Florian Rouanet a tort de citer Johannes Öhquist pour nier la persécution de l'Église catholique par les NS

Léon moins quatorze : Ceuta, l’eau tout court et la royauté comique louis « vingtième »
Publié le 5 octobre 2026 par Florian Rouanet
https://integralisme-organique.com/2026/10/leon-moins-quatorze-ceuta-leau-tout-court-et-la-royaute-comique-louis-vingtieme/

L'article de Mr. Rouanet comporte une diversité de sujets, un peu comme à Rivarol les rubriques "La France asservie et résistante" et la dernière page par Hannibal.

Ici, je me contente de citer et répondre à une certaine allégation par Johannes Wilhelm Öhquist.

En Allemagne, les Églises sont des associations de droit public. L’État dépense annuellement bien des millions de RM pour les Églises et pour les appointements des prêtres. Les services des contributions de l’État perçoivent les impôts pour l’Église. Dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions, les prêtres jouissent de la protection de l’État au même titre que les fonctionnaires. Les prêtres sont exemptés de l’obligation de revêtir des fonctions publiques. Les revenus provenant de leur charge sont insaisissables. Ils sont exemptés du service militaire. L’enseignement religieux a lieu dans les écoles. Aux universités, on compte 17 facultés évangéliques et 15 facultés catholiques d’État, ainsi que des écoles supérieures de théologie.

Correct. D'où en ces pays (Allemagne et Autriche) de temps un peu plus récents la distinction entre "Kirche" et "Freikirche" ... Evangelische Kirche (correspond pas aux Évangélistes, mais à Église Protestante Unifiée de France) et l'Église catholique sont associations de droit public. Par contre, l'Armée du Salut ou les Méthodistes, n'ayant pas cette relation avec l'état, sont Freikirchen. Pas sponsorisées et encore une différence notable, pas droit de fournir catéchisme à l'école, qui, dans les deux pays est un sujet obligatoire. Ma mère n'a pas pu me mettre en catéchisme de l'Armée du Salut, n'existe pas à l'école, n'a pas eu l'occasion de me mettre en catéchisme "evangelisch-lutherisch" et a préféré le catéchisme catholique au catéchisme "evangelisch-reformiert" (elle est allergique à l'idée de double prédestination chez les Calvinistes). Ceci en Autriche, mais les choses sont un peu pareil en Allemagne et l'étaient aux temps de Hitler aussi.

Mais il y avait une autre allégation ...

La religion et la foi religieuse n’ont jamais été persécutées dans le Troisième Reich. La seule chose que l’État allemand interdise au clergé, c’est l’excitation contre l’État. […]

Un religieuse autrichienne, Maria Restituta Kafka, a aidé à sauver des malades et handicapés du mort en faussant les papiers médicaux. Possiblement une raison pourquoi sa cause n'ait pas été promue sous Pie XII. Elle a aussi fait un poëme un peu dédaigneux sur Hitler. Ensuite:

1) Elle fut arrêtée.
2) Condamnation à mort déjà existante ou menacée avant le point suivant.
3) Offerte de grâce plénière à condition qu'elle quitte la vie religieuse.
4) Son refus constant (pendant un an, environ).
5) Sa décapitation par guillotine.

Pendant son temps en attendant la mort, fut la carrière de la Weisse Rose, des résistants idéologiques qui dénonçaient le régime. Notons, Schmorell était Orthodoxe (et compte comme "néomartyr", c'est à dire martyr récent, après le paganisme romain et les Invasions barbares et les Iconoclastes, environ), et Hans et Sophie Scholl étaient Protestants. Ils se sentaient moins tenus par leurs églises que les Catholiques de ne pas "exciter contre l'état" ... les trois sont décapités avant sœur Kafka.*

En attendant, d'autres se sont prononcés contre les euthanasies, et notamment le compte et évêque de Münster von Galen :

Le bienheureux Clemens August, Comte (Graf) von Galen, né le 16 mars 1878 au château de Dinklage (grand-duché d'Oldenbourg, Empire allemand) et mort le 22 mars 1946 à Münster (Allemagne), est un prêtre catholique allemand, évêque du diocèse de Münster en Allemagne de 1933 à 1946 et cardinal de l'Église catholique.

Surnommé le Lion de Münster, il s'est distingué pendant le Troisième Reich et la Seconde Guerre mondiale en menant l'opposition catholique aux euthanasies de masse de personnes handicapées commises par le régime hitlérien et en dénonçant les abus de la Gestapo ainsi que la persécution de l'Église. Créé cardinal en 1946 par le pape Pie XII en reconnaissance de son attitude pendant cette période, il est déclaré bienheureux par le pape Benoît XVI le 9 octobre 2005. Il est fêté le 22 mars.**

La béatification est probablement invalide, car Ratzinger n'était pas le pape, mais je ne conteste pas la dignité. Regardons le sermon contre l'euthanasie et la réaction national-socialiste :

« C'est une doctrine effrayante que celle qui cherche à justifier le meurtre d'innocents, qui autorise l'extermination de ceux qui ne sont plus capables de travailler, les infirmes, de ceux qui ont sombré dans la sénilité… N'a-t-on le droit de vivre qu'aussi longtemps que nous sommes productifs ? ». L'euthanasie avait déjà été fermement condamnée par Pie XII le 15 décembre 1940, et en Allemagne le 9 mars 1941, l'évêque catholique de Berlin, Konrad von Preysing, dénonçait en chaire de vérité les meurtres baptisés « euthanasies ».

Ce sermon de Galen eut un grand retentissement : des copies en étaient distribuées jusque parmi les soldats de la ligne de front de guerre.

Les autorités nazies voulaient l’arrêter et le mettre à mort mais, craignant la réaction de la population catholique de Münster, elles s'en prirent plutôt à 24 membres du clergé séculier et 18 religieux. Les 42 ecclésiastiques furent internés dans des camps de concentration, 10 d'entre eux y périrent. Néanmoins, Hitler renonça au programme Aktion T4.

Ce qui pose la question comment Johannes Öhquist ait pu conclure que l'église n'était pas persécutée, la seule chose lui interdite était d'exciter contre le régime ... y compris, comme on voit, quand le régime fait des meurtres et mérite d'être dénoncée.

Une autre anecdote sur l'activité de Mgr. Clement Auguste, il a parlé, du chaîre ou sur parvis ou en conversation, je ne sais pas, mais contre l'eugénisme, contre la stérilisation des gens jugés par certains docteurs ineptes à se réproduire. Un National-Socialiste lui lance "un célibataire n'a pas à se prononcer là-dessus" ... et le compte évêque réplique "je vous interdis d'insulter le Führer."*** Ceci a pu se passer avant la guerre, car contrairement à l'euthanasie, l'eugénisme débutait déjà en février 1934. Le seul méfait de ce régime qui est encore plus vieux devrait être la mise dans les camps des vagabonds ...° Même l'obligation scolaire est plus tard.°°

D'où exactement donc vient ce Johannes Öhquist qui prétend que l'église n'était pas persécutée ?

J'avais soupçonné qu'il état Suédois, donc citoyen de la Suède. Nenni. Il était suécofinlandais, citoyen de la Finlande. Et né à Saint Pétersbourg. Ou son banlieu Grafskaïa Slavianka, aujourd'hui Kommounar.

Johannes Öhquists Vater, Johannes Christoffer (Risto) Öhquist, war Priester und diente später als Gemeindepfarrer in der Gemeinde St. Maria in Sankt Petersburg, Russland. Seine Mutter, Olga Maria Avenarius, war deutscher Abstammung und erzog Johannes Öhquist in ihrer Muttersprache Deutsch. Er erlernte in der Schule neben Deutsch auch Schwedisch und Russisch sowie Finnisch.

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

Le père de Johannes Öhquist, Johannes Christophe (Risto) Öhquist était prêtre et servit plus tard comme curé à la Paroisse Sainte Marie à Saint-Pétersbourg, Russie. Sa mère, Olga Maria Avenarius, était d'extraction allemande et éduqua [son fils] dans sa langue maternelle l'allemand. Il apprit à l'école, à côté de l'allemand, aussi le suédois, le russe, ainsi que le finnois.

Son père était prêtre marié ? À cette époque inexistante dans l'église latine. Son père était donc clerc luthérien. Et une des idées clefs du Luthéranisme était de donner à l'état les droits de s'ingérer davantage dans l'église, et de priver l'église de ses droits, voir son devoir, de se mêler à l'occasion (comme eugénisme ou euthanasie) dans l'état.

Quand le comte évêque Clément Auguste fait son devoir, comme St. Jean Baptiste contre Hérode, Johannes Öhquist flaire probablement à première vue un clerc avide à dépasser son rôle dû.

En d'autres mots, l'allégation de Johannes Öhquist égale une affirmation de l'hérésie du césaréopapisme, fléau des Luthériens, des Anglicanes et aussi des Orthodoxes (qui à l'époque de sa naissance avaient une Bible changée par Pierre le Grand et manquaient du patriarche, celui-ci remplacé par La Très Sainte Synode, gérée par un juriste laïc, dont le plus célèbre обер-прокурор (Ober-Procureur) était Constantin Pétrovitch Pobiedonostsev. Laïc, comme dit. Pour que l'église n'ait pas de patriarche, capable à rallier à l'occasion contre le régime, comme l'évêque de Münster.

À part le harcèlement du clergé sous Clément Auguste, mortel pour 10, au moins pénible pour les 32 autres, un exemple moins dramatique se joue à Dresde. On est en pays majoritairement protestant, et la police ne comprend pas forcément les exigences de la foi catholique.

Petrus Theodorus Antonius Legge (* 16. Oktober 1882 in Brakel, Kreis Höxter in Westfalen; † 9. März 1951 in Bautzen) war römisch-katholischer Geistlicher und vom 28. Oktober 1932 bis zu seinem Tod Bischof von Meißen. Von November 1935 bis März 1937 wurde durch das nationalsozialistische Regime im Zusammenhang mit einem gegen ihn geführten Strafverfahren wegen Devisenvergehens seine Abwesenheit aus seinem Bistum erzwungen.

