Tribunaux secrets nocturnes en Allemagne ?

Des intrigues à Nanterre U · Je viens de voire Hitler décrit comme "trempé en essentialisme créationniste" · Certains prétendraient que je ne travaille pas ... faux · Tribunaux secrets nocturnes en Allemagne ? · Quelques-uns semblent me diriger à des vidéos pour "me refuter" ... · Mise à jour sur le passeport

Ces statistiques vont être notées avec celles du 9 septembre ou plutôt la semaine jusqu'au demain.

Entre 16:40 le 7 et 16:40 le 8 septembre, 2026 :
La France a une baisse, normalement les derniers temps, elle a eu un peu plus que 1000 pages vues par jour, ces 24 h. un peu moins que 800.		L'Allemagne a une pique. Non, pas une hausse normale, une pique. Entre 2 et 4 heures ce matin, sur blog après blog, pas tous, mais pas mal, l'Allemagne a entre 100 et 200 lecteurs. Et pas mal souvent dans ce cas, la France en a moins que 10, genre 5 ou 6. Surtout l'Allemagne domine s'il n'y a pas les États-Unis à côté sur le top des pays.
Allemagne 279 + 40 + 162 + 161 + 134 + 1 + 146 + 201 + 169 + 3 + 9 + 168 + 1 + 158 + 185 + 148 + 1 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 4 + 7 + 6 + 195 + 57 + 120 + 197 + 152 + 4 + 1 + 5 = 2718 = 2,72 k 2,72 k + 1,36 k = 4,08 k		France 403 + 1 + 2 + 33 + 4 + 1 + 6 + 6 + 2 + 5 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 1 + 317 = 792

Je reconnais ce genre de pique.

Je l'ai vue, exactement les mêmes horaires (à moins que c'était entre 4 et 6 h du matin l'autre fois, la même concentration sur l'Allemagne (l'autre fois la Suède aussi), la baisse (plus radicale l'autre fois) des vues de la France, les pertes de côte que j'ai eu en tenant la pancarte avec les URL dans la rue, davantage se prétendent gêné qu'avant ces piques.

L'autre fois, c'était juste après le décès (ou juste avant le décès) de Ratzinger, chez certains connu comme "Benoît XVI". Cette fois c'est quelque semaines en avance de la visite de Prevost, en France, lui connu par certains comme "Léon XIV" ...

Cette fois, mon passeport est volé, en plus.

Il pourrait se trouver en Allemagne en train d'être abusé pour un délit administratif, quelqu'un pourrait me prétendre représenter (en réalité contre moi-même, et contre mon moi réel, mais ce n'est pas ce qu'ils diraient, ce genre de salauds).

Et les deux fois, il pourrait se trouver des allergies trop prononcées contre "toute forme d'Antisémitisme" (dont, pour certains, y compris certains Protestants et Sécularistes de la Suède et d'Allemagne, des positions normales pour un Catholique ou le fait de soutenir la Palestine). Car, l'une fois, après un documentaire sur le grandpère de mon roi, sur Charles Édouard de Saxe-Cobourg et Gotha*, je regarde un documentaire par une Juive, d'Autriche. Les National-socialistes avaient simplement plagié un livre de recettes par sa grand-mère, et je lui demande de me confirmer que ce n'est pas le genre de choses qui se serait passé sous l'Austro-fascisme.** La même nuit ou deux nuits après, les piques de l'Allemagne et les baisses (davantage radicales) en France se produisirent.***

Des gens qui n'auraient pas la possibilité de me poursuivre en tribunal de correctionnelle pour des délits comme incitation à la haine ont peut-être quand même envie de me considérer coupable et de me faire pâtir de leur "justice" non du pays. Ou si c'était pour renverser les décisions du début 2023 et fin 2022. Je ne sais pas. Je sais, par contre, qu'une condemnation devant la chambre 17 de correctionnelle aurait pu faire des dégâts plus limités et déjà dépassés par rapport à cette persistance.

On venait de me demander de considérer la prière (prayer) comme adoration (worship, mot désignant aussi culte) et donc le culte mariale comme idolâtre, donc de reconsidérer. Va pas arriver. J'ai fait ma décision il y a très longtemps. Et ma mère qui avait voulu me demander de reconsidérer avait fini par le faire elle-même. Dernières mémoires avant de la quitter à Malmö comprennent un Rosaire, les quinze mystères, prié avec elle. Vers 18 ans après ces discussions.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Nativité de la Vierge Marie
8 septembre 2026

Nativitas beatissimae semper Virginis Genitricis Dei Mariae.

---

* Il était père de la Princesse Sibylle et celle-ci mère de Charles XVI Gustave, roi de la Suède. Ce dernier n'est devenu roi qu'après le décès de sa mère, elle n'a donc eu le distinction de reine mère, en Suède elle était Duchesse de Westrobothnie. Je n'ai pas à critiquer cette Princesse, mais son père, dont j'avais vu le documentaire, était national-socialiste, le premier noble à serrer la main d'Adolf, et son fils est Seigneur et maître (chevalier) de l’ordre de Charles XIII / réservé aux francs-maçons de rite suédois au 11e degré et de confession protestante. Le but de cet ordre est d'encourager les membres de la loge à la charité et récompenser les vertus civiques. IL est également Haut protecteur (chevalier honoraire) de l’ordre de Saint-Jean en Suède / certes l'Ordre de Malte, mais en Protestants.

** Celui avait une rhétorique visant à briser une dominance trop grande des Juifs sur le business de la Vienne et de l'Autriche, mais une rhétorique qui refusait de se traduire en des brutalités réelles, même juste administratives, car en 1938, après 4 ans de ce régime, les Juifs avaient toujours 3/4 des banques, des journaux, des entreprises de textiles à Vienne, ainsi que plus que la 1/2 des avocats, médecins et dentistes sur tout le pays. Le soir que Schuschnigg annonce sa démission, on tue des Juifs dans la rue. Certains se sont dit "enfin" ... et un journal National-Socialiste avant caricaturé Schuschnigg en péon d'échecs, en train d'être éloigné, avec le texte "Sie sind ein Falschspieler, Herr Schuschnigg" ... non, ça ne se serait pas produit sous l'Austro-fascisme.

*** Avant les baisses, j'avais eu une certaine popularité, y compris parmi les Musulmans, et la France était montée de 1000 sur 2000 par jour en 2000 sur 3000. Et ensuite, du jour au lendemain, une baisse notable en France.

Stephen Powell Seems to be on a One Man "Crusade" (or Jihad) Against Candace Owens

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: No, I'm Not Dispensationalist and Not The Run of the Mill Christian Zionist · New blog on the kid: A Strong Delusion ... · Stephen Powell Seems to be on a One Man "Crusade" (or Jihad) Against Candace Owens

He has by now, since the article I saw, abused other verses to go after her.

And withal being idle they learn to go about from house to house: and are not only idle, but tattlers also, and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not
[1 Timothy 5:13]

Someone answered him:

Marc Watkins

Does Erika Kirk satisfy 1 Timothy 5? That section is explicitly about widows.

Is she a stay at home mom, or a CEO?

Since she is not 1 Timothy 5, perhaps Revelation 18:7 applies.

Naboth did have a very nice vineyard.

This is the reference:

As much as she hath glorified herself, and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her; because she saith in her heart: I sit a queen, and am no widow; and sorrow I shall not see
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 18:7]

Now, back to Stephen Powell, who is making a series "a Biblical case against Candace Owens" he did not end with 1 Tim 5:13.

