Sharing

She Tried to Convert Her Catholic Boyfriend...
Sips with Serra | 5 Oct. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISn0TwyYooE

Is Papacy That Much of an Oracle?

Can you basically take "it was raining cats and dogs" from the mouth of a Pope to mean that one of the portents of the End Times is feline and canine actual animals falling down from the sky?

Vatican in Exile has a high ranking monk named Phil Friedl. He kind of does so a bit.

"Although it is evidently established by you that Peter is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce him." (Condemned) DZ: 1105
Various Errors On Moral Matters
Pope Alexander XII
24 September 1165 (Anno Domini: AD)

All offices shall be vacant ipso facto [means by the very fact] by tacit resignation in the following cases: “If a cleric has publicly lapsed from the Catholic Faith;”(Canon 188 Section 4 | 1917 Code of Canon Law, Fr. Woywood).

Followed by a meme image with "Pope Leo" speaking on dialogue with Muslims and Protestants.

Now, I have no beef with applying Canon 188 Section 4 to whether a man purported Pope is pope or not pope. And whether or not there is with "Leo" there certainly is with a predecessor "John Paul" a much graver indication of public lapse from the Catholic faith.

However, the other quote from an undoubted Pope is seriously mangled, in attribution and in context.

There is no "Pope Alexander XII" ... a rival to Pope Michael I was "Alejandro IX" in Argentina, I think he either stepped back or admitted it was a media hoax. He was a Feeneyite, by the way.

The latest undisputed pope Alexander is Alexander VIII. Now there is also a Pope Alexander VII who actually did condemn various errors.

2025 Dz 1105 5. Although it is evidently established by you that Peter is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce [him], if you cannot prove it.

ALEXANDER VII 1655-1667
Various Errors on Moral Matters *
[Condemned in decrees of Sept. 24, 1665, and of March 18.1666
A. On the 24th Day of September, 1665

Denzinger EN 1980
https://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dxe.htm

And 1980 here seems to mean "after the modern Dz 1980" since the first item is 1981 Dz 1081. It's, along with the next one, against usury.

But what was I saying about "raining cats and dogs" and interpreting as if a Pope had spoken of the End Times, along with raining of stars and so on?

Well, the good Phil Friedl seems to take "Peter" here as referring to "the Apostle Peter or his current successor" ... and the fact seems to be, I'll check with Joe Heschmeyer, that it basically means "John Doe"* ...

Different legal codes of different languages involve different ways of discussing anyone whom the case may apply to.

In Spanish one may ask, I'm translating to English:

If Don Fulano lends Don Mengano 5000 maravedies, is Don Mengano obliged to pay him back 6000 maravedies the next year, if that's on the contract? No, that's usury, the contract is invalid. It's criminal on part of the one exacting more in return.

In Latin, whether in moral theology or canon law, it would go like this:

If Peter lends Paul 5000 maravedies, is Paul obliged to pay him back 6000 maravedies the next year, if that's on the contract? No, that's usury, the contract is invalid. It's criminal and mortally sinful on part of the one exacting more in return.

Let me be precise, this is obviously true if the sole reason the 5000 are payed back as 6000 is the fact of the loan. If it had been an investment loan instead, one could have agreed that the sum would grow or diminish in proportion to the value of the company invested in, like if Don Mengano / Paul has a specific kind of shop. Obviously, the 6000 correspond to a growth on the factor 6:5, and if the company had instead made losses, diminishing on a factor 4:5, Paul / Don Mengano would have owed only 4000 maravedies. That's NOT sinful. It's perfectly licit. If you take a real risk, you can merit a real profit. Peter or Don Fulano risked getting only 4000 maravedies back, and was lucky with the luck of the borrower and got 6000 maravedies back. Fine and dandy. No problem whatsoever.

The point is, however, that Peter and Paul would in this case not be very famous persons from Acts, and for Peter, from the Gospels, both also authors of Epistles. Latin has "Peter" and "Paul" because these are very common first names. Spanish has Don Fulano and Don Mengano because these are very uncommon (to non-extant) last names. The question was one in the context of the Inquisition.

If Phil Friedl wants to maintain it's germaine to his proposition, he is basically saying that a Pope mentioning "it's raining cats and dogs" (in a context like "if it's raining cats and dogs and you are outside all day, fasting rules are relaxed") would be making an apocalyptic prophecy.

However, do you know what strikes me as even more awkward and unworthy of a cultured Catholic discourse than the quote I just gave from Phil Friedl? §§ 283 and (as I recently added) 247 of the CCC. Wojtyla wasn't being incompetent in expressing the Catholic faith, he was competent in expressing something else, Scientism and overdoing ecumenics with the Orthodox. I would say on a level which very much is incompatible with expressing the Catholic faith.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
XVIIth Lord's Day after Pentecost
20.IX.2026

* In context, denouncing John Doe as a heretic would mean doing so to the Inquisition or to the curate.

A Fan of Chesterton?

Question:

Mario in Croatia says what do you think about another big British Giant in the literary scene GK Chesteron and his work?

Response:

Oh yes I haven't read everything of Chesterton's but obviously great novelist and very funny and and quirky um and his his great book the Everlasting man and other things like that were attempts 100 or so years ago um to explore the world in ways that at the end of the 19th and early 20th century people just weren't doing obviously he comes from a very traditional Roman Catholic um perspective um and and was was kind of exuberant in his delight at being able to to say the opposite of what everyone was expecting and I think sometimes he overdid that and it was just his personality I'm not an expert on him but I've I have always enjoyed reading him ...*

Now, did Chesterton enjoy saying what everyone was NOT expecting him to say?

Certainly.

Did he twist things so as to be able to do that?

Certainly not.

Did he open enquiries that others were not engaging in?

Definitely. The Lewis trilemma is kind of a repeat of what he had already said in The Everlasting Man.

Now, he's not adressing at this point those who deny the Gospels and therefore deny Jesus claimed to be God. He's adressing a very specific ecumenic nonsense.

Well, looking up, Chesterton actually did adress that too:

This quality of something that can only be called subtle and superior, something that is capable of long views and even of double meanings, is not noted here merely as a counterblast to the commonplace exaggerations of amiability and mild idealism. It is also to be noted in connection with the more tremendous truth touched upon at the end of the last chapter. For this is the very last character that commonly goes with mere megalomania; especially such steep and staggering megalomania as might be involved in that claim. This quality that can only be called intellectual distinction is not, of course, an evidence of divinity. But it is an evidence of a probable distaste for vulgar and vainglorious claims to divinity. A man of that sort, if he were only a man, would be the last man in the world to suffer from that intoxication by one notion from nowhere in particular, which is the mark of the self-deluding sensationalist in religion. Nor is it even avoided by denying that Christ did make this claim. Of no such man as that, of no other prophet or philosopher of the same intellectual order, would it be even possible to pretend that he had made it. Even if the Church had mistaken his meaning, it would still be true that no other historical tradition except the Church had ever even made the same mistake. Mahomedans did not misunderstand Mahomet and suppose he was Allah. Jews did not misinterpret Moses and identify him with Jehovah. Why was this claim alone exaggerated unless this alone was made. Even if Christianity was one vast universal blunder, it is still a blunder as solitary as the Incarnation.

The purpose of these pages is to fix the falsity of certain vague and vulgar assumptions; and we have here one of the most false. There is a sort of notion in the air everywhere that all the religions are equal because all the religious founders were rivals, that they are all fighting for the same starry crown. It is quite false. The claim to that crown, or anything like that crown, is really so rare as to be unique. Mahomet did not make it any more than Micah or Malachi. Confucius did not make it any more that Plato or Marcus Aurelius. Buddha never said he was Bramah. Zoroaster no more claimed to be Ormuz than to be Ahriman. The truth is that, in the common run of cases, it is just as we should expect it to be, in common sense and certainly in Christian philosophy. It is exactly the other way. Normally speaking, the greater a man is, the less likely he is to make the very greatest claim. Outside the unique case we are considering, the only kind of man who ever does make that kind of claim is a very small man; a secretive or self-centered monomaniac. Nobody can imagine Aristotle claiming to be the father of gods and men, come down from the sky; though we might imagine some insane Roman Emperor like Caligula claiming it for him, or more probably for himself. Nobody can imagine Shakespeare talking as if he were literally divine; though we might imagine some crazy American crank finding it as a cryptogram in Shakespeare's works, or preferably in his own works. It is possible to find here and there human beings who make this supremely superhuman claim. It is possible to find them in lunatic asylums; in padded cells; possibly in strait waistcoats. But what is much more important than their mere materialistic fate in our very materialistic society, under very crude and clumsy laws about lunacy, the type we know as tinged with this, or tending towards it, is a diseased and disproportionate type; narrow yet swollen and morbid to monstrosity. It is by rather an unlucky metaphor that we talk of a madman as cracked; for in a sense he is not cracked enough. He is cramped rather than cracked; there are not enough holes in his head to ventilate it. This impossibility of letting in daylight on a delusion does sometimes cover and conceal a delusion of divinity. It can be found, not among prophets and sages and founders of religions, but only among a low set of lunatics. But this is exactly where the argument becomes intensely interesting; because the argument proves too much. For nobody supposes that Jesus of Nazareth was that sort of person. No modern critic in his five wits thinks that the preacher of the Sermon on the Mount was a horrible half-witted imbecile that might be scrawling stars on the walls of a cell. No atheist or blasphemer believes that the author of the Parable of the Prodigal Son was a monster with one mad idea like a cyclops with one eye. Upon any possible historical criticism, he must be put higher in the scale of human beings than that. Yet by all analogy we have really to put him there or else in the highest place of all.**

This reasoning has most been attributed to C. S. Lewis, and then popularised in the form known often as "the Lewis trilemma" which has been summarised as "Liar, Lunatic or Lord."