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

Je pensais plus tôt à sa perte de la carte de conduite, suite à un délit de vitesse en portant le Saint Sacrement à un mourant, je ne le trouve plus, mais par contre ceci :

Aus offensichtlich politischen Gründen wurde Bischof Legge seitens der Nationalsozialisten die unerlaubte Transferierung eines hohen Reichsmarkbetrages in die Niederlande als verbotene „Devisenverschiebung ins Ausland“ vorgeworfen. Es handelte sich um die Rückzahlung eines dort vor seiner Zeit zur Finanzierung des Bistums aufgenommenen Darlehens. Er wurde am 9. Oktober 1935 verhaftet, befand sich mehrere Wochen in Untersuchungshaft und wurde am 23. November 1935 von der Strafkammer beim Landgericht Berlin wegen „fahrlässiger Devisenverschiebung“ zu einer Geldstrafe von 100.000 Reichsmark verurteilt. Nach dieser Verurteilung war Bischof Legge von Dezember 1935 bis März 1937 aufgrund eines Aufenthaltsverbots für die Diözese Meißen im „Exil“ im Bistum Paderborn und so an der Wahrnehmung seines Amtes als Bischof von Meißen gehindert.

Petrus Theodorus Antonius Legge (* 16 octobre 1882 à Brakel, arrondissement Höxter en Westphalie; † 9 mars 1951 in Bautzen) était un clerc catholique romain et du 28 octobre 1932 à son décès évêque de Meissen. De novembre 1935 à mars 1937 il fut contraint d'absenter de son diocèse par le régime national-socialiste en connection avec un procès pour délit de devise.

Pour des raisons clairament politiques, l'évêque Legge fut accusé par les national-socialistes d'un transfert illégal d'une grande somme de Reichsmark en Pays-Bas, l'acte interdit "transfert de devises à l'étranger". Il s'agissait d'un remboursement d'un prêt d'avant son temps, pris pour financier le diocèse. Il fut arrêté le 9 octobre 1935, était en détention provisoire pendant plusieurs semaines et fut condamné le 23 novembre 1935 par une correctionnelle du tribunal régional de Berlin à une amende de 100 000 Reichsmark. Après cette condamnation il était interdit de séjour pour le diocèse de Meissen. Donc en exil dans le diocèse de Paderborn et empêché de l'exercise de sa charge en tant qu'évêque de Meissen.

On essaie de repayer un prêt d'argent et se trouve interdit de séjour dans son diocèse ? Johannes Öhquist devait pas avoir été très sérieux de dire qu'il n'y avait aucune persécution, ou il devait ne pas avoir recherché la question de manière très sérieuse. Les Protestants comme ça, pas très anticatholiques, sont souvent assez dilettants ès choses catholiques ou des affaires de notre Sainte Église. Pour l'affaire de Münster, je crains qu'il pensait que Clément Auguste l'avait bien cherché ... mais ceci se passait après l'ouvrage de Johannes Öhquist.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Éliphius de Cologne, martyr
16 octobre 2026

Coloniae Agrippinae sancti Eliphii Martyris, sub Juliano Apostata.

C'est également l'anniversaire de Mgr. Petrus Legge.

* Autriche n'avait bien entendu pas la guillotine, mais "Würgegalgen" = vil garrot.

** https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemens_August_von_Galen

*** Qui n'était pas encore marié à Eva Braun.

° Méfait qui n'était pas le cas de l'Autriche sous Dollfuss et ensuite, sous Schuschnigg, seulement en Haute Autriche, un seul camp, et l'internément au moins en théorie limité à six semaines.

°° Pour les germanisants :

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

Récemment, la famille Wunderlich a fait objet de harcèlement à cause de cette mesure.

What Were the Witch-hunts Really Like?

As the item is actually not just European (and Colonial) history, but also a trope in Fantasy, a German (who speaks English "wid ö tscharming dschörman äkzent" that's not as thick as Schwarzy's) who specialises in advice to fantasy writers made a video about it.

What's Wrong With Burning Mages in Fantasy?
The Tale Tinkerer | 17 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFJIe0vCANQ

If you have heard 9 000 000 were killed, you have basically fallen prey to a fake history from the Endarkenment. (Some put light inside that word, but the light of the 18th C was more like in Catholics often enough opposing it).

I could have said "fake history from the Endarkenment, but I'm repeating myself" ... this is not the sole historic error that hankers back to this era or just before. I wrote within the last year or so about sth I knew since studying the council of Tours in Latin at University.

A certain young bishop asked if one could call a woman "homo" ... what he wanted to know was whether a woman can be called "a man". In earlier Latin, as in Greek, as in German, there would be no confusion. A woman very certainly was a "homo" to Cicero, and as certainly not a "vir", certainly is an "anthropos" and not an "anér", certainly is "ein Mensch" and certainly not "ein Mann" ... but the colloquial version of Latin in his day was already treating the word as French treats "homme" and specifically treated it before the Endarkenment, colloquially. I e, someone had for some reason mentioned woman as being human and he had heard (with his not quite erudite ears) a woman as being male. The confusion was quickly resolved and remembered as an anecdote, it is not in the acts of the council, but in the chronicle of it, by St. Gregory of Tours. "Jesus is the Son of Man, because He is the Son of Mary, so Mary is a Man [i e is Human]". (Adding the last bit because the phrase would otherwise sound odd to American ears.

καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Αἱ ἀλώπεκες φωλεοὺς ἔχουσιν, καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατασκηνώσεις; ὁ δὲ Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, οὐκ ἔχει ποῦ τὴν κεφαλὴν κλίνῃ.

Yes, "Son of Man" is in Greek "ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου", the young bishop got the right answer.

Now the point is in Sweden some people highly influenced by the Endarkenment will tell you (in actual reference to this) that the Council of Nicea "decided that women have souls" ... my Latin Professor (an Atheist, so presumably pro-"Enlightenment" in many ideological areas) traced the misunderstanding to "the Enlightenment" ...

In this video, you will find a historic error from the Endarkenment too.

A certain Gottfried Christian Voigt* took the number of witches burned in Quedlinburg** and simply scaled the number up. Here is how wiki describes it:

He was criticizing Voltaire's estimate of "several hundred thousand" as too low. His extrapolation was based on finding evidence for thirty victims of witch trials in Quedlinburg, adding another ten victims, and then assuming the same rate of witch executions to population for the whole of Europe in the same century, and finally applying the same number of victims per century to eleven centuries.

Tale Tinkerer forgot he had been scaling up in centuries as well.

However, he gives a real estimate by a more thorough historian summing up between a first witch trial in 1420's Savoy and a last one in 1782 in Switzerland, and the total is about 30—60,000 over 350 years. He also makes a point about what kind of difference this means for who was doing it and why. Here is what he says:

9 million is a civilization at war with a category of person. A continentwide machine grinding away for centuries with archives and a chain of command. 40,000 spread across 350 years is something much smaller and much stranger. It's a great many separate local decisions. ...

One valley had a bad decade 40 years ago, and it still has three families who won't speak to each other about what was said at that trial. The next valley over never had one at all, and the people there think of the whole business as something that happens somewhere else. They'd be perfectly friendly to the same woman the first valley would have hanged.

He also tells us that the number 9.5 Million was both rounded to 9 Million and popularised ...

And the American suffragist Matilda Joselen Gage° put it in front of a wide readership in 1893.

Sometimes Marxists are better than the heirs of the Endarkenment. When it comes to history, that's for sure. (OK, when Marxist crimes are not being discussed, at least***).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Bernard of Clairvaux
20 Aug. 2026

In territorio Lingoniensi deposito sancti Bernardi primi Claraevallensis Abbatis, vita, doctrina et miraculis gloriosi, quem Pius Octavus Pontifex Maximus universalis Ecclesiae Doctorem declaravit, et confirmavit.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Christian_Voigt

** Today that's in Germany, not Austria, and in 1989 it was in East Germany, not West Germany. Ossis may be kind and considerate in many ways, but it's not what I admire in German culture. Sorry, Rammstein! Gern gescheh'n Twinnies und Goldried Quintett! Given the theme in the best known hit by Twinnies, I might probably have had better luck getting a Swedish girl, prior to 2004, if Swedish culture and education had been less East German ... (yes, Swedish schools back to before my schooldays have been infiltrated by Stasi educated influencers)

*** Like how many will deny Hitler was in the Munich Soviet government, back in the day.

° https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_Joslyn_Gage

Comment une vraie histoire devient une fausse ?

Comment une vraie histoire devient une fausse ? · Les "extrémités de la terre", prouvent-elles le platisme comme affirmation biblique ?

Je ne parle pas de fiction. Je parle d'histoire. Mais d'une histoire inexacte, faussée.

Quand quelqu'un dit, je cite :

Galilée a été brûlé sur le bûcher pour avoir affirmé que la Terre est ronde.

Alors, deux choses.

D'abord, c'est de l'histoire, pas de fiction. Ce n'est pas comparable à ces deux propos :

Esmeralda a presque été brûlée sur le bûcher pour sorcellerie.
Faramir a presque été brûlé sur un bûcher par son père Denethor.

Non, Victor Hugo et Tolkien ont écrit des fictions, et Esmeralda est tout aussi peu réelle que Faramir.

Galilée est une personne réelle, et le propos erronné se refère à une année réelle, 1633.

C'est juste que le propos est contaminé.

Prenons deux propos corrects et traçons leur transition.

Columbus a eu d'opposition pour son projet parce que le clergé pensait que la Terre était incircumnavigable. Par la grande distance ou encore par une zone de vents très chaotique qui ne permettrait pas la traversée.
Galilée a risqué le bûcher pour avoir affirmé que la Terre tourne autour du Soleil chaque an et encore chaque jour autour d'elle-même. Il n'a pas été brûlé, mais il a abjuré.

Pour certains, on a voulu taxer les Géocentriques que le clergé avait certainement, très majoritairement, par rapport à quelque peu d'héliocentriques qui devaient aussi abjurer, comme l'équivalent de platistes. Peu nous importe si ce sont des Franc-Maçons, des Protestants, des Catholiques avides à changer la doctrine, ce genre de mobile existait. La mauvaise volonté et la mauvaise foi existent.

La première étape a été de déformer les discussions à la cour d'Espagne, parce que moins connues.

Columbus a eu d'opposition pour son projet parce que le clergé pensait que la Terre était incircumnavigable. Parce qu'on tomberait du bord, dans le vide, dans l'abysse.
Galilée a risqué le bûcher pour avoir affirmé que la Terre tourne autour du Soleil chaque an et encore chaque jour autour d'elle-même. Il n'a pas été brûlé, mais il a abjuré.

