Ce n'est pas une faute. Ce n'est pas un devoir de tout le monde d'être Suédois. C'est un constat. Pourquoi donc?
D'abord, je suis moi-même Suédois, quoique né en dehors du pays et atypique et je me suis trouvé entre 1980 et 2004 incapable à me réadapter efficacement à la Suède après une éducation plus bohème mais aussi plus conservatrice de valeurs que les valeurs actuelles de mon pays. Mais je suis suédois. Grand père maternel Scanien (certains le compteraient comme "Danois" ou "Sémi-danois", puisque la Scanie était danoise jusqu'à 1660, et les Danois lui accordent "Danois de Quart"), sa femme née à la capitale des parents immigrés de Westrogothie, mon grandpère paternel était Suédois, sa femme une Norvégienne de parents danois.
Zlatan est par contre né d'un père Bosniaque Musulman et d'une mère Croate Catholique (non-pratiquante?), quoique en Suède. En plus son domicile en Suède, c'était Rosengård, devenu un quartier fortement dominé par l'immigration extra-nordique, de l'Europe de l'Est comme ses parents, de Palestine et Liban, d'Iraq, peut-être d'Égypte aussi, sans se passer totalement des Tsiganes, immigrés, eux, vers 1900 de la Roumanie*. Qu'il parle le suédois sans problème, je ne le nie pas - je ne lui ai pas parlé - mais son éducation est celle d'un autre bout de l'Europe. Notons, ce n'est pas une faute. Mais c'est un fait.
Et ma première raison de souligner ce fait est que, comme je suis Suédois, j'aime soit qu'on ait des attentes sur moi sans base de stéréotype national, soit que le stéréotype national soit correct. Si on connaît Zlatan, on n'a pas une très bonne idée de quoi s'attendre des Suédois, et si je dis que je suis Suédois, je me considère prône à être sujet à des malentendus si on prend Zlatan comme exemple. Un Français vient en Mexique, il est peut-être Lyonnais, veut-il forcément être comparé au caractère de Zinédine Zidane? Ceci est ma première raison.
La seconde raison est la suivante. Il y a un peu d'idéologie dans le fait de considérer Zlatan comme un Suédois. Il a sans doute la nationalité suédoise comme fait juridique. Il a peut-être même pas de double nationalité. Mais le fait administratif n'est pas plus clairement objectif que le fait ethnique. Le considérer comme Suédois revient donc à faire primer le fait juridique sur des faits qui, selon leur nature même, sont antérieurs aux faits juridiques. Ou de nier la réalité des faits ethniques. Je refuse de faire ça.
Un certain Björn Lindahl** vient de poser la question après quelle nombre de générations des Pakistanais en Norvège cessent d'être Pakistanais et deviennent Norvégiens. Je viens de répondre, que chaque enfant ayant deux parents, quatre grand-parents, huit arrière-grandparents (qui en certaines cultures ne sont pas huit personnes différentes!), il n'y a pas le cas qu'un arrière-petit-fils d'un immigré du Pakistan déscend uniquement de lui et de personne d'autre, et sa nationalité pakistanaise/ourdou ou norvégienne dépend, dans le sens ethnique, du nombre des ancêtres qui sont des Pakistanais et du nombre des ancêtres qui sont des Norvégiens. Au moins dans une première approximation.
Ceci est antérieur aux faits juridiques, quoique soit l'idée idéologique que se font certains. Les parents de Zlatan avaient certainement une nationalité yougoslave avant d'être éventuellement naturalisés comme Suédois. Et pour les deux origines, s'ils étaient restés parmi les compatriotes, ça ne serait plus nationalité yougoslave, la Bosnie-Herczgovine ayant cessé de compter comme Yougoslavie. Du côté catholique et croate comme du côté bosniaque et "mouslimâne". Quel qu'en serait le sentiment du côté serbe.
Un matin quand je me suis réveillé devant une piscine, j'ai donné ma nationalité comme suédoise, et le gardien mâle avait dit "Zlatan". J'ai ensuite expliqué que Zlatan n'est pas suédois (je parlais du sens ethnique bien-sûr), et le même soir un autre sdf, que je connais de vu et de prénom, un Portugais, vient de me lancer à la Bibliothèque Georges Pompidou "tu ne parles pas mal de Zlatan!" - ce que je n'avais pas fait. J'avais parlé mal de l'idéologie selon laquelle il serait un Suédois, c'est tout. Ajoutons que le gardien mâle de cette piscine était capable de lancer des mots en Arabe à un passant. Peut-être qu'il avait un peu mal à digérer une idée selon laquelle il ne serait pas lui-même Français. Certainement soit il avait des contacts avec des gens qui me "surveillent" quelque part, de quelque façon, comme par exmple ce Portugais, soit la coincidence est trop invraisemblable pour moi. Ensuite ce Portugais me lança "tu quittes la France" comme si un comité d'immigrés avait à se prononcer là-dessus.***
Je dis donc ceci pour contrer cette idéologie, qui me déplaît. Surtout que Bergoglio vient d'hier - devant le Parlement d'Europe à Strasbourg - de faire quasi un appel à l'Europe de se faire un pays d'immigration comme les États-Unis aux temps de Statten Island et de créer du boulot, quasiment de manière sinon communiste au moins gaulliste. Ce n'est pas mon truc de m'inscrire en cette idéologie. Je ne crois pas que c'est comme ça que se crée l'emploi. Les gouvernements peuvent faire quelque chose, mais moins si en même temps ils dépensent des sommes de fiscs grandissants pour la réception des immigrés.
Pour Bergoglio, la présence de réticences vis-à-vis les immigrés était en cause comme facteur meurtrier pour des 2000 personnes noyés en 2014. Pour certaines des mesures, il pourrait avoir raison. Mais d'autres mesures de non-réticence, par exemple les sommes versées aux immigrés à titre de l'aide de l'état, une fois qu'un immigré est légal, peuvent les avoir séduit à essayer.
Notons, un passage de la loi de Moïse invoqué pour la libre immigration, c'était quand même aux temps quand Israel / Royaume de Judah était le seul pays de la Chrétienté catholique, ou quelqu'un vivant ailleurs se trouvait sous des idolâtres. De nos jours, l'interdit d'opprimer ou d'attrister un immigré une fois accepté oblige à mon avis toujours (avec une contrepartie, qu'il ne doive pas opprimer ou faire ce qui peut raisonnablement attrister ceux du pays), mais l'obligation d'accepter un immigré est douteusement valide dans le Nouveau Testament et peut être conditionné, et le droit de continuer dans une religion non-chrétienne après l'arrivée ou de recevoir des versements après l'arrivée, n'a pas été là dans ce passage de la Loi de Moïse.
D'où l’intérêt de ma seconde raison, de dire que Zlatan n'est pas Suédois : de me distancer de l'idéologie multiculturaliste et immigrationniste. Sans de tomber dans une idéologie monoculturaliste et trop xénophobe, ce qui existe aussi.
Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St Silvestre, Abbé
26-XI-2014
* Il y a un autre groupe, immigrés dans le 16:ème Siècle avec lequel j'ai des connexions familiales du côté du grandpère maternel, il en avait deux comme beau-frères par mariage avec deux de ses sœurs. Les deux groupes parlent Romani, mais les Tattare - ceux de ma famille - utilisent davantage de mots suédois et ont davantage de facilité de se mélanger. Certains nient la connexion tsigane, malgré la langue quasi commune, et se considèrent comme des Tatares plutôt que comme des Tsiganes.
** Lindahl et Lundahl ne sont pas le même nom. La prononciation française tendrait à être la même, surtout chez eux qui font rimer "brun" avec "brin", la prononciation en Suédois ou Norvégien est très différente. Linne-dâl, Lœnne-dâl/presque "l'un dâl" et Leunne-dâl sont trois noms différents qui s'écrivent Lindahl, Lundahl et Lönndahl. Voici d'ailleurs le lien vers ma réponse, pour les norvégophones (et mes excuses, mon norvégien est improvisé):
På Svenska og på Dansk på Antimodernism : Før at svare Björn Lindahl
http://danskantimodernism.blogspot.com/2014/01/fr-at-svare-bjorn-lindahl.html
*** Ou est-ce que "comité de Tsiganes" serait une meilleure catégorie? J'ai eu des problèmes avec eux, de temps en temps.
New blog on the kid
Be my - local or otherwise - editor, if you like! : Soyez mon éditeur local ou plus large, si vous voulez!
Et pour tous ceux qui voient ceci sur les ordis - que Sainte Claire prie pour vous!
Wednesday, 26 November 2014
Tuesday, 25 November 2014
Columbus and Joshua (Imagine Christopher Columbus had worked a miracle)
1) Assorted retorts: ... on Not Believing Vedic Astronomy Apart from Geocentrism, on Believing Scholastic Astronomy Including Geocentrism, 2) ... on Nicole d'Oresme refusing to apply relativity perfectly understood to Geocentric appearances, 3) ... on Black Holes and Geocentrism, 4) Back to Godinci, 5) HGL's F.B. writings: A "Biblical" Heliocentric Misciting Holy Scripture, 6) Vy considers I accused him falsely of mis-citing the Bible, Rod invokes relativity, 7) Vy makes his point more clearly - so do I, 8) New blog on the kid : Columbus and Joshua (Imagine Christopher Columbus had worked a miracle)
As we know, Christopher Columbus prayed on board ship, but he did not pray in public something like “bring is today to Cathay” before God working a miracle in which they had been washed ashore a coast very far from where he prayed in very short time.
Theoretically such a thing could have happened, we will examine why it didn’t.
But first how and why it could have. Remember God is both all powerful - omnipotent as the Latin word is - adn completely truthful.
Columbus sighted land (or one of his men did) on the day when he had promised the seafarers to turn back to Spain if he didn’t sight land. He hadn’t said specifically “if he didn’t sight Cathay”, he had said “if he didn’t sight land”.
Now, imagine it had been otherwise. Imagine after that promise (a few weeks before sighting land) a storm had ruined their chances of survival – and all provisions of water had been ruined, and sea water was of course undrinkable. Suppose that parched of thirst Columbus had cried out loudly to God and said in the distress of his soul : “bring us to Cathay!” and they had seen a coast. That would have been a coincidence of Providence, God would have shown His benevolence, but He would not have tied Himself down to the fact that the coast was Cathay – i e China. But if instead God had made the three ships run faster than motorboats do these days in a race, all of them spurting proportionally water to the sides, all of them avoiding the waves from each others’ spurt, and after three hours in this miraculous forward they would have arrived, then indeed God could only have been bringing them to Cathay and nowhere else. A miracle is God’s signature. So why did this not happen?