Note what he thinks of those who would give Christianity and Islam a kind of peaceful coexistence, not just in society, that's a different story, there may be reasons for that, but in the minds of believers or unbelievers.

The purpose of these pages is to fix the falsity of certain vague and vulgar assumptions; and we have here one of the most false. There is a sort of notion in the air everywhere that all the religions are equal because all the religious founders were rivals, that they are all fighting for the same starry crown. It is quite false.

And yes, it's false whether you make it mean Mohammed thought he was Allah or whether you make it mean Jesus didn't think He was God, and most specially whether you make it mean that being a prophet is one of those things which are generally beneficial and so beneficial that it doesn't matter whether you make a claim to being God or not.

Did Krishna claim to be God or Brahman in any sense? Well there are lines in Bhagavadgita which lend themselves to such a reading.

However, given he died 3102 BC and that the first even lost manuscript of Mahabharata (of which the Gita is an extract or expanded extract) is probably from 400 BC*** or later, there is plenty of room for changing religions among those remembering him to have changed his place in religion and therefore to have attributed to him things he didn't say at all. Or just didn't mean that way. Imagine some of the verses in Bhagavadgita prefaced with "thus saith the Lord" and the reading becomes different. However, I'm not saying Bhagavadgita would be theologically correct even read that way. I can't say for certain, I haven't read it, I can only say that read in the usual way, it is to us Catholics paganism and condemned.

Now, do I claim to be God? Not the least. But some will pretend I do, simply because, like Chesterton, I ... let's quote Tom (Nicholas Thomas) Wright ... I take

delight at being able to to say the opposite of what everyone was expecting.

Probably Mr Wright (whom as a Traditional Catholic I do not consider a real Bishop) will say I overdo it too. His right.

It's my right to disagree with Wright on Chesterton. And I think Mario from Croatia does so too. It's also my right to not be held accountable for blasphemous claims just because I have the kind of cultural attitude Chesterton had.

Now, "obviously he comes from a very traditional Roman Catholic um perspective" ... is a bit funny to anyone who knows his biography. He was not a cradle Catholic. He was born in the kind of Liberal (English sense°) family that would be prone to pull off a list of religion founders like Jesus, Buddha, Mahomet (or Mohammed) ... and that's the kind of family he ultimately opposed by becoming Catholic.

He also didn't get to Catholicism in his teens, like I did over reading him and Tolkien, both of whom I ultimately favoured over C. S. Lewis when disagreeing, all of whom I valued not just as fiction writers, but as essay writers. In the summer between ninth and tenth grade, I went to England and learned that English has sixteen tenses, unlike other Germanic languages that have eight.°° I also bought so many essay collections by C. S. Lewis that my suitcase was overloaded, both for its closure and for my muscles. But before twelfth grade, I had started to read some Chesterton essays borrowed from the library. And decided to become Catholic.

In his own case, he converted to Christianity (after being into witchcraft for a while) at adult age, for love. He converted to a version of Anglicanism probably more Catholic leaning than either C. S. Lewis or N. T. Wright. But as yet, like his dear wife, not yet to the Catholic Church. When his parish decided they could have a statue of Mary, but without the Christ Child, he came to very swiftly prefer the Roman Catholic Church, where you can have both.

He had already started out as a writer when converting. Now, Everlasting Man, which I quoted, is from 1925, three years after he converted. But his career as a novelist was mainly before his conversion, as some other well noted books:

The Napoleon of Notting Hill is a novel written by G. K. Chesterton in 1904, set in a nearly unchanged London in 1984.°°°
The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare is a 1908 novel by G. K. Chesterton.°°°
Orthodoxy is a 1908 book by G. K. Chesterton which he described as a "spiritual autobiography". It has become a classic of Christian apologetics.°°°
The Ballad of the White Horse is a poem by G. K. Chesterton about the idealised exploits of the Saxon King Alfred the Great, published in 1911.°°°
Manalive (1912) is a book by G. K. Chesterton detailing a popular theme both in his own philosophy, and in Christianity, of the "holy fool", such as in Dostoevsky's The Idiot and Cervantes' Don Quixote.°°°
The Flying Inn is a 1914 novel by English writer G. K. Chesterton. It is set in a future England where the temperance movement has allowed a bizarre form of Progressive Islam to dominate the political and social life of the country.°°°

So he was not writing these from a "traditional Catholic" perspective per se. He was writing them in the same Communion as N. T. Wright or C. S. Lewis, that is in the Church of England. He was, per se, writing them from the perspective of a Catholic leaning Anglican.

But how very Catholic leaning he was is of course illustrated by the fact that Tom Wright takes him as having written them from a "traditional Catholic" perspective.

Now, here is another example. He began The Return of Don Quixote as an Anglican and completed it as a Catholic.~

The really funny thing about Tom Wright speaking on "traditional Catholic" is, the phrase has come to mean, to many, the fact of opposing some who are taken as Popes, because said people, whether the one opposing takes them as Popes or not, doesn't find them sufficiently Catholic. Chesterton had no intention whatsoever of opposing the magisterium back in his time, which means that his agreements with this movement actually do argue that traditional Catholics are right in finding a discrepancy between Catholicism in 1992 (as presented and represented by Karol Józef Wojtyła and associates) and Catholicism in 1922 (when Chesterton converted, under the undoubted Pope Pius XI).

Now one discrepancy, to the origin of Adam, not just body, but also soul, not just soul, but even body, Chesterton was a creationist. Obviously, this faces the problem of a quote in Orthodoxy:

“Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said, “I think; therefore I am.” The philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, “I am not; therefore I cannot think.”
― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy~~

But Orthodoxy is 1908, while he was a Protestant. While a Catholic ... three years in, as noted on Everlasting Man, he said this:

Science is weak about these prehistoric things in a way that has hardly been noticed. The science whose modern marvels we all admire succeeds by incessantly adding to its data. In all practical inventions, in most natural discoveries, it can always increase evidence by experiment. But it cannot experiment in making men; or even in watching to see what the first men make. An inventor can advance step by step in the construction of an aeroplane, even if he is only experimenting with sticks and scraps of metal in his own back-yard. But he cannot watch the Missing Link evolving in his own back-yard. If he has made a mistake in his calculations, the aeroplane will correct it by crashing to the ground. But if he has made a mistake about the arboreal habitat of his ancestor, he cannot see his arboreal ancestor falling off the tree. He cannot keep a cave-man like a cat in the back-yard and watch him to see whether he does really practice cannibalism or carry off his mate on the principles of marriage by capture. He cannot keep a tribe of primitive men like a pack of hounds and notice how far they are influenced by the herd instinct. If he sees a particular bird behave in a particular way, he can get other birds and see if they behave in that way; but if he finds a skull, or the scrap of a skull, in the hollow of a hill, he cannot multiply it into a vision of the valley of dry bones. In dealing with a past that has almost entirely perished, he can only go by evidence and not by experiment. And there is hardly enough evidence to be even evidential. Thus while most science moves in a sort of curve, being constantly corrected by new evidence, this science flies off into space in a straight line uncorrected by anything. But the habit of forming conclusions, as they can really be formed in more fruitful fields, is so fixed in the scientific mind that it cannot resist talking like this. It talks about the idea suggested by one scrap of bone as if it were something like the aeroplane which is constructed at last out of whole scrapheaps of scraps of metal. The trouble with the professor of the prehistoric is that he cannot scrap his scrap. The marvellous and triumphant aeroplane is made out of a hundred mistakes. The student of origins can only make one mistake and stick to it.~~~

This is the exact same point that Young Earth Creationists like to repeat on the concept of Historical Science. It doesn't provide positive total certitude for a scenario about the past, at the utmost excludes loads of scenarios.

As a Catholic convert in 1988, age 20, I felt very fine with being Young Earth Creationist. As a Chestertonian too.

I'm skipping over mostly the times from early nineties to c. 1995 or so, at the latest 1998 or 1999, when I took some kind of Old Earth scenario, but a very limited one. No 4.5 billion years, but about as much extra time as to fit in the Silmarillion ... or Egyptian and Babylonian paganism. Not meaning I believed the Silmarillion literally was an account of these "longer than Biblical" and yet not all that long ages, but it served as an example of what it could have been. I returned on reading St. Augustine City of God, in 1999.

In 2001, I got a challenge. The distant starlight paradox. If certain celestial objects way further than Sirius or than α, β, γ Andromedae are at a distance of more light years than Christian Biblical chronology has years, and believe me, they are very obscure finds, I couldn't find a named one on wikipedia, apart from "other galaxies" (formerly known as spiral nebulae), most famous being Andromeda galaxy, which is sth else than Andromeda the constellation, if they are further away than speed of light would allow to reach within Biblical chronology, what does that do to Biblical chronology?

I tried to argue and still hold, the parallax gives "a very slim triangle" as Hovind would have and did say back then. To α Centauri, the distance of 4 light years is "measured" by trigonometry of an angle of 0.76 arc seconds. One arc second = the angle at the centre of earth between two points at the Equator, distant of 31 meters.# The parallax to α Centauri, an even smaller triangle.

However, my challenger gave an example citing a Nova which had exploded and the size of the ring, with its spread which would have (on his view) have spread outward in light speed before being reflected to shine towards us.

Part of the answer I gave is, angels performed the thing, as elaborate fireworks.

But I gave more. I attacked the beginning of the cosmic distance ladder## by stating, if angels are moving the stars, then the "parallax" need be no such thing, and the side of the triangle of length 2AU need not be at all in the triangle earth, star position 1, star position 2, unlike what it would have been if the triangle had been "star, earth position 1, earth position 2." ###

This means, this problem is solved by Geocentrism. And Geocentrism is possible if God is moving the whole shebang each day and angels moving the individual bodies within that.