The aged women, in like manner, in holy attire, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teaching well
[Titus 2:3]

Not false accusers ... I have not gone into the accusations Candace made about Erika, apart from making sure that TPUSA which was veering away from Zionism the last months of Charlie's life is getting back "on track" ... that one is obvious.

But what is also obvious is, Stephen Powell is clearly not investigating whether Candace is right or wrong in what he says. He's presuming she's wrong, and then using Bible verses, some of which don't apply, some of which can only apply if what she' says is wrong, to make a case about how disastrous this is. Then he is obviously also making the disastrousness thereof a reason to not to listen to Candace Owens (or Erika Kirk or Allie Beth Stuckey either, presumably, since he claims Candace Owens is just a case study ...) and therefore this has the (not necessarily unforeseen) side effect of making sure others also don't investigate what Candace has had to say about Erika. Others also just presume guilt.

The verse now, his translation says "slanderers" and not "false accusers". Some use the word "slander" a bit more loosely about "unproven accusations" and not just false ones.*

Either translation states the women in question are "aged" or "older" ... I'd call a maid of 37 old, as in old maid, but not an older woman. A married woman who already has started having children (ideally before 30) and who seems to intend having more of them cannot be classified as an older or an aged woman.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St. Bernard of Clairvaux
20.VIII.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.

* Or in other words, as he even uses the term, he's not drawing the line at calumny, he is including what would be called and what he calls "misinformation" ...

New Answer on How Judaism was Founded

Old post, but as on a debate blog updatable with further debate, which just arrived.

This post has an update under the first video, so far not under the second* one:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Judaism Apostasised, Catholicism Didn't
Sunday, May 24, 2026 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 8:48 AM
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2026/05/judaism-apostasised-catholicism-didnt.html

* The second deals with the Protestant claim that Catholicism apostasised.

A Probably False Exegesis Behind Pre-Tribulation Rapture

Here are two verses, where there seems to be some tension:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it
[Matthew 16:18]

And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 13:7]

Now, Dispensationalists will claim, the tension is resolved by the "saints" of the latter verse not being in the Church, but being "Tribulation Saints" ...

I think it is excluded that there will be a clearly non-Church category of tribulation saints if the Church is still present on earth. The Church does not cease to be "the saints" whereever it is.

I also think it is excluded that the Church as a whole will be taken up before the Tribulation.

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world
[Matthew 28:20]

So, people of the Church are clearly meant by "the saints" that the Beast will be overcoming. If there are any other saints, that will be people directed to the Church, that may not have time to get baptised before they get martyred, but they will not be opponents of the Catholic Church.

Therefore I hold that the key to harmony is on some other level.

The Gates of Hades will not ... the verb is a form of κατισχύω, which in the LXX often translates חָזַק

... while The Beast will ... the verb is a form of νικάω.

And also the object is different in an aspect. In Matthew, the non-defeated is the Church, as a single whole. In Apocalypse the defeated ones are the saints, as single members of her.

Here is a question:

If the Antichrist is already taking out the Church as a whole at the beginning of the 42 months, why is he still busy making war on and defeating saints when the 42 months are over?

He will presumably not be taking out the Church as a whole, ever. Even if the last member of the Church is the last Pope and he's rotting in Antichrist's prison, and only taken out and executed or brought to execution* a moment before Christ arrives, the Church would still be there.

Christ said, the gates of Hell, and Antichrist and False Prophet included, will never take over the Church as to make Her a museum piece with no life.** However, He did not promise safety from persecutions, and for 3 and 1/2 years She will be defeated in members in a purely physical, political, judicial sense: handed over to execution. But that will never be all of Her. Probably the reason why Knights of Columbus greet each other (as I have learned from Mark P. Shee's blog), with the greeting "Hail Hydra" ... even if the Antichrist will be the actual seven headed beast, it will be the Church that fatigues Hercules by growing heads after they are lopped off.

And yes, I think Hercules is a fairly apt model for the Antichrist. The last Pagan army of actual Romans that marched against the Chi-Rho, marched under a sign of Hercules. I also think it's Hercules that St. Paul names as the idol whose worship is punished by male homosexuality, as Hercules was the patron deity of exactly that, along with very machist physics. Was there someone in the MAGA camp who wanted to test the testosterone levels of his soldiers? Bad move.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
IX LD after Pentecost
26.VII.2026

PS, this has been linked to in a comment, and if they take the challenge, their youtube will be named in the debate./HGL

* A scenario entertained by a Catholic novelist, I think Graham Greene.
** A Swedish poet, Atterbom, in a dystopia, considered the possibility of a state banning the Church but keeping the requiem Mass for so and so as a museum piece ... but as long as it's said by a real priest, it is a real Mass before God before being a museum piece before men. I think this was the Third or Fourth Adventure of Isle of Bliss (my tentative translation of Lyckslighetens Ö). It's a five act piece, but the acts are called Adventures, and not inappropriately.

Would Conservative Protestants Like a Protestant Civilisation?

HGL's F.B. writings: A Serb is Anti-Austrian (Who's Surprised?) · New blog on the kid: Would Conservative Protestants Like a Protestant Civilisation?

They want to persuade themselves they would.

Doug Wilson dreams of a hypothetic future Protestant Republic. In it, Catholic Churches would be denied the right to Marian processions. But apart from that, Catholics could remain openly Catholics, apparently?

His rationale for opposing the Marian procession is, it's "public idolatry" ... but part of the rationale for the Deformation (he would spell it with an R, not a D) is that Eucharistic adoration is idolatry and Sacrifice of the Mass either idolatry or at least blasphemy.

So, I have a hard time seeing how his future Protestant Republic would not also oppose what's going on inside a Catholic Church to which the doors are usually open, daytime. Perhaps he would change access to the Catholic Church, allowing the public access only for Mass hours, and showing a card to the ussher. Or perhaps he would pretend Catholic Mass is just a version of the Sunday service. The one road is restriction, the other misrepresentation.

Either way, early Protestant civilisation items like England in the days of Charles II (despite his being personally convinced of Catholicism at a time when his brother, the future James VII and II was still a convinced Protestant) would kill priests for celebrating mass and kill laymen for hosting a priest to celebrate Mass or for hiding a priest from detection.

Now, he is against female pastors, rightly so, against the theory of Evolution, rightly so, against full Church acceptance of, not same sex attracted persons, perhaps, but certainly homosexual couples, and rightly so (I'm for acceptance of a ssa person if he or she is into celibacy or into actual Christian marriage, ie makes an exception for one of the opposed sex).

But a late Protestant civilisation has produced, in order of appearance, some from earlier on but more important later:

• Proposals to push Antisemitism to destruction of Synagogues (Luther)
• Masonic type indifferentism, starting with early Rosicrucians (around the beginning of the Thirty Years War)
• Deep Space (Newton, Kant)
• Deep Time (Hutton, Lyell)
• Evolution, including human evolution (Wallace, Darwin)
• Neopagan attacks on "God of the gaps" (Nietzsche was from Röcken, near Lützen)
• acceptance of Evolution in the Church with "Christian" attacks on "God of the gaps" (Henry Drummond, Free Church of Scotland)
• National Socialism (Václav Klofáč and Rudolf Jung took inspiration from the Hussite commander John Zizka of Trocnov and the Chalice; c. 1360 – 11 October 1424)
• Female Pastors
• Persecution of Creationists in Church
• acceptance of gay couples in Church, with "blessings" of partnerships or downright gay weddings.

