux.

- On se prend pour Dieu par le fait d'écrire?

- Pour écrire qu'on a été élu par Dieu, oui.

- Qui ça?

- Moïse, Abraham ... il y en a plein.

- Vous avez la référence? (Dans la Genèse voulais-je dire, ensuite je me rends compte qu'il parle de l'Exode, quand à Moïse) ... Que Moïse a été élu par Dieu a été vérifié par les Israëlites, quand ils sont sortis d'Égypte.

- Qu'il les a conduits ... (d'accord ou quelque chose inaudible) ... mais qu'il ait reçu la loi, j'ai un peu plus de doute. Bonne journée, Monsieur.

S'il avait choisi de rester, j'aurais pu demander comment un homme "simplement laïc" aurait pu conduire un peuple à travers une mer miraculeusement divisée en deux. Ou comment Darwin ne se prenait pas pour un dieu en voulant savoir mieux que Moïse comment la création fit.

Quand à Abraham, c'est sûr que nous savons le fait de son élection par Dieu par le fait qu'il l'a raconté, mais si ce fut par écrit aussi ou, comme c'est de toute manière le cas certainement, par tradition orale à sa famille, je l'ignore. Ce qui suffit est que la famille, ne vivant pas sous des socialismes, a pu garder la tradition de ceci jusqu'a devenir un peuple.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Universitaire de Nanterre
Mardi après I Dimanche de Carême

I am not usually saying good things of Ulster Scots, but these men do have some sense on occasion! (link)

Northern Ireland Rejects Legalizing Abortions on Disabled Babies, Babies Conceived in Rape
International Steven Ertelt Feb 11, 2016 | 10:32AM Belfast, Northern Ireland

Réflexions sur le Site On Te Manipule Point FR : I ) sur "Derrière chaque événement un organisateur caché tu inventeras"

Message from sender:

Derrière chaque actualité ayant des causes accidentelles ou naturelles (mort ou suicide d’une personnalité, crash d’avion, catastrophe naturelle, crise économique…), la théorie du complot cherche un ou des organisateurs secrets (gouvernement, communauté juive, francs-maçons…) qui auraient manipulé les événements dans l’ombre pour servir leurs intérêts : l’explication rationnelle ne suffit jamais.

Derrière une crise économique, je cherche des banksters.

Derrière trois ou quatre crises économiques majeures en environ un siècle, je cherche une confusion entre libertés pour la spéculation économiquement imprudente et malhonnête et libertés publiques.

Derrière la persistance d'une telle confusion, je cherche une domination des journalistes par les banksters. Et des écoles - les leçons ayant influence sur le comportement économique des gens - par les banksters.

Et puisque c'est inhabituel de trouver des journalistes ou des professeurs qui disent "mes lecteurs/élèves auront intérêt de voter des restrictions sur l'intérêt de prêt monétaire ou sur des 'options de swap' payantes dans la bourse ou sur le nombre d'actionnaires non impliqués ni eux-mêmes ni par famille dans une entreprise, mais je vais tourner le regard ailleurs ou même dire le contraire, parce que ce bankster va me payer une somme", c'est même très inhabituel que le bankster paie cette somme à chaque personne ayant un mot à dire devant des personnes identifiables, il vaut mieux chercher un intermédiaire entre le bankster et le prof, entre le bankster et le journaliste.

Théoriquement, ça peut déjà être le directeur de l'école ou le rédacteur du journal, qui pourrait éliminer des profs trop honnêtes ou des journalistes trop honnêtes, mais ça aussi devrait être inhabituel.

Plus vraisemblable, le directeur et le rédacteur se sentent responsables d'éliminer des influences qu'on peut qualifier de "trop extrêmes". En ce faisant, ils font parfois appel à la psychiatrie. Et donc la psychiatrie peut dire son mot caché sur ce qui est loisible à dire et ce qui est "extrême".

Ou prenons un autre intérêt d'un bankster. Une entreprise vient de changer les mains par un héritage. Plus est élevé l'impôt sur les héritages, plus il y a des chances que les petites entreprises:

  • 1) font faillite par impuissance à payer cet impôt
  • ou 2) s'endettent pour pouvoir le payer.

L'un de ces événements possibles donne des revenus aux huissiers et aux actionnaires, et donne la possibilité de concentrer une branche de l'économie sur une entreprise de moins. L'autre donne des revenus d'intérêts de prêt à une banque, parfois plus tard aussi la faillite, et en plus réduit les marges pour une entreprise qui doit donc payer moins ou charger davantage ou les deux, et devient moins compétitif, moins d'un défi aux grands acteurs de la même branche.