Dear St. Bartholomew, thank you for 25 years of Geocentrism!

It was on 24 Aug 2001 that I gave the answer, 25 years ago. (The diagram in the footnote is later).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Bartholomew
24.VIII.2026

Sancti Bartholomaei Apostoli, qui Christi Evangdlium in India praedicavit; inde in majorem Armeniam profectus, ibi, cum plurimos ad fidem convertisset, vivus a barbaris decoriatus est, atque, Astyagis Regis jussu, capitis decollatione martyrium complevit. Ipsius sacrum corpus, primo ad Liparam insulam, deinde Beneventum, postremo Romam ad Tiberinam translatiun insulam, ibi pia fidelium veneratione honoratur.

* Source:
Tom Wright Q&A answering personal questions about his own faith, his favourite preachers, and books!
Premier Unbelievable? | 7 July 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jef5uKjj3Jk

** Source:
The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton
PART II. — ON THE MAN CALLED CHRIST [chapter] III. — THE STRANGEST STORY IN THE WORLD
https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100311h.html

*** Source:

Man nimmt an, dass es erstmals zwischen 400 v. Chr. und 400 n. Chr. niedergeschrieben wurde, aber auf älteren Traditionen beruht.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata

° Gladstone, not Kamala Harris

°° They are not equally useful. "I would have been going" (past future perfect continuous) is not as useful as (past) "I went" ...

°°° Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Napoleon_of_Notting_Hill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Was_Thursday
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy_(book)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballad_of_the_White_Horse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manalive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flying_Inn

~Source for this and some detail:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_of_Don_Quixote