En plus d'être davantage incriminant pour le clergé "obscurantiste", c'est aussi un peu plus simple. Cette étape est certainement acquise dans le quasi-roman de Washington Irving :

Une histoire et les voyages de Christophe Colomb (The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus), 1828
Les Compagnons de Colomb (Voyages and Discoveries of the Companions of Columbus), 1831

Je dis quasi-roman, mais le titre laisse entendre qu'il aurait eu des prétentions historiques sérieux. Notons, il était fils d'un pasteur calviniste puritain, très anticatholique déjà, et influencé par les Lumières dans les États-Unis, très prône à critiquer l'obscurantisme catholique, même quand celui-ci n'existait pas dans l'histoire.

La seconde étape a donc été d'ajouter la forme de la terre aux accusations contre Galilée.

Columbus a eu d'opposition pour son projet parce que le clergé pensait que la Terre était incircumnavigable. Parce qu'on tomberait du bord, dans le vide, dans l'abysse.
Galilée a risqué le bûcher pour avoir affirmé que la Terre tourne autour du Soleil chaque an et encore chaque jour autour d'elle-même. Et même parce qu'elle est ronde. Il n'a pas été brûlé, mais il a abjuré.

La troisième a été de confondre avec encore un autre propos correct, pour le faire encore davantage incorrect.

Giordano Bruno a été brûlé pour avoir affirmé que la Terre tourne autour du Soleil, autour d'elle-même et que chaque étoile est un Soleil avec des planètes habités et chaque Système Solaire a son Dieu qui en plus est quasi "incarné" dans la physique (Dieu le Fils dans le Soleil, Dieu le Saint-Esprit dans le mouvement).

D'abord, oublions qu'il ait fait de la théologie fort hérétique.

Giordano Bruno a été brûlé pour avoir affirmé que la Terre tourne autour du Soleil, autour d'elle-même et que chaque étoile est un Soleil avec des planètes habités [omission de la théologique incorrecte].

Ensuite, confusion entre les sorts de Galilée et Bruno:

Giordano Bruno a été brûlé pour avoir affirmé que la Terre tourne autour du Soleil, autour d'elle-même et que chaque étoile est un Soleil avec des planètes habités.
Galilée a été brûlé sur le bûcher pour avoir affirmé que la Terre tourne autour du Soleil chaque an et encore chaque jour autour d'elle-même. Et même parce qu'elle est ronde.

Ensuite, oubli des supposés parallèles:

Galilée a été brûlé sur le bûcher pour avoir affirmé que la Terre tourne autour du Soleil chaque an et encore chaque jour autour d'elle-même. Et même parce qu'elle est ronde.

Ensuite, oubli du vrai enjeu du procès :

Galilée a été brûlé sur le bûcher pour avoir affirmé que la Terre ... est ronde.

Ça simplifie, non ?

Sauf que c'est du faux. Mais. Même si c'est du faux, c'est historique. Et entre vrai histoire et histoire faussée, il y a une parentèle.

Pourquoi dire ça ? Entre autres choses pour noter que le clergé catholique n'a pas été platiste. Une lecture littérale de la Bible n'a pas indiqué que la terre sous le ciel soit plate (mais la terre qui s'élève au-dessus des mers peut bien avoir quatre coins, c'est autre chose).

Ensuite aussi parce que, si c'est exclu que l'histoire de la Résurrection de Jésus soit de la fiction ... ce que Phil Stilwell m'a accordé, alors, il fait y avoir un chemin possible entre des vrais évenéments sans résurrection et la version de l'histoire qui a une résurrection.

Or, personne n'a présenté un processus réaliste comment la résurrection pourrait s'introduire dans un récit historique de la communauté qui en sort.

Donc, Jésus est vraiment ressuscité.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Invention des reliques de St. Étienne
et de St. Gamaliel
3.VIII.2026

Hierosolymis Inventio beatissimi Stephani Protomartyris, et sanctorum Gamalielis, Nicodemi et Abibonis, sicut Luciano Presbytero divinitus revelatum est, Honorii Principis tempore.

This is Not a Response To Phil Stilwell, It's a Denunciation

Assorted Retorts: Phil Stilwell Gets Remedial Philosophy (quora) · In Answer to Phil Stilwell / Tokyo Taboo · Phil Stilwell Responded with a Paper. Answering the Abstract · Continuing to Answer Stilwell's Paper [1 through halfway through 5] · From Phil Stilwells Assessment of Me · New blog on the kid: This is Not a Response To Phil Stilwell, It's a Denunciation

From Phil Stilwells Assessment of Me

That post was, as yet, a response to him.

Under it, he posted the comment:

If you don’t have a coherent answer to my central arguments, I recommend you not respond in order to avoid ossifying a legacy of illogic.

In other words, either my impatience to go out of order and show distaste for his curiosity in Catholic decision making was incoherence about the order in which he had presented his arguments, or in fact this curiosity was his central argument and not accepting it was incoherent on my part.

I am afraid that this is the case.

If you are heavily into coaching and leadership, certainly the decision making of others can be one of your interests.

STILWELL CONSULTING, 2003 - Present

Contract Rewriter / Graduate School Preparation / Private Language Coach

• Rewrite technical and academic papers for professors and graduate students at Japanese universities.
• Coach students in writing, submitting, and presenting academic work for programs at MIT, Stanford, and in Silicon Valley.
• Prepare students for overseas MBA and graduate programs; provide corporate English training and private Zoom-based instruction in English and core business concepts.
• Teach practical applications of AI and provide individualized life coaching alongside academic and professional-development services.

I find zero evidence of his having any experience, academic as a student or professional in his hired or consultant capacities, of historic epistemology.

And that from taking his claims at face value.

I find plenty of evidence of his applying totally inapplicable and more specialised items of epistemology than those that would generally or from the nature of history apply to history.

That from taking his arguments at face value as really his and not meant ironically.

With the exact same naiveté, I find plenty of evidence that he actually loves making strawmen. As long as they are directed against Christian believers or his "legacy of illogic".

6. “Believe Every Story” Is Not a Serious Rule of Evidence

Lundahl states his general policy plainly:

“I have a prior commitment to believing any story unless there is a specific reason to disbelieve it.”

(Lundahl, “In Answer”)

At first this sounds admirably open-minded. In practice it is impossible.

Human beings tell incompatible stories. One tradition says Jesus rose from the dead; another says he did not die on the cross. One witness says a saint performed a cure; another attributes the same recovery to medicine, misdiagnosis, or another deity. Two mutually inconsistent accounts cannot both be accepted at face value in the same respect.

Did you notice the strawman?

I did not say "believe every story" I said "believe any story unless" ...

In another paper this same Phil Stilwell wants us to consider giving different degrees of credentiality to what we believe. Like I have 100 % credentiality that the Sun rose this morning, but perhaps 75 % that I will get food, not too much food, and no food that violates Friday abstinence this evening.

He is not unfamiliar with different degrees of credentiality, if that was his term, but what about different degrees of evidentiality? In classical logic and epistemology, there is such a thing as "prima facie evidence" ... meaning evidence for a specific proposition, unless there is stronger evidence against it.

Two stories may indeed contradict each other, which means we have a logical (and not just prima facie) reason not to take both of them at face value. In that case, one option is to compare the probability of the two stories of getting it right. I'm not sure whether the reference to people denying the Cross was Surah V, which I have had the burden to have to read in school, it could be some other Surah.* But Surah V is from early 7th C Hedjaz region of the Arabian Peninsula. Matthew 27 is (at least in an Aramaic form later translated to Greek) from within a decade of the event. The reasons to believe any Surah is that Mohammed received a revelation, for which he gave no other signs of divine protection from error than the miracle of the Quran and the miracle of military expansion. Except of course if the Surah is speaking of events in the life of Mohammed, I think it probable that Ethiopian Christians did attack Mecca as told in Al-Fil. And fail to reach it. The reason to believe the Gospels in their theological dimension is, divine protection from error, which has to be proven by miracles. But the reason to believe them in their historical dimension is, they are the origin story, or story of immediate origin, of a certain community. Even Muslims accept that to some degree, except they tend to say that details were faked.

Phil pretends that this doesn't matter, even so it is just "a claim" by "an institution" ... presumably like Phil having Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy | summa cum laude is "a claim" by "the institution" known as University of Kansas. Or is this where his trust in claims by institutions fails the test of consistency, which he so claims to value and find lacking in my arguments?

The point is, if I were to accuse Phil Stilwell of Academic fraud, and of never having made BA in Philosophy, let alone Summa cum Laude, that's not a logical impossibility. As he has according to other claims of his been in the employment of the Japanese government, a very secularist country by the way, even more than Sweden, which as a Catholic I found toxic, he could have been protected from pursuit by University of Kansas, or Japan could have bribed University of Kansas to not pursue him. Could. But these possibilities being logical options doesn't make them logically preferrable. I think it makes more sense that Phil Stilwell's teachers in philosophy at Kansas simply sucked and had an atheopathic bias, than that Phil Stilwell lied about them.

And this illustrates the point. I believe his story, because I do not have positive proof or even a coherent scenario of how he would have gone about to fraud. Japan certainly would have preferred someone who actually did have a degree. The Japanese government certainly would have had means to double check if they found anything fishy about the claim. And not meaning in the sushi sense. I mean in the sense of the fish sold in a village in Armorica. But presumably either they didn't find anything my black-smith great-grand-pa would have wanted to insult Unhygienix for. Or. Taking a whiff they decided to check, and found that no, it was as unfishy as sukiyaki.

But the thing is, for this probability, I simply have Phil Stilwell's CV. One written source.

Now, Phil Stilwell speaks of several literary sources depending on each other in the case of for instance different Christian books as "a candle and three mirrors are not four independent light sources" ... fine. But a photo of four candles is a single evidential source that a certain room at a certain point in time did have four independent light sources.

That's why I value independent observers more than independent writings. If I want the witness evidence to a certain Al Capone related shooting, if I had been judge back then, I would have called the witnesses and checked their independence. But since I live now and not back then (and on top of that am not that judge), I access them usually via ONE written source, the court records from back then.

Now, recall what I said about prima facie case. It is a case which can sometimes be overridden by stronger considerations not foreseen in it, or only inherent in itself when taking a closer look. But if a prima facie case is one hundred times or more in fifteen to twenty variations offered to be overridden and the closer look at itself or the potentially overriding consideration, each time favours the prima facie case, not the factors pretended to override it, that is a very strong case that sustains the prima facie case.