I suppose Doug Wilson is against all of these, and rightly so. Oh, perhaps excluding Deep Space, but if so he hasn't paid attention to the "Distant Starlight" argument against Young Earth Creationism.

Another item is lying. Doug Wilson might be in denial about this one.

It was a Serb who showed above photo as an exhibit of "Catholic clergy", all of above are in fact Protestant clergy. As he didn't answer my words, I couldn't correct his possible denial, but am doing so here. The two central figures are:

Von Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-H25547 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 de, Link

Ludwig Müller, here shown with Nazi salute at the National Synod of Wittenberg (he was federal bishop or Reichsbischoff) and ...

Friedrich Coch, "von 1933 bis 1945 Landesbischof der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Landeskirche Sachsens." (country bishop of Saxony) with the previous words designating him as a "leading proponent of the German Christians movement (Deutsche Christen in the German original term). He was from Eisenach, near Wartburg.

But this confusion has been entertained by Protestants as well, like his thesis, Stepinac being, on orders of the Vatican, complicit in Jasenovac atrocities of genocidal type against Serbs, has been promoted by Avro Manhattan at Chick Tracts.

I have also seen a photo of Hitler signing a cheque for a Protestant Deaconess presented as Hitler adulated by a "Catholic nun" which clearly she was not.

More often, National Socialism is presented as specially indebted to Catholicism in Austria and Bavaria, because it's clearly in the century leading up to it, Antisemitic. Right, it is Antisemitic on a religious level, and it has promoted what some would call "the Blood Libel" ... I'm not into calling it a libel, but I am against pushing it against all Jews, just as I'm against pushing National Socialism against all Catholic Antisemites. There was a tract about Sts Simon of Trent, Andrew of Rinn and two more child martyrs, I'd exonerate Jews on St. Andrew while leaving him martyrdom status (Chesterton would have probably surmised the "Jews" that that uncle met were actually witches and I'm suspicious of the uncle). It was pushing against "Orthodox" Jews because of similiarities between these and the Medieval Jews, perhaps superficial such. I'd hope those killers were as untypical of Medieval Jews as the Rotschilds are of modern ones.

But it never went beyond religious propaganda. Austro-Fascism, the pure expression of this Catholicism, the direct heir of Karl Lüeger, never persecuted Jews or any ethnic group as such. Oh, people from Czechoslovakia were expelled from factories and deported back over the border.

The huge difference between Austro-Fascism and NSDAP was that NSDAP was pro-medicine and pro-science, in a sense that divorced ethics from Catholicism or even from Protestant Christian ethics (Protestantism has an inherent tendency this direction, in the idea of "simul justus et peccator" and it was accentuated by Deutsche Christen). Austro-Fascism never divorced political ethics from Catholic ethics. That's why Jews, Roma, Sinti were safe, as far as the government was concerned, in Austria prior to 1938. And so were handicapped people. That's why they could face unjust hardships in Germany as early as 1933 (confiscated property, for Jews, socially motivated slave hunting, "tramp camps" for among others Gipsies, while handicapped people could be "mercy killed" from September 1939, including in former and future Austria, by then "Ostmark", and sterilised since February 1934, as in Protestant countries of Scandinavia up to the 1970's). But this, the Protestants prefer to gloss over, and Doug Wilson has unjustly gone after Nick Fuentes.

I may like some National Socialists today (notably Nordfront in Sweden). But I'm not into all of their politics, and this is partly because I'm Catholic and Fredrik and Paulina (I hope they become Catholics one day, they are currently Neo-Pagans) are indirect heirs to a Protestant culture, one which when it could no longer persecute Catholics after Gustaf III or converts to Catholicism after 1860, chose to obfuscate Catholicism. The other day, an article showed the difference. In England, there was a directive to make fewer forced hospitalisations of Black people for psychosis. To Nordfront redactors the prior state was not racist, but simply reflected these people having a higher degree of genetic fragility to psychosis. To me, I'm happy the directive points to racist or racist adjacent motivations (also known as hyper civilisation) in the diagnosis criteria. Obviously I'd hope it leads to fewer White Brits being hospitalised as well. Including, perhaps, if that's the case, the mother of Preston Davies.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Martyrs of Gorkum
9.VII.2026

Brilae, in Hollandia, passio novemdecim Martyrum, Gorcomiensium nuncupatorum; quorum ex numero novem Sacerdotes ac duo Laici erant Fratres Minores, quatuor Presbyteri saeculares, duo Praemonstratenses, unus Regularis Canonicus sancti Augustini, et unus Dominicanus. Hi omnes, ob tuendam Ecclesiae Romanae auctoritatem et realem Christi in Eucharistia praesentiam, a Calvinianis haereticis varia ludibria et tormenta perpessi, tandem, in trabem acti, agonem suum, adstrictis laqueo faucibus, consummarunt; et a Pio Nono, Pontifice Maximo, inter sanctos Martyres relati sunt.

Wes Huff, How About Reading On Just One Verse?

Taking a Cue from Joe Heschmeyer: Why am I a Christian? · Wes Huff, How About Reading On Just One Verse?

Here is your video or a video where you are featured:

Wes Huff Left ALL Catholics SILENT With A Perfect Answer!
@truthtreasured
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dWg0KuwzROY

You featured this "passage" here:

For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God Not of works, that no man may glory
[Ephesians 2:8-9]

We Catholics think this is more like a passage:

For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God Not of works, that no man may glory For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them
[Ephesians 2:8-10]

Once we are saved which in this context means justified, we still have to do the good works God has prepared that we should walk in them.

That in turn is how we "work out our salvation" (as in staying justified and finally getting to Heaven), so it's not irrelevant for our eternal glory:

Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will
[Philippians 2:12-13]

In other words, the merits are meritorious, because they are God's work in us. But they are still good works which we have to do, so, we actually have something to look forward to as from our merit.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Tuesday in Holy Week
31.III.2026

"La loi reflète l'évolution des mentalités"

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Non, l'Austrofascisme n'a pas stérilisé des gens de force · New blog on the kid : "La loi reflète l'évolution des mentalités"

Vous pouvez demander à S.Guérin en quelle législation récente il utilisait ces mots. Notons, l'Église catholique n'a pas fait le même changement. 1 Corinthiens 7:4 vaut toujours.

Mais il y avait un temps, la loi civile comme la tradition de l'Église étaient conçues comme étant là, pas pour suivre, pas pour refléter, mais plutôt pour arrêter, empêcher ou au moins enfreindre, l'évolution des mentalités.

Car, le Seigneur, tant des consciences, que des États, de tous les États, des États chrétiens de droit et de fait, des États non-chrétiens au moins de droit, ce n'est pas la somme des mentalités qui un moment donné sont vivantes et entre la minorité et le troisième ou quatrième âge. C'est Jésus-Christ.

En Suède, notre roi Oscar II était le dernier oint et couronné par la cérémonie ancestrale. Il recommandait que son fils et héritier, Gustave V, accesse sans les cérémonies religieuses. Pour respecter l'évolution des mentalités. Ceci eut lieu (sur cette recommendation) en 1907, avant que la Suède sombrât avec deux lois, 1934 et 1941, dans l'eugénisme par stérilisations forcées, jusqu'à son abolition dans les années 1970'* — peut-être parce que l'on avait déjà en 1907 décidé de suivre l'évolution des mentalités.

Pour un Chrétien, l'évolution des mentalités a un autre nom. La grande apostasie.

