Par exemple ....

L'Abbé Raffray louait indirectement mon activité :

Par exemple Saint François de Sales qui était 3:47 un grand grand évêque du 17e siècle 18e 3:53 siècle [du 16e et 17e, vous voulez dire?] vous vérifiez Saint François de Sales 3:59 par exemple est très célèbre parce que il avait euh euh il imprimer des des documents qu'il distribuait 4:06 dans les boîtes aux lettres. Donc chacun on peut on peut citer par exemple Saint Maximilien Kolbe qui avait 4:12 mis en œuvre toute une imprimerie avec un journal pour diffuser l'enseignement de la foi

Rycerz Niepokalanej ... une des raisons à apprendre, si possible, le polonais.

Les deux exemples ... Saint François de Sales était évêque, le vénérable Maximilien frère et prêtre. Est-ce qu'un laïc peut suivre l'exemple ?

En effet, Gilbert Keith Chesterton et Hilaire Belloc, sans oublier Tom Zimmer, que j'ai eu l'honneur de rencontrer, étaient, les trois, laïcs. Pour Tom Zimmer, Hope 84, to honor Our Lady's Assumption, et pour Chesterton, The Catholic Church and Conversion, ou déjà Heretics, Orthodoxy, The Everlasting Man, pas besoin de préciser qu'ils écrivaient sur des sujets touchant la théologie, tout en étant canoniquement des laïcs. Hilaire Belloc ?

The Catholic Church and History (New York: Macmillan, 1926) Au moins aussi catholique que par exemple Jean Sevillia. Que j'apprécie.

Ou encore :

In the 1920s, Belloc attacked H. G. Wells's The Outline of History.		Dans les années 1920, Belloc attaqua The Outline of History [le contour de l'histoire] par H. G. Wells.
Belloc criticised what he termed Wells's secular bias and his belief in evolution by means of natural selection, a theory that Belloc asserted had been completely discredited.		Belloc critiqua ce qu'il appelait le biais séculariste de Wells, et sa croyance dans l'évolution par le moyen de la sélection naturelle, une théorie que Belloc prétendit complètement discréditée.
Wells remarked that "Debating Mr. Belloc is like arguing with a hailstorm".		Wells remarqua que "faire le débat avec M. Belloc est comme d'argumenter avec une averse de grêle."*
Belloc's review of Outline of History observed that Wells's book was a powerful and well-written volume "up until the appearance of Man, that is, somewhere around page seven".		La critique par Belloc de l'Outline of History observa que le livre de Wells était un volume puissant et bien écrit "jusqu'à l'apparaison de l'Homme, c'est à dire vers la page sept".
Wells responded with the small book Mr. Belloc Objects.		Wells répondit avec le petit livre Mr. Belloc Objects [M. Belloc n'est pas d'accord]
Not to be outdone, Belloc followed with Mr. Belloc Still Objects.		Ne voulant pas se faire surpasser, Belloc fit suite avec Mr. Belloc Still Objects. [M. Belloc n'est toujours pas d'accord]
G. G. Coulton wrote Mr. Belloc on Medieval History [in] a 1920 article.		G. G. Coulton écrivit Mr. Belloc on Medieval History [M. Belloc sur l'histoire médiévale], un article de 1920.
After a long-simmering feud, Belloc replied with a booklet, The Case of Dr. Coulton, in 1938.		Après une vendetta qui mijotait longtemps, Belloc repliqua avec la brochure The Case of Dr. Coulton [le cas le Dr. Coulton], en 1938.

Ou, est-ce qu'un laïc qui se prononce sur la théologie est obligé d'avoir fait une thèse en théologie ? Non.

Pour Tom Zimmer, je ne connais pas une telle thèse, il était vétéran de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale je pense (qui finissait à ses 19 ans), et pour Chesterton et Belloc, dont je connais les biographies un peu plus en détail, je connais l'absence d'une telle thèse. Ni l'un, ni l'autre, n'étaient docteur ou même licencié ès la Sainte Théologie.

Ce qui leur importait n'était pas restreint au salut des âmes, qui n'était pas leur responsabilité sauf bien entendu les leurs et ce qu'ils voulaient encore achever par la pénitence pour les pêcheurs, mais plutôt toute la culture catholique, moi, pareil.

Notons, Belloc n'avait jamais dans sa vie été Protestant, Tom Zimmer non plus, et les deux étaient anti-évolutionnistes. Chesterton était ambigu sur les millions d'années en soi, mais très contre l'origine prétendue de l'homme auprès des singes. Il avait au moins jamais dans sa vie été Puritain, après d'être séculariste (voire en certains temps occultiste) il devint d'abord un "Anglo-Catholic" (anglican catholisant) et ensuite Catholique tout court.