If I recall going to SSHL and learning Latin back in my teens, this is a very strong prima facie case against anyone who wanted to tell me "no, you are Elias, you actually were to a prophet school unless you started it, and you learned reading Hebrew from the Torah written in Old Hebrew characters" ... a very strong case indeed. My point about claims by a community is, communities also have memories, and when making the initial claim, they have an awareness of who could give some kind of evidence against it. And the fact of them having a memory is a good case against the claim changing very radically.

I don't say this to teach Phil Stilwell logic. I consider him a hopeless case. I say this to denounce the University of Kansas and its department of philosophy as having been incompetent in epistemology back in 1992 to 1998. I'm denouncing them to avoid ossifying their legacy of illogic. But when it comes to their department of education or whatever giving him an even higher degree (Master of Arts in Education, TESOL), I have no beef against that one. Phil Stilwell's English is good.

Not so his logic:

Lundahl contrasts Luke with Tolkien: Luke was received as a historian, while Tolkien was received as a novelist. This is a false choice. A writer can intend to report history and still preserve legend, depend on poor sources, shape material for theological purposes, or make honest mistakes. Genre matters, but genre does not guarantee accuracy.

The Woodstock analogy fails for the same reason. Woodstock is supported by photographs, audio and film recordings, contracts, news coverage, business records, physical traces, and many independently accessible witnesses. Acts says that Pentecost was public. The public character of an event inside a story does not create public evidence outside the story.

In 7.2 he admits the likelihood of the genre "history". In 7.3 he treats Acts as if it were fiction. If his own CV is not fiction, his being to Japan cannot be treated as "public within a story" but has to be treated as public, tout court. The speech of Peter cannot be treated like a speech by Aragorn.

The ample documentation we have for Woodstock apart from any single story or resumé (and most people won't check multiple stories) is a chronological accident, we happen to live close to Woodstock and in an era where Christianity has made written documentation ten thousand times more common than it was back in 1st C Roman times. Photographs are a point that reminds of Secondo Pia. Also totally absent from Roman times.

If you want photographic evidence, I actually would like to refer you to Barry Schwortz. But apart from sindonology, photographs is not how 1st C AD Roman Empire is studied for history.

Lundahl challenges the critic to choose: if the story was invented around AD 50, living witnesses would reject it; if around AD 150, the community’s earlier story would need to be forgotten.

This is a false dilemma. Stories need not appear fully formed on one Tuesday.

Long form stories with multiple episodes, no. But the thing is, any given episode, and Pentecost was a very central one in the Christian story, needs to either be present or absent at a given date.

They can develop through repeated retelling, harmonization, symbolic interpretation, liturgical use, selective memory, and gradual elaboration. Different communities can preserve different versions. A written account can stabilize one stream without every prior participant receiving a ballot.

A community which in AD 50 stated, whether in the book of Acts or just as liturgic kerygma, that Pentecost had occurred twenty years or less before, if this had absolutely not happened, those who would have been there would have involved someone able and willing to step up against the narrative. People who had been in Jerusalem in AD 30, 31, 33 (three years I've seen as options for the year of Christ's Death and Resurrection, the most common being 33) would have known it hadn't happened.

The Upper Room where they had been praying was above the tomb of King David, a place which would receive regular visits by pious Jews and still does so. It's not as if it had been located in "London" and much more as if it had been located in front of Big Ben, so it could not have been possible to tell one group from King David's tomb it happened before the Temple and one who were before the Temple it had happened on King David's tomb.

I have studied how legends work in relation to real events. I don't believe in legendary inflation much more in legendary conflation and other simplifications. As my example from "die Rabenschlacht" illustrates. My disbelief in time machines is an overriding consideration against taking at face value the idea that Theoderic beat Ermaneric in one battle at Ravenna. My knowledge of probably Procopius via wikipedia means, I trace this to Ermaneric and Theoderic beating different people at Ravenna in different centuries and the battles getting conflated into one.

But Phil doesn't care one whit about what I know, I'm just a miserable antisemite for saying one Jewish contribution to our institutions is pornography. He didn't bring up what non-Catholics had contributed to cuisine or to culture, he did bring up "social reform" or also known as changes in institutions and common customs. Julius Fromm is another example. And before anyone accuses me for being partial to the NSDAP régime, after they expropriated the factory from him, they didn't close it down, they kept it going as if the production was licit, and just deprived him of his profit. Like making Al Goldstein a pauper but allowing Screw West to keep going.

Phil is a coach, and as he believes my positions to be beneath abject, he thinks he can mistreat my arguments by multiple strawmanning and missing the point. Just to give me an education. Given I do take his CV at face value, I'll blame University of Kansas for it. Or perhaps the cultural environment he had in Japan, and I don't mean cuisine or kawaii aesthetics.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Ignatius of 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.

* In fact it seems to have been Surah IV, An-Nisa, and Ayah 157. This obviously is still centuries after the events. Unlike Matthew 27.

C'est quoi, Pronote ?

deretour : Obligatoire n'est pas gratuite · New blog on the kid : C'est quoi, Pronote ?

- Pronote : c'est un logiciel que l'établissement utilise pour gérer les absences des élèves et leurs résultats scolaires. Il permet aux parents de s'investir dans la scolarité de leur(s) enfant(s) en ayant accès à diverses informations : notes, absences, cahier de texte de la classe, devoirs à faire...8 okt. 2024

Collège PIERRE BERTONE le précise sur cette page:

Quelle est la différence entre Pronote, Educonnect et l'ENT ?
Par Manuel LE MESTR, publié le mardi 8 octobre 2024 23:03 - Mis à jour le mardi 8 octobre 2024 23:32
https://pierre-bertone.agora06.fr/vie-de-l-etablissement/actualites/quelle-est-la-difference-entre-pronote-educonnect-et-l-ent--8253.htm

Merveilleux. Quand dans Boule et Bill le garçon (Boule) trouve un moyen pour subtiliser une lettre de la prof à son père, par exemple en donnant à manger à son chien (Bill), c'est fini. La digestion des chiens s'en portera mieux sans doute, mais le bien-être des écoliers ne le fera pas.

Si vous vous en doutez, vous pouvez contacter Sanary sur Mer. La Guicharde.

Un certain temps, certains parents étaient les alliés de leurs enfants, même contre leur école. On a voulu finir ceci, on a donc introduit par exemle pronote, pour faire des parents les alliés de l'école, même contre leurs enfants.

Si le vrai problème était d'il y a environ 150 ans ?

Les lois Jules Ferry sont deux lois sur l'école primaire en France votées en 1881-1882 sous la Troisième République, qui rendent l'école gratuite (loi du 16 juin 1881), l'instruction primaire obligatoire et participent à laïciser l’enseignement public (loi du 28 mars 1882).
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_Jules_Ferry

2026 - 1881 = 145

Si on profitait des 5 ans qui restent pour garantir que cette saloperie n'ait pas 150 ans ? Bon, la gratuité de l'école n'est pas une faute, l'obligation par contre oui. Et encore le séquestre d'un adolescent à qui les matières d'école peuvent paraître ringardes, mais qui n'a pas le choix de les traiter comme d'autres choses ringardes, comme on peut douber le cinéma si un film paraît ringard, par exemple.

Mais, on a voulu créer un socle commun, comment d'autrement en avoir un ?

La France a eu un socle commun depuis Clovis, non ? Mitis depone colla, Sigamber, quod adorasti, combure, quod combussisti, adora. La sainte ampoule de Rheims veut dire que même le roi n'avait pas l'excemption du socle commun qu'était le Catholicisme.

Pendant la Révolution française, pas dans l'acte de la prise de la Bastille, ni pendant le régime du Club des Feuillants, mais en pas mal d'autres moments, on a fait les démarches pour détruire ce socle commun. On ne le remplace pas avec l'école.

En Espagne, on a vu des aggressions d'églises, comme en croyant la rumeur que la plus grande risque d'abus sexuels hors domicile serait l'église catholique (Saint-Jacques-Apôtre d'Albuñol, août 2025, un Marocain, par exemple).

Or, en Espagne, une statistique a été faite sur les abus et aggressions sexuelles, et si le premier endroit d'abus est le domicile, le second est l'église. Les professeurs sont 18 fois plus souvent coupables, les gens côtoyés à l'école en total 90 fois plus souvent coupables que les curés.

Ce qui nous porte à un autre côté de Pronote. Le jeune de 14 n'avait apparamment pas été victime de violence des parents. Certains le sont, à propos des mauvaises notes, et certaines filles le sont. Comment ne pas comprendre que ce genre d'application, cette collaboration intensifié entre parents d'élèves et l'école des mêmes élèves ne puisse pas être utilisé comme moyen de pression par un prof qui voudrait qu'une élève couche avec lui ?

Si en revanche l'école n'est pas obligatoire, ni le moyen indispensable pour se préparer cette tranche d'âge à un métier dans son futur adulte, les deux formes de situation, malaise d'élève, malaise de professeur par rapport à un élève, mais aussi abus sexuels, sont trés évitables. L'école devenant un contrat (pas forcément commercial, pas forcément non, non plus, dans le cas des écoles catholiques) entre le personnel et les parents d'un élève, finissable à chaque instant, même en plein sémestre, pas obligé d'avoir remplacé par celui avec un autre établissement, des deux côtés, on pourra finir avec des situations intenables, avant qu'elles ne débordent en des tragédies.

Une des raisons bidons pour ne pas faire ceci a été l'idée de bâtir un socle commun, entretemps, une autre encore pire a pu s'ajouter, le jeune de 14 ans au moment des faits, jeudi 28 septembre 2023, a pu réagir sur des tentatives de le "sortir de sa bulle" ...

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Rimbert de Brême
4.II.2026

Bremae commemoratio sancti Remberti, qui, sancti Anscharii discipulus, in ipsius locum, hac die, obitum magistri sui proxime subsequenti, olim Hamburgensis simul ac Bremensis Episcopus electus est.

Does Catholicism Have Secret Doctrines?

Ep 725 of Relatable, Lynn Wilder is guest to Allie Beth Stuckey.

She has just spoken about "milk before meat".

Lynn:

as a Mormon I did something called milk before meat which means I'm not going to 1:01:06 admit to you that I believe something that you're gonna think is silly or 1:01:12 you're gonna think isn't biblical

...

Allie:

Christianity has 1:02:18 that too but in a different in a different way I mean Paul also talks about spiritual 1:02:26 milk and then you need to be able to grow up and to chew on solid food I think the difference is is that 1:02:33 Christianity does not keep those complicated messages hidden from you 1:02:38 they are not secret yes um we're upfront about them that yes this is what Christianity is and your 1:02:45 understanding will grow through sanctification but we're not going to hide these complicated things from you 1:02:50 to kind of trick you into believing what we believe

Some people think I was tricked into believing Mariological dogmas as I converted to Catholicism.

