My Benefactor had Some Points to Make on the Post About the Change in Martyrology

New blog on the kid : Change in Martyrology ... · My Benefactor had Some Points to Make on the Post About the Change in Martyrology · Remaining Questions · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Reasons Against? Like against year 47 AD

Here are his questions, not the least pointless, but very good for those who do not know from before why I support the thesis of Father Jean Colson.

Stephan Borgehammar

"Jag får erkänna att jag inte förstår mycket av detta."
Admitting I don't get much of this.

"Hur kan år 440 bli 1 f.Kr.?"
How can year 440 be 1BC?

"Varför är den 70:e årsveckan och år 487 intressanta?"
Why are seventieth week and year 487 interesting?

"Och varför ska vi anta att aposteln Johannes under en kort tid var överstepräst?"
And why should we presume the Apostle John under a short time was High Priest?

"Jag betvivlar inte din lärdom men tror att du överskattar dina läsare!"
I don't doubt your erudtion but think you overestimate your readers.

Hans Georg Lundahl

"440 i Daniels 70 årsveckor."
Year 440 in the 70 year weeks of Daniel (not in AD)

"Jag har redan tidigare uppmärksammat Jean Colson's thes att Evangelisten intet var en af de tolf."
I have already earlier shown interest in the thesis by (Father) Jean Colson that the Gospeller was not one of the twelve.

"St. Irenaeus som lemnade Mindre Asien som tonåring kan ha förvexlat dem."
St. Irenee who left Asia Minor as a teen can have confused them.

"Patres qvar i Mindre Asien verka ge ett annat intryck, som när Papias nämner en Johannes Presbyter (NB att ett bref af Johannes tillegnas dennes "synpresbyteroi" - en engelsk convertit hade antagit att detta de facto betydde medbiskopar och att biskop och presbyter bytt betydelse efter första århundradet) eller en annan i en strid om påskdatum hänvisar till en Johannes som burit gyllene hufvudbindeln."
Fathers staying behind in Asia Minor seem to give another impression, like when Papias mentions a John Presbyteros (NB, one of the Johannine letters is dedicated to his "synpresbyteroi" - an English convert had presumed this de facto means fellow bishops and that bishop and presbyter switched meaning after First Century) or another one in a dispute about the date of Easter referring to a John who had worn the golden headband.

"Jean Colson antar att den elskade lärjungen var en cohen, hvilket förklarar att han kände till Jerusalem så mycket bättre än Galileen, var känd af öfverstepresten, kunde taga med den hl. Jungfrun hem till sig redan Långfredag (altså hade ett hus i Jerusalem eller nära på), och antar att han var ute och diskade i sitt hus medan de tolf hade Instiftelsen : att han intet nämner den beror på att han intet var med."
(Father) Jean Colson presumes that the beloved disciple was a Cohen, which explains why he knew Jerusalem so much better than Galilee, was known by the High Priest, could take the Blessed Virgin home to his house already on Good Friday (meaning he had a house in Jerusalem or close by) and presumes he was (out of the cubiculum) and washing dishes while the twelve attended the Institution (of the Eucharist) : his not mentioning it is because he didn't attend it.

"Jag tar gerna en uppfölgande post om detta, der jag också går in på huru detta kan röra sig om öfverstepresten Theophilos (om Gud elskade honom hade han rätt till det namnet), snarare än en kortvarig okänd mellan Josephus Ben hvem det nu var och Ananias."
I'll be glad to take a follow up blog post on this, where I also mention how this could be the High Priest Theophilos (if God loved him, he had a right to that name), rather than a short one between Josephus Ben whoever it was (Josephus ben Camydus) and Ananias ( son of Nedebeus).

"Och huru det passar ihop med andra facta fr ån Acta Johannis som att oljan intet brände honom, och att han steg ned i sin graf, gjorde ett korstecken, det sken ett ljus och qvar var manna."
And how this fits other facts from Acta Johannis (which I think Jean Colson was wrong to consider a novel) like the oil not burning him, or how, when he stepped down into his grave, he made a sign of the cross, there was a bright light, and left was mannah.

"Och hans ovilja mot romerska mynt."
And his reluctance to Roman coins.

"Och den hl. Jungfrun hade fostrats bland Cohanim mellan fjerde lefnadsåret och förlofningen med St. Joseph."
And the Blessed Virgin had been raised among Cohanim between the fourth year of her life and the betrothal to St. Joseph (so, when Christ made Her fostermother of a Cohen, He provided for Her feeling at home).

So, making some fleshing out on points made and also on points I missed ...

The Roman Martyrology gives the date of the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the terms of several epochs:

• Creation
• Flood
• Birth of Abraham
• Exodus from Egypt
• Fall of Troy (in earlier, not later versions)
• Anointing of King David (I think there can be a mix-up between 1082 and 1032, so that 1032 really is Temple of Solomon, and anointing 1082 BC, as is stated by George Syncellus)
• Olympiad and year from first Olympiad
• Founding of Rome (remains in later versions)
• Week of Daniel (63:rd in 15th C. version, 65:th in later ones, triggering my interest)
• Year of Augustus
• Sixth "age of the world" (sixth millennium, corresponding to but not literally meant by six creation days, sixt day saw the creation of the First Adam, who fell, sixth "age" the incarnation of Last Adam and re-creation of man)
• unique occasion of peace over all Roman Empire.

1 BC = 5199 after Creation, 2957 after Flood, 2015 after Birth of Abraham, 1510 after Exodus and so on.

So, obviously 1 BC is not going to equal 1 after Creation, and also not 1 in the seventy weeks of Daniel.

This is interesting, because some of the present end times prophecy interpreters consider Christ was cut off (crucified) but not for himself (for the sins of others) between week 69 and 70, this being Jesus, not another Christ, and that after this, the 70 weeks of Daniel stopped ticking and the end times is the last, still remaining, week.

Those who did cut off Jesus did so because they took offense precisely at him. If on the other hand it refers to a Cohen, that Cohen could have been cut off for someone else, namely for Christ risen. Hence it becomes very interesting if Jesus THE Christ was born in the 65th or 63rd week of Daniel. If, as the earlier version of the martyrology stated, it was in the 63rd week, that's were my little thesis comes in. Or perhaps not so small one.

The confirming of the covenant in the middle of week 70 (meaning at a mid point in year 487!) has by some been referred to as meaning a deceitful covenant signed by Antichrist, by William Tapley, Third Eagle of the Apocalypse, as Henoch or Elijah confirming the covenant, by one been taken as Institution of the Eucharist.

I take it as not the institution of the Eucharist, but its being confirmed publically before the Cohanim in the Temple. Confirmed - you see, the Cohanim had seemingly deposed Kaiphas and replaced him by Hannas, if you check Acts 4, and the Cohanim had forbidden the Apostles to preach in the name of Jesus, as a kind of preventive measure, not as a final condemnation. And John the Gospeller is present in Acts 4 - not the comrade of St. Peter, but one of the Cohanim.

Later, when Theophilus (I presume he took John as Baptismal name) was High Priest, he asked Luke to do an investigation - and he was able to check that his memories from being one of the seventy-two disciples match what St. Luke could gather from the Christian community. It would have been he who allowed St. Luke to meet and also to paint the Blessed Virgin. He gets baptised as John before Luke finishes the second book, presumably having John of Zebedee either as sponsor or more probably as baptising and confirming bishop. Therefore he is called John and not Theophilus in Acts 4.

Later when Josephus is High Priest, Josephus ben Camydus, he has also been a disciple and allows Theophilus to get ordained as a presbyter, which is as high in orders as the Gospeller gets. He allows him to celebrate Holy Mass as the daily sacrifice in the temple. In the middle of the seventieth week, this is interrupted by Ananias replacing him.

And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fail: and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation: and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end.

"And he"

Theophilus / St. John. Or Josephus ben Camydus authorising him.

"shall confirm the covenant with many,"

The Holy Mass was halakhically confirmed by celebration in the Temple.

"in one week:"

This confirmation continued all through week seventy, but not all of it in the temple.

"and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fail:"

Could refer to an abolishing of animal sacrifice or could refer to expulsion of Holy Mass by the intruder Ananias.

"and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation:"

Ananias could have brought this about either by sacrilege against Holy Mass, or by introduction of a Roman idol statue. Or it could be Agrippa II who did this.

"and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end."

The Temple never again saw Holy Mass until week 70 was over in AD 50 or until it was destroyed in year 70 AD.

The seventy weeks were introduced as involving the anointing of the prince, and a Cohen Gadol is indeed a prince of the Hebrew nation, and the sacrament of confirmation, as well as the sacrament of holy orders, are indeed anointings.

Revelation of the contents of the faith, of the depositum fidei, was closed when the last apostle died - if this is the last of the twelve, my thesis is wrong, but if one of the seventy two is OK, it can very well be right. The seventy two are also referred to as apostles, especially among Greeks.

I have NOT yet checked up about Theophilus and Josephus ben Camydus in Josephus' Antiquities.

It is said that after the beginning of the New Covenant, the Old Covenant could be externally observed, provided one did not place one's hope of salvation in it, until the New Covenant was published. But from then on it is a mortal sin to obey the Old Covenant. What publication is this about? Preaching in the streets of Jerusalem on Pentecost Day? If so, Our Lady living in the home of a Cohen would be inexplicable, likewise how the disciples prayed in the temple. So, the "publication" this dogma (or at least doctrine) refers to would likely be the one I envisage for 47 AD, or around there, namely publically in the Temple.

Epistle to the Hebrews and especially chapter 13 verse 10 was written after this.

Habemus altare, de quo edere non habent potestatem, qui tabernaculo deserviunt.

We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle.

Ananias son of Nebedeus very certainly was excommunicated, if he did what I envisage. If he had wanted to get into Communion with the Christians, he would have had to not only get baptised, but also out of the Temple as to what it had become.

As for overstimating or not my readers, I am not sure who Stephan thinks is my readers. Him being one of them, and one of the more erudite ones. Glad to have cleared things up a bit, since he had missed my previous work endorsing the work of Father Jean Colson. Except its dictum that Acts of John were a kind of novel.

One of the perks with blog posts is, it can be edited or a new one can be added.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Marguerite Audoux
St. Francis of Sales
29.I.2020

Sancti Francisci Salesii, Episcopi Gebennensis, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, omnium Scriptorum catholicorum, diariis aliisve scriptis in vulgus edendis sapientiam Christianam illustrantium ac provehentium et tutantium, peculiaris apud Deum Patroni; qui migravit in caelum quinto Kalendas Januarii, sed hac die, ob Translationem corporis ejus, potissimum colitur.