Ce serait profondement malhonnête de me prétendre, soit non-Catholique parce que je refuse l'Évolutionnisme, soit non-laïc parce que je me mêle en des question théologiques de base comme "doit-on croire en Dieu, doit-on croire en Jésus-Christ, doit-on croire qu'Il a fondé l'Église Catholique, doit-on rejeter les théories de l'Évolution et de l'Héliocentrisme". Si quelqu'un prétend "mais il doit étudier la théologie d'abord" ... non, un prêtre est obligé d'étudier la théologie, parce qu'il doit pouvoir répondre à toute question et à tout problème, cet objection est simplement une manière détourné de me tamponner comme non-laïc. Pour bien entendu pouvoir me contrôler par la discipline cléricale ou d'étudiant ou quelque, ce qui n'arrange pas mes affaires comme écrivain, pour dire les choses très gentiment.

Si l'Abbé Raffray voulait prétendre que je ne suivais pas le bon exemple de Chesterton, Belloc, Zimmer, il devait l'argumenter sur le fonds des arguments que je profère, et non sur "la forme" dans le sens de formalité ou manque de telles. St. Justin aussi était laïc.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Mercredi de Pâques
23.IV.2025

La citation de l'abbé Raffray est d'ailleurs sur la vidéo : MORT DU PAPE : OFFENSIVE DES TRADIS, sur le canal OMERTA

S'il préfère une citation du clip d'une autre vidéo, sur son propre canal, qu'il le dise !/HGL

* Belloc pratiquait en d'autres mots ce que certains ont prétendu détester chez les Créationnistes, le Gish Gallop. Le galop et l'averse de grêle sont des métaphores pour le même style d'argumentation, c'est à dire d'ajouter argument après argument pour une même chose assez vite fait.

A Jewess Pretended That She Had Proven that Jesus Could Not Be the Messiah

Her immediate argument was, she had spotted 60 times that Our Lord supposedly had contradicted the Torah. She was even writing a book about it. Note, not a blog that could become a book, or parts of which could become a book, but it's like already a book in progress.

This was under a comment I had left below a video, so, I invited her to:

• go to my profile
• get hold of my email (which is there)
• begin a correspondence debate, both of us having the full right to republish the debate on blogs of ours
• and basically get started.

Here is my youtube channel, which hasn't any videos of my own, but pretty clear contact information, links to blogs of mine and a few playlists of videos I've liked or collected:

She could have found it by clicking my handle. By the way, the uppermost playlist is about drawing and I collected pretty many by Mark Crilley on that one.

Now, let's take a closer look at how it looks on top, unfolding sth which says "et 13 autres liens" or perhaps "and 13 other links":

If we scroll down on the panel of links, we get to my email:

Another playlist is Middle Ages and Fantasy. It's more diverse. Here is the same after I click "afficher" which may be "show" where you see my channel from:

As you see, the email (while writing this) is hgl@dr.com (in the US, emails in @dr.com would typically belong to medical doctors, I intend no impersonation of that title whatsoever, just a reference to mum's and dad's profession, both were medical professionals). It is the same that you find in a tab on my correspondence blog:

So, what I was inviting her to was pretty routine for me, and would not have been impossible for her. She declined, however. She pretended she had earlier written me a declination on my offer, which I haven't found in my inbox, and that the reason for her declining was she had family in law enforcement and doesn't give personal information.

Now, I know for a very curious fact that some people consider rational reasons for their own religion or as in this case against someone else's as "personal information" .... I cannot relate, but if someone feels that way, some basic due diligence would be not to share those views on internet where it is not treated as personal information. I am very much not in this category, as I'm trying to make a living and am already making a use of my time as a Catholic Apologist. It is part of the job description to share one's rational reasons as very openly shareable information, whether they be for one's own or against someone else's religion.

Now, if she is writing some kind of Jewish Apologetic against Christianity, she obviously does not intend to treat that as personal information either. So, I suppose she meant her email and name. Here is the solution I proposed her:

You have a pseudonym for the book?

Then you can have a pseudonym in an email connected to that!

Problem solved, if that was her real issue. It could also be she was baiting me hoping that bluffs like 60 contradictions between Jesus and the Torah would make me question my faith. Not so.

I'll share one of the solutions immediately: "a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye" vs "turn the other cheek" ...

The thing to remark is, Moses is for each wronged party not insisting they must seek revenge or compensation, but only saying that it has that upper limit. That "sevenfold revenge" as for Cain or "seventy-seven-fold revenge" as for Tubal-Cain is illicit. By the way, civilian for civilian, it looks like IDF has, after October 7, taken sth more than just what Moses allowed. Sth reminding of Cain. And Christ is also not saying that revenge is totally illicit, up to the limit fixed by Moses, He is telling us, this must not be the first reaction, and some perfect people (monks and bishops) must not even have this as a second reaction. The first reaction of a private person, wronged in his own person, and not witness to God or others being wronged, and still able to bear it, must be to turn the other cheek, to seek an opportunity for peace. This is very clear from patristic comment. So, no, no contradiction here, Jesus is just making things a bit stricter than Moses made them.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Chair of St. Peter in Antioch
where first the disciples were called Christians
22.II.2025

Is John Horvath Just about the Young?