Now hold this in mind while reflecting over Joshua chapter 10 and verse 12. I am not speaking about the result, which could in verse 13 just possibly purely theoretically be phenomenal language (even though St Robert in the Galileo process gave a good reason why that was not true : because the Moon stopped too), but I am speaking of the exact words of the miracle worker Joshua. Recall, it was before all the people that Joshua publically said to Sun and to Moon to stand still.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
(despite a sordid exposition of
"sex education" in the hall downstairs)
On the feast day of
Saint Catherine of Alexandria
Virgin and Martyr
25-XI-2014
As we know, Christopher Columbus prayed on board ship, but he did not pray in public something like “bring is today to Cathay” before God working a miracle in which they had been washed ashore a coast very far from where he prayed in very short time.
Theoretically such a thing could have happened, we will examine why it didn’t.
But first how and why it could have. Remember God is both all powerful - omnipotent as the Latin word is - adn completely truthful.
Columbus sighted land (or one of his men did) on the day when he had promised the seafarers to turn back to Spain if he didn’t sight land. He hadn’t said specifically “if he didn’t sight Cathay”, he had said “if he didn’t sight land”.
Now, imagine it had been otherwise. Imagine after that promise (a few weeks before sighting land) a storm had ruined their chances of survival – and all provisions of water had been ruined, and sea water was of course undrinkable. Suppose that parched of thirst Columbus had cried out loudly to God and said in the distress of his soul : “bring us to Cathay!” and they had seen a coast. That would have been a coincidence of Providence, God would have shown His benevolence, but He would not have tied Himself down to the fact that the coast was Cathay – i e China. But if instead God had made the three ships run faster than motorboats do these days in a race, all of them spurting proportionally water to the sides, all of them avoiding the waves from each others’ spurt, and after three hours in this miraculous forward they would have arrived, then indeed God could only have been bringing them to Cathay and nowhere else. A miracle is God’s signature. So why did this not happen?
- First of all, God knew what Columbus did not know : that Americas were between Europe and Cathay.
So, couldn’t God have done such a miracle anyway, smiling benignly at the mistake of Columbus? No. Had God saved them in such an obviously miraculous way, He would have signed so to speak the prayer of Columbus as the prayer of an inspired miracle worker. He would have so to speak guaranteed it was Cathay. He might for instance have dragged the boats past the Americas, told Columbus through an angel “look what you are missing, come back later!” and then landed them in Macau. Which is in Cathay.
- Second, God could even in the nick of time have inspired even some geographic knowledge to Columbus, he could have said “bring us to the land that is before Cathay and Cipangu”, he would not have known how he came to say that, but he would have realized when he was being heard by a miracle that God had inspired him so because there was indeed a land before Cathay. The land now called Americas.
- Third, God could have inspired a caution in Columbus even without knowledge and Columbus could have shouted “God bring us to Cathay or if any land is before it, whichever is closest!”
And in bringing them even miraculously to where they landed, God would have signed not “Cathay” but “Cathay or if any land is before it, whichever is closest”. And Columbus would have been free to discover it was not Cathay, the miracle would not have been a lie.
- Fourth, God could have and very probably - nay very certainly - did prepare Columbus for the prayers he was praying on the voyage well before this voyage happened. He had studied under Franciscans. He knew very well it was wise to leave details in God’s good hands, and so even in an emergency, Columbus would have asked “God bring us to whatever land there be, soon before we die!” without specifying Cathay, and so God could have worked the miracle without signing an untruth.
- Fifth, what God actually did was also to see to it that they were never in the kind of emergency I have described, they were safe enough to pray for land and to need no miracle and thus God would not need to sign the exact words or terms of their prayers by bringing them miraculously anywhere, He brought them providentially but not miraculously to the Americas and not to Cathay and doing so signed no lie. Both because plenty of the prayers were termed more generally and because there was not one very specific prayer that God signed and singled out through a specific miracle. Thus, in bringing Columbus to Americas rather than Cathay, despite what Columbus expected, God was no liar. He never is.
Now hold this in mind while reflecting over Joshua chapter 10 and verse 12. I am not speaking about the result, which could in verse 13 just possibly purely theoretically be phenomenal language (even though St Robert in the Galileo process gave a good reason why that was not true : because the Moon stopped too), but I am speaking of the exact words of the miracle worker Joshua. Recall, it was before all the people that Joshua publically said to Sun and to Moon to stand still.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
(despite a sordid exposition of
"sex education" in the hall downstairs)
On the feast day of
Saint Catherine of Alexandria
Virgin and Martyr
25-XI-2014
Saturday, 22 November 2014
No, My Blogs Are Not Spam Blogs
Just mentioning because of this:
The Real Blogger Status : Spam Blog False Positive Classifications Do Exist
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/11/spam-blog-false-positive.html
I was also reminded by reading this of the occasion in which blogs of mine had been blocked in one public internet facility. Blogspot as such had been blocked as containing the sequence "gspot" (porno?) or the sequence "pot" (cannabis related). I tried to complain to the town hall there, but they had FULL confidence in their blocking filters./HGL
The Real Blogger Status : Spam Blog False Positive Classifications Do Exist
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/11/spam-blog-false-positive.html
I was also reminded by reading this of the occasion in which blogs of mine had been blocked in one public internet facility. Blogspot as such had been blocked as containing the sequence "gspot" (porno?) or the sequence "pot" (cannabis related). I tried to complain to the town hall there, but they had FULL confidence in their blocking filters./HGL
Thursday, 20 November 2014
Valérie Pécresse vient de proposer une nouvelle Inquisition, ainsi qu'Emmanuelle Cosse
Je suis connu, peut-être même en certains quartiers honni, pour avoir défendu l'Inquisition de Languedoc. Mais ceux qui me prêtent l'intention de vouloir remettre l'Inquisition en place se sont trompés sur moi. Et ils se sont trompés sur le genre de personnes qui sont vraiment capables à ça.
Je cite Direct Matin:
Direct Matin, n° 1587, jeudi 20 Novembre 2014, p. 14, article "Quel sort pour les jihadistes?".
Bon, les prisons de l'Inquisition aussi, c'étaient des "centres de désendoctrinement". Les procédures publics que plus tard en Portugal reçurent le nom Auto da Fé, c'étaient en essentiel le cérémoniel où le clientèle réussi abjurait l'endoctrinement albigeois ou vaudois. Sécondairement - et en intention, et en nombres de personnes concernées - venait le fait de brûler le clientèle non réussi, les échecs des Inquisiteurs.
Je résume la citation immédiatement après les mots déjà cités:
L'Inquisition de Languedoc considérait effectivement que les Albigeois et les Vaudois (pas juste des jeunes!) vivaient en "incompréhension de la religion" - car hérétiques les Albigeois plus sérieusement que les Vaudois, mais ceux-ci aussi - "et de la violence", car ils considérèrent les deux que l'Église Catholique n'avait aucun droit à être considéré sainte une fois qu'elle s'était lié au pouvoir, et quand aux Albigeois encore parce qu'ils prônaient eux-mêmes une violence fortement illégitime.
La violence des Albigeois n'est pas trop connu de nos jours, surtout par les Fondamentalistes Protestants qui, suivant Book of Martyrs par Foxe considèrent les Albigeois comme des Chrétiens protestants avant eux-mêmes. Il y avait duex formes, tactique et "spirituelle"/"rituelle". Des Seigneurs qui en protégeant les hérétiques persécutaient les Catholiques, surtout le clergé. Et des entourages familiaux ont assassinés des vieux pour qu'ils restent fidèlent à "Consolamentum" avec "Endura", et des enfants - au moins à naître, par avortement donc - car considerant que la vie biologique serait un piège pour les âmes. Pour ce même motif ils ont aussi commis des actes non-violants mais abhominables, par exemple sodomie, sexe en groupe, et j'en passe - pour que la pulsion sexuelle ne devienne pas occasion à, comme ils considéraient les choses, piéger des âmes pures (déjà existantes!) dans l'impureté supposée de l'existence terrestre et biologique.
Il y a une très grande différence entre l'Inquisition de Languedoc et celle proposée à l'Assemblée Nationale par Pécresse et Cosse. Les Inquisiteurs étaient des bons théologiens catholiques. Ils n'étaient pas eux-mêmes en l'incompréhension de la religion. Aussi n'ont-ils pas prétendu pouvoir améliorer des Musulmans, ça c'était l'affaire des Croisés.
Une autre est que le propos vise une législation séculière. L'Inquisition de Languedoc était sous jurisdiction papale et confiée aux Franciscains et aux Dominicains. Ces "centres de déendoctrination" seraient sous contrôle plutôt nationale, au cas au ... non? Ça rappelle l'Inquisition anglaise, décidée par acte de Parlement (Chambre des Seigneurs comme chambre des Communes) en 1401 (même année qu'Angleterre invahit finalement Pays de Galles) contre les Lollards. Que celle-ci ne fut pas sous contrôle papale se vérifiait en 1612 quand les derniers victimes ou la dernière victime, de confession baptiste, fut brûlé sur l'ordre de Jacques VI et I en application de la loi de 1401. Des fameux victimes sont les si-dits "Martyrs de Coventry" (sous Henri VIII, un peu avant son schisme qui donnait occasion à la Réforme) et ... Sainte Jehanne d'Arc.
Elle ne fut donc pas brûlée par une Inquisition papale? Non. Son juge n'était ni Franciscain, ni Dominicain. Il était évêque diocésain comme pour les Martyrs de Coventry (ou en système parallèle, comme pour Avvakoum en Russie). Il ne se considérait pas obligé de limiter le temps de torture à trois jours maximum comme pour les Inquisiteurs papales, mais libre à procéder comme bon lui semblait - comme c'était le cas dans l'Inquisition anglaise. Mais comment arrive-t-il à juger selon la loi anglaise? Bon, il considérait que le roi d'Angleterre était le roi de France, et que donc la loi anglaise était la loi française. Néanmoins, il avait un doute. Il se tournait à la Sorbonne, qui, un 14 juillet du quinzième siècle, a décidé que oui, l'inquisition pouvait ne pas être celle du pape, on pouvait ne pas attendre l'arrivée des Franciscains ou des Dominicains, et l'évêque de Beauvois, Monseigneur Cochon, pouvait procéder à sa guise. Plus tard, avec assez peu de délai une fois la sainte brûlée, la même Sorbonne retracta sa décision.