PS, I think some readers may be not very aware of the Christmas reading in the Roman Martyrology, so, I give a post on the background to its inclusion in the late Middle Ages and another one about the way in which martyrologies were in general made. Both being of course not only of interest, but already known to Stephan, whose beneficence is not just material:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Feet and Martyrologies
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/02/feet-and-martyrologies.html

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Background to Christmas Martyrology
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/02/background-to-christmas-martyrology.html

PPS, the man who considered Christ confirmed the covenant with many (correctly identifying the covenant as the Covenant that is New and Eternal and in the Chalice of the Eucharist) on the Last Supper, I had momentarily forgot his name, but it was Gary Del Mar. Came across him, bc he had a debate with Kent Hovind on end times./HGL

Bucaille s'en prenait à la chronologie biblique

P. 6 de son livre:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XFIwol-ziWopMvl3FFk5KFoKb18xk86w/view

Par exemple, on ignore la date même approximative de l'apparition de l'homme sur la terre, mais on a découvert des vestiges d'œuvres humaines que l'on situe, sans aucun doute possible, antérieurs au dixième millénaire avant l'ère chrétienne. On ne peut donc retenir comme compatible avec la science la réalité du texte biblique de la Genèse donnant des généalogies et des dates qui font situer l'origine de l'homme (la création d'Adam) environ trente-sept siècles avant Jésus-Christ. La science pourra peut-être donner dans le futur des précisions de dates plus grandes que nos évaluations actuelles, mais on peut être assuré qu'on ne démontrera jamais que l'homme est apparu sur la Terre il y a 5 736 années, comme le veut, en l'an 1975, le calendrier hébraïque. Les données bibliques concernant l'ancienneté de l'homme sont donc fausses.

Il y a des Chrétiens qui prétendent être d'accord avec M. l'abbé Fulcran Vigoroux.

Il prétendait résoudre le problème en donnant davantage de temps que 24 heures (genre, des milliers d'années) à chaque jour de la création en Genèse chapitre 1.

Mais, notons, il le faisait en environ 1880 ... en parlant des fossiles non-humains.

Et sur la base, assez erronée, que les "strates" de faunes "successives" requerraient d'envisager un développement faunal. Rien sur des hommes dits préhistoriques, rien sur la datation par carbone 14.

Donc, il pouvait reléguer ces développements de faunes à une époque antérieure à la création d'Adam. Pour l'histoire à partir d'Adam - je viens de vérifier* - il comptait sur une chronologie de la Septante, peut-être encore des lacunes dans les généalogies (mais pas de manière que celles-ci soient des pures miettes des vrais généalogies), sur un Déluge universel quand à la terre habité par le genre humain, sur huit personnes seulement survivant le Déluge. Il pose la limite en arrière vers 6000 ans avant Jésus-Christ.

Son livre était destiné aux Séminaires, et il était imprimé en 1878.

Bon, que dire, alors, des célèbres ...

... vestiges d'œuvres humaines que l'on situe, sans aucun doute possible, antérieurs au dixième millénaire avant l'ère chrétienne ...

... selon l'idée donc de Maurice Bucaille?

Eh bien, son livre de 98 ans plus tard se base donc sur des méthodes de datations inconnues par l'abbé Fulcran Vigoroux. Notamment déjà la datation par carbone 14.

Et, pour la datation par carbone 14, il y a précisément un doute possible quand à l'exactitude de la datation : le contenu d'origine de carbone 14 en sa proportion avec carbone 12. Et non, je ne parle pas de "oui, le contenu n'a pas été uniformément 100 pCm, on doit calibrer pour des vacillations" je parle d'une montée plus radicale que ces vacillations. Et donc d'un contenu d'origine radicalement inférieur à 100 pCm, comme, si par exemple Göbekli Tepe est daté à 9600 avant l'ère chrétienne (presque ce dont parle Bucaille, bien au-delà des 6000 ans avant la naissance de Notre Seigneur, c'est que le contenu était inférieur à 50 pCm. Comme je viens de préciser dans mes tables sur un ou sur des modèles possibles pour cette montée (des modèles, exceptant les deux premières, assez proches entre eux**).

Göbekli Tepe, alias Babel, commence en 2602 av. J.-C. sur un niveau de 42,89 pCm, d'où la datation à 9600 av. J.-C., et finit en 2562 av. J.-C. sur un niveau de 48,171 pCm, d'où la datation à 8600 av. J.-C.

Puisque Göbekli Tepe n'était pas encore découvert en 1976, Maurice Bucaille parlait vraisemblablement de ... Lascaux, Altamira, ce genre. Lascaux est estimé à il y a 17000 ans, donc 15000 avant Jésus-Christ. Ce serait un peu après 2780 av. J.-C., dont le niveau de 22,169 pCm donne une date de 15230 av. J.-C., certes avant 2735 av. J.-C., dont le niveau de 27,388 pCm donne une date de 13435 av. J.-C.

Car, la dégradation radioactive du carbone 14 prend la forme d'une multiplication des nivaux déjà existants, et un niveau bas à l'origine égale par là un nombre de milliers d'années écoulées dans son effet.

22,169 pCm fait l'effet de 12450 ans.***
27,388 pCm fait l'effet de 10700 ans.
42,89 pCm fait l'effet de 7000 ans.
48,171 pCm fait l'effet de 6050 ans.
50 pCm ferait l'effet de 5730 ans exactement (ou plus ou moins de 10 ans?), ce qui est une demi-vie selon la demi-vie corrigé acceptée à Cambridge.

Il y a pas ou peu de doute que Lascaux soit antérieur à Göbekli Tepe, mais il y a un vrai doute entre les 17000 ans et les moins que 5000 ans, entre les moins de 12000 ans et les quelque plus que 4500 ans.

C'est à dire, il y a ce doute quand à la datation carbonique. La sainte Bible, par contre, exclut très nettement, comme l'avait vu Bucaille, les 17000 ans, les 12000 ans.

Et malheureusement pour sa foi, Bucaille ne s'est pas bien renseigné sur les possibilités que Lascaux avait un âge inférieur à ce qui était dans les médias. Il prenait les dates carboniques (ou d'autres méthodes) pour monnaie comptant, comme si c'était les critères diagnostiques d'une diagnose somatique.*** Et ceci d'une maladie bien connue.

Il faut avouer que cet aspect n'était pas sans importance pour le pauvre Bucaille. C'était la première incompatibilité qu'il prétendait citer entre la science et la Bible. On peut soupçonner que ceci était décisif pour Bucaille, qui était né dans une famille catholique.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St. Nestor
26.II.2019

Perge, in Pamphylia, natalis beati Nestoris Episcopi, qui, in persecutione Decii, cum diu noctuque orationi insisteret postulans ut grex Christi custodiretur, comprehensus est, ac, nomen Domini mira libertate et alacritate confessus, Praesidis Pollionis jussu equuleo saevissime est cruciatus; ac demum, cum se Christo semper adhaesurum constanter profiteretur, crucis suspendio victor in caelum migravit.

* areopage.net/PDF/VigourouxBacuez_ManuelBiblique.pdf

** Le dernier, pour la partie entre Noé et Abraham, le voici:

New blog on the kid : Ma dernière table sur les datations de carbone 14
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2018/06/ma-derniere-table-sur-les-datations-de.html

L'abréviation pcm ou pCm veut dire "pourcent de carbone moderne".

*** Les correspondances entre âges carboniques et niveaux de carbone 14 en pCm se laissent étudier dans ce logiciel:

Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

Are Bible Verses Useful for Depression?

intro

from faithforwards*

"Any suggestion for a way to “feel better” feels like salt in a wound; we know for a fact that nothing will work."

S. Th. I-II Question 38. The remedies of sorrow or pain
http://newadvent.org/summa/2038.htm

Technically, depression is perhaps rather the passion of despair, but it is coupled with pain and sorrow.

"That’s where the verses can get dangerous, in the following three ways."

Let's see.

1) "Bible verses keep us from seeking treatment."

"When we believe that depression can be overcome by thought changes, we ignore the fact that clinical depression is a medical issue, an imbalance in brain chemistry. People generally don’t offer someone with a broken leg some Bible verses to heal it; they help that person seek medical attention, and perhaps provide some verses to help the patient’s mood throughout recovery. Depression should not be treated any differently than another physical ailment. It’s not just “being sad”, and it’s not a choice."

Believe it or not, if someone has a broken leg, reading Bible verses to him may be a very good treatment. PROVIDED this helps him to keep the leg still during the time the leg needs to recover, since otherwise he probably needs plaster.

If you can't get a doctor, if you need to keep someone's leg still for two weeks, if it means he has only the boy scout first aid around the leg, well, read him the Bible and some more books for the two weeks he has the leg in bed.

He'll still need sth like the boy scout first aid in order to keep the broken spot from dislocating while he gets to the toilet, unless you also help him lift his butt without moving the leg, but that might be a bit over the top for you. And yes, I mean like put a chamber pot under his butt, wipe it and pull his trousers up, while he is holding his body up with both arms against the bed (he might better do some stuff, right, as long as it doesn't mean moving the leg around, or even that, if you make that boy scouts' first aid bandage with a piece of wood, and change it, so the leg can breathe too).

There are lots of imbalances in the brain chemistry we deal with without going to the doctor, like going to bed if we are drunk or like drinking coffee if we are very tired and can't go to bed or have to get up from it.

The treatment should normally be there to help the organism's self recovery - not to substitute for its functions.

Going on antidepressants may be as bad as ... systematically keeping awake on coffee instead of getting the needed sleep.

There are reports antidepressants have triggered violence and even suicides.

Ask CCHR about it.**
http://www.cchr.org/sites/default/files/education/anti-depressants-booklet.pdf

[Considering the kind of fines CCHR may face if the claims are fraudulent, I don't think they are. Note, I am NOT recommending Dianetics. That is another matter.]

So, the natural way of dealing with it would be kind of parallel to keeping the leg still while it is healing.

Note, loneliness, unless when it is undesired, is not always a depressant, which means actively looking for some loneliness in which to concentrate on sth else than you (as much as possible) is not bad.

This means, take days off, if you like. While you miss out on some company, there are things which can worsen the depression which you can avoid.

2) "Bible verses make us feel worse about ourselves."

"If the message we get from the Bible is to simply tough out our feelings or have more faith, we believe that depression is just a tough time to overcome. A little more hard work or a little more surrender to God will get us through; therefore, reason points out, if we’re still struggling we must not be faithful enough or hard-working enough. In the depression thought cycle, we already feel worthless or stupid. Adding faithless or lazy to our descriptors further damages our self-esteem."

T h i s doesn't come from Bible verses, but from believing a "tough time" is either punishment or just a beginners' ailment in the Christian life.

In this earthly life, we can expect tough times right up to the end.

Not getting that is having a heretical view of Christianity and of the Christian life. I heard someone speak of "prosperity gospel", even before I converted to Catholic.

3) "Bible verses make us more suicidal."