Perpetual Adolescence: When Coming of Age Doesn’t Come
By John Horvat II
http://www.returntoorder.org/2017/06/15516/

"One in three of those between the ages of 18 and 34 live with their parents."

More "immature" young ones?

Or less ease in getting the jobs they were counting on?

Less ease in getting appartments or other housing?

Less ease in getting married than ever before?

Some 30 percent of all college students drop out after their first year. A recent test of college seniors found that one-third could not make cohesive arguments, think critically, or evaluate the quality of data.

More "immaturity" in college students?

Or more college students recruited from people who could have done better elsewhere?

If so, more "immaturity" in the choice?

Or more of default choices, "faute de mieux" as they say here?

Also, it might very well be those doing that test are asking about a more specific culture than ever before.

If you were tested for coherent argumentation 100 years ago, you would probably need to avoid undistributed middles and unbacked premisses. End of story. Today, a Christian or Muslim or Animist can be "failing" simply because he is not evaluating in terms of diamat.

OK, not quite all there is to it. At certain universities 100 years ago, a Catholic believing St. Botulf came to Iccanhoe and literally evicted demons from what then became the Boston of Yorkshire might have been considered inadequate in his evaluation of quality of data too at certain universities, not least Cambridge and Ivy League with their heavily Anti-Catholic leaning. But he would not have been failing a "test". He would have been told "sorry, we think you are a superstitious Papist if you believe that kind of stuff, we don't encourage you saying it from OUR platform". This is basically the reason why Hilaire Belloc quit University after five years (coincidentally the time I have exams for, even if they took me longer).

One hundred years ago, then, maturity was not per se considered testable in the kind of tests those students failed (I have not yet looked up the link).

And, above all, one hundred years ago, so many older people would not have used so much perfidy to stamp younger particulars (or younger people in general) as "immature" and therefore needing some more mentoring. With fewer young per old and more old per young, such perfidy is one way out of a perplexity, so many old having so much to give and so few young being able or willing to listen to them. This comes from contraception and abortion.

Even so, most of the older ones are encouraging abortion at least in certain cases and are also encouraging contraception. That is not as backhanded as a man of 34 actually living with his parents. That is about as backhanded as a man of 18 planning in advance to live with his parents to 34 in an apartment made for one generation of adults + their children. And hoping that after that he will have a good job and a house of his own at 35.

Even John Horvath II will presumably admit, most of the young men and women of 34 living with their parents did not plan to do so in advance, they just failed to do better. That poses the question whether they failed to do better due to an immaturity in themselves or due to outer circumstances they could not possibly have foreseen, including but not limited to a behaviour by older people unprecedented in the West in at least recent centuries - and I would say in centuries back to Nimrod and the Pharaos or even in centuries back to before the Flood.

Even I will agree that a man of 18 agreeing to stay with a parent or grandparents with the intention of doingb so up to 34 would be a very immature person. So immature I even suppose he is part of a new mythology : less well documented than Cyclopes (at least Ulysses claimed to have seen one at uncomfortably close range).

BUT we both know that older people at once counting on pensions staying a decent outcome for old persons and encouraging contraception up to abortion do indeed exist and are indeed in a majority in the West (look where votes are going!) We know they are no more mythological than Indians learning scalping from Indian Hunters. They are no more mytholical than the Muslim Pirates of Algeria whom the French were hanging in 1830 (probably the finest moment of French Algeria, up to the ones who were walking to relieve besiged comrades with food and basically martyred for this in the shooting of 26 March 1962, rue d'Isly).

This extreme unwiseness in so many old people poses the question how much of the young are really in situations like living with parents at 34 due to being unwise themselves, and how many are so due to being pushed out of situations where their wisdom could have counted.

At 14 I was in love with a girl for the first time. I had no idea one could even imagine what I think now, that it would be a good idea to bring back marital age minima to the millennial 14 / 12 limit of the Catholic Church up to 1917. I just thought, if I could only persuade her to love me too, we would get engaged, we would fight for a life together for the four following years, we would marry at 18, when I would have made good use of my talents (including as a writer, hadn't noticed Tolkien was about 50 when he published The Hobbit - that immaturity I did have at 14! - including as a composer - even before I was good at counterpoint, before I had read the music theory I know now), but also done some less inspiring stuff for the good cause. And I probably would have.

Older people, not including my mother, but certainly including both her parents and the school we were at were very much NOT inclined to let it get even as far as my talking to her. Or, she already had fallen for my rival, whichever it was. BUT, they probably (the following is my estimate, not my knowledge) preferred getting me away from her, just in case their story should finish and she should have a weak spot for me once that happened. Their story did finish, as he told me when we were going to enroll for military service. But I was not around, I had been given the choice between Bladins - a school for mentally handicapped in Malmö - or SSHL, a boarding school, near Stockholm, involving me in full day train rides each beginning or end of holiday.