~~Source:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7405654-evolution-is-a-good-example-of-that-modern-intelligence-which

~~~Source:
The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton (ut supra)
Part I. On The Creature Called Man [chapter] II. — PROFESSORS AND PREHISTORIC MEN

# 40 000 km / 360 = 111.1111111111111111 km
111.1111111111111111 km / 60 / 60 = 0.0308641975308641975 km = 30.8641975308641975 m

## See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder

and for a fun reflection on it:
Have you heard the expression "von Neumann chain"?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/08/have-you-heard-expression-von-neumann.html

### Illustration:

Geo vs Helio
hglwrites | May 29, 2012
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/geo-vs-helio/

Pourquoi croit-on si souvent dans l'Héliocentrisme ?

Vers l'âge de quatre, j'ai été informé que la terre était ronde et non plate, comme elle pouvait sembler (on était dans une ville assez plate, pas une région montagneuse). Et qu'elle tournait autour d'elle-même chaque jour et autour du soleil chaque an.

Pourquoi ... comme dit ?

Peut-être en partie parce qu'on apprend ça à un âge qu'on croit tout-ce qu'on apprend des parents, et peut-être aussi parce que c'est présenté ensemble avec une vérité confirmable, la globalité de la terre.

Je parle de la terre sous le Ciel, le corps entier qui est un globe. La partie non-maritime et petite-maritime (non-pacifique) de la superficie n'est bien entendu pas un globe et a en occurrence quatre coins.

Ce qui m'amène à une autre raison. La Bible est assez clairement géocentrique. Si on prétend par les quatre coins qu'elle enseigne aussi le platisme, on la décrédibilise, mensongèrement.

Christianisme et créationnisme et retour au géocentrisme, ça m'est venu plus tard, et le retour au géocentrisme beaucoup plus tard.

9 ans moins quelque (la famille divisée n'a pas permise à ma mère de me donner des leçons cohérentes du caté avant), 10 ans et quelque (après des tentatives de conjuguer l'évolutionnisme et la Bible, mais aussi de comprendre des trucs comme mécanisme de l'abiogenèse ... l'ordre de l'ADN ne se fait pas lui-même ... et l'origine du langage humain), et finalement 33 ans moins quelques jours.

Il y a des gens qui prétendent "oh, les pauvres Chrétiens, ils ont été indoctrinés si tôt dans le Christianisme !" et les Chrétiens sont censés écouter ça comme si ça expliquait tout et laissait rien à la réflexion actuelle pour maintenir l'appris. Mais personne imagine que les Mudulmans en masse vont se poser des questions si l'appris tôt dans la vie que "Mahomet est prophète de Dieu" ou que les Scientistes / Athées en masse vont se poser des questions si l'appris si tôt "la terre tourne" est vrai ou une erreur qu'on a juste mal a démasquer à cause de "propagande" parentale "précoce" comme ils diraient sur les Chrétiens.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Jean Eudes
19.VIII.2026

Cadomi, in Gallia, sancti Joannis Eudes Confessoris, Missionarii Apostolici, Fundatoris Congregationis Presbyterorum Jesu et Mariae necnon Ordinis Monialium Dominae Nostrae a Caritate, et promotoris liturgici cultus erga Sacratissima Christi ejusque Genitricis Corda; quem Pius Papa Undecimus fastis Sanctorum adscripsit.

Shared

"Love builds a bridge of which truth can pass."
@CA-Live-Clips | 3 Aug 2026
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TCxeTJaJsrc

En Suède on moque la religion catholique

Sur la Quora suécophone, je viens de rencontrer une blague, racontée en anglais, j'y reviens, sur une moniale.*

Le premier panneau des photos avec bulles de textes, elle dénonce l'alcool devant un pub anglais.**

Le dernier panneau, le proprio du pub se plaint de cette moniale "encore une fois".

Certains connaissent la blague. Ils savent comment elle va. Je refuse de la répéter. Je viens de commenter que l'homme montrait une ignorance crasse de l'attitude catholique vis-à-vis l'alcool. Boire en quantité modéré n'est pas péché, et même un peu plus n'est pas péché mortel.

Le truc est, probablement le connard trop beauf qui l'a postée imagine que les Catholiques aiment aussi se vautrer en des blagues de mauvais goût contre les figures d'autorité catholiques. Au moins ceux qui ont un peu de sens d'humour.

En Suède, en compagnie bourgeoise non-catholique (et pas mal de compagnie prolétaire non-catholique aussi), c'est le genre d'approches dont je devrais m'attendre.

Pour l'info, non, nous ne l'aimons pas.

Le Catholique normal n'est pas le Catholique qui aimerait se détacher du Catholicisme, qui rêve d'excuses pour lâcher toutes les disciplines, et la morale qui nous interdit l'usage d'un objet odieux en latex. Le Catholique normal n'est pas le Catholique qui soupçonne en secret que les curés et les frères et les moniales soient des hypocrites qui n'auraient pas de juste titre sur notre respect ou notre obéissance à leur autorité.

Ce genre de Catholique a pu exister aussi, par exemple parmi des prolétaires très appauvris, avec très peu d'espoir de mariage la prochaine décennie, dans un travail physique très dur et qui reclament de la protéine qui nourrit autres choses que les muscles et trop épuisant pour qu'on fasse bien attention à cette autre chose, comment on la gère, et qui sont restés Catholiques parce que tout le monde l'était et parce qu'aucun homme était venu avant leur dire que d'autre chose existait.

En Suède quasi aucun Catholique n'est l'équivalent d'un Catholique de Catalogne la veille du jour qu'il rejoint les Anarchistes pour mériter la vile garrote de Franco, ou pour se faire massacrer par les Communistes, ou les deux à la fois. Et l'Enfer s'il ne se retourne pas au Christ et à son Église.

Chaque Catholique en Suède sait trop bien que d'autre chose existe et chaque Catholique est resté ou est devenu Catholique malgré ça. En préférant le Catholicisme à l'Église de Suède (une communauté "luthérienne" qui se vante de montrer son sens d'humour en acceptant ce genre de blagues, tant que le cible ne soit pas Juif) et en préférant le Catholicisme au Sécularisme de Suède (une communauté beaucoup plus prône à se prendre aux sérieux, et autant d'exiger que les Luthériens et le Pentécôtistes et les Catholiques ne le fassent pas).

Quand je dis "trop bien" je veux dire comme en 1980 certains fils d'Anarchistes savaient trop bien que le Catholicisme existait et était la religion de l'Espagne. Genre pour certains d'entre eux, ça a pu les gêner de chanter Cara al Sol dans l'école. C'est par compassion avec ces gens là que je viens de dire que Cara al Sol était un beau chant de résistants jusqu'en 1939. Certains fils de victimes de l'Épuration ne diraient pas que "Ami, entends-tu" était un beau chant de résistants jusqu'en 1944, mais même d'autres diraient qu'il ait perdu du goût dans les Écoles publiques de la République. Depuis.

Bien, ce que j'ai vécu en Suède depuis ma décision de convertir jusqu'en 2004, l'année que j'ai quitté mon pays, c'est entre autres choses de rencontrer trop de gens qui voulaient "m'informer" que d'autre chose que le Catholicisme existait. Comme une cantine d'école qui s'acharne à offrir "mesost" chaque matin à quelqu'un qui ne l'aime pas. Ou qui s'acharnerait à offrir du jambon ("ska du intet smaka?") à un Musulman. Mais ce cas est peu réaliste.***

Il y a d'autres raisons qu'un conflit avec les autorités d'un pays, pour le quitter. Genre, un conflit avec une vaste majorité de la société. Notez, je ne dis pas de la population. Je dis de la société. Quelle entreprise n'a pas au moins un de ces beaufs en position d'autorité ? Et le Catholique se trouve ciblé, même s'il y a 30 qui ne le voudraient pas. Parce que l'homme est hautement placé.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Ignace de Loyola
31.VII.2026

Romae natalis sancti Ignatii, Presbyteri et Confessoris, qui Fundator exstitit Societatis Jesu, atque vir fuit sanctitate et miraculis clarus, ac religionis catholicae ubique dilatandae studiosissimus; quem Pius Undecimus, Pontifex Maximus, caelestem omnium Exercitiorum spiritualium Patronum constituit.

* Par fatigue, j'ai oublié d'y revenir avant de signer. Le point est, si la langue suédoise est moins menacé par la compétition anglaise que la langue néerlandaise, on doit constater qu'un bourgeois suédois en règle assez générale maîtrise assez bien l'anglais. Ce qui vaut pour moi aussi. Pour ceux qui prétendent que mon anglais soit plein de fautes d'orthographes ...

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zF6zIPTRu0Y


** Un pub = a public house, pas à confondre avec une pub = une publicité.
*** Dans les écoles suédoises, j'ai trouvé les mets servis dans la cantine irréprochables. Sauf les pommes de terre cuites en vapeur dans une école de Malmö.

Remember Shireen Abu Akleh? Check Out Fr. Louis Salman

Shireen Abu Akleh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shireen_Abu_Akleh

Before entering the major seminary just outside Bethlehem in 2014, Fr. Salmon Salman studied computer technologies. He was ordained a priest in 2021 and his name became prominent among Palestinians in 2022 when he organized a solemn funeral procession for Shireen Abu Akleh, a Catholic American Palestinian journalist for Al Jazeera who was intentionally assassinated by the Israeli army while wearing a vest clearly marked with the word “PRESS.”

Israel’s expulsion of Catholic priest from occupied Palestine sparks outrage
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/israels-expulsion-of-catholic-priest-from-occupied-palestine-sparks-outrage/

He called Israel an occupying power, as has a report in the United States:

This section of the report covers the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem territories that Israel occupied during the June 1967 war. In 2017, the United States recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Language in this report is not meant to convey a position on any final-status issues to be negotiated between the parties to the conflict, including the specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem or the borders between Israel and any future Palestinian state.

US Dep. of State: Israel, West Bank and Gaza: West Bank and Gaza
https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-report-on-international-religious-freedom/israel-west-bank-and-gaza/west-bank-and-gaza/

Astute observers of my FB Page Might Know: I Share Lots of Pro-Life and Lots of Chesterton

If you are friends with me on FB and actually look me up and have not noted this, astute is probably not the best description you can have for yourself. I mean, if I spend 30 min. on FB, I'm probably sharing at least five of either Chesty* or Lila Rose (or related) or both.

Unless I'm arguing on a FB group for Creation and against Evolution, for Flood and against Deep Time. For Angelic Movers and against Deep Space. For Freewill being real and against it being an illusion of law bound deterministic matter. That happens too.

Some who knew my MSN Group Antimodernism before it shut down in early 2009 will also know that I enumerated four authors who led me to the Catholic Faith in my youth, I can add from ages 9 to 25, to be precise ("don't be!"), these being in chronological order of my becoming their reader:

• C. S. Lewis
• J. R. R. Tolkien
• Gilbert Keith Chesterton
• Hilaire Belloc.

And the most obvious convert to the Catholic Church among these is Chesterton. CSL converted ... back to the Anglican Church he had stopped believing in after his mother died. JRRT actually did convert to the Catholic Church, but this is little known. He was too old to be received simply when his mother converted** so he had to go to Catechesis in order to convert. I think it was at age 12 he was received. Hilaire Belloc was a cradle Catholic, from an Anglo-French couple. The one person of the four who was first some kind of High Churchish Protestantism and then a Catholic, like my own case, was Gilbert.

So, if you have ever concluded he had sth to do with my conversion, you are right. He did not absolutely determine it, it was actually Tollers who gave me the clue when speaking of Anglicanism in the essay on English and Welsh, and it was in my case a matter of Church history: if the Church of England (that of CSL) or Church of Sweden (my own) were split off from the Catholic Church, I either had to defend splitting off, somehow, and it wasn't restorationism, like Joseph Smith would have defended it, or I had to sooner or later join the original Church.***

However, unlike Newman of whom I back then read only one book, the Apologia, Chesterton both accompanied my conversion and became a constant companion through my reading. So, here is on his conversion:

Why Chesterton Became Catholic: The Argument He Couldn't Escape
Catholic Frequency | 10 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1pp_TiUuN4

One part of my own argument was actually parallel to his, about agreeing with Catholicism, and this was the pro-life issue:

Thomas Aquinas Appears To A Pro-Choice Doctor... Then This Happens
Cameron Riecker | 9 May 202
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMISqjS4FxE