"Some of these verses encourage neurotypical people by promising that suffering is rewarded in the afterlife. They focus on the vision of heaven: celebration, peace, new bodies, golden streets, and most importantly, no pain. If a person with depression is having even mild suicidal ideation or fleeting thoughts of death, heaven sounds awfully tempting. Why would we continue our anguish here on Earth when we can be pain-free with God? The amount of suffering we’ve done, it seems (and in this state, remember, the suffering seems to have occurred every day of our lives), promises a pretty good pile of rewards stacked up in heaven. Once that imbalanced person realizes that suicide is in fact not an unpardonable sin (because God forgives everything, Romans 3:23), the pathway opens further."

You know, C. S. Lewis' description of Hell saved me from suicide during a short but severe moment of what could be viewed as teen depression - back then.

Romans 3:23 does not at all mean all you do from now on will be forgiven, it means all start out as sinners. Some Protestants, or perhaps all, say "we are all sinners" - no, we have all been sinners. Mind the tense! After forgiveness, we are no longer sinners, until we sin again, hence avoid becoming a sinner again - especially the sin which, if successful will not allow you time to repent.

This is different from small sins which in this life cannot be avoided. Those do not make you a sinner again. Suicide is not a small sin, it is, along with abortion, one of the worst types of murder.

And also a sin which if only an unsuccessful attempt will leave you with physical scars, as likely as not, which will make your situation even more hopeless.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Julian and Basilissa
Martyrs, Virgins and husband and wife
and companions
9.I.2018

* faithforward : How The Bible Can Be Damaging to People with Depression
January 5, 2018 by Guest Contributor
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithforward/2018/01/bible-can-damaging-people-depression/

** I'll give you a quote at the end of the piece:

“Given the nature and potentially devastating impact of psychotropic medications...we now similarly hold that the right to refuse to take psychotropic drugs is fundamental.”
Alaska Supreme Court, 2006

Zakir Naik has Refuted his Own Prophet Mohammed (link)

Let's put it like this, I can leave him to even an Evangelical Apologist, leaving the word to Acts 17 Apologetics:

Christianity, Islam, and Pork: How Zakir Naik Destroyed Muhammad
Acts17Apologetics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PupDC2gA5-4

One Link on the Real Religion

The Day the Host Dropped
On Communion in the Hand
by John Vennari
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page79/day_the_host_dropped.html

Quaesiui an contra patres loquutus sim, dicendo de Turri Babel quod sit intenta ut navis spatialis?

Et consultaui quid dixerint Sanctus Augustinus, necnon, aut Sanctus Thomas, aut ignotus homo quem eum putauerunt multi legentes ante.

Sancti Augustini

QUESTIONUM IN HEPTATEUCHUM LIBRI SEPTEM
http://www.augustinus.it/latino/questioni_ettateuco/index2.htm

Ad sinistram cliccandum est in signum dictum "liber 1".

Quid est:

Hic coepit esse gigans super terram.

18. (10, 8)

Quaeritur quomodo dictum sit de Nembroth: Hic coepit esse gigans super terram; cum gigantes et antea natos Scriptura commemoret. An forte quia post diluvium novitas generis humani reparandi denuo commemoratur, in qua novitate hic coepit esse gigas super terram?

De Phalech,

quomodo in diebus eius divisa sit terra.

19. (10, 25)

Quaeritur quid sit: Et Heber nati sunt filii duo; nomen unius Phalech, quia in diebus eius divisa est terra; nisi forte in diebus eius linguarum illa diversitas exstiterit, per quam factum est ut gentes dividerentur.

Quod ait:

Et erat omnis terra labium unum.

20. (11, 1)

Et erat omnis terra labium unum, quomodo hoc potest intellegi, quando superius dictum est quod filii Noe, vel filiorum eius distributi essent per terram secundum tribus et secundum gentes, et secundum linguas suas 12, nisi quia per recapitulationem postea commemorat quod prius erat? Sed obscuritatem facit quod eo genere locutionis ista contexit, quasi narratio de iis quae postea facta sunt, consequatur.

Quod ait:

Aedificemus nobis turrem cuius caput sit usque in caelum.

21. (11, 4)

Venite, aedificemus nobis civitatem, et turrem cuius caput erit usque in caelum. Si hoc se posse crediderunt, nimium stulta audacia et impietas deprehenditur. Et quia ob hoc Dei vindicta secuta est, ut eorum linguae dividerentur, non absurde hoc cogitasse creduntur.

Quibus dicat Dominus:

Venite descendamus et confundamus linguam eorum.

22. (11, 7)

Venite, descendamus, et confundamus ibi linguam eorum, ne audiat unusquisque vocem proximi; utrum ad Angelos Dominus hoc dixisse intellegitur? An secundum illud accipiendum est, quod in exordio libri legitur: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram 13? Nam et quomodo postea dicitur singulari numero: Quia ibi confudit Dominus labia terrae 14; sic et illic cum dictum esset: Faciamus ad imaginem nostram; in consequentibus tamen non dictum est: Fecerunt, sed: Fecit Deus 15.

"Ignoti autoris" vel Sancti Thomae Aquinatis

Postilla in libros Geneseos
a capite VI ad caput XI
http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/xgn06.html#90284

Erat autem terra labii unius.

Hic redit ad narrandum causam divisionis linguarum, quae fuit culpa superbiae aedificantium urbem et terram Babylonis. Et primo refertur culpa, secundo justitia Dei culpae illius punitiva et superbiae intentionis eorum dissipativa, ibi: descendit autem dominus. Dicit igitur, labii unius. Labium et lingua sumuntur hic pro linguae effectu, id est, pro loquutione, eo modo quo per causam effectus significatur.

Cumque proficiscerentur de oriente, invenerunt.

An omnes tunc simul recesserunt et in Sennaar insimul venerunt, an solum principaliores ex eis cum aliquibus sibi annexis, non plene claret ex hoc loco. Licet enim infra dicatur, scilicet quod inde de Babylone dispersit eos dominus in universas terras, hoc potest dici, aut quia causa dispersionis omnium fuit ex illo loco, aut quia principaliores ibi erant et inde dispersi sunt, et in eorum divisione et dispersione divisae sunt gentes, quarum ipsi erant duces; quia nec alia potest dari ratio quomodo tunc omnes discesserunt de Babylone. Non est enim dubium quin plures ibi tunc temporis remanserint. Refert autem Magister quod Philo in libro quaestionum super Genesim narrat, quod ex tribus filiis Noe, adhuc ipso vivente, fuerunt viginti quatuor millia virorum praeter parvulos et mulieres. Sed videtur quod longe plures fuerunt. Noe enim, secundum literam nostram et Hebraicam, vixit usque ad exitum Abrahae de domo patris sui. Nam a diluvio usque ad ejus exitum computantur trecenti septuaginta duo anni. Noe autem vixit ultra hunc numerum per tres annos. Tempore autem illo facta erat grandis populatio Chananaeorum et diversarum gentium et regnorum. Praeterea populus Israel in minus quam ducentis annis multiplicatus est in Aegypto usque ad sexcenta millia virorum praeter parvulos et mulieres. Quid ergo mirum si in trecentis quinquaginta annis Noe sit facta multiplicatio longe ultra viginti quatuor milia virorum?

Invenerunt campum, idest planiciem, in terra Sennaar.

Possibile est quod duabus ex causis de oriente recesserant. Primo scilicet ut magis accederent ad medium terrae habitabilis, ut exinde possent melius circumquaque diffundi, et regi a principalioribus, quasi in medio populorum regendorum manentibus. Secundo ut redirent ad terram in qua manserant Adam et primi patres eorum. Quacumque autem ex causa fuerit, est notandum quam mirabili ordine variavit Deus principales sedes patrum et divini cultus, et regnorum mundi. Nam primo fuit in Paradiso. Secundo creditur fuisse in Hierusalem sive circa Hebron, ubi et Adam legitur esse sepultus. Tertio faciente domino quod arca post diluvium versus orientem subsideret, fuit in oriente. Quarto rediit circa Hierusalem, licet tunc aliquamdiu fuerit in Aegypto. Deinde sub Christo cultus Dei diffusus in omnes, quantum tamen ad principalem sedem per Graecos venit ad Latinos, exinde rediturus ad omnes, et praecipue ad Judaeos.

Dixitque alter ad proximum suum, venite et cetera.

Non est credendum quod Sem et ceteri sancti patres illius temporis in hoc consenserunt, et quamquam aliquis ex eis ad opus extrinsecus compelli potuit, praecipue cum videatur quod Noe adhuc viveret: quia secundum literam nostram, a diluvio usque ad ortum Phaleg in cujus diebus divisa est terra, non sunt nisi anni centum triginta et unus: et usque ad mortem ejus sunt trecenti quadraginta: Noe autem post diluvium vixit trecentis quinquaginta annis, decem scilicet post mortem Phaleg. Ex modo autem isto loquendi innuitur quod aliqui fuerunt principales incitatores aliorum ad hoc aedificium; et etiam quod ex magno affectu, et cum multa et communi concordia hoc fecerunt.

Faciamus nobis civitatem et turrim,

idest turres, singulari pro plurali. Vel turrim vocat capitulum civitatis factum ad modum turris. Triplici autem ex caussa videntur ad hoc opus moti. Primo scilicet ex cupiditate regnandi, et tyrannicam potentiam super universam terram exercendi in urbe illa, quam scilicet et inexpugnabiliter et insuperabiliter fundare intendebant. Secundo ex ambitione nominis et famae ex hoc apud omnes obtinendae. Unde et hic dicitur: et celebremus nomen nostrum. Tertio secundum quosdam, ut consimile diluvium si accideret, evaderent: et ideo usque ultra nubes turrim voluerunt elevare, ut illuc diluvium non posset attingere.

Pertingat usque ad caelum,

idest usque ad supremam regionem aeris: quod caelum vocatur, vel quod secundum sensum caelo videtur esse conjunctum. Vel hoc dicunt secundum praesumptionem superbiae suae.

Descendit autem.

Nota quomodo hic et alibi Scriptura de Deo loquatur, quasi de uno temporali domino, qui de sublimi loco suo descendit ad videndum opera subditorum suorum, ut corrigat et reformet quicquid est corrigendum et reformandum in eis. Nota etiam quod in hoc modo loquendi docet rectum et ordinatum processum judicii. Nam culpa prius debet esse certa judici: et ideo oportet ut ipse vel ad se convocet judicandos: aut, si hoc modo bono fieri non potest, quod ipse per se vel per subdelegatos judices ad loca eorum accedat. Deus autem dicitur descendere ad videndum, pro quanto aspectus suae sapientiae et justitiae fertur ad videndum et puniendum crimina subditorum suorum. Dicit autem filii Adam, ut innuat quod isti erant similes Adae superbienti et ad scientiam sive sublimitatem attingere cupienti.

Et dixit: ecce unus est populus et cetera.