Je viens déjà de dire autre part, que si je ne suis pas contre les Inquisitions médiévales et autres avant la Modernité séculariste - nota bene je suis contre l'Inquisition anglaise! - je suis de l'autre côté très contre le rétablssement de nos jours de l'Inquisition. Bon nombre des pires ennemis du Christianisme ne sont pas baptisés et ne pourraient donc pas être jugés par l'Église. Les épargner et en même temps s'attaquer aux anticatholiques parmi les gens qui se confessent Chrétiens serait injuste. Et surtout, c'est à craindre, que les inquisiteurs seraient psychologues ou qu'ils seraient évêques du Novus Ordo, qu'ils ajouteront des critères de rétention (on ne parle pas encore de peine de mort, mais on n'a pas encore fait expérience des endurcis, on est donc dans un faux optimisme qui peut sembler humaine), et que parmi ces critères de rétention se trouveront de tels critères qu'une nouvelle Inquisition serait en effet celle de l'Antéchrist, qu'elle serait persécutrice des vrais Chrétiens, des vrais Catholiques romains, ou même des hérétiques mais là où ils ne sont pas hérétiques. Par exemple en Créationnisme ou en Géocentrisme. Ou en opposition au sécularisme. Ou en préparation pour éventualités.
Donc, je suis contre le rétablissement d'une Inquisition sur la note donnée par Pécresse et Cosse. Le propos de Xavier Bertrand n'est pas une Inquisition, mais une Bastille, avec des Lettres de Cachet.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Félix de Valois*
Fondateur des Trinitaires**
20-XI-2014
* Sancti Felicis Valesii, Presbyteri et Confessoris, qui Ordinis sanctissimae Trinitatis redemptionis captivorum exstitit Fundator, ac pridie Nonas Novembris obdormivit in Domino.
** fondateur avec saint Jean de Matha de l’Ordre de la Très Sainte Trinité pour la Rédemption des captifs (les Trinitaires)
Je cite Direct Matin:
Une autre manière d'affronter le problème a été défendue par Valérie Pécresse (UMP) qui souhaite appréhender les conversions au jihadisme comme des "dérives sectaires". Sa solution : ne pas traiter les "candidats" comme des prisonniers de droit commun, mais les prendre en charge au sein de centres de désendoctrinement.
Direct Matin, n° 1587, jeudi 20 Novembre 2014, p. 14, article "Quel sort pour les jihadistes?".
Bon, les prisons de l'Inquisition aussi, c'étaient des "centres de désendoctrinement". Les procédures publics que plus tard en Portugal reçurent le nom Auto da Fé, c'étaient en essentiel le cérémoniel où le clientèle réussi abjurait l'endoctrinement albigeois ou vaudois. Sécondairement - et en intention, et en nombres de personnes concernées - venait le fait de brûler le clientèle non réussi, les échecs des Inquisiteurs.
Je résume la citation immédiatement après les mots déjà cités:
Emmanuelle Cosse (EELV) va dans ce sens, évoquant des "jeunes vivant dans l'incompréhension de la religion et de la violence". Elle prône une aide juridique et psychologique.
L'Inquisition de Languedoc considérait effectivement que les Albigeois et les Vaudois (pas juste des jeunes!) vivaient en "incompréhension de la religion" - car hérétiques les Albigeois plus sérieusement que les Vaudois, mais ceux-ci aussi - "et de la violence", car ils considérèrent les deux que l'Église Catholique n'avait aucun droit à être considéré sainte une fois qu'elle s'était lié au pouvoir, et quand aux Albigeois encore parce qu'ils prônaient eux-mêmes une violence fortement illégitime.
La violence des Albigeois n'est pas trop connu de nos jours, surtout par les Fondamentalistes Protestants qui, suivant Book of Martyrs par Foxe considèrent les Albigeois comme des Chrétiens protestants avant eux-mêmes. Il y avait duex formes, tactique et "spirituelle"/"rituelle". Des Seigneurs qui en protégeant les hérétiques persécutaient les Catholiques, surtout le clergé. Et des entourages familiaux ont assassinés des vieux pour qu'ils restent fidèlent à "Consolamentum" avec "Endura", et des enfants - au moins à naître, par avortement donc - car considerant que la vie biologique serait un piège pour les âmes. Pour ce même motif ils ont aussi commis des actes non-violants mais abhominables, par exemple sodomie, sexe en groupe, et j'en passe - pour que la pulsion sexuelle ne devienne pas occasion à, comme ils considéraient les choses, piéger des âmes pures (déjà existantes!) dans l'impureté supposée de l'existence terrestre et biologique.
Il y a une très grande différence entre l'Inquisition de Languedoc et celle proposée à l'Assemblée Nationale par Pécresse et Cosse. Les Inquisiteurs étaient des bons théologiens catholiques. Ils n'étaient pas eux-mêmes en l'incompréhension de la religion. Aussi n'ont-ils pas prétendu pouvoir améliorer des Musulmans, ça c'était l'affaire des Croisés.
Une autre est que le propos vise une législation séculière. L'Inquisition de Languedoc était sous jurisdiction papale et confiée aux Franciscains et aux Dominicains. Ces "centres de déendoctrination" seraient sous contrôle plutôt nationale, au cas au ... non? Ça rappelle l'Inquisition anglaise, décidée par acte de Parlement (Chambre des Seigneurs comme chambre des Communes) en 1401 (même année qu'Angleterre invahit finalement Pays de Galles) contre les Lollards. Que celle-ci ne fut pas sous contrôle papale se vérifiait en 1612 quand les derniers victimes ou la dernière victime, de confession baptiste, fut brûlé sur l'ordre de Jacques VI et I en application de la loi de 1401. Des fameux victimes sont les si-dits "Martyrs de Coventry" (sous Henri VIII, un peu avant son schisme qui donnait occasion à la Réforme) et ... Sainte Jehanne d'Arc.
Elle ne fut donc pas brûlée par une Inquisition papale? Non. Son juge n'était ni Franciscain, ni Dominicain. Il était évêque diocésain comme pour les Martyrs de Coventry (ou en système parallèle, comme pour Avvakoum en Russie). Il ne se considérait pas obligé de limiter le temps de torture à trois jours maximum comme pour les Inquisiteurs papales, mais libre à procéder comme bon lui semblait - comme c'était le cas dans l'Inquisition anglaise. Mais comment arrive-t-il à juger selon la loi anglaise? Bon, il considérait que le roi d'Angleterre était le roi de France, et que donc la loi anglaise était la loi française. Néanmoins, il avait un doute. Il se tournait à la Sorbonne, qui, un 14 juillet du quinzième siècle, a décidé que oui, l'inquisition pouvait ne pas être celle du pape, on pouvait ne pas attendre l'arrivée des Franciscains ou des Dominicains, et l'évêque de Beauvois, Monseigneur Cochon, pouvait procéder à sa guise. Plus tard, avec assez peu de délai une fois la sainte brûlée, la même Sorbonne retracta sa décision.
Je viens déjà de dire autre part, que si je ne suis pas contre les Inquisitions médiévales et autres avant la Modernité séculariste - nota bene je suis contre l'Inquisition anglaise! - je suis de l'autre côté très contre le rétablssement de nos jours de l'Inquisition. Bon nombre des pires ennemis du Christianisme ne sont pas baptisés et ne pourraient donc pas être jugés par l'Église. Les épargner et en même temps s'attaquer aux anticatholiques parmi les gens qui se confessent Chrétiens serait injuste. Et surtout, c'est à craindre, que les inquisiteurs seraient psychologues ou qu'ils seraient évêques du Novus Ordo, qu'ils ajouteront des critères de rétention (on ne parle pas encore de peine de mort, mais on n'a pas encore fait expérience des endurcis, on est donc dans un faux optimisme qui peut sembler humaine), et que parmi ces critères de rétention se trouveront de tels critères qu'une nouvelle Inquisition serait en effet celle de l'Antéchrist, qu'elle serait persécutrice des vrais Chrétiens, des vrais Catholiques romains, ou même des hérétiques mais là où ils ne sont pas hérétiques. Par exemple en Créationnisme ou en Géocentrisme. Ou en opposition au sécularisme. Ou en préparation pour éventualités.
Donc, je suis contre le rétablissement d'une Inquisition sur la note donnée par Pécresse et Cosse. Le propos de Xavier Bertrand n'est pas une Inquisition, mais une Bastille, avec des Lettres de Cachet.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Félix de Valois*
Fondateur des Trinitaires**
20-XI-2014
* Sancti Felicis Valesii, Presbyteri et Confessoris, qui Ordinis sanctissimae Trinitatis redemptionis captivorum exstitit Fundator, ac pridie Nonas Novembris obdormivit in Domino.
** fondateur avec saint Jean de Matha de l’Ordre de la Très Sainte Trinité pour la Rédemption des captifs (les Trinitaires)
Tuesday, 18 November 2014
Asia Bibi (lien)
Pétition au Président du Pakistan :
"Veuillez gracier cette mère de cinq enfants qui veut être fidèle à la religion catholique et veiller au bien de sa famille jusqu'à la fin de ses jours"
http://petit.io/petition/federation-pro-europa-christiana/petition-demandant-la-grace-d-asia-bibi-au-president-du-pakistan
Je n'ai pas signé en ligne moi-même, car il y a une phrase que je considère comme erronée. Celle-ci:
Elle serait correcte avec l'ajout: à moins de l'être pour réparer une apostasie de la religion chrétienne. Ou une attaque à la même.
À part ça, la pétition entre le cadre vert et noir est moralement correcte, et ceux qui sont en désaccord avec moi sur ma réservation peuvent la signer.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Audoux
Dédicaces des églises basiliques
de Sts Pierre et Paul
à Rome, par les Papes Urbain VIII et Pie IX
18-XI-2014
"Veuillez gracier cette mère de cinq enfants qui veut être fidèle à la religion catholique et veiller au bien de sa famille jusqu'à la fin de ses jours"
http://petit.io/petition/federation-pro-europa-christiana/petition-demandant-la-grace-d-asia-bibi-au-president-du-pakistan
Je n'ai pas signé en ligne moi-même, car il y a une phrase que je considère comme erronée. Celle-ci:
L'être humain a le droit de ne pas être contraint par la force ou la violence à embrasser une doctrine.