The video is slightly inaccurate in implying that Communist Yugoslavia was part of the Soviet Block. In economics, Tito was continuing while Stalin was discontinuing the NEP, the pro-Kulak policy, which as a Distributist I like. This also led to a rupture between Yugoslavia and the Warszaw Pact, I think even before it was actually formed. However, in lots of other areas, like abortion, like anti-Christian compulsory education, like secret police, it was Marxist, which as a Christian I totally abhor. Like Social Democracy has worked roughly speaking like a Fascism in economics° (also to my liking) but also has loads of Marxism, not unlike Yugoslavia. Both economies obviously functioned better than the Soviet Block, but that doesn't mean the societies were necessarily all that human. Man has other sides to his being than pure economics.

But the point is, I was already abortion banner before joining the Catholic Church. When I say abortion is murder, I'm not simply submitting to the authority of the Church, I already knew that before I accepted this authority. It was one of the reasons for accepting it. Dito for my deep hatred of contraception. Chesterton shared these, but I already had these from mother before coming to him.

And as I was also a Young Earth Creationist on the day of my reception into the Church°° (or what I took to be such), you may imagine that my take on the Galileo trial was to a high degree caught by St. Robert Bellarmine defending Biblical inerrancy. I was OK with being allowed to be Deep Timer and Evolutionist if I wanted, I was OK with being allowed to be Heliocentric. I was even more OK with not being obliged to either. The book by Sister Broomé had recommended Heliocentrism as proven scientifically by parallax, but not presented this as obliging the conscience of the faith. At least, Heliocentrism wasn't proven in Galileo's day. Since 2001, I add: nor has it been proven since.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts. Philip and James, Apostles
11.V.2026

Natalis beatorum Philippi et Jacobi Apostolorum. Ex his Philippus, cum omnem fere Scythiam ad Christi fidem convertisset, tandem apud Hierapolim, Asiae civitatem, cruci affixus et lapidibus obrutus, glorioso fine quievit; Jacobus vero, qui et frater Domini legitur et primus Hierosolymorum Episcopus, e pinna Templi praecipitatus, confractis inde cruribus, ac fullonis fuste in cerebro percussus, interiit, ibique, non longe a Templo sepultus est.

* Not sure I should call him that, many who do are girls. ** When he was 8, I think. *** In my teens I simply didn't doubt that Caerularius split off from St. Leo IX rather than the inverse, in some of my adult years, I did have such a doubt and became Romanian Orthodox between late 2006 and Pentecost of 2009, when a sermon by an Orthodox priest or bishop drove me back to Old Rome, that sermon endorsing contraception, at least implicitly. ° Specifically, the Swedish Fascist Engdahl, admirer of Mussolini and of Perón, said one of his men (Nysvenskar) was also a party member, a high ranking one, of Social Democrats, and helped form the Saltsjöbad policies. While the technical solution is different, both Fascism and Swedish Social Democracy have as obvious at least short to mid term goals that Employers and Employees should get along and the state help out so they didn't make a civil war or attempts of Revolution over wages. °° At this point, in 1988, there was not yet any CCC with its § 283. Sweden was not France and did not have Pierres vivantes. Also, converts were not required to profess an obedience and acceptance of current positions of the magisterium, a profession "John Paul II" introduced in 1990, in a wording that doesn't make the adhesion conditional on its being a traditional position, unlike Trent Session IV (sententiam quam tenuit et adhuc tenet). I professed to accept what the Church "believeth, teacheth and proclaimeth to be revealed by God"

Prayers for the March for Life / Prières pour la Marche pour la Vie

New blog on the kid : Première cause de mort en 2025 : l'avortement · Prayers for the March for Life / Prières pour la Marche pour la Vie · Répliques Assorties : Fin de vie, ça vient par elle-même

The March for Life takes place in Paris today.

La Marche pour la Vie a lieu à Paris aujourd'hui.

Mise à jour :

En direct: 19 ème marche pour la vie
Reservoir Apps | Dimanche 18 janvier 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZNK08bD3bo

A Catholic Conversion Story (from Baptism and Methodism and Non-Denominational)

Baptist to Catholic!! (Why Did She Become Catholic?)
Catholic Truth | 26 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpBzv6T1M3M

Her research involves "the Catechism" meaning CCC. She found it heavy for beginners. I found it heretical on § 283.

My own research, mostly prior to it even existing, both before and after conversion, involved 5 Catechisms, like "Katholsk Katechimus før det Apostoliska Vikariat Danmark" and "Grand Catechisme de St. Pie X"* (the latter is the three latter parts of a five part work, the first two, I haven't read "Petit Catéchisme" also involves "Premières Notions")./HGL

* Excerpt:

35 Q. In what state did God place our first parents, Adam and Eve?
A. God placed our first parents, Adam and Eve, in the state of innocence and grace; but they soon fell away by sin.
...
38 Q. What chastisement was meted out to the sin of Adam and Eve?
A. Adam and Eve lost the grace of God and the right they had to Heaven; they were driven out of the earthly Paradise, subjected to many miseries of soul and body, and condemned to death.

39 Q. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, would they have bee exempt from death?
A. If Adam and Eve had not sinned and if they had remained faithful to God, they would, after a happy and tranquil sojourn here on earth, and without dying, have been transferred by God into Heaven, to enjoy a life of unending glory.

Catechism of St. Pius X
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286

Highlight from one thread:

Luke Rutherford

@LukeRutherford-c6s

The most terrifying thing I ever did was fall madly in love, 15 years ago, with a highly conservative very young Catholic woman with 11 siblings for whom birth control was unthinkable. At one stage I was regularly shaking with anxiety about what marrying my beloved would mean. When I finally let go of the evil influences that made me think that a traditional Catholic marriage had to be miserable my whole life took off, especially emotionally.

As you settle into your new faith, please be open to not denying yourself the freedom and joy of using your body as it was intended.

It would seem, my views on things seem to be relevant to some

This post is more than two and a half years old.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Gavin Ortlund challenged the Catholic View of Apostolic Succession
Wednesday, May 3, 2023 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 2:23 AM
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/05/gavin-ortlund-challenged-catholic-view.html

In it, I link back to a video by Gavin Ortlund. You see, the post is basically my series of comments on his video. With or without ensuing debate.

This means, someone can go back to the video and answer me, which some guy did. So, the post was updated with that piece of dialogue today.

Unfortunately MTB MTB is both an empty channel (no content viewable on it, neither own videos, nor link to other things by oneself, nor to videos one liked, unlike my own channel Hans-Georg Lundahl which shows my name, which provides 13 links in the description and which also allows you to view videos I liked, more than one playlist of favourites) and anonymous. It would have been fun to shame the actual person of MTB MTB for his ineptitude.

But ineptitude it is.

The comment he answered is:

10:36 Btw, Catholics are not bound by "scholars" as scholars, we are bound by bishops (especially in agreement across centuries) as bishops.

MTB MTB supremely ignores all the dialogue between me and Don Haddix, just answering my actual initial comment. But more than that.

Note, I didn't say "Catholics aren't bound to Protestant scholars" or "Catholics aren't bound to Catholic scholars" but I said "Catholics aren't bound by 'scholars' as scholars." His first words are:

of course you are not bound to any catholic scholars ...

The fact is, he was confused about what I was saying in my comment.

If you want to totally dismiss their opinions or the opinion of Dr. Gaven, guys who have taken the time to study religious history.

I have personally taken the time to study religious history, if not on university levels, at least on a pretty expert amateur level. And as for simple time added up, given that Gavin is 42 and I'm 57, given that I started in my teens, I was studying religious history when he was getting diapers changed. Also, as he is a pastor, he had to study lots of other things, he has to preach on the whole Bible, provide to all needs of a congregation, I could actually concentrate on religious history, which led to my conversion. However, you could state his time spent at university compensates for that. Newsflash. Universities are different. They contradict each other. It's not as if all people who study these things arrive at Gavin Ortlund's conclusions, and then there are Catholics who never bother to open a Bible or study religious history. No. Catholics have universities and university level Seminars too. We invented them, in fact. And among these, not all are Modernists, like the Catholic scholars that Gavin Ortlund finds credible.

I don't dismiss the scholarly opinion of Gavin Ortlund because it's a scholarly opinion, but because it contradicts the unanimous sense of Catholic bishops, who, as per Matthew 28 verses 16 to 20, have a very specific promise that scholars as scholars don't have. Remember, the scholars who rejected Jesus were also competent scholars.

So, his first comment is a non sequitur.

But what about his last one (so far) today?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@mtbmtb705 "most bishops and popes agree that their dogmas are not found in scripture."

You might want to source that.

Some parts of the Christian life are found in "traditionibus non scriptis" but that's basically Bible canon, the sign of the Cross, what days to fast on, Sunday worship.

The main source of divergence between Catholic and Protestant are exegesis of precisely Scripture.

MTB MTB

@hglundahl brother i don't need to source anything. You agree with me on your rebuttal. You said "traditionus non scritis" is basically the same as the bible. You just proved my point. Your church believe that tradition and scripture have the same authority. Therefore, when something you practice is not on the bible, you can always say, well tradition has the same authority as the written word of God. In which i rest my case.

If you want my answer verbatim, go to the post, it's updated to include this bit of dialogue. But the point is, MTB MTB either doesn't realise or doesn't care, to a Catholic, practises are a different thing from doctrine. Jesus is true God and true Man. Doctrine. Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist, not just during the service, but also in whatever host is kept afterwards, to give Communion to the sick, to provide if too few hosts are consecrated and so on. Doctrine. Keeping hosts after Mass, practise. Kneeling down to the Tabernacle, practise. We source the first DOCTRINE to John 1, we source the second DOCTRINE to Matthew 26:26. We are OK if the practises are logically consistent with the doctrines, we certainly feel no need to source every PRACTISE to the Bible. We certainly do NOT believe this quote from the Westminster Larger Catechism:

Q. 109. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself;* ...

Here, that Puritan Catechism states that PRACTISES can only be licit if God Himself (and given the rest: in the Bible) has instituted it. We disagree. The Rosary is not illicit if it was given by the Blessed Virgin Mary to St. Dominic of Guzmán in a vision, even if that vision is outside the Bible, and even if that view on the origin of the Rosary should be false (I don't think it is, but it may have referred to a different Rosary), even if the Rosary had been assembled over several centuries by pious men only, it would still be licit. When it comes to the Rosary, Puritans also have a recourse to a fake translation of Matthew 6:7, as if Our Lord had ever forbidden repetitive prayers. But similar things apply to reserving the priesthood for celibates in the Latin rite (Pope St. Gregory IX) or reversing that (Pope Michael I), deciding what languages are used in liturgy and how languages are pronounced**

Is there Biblical support for this doctrine? Yes. The Law of Moses doesn't allow for anyone other than the current High Priest to offer sacrifice on Yom Kippur at the Altar of Incense. Nevertheless, Zachary seems to have done that in Luke 1. It doesn't allow for more than one person to be High Priest at the same time, but Mark 11 speaks of the High PriestS, note the plural.