Hoc intellectualiter dixit Deus intra se et etiam ad Angelos suos. Notatur autem in his verbis caussa rationabilis et condigna perturbandi conatus et intentiones istorum. Erant enim sic affectuosi et irrevocabiliter intenti ad perficiendum opus incoeptum, et ad obtinendum id quod ex ipso opere finaliter intendebant, quod per fortes manus obstaculum a praedictis revocari non possent. Et quia ex unitate linguae et ex concordia voluntatum ad malum, robur vehemens assumebant, idcirco dixit Deus: ecce unus est populus et cetera. Et ex his subinfert poenam confusionis linguarum esse optimam ad turbandum eorum intentum et conatum. Et ad Angelos loquens subdit, venite igitur. Confusio enim linguarum potuit saltem quo ad aliquid fieri ministerio angelico. Vult autem Scriptura per hos vel consimiles modos loquendi ostendere quod Deus facit per Angelos ea quae per ipsos fieri possunt. Dicitur autem Deus hic descendere per efficaciam aut effectum potentiae suae in illa in quae agit. Loquitur autem sic ut sensibilius et terribilius hominibus ingerat Dei praesentiam et justitiam punitivam.

Ut non audiat unusquisque,

idest ut non intelligat, nec audiendo discernat.

Vocem proximi sui,

quicquid intendit significare per eam.

Et idcirco vocatum est nomen ejus Babel, quia ibi confusum est et cetera.

Babel enim interpretatur confusio. Divisio autem linguarum confusio linguarum dicitur, quia ex hoc lingua unius fiebat alteri confusa et inintelligibilis. Nota circa hoc, quod judicium est unum de universalibus judiciis Dei super genus humanum; et est tertium illorum universalium quae in super genus humanum; et est tertium illorum universalium quae in Scriptura sacra leguntur. Nam primum est inflictio mortalitatis. Secundum est diluvii exterminium. Nota, inquam, primo rectam correspondentiam ejus ad culpam pro qua est datum. Erat enim in illis perversa pax et unitas Deo valde contumeliosa, ipsisque damnosa, et electis onerosa et periculosa. Sicut enim nihil melius quam omnes insimul fortissime uniri in Deo et in omni bono: sic nihil pejus quam omnes fortissima conspiratione uniri ad malum. Sicut etiam Deo nihil magis honorificum quam quod omnia sibi soli ut summo capiti cohaereant et subjiciantur, nihilque aliud defendere aut magnificare appetant, nisi Dei imperium ac principatum. Et e contra nihil Deo contumeliosius ac intolerabilius, quam quod omnes Deo et ejus regno neglecto, aliquod caput et regnum sibi statuant toto posse. Erat ne ergo tolerandum quod homines paulo post tantum diluvium de novo propagati, unum vilem tyrannum, scilicet Nemroth, quasi unum caput omnium statuerent, et intra unam urbem, pro uno totius mundani regni capite conarentur quasi in aeternum fundare? Sicut autem superbis ad omnem machinationem semper intentis, magnitudo potestatis aderat valde nociva: sic quam plurimum expedit eis quod talis potestas aut omnino tollatur eisdem, aut saltem confringatur, et dividatur et impediatur. Scimus autem quod humanae dominationis potestas ex unica et concordi hominum multitudine consurgit et corroboratur; et ideo, quando superbe et pertinaciter conspirant ad malum, multum eis expedit quod dividantur. Sicut etiam electis plurimum prodest habere multos inductores et quasi compulsores ad bonum, sic eis est periculosissimum et multum onerosum, cum verbo et facto, doctrina et exemplo ab omnibus instigantur et compelluntur ad malum. Et sicut jucundum est electis potentiam et gloriam reproborum videre humiliatam et annullatam: sic valde est onerosum quando contrarium vident; et praecipue si in aeternum aut in tempus nimis longum semper excresceret aut perduraret. Quid autem aptius et pulchrius ad praedictorum impiam unitatem et potestatem dissecandam et confringendam, quam linguarum divisio et confusio? Per hanc enim fit ut ampliorem societatem homo habeat cum sua carne, quam cum hominibus, quorum linguae sunt sibi mutuo barbarae et ignotae. Per hanc etiam factum est ut his qui Deo non obediebant, et subditi non solum eis non obedirent, imo nec eorum monita vel praecepta intelligere possent. Praedicta autem non solum pro illo tempore docuerunt et profuerunt: sed etiam pro toto tempore quo superbia mundi regnat. Secundo nota ejus poenalitatem tam quoad malos, quam quoad bonos. Bonis enim est valde poenale quod non possunt communicare cum sanctis vel doctis universi orbis, saltem per literas et per scripta, nec docere se mutuo possunt, nec ad invicem consolari, nisi communicent in una aliqua lingua. Unde et ultra hoc est eis valde poenale, quod doctrinam salutarem fidei non possunt in omnes nationes cito disseminare, nec jam disseminatam, prout expedit, irrigare. Communiter autem quantum ad malos et bonos est valde poenosa res; quia ex diversitate linguarum oritur facilitas discordiarum atque bellorum, et difficultas stabilis nexus diversarum nationum in unum. Si autem quaeritur, quomodo a principio unus intellexit alium sine notitia linguae? Unde enim scivit quod per eamdem vocem intenderet significare illud quod ipse? Potest dici quod hoc, sicut et alia, factum est miraculose et forte etiam per quamdam rationalem conspirationem, per quam ex conformitate locutionis aliorum ejusque linguae ad suam, advertebat quod idipsum significare volebant. Si autem ultra quaeratur, an per hoc miraculum sit solum facta variatio in vi motiva linguae, aut etiam ultra hoc in imaginatione et intellectu? Dicendum quod in omnibus simul; quia ex habitibus illarum trium partium integratur una perfecta habituatio ad loquendum hanc vel illam linguam. Oportet enim quod sciat significata propria vocum illius linguae formandae et seriose connectendae. Tertio nota pro mysteriis, quod divisio linguarum moraliter designat divisionem et contrarietatem vitiorum et vitiosorum, qui quantumcumque videantur uniti, impossibile est quin concordialiter discordent, quia pravus alios non diligit nisi solum propter seipsum. Allegorice autem signant divisionem schismatum et haeresum, et culturam diversorum idolorum: in quibus unitas fidei in varias linguas errorum fuit multipliciter scissa. Sicut autem urbs et turris Babylonica significat omnes sedes superbiae, sic Nemroth omnia capita ejus: et secundum hoc potest multiplicare mysteria tam moralia quam allegorica juxta numerum et processum principalium sedium et capitum superborum.

Refuting the Message of Karl Keating

Quoting from:

Catholicism and Fundamentalism
By: Karl Keating
http://shop.catholic.com/catholicism-and-fundamentalism.html

The real history of Fundamentalism is far more prosaic. It is mainly an American phenomenon influenced by British evangelicalism, and it would be difficult to trace its antecedents beyond the Great Awakening of the 1720s, by the end of which, two decades later, perhaps a third of the adults in the Colonies had undergone a religioous conversion. The Great Awakening might be credited with making the larger number of Americans consciously religious, and a widely spread religious sense meant a fertile ground for what would come to be fundamentalism. (p. 18)

...

The fundamentals identified in the series have been tallied variously, some listing as many as fourteen points. Most commentators agree on at least these five: (1) the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture; (2) the deity of Christ, including his Virgin Birth; (3) the substitutionary atonement of his death; (4) his literal resurrection from the dead; and (5) his lliteral return in the second coming. Dobson writes, "although some have expanded this list to include such issues as [6] a literal heaven and hell, [7] soulwinning, [8] a personal Satan, and [9] the local church, nevertheless, the doctrinal character of fundamentalism still centers around the five fundementals listed." (p. 17, numbers in square brackets added by me)

There are two points to be made.

• I) The Great Awakening was not a continuation of the Reformation.
  
  It was an incomplete Counter-Reformation.
  
  If you can imagine a Counter-Reformation without Eucharist, Blessed Virgin and Papacy, that is about what the Great Awakening was.
  
  It was not a movement against the Eucharist, the Blessed Virgin or Papacy. That movement had happened about two hundred years earlier and was called Reformation.
  
  It was a reversal of Reformation insofar as Reformation actually denied several of the Catholic claims on personal holiness.
  
  Reformers said "don't pray the Rosary", and Wesley brothers prayed as long as if praying the Rosary.
  
  Reformers said "don't fast on fridays or during Lent", Great Awakening and its successors have recommended fasting before great decisions, in a Novena, like the Apostles.
  
  Reformers said "works don't get you saved", Great Awakening said "without these works, you are probably not saved".
  
  Reformers said "a married man setting affections on his wife is probably better than a monk pretending to set his affection on God and necessarily (or close to) failing because of Adam's sin", Great Awakening said "sure, have affection for your spouse, but put affection for God before it".
  
  Reformers said "Romanism is superstitious with its exorcisms", Fundies today (perhaps since later than Great Awakening) are claiming the power to exorcise demons.
  
  Reformers said "age of miracles is past, it ended with death of last Apostle", Fundies today often claim to have the power to perform miracles.
  
  Reformers said "Antichrist has been reigning for centuries, each pope being that", Fundies today often agree with Catholics (at least like Medievals and Counter-Reformation) that Antichrist and False Prophet are two specific human persons whose reign of terror will rest in force for 3 and a half years. When 7th Day Adventists try to paint it out we should be dealing with as many calendar years as there are days in 3 years and 6 month, they are not just fighting Catholics, they are in fact fighting other Fundies.
  
  Calvin at least (if CSL was not relying on hearsay) was ready to consider Book of Jonah a religious novel, and all Fundamentalists I know of describe, like the Catholic Church of Reformation times, Book of Jonah as valid historic fact.
  
  Probably Calvin back then and Modernist Catholics now are both getting their doubts from same source, namely Rabbinic Judaism. A heresy back then and a heresy now.
  
  
• II) All of the five Fundamentals and most of the rest added by Dobson are in fact Catholic doctrine.
  
  I may agree that Fundamentalism as part of Evangelical movement has the base of:
  
  
  • Christianity from before the Reformation
  • Reformation
  • Great Awakening
  • Defense of Fundamentals in tradition of Great Awakening.
  
  
  But if Keating tries to tie the defense of fundamentals down to the couple Reformation and Great Awakening, I do instead tie the attack on these fundamentals down to Reformation and its logical conclusions like Freemasonry, Enlightenment, Freethinkers, Idealist rather than Dogmatic clergies.
  
  And the Defense of the Fundamentals is largely simply a defense of what was already there since back before Reformation.
  
  It is basically not a Protestant but a Christian thing.
  
  It is also a thing which largely borrows intellectually from Catholics, from early Fundamentalists taking Pascal's Wager into their soul winning up to recent nods of agreement to Saint Thomas Aquinas.
  
  Let's take the five fundamentals:
  
  
  • (1) the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture - Fundamentalists agree with Trent against Socinians and with Leo XIII against Loisy.
    
    
  • (2) the deity of Christ, including his Virgin Birth - Fundamentalists agree with Nicea I against Arians and with all tradition against Jewry.
    