I and my mother, neither of us could have foreseen how demoralising or how infantilising for me that school would be during the 4 years I was there. The "study rector" (someone subsidiary to the principal) of that school was an old fashioned and old man (back then!) with as I learned later Kantian or close enough ideas, he seemed decent. A good change from a school where I suppose the infiltration from East German Stasi indoctrination was high, it would seem. Only later did I know Greta Olsson was not the same kind of person as Folke Åkerblom. Widow of one freemason, lover of another (whom she married when the widow pension was abolished), a kindly person to chat with, but ultimately bent on driving me away from the faith. Instead she and my comrades and harrassers got me to convert to Catholicism. Her revenge (or so it would seem) was to tell my grandmother I simply could not live in a student corridor, I had to live with her, if it was at all possible. Which I did, socially ruining my first years at university, morally ruining my first year as practising Catholic.

THIS is the kind of situation you cannot simply consider someone as victim of his own immaturity for being a victim of.

Such older persons as my grandmother or as Greta Olsson are older persons God did not create young persons to be normally facing. Not to mention the ones at the earlier school.

Could the presence of such old people be one clue why some have chosen university studies they had NO aptitude for (something one has claimed about me, without cause!) and why some are still or once again living with parents at 34?

Indeed, I think the presence of such old people is a key to understanding the immaturity of "adolescence". Back 300 years ago, a 14 old year man could be doing a farm work important enough form him to afford marriage, if he was modest about his abode, or advancing from apprentice to journeyman (=employee), or preparing to go to University at 15 (as I mentioned in connection with Cardano, with some help from a certain "Boniface"). If you analyse my intentions as here stated back when I was fourteen, you might find that I might have done better than I did, if I had not been brought to such hard choices so soon, with so little room for real good. I would have been a young adult and was forced to be socially regarded as an awkward adolescent. OK, some awkwardness there would have been anyway, I presume, I was also a fatty up to the first Lenten fast when I converted.

If you came across Maurice Cling just after he had gone through Auschwitz, without being gassed, without seeing anyone being gassed, but not without hearing of such things, would not he have given you a great spectacle of ... immaturity? Especially perhaps ... passivity? Is that because his parents (Jewish businessmen, in cloth, father decorated for service in WW-I) or the Jewish boyscouts had given him no education? Is that because Auschwitz had given him no education? Or is it because Auschwitz had given him the WRONG education, because of his being a Jew? Well, beware lest you endorse giving anyone what is in fact the WRONG education, just because he is young or - in your view - "immature".

A young man that shows up on time for work one day might claim he is “adulting.” He is not assuming adult habits but merely temporarily leaving his perpetual adolescence.

A man of 24 back 500 or 700 years ago would not necessarily have been an employee. If he had been a good journeyman from age 14, he could fairly easily have been a master of his trade at 24 (easier 700 years ago, than 200 years later). Companies were smaller and more numerous. This means that more were self employed and even employing others, fewer were employed by others (unless, as said, between 14 and 24), in the town trades.

A person of 14 has the capacity to be mature if given a chance, and modern society is built on NOT giving him a real chance until 30. Or by now perhaps 40.

Your example is an example of "(im)mature employee" from the view point of a boss. But 700 years ago, most of these employees, whether "mature" or "perpetual adolescents" (meaning bosses are taking on a role of quasi parental judges of maturity!) would not have been employees at all. Supposing they had been serfs on a manor, in some ways the serfs on a manor had more freedom than employees have now. They were certainly able to support families quicker.

Not that I particularly uphold serfdom and manorial economy as an ideal. But I am not sure those upholding employment under bosses as the most normal ideal for an adult are in a position to criticise serfdom too much. Especially not if they are blocking persons from becoming their own, if they are blocking both a writer and composer (my ambitions at 14 are not totally unrealised) and the young in the parish who could have profited as paper-editors* or performing musicians.**

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Peter and Paul
29.VI.2017

* Paper-editors : i e as by contrast with my editing the primary and for free net publication of what I write. ** Yes, I have a particular parish in mind!

PS, for what it is worth as consolation, some of today's young may be better on this:



https://www.facebook.com/nwfencingacademy/videos/10154737911255954/

... than on this:



http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/04/c-s-lewis-on-writing.html

I am not one of them./HGL

PPS, I looked at the source for one third not being able to think critically, construct a coherent argument, etc. It seems John Horvath is either a bit off on critical thinking himself or endorsing the secrecy of certain "pay only" informations for online reading.

His immediate source here on Glenn Beck's site gives no details about the test, just a speech held and supposed to presuppose it. This in turn links to an article in Wall Street Journal where the preview gives no details either and I would have to subscribe to read the rest./HGL

À propos John Todd, si quelqu'un est concerné que Tolkien aurait lu des francs-maçon ...

... alors, je suis assez sûr qu'il a lu au moins une œuvre par Mark Twain, à savoir Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offences.