Far from it.

I discussed Mariology loads with my back then not yet Catholic mother (when we parted in 2004, we had prayed the Rosary together, but when she was buried in 2023, it was by a Lutheran, she had been kind of blocked from fulfilling what she needed to convert). From perhaps even my Lutheran High Church days, certainly from when I had decided to sooner or later convert, i e after reading Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose.

Most of Mariology and most Eucharistic dogmas are very well known, and far from putting them off, until one has a Confessor with a clear influence on one's soul, one has to know them, know they are part one confesses to, before making the confession of faith and the first Confession of the sacrament of Penance. Mariology comes at the Catechism parts around "born of the Virgin Mary" in the Creed. Eucharist around the part of the Seven Sacraments. The Catechism having four Parts, Creed, Commandments, Prayer and Sacraments.

I was young, I was excited, but I went into that eyes open. And the fact that man has a conscience of what's right even without being a Christian* was actually one of the first things attracting me to Catholicism besides Real Presence and Mariology. I had read it in Tolkien's On Fairy-Stories and got it confirmed at Catechism and by St. Thomas Aquinas. Still is.

One of my first disagremeents with Ratzinger was, when he said one needed to believe in a supernatural end of creation in order to believe in Catholic morality. A former friend of mine was and still is a Ratzinger fan. No, believing murder is wrong (including on the not yet born) doesn't take a supernatural view of the world to be understood. Believing contraception is wrong doesn't take it.

Worldliness as such is not enough to explain why some embrace these things as "women's rights". Not believing in God is not a sufficient excuse. In order to believe them, even an Atheist needs to have at some point trampled down his own conscience. People who attack this idea sometimes come from a place of trying to excuse Contraception and Taking Interest (in Bible "believers" this also takes misreading Genesis 38, ignoring Leviticus 15, Deuteronomy 23, Psalms 54 (55 in Protestant Bibles), and misreading Matthew 25). They don't like the Rational Morality in St. Thomas Aquinas, which state that you can't use a thing against its obvious purpose (sex -> children) or that you can't take time rent for consumable goods, only for things that are given back in the same item, like a boat or house. I do.

I was also a huge fan of the things called "Apocrypha" by some before I even considered becoming Catholic. The Bible canon is also not a secret doctrine which I found out "too late, when I was already trapped" ... I loved the story of Daniel destroying the dragon** after unmasking Bel as the priests taking the sacrifice at night. And I could not deny that Maccabees had exciting stuff. I can not deny now it has believable stuff. And when a Catholic apologist or apologetic catechism*** argued Luther ditched II Maccabees for chapter 12 stating prayers for the dead are needed, I was obviously not siding with Luther. Nor will I. And no, Luther was wrong, even if II Maccabees was just history and not Bible canon, or (on that point, the sin-offering for the dead) even just popularly believed history and not actual history. Because, this was a tradition that Jesus did NOT explicitly rebuke, and which certainly was believed widely by Jews.

When Pharisees discuss whose wife someone will be in the Resurrection, this is rebuked by Jesus (even if it came as a strawman from Sadducees). My first "red flag" about the Vatican II Sect I had converted to came when I saw old catechisms and missals being sold off in sales, and I was not really commended for buying both.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Vigil of Epiphany
5.I.2026

PS, an actual surprise:

Ephesians 2 lays 1:11:32 all of this out perfectly that we were once dead in our sin apart from Christ if you are dead you cannot help yourself 1:11:38 you cannot earn your salvation you cannot revive yourself you can't resuscitate yourself someone has to make 1:11:44 you alive

The surprise I got is, Catholicism agrees. Not to the point of Luther, when you cannot even prepare yourself for justifying grace, but certainly to the point that no one is even doing that without actual graces from God. I had actually expected Catholicism to be more "works based" than that. Same Episode./HGL

PPS. On the issues of canon and of natural law, Calvin basically and absurdly inverted the position of the Catholic Church. Natural law is something a person really is capable of knowing despite sin. Through his heart. The canon cannot be known that way, other than if the heart is enlightened by special and charismatic graces, not from the grace common to all of the redeemed./HGL

* Creation vs. Evolution: Can People Know What Good Is, Without Being Christian?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2026/01/can-people-know-what-good-is-without.html

** The Haydock comment states:

Ver. 22. Dragon. The devil had seduced our first parents in the form of a serpent, and caused most nations to adore it. (Calmet)

It need not have been a dinosaur, though considering Germanic heroic legends, I think it could have been from chronological considerations.

*** Probably Konvertitenkatechismus, Paderborn 1950 (by the Jesuits), possibly one from Chicago as well.

Non, dans la controverse de Valladolid, on n'a pas décidé que les Noirs n'avaient pas d'âme

En plus, le clergé dans cette controverse était certes en communion avec le pape, mais pas des représentants directs de la papauté.

Et en plus la décision de ne pas mettre les Amérindiens en esclavage n'était pas prise dans la controverse, mais par le pape./HGL

PS, hier la rédaction de ce petit propos était fortement inhibé par une importune au cyber.

Or, référence pour le propos que je nie. Pascal Blanchard sur le programme tabous, entendu par Karine LeMarchand avait prétendu une bêtise dans le sens contraire de moi le 29 juin 2020.

Référence pour ce que j'affirme. Je pensais que le titre La vraie controverse de Valladolid était de Jean Sévillia, mais il semble être de Jean Dumont. Ça fait une décennie que je ne l'avais pas lu, et la référence que je trouve est celle-ci:

Vraie controverse de Valladolid (La) : premier débat des droits de l'homme / Jean Dumont
Dumont, Jean (1923-2001). Auteur | Edité par Critérion. Paris - 1995
https://bd.correze.fr/detailstatic.aspx?RSC_BASE=SYRACUSE&RSC_DOCID=179512&TITLE=vraie-controverse-de-valladolid-la-premier-debat-des-droits-de-l-homme-jean-dumont

La controverse se joue (si ceci est le livre ou s'il contient les mêmes infos) sur le sujet si l'Espagne avait le droit de conquerir les états des Indiens d'Amérique et quelles autres choses on avait ou n'avait pas le droit de faire. Le débat présuppose que les Indiens ont une âme comme tout le monde. C'est en quelque manière un débat sur quels droits on possède purement en tant qu'homme, et combien on en peut perdre et comment. Contrairement aux bêtises de Jean-Claude Carrière, dans ce débat au minimum, le raciste est Las Casas, et l'anti-raciste c'est Sépulvéda./HGL

PPS, Pascal Blanchard qui est historien et devrait être mieux renseigné, a été notifié, je n'ai pas reçu de réponse en 22.VIII.2025./HGL

PPPS, le 3.IX on me dit que l'endroit où j'avais envoyé ma notification n'était pas son endroit de travail, j'ai renvoyé la notification./HGL

While I Disagree with Joey Oberlin On Who's the Pope Today, We Have a Common Group of Harrassers

I haven't seen the video yet:

What led me to CONVERT to the CATHOLIC faith?
Joey Oberlin | 2 March 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8r8lujU23M

But I actually have seen a comment under it:

Adam Villemaire

@AdamVillemaire

EX ROMAN CATHOLIC BORN CATHOLIC
YOU ARE CRAZY❗...IGNORANT
MARIAN DOCTRINES ARE FALSE
MARY 8S NOT QUEEN OF ANYTHING
HOW COULD A HUMAN WOMAN HEAR MILLIONS OF PRAYERS AT THE SAME TIME EVERYWHERE ❓❓❓
CATHOLICS FOLLOW MENS DOCTRINES INVENTIONS OF POPES
WE ARE SAVED ONLY THRU GRACE BY SACRIFICE '' ONE TIME'' ON CROSS NOT BY SACRAMENTS .....
I USE TO ADORE EUCHARIST HOURS LONG ...THIS IS IDOLATRY
BODY BLOOD COULD NOT BE LITERAL ... JESUS WAS ALIVE AT LAST SUPPER....HE DIDI NOT DIE YET❗❗❗
GO SEE WHAT N T TEACHES ABOUT REPEATING ENDLESSLY REPETITIVE '' PRAYERS'' LIKE ROSARIES
YOU NEVER KNEW THE LORD NEVER WAS TRULY BORN AGAIN .....
RC DO NOT KNOW BIBLE NOR HAVE INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS
YOU ARE A YOUNG FOOL PLAYING WITH HELL 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

Let's unpack this.

EX ROMAN CATHOLIC BORN CATHOLIC

Possible.

YOU ARE CRAZY❗...IGNORANT

That's a kind of attitude I've come across.

MARIAN DOCTRINES ARE FALSE

Because you don't believe Genesis 3:15, Luke 1:28, Luke 1:42 and Judges 5:24 (with a parallel in Judith, but no parallels outside women killing enemies of Israel all over OT).*

MARY 8S NOT QUEEN OF ANYTHING

If Christ is KING, specifically of the JEWS, Mary is Queen.

HOW COULD A HUMAN WOMAN HEAR MILLIONS OF PRAYERS AT THE SAME TIME EVERYWHERE ❓❓❓

Narnian time, I suppose. Heaven up there has 1 million of seconds while we have only one second. Goes for the other saints too.

CATHOLICS FOLLOW MEN'S DOCTRINES INVENTIONS OF POPES

Protestants follow men's doctrines, inventions of Deformers. (Sometimes misspelled with an R).

WE ARE SAVED ONLY THRU GRACE BY SACRIFICE '' ONE TIME'' ON CROSS NOT BY SACRAMENTS .....

If you mean the sacrifice and the grace are all there is, we need not react in any way to receive that, obviously false. If we DO need to receive it, why not through sacraments? Elisha could have healed Naaman with a word from leprosy, but he preferred telling him to take a bath in the Jordan river. An obvious reference to the first sacrament, Baptism. In fact, Elisha said "seven times" which on the one hand helps to distinguish this image from the real baptism, but also indicates that Baptism isn't the sole sacrament, there are seven of them.

I USE TO ADORE EUCHARIST HOURS LONG ...THIS IS IDOLATRY

Not if the Mass was valid, like per the words of Matthew 26:26.