    
  • (3) the substitutionary atonement of his death - Fundamentalists may be narrowing down on one aspect of redemption but one which is there. Confirmed by St Thomas Aquinas and by Trent.
    
    
  • (4) his literal resurrection from the dead - Fundamentalists are Christians and not "Deutsche Christen" or Muslims.
    
    
  • (5) his literal return in the second coming - Fundamentalists believe the Creed.
  
  
  So, what exactly is un-Catholic about Fundamentalism?
  
  There may be lots that is un-Catholic about such or such a Fundamentalist "Church", but that is not their Fundamentalism, that is their Protestantism, the thing they have in common with Tony Palmer and "Archbishops" of Canterbury or Uppsala. Who are most usually not Fundamentalist.
  
  What about the other items?
  
  
  • [6] a literal heaven and hell - yes please! Ideally not just literally extant, but literally localised in relation to more mundane parts of the universe.
    
    
  • [7] soulwinning - in what exact way?
    
    St Theresa of Child Jesus knew certain ways were appropriate for the priest and not for her as a nun, while others were very appropriate especially for her.
    
    Now, soulwinning is an action which Evangelicals tend to streamline.
    
    But on some occasions some at least of their methods might be appropriate. Pope Pius XI thought a Catholic Action was necessary for winning the souls who would never ever see a priest, as long as not converted first.
    
    
  • [8] a personal Satan - well, it was NOT the Catholic Church they had to defend THIS doctrine against!
    
    
  • [9] the local church - local in what way?
    
    So as not to be part of a regional see or patriarchy or of a universal Church? No. If so, they are wrong.
    
    However, on sites dedicated to inerrancy of the Bible, they are NOT usually lambasting Catholic Church. At least not on the ones I frequent and recommend.

So, when Karl Keating says (p.15):

True, there have long been people who are strict Calvinists, and Fundamentalism is nothing if not Calvinistic.

When he says that, he is wrong.

Next words merit attention, more in fact than he gave them:

Yet, until a lifetime ago, fundamentalism as we know it was not a separate movement within Protestantism, and the word itself was unknown.

It was unknown because Protestant confessions were generally going Modernist in great masses and whoever disagreed was simplya conservative within his own confession. It was also unknown because the equally fundamentalist Catholics were even more at home in their Church, in ours. The one which Popes like Leo XIII and St (Bl?) Pius X defended. The one which modernists have attacked.

And finally:

People who today would be called fundamentalists where then just Presbyterian or Baptist, or whatever ...

Karl Keating forgets that "whatever" includes Roman Catholics. Ken Miller did not quite forget it.

When he wrote "Finding Darwin's God" he admitted that the priest who prepared him for First Confession and Communion was ... in fact a Fundamentalist. Hence my reply to Ken Miller "Saying with Father Murphy's God".

As for me, I am a bit tired of Catholics in France lapping up each word from Karl Keating as if it were Gospel Truth and weighed on a goldsmith's balance. I am tired of being thought Protestant (as in denying Holy Mass or Seven Sacraments or the Honour given by God and by Church to the Blessed Virgin Mary) because I consider Heaven and Hell literal places.

I am tired of being considered as involved in soul winning of the Evangelical type because I consider God made the world 5199 before Christ.

I am tired of being considered as even moving in that direction. I am tired of Catholics telling their Pentecostal friends over Ecumenism "we can't do anything, maybe he'll listen to you, since you are Protestant". I know exactly how much I have in common intellectually with an Evangelical; but I also know exactly how much I do NOT have in common with him.

And I am tired of Catholics considering I must (unless insincere) be Protestant because I am Geocentric, while Protestants with somewhat greater realism hope I would denounce the judgement of 1633 against Galileo as soon as I ceased to be a Papist. I am not going that way. Was not going that way etn years ago, am not going that way now.

I am also getting tired of Modernists getting away with posing like Catholics, despite my denouncing them, or even more their stance, as incompatible with Tradition. I am tired of paying their good reputation of being Catholics with having an undeserved bad one myself as not being so.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Philip, Deacon
and St Norbert, Priest
6.VI.2016

T' Ignore or Not Ignore?

That is the question : whether it be nobler in the mind to … well, here is more or less where my memory of exact quote from Hamlet breaks off. I have not been keeping it up. But the title refers to Mark Shea seeming to have a similar problem about whether to ignore me or answer me.

1) T' Ignore or Not Ignore?, 2) When is it rational to conclude one is facing a conspiracy? I might have been wrong. My friend Sungenis just wrote this: Mark Shea and the “Synthesis of All Heresies” http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Mark_Shea_and_Synthesis_of_All_Heresies.pdf Like myself, see below, he is not buying Mark Shea's claim to be the average Catholic.

Mark Shea Asking For the Commenter he Blocked
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/03/mark-shea-asking-for-commenter-he.html

Mark Shea's Understanding of Scripture
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2014/04/mark-sheas-understanding-of-scripture.html

Both of above links were sent to him. The latter mentions in passing that persons fulfilling a prophecy must not be doing it from manipulation by their parents at birth. Cyrus. Our Lord. And … as obviously … Antichrist. I gave two examples of people who could be fulfilling the prophecy by their name in ways that their parents could not in any possible way have foreseen. Obama and Bergoglio. For Obama I have not checked the exact gematria of the English translations of his three names. For Bergoglio it is last name in block letters according to ASCII code. Block letters of English alphabet are A – Z = 65 – 90 while 64 is just @ and first 0 – 31 (I e first thirtytwo starting from zero) are commands rather than signs. Minuscules are a – z = 97 – 122 and characters with extra strokes like “É” (201) or “é” (233) are outside this series. Or these two series.

Mark Shea in one way has responded, and in another way has not done so.

Over the Transom and into the Garbage
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/04/over-the-transom-and-into-the-garbage.html

go all emails that start like this:

How To Respond If Pope Francis Is the False Prophet

I did not send an email. This time. My message did not start like that either. But since it was posted less than 48, near certainly less than 24 hours, after my posting the link on his wall I think I can feel alluded to.

Even if the eventuality of “Pope Francis” being the guy was not at all the main point.

Since I am pretty certainly alluded to without being named, I find he has merited the reproach of “to ignore or not to ignore”. With such an attitude I suppose he finds me a sling or arrow of outrageous fortune, somehow.

But what if the above post by him were just a coincidence with my posting above link on his wall?

Well, then there is one other coincidence, as you would call it, which strains at least my credulity. The reason why he blocked (as it seems) emails from me was mainly my take on the creationist question.

Mark Shea Basically Calls Creationists Protestants
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2012/12/this-is-somewhat-disingenious-mark-shea.html

Newspeak in Nineteen - Eighty ... er Sorry ... Ninety-Four
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2013/12/newspeak-in-nineteen-eighty-er-sorry.html

And guess what?

This same date of 4/IV there is on Catholic and Enjoying it another post by Shea:

Tee, as they say, Hee
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/04/tee-as-they-say-hee-2.html

One thing I am grateful for: Catholics at least don’t waste a lot of time on arguments about “scientific evidence for the the flood of Noah” and all that. … But I am highly skeptical the author of Genesis would find creationist (and atheist) fundamentalist quarrels about the historicity of the Flood narrative that interesting or pertinent to his central point.

In other words, because I am interested in evidence – both from tradition (Hebrew and near universal Pagan alike) and from Geology – for Flood of Noah having occurred, therefore I am not a Catholic.

He gives about the same slur in the other post:

I never thought I’d see that day when Real Catholics[TM] would see themselves invested by the Holy Spirit to defend the Faith from the Pope. I say “Faith” not Church, because these Reactionaries hate 99% of their fellow Catholics as much as they hate Francis. It has become and abstraction to them, a simplified ideology of a few moral teaching they happen to like, plus a vision of imaginary liturgical perfection and, on a occasion, a miasma of creepy interpretation of private revelation filtered through an apocalyptic imagination. But it no longer has, for authors of junk like the stuff above, hardly any relationship to the actual Catholic faith.It’s not going to end well for this crap. Avoid it like the plague and stick with your ordinary, workaday Catholic parish of slobs and sinners in union with the pope and working out their salvation like the average schlubs we are.

That is as close to an anathema as a non-bishop can get. One can of course state even as a layman “if you persist in such, may you be anathema”, but of course without the pretention to impose the excommunication as an ecclesiastical punishment. A kind of “I will not share the condemnation which I see you heading for.” But that might have been a bit too drastic for Mark Shea. “It’s not going to end well for this crap. Avoid it like the plague” … so much more moderate words, aren’t they? And analyses like this are of course not the least bearing judgement (that was sarcastic): “I never thought I’d see that day when Real Catholics[TM] would see themselves invested by the Holy Spirit to defend the Faith from the Pope. I say ‘Faith’ not Church, because these Reactionaries hate 99% of their fellow Catholics as much as they hate Francis.” And analyses like the following are obviously speaking about the interior of the neighbour and in that sense about the unknownable (that was not sarcastic): “It has become and abstraction to them, a simplified ideology of a few moral teaching they happen to like, plus a vision of imaginary liturgical perfection and, on a occasion, a miasma of creepy interpretation of private revelation filtered through an apocalyptic imagination. But it no longer has, for authors of junk like the stuff above, hardly any relationship to the actual Catholic faith.”

One reader found it funny to add a comment about holy candles being all that works during the three dark days. A good point per se. Unfortunately for him, I think he meant it in a sarcastic way. Hope he does have a staple of such anyway, “just in case”.

a miasma of creepy interpretation of private revelation filtered through an apocalyptic imagination.

Just a bit linguistical here: miasma is a Greek word. It does not mean "swamp". It means "stain". A miasma of guilt is what we are rid of through Baptism and through Penance if receiving them correctly. It is also what Our Lord and Our Lady never had for a moment in their lives. The Latin for it is "macula". But let us return to the description:

a miasma of creepy interpretation of private revelation filtered through an apocalyptic imagination.

A bit like the people who St Matthew describes as “waiting for the Messiah” perhaps? I mean Anna and Simeon in the Temple did have a checklist including a passage of Micah. And they did have a private revelation about this visit to the Temple being the right one. Mark Shea gives a recommendation:

stick with your ordinary, workaday Catholic parish of slobs and sinners in union with the pope and working out their salvation like the average schlubs we are.

I see some relation to the assertion:

these Reactionaries hate 99% of their fellow Catholics

Perhaps he found it hateful when, trying to illustrate the concept of words changing meaning I took the example of “sad” not originally meaning “sorrowful” but “full of food after a meal” – and used him as an example of that meaning. I meant it as friendly banter. However, it may also be seen as describing him as a slob or a schlub. And in his case, I am not sure I would add “average” to it.

He does not feel any interest in testimony or physical evidence for the Flood. Ergo, average slobs in Catholic parishes do not. Especially as there is Mark Shea to tell them so. He feels sure the author of Genesis would not have cared one way or the other:

My own inclination is to think that there is some kind of primordial traumatic flood at the back of the story, given the ubiquity of flood narratives in global culture. … As far as [the author of Genesis] is concerned, his little corner of planet earth is “the world”. The main thing he cares about the is the meaning of the story.