Elle serait correcte avec l'ajout: à moins de l'être pour réparer une apostasie de la religion chrétienne. Ou une attaque à la même.
À part ça, la pétition entre le cadre vert et noir est moralement correcte, et ceux qui sont en désaccord avec moi sur ma réservation peuvent la signer.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Audoux
Dédicaces des églises basiliques
de Sts Pierre et Paul
à Rome, par les Papes Urbain VIII et Pie IX
18-XI-2014
Has Bergoglio Made a Deal with Masonry about Double Meanings?
Here is the innocent quote - which is innocent enough in context:
aleteia : Pope Francis: “No Family Without Work!”
October 22, 2014
http://www.aleteia.org/en/society/article/pope-francis-no-family-without-work-5871271942291456
In the context it means "let no family of the ones concerned by the Meridiana airline workers be left without a breadwinner and be made unemployed".
But masonry can use such a catchy phrase for other purposes. It seems it has already decided as far as their evil power reaches I shall have no family until I "get a work."
And if I disagree, I "have no responsibilty" and if so "others have to take responsibility for me" and make sure I get no family until I get a work.
I am already doing a work. I am writing.
I have also given the licences needed for anyone who wishes to make money on my writing and send me some.
Still, people on very different "corners of the board" have so to speak made a common cause against using my writings commercially. For, obviously different reasons. A left wing intellectual would hardly like the prospect of Geocentrism "seducing" anyone into Catholicism. A right wing Catholic of not so intellectual background might fear Geocentrism would provoke many to avoid becoming Catholics - and to them that comes before asking the obvious question whether it is true or false.
Some people seem to think I should try to get work at Meridiana airlines or at Peugeot instead!
I do not know for a fact Bergoglio has made such a deal, with masonry, about messages with double meanings, but as I see that man, I would not be surprised. I do know his calling out the plea may have pretty small effects as far as the saving of employments is concerned.
One thing I have suggested myself is that when a big company restructures - as Peugeot did in 2012, I sent them a mail with my article - they should try to buy land for the workers they discharge. Land as a collective village or land as individual lots in disconnected villages with the usual kind of farmers - depending on the taste of each discharged worker. And of course, some would prefer the usual money sum while looking for a new job or taking a long vacation.
A village of farmers owning their land as collective property can not so easily be sacked. Some workers at Peugeot, some workers at Meridiana, may still have parents who went out of farming in the 1960's - and who know how to do farm work.
One village of Muslim workers (plenty of such in many French companies) could have a Mosque. One village of Catholic workers could have an extra Chapel with same curate as nearest Church. Or they may revive a Church that was going to be torn down. That also Peugeot or Meridiana could pay - the building or restoration of the house of prayer and the first year's salary of a priest or imam. After which the agricultural produce (of the village, by the villagers) might be the uphold.
A certain élite would not like this solution.
Because, this solution would make the discharged workers not only independent of their former employer, but also independent of its likes. It would make them - ordinary, poor, uneducated men proprietors.
Part of them hopes everything stays the same, and sacking remains a threat, so that those having employments may be more and more grateful to their employers. Exactly like implementing what I take to be a possible hidden meaning of the cited words would do.
Part of them - and Bergoglio might just possibly be part of that part also - might be hoping that a revolution sweeps away private property and replaces employers with officials. As if they never forbade anyone to do work he was useful for. Or get a fair living out of the work he does.
Neither part is very keen on reruralising, on restoring small property. Unless they can get a little permanent grip on how that is done too. I can imagine how Peugeot, French State, and a few others would just possibly have hailed my idea if adding conditions like either of them imposing a crisis psychologist or a teacher on such a village. Whether the workers ask for it or not. My proposition involves, obviously, that the village choses whatever school it sees fit - and that all parents are free to send their children and young ones to whatever school they like - or none, if they prefer apprenticeship.
But imposing a teacher would be what people like Peillon or Najat would like to attach to a solution like mine. And if it came out that twenty workers were Traditional Catholics and wanted the priest who said Latin Mass to teach their children too? There are people in France who would hate to see that revive on the scale of twenty people founding an agricultural village at a time ....
Can Church men who in many cases take Bergoglio as a Pope and companies as big as Meridiana Airlines show some independence of the kind of élite I dread?
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Dedication of Basilicas
of Saints Peter and Paul in Rome
18-XI-2014
His plea rang out across the Square: “Please, I appeal to all those with responsibility: no family without work!”
aleteia : Pope Francis: “No Family Without Work!”
October 22, 2014
http://www.aleteia.org/en/society/article/pope-francis-no-family-without-work-5871271942291456
In the context it means "let no family of the ones concerned by the Meridiana airline workers be left without a breadwinner and be made unemployed".
But masonry can use such a catchy phrase for other purposes. It seems it has already decided as far as their evil power reaches I shall have no family until I "get a work."
And if I disagree, I "have no responsibilty" and if so "others have to take responsibility for me" and make sure I get no family until I get a work.
I am already doing a work. I am writing.
I have also given the licences needed for anyone who wishes to make money on my writing and send me some.
Still, people on very different "corners of the board" have so to speak made a common cause against using my writings commercially. For, obviously different reasons. A left wing intellectual would hardly like the prospect of Geocentrism "seducing" anyone into Catholicism. A right wing Catholic of not so intellectual background might fear Geocentrism would provoke many to avoid becoming Catholics - and to them that comes before asking the obvious question whether it is true or false.
Some people seem to think I should try to get work at Meridiana airlines or at Peugeot instead!
I do not know for a fact Bergoglio has made such a deal, with masonry, about messages with double meanings, but as I see that man, I would not be surprised. I do know his calling out the plea may have pretty small effects as far as the saving of employments is concerned.
One thing I have suggested myself is that when a big company restructures - as Peugeot did in 2012, I sent them a mail with my article - they should try to buy land for the workers they discharge. Land as a collective village or land as individual lots in disconnected villages with the usual kind of farmers - depending on the taste of each discharged worker. And of course, some would prefer the usual money sum while looking for a new job or taking a long vacation.
A village of farmers owning their land as collective property can not so easily be sacked. Some workers at Peugeot, some workers at Meridiana, may still have parents who went out of farming in the 1960's - and who know how to do farm work.
One village of Muslim workers (plenty of such in many French companies) could have a Mosque. One village of Catholic workers could have an extra Chapel with same curate as nearest Church. Or they may revive a Church that was going to be torn down. That also Peugeot or Meridiana could pay - the building or restoration of the house of prayer and the first year's salary of a priest or imam. After which the agricultural produce (of the village, by the villagers) might be the uphold.
A certain élite would not like this solution.
Because, this solution would make the discharged workers not only independent of their former employer, but also independent of its likes. It would make them - ordinary, poor, uneducated men proprietors.
Part of them hopes everything stays the same, and sacking remains a threat, so that those having employments may be more and more grateful to their employers. Exactly like implementing what I take to be a possible hidden meaning of the cited words would do.
Part of them - and Bergoglio might just possibly be part of that part also - might be hoping that a revolution sweeps away private property and replaces employers with officials. As if they never forbade anyone to do work he was useful for. Or get a fair living out of the work he does.
Neither part is very keen on reruralising, on restoring small property. Unless they can get a little permanent grip on how that is done too. I can imagine how Peugeot, French State, and a few others would just possibly have hailed my idea if adding conditions like either of them imposing a crisis psychologist or a teacher on such a village. Whether the workers ask for it or not. My proposition involves, obviously, that the village choses whatever school it sees fit - and that all parents are free to send their children and young ones to whatever school they like - or none, if they prefer apprenticeship.
But imposing a teacher would be what people like Peillon or Najat would like to attach to a solution like mine. And if it came out that twenty workers were Traditional Catholics and wanted the priest who said Latin Mass to teach their children too? There are people in France who would hate to see that revive on the scale of twenty people founding an agricultural village at a time ....
Can Church men who in many cases take Bergoglio as a Pope and companies as big as Meridiana Airlines show some independence of the kind of élite I dread?
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Dedication of Basilicas
of Saints Peter and Paul in Rome
18-XI-2014
Monday, 17 November 2014
Tit for tat ...
1) New blog on the kid : Tit for tat ..., 2) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : What did Saint Thomas Really Say About Biblical Inerrancy?
Palm has said something about Geocentrics misconstruing what a Bull of Pope Alexander VII was really about ...
Welcome to GeocentrismDebunked.org : Geocentric Double Standards and Exaggerations on Magisterial Documents
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentric-double-standards-and-exaggerations-on-magisterial-documents/
First off, the documents attached to the Bull do belong to what the Pope intended to forbid reading. Like the Syllabus Errorum by Pope Pius IX and the Second Syllabus by Pope Saint Pius X. The list of errors is given a prominence by the fact of being attched to a Bull or whether by fact of being attached to an Encyclical. Of course a thesis previously only condemned as "male sonans" does not become full fledged heresy just because it is attached in a Syllabus Errorum to an Encyclical which specifically tells that the theses retain the solemnity of censures as previously given. But supposing any thesis that was only male sonans had been in the Syllabus by Pope Pius IX - I do not think it was the case, but I could be wrong - his attaching it to the syllabus would certainly have meant that considering it "male sonans" has from then on his Papal authority behind it.
Second, this:
And Heliocentrics have never done anything like the same ever?
Have a look at Dimond brothers defending Heliocentrism as perfectly orthodox and defined as such by Pope Benedict XV, because he very indirectly kind of admitted a possibility of Dante having been wrong on cosmology (like he was less sure he was that than on his being wrong on circulation of the blood and a few more things), as they do so in a debate with me which I put on my correspondence blog, I will give you the debate here on my blog post:
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : On : Benedict XV, To/From : mhfm1, Dates: 29-VII - 4-VIII-2013
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2013/08/on-benedict-xv-tofrom-mhfm1-dates-29.html
Pope Benedict XV's subject matter was Dante and one problem was that modern astronomy had come to consider the Geocentric position of the latter as inaccurate, and he basically said "if so, it doesn't matter, Dante's work is theologically fine fiction anyway".