Que personne ne vous égare d’aucune manière ; car auparavant viendra l’apostasie, et se manifestera l’homme de péché, le fils de la perdition, l’adversaire qui s’élève contre tout ce qui est appelé Dieu ou honoré d’un culte, jusqu’à s’asseoir dans le sanctuaire de Dieu, et à se présenter comme s’il était Dieu. ... Dans son apparition cet impie sera, par la puissance de Satan, accompagné de toutes sortes de miracles, de signes et de prodiges mensongers, avec toutes les séductions de l’iniquité, pour ceux qui se perdent, parce qu’ils n’ont pas ouvert leur cœur à l’amour de la vérité qui les eût sauvés. C’est pourquoi Dieu leur envoie des illusions puissantes qui les feront croire au mensonge, en sorte qu’ils tombent sous son jugement tous ceux qui ont refusé leur foi à la vérité, et ont au contraire pris plaisir à l’injustice.

DEUXIÈME ÉPÎTRE AUX THESSALONICIENS, Chap. ii

La loi néfaste sur stérilisation forcée étant retirée en Suède, peut-on parler de grande apostasie ? Oui, car à peu près le même temps, on introduit l'avortement sur demande. On avait déjà eu l'avortement "sur indication médicale" et ceci bien au-delà de simplement sortir un bébé pas encore viable pour sauver la vie même de la mère. On introduit l'avortement sur demande. En 1975 on abolit la stérilisation forcée — sauf pour la catégorie qui change du sexe légal, ceci à partir de 1972 jusqu'en 2013 — et déjà en 1974 on avait l'avortement sur demande.

Bien entendu, les médecins qui avaient en des cliniques psychiatriques appliqué la stérilisation forcée, ils devaient changer de la routine, mais n'étaient pas obligés de quitter le travail, ni de changer leur mentalité en profondeur.

En 2010, environ 80 % des grossesses d'adolescentes étaient interrompues. C'est à dire, en Suède, on dit "une adolescente peut pas être mère" (et pas femme non plus, évidemment), "elle est encore un enfant et doit donc pas avoir un enfant, qu'elle avorte !" Si on parle de grossesses d'adolescentes, suivie de tuerie de l'enfant à naître, entre 1975 et 2005, le chiffre dépassait souvent 20 sur 1000 femmes de la population, âgées 15–44 ans. Depuis 2010, quand ça dépassait légèrement 20 sur les 1000, ça a baissé. Entretemps, en 2016, luf, la filiale suédoise du LYMEC, votait pour proposer "avortement juridique" ... un père ayant le même délai de se défaire de la paternité que la mère d'avorter.

Non, l'évolution des mentalités n'est pas une bonne chose, ni un critère pour la législation. Pas telle qu'elle est ce dernier siècle, sauf les réactions (y compris contre la stérilisation forcée).

Or, la mentalité des temps de stérilisation forcée a des côtés à faire attention. L'alcoolisme figurait parmi les problèmes qui, selon certains, dans la presse qui soutenait la nouvelle législation en 1934, pourrait motiver cette mesure saugrenue :

The** analyzed articles illustrate how influential figures, such as high-ranking doctors and professors, played a crucial role in shaping the discourse around sterilization. This discourse interconnects sterilization with broader societal concerns, including crime, alcoholism, overcrowding, abortion and contraceptive use. ... Terms such as “mentally deficient”, “mentally ill”, “mentally abnormal”, and “antisocial” are highlighted as examples of the descriptors used to categorize and stigmatize individuals in the discourse surrounding sterilization.

Je traduis :

Les articles analysés montrent comment les personnages à influence, comme docteurs et professeurs hauts de gamme, jouaient un rôle crucial dans la formation du discours autour de la stérilisation. Ce discours fait la connection entre stérilisation et d'inquiétudes sociétales plus vastes, y compris crime, alcoolisme, congestion [à domicile], avortement et usage de contraceptifs. Des termes commes "déficient mental", "malade mental", "abnorme mental" et "antisocial" sont soulignés comme exemples des épithètes en usage pour la catégorisation et la stigmatisation d'individus, dans le discours autour de la stérilisation.

Bien évidemment, les attitudes vis-à-vis alcooliques, criminels, domiciles en congestion, la capacité de stigmatiser les individus pour ce genre de raisons, ça n'a pas disparu en 1975. Des années plus tard, en 1972, l'Église suédoise avait 95,4 % des Suédois. Si ce "clergé" (dans le sens social, pas sacremental !) n'a rien ou trop peu fait pour empêcher cette mesure, c'est que le Luthéranisme était un truc d'identité, pas une foi chrétienne. En plus, dans les années 1930, pas sûr que les "évangélistes" (dont la Suède avait son maximum les années 1930') auraient défendu la fertilité humaine. En 1931, le 7 mars, le journal Tidevarvet a un journaliste ou freelance probablement en partie d'origine italienne, Pier Gudro (nom de plum dès par une œuvre de Pirandello), qui dans un article nommé "Vad påven menade" (ce qu'a voulu dire le pape) se trouve obligé d'expliquer pourquoi les Italiens ont accepté que le pape, en Casti connubii se mêlait en des "affaires privées" autant que des "affaires publiques" sans de se borner à des affaires purement ecclésiastiques. Si les Méthodistes ou la Mission d'Örebro*** qui venait de se former avaient eu l'attitude des Catholiques, peut-être le crime d'état aurait pu être évité. Au moins pour les Méthodistes, ce n'était pas le cas.

Soyons honnêtes. La réforme luthérienne et la réforme anglicane° n'ont pas augmenté (au moins pas durablement) la piété, ils l'ont repoussée dans la sphère privée de manière de libérer le champs sociétal pour le sécularisme. Et ça fait mal. Ça promeut les préjugés, un peu comme le Jansénisme.°° Que d'autres formes de Protestantisme rendent compte de leur positions historiques, ici il s'agit de la première secte d'avoir envahi un royaume (Luthéranisme en Suède, 1527) et la première secte d'avoir été unie à un pouvoir suffisent pour protéger les Protestants du Continent (Anglicanisme en Angleterre, en 1534, l'Angleterre possédait encore Calais, pas loin des Pays-Bas Espagnols). Ce n'est pas pour rien qu'on rapproche de côté catholique tradi les années 1517 (Luther), 1717 (Désaguiliers fonde la Maçonnerie) et 1917 (la Révolution russe).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Jean Bosco
31.I.2026

Augustae Taurinorum sancti Joannis Bosco, Confessoris, Societatis Salesianae ac Instituti Filiarum Mariae Auxiliatricis Fundatoris, animarum zelo et fidei propagandae conspicui, quem Pius Papa Undecimus Sanctorum fastis adscripsit.

PS, avec ce genre de préjugés, pas limités aux Protestants Luthériens (il y a des Musulmans pas trop différents), mon échec à me connecter sur l'un de mes comptes FB pourrait figurer comme "symptomatique", mais voici la vraie raison, vu que je ne possède pas d'ordinateur et qu'un ordinateur que j'ai déjà utilisé ne va pas être reconnaissable comme tel dans les cookies d'un ordinateur emprunté :

Si vous n’avez plus accès à un autre appareil déjà utilisé pour vous connecter à ce compte, nous ne pouvons pas vous permettre de vous connecter, et ce à des fins de sécurité.

PPS, le dimanche, deux fois:

Vérifiez vos notifications sur un autre appareil
Accédez à votre compte Facebook sur un autre appareil et ouvrez la notification que nous vous avons envoyée pour approuver cette connexion.