Car je viens de le constater:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : A Work by Mark Twain I Think Tolkien did Read
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2017/04/a-work-by-mark-twain-i-think-tolkien.html

La pertinance? Mark Twain était - comme d'ailleurs Joseph LeMaistre - franc-maçon./HGL

Creation Ministries International and One Critic were Not Clear on Who had been Hateful

I saw this today:

CMI : Wagging a finger at creationists
Published: 21 May 2016
http://creation.com/wagging-finger

W.L. in US

I was talking about how slow the evolutionary process is compared to time scales that humans are used to dealing with on an open forum recently and you wouldn't believe the hateful replies I got from some creationists.

Keaton Halley

Since we weren’t privy to the conversation, we have no way of knowing whether your assessment of the replies is accurate. Sadly, in our culture, the “hater” charge is often recklessly leveled against those who show the slightest firmness in their response, even if they do so in love, as the Bible defines that term (1 Corinthians 13:4–13). But, if these people were genuinely “hateful”, then they were acting inconsistently with the teachings of Jesus, who told us to love not just our neighbors, but even our enemies (Matt. 5:44).

Close up:

W.L. in US

... on an open forum ...

Keaton Halley

Since we weren’t privy to the conversation, we have no way of knowing ...

Conclusion about forum conversation:

If the forum was open, W.L. could easily have linked to the thread.

Also, he could have documented by copy-pasting the arguments or posts in order, reposting on a blog of his.

That is the best way of knowing who has been hateful, unless anything is forged on his blog, and as long as forum is open and as a comment once in place cannot be edited, that is easy.

If comments can be edited, the one who has been hateful could leave the hateful words there for some time and then edit them away to a civilised comment.

If forum is not open, outsiders cannot check.

Now, there is a thing about the feedback rules of CMI.

They say they don't allow links, won't publish comments having such. Perhaps W.L. could not link or his link was edited out because of that.

Or perhaps some forum admin had deleted the thread (though W. L. doesn't say so).

These problems are one major reason why I try to copy debates I think important, and as important themes are usually not personal - at least not about others involved, or I can anonymise those who could be personally exposed - I am basically giving my adversaries in debates exposure to their ideas.

Only, I am giving it along exposure to my criticism of their ideas.

That is what blogs like these are about, in English and other languages:

HGL's F.B. writings
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com

Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com

And in English alone:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com

Though on this one I also simply comment on one or several aspects of a video, without first getting into debate, and when I do both on same video, usually it's for different posts.

Similar blogs to this last one are there in French:

Répliques Assorties
http://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com

And in German:

Antworten nach Sorte
http://antw-n-sorte.blogspot.com

For Swedish and Spanish (best and worst of my usuable languages) I tend to do it on the language specific blog, so far no debate specific blogs for those languages:

Débat om skolpligten
på bloggen På Svenska og på Dansk på Antimodernism
http://danskantimodernism.blogspot.com/2016/03/debat-om-skolpligten.html

Sostén sectario a Bergoglio en el grupo Exorcismo Católico
en el blogue En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2015/02/sosten-sectario-bergoglio-en-el-grupo.html

And in case you wonder about morality behind this thing, some few times people mind getting quoted without permission:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : I was Given Advice …
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2015/04/i-was-given-advice.html

But if someone thinks of the economic aspect, well, I have thought of being honest about that too:

Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
on Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/p/copyright-issues-on-blogposts-with.html

I think my method actually makes for more honesty than the method which either W. L. or possibly even Keaton Halley is using.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Ember Sabbath
of Pentecost Octave
21.V.2016

Could Paul Nicholson by any chance be referring to me?

Quoting via detours:

"That is why there are groups and individuals who can make a living off of bashing bishops. They survive on poorly formed Catholics. Do not follow or listen to anyone who bashes the sacred hierarchy. It is an evident sign they experience self-loathing." source, via secondary sources A and B

Er, no.

That is psycho-babble.

Expressing self loathing is, barring suspicions of facetious intent or deceptive intent, which suspicions may exist in individual cases, an evident sign that who is expressing it is experiencing self loathing.

Expressing loathing for someone else, like an evolutionist bishop, or for something else, like the fact some bishop (or supposed such) is an evolutionist, which I suspect the ecclesiastcial "Robber Baron" (guess whom I mean) to be, is instead an evident sign of who is expressing it experiencing loathing either for an individual man or for an act of such. In the case between me and Robert Barron, I am not loathing him, I just loathe his theory and try to bring it to him with some charity.

But this kind of psycho-babble which Paul Nicholson expressed here was rampant among Modernists, including Anglicans such as the late Tony Palmer.

Is it a coincidence that it comes into the open among "Catholics" (was perhaps there among MOdernists even earlier) just a few years after they accept Tony Palmer's friend Bergoglio as Pope of Rome and of the Catholic Church?