Sounds more like he is allowing the inaccurate cosmology of "several universes" in the Narnia books than that he is seriously on his own account actually explicitly allowing Heliocentric or Modern Cosmology to be believed.
But Palm has his own axe to grind. Speaking to those accepting post-Vatican II heretical or heterodox schismatic Antipopes as Popes, he gives high credence to whatever endorsement they have given Galileo posthumously.
Even if their format was "as little binding" (at least, even if accepting them as Popes) as the format of Alexander VII (i e attaching Heliocentrism to a list of errors on which books written to promote them may not be read to a bull saying one should not read them) in the possibly wrongful analysis of Palm.
Saying that Alexander VII did not intend to re-condemn (to condemn once again) books promoting Heliocentrism is like saying Bishop Tempier did not intend to condemn (for the first time) in his diocese the errors of astrology. Saying "all things that happen down here only happen because of the stars and planets" is very much an error and it is very much only one error of the 219 ones that he condemned. Shall we conclude he did not intend to condemn it?*
In Praeclara Summorum has no list of condemnations, no list of canons attached to it. The then Pope answered a point raised about Dante.
The latter had in certain works endorsed the false political theory which Popes had been condemning - of subordinating Church to State. Would Benedict XV condemn Dante and make himself immensely impopular among Italians? This was between the 1870 forceful elimination of the Papal States and invasion of Rome and the Lateran Treaty of 1929. The Popes felt more or less like Russian Orthodox bishops residing in Moscow - under Communism. Or would the Pope perhaps avoid the issue by endorsing Divina Commedia and make himself ridiculous by directly endorsing Geocentrism? He did none of these things. He said Divina Commedia was a fine novel with a fine theology whatever the possible faults - note he avoided saying definitely Geocentrism was a fault too! - of Dante's science.
Avoiding to stick one's head into a hornets' nest (as the Geocentric controversy of past history had become, socially speaking) does not amount to using one's personal authority to endorse what was previously condemned.
I have had Sungenis construe licet with subjunctive as meaning St Thomas did NOT think angels were moving the planets and stars (a passage in De Potestate Dei, when in other places including such in the same work St Thomas does think that they do. Now the Dimond brothers have taken a licet with subjunctive as meaning the Popes DOES think the content of the clause. But a licet with subjunctive clause does not inform us whether the one saying it believes it or not, not one way or the other.
I do not think the Dimond brothers made up their In praeclara reference for Heliocentrism being licit simply themselves either, I rather believe that pre-Vatican II some priests with a heavy Galileo complex and as heavy a feeling Popes just have to be obeyed in everything or even "we cannot say it definitely without a Pope" had misconstrued Benedict XV before them.
So, Palm cannot even claim that bad canonic analysis of the case is the privilege of one side, the one he is attacking. Unfortunately he made this bad claim.
Sweethearts Seeking Sanctity : Geocentrism: A Dangerous Pseudoscience
(comment section)
http://sweetheartsseekingsanctity.blogspot.com/2014/05/geocentrism-dangerous-pseudoscience.html
If he meant that historically for the moment, he might have been right.
But if he meant it in a Roma locuta est sense, no way (besides, John Paul II/Wojtyla, the man who called the Assisi meeting of 86, may be considered as debunked as to credentials of good theology).
It settled perhaps that Heliocentrism could licitly be defended, but did not directly adress whether it could be believed. And Pius VII like Benedict XV after him may well have avoided the most direct issue, since they may have felt it was ultra vires. Because of the same canon of Trent which was invoked by St Robert Bellarmine in "the first Galileo trial" (which was not a trial against Galileo, but against a book of his, he was present as attorney of his book, not as accused of heresy).
And very certainly it did NOT settle that Settele was right and Anfossi wrong on cosmology. Pius VII only settled that Settele could publish and Anfossi could not stop him. He never told Anfossi to change his mind on cosmology. He never made Anfossi retract for having felt Geocentrism was true and compulsory, just to step back from defending its obligatory force by denying an imprimi potest.
Here is my blogpost from when I studied the Settele affair:
Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Father Filippo Anfossi was right against Giuseppe Settele
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/02/father-filippo-anfossi-was-right.html
It is very annoying that people keep popping up who seem to think Geocentrism somehow became forbidden when in fact at the most Heliocentrism was allowed. Anfossi was not to put Settele on index, but he was not asked to put books defending Geocentrism on it instead. Riccioli which defends Heliocentrism (and yes, Heliocentrism with angelic movers) was never put on the index. St Thomas Aquinas who made his Prima Via based on Geocentrism was not put on the Index. St Robert Bellarmine's defense of truth in the 1616 process was not put on the Index. And I could presumably go on.
Since I just made some claims about Riccioli and St Thomas Aquinas which might somewhat surprise Catholics who are Heliocentrics, I will back them up:
New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html
Where I link to Father Riccioli. On angelic movers. Sorry I cannot link right now to when he uses them against Heliocentrism, but I haven't looked that up in the pages, only on a separate document or in a separate book (it could be Chaberlo's book on Science). But that he was Geocentric can be seen from the fact that he was writing as an obedient Catholic and specifically on subject of astronomy.
Now, what about St Thomas' Prima Via? In I Q2 A3 he does not specifically mention Sun being moved daily around the Earth. He does however say it is manifest to the senses that certain things are in movement, "as for instance the Sun." He is not talking about its supposed movement around the galaxy, since it is not apparent to the senses. The one movement of the Sun which is apparent to the senses is the daily one in certain moments (like when crossing horizons up, or down, or when appearing or disappearing around a tall object), i e its movement westward with the universe around Earth. Furthermore, he is specifically using the oneness of that daily turn (in Geocentrism Earth is not just one in many planets each spinning around axis, each giving any observer stationed on it impression of universe moving around it, falsely, but the impression is true of Earth) as proof its mover is also one.
Summa Theologiae : Prima Pars : Q 11 : A 3
http://newadvent.com/summa/1011.htm#article3
Nothing about stars being billions of lightyears away and having nothing to do with our days and seasons ... in Geocentrism (any version) they are the fastest spinning objects of the westward movement the universe dailily makes around Earth. And presumably (St Thomas' version and mine, if not Sungenis') thus not billions of light years away either.
In the Summa contra gentes the proof for God is even more specifically tied to His causing the movement of the Universe around Earth (I am working on a translation from the Latin, a Thomistic site left out parts in the English translation).
So, Riccioli is not on the index. St Thomas is not on the index. Neither of them was put on the index in the Anfossi affair. So why are people agreeing with them treated as if their writings were or should be on the index?
Anthony at Sweethearts, in comment section goes on with his motivation:
Lunatic fringe is specifically not a Catholic category of sociology.
If the Church really sees a thing as a madness, it usually condemns it as a heresy. If she doesn't, she doesn't call it lunatic fringe either.
This condemning as heresy has not been done with Geocentrism and still some are taking a stand as if it were a lunacy. A polite (and astrological) word for madness, or for on-and-off-madness.
One man refrained from becoming a Trad. Another man refrained from becoming a Catholic at all. Was the problem that there was a Geocentric or that they knew of a Geocentric? Or was their problem that they were Heliocentric/into Modern Cosmology to the point of making that part of their religion? And if so, is not perhaps Heliocentrism and Modern Cosmology more of a problem than Pope Pius VII may have thought?
For some it is not enough to see the faithful are allowed to be Heliocentrics, they want to see faithful forbidden to be Geocentrics - and keep out of a Church that doesn't provide that.
As I suggested about the attitudes of Pius VII and Benedict XV having something to do with Trent, the Church cannot provide that.
And should not provide that.
And people who want it to and despise it if it doesn't have, as far as I am concerned, not the best disposition for saving their souls even inside the Church. Assuming they could have some excuse for considering Heliocentrism right, they have no excuse for considering it revealed before the final Apostle finished his life and part of Deposit of Faith and therefore they have no excuse for not seeing it is not important to impose it. I am not into flat earth, but the position has as far as I know not been forbidden by the Church. I argue against it, but not as if arguing against a heresy.Both questions were one question was left open as far as revelation was concerned (confer Vedas where flat earth is erroneously assumed as true and divinely revealed by Hindoo gods*), both questions are one question is therefore licit to have either opinion. But on the issue of Earth being still, the support from Church Fathers seems to be unanimous.***
Oh, yes, David Palm in an earlier post actually gave one exception ... except that he cited a fragmentarily preserved work where "Aristarchus discovered Heliocentrism" (basically!) came ... in a list of Pagan mathematical and philosophical discoveries. According to David Palm's own reasoning, about Alexander VII, this should then not be considered the formal teaching of that Church Father. We do not have all of the work, and if we had it, the next phrase after the list might have been something like "but mathematicians were not infallibly right on everything, sometimes they taught things only probably and not even true".
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Day of St Gregory Thaumaturgus
of Neocaesarea
17-XI-2014
* Or close to it : "Quod omnium formarum causa effectiua inmediata est orbis." Error number 106 of original list and 5 on errors about stars on the systematic reedition of the condemnations.
Capitulum XII Errores de celo et stellis
subdivision of the Tempier condemnations on the En lengua romance blog
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/capitulum-xii.html
"Quod sanitatem, infirmitatem, uitam et mortem attribuit positioni siderum et aspectui fortune, dicens quod si eum aspexerit fortuna uiuet; si non aspexerit, morietur." Error 206 of original list. And 6 on errors about necessity.
Capitulum XIV Errores de necessitate euentus rerum
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/capitulum-xiv.html
** I presume so at least. If "Vedic astronomy" for instance states that Sun is lower than Moon (Pole Star being very highest) but has at same time a greater horizontal distance:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Not Believing Vedic Astronomy Apart from Geocentrism, on Believing Scholastic Astronomy Including Geocentrism
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2014/11/on-not-believing-vedic-astronomy-apart.html
*** I was very tired this morning when I said both questions were licit to have either opinion, when that is only true for flat or round earth question. Geocentric question may be canonically licit insofar as the Church is concerned to have either opinion, insofar as the Church does not actively excommunicate anyone for being Heliocentric, but when it comes to Church Fathers and Holy Writ the question is otherwise, as I have already stated elsewhere. So, I had to strike through "both questions were/are" and replace with "one question was/is"./HGL
Palm has said something about Geocentrics misconstruing what a Bull of Pope Alexander VII was really about ...