And:

• a) it is of course Highly Irrelevant to the meaning if the world meant the world or “his little corner of the planet”?
• b) a Holy Author is of course not the least over patronised by this approach? The author of Genesis, unlike in Catholic Tradition (and Hebrew, if you like pre-Christian and pre-Jewish, Tradition before it) is not named as Moses, and he is not supposed to agree with St Peter, the first Pope, whom Kent Hovind is quoting more often than “Pope Francis” is?
• c) and this is of course also a very rational and coherent explanation of why there are flood stories all over the globe?

No, I do not hate 99% of all Catholics. But I do grudge at least a Catholic who talks and takes the tone of the kind of Modernist Lutherans I was once escaping from (they took similar approaches to questions related to Sacraments), and who uses the attention he has from people to get attention away, presumably from my writing (hardly a very nice attitude between writers at the best of times, even without a Theological quarrel in it) without having the courage to name me. Precisely as he both asserts “the author of Genesis” took “his corner of the planet” for “the world” (meaning it was a local flood) and that he was uniquely interested in “the meaning” of his story as if fact had nothing zilch or nada to do with meaning. This sloppy approach to a question is hardly what I excuse in a writer who is read by thousands and by thousands of thousands. Whatever my attitude to an average Catholic proferring it – if average Catholics are so sharing it.

The friend due to whom I started out, soon after my conversion, on the Traditionalist adventure had a teacher in "French as native language" (in Sweden, "hemspråk franska"), and she was a parishioner of St Thomas Aquinas parish in Lund (Sweden, and Scania was Swedish since 1660, previously Danish) before he and I were. He told me she used to complain “on ne prêche plus la parousie”. It means: “they are no longer preaching the second coming”.

This is evidence that to her (and she is far more of an average, pope faithful, working out her salvation than either I or Mark Shea are – or was if on the meantime she has died*) there was a time not very long ago when a Catholic Priest would tell people that Christ will come again, there will happen terrible things before that, the times of Noah were so to speak a foretaste of it. To her Padre Pio of Pietrelcina with the marks of the wounds of Our Lord and the three dark days were not a joke.

Neither were they so to a pro-lifer I met in Rome in 1986. Tom Zimmer. Read his Hope 84, to Honour Our Lady’s Assumption, if you can get hold of it. It has the three dark days.** It has more than one reference to Padre Pio. It has a proposal for Liturgic Peace before that was fashionable (and he was Novus Ordo insofar as he went to parishes were Communion was in both kinds, but against abuses, like hand communion which he considered diabolic). It has more than one very apt observation on the evil of Abortion. And the man was a bum in Rome, nearly as Saint Benedict Joseph Labre before him. An American of German Irish descent.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Isidor of Hispalis
4-IV-2014

* Oh frabjous joy, she hasn't. My friend just told me. One year older than the man he calls "the previous Pope" - and she too no doubt. ** It also has a saying about Our Lord's tenderness. "His Sacred Heart is so tender he cannot bear to see one eat the meat of a slaughtered animal the day when He died on a Cross. Never eat meat on Friday." I do not know where it comes from, I try to avoid eating meat on Fridays anyway. But I recalled it as I ate a chicken sandwich today, or as I was about to eat it. Though I also recalled it was Friday when the lady in the café offered me no salmon and only two meat sandwiches./HGL

Hier à St Eustache, on louait Hitler

Peut-être pas avec l'intention de le faire, peut-être l'intention était plutôt à noircir St Louis IX de France.

Les mots en question étaient de toute manière "St Louis faisait ça avant Hitler" ou peut-être "déjà avant Hitler", j'ai aussi l'impression très forte que les mots ont été répétés.

Bon, être contre les Juifs parce qu'on est pour quelqu'un d'autres (l'Église Catholique dans le cas de St Louis, les loges de Thulé ou de Frédéric II de Prusse dans le cas d'Hitler, ou encore les pauvres Français dans le cas de St Louis ou les pauvres Allemands dans le cas d'Hitler) n'est pas en soi un acte, donc pas une chose qu'on pouvait décrire avec les mots "faisait ça".

Puisque j'avais l'impression que l'homme n'était moins en train de louer un bon côté chez Hitler que de noircir un bon côté parmi tant d'autres de St Louis, je n'ai pas eu envie de lui poser des questions.

Autant plus que ça m'aurait été très pénible de devoir le baffer devant l'équipe de St Eustache, l'autre hiver je m'étais absenté depuis le soir que j'avais vu que l'équipe chassait un homme qui avait fouetté un autre avec sa ceinture, et on l'a vraiment voulu retenir à tout prix pour qu'il ne soit pas impuni (ou pire encore pour qu'il ne reste pas sans "soins"). Donc je flairais une piège.

Mais pour retourner au propos de cet homme, ça m'a intrigué.

St Louis n'a certainement pas eu de camps, ni de mort ni de travail forcé avant Hitler.

Que pouvait-il donc entendre?

Peut-être que St Louis avait expulsé les Juifs "avant Hitler"? Mais Hitler ne les a pas expulsés. Il ne l'a pas pu. La France ne voulait pas des Juifs supplémentaires à Madagascar, le Mufti de Jérusalem et même Angleterre (après un échec de sa politique zioniste) ne les a pas voulus en Terre Sainte. Donc, Hitler n'a pas expulsé les Juifs après St Louis, puisqu'il ne les a pas expulsés. Et St Louis ne les a pas expulsés avant Hitler, puisqu'il les a expulsés avant Los Reyes Católicos.

À moins que cet homme avait l'arrière-pensée de vouloir entendre que les camps de mort était un astuce - de la part de Hitler lui-même, et non pas simplement de la part de Wiesenthal et al. - pour faire accepter le projet zioniste. Ce qui me rappelle un peu Goebbels. Vous savez homme de famille chrétienne, femme de famille juive, fin, avec meurtre des enfants et double suicide, style Masada. Mon grand-père avait le droit à une aliyah, il ne la pas utilisé. Peut-être parce qu'en Terre Sainte il avait trouvé un guide qui louait le "sacrifice" suicidaire de Masada et qui vantait Hérode le Grand comme un grand homme de sa nation.*

Mais il y a quand même un acte que St Louis avait effectivement pu faire avant Hitler: brûler des livres. Avec St Louis c'était le Talmud. Quel livres c'était avec Hitler, je ne sais pas exactement, mais normalement il s'agissait des livres en charactères de l'alphabet latin** et non pas de livres en texte hébreu, et s'il brûlait des livres en texte hébreu aussi, je ne suis pas sûr qu'il prenait la piété de le faire avec non jamais la Loi mais toujours le Talmud.

J'ai eu l'occasion de soupçonner que du mauvais traitement qui m'a privé de sommeil a été dû à Baba Batra:

Voir le quatrième commentaire sous le message:
HGL's F.B. writings : Guns, Homeless, Shelters, My Own Situation
hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2013/02/guns-homeless-shelters-my-own-situation.html

Et Père Pranaitis avait trouvé d'autres trucs encore dans le Talmud.

Mais de temps en temps on retrouve des choses qui justifient du point de vue de l'orthodoxie religieuse le fait par St Louis de brûler des Talmuds. Voici comme ils peuvent être anti-Torahiques, les "sages" ou "savants" talmudiques, comme quand (Rev Dr) Rowland S. Ward, pasteur de Knox Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia, en Wantirna, Victoria avait dans le journal écrit ceci (mon emphase):

Quite apart from the fact that Jewish Talmudic sages did not regard the flood as geographically universal, and leaving aside arguments from geology, zoology, geography, archaeology and the like, I make the following points***

[Mais voir là-dessus le troisième PS, marqué PPPS.]

Quand à moi, je fais le point que pour les Presbytériens les "sages talmudiques" prennent la place qui est dans l'orthodoxie relgieuse due sinon au Nouveau Testament (qu'ils reconnaissent mais interprètent mal) au moins aux Pères de l'Église. Mais aussi que le Talmud est un livre pour des gens qui ont Moïse et les Prophètes sans les croire. Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ disait à leur propos:°

Derniers versets du 5 chap. de St Jean
English		Français
[46] For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me.		46.Car si vous croyiez Moïse, vous me croiriez aussi, parce qu'il a écrit de moi.
[47] But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?		47.Mais si vous ne croyez pas à ses écrits, comment croirez-vous à mes paroles?"

Je ne vais pas donner tort à mon cher Seigneur, ni à St Louis.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BU Nanterre
St Thomas d'Aquin°°
7-III-2014

PS, Adamthwaite n'était pas totalement orthodoxe non plus:

In similar vein, our Lord’s birth involved both the miraculous and the normal: the conception was indeed miraculous, but the gestation and birth were along the normal biological lines.

Et ici Calvin aurait été avec l'Église Catholique. La Naissance était miraculeuse par une préservation de l'intégrité virginale physique. Le crédo nous dit "natus ex Maria virgine". Un Maure sémiconverti en Espagne avait voulu nier cet aspect devant St Ignace de Loyola, il a considéré la possibilité de le poursuivre pour le corriger physiquement. Le saint ne l'a finalement pas poursuivi, mais le propos du Maure reste blasphème./HGL

PPS, encore Adamthwaite:

Again, He has provided an ark: Jesus Christ! He has promised to carry through to the world to come all who trust themselves to Him.

Pas tout faux, mais inadéquat. Notre Seigneur Jésu-Christ ne l'est qu'avec son Église, c'est Elle qui est principalement signifié dans la lecture allégorique du Déluge. Notons que l'existence de cette lecture allégorique n'exclut nullement que la lecture lttérale reste vraie et innérrante./HGL

PPPS. Il est à ajouter que le Créationniste parmi les deux Presbytériens, donc Adamnthwaite, essaie d'exonérer le Talmud de négationnisme quant au Déluge. Les rabbins - dont il dit bien à propos qu'ils manquent la lumière du Nouveau Testament, il cite II Pierre ch. 3 - dont parle Ward n'auraient que prétendu La Terre Sainte identique au Paradis Terrestre et épargné du Déluge. Sur cette position je refère au commentaire Haydock Genèse 2, commentaire pour le verset 8, mais si Adamthwaite a vraiment exonéré Talmud en entier là-dessus, alors soit Ward, soit ses amis parmi les rabbins ont été malhonnêtes avec un pilpoul, ce qui me donne à penser qu'il s'agit effectivement des rabbins, et que le clergé vraiment chrétien, donc catholique, ou sémichrétien comme les Presbytériens (avec un clergé qui n'en est pas!) devraient se garder bien de prendre les mots de leurs amis Rabbins pour de la monnaie comptante./HGL

PPPPS, j'ai essayé de communiquer ceci aux deux concernés, et le fait de réussir de rejoindre l'un m'a valu un petit debat supplémentaire, en anglais:

Correspondence of Hans-Georg Lundahl : With Ward, on Flood, Rabbis, Joshua's Long Day
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/03/with-ward-on-flood-rabbis-joshuas-long.html

* Imaginez écouter un homme qui vante Hitler comme un grand Allemand? Et encore non pas une personne privé, mais un guide officiel! "Voici le Bunker, Hitler et Eva Braun ... c'était un très grand Allemand, le plus grand Allemand depuis Frédéric II le Stauffer et Frédéric II de la Prusse ..." - un Catholique, comme le sont les Autrichiens et les Bavarois peuvent se passer de ces trois "grands Allemands", danke schön, bitte nicht noch einmal!