And this may just be a fluke, but the earlier of the sources I was citing was from Saturday .... the day on which I had made a comment about Antipope Wojtyla on Paul Nicholson's blog:

Telephone Newspapers: Blessed Timothy Giacarrdo
Thursday, October 22, 2015
by Paul Nicholson | on http://fatherpaulnicholson.blogspot.com/
http://fatherpaulnicholson.blogspot.com/2015/10/telephone-newspapers-blessed-timothy.html

He had written:

Happy feast day of St. John Paul II! Happy feast day of Bl. Timothy Giacarrdo! Did you know that the founder of the Pauline family, Fr. Alberione, foresaw the internet at the dawn of the 20th century. How excited he would be to use the internet to set the world on fire with the Gospel.

I expressed no reservation against Blessed Timothy Giacarrdo, nor against Fr. Alberione, but one against "St. John Paul II".

Here:

Of Saint who? His two Healing miracles are incomplete, the French nun had some relapse after miracle was recognised, the woman from South or Central America had delay before the complete remission. His own rules (if you consider he was Pope) in Lourdes state that Healing miracles there must be both sudden and without any relapse or remaining complications. And check out who Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka was! Would you canonise Lancelot or Tristan? Of course, that affair is also a kind of refutation against Dimond brothers who maintain he was the First Beast. That entity would perhaps not be so normal. Also, if that female philosopher had influence on his decision of Assisi meetings (in them selves great offenses to God), he may have had the excuse of an infatuated man following a bad idea from the woman he loved. [In other words : his sin makes him too normal to be an apocalyptic beast] Antipope Labor Solis indeed, male sunshine obfuscated by a female Moon ... if you get the symbolism. But Pope or Saint, no.

Did Paul Nicholson answer in so many words? No.

Can the above words be construed as referring to me?

It is a coincidence that first source for them is found quoting them same day as I wrote the comments.

It is also a coincidence that some have tried to stamp me as a sodomite. Even if I have little direct evidence, I have very plentiful indirect such, like Muslims spitting when they approach me begging in the street or like that confessor of St Nicolas du Chardonnet who told me I had to make a resolution, but he would not tell me which one (could also have been another rumour).

But one sentiment I do agree with, basically : it is wrong to attack the hierarchy, at least unless it has attacked you first.

However, I consider neither Antipope Wojtyla nor Antipope Bergoglio as duly part of hierarchy. I consider one was and one is an excommunicate heretic.

And is this kind of attitude such an "attack on hierarchy" as Paul Nicholson is talking about?

No, if that hierarchy has friendly relations with people like Tony Palmer who implicitly attack the hierarchy of a very LONG past, by the fact of adhering to a schism rejecting it, how can such a hierarchy become so virulent about a Catholic (or at worst in their view a recent schismatic) for rejecting very recent parts of their "hierarcvhy"?

Most of the time, I am leaving presumed (even if wrongly so) hierarchs alone. I am dealing with subjects, like Creationism. Sometimes this is construed as implying a rejection of the recent "hierarchy", which I have actually also done recently, in favour of Pope Michael (with some reservations of prudence).

But my comment was not a virulent attack on Antipope Wojtyla as a person, after writing it I actually went over to the Dimond brothers in order to defend him from charge of being in Hell and of being "the first beast". Perhaps I was wrong to do so. Perhaps I should have attacked him with more virulence. Anyway, I did not.

It is a remarcable coincidence that:

• Paul Nicholson makes a statement apparently general, but which can by some reading me be construed as implying I were a self loathing sodomite, which I am neither of;
• Michael Voris "sets a good example" by coming out as an x-sodomite (which I cannot do, since I do not have that kind of past);
• this is set in a setting where Michael Voris is said exercising "an apostolate" which I cannot in the proper sense be considered as doing, since having no missio apostolica for it;
• but Apologetics is here equated with formal apostolate in such a manner as to necessitate morally a "coming clear".

If Chesterton had had the past of Oscar Wilde (which he hadn't), I don't see why he should have been morally obliged to divulge it.

Chesterton was not in the proper sense exercising an apostolate, he was not guiding souls to virtue, he was simply pointing to truth - which you have a right to do even if not an apostle. Perhaps some Anglican puritans did insist he should come clear of his past in mediums and such, which he did in Autobiography, but he did not foreword this with any remark of this being his intention.

At any rate, no Catholic superiors were openly demanding he did so, that I know of, and if anyone prompted it from that kind of perspective, he did so secretly - in a way suggesting that this mania for equating simple intellectual apologetics with an apostolate and cura animarum was an Anglican fad and stranger to the Catholic discipline. But one to which prudentially Chesterton might give a sop, at least if doing so in a way NOT suggesting he had any formal duty to do so.

I intended in 1988 to convert to the Catholic Church that Gilbert Keith Chesterton found. I found another and much colder one. That and neither vocation per se nor homosexual guilt per se, is the sad story why, unlike Chesterton, I am still unmarried decades after my conversion.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Feast of St Mark, Gospeller
and Major Litanies
25.IV.2016

Addendum:

It may be a bit unclear also why a writer who "experiences self loathing" (if so doing) should for that reason be considered avoided reading.