BODY BLOOD COULD NOT BE LITERAL ... JESUS WAS ALIVE AT LAST SUPPER....HE DIDI NOT DIE YET❗❗❗

They received the living body and the living blood. Actually no one received the Eucharist while He was dead in the grave, we now receive the living resurrected body and the living resurrected blood.

If you mean he was holding the bread in his hands, so it couldn't contain them, you forget that He is God, who "has the whole world, in his hands" and yet he stood as man inside that world. The paradox is just a repeat of the paradox of Incarnation. Ditching the Eucharist is like ditching the divinity of Christ.

GO SEE WHAT N T TEACHES ABOUT REPEATING ENDLESSLY REPETITIVE '' PRAYERS'' LIKE ROSARIES

You mean like Jesus repeating "Father, not my will but thine" in Gethsemane until the disciples went from alpha state to actual sleep?

Or did you refer to a MISTRANSLATION, a LIE AGAINST THE ACTUAL BIBLE of Matthew 6:7?

We know why Pagan prayers were compared to the speaking of someone stuttering and also considered as having many words. No, it was not Mantras, there weren't lots of Hindus in the Roman Empire. Get a paper copy or click an online version of Velleius Paterculus Roman history. Go to the end of book two. Go to the very end. It says "Let me end my volume with a prayer." ... the words that follow aren't a Rosary. Or any other kind of repetitive prayer. It's variations on a theme, because Velleius Paterculus was nervous about saying the right words among so many possibilities.

YOU NEVER KNEW THE LORD NEVER WAS TRULY BORN AGAIN .....

If so, you are not preventing an "apostasy" ... you aren't that anyway, but I mean, even from your own point of view.

RC DO NOT KNOW BIBLE

Was St. Thomas Aquinas RC? It's his feast today, by the way. Did he write commentaries on Psalms, Job, Jeremias, Isaias, Matthew, John, make a collage of older comments on all four Gospels, and on Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Hebrews, and according to some (including me) on Genesis?

NOR HAVE INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS

What did Jesus from the Cross ask St. Thomas? "what do you want as a reward?" and what did he answer? "only you, Lord" ... even if you are not a monk and don't restrict your priorities in this life to Jesus alone, if you are a layman, St. Francis of Sales gives lots of advice on how to keep an intimate relationship with Jesus. And do you know what? Luther and Calvin actually don't recommend it. This is where I think Evangelicals are less un-Catholic (if more acrimoniously anti-Catholic, different story) than classic Protestantism. I've tried both before I became a Catholic.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Thomas Aquinas
7.III.2025

In monasterio Fossae Novas, prope Tarracinam, in Campania, sancti Thomae Aquinatis, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, ex Ordine Praedicatorum, nobilitate generis, vitae sanctitate et Theologiae scientia illustrissimi; quem Leo Papa Decimus tertius caelestem Scholarum omnium catholicarum Patronum declaravit.

PS, above I attributed to Adam Villemaire a certain attitude from his words, which it seems he personally didn't mean. Others actually do seem to have meant them though, and someone else commenting under him took his words the same way I did:

Adam Villemaire

@AdamVillemaire

@hglundahl
FOOL IS LAUGHING AT SOMEONE ...MOCKING .... CONTEMPT
SAYING Someone IS '' CRAZY'' IS AN EXPRESSION OF SURPRISE ....NOT BELIEVING SOMETHING RIDICULOUS SOMEONE SAID OR DID

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@AdamVillemaire "FOOL IS LAUGHING AT SOMEONE ...MOCKING .... CONTEMPT"

I'd include non-laughing versions with the contempt of psychiatric diagnosis.

"SAYING Someone IS '' CRAZY'' IS AN EXPRESSION OF SURPRISE"

Thank you for the clarification.** Given the rest of the tone, I thought you were kind of playing amateur psychiatrist. Sorry. Probably goes for the other commenter too.

* Plus obviously the key understanding that the one victory a human being of any type could possibly have over the Devil is sinlessness, since 1 John 3:8.

** In the culture I have, a bit less Proletarian, I would clearly NOT use those words in this particular way. Hence my unawareness they could be so used. Obviously, once someone mentions this use, yes, I know it exists, but I don't habitually think about it, as I don't use it.

What Are Indulgences? Sharing

Are Catholic Indulgences a Scam? The Hidden Truth Revealed | EP 58
Hérauts de l'Évangile Canada | 9.I.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JXfc4hk3bA

A nuance in theology, or two, which I had to correct:

4:55 "a person in the state of venial sin"

No such thing. Venial sin does not constitute a state, it only weakens the state of grace or strengthens the state of original or mortal sin. Whichever one may be in. But it does not constitute a state.

You no doubt mean, with a debt of venial sin.

8:04 "there is no such thing as a day in Purgatory or in Heaven, it's eternity"

In Heaven there is certainly not a succession of day and night, because Jesus who is the light of Heaven, unlike the Sun that was created on day 4 does not set.

However, it's also not eternity as God experiences eternity. Neither blessed nor damned are in the timelessness of God. Time is a beginning with an end. The departed souls to some measure (except the duration of Purgatory and the time up to the raising of the bodies) experience a beginning without an end. God Himself has neither beginning nor end. Heaven, Purgatory, Hell are not in a separate universe, their existence is contemporaneous to ours, even if their experienced time flow is certainly different.

14:23 The idea of total soul sleep can also be refuted from II Maccabees, since the High Priest says that Jeremias is at that time praying for Israel. [Chapter 15]

16:46 I don't think Pope Michael II has authorised the Divine Mercy Chaplet.

19:03 I don't think the indulgence was supposed to take people out of Hell, according to anyone at the time.

You have listened to Protestants disfiguring the history.

A certain indulgence could be earned by going to a Crusade or sending money to the Crusade. Another indulgence (the one which the Deformation came to target) was to be gained by working or sending money to the building of St. Peter's in Rome, which was being repaired. Those who collected money to be sent did have a certain margin, and that one, the Dominicans bought the right to collect, with money borrowed from the Fuggers and half the money collected was sent to Rome, half given in debt payment to the Fuggers.

But everyone said it was about Purgatory. No one said it was about Hell. Including Tetzel.

30:31 I'll be sharing the prayer of St. Gertrude which certainly is authorised.

Prayer of St. Gertrude: Releasing Souls from Purgatory
https://prayforsouls.org/ways/prayers/st-gertrude

Claims by Gendron

New blog on the kid: Claims by Gendron · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Contacting Jane Gendron and Others About Mike Gendron's Uncle the Priest

I'm skipping his intro about the upcoming 507th anniversary of Luther's theses (which he calls the one of the Reformation), and "is a new Reformation necessary", and go to his historic claims about the Reformation and went on before:

Gendron

Why Was the Reformation Necessary?

Me

He'll explain why it supposedly was, I'll explain why it wasn't.

Gendron

1. The Catholic Church had departed from the apostolic faith to follow doctrines of demons and pagan traditions (1 Tim. 4:1-3; Col. 2:8; Mark 7:7-13).

Me

A general intro to this claim. And I'll treat the Reformers partly as Mike Gendron treats them, even if it's sometimes ahistorical.

If it were true, the Catholic Church wasn't the true Church, so another one was ... all of that time. The Reformers could pick and chose between Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and a few more. Each of these had at some point split from the Catholic Church or its common trunk with some other Church, like Eastern Orthodox have at least been claimed to split from us in 1053 and 1090's (respectively Constantinople and Antioch) and the Copts over Chalcedon split from the common trunk of both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics.

The Baptist Continuity theory claims they could already have joined a Baptist Church that split from Pope Cornelius by adhering to the alternative Roman Pope, sorry Baptist pastor on their view, Novatian, in 251 AD. I regard this possibility as entirely spurious and claim both Anabaptism and Baptism have very much later origins, precursors, competitors or follow-ups of the Reformers.

What they could NOT do is what they did. Namely:

• claim the Roman Church was wrong
• at least implicitly claim any other ancient Church was also wrong
• and claim they were righting what had been wrong for centuries.

It is exactly what Charles Taze Russell did, when founding the Watchtower Sect. It's closely related to what Joseph Smith did, with the difference he claimed a revelation from God rather than the super best Bible Study to rule all Bible Studies, like Luther or Russell.

Note, the position of the Reformers was in fact more subtle and grey-zoned than this.*

But anyway, why is this impossible?

Matthew 28:16—20 involves Jesus giving a task and a promise, first a task, the teaching of all truth (which implies absence of all pernicious error), and then a promise to go with the task, remaining with the Church, with the Apostles He was adressing, and implicitly with their successors, since the promise was specified "all days, until the consummation of all time" ...

Now to Gendron's Bible quotes.

1 Tim. 4:1-3 doesn't refer to voluntary celibate, since St. Paul recommends it in 1 Corinthians 7, and also not to abstain from foods on fasting days, since Jesus says "when you fast" ... the Christian fast is typically what a Jew would refer to as "half fast" (their whole fast would be 24 hours without food, we don't do that), and part of their tradition also states that when breaking the fast in the evening, you abstain from meat and dairy, in their view for reasons of digestion. So, no, St. Paul's "doctrines of demons" doesn't at all refer to monks, celibate clergy, days of fast and abstinence.

It could refer to things done to some people, like to me:

• to consider me mad, they go about using modern psychiatry (though I'm not institutionalised, after what I've been told) which is doctrines of demons
• as they consider me mad, they don't allow me to marry yet
• as they consider lack of sexual appetite part of my problem, they make sure I eat plenty, that is they forbid me to fast also.

But it cannot refer to Catholic disciplines like those Gendron had in mind.

Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ
[Colossians 2:8]

St. Paul was comparing Judaisers to Epicureans. Catholics are not Judaisers, nor are we Epicureans, so the accusation is not against us.

Mark 7:7—13 refers to a Pilpul that was fashionable with Jews, i e Pharisees as they back then were known apart from other Jews, back then.

Our Lord does not say all traditions evolving past a clear revealed truth are evil, but that one was since contradicting revealed moral truth.

Gendron

Very few traditions of the Catholic Church are found in the first century church described in the Book of Acts and the Epistles. The Reformers made it very clear that we are “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). Rome's apostasy was officially and dogmatically documented at the Council of Trent, with dozens of anathemas that condemn those who do not believe its heretical dogmas.

Me

That very few traditions are explicitly found, as a Protestant would go about finding or not finding them (the kind of reading which would have led Beroeans to reject St. Paul, if they had held it!) is totally irrelevant. The NT is not all that huge a text mass. Franz Graf-Stuhlhofer (a Baptist) sums up the NT as 17 998 lines of text in Greek. This is too little to give detailed technical instruction on lots and lots and lots of subjects.