Or, avant le 11 septembre, Bush Jr. avait promis d'abolir les impôts sur les héritages, mais il a renoncé, parce que le groupe ou club Responsible Rich avait dénoncé ceci par le slogan "it's not good for someone to be born with a silver spoon in his mouth" - sans compter du fait que ces gens (qui comprennent entre autre Bill Gates) sont normalement trop riches pour que leur héritier (s'ils en ont, Bill et Melinda n'en ont pas) dussent souffrir beaucoup par l'obligation de payer des impôts sur l'héritage. Et Bush Jr. d'écouter les Responsible Rich, et de maintenir les impôts sur les héritages.

Ceci n'est pas une théorie de complot. C'était dans les journaux. Mais la culture dans laquelle un président dit "conservateur" se voit obligé de tenir compte d'un tel conseil des gens qui sont riches et qui se veulent responsables, la culture aussi dans laquelle ma réflexion sur l'effet qu'a l'impôt sur l'héritage pour les petites entreprises, ça donne à soupçonner une culture politique qui, même en absence de complot dans le sens criminel, fonctionne comme un complot en faveur des banksters.

Et même si les événements ont une cause intentionnelle et des acteurs évidents (attentat, assassinat, révolution, guerre, coup d’État...), la théorie du complot va chercher à démontrer que cela a en réalité profité à un AUTRE groupe caché. C’est la méthode du bouc émissaire.

Combien de temps fait-ce déjà que la franc-maçonnerie se vante d'avoir fomenté la Révolution française?

Pourtant, à l'époque, ils étaient plutôt un peu cachés, non? Ils ne disaient pas ouvertement "nous allons faire une révolution" comme le font peut-être NPA de nos jours, ils disaient plutôt être loyaux au pouvoir ou critiques mais impuissants. Et quand même, selon ce que disent les franc-maçons de nos jours, c'est eux qui ont fait la révolution.

Ont-ils comploté les événements quelque mois avant le 14 juillet?

26 - 28 avril : affaire Réveillon. Manifestations ouvrières à Paris, au faubourg Saint-Antoine, à la suite d'un mot mal interprété d’un entrepreneur de papier peint. Pillage de la manufacture Réveillon : la troupe ouvre le feu (12 soldats et près de 300 manifestants tués). ... [correction à partir de l'article] Le 28 avril, la foule lance des pierres sur les troupes, ainsi que des tuiles et des meubles depuis les toits des maisons. Les troupes tirent. Du côté des soldats, 12 tués et 80 blessés ; de celui des insurgés, 200 tués et 300 blessés. Les ouvriers transportent les corps des civils tués dans les rues. Les corps seront transportés à l'ossuaire des Catacombes qui a été ouvert en 1788. Quelques jours plus tard, entre 500 et 600 hommes, après s’être réunis à Villejuif, tentent de forcer la prison de Bicêtre.

On se souvient peut-être encore de l'effet qu'avait eu le massacre de la square de Tian'anmen pour la chute du régime post-soviétique, avec le manifestant qui arrête un char en jouant la police de route? Bien, l'affaire Réveillon était un peu ça pour le 14 juillet quelques mois plus tard.

A-t-il eu une conspiration?

Ces évènements du faubourg Saint-Antoine étaient certainement spontanés, mais alimentèrent la psychose ambiante et la thèse du complot. Certains y verront la main de l'Angleterre ou celle de la faction d'Orléans que le baron de Besenval accuse sans preuve dans ses mémoires. Jean-François Marmontel dans ses Mémoires, évoquant les propos d'Honoré Gabriel Riqueti de Mirabeau, accuse les hommes de mains du duc d'Orléans. Dans sa biographie de Louis XVI, Jean-Christian Petitfils disculpe Orléans, certes agitateur inconséquent, mais trop dilettante pour tremper dans une conspiration.

Et si Jean-Christian Petitfils avait tort?

Études au lycée Claude-Bernard à Paris, à la Faculté de droit de Paris, à Sciences Po Paris et à la Sorbonne. Docteur d’État en science politique (thèse sous la direction de Jean-Jacques Chevallier et de Jehan de Malafosse sur Les Idées politiques et sociales du comte de Montlosier, 1755-1838), diplômé de l’Institut d'études politiques de Paris, maître en droit public[évasif], licencié en histoire-géographie (licence d'enseignement), diplômé de l’Institut d'administration des entreprises de Paris (IAE de Paris Sorbonne).

Si science po était une des écoles où on rend les étudiants aveugles pour les complots qu'il y a?

Il pourrait y avoir un complot maçonnique derrière ça.

Regardons-le un petit plus de près.