J'étais déjà sur "un autre appareil" la deuxième fois, et je ne peux pas deviner quel appareil ils ont désigné comme "mon" autre./HGL

* En Allemagne et Autriche, la limite était 1945. L'Autriche était libérée de l'Allemagne, l'Allemagne était dénazifiée. Je remercie Patton, pas Joukov.

** Voir :
Sterilisering som samhällslösning
Erika Cataldo Brånstad, essai en Histoire de niveau C
Södertörns högskola, automne de 2023
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1939387/FULLTEXT01.pdf

*** À prononcer Œûrébroû, avec deux longues voyelles.

° Peut-être plutôt D- que R- au début, non ?

°° Quand j'ai adhéré dans le passé à la FSSPX, je pensais que l'accusation du Jansénisme à leur égard était une de ces confusions entre la vertu de la foi et les vertus naturelles qu'on voit trop souvent dans la Secte de Vatican II. Genre vouloir du magistère croyant tous les dogmes équivaudrait à vouloir obéir uniquement à des papes personnellement saints. Depuis, j'ai vu un peu leur surévaluation de la vie reglée, qui rappelle la thèse condamné n° 1 de la bulle Unigenitus, citée de leur propre site : 1. Que reste-t-il à une âme, qui a perdu Dieu et sa grâce, sinon le péché et ses suites, une orgueilleuse pauvreté et une indigence paresseuse, c’est-à-dire, une impuissance générale au travail, à la prière, et à tout bien ? Luc 16, 3 (éditions 1693, 1699) Il y a une confusion entre péché mortel et la vie bohême.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But ineptitude it is.

The comment he answered is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, his first comment is a non sequitur.

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

You might want to source that.

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

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

MTB MTB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Protestants

What is the Atonement? · To Protestants

You may say:

It's either only Jesus, or only you.

We say:

It's both all Jesus and all you.

St. Ignatius of Loyola has been credited with saying:

pray as if everything depends on God, and work as if everything depends on you.

I got this exact quote, which apparently isn't one, from a man who appreciates St. Ignatius, but prefers to reverse the saying.

Work as if Everything Depends on God
Jim Manney | [Ignatian Spirituality]
https://www.ignatianspirituality.com/work-as-if-everything-depends-on-god/

Evangelicals Also Take a Distance from Extreme Zionism

Facing Gaza as a Christian: I'm afraid I've been silent too long*
Culture, Faith, and Politics | 2 Aug. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIFvPkC_7RY

Patrick Kahnke is indeed an Evangelical, as per the description on the channel:

Pat Kahnke was an evangelical church planter and pastor for twenty years before retiring from church ministry in 2016. Planted a church in the inner city of St. Paul, MN - part of the Baptist General Conference (Converge) and Alliance for Renewal Churches. A lifelong conservative Republican until the party left him in 2016. Now a political independent, he has written off the Republican party until it completes 40 years in the wilderness for its capitulation to the MAGA movement.

* Reconstructing the English title from the French translation, unfortunately provided to exclusion of the English one: Face à Gaza en tant que chrétien : j'ai peur d'être resté silencieux trop longtemps

Certains ont du mal à comprendre que je suis Catholique

Je viens de regarder deux vidéos en anglais cette nuit · Certains ont du mal à comprendre que je suis Catholique

Depuis ma conversion en mai 1988, la période la plus stable, sans de changer d'obéissance, a été celle que je n'ai pas pu pratiquer ma foi comme il conviendrait, vu qu'il n'y a pas d'endroit à Paris où la Messe se célèbre "una cum papa nostro Michael" ... mais ça a été une période stable, depuis 2014.

La manque de pratique ne change pas les dogmes que je crois.

Je ne me sens pas obligé à demander à un Protestant ou à un Juif ou à un Musulman, et même pas à un Orthodoxe, comment je dois juger telle ou telle question, ma conscience catholique me suffit sans ça. Il y a des Protestants que je consulte pour leur expertise en des questions techniques, par exemple Testify à propos de la fiabilité des Évangiles ou CMI (sans oublier AiG et IRC) pour la fiabilité litérale (la distinction se pose pour certains) de la Genèse.

Que je consulte Jonathan Sarfati pour les défi biochimiques que l'idée d'abiogenèse n'arrive pas à resoudre, ne veut pas dire que je suis Protestant. Et encore moins que pour cet "intérêt dans le Protestantisme" (qui donc n'en est pas) j'aurais envie de consulter d'autres Protestants qui, "plus raisonnables" (selon certains) ne veulent pas de créationnisme jeune terre, et pour certains, pas de créationnisme tout court. Pour les adeptes d'Olivieri, Assomptionniste, ou de Theilhard, Jésuite, Sts Augustin d'Hippone et Pape Pie V n'étaient ni Héliocentriques, ni Évolutionnistes théistes.

Il y a des recommendations qui me donnent l'impression que par des moyens techniques, ou même par des prières, que pour quelque raison Dieu écoute, mais ce n'est pas parce que ceux qui prient ont raison, je me vois de temps en temps confronté à des vidéos qui font un simple rappel comment tel ou tel non-catholique voit une question (ou les circonstances de ma vie). Ma consommation d'alcool pur est la moyenne au Portugal, en Russie, en Suisse et encore un peu, mais en dessous de celle de la Slovakie. Elle était moins importante quand je mangeais moins, était moins stressé et allais mieux, avant le confinément. Mais elle n'est pas le niveau de la Roumanie ou de New Hampshire. Ce n'est pas la consommation d'un alcoolique, et je ne conduis pas la voiture. Je ne dépense pas chaque moment de ma vie en pensant comment je vais lutter contra ma chaire, contrairement à un idéal par certains Évangélistes. Je ne suis pas obligé à lutter autant qu'un moine ou évêque et même pas autant qu'un veuf ou un tertiaire. Je ne crois pas que la nature humaine soit après le péché "totalement corrompue" de manière que chaque chose qui plaît à l'homme naturel déplaise automatiquement à Dieu. Les péchés sont quelque chose de plus spécifique, et le péché originel est analogue à un état de péché après un péché spécifique, pas à une cellule qui cesse de produire ses propres choses, et produit des virus. C'est l'état après le péché spécifique d'Adam. La concupiscence en est distincte, et mes devoirs de lutter contre sont pas si mal observés que supposent les Évangélistes et des gens pareil.

Me mettre avec les gens qui croient ça, il peut y avoir des gens qui ont encore une excuse pour ces erreurs ("totalement corrompue" / guerre total contre les plaisirs naturels — en théorie ou avec des dépressions en prime), mais de ma part, ce serait la culpabilité de l'apostasie.

Pour les Orthodoxes, de certains côtés on ne peut pas les mettres sur le même plan que Juifs, Protestants ou Musulmans. Mais la moitié sont Évolutionnistes comme le feu Mgr Kallistos Ware, la moitié ont des préjugés anti-catholiques comme quoi le feu P. Seraphim Rose déclarait que St. Thomas a Kempis manquait une perspective du répentir. Ou les gens qui croient dur comme fer que Pierre l'Aléoute ait été martyrisé pour avoir refusé la communion en azymes et exécuté d'une manière qui ressemble à celui de St. Jean de Perse à qui, par hasard, l'hagiographe du Pierre avait une dévotion. À part le fait qu'ils ont tort sur les azymes et sur la procession du Saint Esprit. Et sur la papauté. Or, comme par hasard, sur le sujet qui semble brûler mes lecteurs non-catholiques à part les Évangélistes, je trouvais une vidéo avec Kallistos Ware et une autre par un adepte de Serafim Rose (qui avait raison sur l'Évolutionnisme, même si non sur le Catholicisme). Les deux vidéos me semblent assez flous dans les détails, ce qui est plus catastrophique pour Kallistos Ware, mais pour ce qui est du P. Peter Heers, c'est une bonne prêche, mais je préfère des questions précises et techniques, une par essai.