But the most egregious abuse of this papal document is when the geocentrists misrepresent it as if its main topic was Copernicanism. For example, Mark Wyatt stated in his edit of the Wikipedia article on Modern Geocentrism: “Alexander VII, in a Papal Bull declared that ‘the Pythagorean doctrine concerning the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun is false and altogether incompatible with divine Scripture’ and the principles advocated by Copernicus on the position and movement of the earth to be “repugnant to Scripture and to its true and Catholic interpretation” (Wikipedia, “Modern Geocentrism”, 25 Oct 2005.) This gives the impression that the central topic of the bull was the condemnation of Copernicanism. But this is simply false. The subject of the bull was the republication of the Index of Forbidden Books. Many decrees, not just those dealing with Copernicanism, were attached to this publication in order that a complete history may be established. And—this is important—in no case was the text of any of them cited in the bull. It is highly misleading to state, as Wyatt did, that Alexander VII’s bull “declared” anything with respect to Copernicanism. It is false to present Speculatores Domus Israel as if its subject was Copernicanism.
Welcome to GeocentrismDebunked.org : Geocentric Double Standards and Exaggerations on Magisterial Documents
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentric-double-standards-and-exaggerations-on-magisterial-documents/
First off, the documents attached to the Bull do belong to what the Pope intended to forbid reading. Like the Syllabus Errorum by Pope Pius IX and the Second Syllabus by Pope Saint Pius X. The list of errors is given a prominence by the fact of being attched to a Bull or whether by fact of being attached to an Encyclical. Of course a thesis previously only condemned as "male sonans" does not become full fledged heresy just because it is attached in a Syllabus Errorum to an Encyclical which specifically tells that the theses retain the solemnity of censures as previously given. But supposing any thesis that was only male sonans had been in the Syllabus by Pope Pius IX - I do not think it was the case, but I could be wrong - his attaching it to the syllabus would certainly have meant that considering it "male sonans" has from then on his Papal authority behind it.
Second, this:
It is false to present Speculatores Domus Israel as if its subject was Copernicanism.
And Heliocentrics have never done anything like the same ever?
Have a look at Dimond brothers defending Heliocentrism as perfectly orthodox and defined as such by Pope Benedict XV, because he very indirectly kind of admitted a possibility of Dante having been wrong on cosmology (like he was less sure he was that than on his being wrong on circulation of the blood and a few more things), as they do so in a debate with me which I put on my correspondence blog, I will give you the debate here on my blog post:
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : On : Benedict XV, To/From : mhfm1, Dates: 29-VII - 4-VIII-2013
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2013/08/on-benedict-xv-tofrom-mhfm1-dates-29.html
Pope Benedict XV explicitly taught that the earth may not be the centre of the universe,
Pope Benedict XV's subject matter was Dante and one problem was that modern astronomy had come to consider the Geocentric position of the latter as inaccurate, and he basically said "if so, it doesn't matter, Dante's work is theologically fine fiction anyway".
Sounds more like he is allowing the inaccurate cosmology of "several universes" in the Narnia books than that he is seriously on his own account actually explicitly allowing Heliocentric or Modern Cosmology to be believed.
But Palm has his own axe to grind. Speaking to those accepting post-Vatican II heretical or heterodox schismatic Antipopes as Popes, he gives high credence to whatever endorsement they have given Galileo posthumously.
Even if their format was "as little binding" (at least, even if accepting them as Popes) as the format of Alexander VII (i e attaching Heliocentrism to a list of errors on which books written to promote them may not be read to a bull saying one should not read them) in the possibly wrongful analysis of Palm.
Saying that Alexander VII did not intend to re-condemn (to condemn once again) books promoting Heliocentrism is like saying Bishop Tempier did not intend to condemn (for the first time) in his diocese the errors of astrology. Saying "all things that happen down here only happen because of the stars and planets" is very much an error and it is very much only one error of the 219 ones that he condemned. Shall we conclude he did not intend to condemn it?*
In Praeclara Summorum has no list of condemnations, no list of canons attached to it. The then Pope answered a point raised about Dante.
The latter had in certain works endorsed the false political theory which Popes had been condemning - of subordinating Church to State. Would Benedict XV condemn Dante and make himself immensely impopular among Italians? This was between the 1870 forceful elimination of the Papal States and invasion of Rome and the Lateran Treaty of 1929. The Popes felt more or less like Russian Orthodox bishops residing in Moscow - under Communism. Or would the Pope perhaps avoid the issue by endorsing Divina Commedia and make himself ridiculous by directly endorsing Geocentrism? He did none of these things. He said Divina Commedia was a fine novel with a fine theology whatever the possible faults - note he avoided saying definitely Geocentrism was a fault too! - of Dante's science.
Avoiding to stick one's head into a hornets' nest (as the Geocentric controversy of past history had become, socially speaking) does not amount to using one's personal authority to endorse what was previously condemned.
I have had Sungenis construe licet with subjunctive as meaning St Thomas did NOT think angels were moving the planets and stars (a passage in De Potestate Dei, when in other places including such in the same work St Thomas does think that they do. Now the Dimond brothers have taken a licet with subjunctive as meaning the Popes DOES think the content of the clause. But a licet with subjunctive clause does not inform us whether the one saying it believes it or not, not one way or the other.
I do not think the Dimond brothers made up their In praeclara reference for Heliocentrism being licit simply themselves either, I rather believe that pre-Vatican II some priests with a heavy Galileo complex and as heavy a feeling Popes just have to be obeyed in everything or even "we cannot say it definitely without a Pope" had misconstrued Benedict XV before them.
So, Palm cannot even claim that bad canonic analysis of the case is the privilege of one side, the one he is attacking. Unfortunately he made this bad claim.
John Paul II considered the 1820 decree regarding Canon Settele’s book (more than just an imprimatur, though that would have been enough, given that it came from Pius VII himself — and yes, a decree from the pope to allow publication can overcome a prior decree that something is on the Index) to have “closed the debate” in favor of heliocentrism.
Sweethearts Seeking Sanctity : Geocentrism: A Dangerous Pseudoscience
(comment section)
http://sweetheartsseekingsanctity.blogspot.com/2014/05/geocentrism-dangerous-pseudoscience.html
If he meant that historically for the moment, he might have been right.
But if he meant it in a Roma locuta est sense, no way (besides, John Paul II/Wojtyla, the man who called the Assisi meeting of 86, may be considered as debunked as to credentials of good theology).
It settled perhaps that Heliocentrism could licitly be defended, but did not directly adress whether it could be believed. And Pius VII like Benedict XV after him may well have avoided the most direct issue, since they may have felt it was ultra vires. Because of the same canon of Trent which was invoked by St Robert Bellarmine in "the first Galileo trial" (which was not a trial against Galileo, but against a book of his, he was present as attorney of his book, not as accused of heresy).
And very certainly it did NOT settle that Settele was right and Anfossi wrong on cosmology. Pius VII only settled that Settele could publish and Anfossi could not stop him. He never told Anfossi to change his mind on cosmology. He never made Anfossi retract for having felt Geocentrism was true and compulsory, just to step back from defending its obligatory force by denying an imprimi potest.
Here is my blogpost from when I studied the Settele affair:
Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Father Filippo Anfossi was right against Giuseppe Settele
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/02/father-filippo-anfossi-was-right.html
It is very annoying that people keep popping up who seem to think Geocentrism somehow became forbidden when in fact at the most Heliocentrism was allowed. Anfossi was not to put Settele on index, but he was not asked to put books defending Geocentrism on it instead. Riccioli which defends Heliocentrism (and yes, Heliocentrism with angelic movers) was never put on the index. St Thomas Aquinas who made his Prima Via based on Geocentrism was not put on the Index. St Robert Bellarmine's defense of truth in the 1616 process was not put on the Index. And I could presumably go on.
Since I just made some claims about Riccioli and St Thomas Aquinas which might somewhat surprise Catholics who are Heliocentrics, I will back them up:
New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html
Where I link to Father Riccioli. On angelic movers. Sorry I cannot link right now to when he uses them against Heliocentrism, but I haven't looked that up in the pages, only on a separate document or in a separate book (it could be Chaberlo's book on Science). But that he was Geocentric can be seen from the fact that he was writing as an obedient Catholic and specifically on subject of astronomy.
Now, what about St Thomas' Prima Via? In I Q2 A3 he does not specifically mention Sun being moved daily around the Earth. He does however say it is manifest to the senses that certain things are in movement, "as for instance the Sun." He is not talking about its supposed movement around the galaxy, since it is not apparent to the senses. The one movement of the Sun which is apparent to the senses is the daily one in certain moments (like when crossing horizons up, or down, or when appearing or disappearing around a tall object), i e its movement westward with the universe around Earth. Furthermore, he is specifically using the oneness of that daily turn (in Geocentrism Earth is not just one in many planets each spinning around axis, each giving any observer stationed on it impression of universe moving around it, falsely, but the impression is true of Earth) as proof its mover is also one.
Thirdly, this is shown from the unity of the world. For all things that exist are seen to be ordered to each other since some serve others. But things that are diverse do not harmonize in the same order, unless they are ordered thereto by one. For many are reduced into one order by one better than by many: because one is the "per se" cause of one, and many are only the accidental cause of one, inasmuch as they are in some way one. Since therefore what is first is most perfect, and is so "per se" and not accidentally, it must be that the first which reduces all into one order should be only one. And this one is God.
Summa Theologiae : Prima Pars : Q 11 : A 3
http://newadvent.com/summa/1011.htm#article3
Nothing about stars being billions of lightyears away and having nothing to do with our days and seasons ... in Geocentrism (any version) they are the fastest spinning objects of the westward movement the universe dailily makes around Earth. And presumably (St Thomas' version and mine, if not Sungenis') thus not billions of light years away either.
In the Summa contra gentes the proof for God is even more specifically tied to His causing the movement of the Universe around Earth (I am working on a translation from the Latin, a Thomistic site left out parts in the English translation).
So, Riccioli is not on the index. St Thomas is not on the index. Neither of them was put on the index in the Anfossi affair. So why are people agreeing with them treated as if their writings were or should be on the index?
Anthony at Sweethearts, in comment section goes on with his motivation:
I have no patience for this nonsense. I’ve already seen it lead one person away from tradition, and prevent another from coming into the Church at all. Of all the issues out there, all the problems in our poor world and our poor Church, you’re planting your flag on whether the earth or the sun moves through space? I guess every group has its lunatic fringe.