As to 1 Cor. 4:6, the Corinthians are told to be content with the hierarchy that's "written" rather than adding preferences for personal teams. Bishop Witham (whose priests were persecuted by England) considers "above that which is written" to mean "against the admonitions" in the Holy Scriptures (he's quoted in the Haydock Bible, which is like Scofield, but better, it's Young Earth Creationist, it's Catholic, it refuses to bow unambiguously down to Heliocentrism in Joshua 10) and those admonitions being about humility, about clergy being selfless and so on.

It is nothing like an instruction to Bible alone. That would contradict Old Testament precedent. We know for a fact that the injunction for brothers to marry the widow of deceased brothers who have no children was expressed as concerning siblings, but in Ruth both Booz and another guy before him were eligible to marry the widow Ruth, while neither was the sibling of Elimelech. In reference to the law, however, he speaks of "our brother Elimelech" ... sth to keep in mind before attacking the perpetual virginity.

As to the Anathemas of Trent, I've started a defense, but I'm behind schedual. Here are the already extant parts:

130 Anathemas of Trent; the 5 First of Them · 130 Anathemas, Session VI, Justification

Gendron

2. The Catholic Church had distorted the Gospel of grace and was under divine condemnation (Gal. 1:6-9).

Me

Gendron at least nominally pretends he found "the Gospel of grace" in Ephesians 2:8,9. We claim we find Catholic doctrine in Ephesians 2:8,9 and 10.

In the Reformers, this very clearly meant free grace theology. That is what Tyndale was burned for. Latomus held to Lordship salvation.

Gendron

As God opened the eyes of the Reformers to see the light of the true Gospel and the glory of Christ, they began proclaiming it and calling Catholics to repent of their gospel of works and sacraments.

Me

So, the tradition of men to cite Ephesians 2:8,9 and shut your eyes when you see the numeral 10, just so you can avoid works, is how God opens eyes? Don't think so.

Gendron

3. Catholic popes had usurped the supreme authority of God’s Word (2 Tim. 3:16).

Wherever Scripture is not the supreme authority, Christ will be dishonored, faith will be misplaced, people will be deceived, the church will be ineffective and men will steal glory from God.

Me

The prooftext says that Scripture is godbreathed. It does not deny that Apostles or Apostolic tradition is godbreathed. In fact, we can see that the Apostles, as personal rather than textual authorities are godbreathed in John 20, the account of Resurrection Sunday's evening:

When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost
[John 20:22]

Who breathed on them? The same person who had said:

Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.
[John 8:58]

That makes the Apostles godbreathed personal authorities, since Jesus who breathed on them is God. Bishops and popes are their successors.

Gendron

4. Catholic priests were false mediators who were continuing Christ's finished work of redemption on their altars (1 Tim. 2:5).

Me

That Jesus is the one mediator does not mean He does not communicate with anyone His work of mediation as it applies concretely.

Gendron

This was an outright rejection of the Lord's victory cry on the cross, "It is finished" (John 19:30). Jesus died once, for all sin, for all time and there are no more offerings for sin (Hebrews 10). Then "He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:12)

Me

Thanks, but this needs to be applied to the individual. If you say "no more sacrifice of the Mass" (contrary to Hebrews 13:10) or "no more absolution by priests" (contrary to John 20:23), it would logically also follow "no more accepting Christ as one's personal Saviour" which I'm very sure Gendron does not mean.

Gendron

What Did the Reformation Accomplish?

Me

He'll claim, salvation of a remnant or something, I'll claim rupture.

Gendron

1. The Reformers made the Bible available to the people in their own language.

Me

True for England, since several Protestant Bibles preceded the Douay Rheims and since in England translating the Bible had been a legal offense since the time the Lollards were banned.

Not true for the Germanies (to which Vilvoorde, speaking Low German, more precisely Low Franconian, Netherlands as we call it now, belonged). Luther made the first Protestant translation, but 19th translation overall to a German dialect (High or Low).

Gendron

The truth was setting them free from religious bondage. This caused the pope to put a stop to this mass exodus by once again putting the Bible on their list of forbidden books.

Me

The Bible was never on the list of forbidden books. Protestant translations of it are. And mistranslations aren't the Bible. Of the old (non-modern) English ones, only Tyndale and the Roman Catholic Douay Rheims are not repeating Calvin's mistranslation about repetions being forbidden.

Gendron

2. The Reformers re-established the Word of God as the supreme authority over popes, traditions, and church councils (2 Tim. 3:15-16).

Me

Again, the passage says nothing of the Bible needing no interpreter. St. Timothy had known the Old Testament since infancy, and needed St. Paul to tell him what it really means, so did the Beroens.

Gendron

As the inspired Word of God, Scripture must be used to test and correct all other authorities.

Me

As the godbreathed successors of the apostles, the episcopate must be used to test and correct men of the world and that would include their misconceptions about the Bible?

But the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged of no man.
[1 Corinthians 2:15]

When Catholic clergy in Germany is called "Geistliche" (spiritual), this is in reference to this verse.

Gendron

3. The Reformers re-established the Lord Jesus Christ as the only Head of His Church.

Me

RE-established?

Like Jesus had left His Church and they needed to call Him back? Check Matthew 28:16—20!

Gendron

How dare the pope steal this title from the One who purchased the church with His own blood (Eph. 1:22; Acts 20:28).

Me

Given by Christ and received by Peter is not the same as stolen by Peter (or his successors).

Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood
[Acts Of Apostles 20:28]

OK, the Holy Ghost placed them to RULE the Church of God ... sounds like given, not stolen.

Mike Gendron seems incapable of even reading his own proof texts.

Gendron

4. The Reformers recovered the most important doctrine of justification, which is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to Scripture alone, all for the glory of God alone.

Me

RE-covered?

Like by truncating the quote Ephesians 2:8 to 10 into just Ephesians 2:8,9?

Gendron

This doctrine answers man's most important question, "How can a sinner become right with God?" Watch Mike's recent message on Why the Reformation Was Necessary which highlights eight ways the Roman Catholic Church distorts the doctrine of justification.

Me

I'll name one way in which Mike Gendron justified it. To Allie Beth Stuckey, he claimed that he came "to his senses" (as he'd see it) over reading Ephesians 2:8,9. He didn't say Ephesians 2:8 to 10, though.

This subject, I'm usually doing on Great Bishop of Geneva!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Francis Borgia
10.X.2024

Sancti Francisci Borgiae, Sacerdotis e Societate Jesu et Confessoris, cujus dies natalis pridie Kalendas Octobris recensetur.

* Gavin Ortlund, pretending it was a "renewal within the Church" goes on to the other extreme. He denies the overthrow of one (ecclesial) government and putting another in its place, that is however exactly what happened in Wittenberg in both the years when Luther was in Wartburg and when he returned. Mass was changed, sacraments were changed, Luther arrogated to himself powers of visitation as if he were a bishop ... when his disciples the brothers Petri returned from Wittenberg to Sweden, their deeds provoked exiles and uprisings to remain Catholic, abroad if one had the resources, at home if one was poorer and more generous in giving one's life.

It seems that Charles McGonigal ...

• while an FBI officer
• took money from a Russian oligarch (with ties to Putin)
• and abused his powers in the FBI to accuse Trump of his own crime.

CNN : Ex-FBI counterintelligence chief sentenced to over four years in prison for work with Russian oligarch
By Kara Scannell, CNN | Updated 10:01 PM EST, Thu December 14, 2023
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/14/politics/ex-fbi-counterintelligence-chief-sentenced-to-sentenced-to-over-four-years-in-prison/index.html

Trump Goes UNHINGED! After Screaming "May He Rot in Hell" This Happens!
Lisa Haven | 16 Dec. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMQQhLzbuoQ

FBI's 'attack on pro-life Catholics' is what you get in Biden's America, Jim Jordan warns House GOP report says the FBI interviewed a priest, church choir director ahead of anti-Catholic memo
By Charles Creitz | Fox News | Published December 5, 2023 8:30am EST
https://www.foxnews.com/media/fbis-attack-pro-life-catholics-bidens-america-jim-jordan-warns

I wonder, how much has the infiltration job by the FBI been facilitated by Catholic Ecumenism?/HGL

Préjugé d'ignorance, partie I

gm b1 lou : Imaginons qu'un Bouddhiste allait décrire la révolte Mahdiste · J'ai revisité Caryl Férey ce matin · New blog on the kid : L'avortement et la contraception mauvais, à part la dignité humaine et de notre sexualité, créée pour procréation ? · Préjugés contre Catholiques et contre Évangélistes · Préjugé d'ignorance, partie I · Préjugé d'ignorance, partie II · Et le préjugé de la haine, alors ?

Mais avant d'aller sur le préjugé que Catholiques ou Évangélistes seraient des "groupes de haine" (comme les nomme parfois Southern Poverty Law Center), allons sur le préjugé qu'ils soient ignorants.

Jacques Attali en 2000 se fit publier dans Le Monde* :

Jacques ATTALI, Réhabiliter Giordano Bruno
Le monde du 17 février 2000
http://www.litt-and-co.org/citations_SH/a-f_SH/attali_giordano_bruno.htm

L'Eglise est alors en pleine effervescence ; elle torture, brûle et décapite clercs et laïcs au moindre soupçon de scepticisme, réformisme, athéisme, magie ou judaïsme secret. Le pape fait brûler des milliers de livres dont il interdit la copie et l'impression. L'élection, en 1541, d'Ignace de Loyola comme préposé général de la Compagnie de Jésus donne à la Contre-Réforme les armes intellectuelles qui lui faisaient défaut, face à la redoutable attaque de Luther et de Calvin. La seule question que les philosophes sont autorisés à se poser - et encore, dans des limites très étroites - est celle du salut. Et comme la nature est censée se conformer aux Saintes Ecritures, la seule science tolérée est la théologie. En particulier, personne n'a le droit de remettre en cause la description de l'Univers que certains croient avoir lue dans la Bible : la Terre est un disque placé au centre d'une sphère céleste sur laquelle tourne le Soleil et où sont fichées la Lune et les étoiles. L'homme, unique créature de Dieu, est au centre de la création. Sont condamnées comme « activités magiques » toutes les pratiques qui formeront bientôt les bases de la science : l'organisation du savoir, la méthode expérimentale, la transformation de la matière.