** En ductus de renaissance comme ceci ou en ductus de fracture - utilisé en Allemagne par tout le monde et non pas par les seuls nazis. C'est d'ailleurs Hitler et Bormann qui ont interdit le style fracture dans les nouveaux livres, comme ce sont eux qui ont commi la barbarie de la législation Reichsschulgesetz.

*** Republié avec la réponse dans cet article de Creation Ministries International:

Church leader ‘aghast’ at belief in a worldwide Flood?
Published: 15 July 2002 (GMT+10)
creation.com/church-leader-aghast-at-belief-in-a-worldwide-flood

Puisqu'il y a référence à l'hérétique Jean Calvin dans cet article, il y est cité comme une référence, je signale que quand le commentaire biblique par Père George Leo Haydock (qui cite des commentateurs d'avant lui) commence de critiquer Jean Calvin et Martin Luther, c'est à partir de chapitre 3 de la Genèse. Donc, le Catholicisme est traditionnellement d'accord avec Calvin et Bèze et Luther et les autres sur les premiers deux chapitres, donc sur les Six Jours.

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Does Haydock - OT - take into account what Beza and Calvin wrote? And others?
greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2014/02/does-haydock-ot-take-into-account-what.html

Par contraste, Barnes, à peu près le contemporain de Haydock, ne l'est pas:

Creation vs. Evolution : Why a Literalist should be a Papist and not a Barnesist
creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2014/02/why-literalist-should-be-papist-and-not.html

°

Douai-Reims Bible Online Gospel according to St John, Chapter 5 drbo.org/chapter/50005.htm

Bible Crampon Évangile selon St Jean jesusmarie.free.fr/bible_crampon_jean.html

°° "In monasterio Fossae Novae, 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."

Ipsa conteret, by Heinz Lothar Barth, German Book Tip

1) deretour : Mariologic Bible study, 2) New blog on the kid : Ipsa conteret, by Heinz Lothar Barth, German Book Tip, 3) Great Bishop of Geneva! : Patrick Madrid is right about kecharitomene and blessed among women

Ipsa conteret.
Maria die Schlangenzertreterin: Philologische und theologische Überlegungen zum Protoevangelium (gen 3,15)
Heinz Lothar Barth
http://www.amazon.fr/Ipsa-conteret-Maria-Schlangenzertreterin-Protoevangelium/dp/3934692036

If you have just learned German and do not know what to do with it, and if you are a Theologian, I recommend this book. Extracts of it were published in Mitteilungsblatt der Priesterbruderschaft St Pius X back in the nineties.

Heinz Lothar Barth is not a priest although he writes on Catholic Theology here, he is a layman, like myself. Of course, he is also a Ph D (abbreviation which stands for Philosophiae Doctor), which I am not.

I was provoked to look this up by a haughty and devious representative of the Aramaic Christians. Not meaning they should all suffer because of him, of course, on the contrary. Apart from denying the Just War doctrine with its basis in Luke 3:14, by claiming the answer was adressed to tax collectors (as the one in verse 13) rather than to a separate category introduced in beginning of verse 14, namely soldiers, he also accuses St Jerome of having falsified* this passage of scripture by translating the Hebrew with "ipsa conteret caput tuum" rather than with "ipsum conteret", and that provoked me to remind of what I had read in this book of Heinz Lothar Barth, namely that both seed and woman are in Hebrew feminine, so that the words of the Hebrew text can be understood either way, but that St Jerome, in agreement with the Theological understanding of the Church, applied this to the Blessed Virgin Mary more directly than to Her seed, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore I highly recommend this book to any readers of the German language and also to people who could ask Heinz Lothar Barth for permission to translate it into English or French or both. And, why not into Aramaic.

I declare that when I was received into the Roumanian Orthodox Church, or its Neohimerite faction, I never foreswore the Catholic Church, I was not asked to do so. I declare that any Orthodox bishop who excommunicates me for the sake of holding to Catholic doctrine is a liar and a coward. Even if I was unwary in accepting communion with them.

I also declare that any Catholic Bishop who excommunicates me for not having shunned them totally is incoherent. Unless he can point to one Pope who is not accepting these as real Churches with real jurisdiction in the present.

I am sorry for having been incoherent between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But how could I have avoided it, if the situation at present seems incoherent?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Conversion of St Paul
25-I-2014

* The Council of Trent does not declare the Vulgate inerrant, but infallible as to Doctrinal content. If it had been inerrant, we would have had to use the date of Ussher rather than of St Jerome as to birthyear of Jesus Christ Our Lord as counted in Anno Mundi. If it were not infallible, any priest or bishop knowing only Latin would have been foolhardy to reason from it. I am with the Council of Trent. Herein.

Update on 28-I-2014:

Of course, both the Vulgate which says that "he" or "it" shall crush the heel of the serpent and the Vulgate which says that "she" shall do so are of course correct, both as translations of the Hebrew and doctrinally. The Haydock comments say that whether the woman or the seed crushes the serpent's head is all one, which is true, since Jesus and Mary did it together on Calvary, He be dying on the Cross, She by praying under it. Attacking the Vulgate is therefore not really so much an attack on the Original State of Grace of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as on her role as Coredeemer. Any Bible whether Hebrew or Greek or Latin contains "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed ..." which means that Mary and Satan are archenemies, which in its turn means that she was never his slave in any way, and slavery under the Devil is proper not only of those in a personal state of sin, but also of those in the state of original sin, due to his victory over Adam. So, it is not just the Vulgate but any text which prophecies her freedom from the State of Original Sin./HGL

Guy Denaere présente une chronologie égyptienne contestable

Le roi Aha aurait fondé l'Égypte entre 3045 et 3111 avant Jésus-Christ. Ainsi le compte-rendu qu'il fait d'un article anglophone en Proceedings of the Royal Society A. (numéro non précisé) dans son article en PRÉSENT, samedi 11 janvier 2014. Précisons que j'apprécie davantage la trouvaille d'un brasseur à la cour pharaonique ... à part le souhait qu'il soit rendu à son tombeau pour attendre le Jour de la Résurrection. Mon grandpère (qui était évolutionniste) était brasseur-destillateur (en occurrence destillateur, mais dans les syndicats ça compte comme même que brasseur).

Or, Égypte n'étant pas Nod avant le Déluge, qu'on sache (réserve sur le fait qu'un fleuve anté-diluvien a pu être identifié avec le Nil d'après le Déluge), la date semble erronnée. Notre Seigneur est né 2957 après le Déluge, selon le Martyrologue Romain, et s'il y a des divergences entre les dates basées sur la Septante (les Grecs et Russes disent que Notre Seigneur soit né en l'an 5500 ou 5800 après la Création me semble-t-il) les divergences devraient porter surtout sur le temps avant le Déluge et sur le temps entre Déluge et la Tour de Babel.

Donc, si l'Égypte a été fondé autour du temps de la Tour de Babel (on se demande de côtés fidèles à l'histoire biblique si Nimrod et Assur était le même personne, et il semble que le nom Osiris soit identique à Assur - on peut aussi se demander si "Misraim" ne serait pas un collectif signifiant "sectateurs d'Assur" : or Nimrod est souvent pris pour le coupable derrière la Tour de Babel), alors sa fondation devra être après 2957 avant Jésus-Christ.

Il y a dans cette histoire de certains côtés une arrière-pensée comme si la fidélité à l'histoire biblique - chose parfaitement incontestable pour les orthodoxes du temps de St Thomas d'Aquin - était entre-temps devenu une forme de Protestantisme. Ce qui est vrai c'est qu'il y a une minorité traditionnelle parmi les Protestants, ainsi que parmi les Catholiques, ainsi que parmi les Orthodoxes Grécoslaves*, par contre plutôt une majorité parmi les Orthodoxes du Patriarchat d'Antioche et parmi les Coptes, qui se soucient de croire l'histoire de la Bible en générale et la chronologie biblique en particulier.

Malheureusement, il y a des gens qui vous reprochent d'être "Protestant" ou "mauvais Catholique" si vous n'êtes pas d'accord avec les dates présentées par "La Science" comme si celle-ci avait une infaillibilité supérieure à l'Église de Tous les Temps. Je serais d'ailleurs heureux de répondre à des éventuels arguments scientifiques proférés par Guy Denaere pour l'acceptation de ces méthodes comme quasi-infaillibles ou comme des motifs suffisants pour remettre les dates basées sur la Sainte Bible en question. S'il en a, biensûr. Notons que l'argument que "tous les scientifiques les acceptent" n'est pas un argument scientifique mais sociologique. Ou encore une parallèle hétérodoxe à l'infaillibilité collective de tous les évêques (de tous les temps, bien entendu : à supposer que tous les évêques de nos jours contredisaient tous les évêques des temps entre les Apôtres et une certaine date récente, faudrait contredire tous les évêques de nos jours, mais ce cas reste impossible, théologiquement, et il y a d'évêques qui contredisent "la science" ou son "consensus" - qui n'en est même pas). Les Cardinaux Turrecremata et Newman précisent** que si un pape contredit la Sainte Écriture, un tel propos "papal" mérite le mépris. Et à plus forte raison un propos non papal, biensûr!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Paul, Premier Hermite
15-I-2014

* Les Slaves ont été battus sur la tête par les Communistes pendant quelques décades d'années, et les Grecs admirent les Russes deuis le temps quand ils étaient eux-mêmes battus sur la tête par les Ottomans.

** Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Selon les Cardinaux Turrecremata et Newman, et selon Vatican I, peut un pape juger un passage de l'Écriture erronnée en faveur d'une découverte scientifique des derniers 2000 ans?
[résumé de la réponse: non]
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/11/selon-les-cardinaux-turrecremata-et.html

Quarterlife is a Bad Term

1) Newspeak in Nineteen - Eighty ... er Sorry ... Ninety-Four, 2) Mark Shea Recommended David Palm Who Misconstrues Bible Commission of 1909, 3) Would GKC have Agreed with MkSh that KH was a Bible Idolater?, 4) Correspondence of Hans-Georg Lundahl : With Jonathan Sarfati PhD on Fall and Inquisition, 5) New blog on the kid : Quarterlife is a Bad Term, 5b) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Answering Bill Nye, the Science Guy on a few points, 5c) New blog on the kid : Phil Provaznik/Dalrymple on Potassium-Argon and on Principle, more on Fission Track and Isochrons (a debunking of...), 6) [Back to Creation vs. Evolution :] Scenario impossible, 7) Karl Keating Out of His Depth?, 8) Three Kinds of Proposition, 9) Is Flat Earth Belief Heretical?, 10) HGL's F.B. writings : Between Palm and Sungenis, 11a) HGL's F.B. writings : On Helios in Christian Geocentrism, 11b) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Rivers Clapping Hands, Anaximander, Greek Philosophy at time of Ecclesiasticus ... , 12) Assorted retorts : ... on Geocentrism with Raymond Doetjes and "Imdor"

What I am looking for is not when an isotope after initial set up will have only the quarter or initial amount left.