I don't think the index congregation ever indexed a book as forbidden to ordinary Catholic readers just because its author expressed self loathing.

And I am of the at least vague impression that self loathing or sth like it was even recommended, like by Scupoli in The Spiritual Combat or by Our Lord in Sermon on the Mount.

This aversion to reading anyone expressing self loathing seems more Pharisaic than Christian./HGL

Est-ce que les Créationnistes sont une secte?

Il semble qu'un Australien, séculariste assumé, ait essayé de peindre un groupe créationniste comme un "cult" - ce qu'on désigne en français contemporain comme une "secte".

L'Australien en question est Ian Plimer.

Le groupe en question s'appelait à l'époque "CSF / Creation Science Foundation" et maintenant "CMI / Creation Ministries International".

Les allégations se trouvent dans le livre "Telling Lies for God".

La réponse du groupe (ou une réponse) se trouve ici:

CMI : Addressing a deeply dishonest campaign
http://creation.com/plimer-addressing-a-deeply-dishonest-campaign

En mon propre "résumé" avec ma propre explication (vous pouvez lire la leur en clicquant leur lien), et quand au mensonge qu'ils soient une secte : L'Armée du Salut n'est pas considéré une secte, car ses membres sont souvent (quoique pas obligatoirement) à la fois membres de tel ou tel confession protestante et font parfois leur culte de dimanche ailleurs que dans l'Armée du Salut. CMI a des membres uniquement parmi ceux qui appartiennent à des confessions protestantes et qui font leur culte de dimanche ailleurs. Dans l'un cas comme l'autre, qu'il s'agisse de soutenir les pauvres et de sortir des gens de l'alcoolisme ou qu'il s'agisse de soutenir une création comparablement récente, limité à six jours litérals, et un déluge global, comme je le fais moi-même (et dans le cas de CMI ils ajoutent que ni mêmes les animaux vertébrés terrestres pouvaient mourir avant la chute d'Adam, pour moi-même je suis adogmatique, vu que les Pères sont divisés là-dessus), il y a des gens de diverses confessions qui collaborent pour soutenir la cause. Celle de CMI est soutenue par des gens de très diverses confessions (dans le spectre protestant dit en anglais "Evangelical", ce qui n'est pas synonyme du français "évangélistes", un spectre beaucoup plus restreint que celui du mot "Evangelical" : il n'y a pas d'anglicans "évangélistes" mais il y a bel et bien d'anglicans "Evangelical" - ça s'appelle aussi Basse Église/Low Church, et Cardinal Newman en était avant de, par High Church s'approcher au Catholicisme auquel il va de la suite convertir). Ceci ne serait pas le cas d'une secte, comme on définit le mot sociologiquement de nos jours, car celles-ci contrôlent la totalité de la vie religieuse de ses membres.

Cet essai fait partie d'un dossier appelé:

Plimer Files
[on CMI's site]
http://creation.com/plimer-files

Pourquoi ceci concerne les Français? On n'est pas en Australie, non?

Bon, les Français sécularistes et la majorité des Catholiques (ou soi-disant tels), prennent leur information sur le Créationnisme en grande partie des sources anti-créationnistes du monde anglophone.

Ainsi, Jacques Arnould, l'ex-dominicain qui vient d'écrire (encore dominicain à l'époque) Les Créationnistes, Éditions du Cerf, Paris et éditions Fides, Saint-Laurent (Canada), coll. « Bref », 1996, base partie de son analyse sur le livre de Keating, bon apologète certes pour la Présence Réelle dans l'Eucharistie, mais hélas très biaisé contre créationnisme et géocentrisme, qui donc attribue le créationnisme au calvinisme.

Les faits sont, le Calvinisme aux États-Unis a, dans le 19e Siècle, comme les autres sectes (!) protestantes (j'utilise le mot dans l'acceptation catholique du terme) fait une division entre Modernistes (appelés Liberals) et Tradis, normalement en dehors de la High Church anglicane appelés Fundamentalists. Aux États-Unis, mais seulement là, certains "Fundamentalists" précoces ont en effet été des Calvinistes. Les Catholiques ont fait une division parallèle environ un siècle plus tard.

Bon, à cette époque là, les Catholiques étaient des créationnistes. Le commentaire biblique compilé et complété par George Leo Haydock, prêtre catholique et qui porte le nom d'un autre George Haydock, un des martyrs anglais, est un livre parfaitement catholique (le commentaire sur Jean IV déclare que, comme les Samaritains étaient une secte sans aucune autorité ou légitimité dans l'Ancien Testament, ainsi les sectes non catholiques, notemment les divers Protestants, y compris Anglicans, étaient des sectes sans autorité ou légitimité dans l'ère du Nouveau Testament) et un livre parfaitement créationniste, proche du géocentrisme (le déluge y est universel, en Josué X il ne prend pas partie pour l'explication héliocentrique, quoiqu'il dit que celle-ci ne changerait rien au miracle ... à peu près comme des catholiques conservateurs à propos d'Adam après Humani Generis).