4:34—4:53
We have the revelation of Moses as to how the Earth came to be that is a revelation to Moses he saw that and he wrote it down that that's what we believe as Orthodox Christians we don't believe that he got it from Human tradition alone but that he himself had a vision he had a revelation. Just like John had a revelation of the end of things he had a revelation of the beginning of things.

Are "Old Earth" and Evolution Compatible with Orthodoxy?

Nous avons la révélation de Moïse pour le comment la Terre débuta, ceci est une révélation faite à Moïse, il vit et il écrivit, ceci est ce que nous croyons commes des Chrétiens orthodoxes, nous ne croyons pas qu'il l'eut de tradition humaine seule, mais qu'il eut une vision, il reçut une révélation. Comme Jean eut une révélation sur la fin des choses, lui il eut une révélation sur le début des choses.

Or, la tradition n'est pas que Moïse ait écrit toute la Genèse sur révélation en forme de vision. Le mot révélation signifiant ce qui Dieu fait pour certifier Ses vérités, ça comprend aussi l'historiographie normale. Les chapitres 5 et 11 de la Genèse sont tout aussi assurément tradition que le chapitre 1 est vision. Heureusement que le P. Peter Heers ne nie pas cela. Et, ayant un esprit moins élévé, je me concentre assez souvent sur ce que nous pouvons savoir à partir de Genèse 5 et 11. Ou les chapitres sur le Déluge, 6 à 9, et le chapitre 10, aussi pertinent pour Babel et Nemrod. Alors je me confronte à la datation carbone 14 qui, comme normalement présentée, semble contredire ceci. Et je fais une recalibration. Ma contribution est subsidiaire et en revanche bien argumentée, de manière de ne pas dépendre de mon autorité, chose inexistante. La preuve ? Les preuves se trouvent dans les arguments apportés dans les posts dédiés dessus, mais une preuve supplémentaire est, mes adversaires préfèrent éviter la précision le débat spécifique, et me renvoyer à des généralités comme les propos de Kallistos Ware. Et encore ne se faire attraper, d'où les trucs qui arrivent sans face à face, comme les suggestions de vidéos, un procédé assez anonyme.

Et le niveau, si on suppose une tentative sournoise d'argumenter avec moi derrière, frôle parfois le ridicule. Je suis Géocentrique. Pas platiste. Or, hier on m'avait suggéré une vidéo sur la conversion d'un platiste. Il constate la courbure de la terre à partir du mode que disparaît un bateau à voile, celle-ci dernière, et comment le bateau réapparaît si on monte dans un bâtiment pour l'observer de plus haut (jumelles pour bien identifier que c'est le même bateau, avec les mêmes personnes, bien entendu). Très intéressant du point de vue de la courbure de la terre. Je connaissais cet argument bien avant de devenir Géocentrique, je n'ai jamais été tenté de devenir Platiste pour la forme actuelle de la Terre ... et l'argument ne résoud strictement rien à propos les preuves prétendues et insuffisantes pour l'héliocentrisme, dans ses deux thèse (rotation jour par jour, orbitation an par an). Les deux questions ne sont pas liées sauf entre deux interlocuteurs bien choisis, et je ne suis ni l'un ni l'autre de ces deux.

Entretemps, des gens moins concernés avec arguments ont leurs tactiques, genre de me stresser. Pour certains, le créationniste n'est pas l'objet ni de débat, ni de passer à côté, poliment, mais de campagnes pour déstabiliser corps et esprit. Et pour dégrader les conditions de travail.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Joseph
19.III.2025

In Judaea natalis sancti Joseph, Sponsi beatissimae Virginis Mariae, Confessoris; quem Pius Nonus, Pontifex Maximus, votis et precibus annuens totius catholici Orbis, universalis Ecclesiae Patronum declaravit.

PS, si quelqu'un avait envie que je sache combien Matthieu Lavagna est plus à même de faire de l'apologétique que moi, j'ai vu sa bibliothèque aussi, et ses ressources ne sont pas des mystères pour moi. Certains de ses apologètes catholiques anglophones en livres, je les suis régulièrement sur leur youtubes. William Lane Craig sur l'Adam historique n'est pas une bonne ressource, ce que je sais par sa présentation de la thèse en vidéo, et par le fait que le concerné a refusé de traiter avec mes arguments contre./HGL

PPS, il y a aussi certains qui semblent imaginer que j'aurais loupé l'existence du Christianisme progressiste. Au contraire. J'ai été contre depuis mon adolescence, voire même pré-adolescence. J'en suis aussi peu friand que C. S. Lewis l'était de Honest to God par John A.T. Robinson:

In his last interview before his death, C. S. Lewis was asked, "What do you think of the controversial new book Honest to God, by John Robinson, the bishop of Woolwich? Lewis replied, "I prefer being honest, to being 'honest to God.'"

Dans sa dernière entrevue avant de mourir, on demanda à C. S. Lewis "que pensez-vous du nouveau livre controversiel "Honest to God" par John Robinson, l'évêque de Woolwich?" Lewis répliqua "je préfère être honnête que d'être 'honest to God' "

La phrase veut dire "en toute sincérité" et s'utilise parfois comme "la vérité si je mens" ... C. S. Lewis ne considérait pas comme honnête un homme qui croyait l'athéisme (ou à très peu près) mais qui aimait appeler ça du Christianisme et continuer un métier qui par définition présupposait la foi chrétienne en quelque forme. Il pensait que des gens normaux auraient la même aversion, et en plus une réaction qu'il jugea trop hâtive : soit ils vont être d'accord, et alors s'appeler athées, soit ils ne vont pas être d'accord et vont convertir au Catholicisme" ... une des phrases par lesquelles il prépara ma propre conversion, et il ne se référait pas à James Martin ou à Jozef de Kesel, apparemment un disciple de Bultmann (celui-ci étant connu et peu prisé par CSL)./HGL

For Catholics Who Think I Commit False Prophecy

Here is what Todd Friel has to say about House of David by Netflix:

This New Show Is REWRITING the Bible… And It’s Worse Than You Think
Wretched / Fortis Institute | 11 March 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OG9o1lsnqQ

I am not totally fond of all Netflix seems to be doing. But neither am I fond of every criticism Todd Friel launches either. However, Todd Friel makes a much broader point than "this was wrong" or "that was a human being you maligned" (And Psalm 50:7 refers to original sin, not to a personal sin in King David's mother, so Todd Friel is right to consider that as an insult to King David's mother). That broader principle is:

And the Lord said to me: The prophets prophesy falsely in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, nor have I spoken to them: they prophesy unto you a lying vision, and divination and deceit, and the seduction of their own heart
[Jeremias (Jeremiah) 14:14]

I would definitely say, this doesn't apply here, since the Netflix series doesn't pretend to be prophecy at all, but entertainment with an educational edge. Just because the matter is biblical doesn't mean only inspired prophets are allowed to handle it. And also doesn't mean anyone and everyone handling it is claiming to be an inspired prophet.