L'hypothèse reprise par Jean-Christian Petitfils de dénier à l'apôtre S. Jean, fils de Zébédée, la paternité du quatrième évangile, de déclarer cet apôtre « martyr » presque en même temps que son frère, Jacques le Majeur (au début des années 40), comme le pensent aujourd'hui certains derrière le père Boismard, et cela contre une partie de l'opinion des exégètes, qui reconnaît encore en l'apôtre Jean de Zébédée l'auteur très âgé de cet évangile, dans les dernières années du ier siècle de notre ère, a été critiquée par quelques commentateurs, surtout ceux qui considèrent que Jésus a été suivi par douze apôtres exclusivement (Jean-Christian Petitfils suppose en effet la présence au cours de la Cène d'un "Jean" non apôtre, occupant ou propriétaire du Cénacle et futur auteur du quatrième évangile). À la place de l'apôtre, Jean-Christian Petitfils, à la suite de beaucoup d'autres auteurs (Oscar Cullmann8, François Le Quéré9, Joseph A. Grassi10, James H. Charlesworth11, Xavier Léon-Dufour12, notamment), accrédite l'hypothèse d'un autre « Jean », qui aurait appartenu à l'aristocratie sacerdotale du Temple de Jérusalem. Dans cet ouvrage, ces faits historiques sont attribués, non à l'apôtre Jean, fils de Zébédée, mais à un autre Jean, « prêtre » (hiereus) du sacerdoce du Temple (sacerdoce disparu en l'an 70, avec la destruction du Temple et la prise de Jérusalem par les armées romaines de Titus). Un personnage important, Papias, évêque de Hiérapolis, au début du iie siècle, parlait de deux Jean : Jean l'Apôtre et Jean le Presbytre, disciple du Seigneur. Benoît XVI écrit dans son Jésus de Nazareth13 qu'il peut « adhérer avec conviction » aux conclusions des biblistes Peter Stuhlmacher, Eugen Ruckstuhl et Peter Dschullnig, pour qui Jean le Presbytre a reproduit dans son évangile les souvenirs de Jean, fils de Zébédée. Ce prêtre serait considéré comme son relais et comme son porte-parole. Pour Jean-Christian Petitfils la confusion entre les deux Jean remonterait au iiie siècle.

Adhérer à une position d'Oscar Cullmann (qui reconstruit un "christianisme primitif" duquel nous n'avons pas de témoignage direct dans la tradition), interprêter Papias comme parlant de deux Jean différents, plutôt que du-même sous deux vocables par variatio sermonis, inventer un martyr très tôt pour St Jean Apôtre, denier que celui-ci fut martyrisé cuit en huile, survécut miraculeusement et ensuite exilé à Patmos, comme nous le dit la tradition ... non, les qualifications de Jean-Christian Petitfils laissent à souhaiter.

Il y en a qui voudraient rien avoir à faire avec une affirmation quelque vaguement complotiste par moi, parce que selon eux, les qualifications d'un géocentrique laissent à souhaiter. Je rends la monnaie, si Jean-Christian Petitfils fait une affirmation anticomplotiste sur la Révolution française, les qualifications d'un homme qui défend ce genre de charabia moderniste sur St Jean ... laissent à souhaiter. Par contre, je vais aussi répondre à son argument.

Je me range donc dedans avec l'abbé Puga, malgré mon soupçon très fort qu'en 2009 - 2010 il a conspiré pour me tamponner comme lié à un état monastique non-existant et donc pour m'empêcher de me marier.

Et quant à l'argument de Petitfils, Orléans serait trop dilettante (le mot est-il italien, avec -e en masculin? ou simple vandalisme en wikipédie?) pour avoir conspiré ... il s'érige quasi en juge de ce qui marchait ou ne marchait pas dans un autre siècle. Probablement à partir de son expérience de ce qui ne marche pas dans le nôtre.

Non, le premier paragraphe de "LES 7 COMMANDEMENTS DE LA THÉORIE DU COMPLOT" sur le site gouvernementale est tendentieux plutôt qu'objectivement crédible. Et chercher d'inculquer ça avec le ridicule? Voyons la "carte de visite" ... simplement parodique?

Lucy FAIHRRE = L. FAIHRRE = 667 (voisin, pardon, voisine de la bête). Et en FAIHRRE, une lettre donnée, pas la dernière, on trouve 444. Une méthode de ridiculiser la gématrie par ASCII Code?

Ça fait déjà quelque temps qu'on sait bien que BERGOGLIO (le nom réel du "pape" Vatican-d'Eux-iste "François") donne 666. Précisément en Code ASCII. Peut-être l'occasion de ridiculiser le procédé? Il semble que le site ait été lancé il y a quelques jours. Donc bien après que j'ai lancé (et même pas le premier) cette alerte.

"1. Derrière chaque événement un organisateur caché tu inventeras"

Il y a des événements qui peuvent arriver sans comploteurs. Mais une série d'événements qui vont systématiquement dans le même sens? Et des non-événements autant systématiques? Et des efforts de maintenir un non-événement dans les esprits, en excluant, systématiquement, un écrivain donné comme "complotiste"? Voir même d'utiliser des rumeurs ou des diagnoses visant la psychiatrie contre lui?

En absence d'un organisateur, il y en a plusieurs qui ont une culture dans laquelle ceci se fait.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Mardi après
I Dimanche de Carême