Given this is the case, when it comes to what we need explicit support for in the Revelation that was closed at the death of the Last Apostle, we do that with doctrine, not necessarily with practise. MTB MTB presumes I share a scruple of conscience with him that I simply don't share. And he believes recalling this scruple gives him some kind of "moral" high ground which it doesn't, and he simply ignored my actual words in the previous comment. I had spoken of dogma, not of practises, and given a short list of practises and one doctrinally relevant axiom (Bible canon) as the things which are obliging on Christians while not being in the Bible. I had very explicitly stated that most differences weren't due to Catholics either having or (on his view) "inventing" traditones non scriptas, but to what we actually find when we open the Bible. I had also explicitated that my view of Protestants "not finding" certain Catholic doctrine in the Bible is identic to my and presumably his view on Jews not finding Jesus in Isaias 53. He just ignored that.

I wonder what type of person it is? A Protestant with Alzheimers and a bad mood? "brother i don't need to source anything." While "brother" seems like an effort to be polite and cordial (I'm not calling him "brother", I am polite but not that cordial), the rashness of "I don't need to source anything" could be bad mood. A teen who is overconfident (in which case the cordiality could be genuine, if naive)? A woman who's a shrink, called in by some of these categories? I don't know. Of late, Protestant families (and yes, I have Protestants in the family) have started to react more vehemently or at least acrimoniously to Catholic conversions. I have this testimony from Sips with Serra, from LizziesAnswers, I think at least one more, but can't recall which one.

Either way, being ignored by Gavin Ortlund and attended to by "nobodies" who literally go through very disembodied youtube channels to debate me, it's a chore. I have had runins with Kevin Henke who's overconfident about how history is or "should be" done. He overproceduralised every response, possibly in reaction to perceiving me as doing so. But he stopped after my mother died. Joseph Foster is older, retired in 2009. David C. Campbell is older, probably also retired, though still digging, not sure when.*** Time that could have been spent on courteous debate, each knowing and to some degree respecting where the other one is coming from, is misspent because people older than me have gathered together to dismiss me before the rest of the world, and risk as little debate as possible with me, and that little spent on "correcting" what they consider as beginner's mistakes in a rooky, and which aren't so.

So, if to them, my views on things aren't relevant as a surprising and enlightening contribution to the conversation, they are at least relevant as a nuisance that should in some way be dealt with. And bad performance, sometimes bad form, in debates on the internet is not the worst I've seen.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Return of Boy Jesus from Egypt
7.I.2026

* The answer goes on, but I cut it short where we can see the difference between Catholics and Protestants in a very sharp light. ** In 800, or just previous years, the diocese of Tours decided to upgrade the Latin pronunciation to a more international and conservative one, as a result this wasn't understood by lay people, and as a result of that, one decided to add a sermon in the popular language to explain the Gospel or Feast day and how it relates to the Gospel. Sermons during Christian worship aren't in the Bible. The Sermons by St. Peter (Acts 2) or St. Paul were missionary and catechetic sermons. *** Kevin Henke is Geochemist as per article, Joseph Foster is a Linguist, David C. Campbell is a Palaeontologist.

Le caté de nos jours ...

Dans une réponse (sur Quora) à une question sur "Thiéia", je me déclarais Créationniste Jeune Terre ET Géocentrique.

Quelqu'un m'accusais d'être Musulman.

Je citais le martyrologe de Noël (pour la partie chronologique de ma réponse et avec les précisions doctrinales que les Musulmans certainement ne partagent pas) et il répondit "Je suis Catholique et" (il remplaçait le texte pour les derniers mots avec un phylactère en image) "je t'em..."

Pour moi, il a davantage en commun avec les antifas qui font bruit quand les AfD proposent un débat poli, qu'avec les Scholastiques de l'Université de Paris. Pas juste dans la doctrine, mais en plus dans les manières./HGL

Against a Person Who's Pagan in Symbolism, but Science Believer as Much as New Atheism

I will here only go into the things he called "the basic problems" as these are a full skirmish of attacks on Christian truth.

0:00 In 2016, the New Atheist movement began 0:04 to fall out of fashion as figures like 0:06 Jordan Peterson spearheaded a Christian 0:09 revival among young Western men looking 0:11 for meaning and identity.

So, like me, he thinks the Jordan Peterson approach will fail, it has never been mine since I was a Baptised Christian (and only marginally a few moods of the time before that). But he thinks Christianity itself will also fail:

Why Christianity is failing to 0:44 win over so many young men and why I 0:47 think a pagan revival is not only 0:50 necessary but inevitable.

Namely?

but I think that one of the 1:04 major issues Christianity is facing is 1:07 that it has not yet recovered from the 1:08 blow it was dealt by science.

Meaning, as we will see, Evolutionism.

... things like 1:21 Evolution and how long life has been on 1:24 this planet.

Life has been on this Earth (which isn't a planet) for a few days less than Earth itself has existed, sth like 7200 to 7500 years ...

Christianity runs counter to everything 1:31 that we know about the way the world 1:33 works, both intuitively and 1:35 scientifically.

Sun sets and rises approx. 12 hours apart (the night and day have a disparity that varies depending on season and latitude), and two rises or two sets are nearly exactly 24 h. apart. If you are on or very near the Poles, "setting" and "rising" are inept, since in the Summer the Sun only makes a dip, not an actual "under the horison". This works vastly better with Christianity, partly since the main fasting season is tied to Spring, around the Equinox, and partly because fasting rules are in the hands of clergy, not in the holy book itself, than for instance with Islam. Food satisfies, too much food pushes to disgust. Again, a perfect fit with Christianity. If you sow grains into the soil at the right point, they will (probably) grow up and each one carry more grain, part for next years sowing, part for eating. Again, no disagreement with Christianity.

Did you say everything we know? You actually meant sth else:

And this is part of its 1:38 selling point. It tells you, "Wait, you 1:39 actually don't have to die. The world is 1:42 suffering, yes, but if you act morally, 1:44 you will gain eternal life, and you will 1:46 see your dead loved ones again for all 1:48 eternity. Actually, Christ is coming to 1:51 save you. Rejoice.

In other words, he counts materialism as part of what we know, and refrains from trying to prove it. He "takes it for granted" as the saying goes, but without gratitude, so, not as a thing acctually granted as a favour. Thank you Chesterton!

But at the same time, 1:54 for young people who are now often 1:56 coming from a position of atheism or 1:59 religious unaffiliation, this makes it 2:02 very unconvincing.

Because they are still strictly affiliated to Scientism.

One of Christianity's 2:05 strengths historically has been that it 2:07 claimed that it was the one sole truth, 2:10 the one true path to salvation, to 2:13 eternal life. But now we can see that 2:17 much of its theology is actually not 2:20 true at all.

Oh, can you, really?

And this may sound like a 2:22 cringe Reddit argument, but it's 2:24 actually something that's a big deal. 2:25 It's actually very hard to get around.

I totally agree, and I'm far from even trying to "get around it" ... prepare for a frontal attack on anything you claim here.

2:27 The history of life on earth shows that 2:29 neither nature at large nor man was ever 2:32 in an immortal perfect state.

History as recorded by whom ...?

There was 2:35 no Eden. This is a big big issue. This 2:38 alone invalidates all of Christian 2:40 theology.

If there had been no Eden, that would invalidate all of Christian theology. But note, I disagree on the proposition you make about Eden's existence.

We also know that man is only 2:42 one species among billions which have 2:45 walked this planet make it quite 2:47 improbable that the whole universe 2:50 revolves around man.

There isn't even any point. If one kind (note, I don't use the word species, which in Linnean connotations would to some exclude pre-Flood races like Neanderthals and Denisovans) is in fact created in God's image, and alone has notional language (I said notional, not pragmatic, there is a difference). THEN. It doesn't matter whether the other kinds are ten, ten thousand or ten billion, that Image of God is still infinitely more important than any other kind.

And there are many 2:52 other issues which evolution and the 2:54 history of life on earth presents for 2:56 Christianity.

Or would present if the Evolution were a solid observation or conclusion or if the "history" were actually recorded, not guessed.

Like we now know that 2:58 there were many other hominids living 3:00 alongside of man and that humanity 3:02 actually interbred with these homminids.

You mean the race called "Homo sapiens", sole survivor of the Flood, interbred with men of other races? Sounds about as much of a problem as a Ku Kluxer claiming Candace Owens is just Adamite on the side of her white ancestry. It would be more interesting if the Klan and its mentor Isaac La Peyrère were in fact right to claim Black people don't descend from Adam or if you were in fact right in claiming Neanderthals don't belong to humanity.

What 3:13 about these other hominids? What about 3:14 hominids that we interbred with? We are 3:17 part of these species. Do they get 3:19 salvation? Do they have souls?

I don't know if Noah had a Neanderthal mother or some daughter in law of his had a Neanderthal father (either way, the Neanderthal would not transmit the one gendered ancestral marker, Y or mitochondria, and the person on the Ark would not transmit the other, a woman having no Y chromosome and a man certainly having mitochondria but not transmitting them). But I do know the mother of Noah and the father or fathers of his daughters in law descended from Adam and Eve. They were candidates for salvation or damnation, just as much as the persons on the Ark. And dito for the Denisovan somewhat more distant ancestry, or so I presume.

A Neanderthal who ate other men is presumably in Hell. A Neanderthal who ate mainly pine nuts (as the twelve in El Sidrón, whom God may have remembered in the twelve sons of Jacob and the twelve apostles), can very well be in Heaven. (Yes, we can know what they ate bc dental calculus).

and the 3:21 discovery of life on other planets, 3:23 which I think we will soon learn is 3:25 actually not at all uncommon, will only 3:27 add to this theological dilemma.

Didn't people like Jules Vernes and Flammarion think it would already be a fact by 2000? Why the delay?

But seriously. "Discovery" means either going there or them coming here and actually proving they are from one of the planets around α Centauri or whatever.

Have you considered the physics of space travel, apart from comic books and the George Lucas brand of fantasy? Voyager has taken 50 years to get less than one light day up, and your cosmology proposes α Centauri is four light years away. 4 * 365 * 50 = 73 000 years. A space ship is not an ideal living environment. Supposing no God intervened, just what would naturally happen, a crew on such a Voyage would kill each other off in quarrels about who gets to reproduce and who gets to be killed for not wasting air. Even if you built a space ship as big as a hotel, supposing you could propel that into space.

Any creature about our capacity would on α Centauri's surrounding planets face about equal problems coming here. Any creature "advanced" enough to make it would very arguably be a spiritual creature and could as easily be a deceptive demon.

Suppose instead α Centauri is about one light day away, it would still take 50 years with present technology, but any planet around it would be about as small as the planets in the charming The Little Prince. I e, not a place where life could have evolved in rude competition. Only a place where life could have been placed or preserved by God Almighty.

This is 3:30 not something that's going to go away.

Nor is it something that's going to come, given the constraints that won't go away, unless it's demons. Or, if we are very lucky, two space travellers still upcoming, Henoch and Elijah. But Apocalypse 11 indicates, they won't be as appreciated as they should be, by most.