Now, lots of Protestants would, with that broad a brush, be painting me as a false prophet too. I am adding details that are not explicit in the Bible, precisely like the Netflix series, though probably not in the same manner. If I would want to guess on how King David's mother died, I would say, she died after childbirth. This being Eve's punishment in the fullest would have reminded young David of the sin we inherit from Adam and Eve.

Now, the charge is actually in bad faith, since whoever opposes the Catholic Church actually has to add things to the Bible in order to claim a Biblical mandate for this. Note, I said the Catholic Church, not Modernists who deny the Bible in the name of Science. Now, some who are in that position would be more than willing to borrow a charge against me from Protestants who are actually against the Catholic Church too; and some of them would in fact be against Fundamentalists too. You can get "Catholics" who are unsure of Catholic dogma siding with Protestants who don't believe the Bible, and you can get both levying Jeremias 14:14 as an accusation against me. Which is about as intelligent as levying it against the Netflix series or against (more my venue) Biblical archaeology or Creation Science. Or against exegesis.

Now, the guess about death after childbirth is probably wrong.

And David departed from thence into Maspha of Moab: and he said to the king of Moab: Let my father and my mother tarry with you, I beseech thee, till I know what God will do for me And he left them under the eyes of the king of Moab, and they abode with him all the days that David was in the hold
[1 Kings (1 Samuel) 22:3-4]

So is arguably the guess about a lion killing King David's mother. The one thing that's pretty certain is, she was righteous.

O look upon me, and have mercy on me: give thy command to thy servant, and save the son of thy handmaid
[Psalms 85:16]

About as righteous as King David. But this means Mary is about as righteous as Jesus. Something these Protestants don't want to hear and some Modernist "Catholics" don't want to defend. It's easier to lend half an ear to an accusation referencing Jeremias 14:14 and conclude I pretend to be a prophet, when I don't. At least for them. Less so for me. Meanwhile, if you are Catholic, you actually have to agree Our Lady is about as righteous as Our Lord, even if She's not divine. A second Eve, but one preserved from the fall.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts. Rodrigo and Solomon, Martyrs
13.III.2025

Cordubae, in Hispania, sanctorum Martyrum Ruderici Presbyteri, et Salomonis.

Bible references on King David's mother can be gathered from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitzevet

Sometimes, Fake CSL Quotes Get Around the Internet, But Sometimes, Even FB Hits Gold

I think this one is real, I have read it. Not sure if exact quote, or if a few words have been added or subtracted, but here it is:

I'm going to suppose he's not speaking of language courses, for those who already did learn the foreign language they were learning at 10 and aren't interested in linguistics and language paedagogy. And I find it judicious he said "10" and not "5" ... books read by people age 10 fall into the classes of books you ought to re-read when 40, 50, and books you should not read even at age ten.

In the same passage, I think, he makes a comparison with food. Or, perhaps it's Tolkien who does that, in On Fairy-Stories. Just because a child of ten likes bread, butter, honey, doesn't mean he has to cease to like them by 40 or 50. If, however, at age 40 he doesn't like "crême de menthe" (not sure the French readers would agree), perhaps he might conclude his age ten stomach might have been healthier without it too.

There are activities that by their nature are social, and for which age restrictions may be appropriate. One does not want adult strangers playing around one's children. Reading, by its nature is solitary. Now, these days there are discussion forums, and yes, I have on one for CSL been around a girl age 12 ... who was the youngest of my friends on the forum, the rest were adults, perhaps some teen too. I was close to getting in couple with a 22 year old librarian. I fell out with her over her refusal to even try getting my blogs into print. I did offer her instructions on how to do it with a computer connected to internet and to a printer, and then a xerox machine. And the reason I couldn't do it myself is pretty simple. I'm homeless, I have no place to stock books. Back then I was on the move every day, with all my luggage, now I have a place for my luggage, but it's regularly raided. Have you considered how clever it is to get 100 books printed, on your expense, and to stock them in the entry of a place that's being rebuilt, when any day without notice some crooks may have been there while you were away? Not very clever, right? But the librarian obviously had a flat, and as a consequence she was not suffering of that disability. And if I didn't try to make it up with her, it's because I became involved with someone else.

I have a feeling that some of the French readers, especially those who were Russian friendly prior to 24 February soon three years ago, and even more those who are still Russian over Ukrainian, may classify C. S. Lewis along with Lewis Carroll in this category of books you should not read even at 10. The train of thought would go sth like "given his relation to Alice Liddell, Lewis Carroll was a groomer, given Lewis Carroll was a groomer, his children books are grooming, and so is any other children's book involving an author named Lewis" ...

The obvious fallacy here is not just the fallacy of origin. If a convicted pedo-criminal makes ice-cream, not personally sells, scooping the ice cream into cones, but just produces, and lets someone else sell it over the counter or at an ice cream stand, we are not supposed to conclude the ice cream contains a drug meant to tranquillise children to make them easier to kidnap. Not to mention that Lewis Carroll was never convicted, just obliged to accept that the acquaintance with Alice Liddell broke when she was 11, because Mrs. Liddell said so. But even more, there is a fallacy of equivocation.

All books by Lewis [Carroll] are bad.
The Chronicles of Narnia are books by [C. S.] Lewis.
Therefore the Chronicles of Narnia are bad.

But, if both of them were named Lewis, perhaps they are close kin? Let's Check Ancestry, US.

17 million record(s) for Lewis

4M Birth, Marriage, and Deaths
540K Military Records
354K Immigration Records
3M Census and Voter Lists
8M Member Trees

Lewis Surname Meaning

English: from the Middle English Old French personal name Lewis Leweis Lowis from ancient Germanic (originally West Frankish) Hludwig (itself from hlōd- ‘fame famous’ + wīg- ‘battle’). This was Latinized as Ludovicus and Chlodovisus which were gallicized as Clovis or Clouis French Louis. The name may also appear as Lawis Laweys Lawes by unrounding of the vowel of Lowis on the analogy of the variation between Low and Law as pet forms of Middle English Lourence alias Laurence. This surname is also very common among African Americans. See Laws 2 and compare Lawrence.

Welsh: adopted for the Welsh personal name Llywelyn (see Llewellyn).

Irish: shortened Anglicized form of Gaelic Mac Lughaidh ‘son of Lughaidh’. This is one of the most common Old Irish personal names. It is derived from Lugh ‘brightness’ which was the name of a Celtic god.

Americanized form of French Louis.

Americanized form of various like-sounding Jewish surnames.

Chinese: variant Romanization of the surnames 廖 (see Liao) 羅 (see Luo ) 劉 (see Liu ).

So, the "Lewis" need not even be the same for Lewis Carroll and for C. S. Lewis. I used to think both shared the name of various French Kings, in its English form, but in fact in CSL's case, as his grandfather immigrated to Belfast from Wales, it could instead be Llewelyn.

But, what does French readers and Russian friendly among them have to do with the issue ? For one thing, I recall some conversations outside St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, where "Lewis Carroll" was mentioned as a taunt. But for another thing, back when lots of countries got their translations (or the originals) of the seven chronicles, France got only a translation of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and of Prince Caspian, and Russia, being still a Soviet Republic, didn't get one at all. Later on, Russia has had translations of, as far as I can tell, only The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. That was some time ago, and the other books did not follow suit.