Lunatic fringe is specifically not a Catholic category of sociology.
If the Church really sees a thing as a madness, it usually condemns it as a heresy. If she doesn't, she doesn't call it lunatic fringe either.
This condemning as heresy has not been done with Geocentrism and still some are taking a stand as if it were a lunacy. A polite (and astrological) word for madness, or for on-and-off-madness.
One man refrained from becoming a Trad. Another man refrained from becoming a Catholic at all. Was the problem that there was a Geocentric or that they knew of a Geocentric? Or was their problem that they were Heliocentric/into Modern Cosmology to the point of making that part of their religion? And if so, is not perhaps Heliocentrism and Modern Cosmology more of a problem than Pope Pius VII may have thought?
For some it is not enough to see the faithful are allowed to be Heliocentrics, they want to see faithful forbidden to be Geocentrics - and keep out of a Church that doesn't provide that.
As I suggested about the attitudes of Pius VII and Benedict XV having something to do with Trent, the Church cannot provide that.
And should not provide that.
And people who want it to and despise it if it doesn't have, as far as I am concerned, not the best disposition for saving their souls even inside the Church. Assuming they could have some excuse for considering Heliocentrism right, they have no excuse for considering it revealed before the final Apostle finished his life and part of Deposit of Faith and therefore they have no excuse for not seeing it is not important to impose it. I am not into flat earth, but the position has as far as I know not been forbidden by the Church. I argue against it, but not as if arguing against a heresy.
Oh, yes, David Palm in an earlier post actually gave one exception ... except that he cited a fragmentarily preserved work where "Aristarchus discovered Heliocentrism" (basically!) came ... in a list of Pagan mathematical and philosophical discoveries. According to David Palm's own reasoning, about Alexander VII, this should then not be considered the formal teaching of that Church Father. We do not have all of the work, and if we had it, the next phrase after the list might have been something like "but mathematicians were not infallibly right on everything, sometimes they taught things only probably and not even true".
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Day of St Gregory Thaumaturgus
of Neocaesarea
17-XI-2014
* Or close to it : "Quod omnium formarum causa effectiua inmediata est orbis." Error number 106 of original list and 5 on errors about stars on the systematic reedition of the condemnations.
Capitulum XII Errores de celo et stellis
subdivision of the Tempier condemnations on the En lengua romance blog
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/capitulum-xii.html
"Quod sanitatem, infirmitatem, uitam et mortem attribuit positioni siderum et aspectui fortune, dicens quod si eum aspexerit fortuna uiuet; si non aspexerit, morietur." Error 206 of original list. And 6 on errors about necessity.
Capitulum XIV Errores de necessitate euentus rerum
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/capitulum-xiv.html
** I presume so at least. If "Vedic astronomy" for instance states that Sun is lower than Moon (Pole Star being very highest) but has at same time a greater horizontal distance:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Not Believing Vedic Astronomy Apart from Geocentrism, on Believing Scholastic Astronomy Including Geocentrism
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2014/11/on-not-believing-vedic-astronomy-apart.html
*** I was very tired this morning when I said both questions were licit to have either opinion, when that is only true for flat or round earth question. Geocentric question may be canonically licit insofar as the Church is concerned to have either opinion, insofar as the Church does not actively excommunicate anyone for being Heliocentric, but when it comes to Church Fathers and Holy Writ the question is otherwise, as I have already stated elsewhere. So, I had to strike through "both questions were/are" and replace with "one question was/is"./HGL
Saturday, 15 November 2014
Que fais-je en dehors de ce blog?
Bien, pas mal quand même sur internet. Par exemple en anglais sur le blog Assorted Retorts:
Contre l'héliocentrisme (surtout des débats dans les commentaires aux vidéos)
1) ... on Not Believing Vedic Astronomy Apart from Geocentrism, on Believing Scholastic Astronomy Including Geocentrism, 2) ... on Nicole d'Oresme refusing to apply relativity perfectly understood to Geocentric appearances, 3) ... on Black Holes and Geocentrism
À propos l'histoire des idées, en corrigeant légèrement Thomas Woods (surtout seulement mes commentaires)
1) ... on Historical Capacity of Understanding, 2) ... Some Notes on Dr Thomas Woods' Debunking of Flat Earth Myth, 3) ... Some Notes on Thomas Woods' Orderly Universe Argument, 4) ... to Thomas Woods on the School of Chartres, Mainly
Si j'aurais la chance, il y aura davantage.
Contre une idée protestante sur le "où" et "qui" de l'indéfectibilité de l'Église:
1) ... against Two Protestants on Protestantism, Specifically Baptism and Waldensians, and on Inquisition, 2) ... continued against Protestant/Waldensian "Apostolic Succession"
Contre une idée moderne de la "responsabilité" comme idéal de l'hommer vertueux (un peu différent du "kalokagathos" ou des idéaux médiévaux):
... on Responsability (Neither a Virtue, Nor - at least not totally - in the Bible)
Pour la crédibilité de l'Histoire Sacrée et Biblique:
... on Coherence of Genesis 1 & 2 and Nativity Account Plus Some on General Credibility
J'essaie aussi de survivre. Hier soir j'avais trouvé un abris sous la porche d'une résidence, un jeune homme a été très agréable, un vieil homme très désagréable. Il me rappelait ces politicards ... il avait la figure de pouvoir eu approuvé la pièce blasphème de Castellucci et d'avoir pu désapprouver une église Russe-Orthodoxe parce que "trop cliché" .../HGL
Contre l'héliocentrisme (surtout des débats dans les commentaires aux vidéos)
1) ... on Not Believing Vedic Astronomy Apart from Geocentrism, on Believing Scholastic Astronomy Including Geocentrism, 2) ... on Nicole d'Oresme refusing to apply relativity perfectly understood to Geocentric appearances, 3) ... on Black Holes and Geocentrism
À propos l'histoire des idées, en corrigeant légèrement Thomas Woods (surtout seulement mes commentaires)
1) ... on Historical Capacity of Understanding, 2) ... Some Notes on Dr Thomas Woods' Debunking of Flat Earth Myth, 3) ... Some Notes on Thomas Woods' Orderly Universe Argument, 4) ... to Thomas Woods on the School of Chartres, Mainly
Si j'aurais la chance, il y aura davantage.
Contre une idée protestante sur le "où" et "qui" de l'indéfectibilité de l'Église:
1) ... against Two Protestants on Protestantism, Specifically Baptism and Waldensians, and on Inquisition, 2) ... continued against Protestant/Waldensian "Apostolic Succession"
Contre une idée moderne de la "responsabilité" comme idéal de l'hommer vertueux (un peu différent du "kalokagathos" ou des idéaux médiévaux):
... on Responsability (Neither a Virtue, Nor - at least not totally - in the Bible)
Pour la crédibilité de l'Histoire Sacrée et Biblique:
... on Coherence of Genesis 1 & 2 and Nativity Account Plus Some on General Credibility
J'essaie aussi de survivre. Hier soir j'avais trouvé un abris sous la porche d'une résidence, un jeune homme a été très agréable, un vieil homme très désagréable. Il me rappelait ces politicards ... il avait la figure de pouvoir eu approuvé la pièce blasphème de Castellucci et d'avoir pu désapprouver une église Russe-Orthodoxe parce que "trop cliché" .../HGL
Friday, 14 November 2014
J'aimerais qu'elle soit libre demain si je reviens à Georges Pompidou
Qui ça?
Une fille qui parlait devant elle-même, de manière à être un peu chiante.
Si on l'a juste mise dehors la bibliothèque pour le jour, je n'ai pas beaucoup de quoi me plaindre. Mais j'ai peur qu'ils ont fait autre chose, ces gardiens, sous l'impression idéologiquement imposée que ça lui allait faire du bien.
Si elle avait peur, c'est de ça qu'elle avait peur.*
Si j'ai eu trop peur pour rester, c'est de ça aussi que j'ai eu peur. L'idéologie psychiatrique est forte ici.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Marguérite Audoux
St Josaphat Kunciewycz
14-XI-2014
* Et très possiblement une peur resserrée fois après fois, la retraumatisant fois après fois.
Une fille qui parlait devant elle-même, de manière à être un peu chiante.
Si on l'a juste mise dehors la bibliothèque pour le jour, je n'ai pas beaucoup de quoi me plaindre. Mais j'ai peur qu'ils ont fait autre chose, ces gardiens, sous l'impression idéologiquement imposée que ça lui allait faire du bien.
Si elle avait peur, c'est de ça qu'elle avait peur.*
Si j'ai eu trop peur pour rester, c'est de ça aussi que j'ai eu peur. L'idéologie psychiatrique est forte ici.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Marguérite Audoux
St Josaphat Kunciewycz
14-XI-2014
* Et très possiblement une peur resserrée fois après fois, la retraumatisant fois après fois.
Ça c'était méchant, à propos Skogli!
J'avais deviné que c'était en Norvège, et c'est le cas!
Et la fille - assez belle d'ailleurs - qui lisait un livre de Henriksen m'a fait avaler que c'était en Finlande!** C'est abuser de sa beauté de me faire ce coup!/HGL
* Svenskspråkiga Wikipedia : Levi Henriksen
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levi_Henriksen
** Mais pour avoir un lieudit avec un nom tellement ressemblant au norvégien, j'étais sûr que ça devait être Finlande suécophone. Dans la fennophonie, le mot "skog" n'existe pas, le mot "lid" ("li" en norvégien) n'existe pas, les mots ne peuvent pas commencer sur sk-, la lettre G n'existe pas ... elle n'aurait pas pû me faire avaler que c'était Finlande fennophone!
Levi Henriksen född 15 maj 1964 i Kongsvinger, är en norsk författare, journalist och musiker. Han har givit ut novellsamlingar och romaner på Gyldendal, samt essäsamling, antologi och andra böcker på sitt eget förlag, Magerdal forlag. Henriksen förlägger handlingen i texter till den fiktiva orten Skogli, vars invånares liv han skildrar på gott och ont. Henriksens hemort Granli, i trakten av Kongsvinger, är förlagan för Skogli.*
- Kongsvinger - ville en Norvège.
- Norsk - norvégien.
- Gyldendal - une édition en Norvège.