Keating et Jacques Arnould ne disent rien dessus.

En Angleterre, un des premiers adversaires de Darwin n'était pas un Calviniste non plus. Sam Wilberforce, fils de l'abolitionniste, frère d'un converti au catholicisme, aussi biographe de son père, fait le débat contre Huxley. C'est aux États-Unis (un pays dont la souche anglophone est plus calviniste qu'en angleterre) que des pionniers du Fondamentalisme aux États-Unis (plus tard que Sam Wilberforce!) sont des Calvinistes.

Par contre, Jacques Arnould a répandu en France la contrevérité de Karl Keating que le créationnisme a ses racines (comme tel, pas juste aux États-Unis!) dans le Calvinisme. Et il est également à craindre que des gens répandent la contrevérité d'Ian Plimer (aussi séculariste que le Grand Orient ou Mélenchon ... pire que Mélenchon, paraît-il) ici en France, parce qu'il est anglophone et "donc" un expert sur le créationnisme qui serait un phénomène essentiellement anglophone. Autre contrevérité, il semble qu'un Concile à Cologne vient de condamner le livre de Darwin l'année après la sortie (en 1860, donc) et le commentaire Haydock cite abondamment des théologiens entre autres un Flamand ou deux et un Français, sans oublier un Italien.*

Aussi, l'Abbé Haydock meurt en 1849, avant la sortie de On the Origin of Species en 1859, mais Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary est republié en Nouveau York en 1859. Donc, bien avant les "origines Calvinistes" du Créationnisme aux États-Unis. Malgré les perfidies de Keating là-dessus.

Et le créationnisme n'est pas une secte, c'est une position qui coupe les lignes confessionnelles, précisément comme la position contraire, dite libérale ou moderniste. Malgré les perfidies de Plimer là-dessus.**

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre/Paris X
St. Herménégilde de Seville
13.IV.2016

* Calmet, Worthington (évêque anglais siégeant à Douai et qui envoyait des prêtres catholiques pour se faire martyriser en Angleterre), Challoner (évêque anglais, siégeant à Douai), Menochius, Tirinus, Walker (non précisé, probablement récent), Du Hamel, qui pourrait être Jean-Baptiste du Hamel (je ne trouve pas d'autre théologien appelé tel), St. Augustin d'Hippone, St. Bède, Pierre Lombard, St Bernard, Milton, St. Chrysostome, un Diodore de Tarse, me semble-t-il), un Symmaque, probablement l'Ébionite, l'hérétique Kennicott, Liranus, Claude Fleury, St. Épiphane - pour le fait qu'Adam meurt en pénitence et est donc sauvé, ce qui présuppose qu'il a été un homme réel, pas juste un personnage de par exemple allégorie, genre "un gentilhomme, nommé le Sage-Mondain" (Bunyan), Origène (cité à propos la question si les animaux purs étaient sept individus ou sept pairs, son opinion pour le second est réfuté par Calmet) (eh oui, Origène croyait, semble-t-il ici, dans un déluge réel, quoique St Augustin et St Thomas le citent comme croyant l'allégorie SEULEMENT tandis qu'il faut croire l'allégorie ET l'histoire), St Robert Bellarmin, St Jérôme, Guillaume Estius est cité souvent en chapitre 8, l'hérétique Bochart (pour la lecture "il venait en Assur" dit de Nemrod des trois versets avant plutôt que "venait Assur" dit d'une autre personne, cité comme simple possibilité), Santes Pagnino, OP, et un sigle A., probablement pour "Author" = Monsieur l'Abbé George Leo Haydock lui-même, ceci sont les commentateurs des premiers 11 chapitres de la Genèse. Pas très Américain.

** La raison pourquoi je suis tombé sur Plimer est qu'un créationniste (ou tel à moitié) le cite contre la possibilité de l'Arche de Noé. Avant de consulter CMI sur Plimer, j'ai donné des réponses moi-même : éléphants (comme dinosaures), Noé n'était pas obligé de prendre des exemplaires adultes. Chie de tous les animaux ... Hercule à nettoyé les écuries d'Augée, et autour de l'Arche il y avait davantage d'eau que ça, davantage que la seule rivière utilisée par Hercule.

I have been known to disagree with Simcha

As in Simcha Fisher. On things like Geocentrism (which she finds just odd) and so.*

But HERE she is SPOT ON:

NCR : SimchaFisher : 10 Ways to Insult a Catholic Blogger (and Why You Shouldn't Bother)
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/simcha-fisher/10-ways-to-insult-a-catholic-blogger-and-why-you-shouldnt-bother

Some items are not applicable to me (I am neither a woman nor showing signs of, well, good appetite, on the waistline), none are wrong.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Kilian of Herbipolis**
8-VII-2015

* She here, me answering here, and debating someone else over here.

** Kudos if you know where in Germany that is, and how they spell it in German. Herbipolis is the Latin translation of where St Kilian died as a martyr. For upholding canon law. Against secular authority.