I know for a fact that CSL and JRRT are accused in the so called testimony of John Todd. It came when JRRT was dying, far from the UK, and when CSL had already died ten years earlier. It includes very absurd statements like Tolkien getting a permission from the Illuminati to publish runes, sth which had previously been their well guarded secret ... except it hadn't, runes were well known to scholars and also to even first year university students in any Old Germanic, specifically Anglo-Saxon or Old Norse studies. Or anyone having an encyclopedia, and this since back in the 1800's:

Just under the uppermost rune row, the Norse one, we see this comment, proving it is from the 19th C.:

I denna runrad hafva första ättens mynder namnen fé, úr, þurs l. þorn, óss l. áss, reið, kaun, andra ättens namnen hagall, nauð, iss, ár, sól; tredje ättens runor benämnas týr, bjarkan, logr, maðr, ýr.

In later editions, after 1906, the word "hafva" = "have" would have been spelled "hava" or even raising the contraction "ha" to standard use. The third edition is still before 1950, when the verb of a plural subject would have had the singular form, "har" (always contracted) ... Check yourself, for "hafva" and other non-modernised forms on the ...

... columns 55—56
of Nordisk Familjebok, Första Utgåfvan,
14. Ruff - Sockenstämma (1890)
https://runeberg.org/nfan/0034.html

So, this and therefore other facts given by John Todd about the two is absolutely not credible. If Todd was really a defector from sth that at least from the inside to a newcomer could look like Illuminati, he probably suffered some kind of extortion from the Evangelicals he then fled to, who were queezy about some things in CSL and JRRT. In 1979, John Todd was apparently 29.

Todd, 29, meanwhile has announced that he is through. He told friends in the Los Angeles area last month that he has been shot at frequently and that his house was firebombed. Therefore, he said, he will take no more speaking engagements; he, his wife, and three children will head for a secret retreat location.

The Legend(s) of John Todd
Edward E. Plowman, Christianity Today, February 2, 1979 issue
https://www.christianitytoday.com/1979/02/legends-of-john-todd/

So, any claim that he was giving money to CSL on behalf of Illuminati, well, 1979 - 29 = 1950, or it could be 1949, which wikipedia says, but CSL died in 1963, one hour before President Kennedy was shot. 1963 - 1949 = 14. Is it credible that John Todd at age 14 had the kind of connections in the Illuminati as to be chosen as courier to carry money as a bribe to CSL? Not very, no ...

I think KGB or Russian Orthodox Church has been had by John Todd, unless it was KGB that planted the testimony of John Todd. And some of the KGB stuff that's not obviously anti-national or pro-Communist, is still making its tours around earth, even after the fall of Communism or apparent such fall. In another work, which was translated to French as Tactique du diable (in 1943, may have become unpopular in France due to this being under the Vichy government), C. S. Lewis as a prologue to a purported letter exchange between devils stated:

I have no intention of 2:06 explaining how the correspondence which 2:08 I now offer to the public fell into my 2:10 hands there are two equal and opposite 2:12 errors to which our race can fall about 2:14 the Devils one is to disbelieve in their 2:17 existence the other is to believe and to 2:19 feel an excessive and unhealthy interest 2:22 in them they themselves are equally 2:24 pleased by both errors and hail a 2:27 materialist or a magician with the same 2:29 delight

However, the Magician is not alone in an unhealthy interest, there is also the tendency to see the Devil (or his Illuminati) everywhere. Even when children have small sips of alcohol, which English customs at the time, as well as Swedish (perhaps) and (certainly) Austrian and French ones, later, in my upbringing, would have allowed, to some minds, this is a filthy devil wanting to seduce children to the sin of drunkenness. And then CSL becomes the accomplice of such ...

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts. Julian and Basilissa
9.I.2025

Antiochiae, sub Diocletiano et Maximiano, natalis sanctorum Juliani Martyris, et Basilissae Virginis, ipsius Juliani uxoris. Haec, virginitate cum viro suo servata, in pace vitam finivit; Julianus vero (postquam multitudo Sacerdotum et Ministrorum Ecclesiae Christi, quae, propter immanitatem persecutionis, ad eos confugerat, igne cremata est), Marciani Praesidis jussu, plurimis tormentis cruciatus, capitalem sententiam accepit. Cum ipso etiam Antonius Presbyter, et Anastasius, quem idem Julianus, a morte suscitatum, gratiae Christi participem fecerat, et Celsus puer cum hujus matre Marcionilla, ac septem fratres, aliique plurimi passi sunt.

Ce matin, on m'embêtait

Certains prétendent me vouloir aider à surmonter PTSD · Il y a des gens qui se font des soucis pour rien. · Ce matin, on m'embêtait

Une dame qui me dit bonjour et comment ça va en lunettes noires, et masque de visage (comme si on était le deuxième confinement), je réponds et me rends compte trop tard que c'est la polonaise.

Un sdf vagabond qui a une maison dans le sud, il me veut à tout prix rencontrer et me pose la question comment ça va.

Un sdf récent, ancien des trains, qui m'offre un café, j'avais déjà pris trois, donc, non merci.

Je considère tout ceci comme un harcèlement pour me peindre comme quelqu'un qui va très mal, et j'admets que j'étais très irrité.

Une découverte de qui me harcèle, très probablement, je vais mieux.

Sí, Navidad debe se celebrar.

Je ne pense pas nécessairement qu'Alva Reyna Soria Vital soit en personne parmi mes harceleurs, mais des gens qui font remonter la Grande Prostituée aux temps de Constantin, ceux-là, oui.

Pour moi, les gens qui en font partie sont beaucoup plus probablement ceux qui veulent :

• interdire la Messe en latin sur le pèlerinage de Chartres ;
• promouvoir exclusivement Héliocentrisme et Milliards d'Années et Évolutionnisme parmi les Catholiques en supprimant d'une manière ou autre la voix des Géocentriques, Créationnistes Jeune Terre, tenants d'un Adam literal et unique, vivant il y a 6 o 7 mille ans et créé moins qu'une semaine normale après la Création de la matière, de l'espace et du temps ;
• faire appel à la psychiatrie ou reconfier des gens à la psychiatrie si d'autres ont fait des demarches dans ce sens.

Par contre, le Protestantisme puritain, dont des gens qui prétendent que ce soit péché de célébrer Noël à la date, ce n'est pas la Grande Prostituée, c'est partie de la bête léoparde. Certes une partie marginelle, mais une partie quand même. Genre, les quatres têtes (et pour les plus naïfs et innocents, les quatre ailes) sont Juifs, Musulmans, Protestants puritains, Maçons. Pour le Grand-Orient, je ne suis pas sûr que ce soit encore Maçons-quatrième tête ou déjà partie de la Quatrième Bête (version fin des temps, la version antique était Rome républicain, surtout).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Deuxième dimanche de l'Avent
8.XII.2024

Pour ceux qui se demandent si le 8.XII n'est pas une fête mariale, pas cette année, le dimanche de l'Avent passe avant et l'Immaculée Conception est remportée à demain.

PS, il peut y avoir une explication des embêtements, hier soir j'avais publié ceci :

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Joseph Freymann is Sloppy on the Galileo Case
Saturday, December 7, 2024 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 2:30 PM
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/12/joseph-freymann-is-sloppy-on-galileo.html

Je trouve bien entendu invivable d'être interrogé chaque fois que j'exprime mes conviction si je vais vraiment bien./HGL

Also Sharing

Two Protestant Converts to Catholicism (On-Fire Catholic Converts)
Catholic Truth | 24 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ9UiP4H4GY

Sharing

Why is Everyone Becoming Catholic and Orthodox? #catholic #easternorthodox #protestant
Embracing Tradition | 30 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWLW5YisJns

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.