3:32 Now, you can get around this by taking a 3:35 symbolic approach, which is what Jordan 3:37 Peterson did. And I think that's partly 3:40 why he was so popular. He managed to 3:43 basically sidestep the new atheists, the 3:45 Sam Harris types, by taking a symbolic 3:48 approach and moving the conversation 3:50 away from what is literal, away from 3:52 science and evolution to questions of 3:55 meaning and purpose.

There can't be a literal meaning and purpose unless there is a literal truth. You can't have "Reincarnation is my purpose, but I believe there is no soul that survives the body" just as much as you can't have "heaven is my purpose, but I believe there is no soul that survives the body" and just as much as Krishna's soul (according to a poet in a dream) or Hercules' ascending to Heaven or Olympus and being hailed as divine can't be your purpose if you believe there are no souls and there is no Hindoo Heaven or abode of the gods in Mount Olympus.

And I'm not at all 3:57 against taking a symbolic approach when 4:00 I talk about the meaning of pagan myths. 4:01 I do this all the time.

Well, I don't, respecting old pagans more than Nietzscheans, I prefer taking their myths literally and see where exactly they went literally wrong.

But again, 4:04 Christianity makes a claim to absolute 4:06 truth. So this is a big issue, 4:08 especially for Christianity.

Or for Scientism, your actual religion. The actual purpose for which your pretended religions are taken only symbolically.

And if you 4:10 take a symbolic approach, Eden was not 4:13 literal. It is just representative of 4:15 man's state before higher consciousness, 4:18 before knowledge.

Er, no. If Eden is not literally true, it is literally false. And if Eden is literally true, then "man before knowledge" is literally false. Man before language is literally false. Which I think I have proven (and Tomasello hasn't tried to disprove me) independently of the Christian story, though the actual event putting man with knowledge after a sheer absence of such a thing isn't independent of the events in the story.

Then that also means 4:20 that salvation is not real. There's not 4:22 actually any heaven or hell. And that 4:24 again causes a big issue for 4:26 Christianity's claims.

Some pretended Catholics would dispute that. Fr. Sébastien Antoni presumably thinks there is heaven and purgatory, since otherwise being a Catholic priest (of very doubtful validity) would make no sense. But perhaps he denies Hell, and in doing so, wreaks unbalance into the scheme about Heaven.

Because, if Heaven and Hell existed, but Adam and Eve didn't, the "God" who set that up would be about as unjust as Calvin's. And if Hell didn't exist, the "God" who incarnated in Jesus and said Hell was real, would be about as dishonest as the Oracle of Delphi.

While pagan 4:29 morality rests in this world, how we can 4:31 observe the world actually works.

Oh, you mean the Stoic and Epicurean moralities that Pagans rejected in favour of Platonism even before they became Christians?

Because if you go North, you'll see Celts fighting without shields because they believe reincarnation and death is just an illusion, and you will see Vikings commit suicide because dying by a sword qualifies for Valhalla, but dying from sickness for the bleakness of Hel.

The 4:33 cycles of order and chaos, life and 4:36 death, ancestry, these concrete 4:38 observable things. Christianity's 4:41 virtue, morality, all rests on this 4:44 idea, this narrative that we were once 4:47 immortal in Eden.

Loads of commandments actually do rest on observable things. People who have sex but no children tend to live old age lonely. People who have no children but also no sex have an option of a monastic community. Or living a hermit's life.

To allow homosexuality, contraception, abortion is actually to allow people to "have sex but no children". Thereby causing this problem of loneliness.

To illustrate the weakness, check this by Snarky Jay:

HOLLYWOOD KILLED the MENTOR Archetype... And It’s RUINING Stories.
Snarky Jay | 1 Aug 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uFzivpfrBY

My response is, Malthusian Demographics killed the respectability of Mentorship and my life is ruined by failed mentors who a) won't allow me to mentor anyone and b) don't have enough people to mentor without drafting me against my will and every inclination. They should have invested in grandchildren instead!

20 to 24 were by sex 4.6 / 4.7 % in 1977, when Obi Wan Kenobi was a golden era for the Mentor archetype. They are 3.4 / 3.2 % now. If we count "mentor age" as anything above 60, omitting 100+ which was and is less than 0.1 % for either sex the percentages were in 1977: 6.3 / 8.4 % from 60 to 94, and in 2025 are: 11.5 % men from 60 to 94, 13.1 % women from 60 to 99.

Normally, mentorees should outnumber mentors. This means mentors (and mentor wannabes) outnumber mentorees. Someone answered her video like this:

It's because one of the chief duties of a mentor is to point out their student's flaws and mistakes, and these stories are written by narcissists who absolutely cannot tolerate having someone point out their flaws and mistakes.

That might be what one becomes if one has too many mentor wannabes spending too much of one's own life telling one one's flaws and mistakes, not agreeing between them and not seeing when their comment is superfluous, because that would make them superfluous. The reason mentorees should outnumber mentors is so that a mentoree could spend lots of his time at work simply doing his work, including his flaws, and only a smaller part pruning off the flaws. What we do with pleasure, we do well, taught Aristotle. But too much mentoring and too much pointing out of real or supposed flaws destroys the pleasure.

So, mentor wannabes backfire against the gut reaction by labelling those who disagree with being mentored by them as "narcissists" and to make that word stink, they also label very manipulative and hurtful people, people who invent flaws and mistakes to put the other down, as "narcissists" ...

A situation which could have been avoided if some people back in their own (often enough) mentoree age hadn't been so eager to use a certain rubber contraption and if their mentors hadn't appreciated how less time spent with children not yet existing means more time spent with mentors already not quite as golden as Obi Wan Kenobi. Wonder if this contributed to Alec Guiness converting?

@purely_catholic
The Amazing Catholic Conversion of Alec
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/n2Qmc8NJetQ

It's on record that the confidence he inspired in a Norman boy when dressed as Father Brown contributed a lot.

We have fallen and we 4:48 will again receive salvation in heaven.

That's actually misrepresenting "salvation" since we believe the broader concept involves justification, well before we die, usually, sanctification starting with justification over many years. And then finally also the salvation from which one cannot fall, dying in Christ. And those who yearned most for it have contributed lots to earth, it's probable Medieval Christendom would not have existed if in support of St. Clothilde there hadn't also been St. Genevieve, and if she hadn't helped to ward off Attila, before Clothilde's husband arrived. Your world view won't allow for this, but I believe that the prayers of Genevieve were helped by the prayers of St. Simon the Stylite.

4:51 Of course, if we follow Christ or we 4:53 will go to hell. And if that's not true, 4:56 then none of its morality makes sense. 4:57 It all falls apart.

Not as drastically as secular morality, to be sure. See what I said about mentors and mentorees!

To believe in 4:59 Christianity is to have blind faith in a 5:02 reversal of all of the laws of nature at 5:05 the last moment for the sake of man 5:07 alone.

More like a reversal of one process in nature, that being death. But also, the faith isn't blind, we saw the first fruit of the Resurrection and His linen shroud.

Also not "for the sake of man alone" since: a) it's for the Glory of God, b) angels will rejoice at our resurrection and c) lower creatures will be released. It says there are no animals in heavenly Jerusalem, not that they don't exist anywhere on earth.

Christianity calls on 5:13 you to forgive your enemies, betray your 5:15 own family, give up tribe, tradition, 5:18 nation, wealth, and worldly power for 5:21 the sake of a promise otherworldly 5:24 reward in heaven. But these things which 5:26 Christ asks you to renounce in the New 5:28 Testament are all the things necessary 5:31 for a people to survive and thrive in 5:33 the real world, which makes Christianity 5:35 even more unconvincing in this time of 5:37 crisis in the West.

A people can consist of Christians without consisting only of people making the extreme sacrifice of some Christians. Because those extreme sacrifices are not required of each Christian. Also, I would dispute that leaving or trying to change your "tribe" would constitute a betrayal.

To renounce tribe, 5:40 family, tradition, to forgive your 5:42 enemies, is to depend wholly on the idea 5:45 that you will be granted a personal 5:47 immortality in heaven as a reward, and 5:50 that the fate of your kin and your 5:51 descendants on earth will not matter 5:53 because the world will end anyway.

Those who renounce family for Christ a) don't have children (most of the Apostles), b) take their children along (St. Peter is said to have taken his daughter St. Petronilla along) or c) leave their children in good hands (St. Nicolas of Flüe). As to tradition, by now our traditions are Christian, so it's you Symbolic Neo-Pagans and also Literal Science Believers who are renouncing them.

When you can't take revenge and sometimes even when you can, forgiving your enemies is the better option for your children (note, for some concerned with my own case, forgiving enemies and submitting to them are two different things). When Kriemhilde wanted revenge on Hagen and even her brother Gunther, this meant Hagen killed her son Ortlieb.

We 5:56 have to remember that every Christian 5:58 since Christ all the way through the 5:59 Middle Ages believed that the end of the 6:02 world, Revelations, was coming very 6:04 soon, like in their lifetime. This was a 6:06 belief held all the way throughout the 6:08 Middle Ages.

No. It was a belief that the end times could come very soon. Epistola Adsonis ad Gerbergam reginam de ortu et tempore antichristi states that as long as the principal kingdoms of Christendom, namely France and Germany stand, Antichrist isn't coming. France as a kingdom, depending on how you count, fell between 1830 and 1870. Germany in the sense of Holy Roman Empire fell when Charles I left Hofburg in Vienna. By the way, it's Revelation, not "RevelationS" ...

And if you think that the 6:10 world is going to end in your lifetime 6:12 or shortly after, that obviously is 6:14 going to change how you act very much.

Not necessarily. Or, if you really insist, there are some long term projects which the Middle Ages had the good sense to leave alone. Like space travel "for the sake of our future" (arguably Nimrod's project in Babel, even if he totally lacked the means and know-how)

6:16 Now, I know there will be lots of people 6:17 in the comments saying that I am 6:19 mischaracterizing Christianity or that I 6:21 don't really understand it. They will 6:23 point to the warrior values of medieval 6:26 Catholicism. But I am specifically 6:28 talking about what Christ himself tells 6:30 you to do in the New Testament, not 6:33 later paganized versions of the 6:35 religion.

I disagree with the notion that Medieval Catholicism was "Paganised" ... if you think you have a point about the imminence of the Eschaton, actually "this generation" means the Church. And it hasn't passed away before all these things come to pass.

Meanwhile, as you take Paganism "symbolically" and Hercules as "an ideal" (and you taught me poor old Nietzsche did so), St. Paul mentioned when you worship Hercules (creature) instead of God Almighty (Whose might inexhaustible was deduceable to Pagans), you risk ending up as a pansy. See Romans 1. So, arguably, Nietzsche did a lot to put our civilisation and our tribes into danger, and I don't mean by being one marginal inspiration to Hitler among others.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St. Nahum
1.XII.2025

Sancti Nahum Prophetae, in Begabar quiescentis.

PS. The video of which I answered the first section is this one:

Why A European Pagan Revival is Inevitable
The Ark | 29 Nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YttBKKCvtr8

And the stats I gave are from the US census, over here in Europe, the greying of society is even worse than in the US./HGL

PPS, in the film Cromwell, Sir Alec Guiness didn't play the title character, but King Charles. May also have helped his conversion./HGL

The US is now celebrating Thanksgiving

Don't miss how St. Margaret Clitherow was executed for Catholicism on Good Friday!