Il y a un site nommé TV Tropes - il s'agit d'un liste de tropes, de trucs qui marchent, que ce soit sur le petit écran** ou dans d'autre média populaires et narratifs. Un des tropes s'appelle "artistic licence : history" mais autrefois, "you fail history forever" ... ce qui résume mes vues sur Jacques Attali.

elle torture, brûle et décapite clercs et laïcs

Décapitation se pratiquait quand dans l'Inquisition ?

au moindre soupçon de scepticisme, réformisme, athéisme, magie ou judaïsme secret

Genre, aucune chance de se rétablir vis-à-vis l'Église, d'abjurer une erreur ?

Dans les faits, c'était assez facile d'avouer l'occasion d'un malentendu et de s'innocenter - avec quelques questions déconfortables à répondre, parfois. Et si on n'avait pas trop enfoncé ses convictions dans l'hérésie, abjurer pour le futur était aussi une option. Elle pouvait demander une pénitence publique, mais ceci est évidemment autre chose que le sort de Giordano Bruno. C'est vrai qu'il n'aurait pas été brûlé en France actuelle, mais ce n'est pas vrai qu'il n'aurait pas été brûlé dans une société "moins fanatique" et catholique - la société catholique de son époque était largément moins fanatique que ce que décrit Attali.

Le pape fait brûler des milliers de livres dont il interdit la copie et l'impression.

Génuine. Pour une fois.

L'élection, en 1541, d'Ignace de Loyola comme préposé général de la Compagnie de Jésus donne à la Contre-Réforme les armes intellectuelles qui lui faisaient défaut, face à la redoutable attaque de Luther et de Calvin.

Non. Ignace donne une bonne pulsion morale, mais quant à l'intellectuel, il y avait suffisamment pour démontrer la fausseté des propos de Luther et Calvin. Ils faisaient des ravages par populisme, dans une sphère restreinte géographique, mais leurs arguments n'étaient pas très bien pensés.

La seule question que les philosophes sont autorisés à se poser - et encore, dans des limites très étroites - est celle du salut.

Est-ce qu'Attali souffrait d'une fièvre de 40° ?

Charles de Bovelles, Étienne de La Boétie, Marie Le Gendre, Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples, Guillaume de La Perrière avaient d'autres questions.

Muretus était (au moins à la fin de sa vie) Catholique. Ceux qui l'avaient accusé de ne pas l'être étaient des autorités civiles de la France, pas d'autorités de l'Église. Les choses qui l'avaient devant certains incriminés, c'étaient plutôt des trucs rhétoriques.

Judah Leon and Samuel Abravanel n'avaient pas de problèmes devant l'Inquisition.

Les Achillini non plus, comme non plus Scipione Ammirato. Giovanni Camilla n'est pas fameux pour des problèmes avec St. Robert Bellarmin, mais par contre pour encyclopédisme - avant la lettre et hormis les renseignements frelatés de Diderot et compagnie.

Cesare Cremonini avait la réputation de ne pas être Chrétien, parmis certains. Or, il ne semble pas avoir des problèmes avec l'Inquisition.

Marcantonius Majoragio commentait Cicéron et Platon dans un sens chrétien. Vu les deux auteurs qu'il commentait, il ne devait pas être préoccupé uniquement avec le salut.

Fabrizio Mordente apporta une solution bien connu à des problèmes réels, le premier compas de proportion.

Alessandro Piccolomini semble avoir été un astronome au moins égal, sinon supérieur à Bruno.

Giulio Sirenio serait-il le seul philosophe hormis Bruno que connut Attali ? Un de ses livres s'occupe effectivement du salut.

De praedestinatione compendium, libellulis duobus distinctum. In uno, de praedestinatione in altero, de reprobatione agitur. Auctore R.P.F. Iulio Syrenio, Brixiano

Agostino Steuco était perennialiste, beaucoup plus catholique que Guénon.

Francesco de Vieri encoura rien de plus grave que des critiques par ses collègues.

Jacopo Zabarella en commentant l'Organon, la logique d'Aristote, ne se tenait pas qu'aux commentateurs médiévaux, genre St. Thomas d'Aquin, mais aussi à d'autres, récemment découverts pour le public occidental de la Renaissance - genre Philopone. Célèbre pour avoir fustigé l'hyperfondamentalisme de l'Indicopleuste - un navigateur qui à différence de Magellan n'avait pas fait le tour du monde et qui donc concluait contre la rondeur de la terre.

Et comme la nature est censée se conformer aux Saintes Ecritures, la seule science tolérée est la théologie.

Désolé pour la logique de cet homme. C'est une grande différence de vouloir que toute science naturelle soit conforme à la théologie, ambition effectivement là, et de vouloir supprimer toute autre science que la seule théologie, comme quasi superflue. Il y a une grande différence entre vouloir supprimer un propos pas contenu dans la théologie et un propos qui contredit un propos de la théologie. Attali, a-t-il écrit ceci sous influence ?

En particulier, personne n'a le droit de remettre en cause la description de l'Univers que certains croient avoir lue dans la Bible :

Plutôt qu'on avait lu. Si Galilée ou Bruno avaient pu argumenter que le géocentrisme n'était pas dans la Bible, on leur aurait donné raison dessus. Galilée semble avoir essayé ça la première fois, face à St. Robert Bellarmin (qui avant avait été le juge de Bruno), et le juge pouvait donner des raisons pourquoi la lecture de Galilée sur Josué X ne tenait pas la route.

la Terre est un disque placé au centre d'une sphère céleste sur laquelle tourne le Soleil et où sont fichées la Lune et les étoiles.

A-t-on essayé de mettre Attali dans l'asyle après ça ? Il bavardait sur des choses comme la vision du monde des Catholiques du XVIe siècle comme si cette vision du monde était inconnu et devait se déduire de réconstructions de la vision du monde qu'on fait pour l'âge de Bronze et pour les auteurs bibliques. Pas seulement qu'on n'a pas pu vérifier que Josué tenait la terre pour plate ou les astres commes collés à une sphère solide, mais on peut très bien vérifier que St. Robert Bellarmin et compagnie ne tenaient pas ça pour le sentiment de Josué.

Attali, a-t-il consulté une planche ouija ou est-il allé à une lectrice de cartes pour arriver à cette conclusion ? Notons : que les Catholiques du XVIe siècle pensaient ceci ?

St. Robert Bellarmin n'a pas partagé l'opinion de l'Indicopleuste, mais celle de Philopon.

L'homme, unique créature de Dieu, est au centre de la création.

L'homme a certainement une unicité parmis les créatures corporelles. Mais pas en tant que créature de Dieu. Non, en tant que créé à l'image de son créateur. Ceci, pour encore une fois, est presque génuine.

Sont condamnées comme « activités magiques » toutes les pratiques qui formeront bientôt les bases de la science : l'organisation du savoir, la méthode expérimentale, la transformation de la matière.

Et si, au lieu de parler de fièvre, de substance, de diagnose occasionnant enferméments, on se limitait à une explication beaucoup plus probable ?

Attali se trouve dans une groupuscule qui a collectivement un Dunning Kruger à propos l'histoire ? Ou il se trouvait, mais il ne semble pas avoir pris d'efforts pour faire effacer sa bavure de l'an 2000, quoiqu'il y a eu 23 années et quelques mois à sa disposition. Donc, il s'y trouve probablement encore.***

Or, les gens qui s'adonnent à ce genre d'ignorance aiment parfois trop de taxer par exemple les Pentecôtestes ou les Catholiques (surtout du passé, pour ne pas se mettre les sectaires de Vatican II sur le dos) d'ignorants.

[à suivre]

* Le site que je cite n'est pas un article de ce journal. ** Non interactif, c'est à dire la télé. *** Quelques candidats pour la catégorie, d'après les catégories de la wikipédie angloophone qui renvoient à lui :

Eureka ? Hommes d'Algers ? Citoyens français d'origine algéro-judaïque ? Sépharades français du XXe siècle ? Économistes français ? Alumni de Janson-de-Sailly, de l'école polytechnique, des mines, des Sci-Po, de l'ENA, de Paris-Dauphine ? Membres du Conseil d'État ou de la Banque européenne pour la reconstruction et le développement (le président de la BERD ne va pas trop se démarquer des autres banquiers) ? Transhumanistes français ? Membres de l'Académie royale des sciences, des lettres et des beaux-arts de Belgique ?

Are English speakers deaf? Bell and Pell?

George Pell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pell

Accused of sexual abuse, was convicted and sent to prison, but eventually vindicated as innocent.

George Bell (bishop)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bell_(bishop)

George Bell is honoured with a commemoration in the Church of England on 3 October.

In other words, very venerated.

As an "ally of the Confessing Church" (i e of Bonnhoeffer, of a theologic progressive) he was probably himself a progressive.

However, this venerated man, seems to have been actually guilty.

An angel shouted "go for George Bell" and the deaf English speakers in Oz went for George Pell instead.

Yes, there is a real news story that the Anglican progressive did such an act:

Bishop of Chichester George Bell's sex abuse victim gets compensation
Published 22 October 2015
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-34604872

However, there is a news story that this was settled in a bad way, since the accused was already dead and had could not defend himself:

The Guardian : Anglican church 'rushed to judgment' in George Bell child abuse case
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/15/george-bell-anglican-church-rushed-to-judgment-child-abuse-carlile-report

So, there is not a real court process that says George Bell was guilty. There is also not a real court process clearing him, unlike for George Pell.

BBC: Retired bishop Peter Ball jailed for sex assaults
7 October 2015
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-34466842

BBC : Sex abuse bishop Peter Ball and brother seek Catholic switch
6 December 2017
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42257380.amp

So, the guilty bishop, or very probably so, after doing time, considered Catholicism a safe haven, not for a ministry which he could possibly abuse again, but for a few years of peace and anonymity and getting right with God.

Given that he stated he loved the Church of England, i e had no theological qualms about it, it is arguable he was an ecumenical and progressive leaning person.

But how did the Catholic Church react?

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Arundel and Brighton said in a statement: "We confirm that Peter Ball has been in contact with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Clifton, in which diocese he now lives, expressing an interest in becoming a member of the Catholic Church.

"This matter is subject to discussions between Clifton Diocese and the statutory authorities, who are the lead with regards to Peter Ball's risk management in the community."

In other words, while they were not blocking Peter Ball from saving his soul, they were also not taking risks for the children of their community.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Easter Wednesday
12.IV.2023

To appear on Monday after Easter Octave, 17.IV