What I am looking for is the half time of a half life.

It is NOT the time after which 1/4 is gone.

Suppose 1/4 were the ratio (we are looking for an irrational proportion, really, I will be giving rational approximations). Then after another such time you would not again take away 1/4 of initial amount, but only 1/4 of new amount after first of it. So, 4*4 = 16. Take away 1/4 of 16, you are left with 12. Take away one quarter of that, this time it is three, you are left with 9. Instead of getting 8/16 after the halflife you would be getting 9/16 after the time, which in that case would not merit the name of halflife.

So, what is taken away after half of a halflife is perhaps 1/3? 3*3=9. First take away 3 of them, then 2 of them. You have taken away 5/9 and are left with 4/9. Which is not what a half life is supposed to land you with.

Now amount taken away after half a halflife must be between 1/4 and 1/3.

1/3	=	4/12
1/4	=	3/12
	=	7/24

24*24 = 576

7/24 * 7/24 =

	576
-	168
=	408
-	119
=	289

2*289=578.

Or:

	576
-	289
=	287

289 and 287 are far closer proportionally than 4 and 5 or 7 and 9.

We have taken away too much. But not so very much too much as previously. So, at half of a half life, a bit less than 7/24 is gone, a bit more than 17/24 is left. I thought until checking. Of course people dealing with radiometric dating known exactly what ratio would be left after the half of one halflife. Now, one way for an ordinary person to find out without asking them is using a calculator. If you push 0.5 and then the root sign, you get:

0,7071067811865475

And if you multiply that by itself you get back to 0.5, whereas 17:24 gives:

0,7083333333333333

Meaning that 17/24 is actually a bit too much for the half of a halflife. Here is the square of it:

0,5017361111111111

Which, as you see, is a bit more than one half.

Now, the point is, when we deal with isotopes having very long half lives, we will not be measuring the half life directly. For C14 we might be measuring the half time of one halflife directly. Suppose C14 levels have not been rising, and - given the halflife usually given for it - the time for finding 7/24 as much as in today's atmosphere (or a bit more than that), would be around historically known material from say wood beams from one city built and soon after abandoned or a wooden statue of known origin or so around 500 BC / 1000 BC. Why? Because the half life is usually given for a measure between 5000 and 6000 years. That means that - supposing C14 levels are not rising but fluctuating and we ignore that for now - we can calibrate C14 method on known historical material.

Can we calibrate it on laboratory samples revisited after a few years? Hardly. Obviously still less possible for isotopes far longer in half life than C14.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_isotopes_by_half-life

Next half life is Americium-243 which is cancer hazardous - very lucky we do not have much of that clock around us - or Curium-245, which is artificial and was not present before. For 20.300 years we have Niobium-94.

The three largest producers of niobium ore are mining pyrochlore deposits. The largest deposit in Brazil is the CBMM mine located south of Araxá, Minas Gerais, followed by the deposit of the Catalão mine east of Catalão, Goiás. The third largest deposit of niobium ore is Niobec mine west of Saint-Honore near Chicoutimi, Quebec.

Pyrochlore ore typically contains greater than 0.05% of naturally occurring radioactive uranium and thorium.

Niobium is also present in columbite:

http://www.mindat.org/min-1514.html

See map at the bottom. Click "show list of localities". I have not recognised any of the localities where fossil species are found on that list. Nor any locality with obviously datable archaeological import, where artefacts can be known from history. Even ignoring that 10.150 years ago is not exactly history either to a YEC or to an Evolutionist. To the one it is a false date pre-creation, to the other "pre-history". But I do not even know of carbon dated bones or trees from those areas which would give us a hint if 7/24 of original content of Niobium-94 was gone. So it is not a great idea to say the half life of even Niobium-94 has been measured by checking a sample old as half of its half life against some several halflives of Carbon 14.

This is even supposing the measurable halflives of Carbon 14 do not get us back beyond the time of its presence on an even level in earth's atmosphere.

You see, the even level of Carbon 14 depends mainly on the balance of two factors: the cosmic radiation which is building it up and the radioactive decay which is pulling the level down. Suppose at any point of time levels were above the balancing level, it would decay faster than getting renewed and approach the balancing level. Suppose on the other hand it were at any point lower than the balancing level, it would build up faster than it decayed and approach the balancing level. This is so because the level of decay is not a constant per se, but a percentage of the total amount.

This means that the Young Earth Creationist standpoint on Carbon 14 is that dates "older than creation" (like pretty obviously post-flood Göbekli Tepe being dated 15.000 years or something before present) only point to the fact that when organic material was alive, the Carbon 14 level was not yet completely up to the balancing level but still rising and still at a lower level.

That in its turn means that if you obtained 17/24 of present Carbon 14 level in a historically dated remain of organic material from the millennium before Christ, this could EITHER mean that the time from when it was alive to the present was half the time of a half life OR that if Carbon 14 was still building up (and historical dating is sure, like being the traditional date, not doubted by historians) the half life is longer.

But on the other hand if instead it is history that is reassessed according to Carbon 14, and it was in the buildup, that would imply that historical material would be carbondated as too old and the history unduly rewritten. I think the carbondated age of Troy VI (?) is one hundred years older than the historical date of the fall of Troy. But what if instead another one of the Troy cities on top of each other was the real one, then the carbondate would be even further off than 32:31. As late as 1000 BC.

Now this has consequences for our ability to calibrate longer halflives on carbondated material.

Now we come to a page quoted by David Palm, the one with the eight questions from 1909. In the bottom it linked to another page* with supposed evidence for an old earth. I refuse to quote Ratzinger and Wojtyla or even the slight misrepresentation of what Pius XII' Humani generis amounts to. We go to its main number of scientific argumentation, or what seemed to me to be the main number, and I will intersperse the quotes with my critical comments:

The half-life of an element (if you remember from your high school or college chemistry courses) is the time it takes for one-half of the atoms of an unstable element or nuclide to decay radioactively into another stable element or nuclide.

The other element need not per se be stable. It could be another isotope of radioactive material with another half life.

When we strike from the list every nuclide that is continually produced by natural processes,

Meaning obviously Carbon fourteen (¹⁴C). Plus any element formed by radioactive decay.

[When we strike from the list etc.] we are left only with those that persist from the date of the formation of our solar system (from Kenneth Miller, page 69-72). What does this list tell us?

... ²⁴⁴Pu 8.2 x 10⁷ yes (and so on for all above)
¹⁴⁶Sm 7.0 x 10⁷ no (and so on for all below) ...

As seen above, every nuclide with a half-life less than 80 million years (8.0 x 107) is missing from our region of the solar system, and every nuclide with a half-life greater than 80 million years is present. That means the solar system is much older than 80 million years, since the shorter-lived nuclides have simply decayed themselves out of existence. Since a nuclide becomes undetectable after about 10 to 20 half-lives (Dalrymple, page 378), multiplying 80 million times 10 (or 20) gives us about 800 million years (or 1.6 billion years). The earth must be at least that old since these nuclides have disappeared from nature.

A very relevant question would of course be, whether they ever were present in nature. The Pink Unicorns must have reached a total of thirteen since they were able to form a coven and make themselves invisible ... which we know since we see no Pink Unicorns. Wait ... there might have been no Pink Unicorns there in the FIRST PLACE?

But if we get to the bottom of this list, we get to "¹⁵⁴Dy 1.0 x 10⁶ no".

Even the least of all these half lives is one million years.

How do you measure such a half life? The half lives of Zirconium 86, 88 and 89 are very short.** The half life of Zr-93 (which is on the no-part of the list above that I am not quoting in full) is 1,530,000.0 years. Isotopes 95 and 97 are also with short halflives. But five isoptopes of Zirconium are stable. So, if 93 has such a long halflife and does not form and is therefore absent from nature, how do we get at it having existed? Zirconium 87 is not enumerated among the isotopes. Thus we have no need to assume 93 must have gotten away because it is not there. It could like "Zirconium 87" not have been there in the first place.

And the same applies to the other ones on the list. We have thus no scientific ground in the number of isotopes present or absent or in their halflives to assume earth older than 800,000,000 years.

The long halflives are also relevant for other datings that contradict Genesis as taken literally as history - which according to questions 1 and 2 from 1909 we must do. They are not the only relevant factor for such datings, but they are one of the factors. I do not know how they were measured. I do know that of such long halflives not only is there no sample measured before and after a full halflife, as with Carbon 14 anyway, but not even a sample with calibration on half of a halflife or quarter of it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Tatiana of Rome, Martyr
12-I-2014

[Appendix A:] Bill Nye*** when "answering" Marco Rubio claimed Rubidium Strontium transmutation has had its speed measured by watching it in laboratories for "sometmes as long as fifteen years just to get it exactly right". Obviously that gets nowhere near the kind of certainty we can have for Carbon dating the last two thousand years when it can be checked against historically certain objects.

Appendix [B]: By "Quarterlife," bad as the term is, I meant "when a quarter is gone and three quarters left" = half of a half-life, when one half is gone and one half is left. But half that time corresponds rather to the diminution of "71 %" on copy machines, like A3 > A4. Not to the 75% that two quarters are. Here is a little table, using also the calculator results, which will give the different approximations and show their respective exactness:

(3/4)² = 9/16 =

0.5625

(17/24)² = 289/576 =

0.50173611111111111111111111111111

(577/816)² = 332,929/665,856

0.5000015018262206843521722414456

(12/17)² = 144/289 = 288/578 =

0.49826989619377162629757785467128

1/2 = 0.5 =

288/576 = 289/578 = 332,928/665,856

3/4 = 75%

0.75

17/24 = "71 %" =

0.70833333333333333333333333333333

577/816 = "71 %" =

0.70710784313725490196078431372549

12/17 = "71 %" =

0.70588235294117647058823529411765

sqrt(1/2) = "71 %" =

0.70710678118654752440084436210485

* Evidence for Evolution and an Old Earth
subtitled: Evidence for Evolution and an Old Earth, a Catholic Perspective
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p14.htm

** Bentor, Yinon. Chemical Element.com - Zirconium. Jan. 12, 2014
http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/zr.html

*** The video: CRUClEFICTION : Bill Nye: Creationism Is Just Wrong!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaKMAhPQ54g