Or (towards the end) how a Catholic Indian contributed to the eponymous Thanksgiving.

How One Catholic Saved Thanksgiving
Christine Niles | 27.XI.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyQ3s9-6XA8

Christine Niles quotes this article:

Thanksgiving History: Squanto, Friend of Pilgrims, Was a Catholic
Jay Copp | Features | November 24, 2022
https://www.ncregister.com/features/thanksgiving-history-squanto-friend-of-pilgrims-was-a-catholic

Erica Seelman's Testimony

Erica Seelman's Mixed-Marriage Catholic Conversion
Keith Nester | 28 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycdM_JEGxmo

Vive le couple !

VERBALISÉ pour avoir chanté 'Jubilate Deo' à Montparnasse
Napo | 11 juin 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrh3XuA9HTo

Moins gentille nouvelle sur les agents de sécurité./HGL

PS, vin pour une bonne cause* :

Un bon VIN pour une bonne ŒUVRE : Sauvez leur ABBAYE
Napo | 9 juin 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UP4u6pBARk

https://divinebox.fr/jouques/

Responding to Answers in Genesis

Overall a pretty good video, but there were some snide remarks against Roman Catholicism ...

Most Christians Don’t Know THIS About Embryo Screening
Answers in Genesis | 21 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxlwdXRCJQI

[omitting a personal question]

13:16 "we will not be clothed in our own works"

Actually, being clothed in the righteousness of Christ does mean being clothed, also, in the works He has prepared for us to do.

Ephesians 2:8 through 10 (you know, Protestants prefer only reading on to 9) and 1 Cor 3:12.

14:11 If the Church is Jesus' Body, arguably, salvation is through the Church.

14:44 George Verver sent my mother on that mission to Italy.

My mother when arriving found Roman Catholics were Christians. Btw, if they had been Evolutionists, I don't think they would have given her that impression. Two Roman Catholics who are Young Earth Creationists are of Italian descent (Robert Sungenis and Kennedy Hall).

So, when my mother went there, she prepared my conversion, which took place in 1988.

17:08 Yes, they turned away from God around Babel (a k a Göbekli Tepe, and if you look at it, archaeologically, it is kind of "Guatemala" like ...)

---

More content in this format, link to video and comments, sometimes on side issues, on the blogs: Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere (ENG) Wherein the label Answers in Genesis Répliques Assorties (FR) Antworten nach Sorte (DE)

Christine Niles, News

Rosary Beats Rogan, Nigerian Nuns Kidnapped, Cover-Up Cardinal to DC & more | CATHOLIC NEWS ROUNDUP
Christine Niles | 9.XII.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huxHLH9zKSE

I have Consistently Said, a) I am Catholic, b) I'm a Writer, c) I Intend to Get Married

New blog on the kid: I have Consistently Said, a) I am Catholic, b) I'm a Writer, c) I Intend to Get Married · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere:Is It Licit to Point Out Who the Man of Sin Is or Isn't? Overall Yes · All the Bible is Essential Doctrine, If You Have Time to Read

If anyone takes me as having said sth which would exclude me from being Catholic, he has not dared to take that up with me.

Lots of people have questioned me being a writer. But ...

• I do write
• people do read me
• occasionally, I even get money from what I write.

Whether, when I hold up a cardboard with my blogs*, the man who gives me extra much thinks my writing is great or thinks I'm mad, but due to my writing a special case among madmen, warranting some special delicacy, doesn't totally matter for this purpose. Either way, I actually do get money for having written and money for proposing what I have written as sth to read. For the record, many seem to actually have some joy at seeing me, and having an occasion to give me sth, and it sometimes seems to correlate to when I've given a forceful defense of Young Earth Creationism or of Catholicism. However, there is a certain risk that those who enjoy the defenses of YEC, right where I am, often are on the non-Catholic to Anti-Catholic spectrum, and that means, they could be confusing a defense of Young Earth Creationism with:

• Sola Scriptura
• or theologemes that they think they can deduce from Scripture, if unhampered by Catholic Tradition.
  
  
  • About soteriology
  • or ecclesiology
  • or sacramentology.

That some of them do so, would in and of itself not be a total disaster. The disaster is when Catholics pick on to their view and try to stamp me as non-Catholic for being Young Earth Creationist.

I do not claim to know whether Anthony Stine's refusal to engage with a colleague, but one poorer than himself, is due to this or was due to this, and if when I give good reasons why YEC is the consistent position precisely for a Catholic, they want some other reason to avoid me. Like "date-setting" or for that matter calculating who the Antichrist is.

Now, there is a real authority** against this, namely:

We decree and ordain, with the approval of the sacred council, that nobody -whether a secular cleric or a member of any of the mendicant orders or someone with the right to preach by law or custom or privilege or otherwise — may be admitted to carry out this office unless he has first been examined with due care by his superior, which is a responsibility that we lay on the superior’s conscience, and unless he is found to be fit and suitable for the task by his upright behaviour, age, doctrine, honesty, prudence and exemplary life. Wherever he goes to preach, he must provide a guarantee to the bishop and other local ordinaries concerning his examination and competence, by means of the original or other letters from the person who examined and approved him. We command all who undertake this task of preaching, or will later undertake it, to preach and expound the gospel truth and holy scripture in accordance with the exposition, interpretation and commentaries that the church or long use has approved and has accepted for teaching until now, and will accept in the future, without any addition contrary to its true meaning or in conflict with it. They are always to insist on the meanings which are in harmony with the words of sacred scripture and with the interpretations, properly and wisely understood, of the doctors mentioned above. They are in no way to presume to preach or declare a fixed time for future evils, the coming of antichrist or the precise day of judgment; for Truth says, it is not for us to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority. Let it be known that those who have hitherto dared to declare such things are liars, and that because of them not a little authority has been taken away from those who preach the truth .

This is however a disciplinary rule. It's from Session XI of Lateran V, held on 19.XI.1516. The inofficial heading is "on how to preach" ... which shows that it is as disciplinary as 813, Tours, stating that after the reading of the Gospel in Latin, the priest needs to add an explanation in the popular language, more specifically Theodisc or Rustic Roman.

Note please, laymen are not directly mentioned, only indirectly insofar as a layman could have a venia praedicandi. Lay writers are not mentioned. As it is disciplinary, it's not a dogmatic definition about what Jesus meant with "day and hour" ... If you have a parish in either Finland or Poland, Ireland or the Hurons in pre-colonial times, I don't think the Theodisc language would be much good (I think it is exclusive rather than inclusive of Swedish and English, would apoply to only Low and High German, certainly not to the other languages of Finland and Ireland, namely Finnish and Gaelic) and the Rustic Roman tongue would not be much better. The Council of Tours from 813 is simply not expressing just eternal truth, just quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus. It is adding time and place specific rules for the then and there. I think it would be as disastrous to apply this from Lateran V to the actual end times.

It is possible that Pope Leo X thought, when promulgating this, that it would suffice all the way up to the end times, that Catholic morality, rather than specifics from prophecy, would suffice to identify the Man of Sin. He somewhat later in Decet Romanum Pontificem (which he ordered to be nailed to Church doors, with a specific twist of irony) ordered people, not indeed to kill Luther, but to reduce his existence to utmost misery, to bare necessities, and to a dire need to submit just in order to survive. We know very well he was not able to get this through. While Lutheranism is somewhat eclipsed by Anglicanism and Presbyterianism, internationally, it is still fairly big in Europe, a legacy to Luther's wordly success. Similarily the bull Cum ex apostolatus was counting on the Catholic peoples to rise as a man against any man falsely promoted to, not just papacy, but even secular government, if having been taken redhandedly in the crime of heresy. Later, the Catholics of England and Ireland were certainly not able to obey this, the Stuart loyalty was a second best, and the Republic of Kilkenny or Confederation of Kilkenny, was shortlived.

The ancient order had to be eroded before it could be overthrown. It has had to be overthrown before it can be, probably soon, persecuted. When the Antichrist comes, he will not be facing a large Catholic community with a very firm grasp on Catholic morality and a stout courage to apply this in politics. He will be going after souls, and in order for souls to survive, to not damn themselves, they will have to make personal decisions with not a full support from Catholic society. Every bit of Biblical and other Catholic prophecy that can help to identify him should be scrutinised for detail, including the gematria mentioned in Apocalypse 13:18.

Some say "if we prematurely identify someone as the Antichrist, who isn't, then that will help the real Antichrist when he comes" ... only if you make the identification too firm and definite. There is such a thing as preliminary and prudential judgements. Plus, if they keep saying it too long, that will also help the real Antichrist when he will have come. Note that I use the tense of Future Perfect, rare in English colloquially spoken. Some time in the future, it will be a fact already past, that the Antichrist has come. This is true whether the coming itself is, to us now, future, past or present.

So, to call someone a non-Catholic, because he is giving specific options for who the Antichrist and the False Prophet might be, is indeed a non sequitur. Given that loads of my production actually do not deal with this subject, it would seem some Catholics are infiltrated by the False Prophet or the Antichrist or both, either because they have been identified by me, or because what I otherwise promote is well argued and very apt to be a block on their road map, if it catches on.

If it were only Catholics zealous about following Lateran V, this would not be happening. They could be content that I was in error on this point and see if there was some other thing of mine they could publish, for instance in Young Earth Creationism. And if they somehow would like to pretend that Young Earth Creationism is not Catholic, they are in trouble, as long as I'm free, since that's easy to refute. They could win an oral debate by pure bullying tactics, perhaps, but not a written debate, and they would not be in a position to order me, since I'd take Cum ex apostolatus to imply among other things that a Catholic dignitary who's not YEC is only usurping the dignity.

So, if you hear these claims about me, or about what I'm supposed to have agreed to in the past, they are fraudulent: a) that I were going to become Muslim, b) that I were going to become Jew, c) that I were going to become Protestant, anything between 7DA and Lutheran, d) that I were going to join a monastery or a seminary for receiving holy orders, e) that I were going to "look for a real job" (as if I agreed to my writing not being one), namely apart from writing and from trades related to it, f) that I were going to try admission into a half-way house, g) that I were going to get over certain habits along with AA, h) that I were intent of returning to Sweden to get a life there, i) that such and such a shrink can claim I agreed to some kind of therapy, ALL of these are untrue. It may be somewhat easier for me to get the life I actually want, if people stop inventing what I am supposed to have been wanting last time they said "hello-goodbye-how are you?" and disappeared. It would also be easier if people stopped defending urban legends about Catholic teaching, discipline and other customs to the point of marginalising with premeditated intent someone challenging these urban legends.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts Lucian, Maximian and Lucian, MM, of Beauvais
8.I.2025

* Like those I linked to on:
https://linktr.ee/hansgeorglundahl
** Lateran V:
Fifth Lateran Council 1512-17 A.D.
Council Fathers - 1512-1517 A.D.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum18.htm