- "den fiktiva orten Skogli" - le lieudit fictif Skogli.
- "Henriksens hemort Granli" - le domicile de Henriksen, Granli
- "i trakten av Kongsvinger" - dans l'aire de Kongsvinger
- "är förlagan för Skogli." - sert de modèle pour Skogli.
Et la fille - assez belle d'ailleurs - qui lisait un livre de Henriksen m'a fait avaler que c'était en Finlande!** C'est abuser de sa beauté de me faire ce coup!/HGL
* Svenskspråkiga Wikipedia : Levi Henriksen
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levi_Henriksen
** Mais pour avoir un lieudit avec un nom tellement ressemblant au norvégien, j'étais sûr que ça devait être Finlande suécophone. Dans la fennophonie, le mot "skog" n'existe pas, le mot "lid" ("li" en norvégien) n'existe pas, les mots ne peuvent pas commencer sur sk-, la lettre G n'existe pas ... elle n'aurait pas pû me faire avaler que c'était Finlande fennophone!
Saturday, 8 November 2014
Minds are not Parachutes
Ever come across a comparison between the human mind and a parachute? Minds are not parachutes. Parachutes cannot replace minds except just partially. But minds can often spare one the use of a parachute, and when not, parachute is useless without a mind to know how to use it.
Ever come across this comparison? Here:
Not true. Parachutes need to function only in emergencies. Minds do need to function also outside moments of conversion. I have had some few of them (those I recall best : from non-Christian to Christian, from loosely Evangelical to Lutheran, from Lutheran to Catholic, from Catholic to Trad Catholic - half my lifetime - from Trad Catholic to Orthodox and back again, and of course the conversion from Heliocentric to Geocentric, from Newtonian dynamist to Angelic dynamist night to 24th August 2001), but even if I have had them, I have had a life between them too. Minds need to be open also - but less dramatically so - when learning a new skill, like macramé or Latin. But whether living your religion or using your skill, you need to have a mind much closer around what was once given.
So, since minds must function outside the dramatic moments of conversion or learning a new skill, they must function also in closed mode. Unlike parachutes, which you really do not need to actually use outside emergencies (and training for them).
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Octave of All Hallows
8-XI-2014
Ever come across this comparison? Here:
| MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE
ONLY FUNCTIONS WHEN OPEN |
Not true. Parachutes need to function only in emergencies. Minds do need to function also outside moments of conversion. I have had some few of them (those I recall best : from non-Christian to Christian, from loosely Evangelical to Lutheran, from Lutheran to Catholic, from Catholic to Trad Catholic - half my lifetime - from Trad Catholic to Orthodox and back again, and of course the conversion from Heliocentric to Geocentric, from Newtonian dynamist to Angelic dynamist night to 24th August 2001), but even if I have had them, I have had a life between them too. Minds need to be open also - but less dramatically so - when learning a new skill, like macramé or Latin. But whether living your religion or using your skill, you need to have a mind much closer around what was once given.
So, since minds must function outside the dramatic moments of conversion or learning a new skill, they must function also in closed mode. Unlike parachutes, which you really do not need to actually use outside emergencies (and training for them).
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Octave of All Hallows
8-XI-2014
Friday, 7 November 2014
Shoebat gets it RIGHT
At least on History.
DRINKING “THE BLOOD OF SAINTS”
By Ted on March 12, 2014 in General, Highlight
Exclusive By Walid Shoebat
http://shoebat.com/2014/03/12/drinking-blood-saints/
When he says he wishes Catholics knew the Bible as well as Protestants do, as a former Protestant I disagree. Catholics know the Bible better./HGL
DRINKING “THE BLOOD OF SAINTS”
By Ted on March 12, 2014 in General, Highlight
Exclusive By Walid Shoebat
http://shoebat.com/2014/03/12/drinking-blood-saints/
When he says he wishes Catholics knew the Bible as well as Protestants do, as a former Protestant I disagree. Catholics know the Bible better./HGL
Thursday, 6 November 2014
Vous êtes arrivé(e) à mes blogs q m?
Il y a des gens qui prétendent que mes url sont impossibles à lire. Perso, je ne trouve pas. Majuscules se fait, des légères déformations par décoration, ça aussi se fait. Que les par exemple quatre ou cinq lignes que je mets un url doivent être mis sur une ligne, par celui qui l'utilise, ça se fait aussi.
Mais il y a des gens qui prétendent que mes url sont impossibles à lire pour eux quand même.
Peut-être veulent-ils dire autre chose - que mes url sont impossibles à prononcer selon une orthographe correcte - ce qui est autre chose. Chaque url n'a pas de besoin d'être du Français correct ou de l'Anglais correct ou du Suédois correct ou une quelle-conque langue du tout correcte - il a besoin d'être unique. Notons, c'est le tout qui a besoin d'être unique. Si un des mes url a "filolohika" avant ".blogspot.com" ça n'empêche pas qu'un autre site ait ces mêmes lettres avant ".wordpress.com". Mais une fois qu'il y a tel ou tel site, un url doit être unique. Mon site "filolohika.blogspot.com" ne peut pas avoir le url - linguistiquement plus correct - "philologica.blogspot.com" parce que ça c'est un autre site. Aussi hébergé sur blogger, mais par un autre blogueur.
De toute manière, si en théorie un url peut être écrit en "aaaabbbb" - ce qui ne se prononce guère (et compter quatre lettres identiques devient difficile) - mes url se prononcent normalement d'une façon ou d'autre. Celui de ce blog ci, par exemple a été prononcé "nov neuf blog neuf" mais je prononce plutôt "novus bloggus [avec les -us abrégés en neuf]". Quand à des ignares qui prétendent qu'ils ne captent pas les lettres, toute question de prononciation mise à part, ou encore des faux ignares, je les trouve méprisables. Alors ils ne seraient pas capables à lire des pochettes psychédéliques, ce qui est absurde. Ou encore pire, ils seraient capables à lire les pochettes d'album psychédéliques, mais uniquement en voyant le lettrage coloré psychédéliquement en jaune et vert et orange et en ayant consommé des drogues psychédéliques. Moi, j'arrive à les lire sans ça. J'arrive aussi à juger la musique selon le son plutôt que selon la pochette, et de comprendre que le lettrage en majuscules psychédélique correspond non pas à un état de conscience altéré, mais au besoin pratique d'avoir des lettres avec une surface, soit à colorer - sur les pochettes psychédéliques - soit à décorer avec des hachures - dans le cas de mes url.
Donc, vous êtes arrivé Monsieur, vous êtes arrivée Madame ou Mademoiselle, vous n'avez pas trouvé mon url impossible à lire. Mais en plus, vous n'avez pas été découragé (au moins pas totalement) par le fait que d'autres prétendent que mes blogs soient ...
Madame, Mademoiselle, Monsieur, je vous trouve impressionant pour le public français actuel! Mais ça commence à changer, aujourd'hui j'ai eu de la France des visiteurs en nombre de 17 ... ces dernières 24 heures. Sur ce blog.
Par contre, il y a un autre reproche qu'on a pu me faire, avec un peu moins de mauvaise volonté ... que je ne mets jamais mes blogs à jour.
Il y a des blogs auquel on m'a privé d'accès:
un jacobite
http://jacobita.blogspot.com
le même jacobite
http://hglundahl.blogspot.com
Il y a d'autres que j'ai laissés tels quels après qu'ils soient remplis de messages (précurseurs de celui-ci):
deretour
[premier blog général sur ce profil blogger]
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com
Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera
[à lire comme: trivium, quadrivium et cætera
deuxième blog général sur ce profil blogger]
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com
Ce dernier avait exactement 400 messages, et deretour avait 633 messages, sans compter les pages.
Il y a d'autres que je laisse à côté parce que finis, quand au contenu. Les blogs sur mon pélérinage rangent de ce message ci:
La première cinquième du pélérinage : 15-VII-2004, Svallerup, Kalundborg, AArhus
http://premierequintedupel.blogspot.com/2011/02/15-vii-2004.html
à ce message ci:
La cinquième cinquième du pélérinage : 7-X-2004, L'anniversaire de la concernée
http://dernierequintedupel.blogspot.com/2011/02/7x2004.html
et il n'y a plus, c'est un message par jour de pélé pour un ensemble de 85 jours, distribués par 5 blogs. Des jours n'ont pas été complètement décrits, mais les complétions seront ajoutés sur des messages existants.
Mais il y a aussi des temps que je laisse temporairement reposer un blog - comme celui-ci - parce que le message en haut me semble convenable pour nouveaux arrivants parmi les lecteurs ou parce que les messages en haut me semblent convenables de cette manière. Entretemps, il m'arrive quand même à me publier, car j'ai d'autres blogs:
La cinquième cinquième du pélérinage : Mes autres blogs
http://dernierequintedupel.blogspot.com/p/mes-autres-blogs.html
Et c'est pour ça que le titre de ce message n'est pas "Vous êtes arrivé(e) à mon blog q[uand] m[ême]?" mais "Vous êtes arrivé(e) à mes blogs q[uand] m[ême]?"
Hans Georg Lundahl
Georges Pompidou
St Léonard de Limoges
6-XI-2014
Mais il y a des gens qui prétendent que mes url sont impossibles à lire pour eux quand même.
Peut-être veulent-ils dire autre chose - que mes url sont impossibles à prononcer selon une orthographe correcte - ce qui est autre chose. Chaque url n'a pas de besoin d'être du Français correct ou de l'Anglais correct ou du Suédois correct ou une quelle-conque langue du tout correcte - il a besoin d'être unique. Notons, c'est le tout qui a besoin d'être unique. Si un des mes url a "filolohika" avant ".blogspot.com" ça n'empêche pas qu'un autre site ait ces mêmes lettres avant ".wordpress.com". Mais une fois qu'il y a tel ou tel site, un url doit être unique. Mon site "filolohika.blogspot.com" ne peut pas avoir le url - linguistiquement plus correct - "philologica.blogspot.com" parce que ça c'est un autre site. Aussi hébergé sur blogger, mais par un autre blogueur.
De toute manière, si en théorie un url peut être écrit en "aaaabbbb" - ce qui ne se prononce guère (et compter quatre lettres identiques devient difficile) - mes url se prononcent normalement d'une façon ou d'autre. Celui de ce blog ci, par exemple a été prononcé "nov neuf blog neuf" mais je prononce plutôt "novus bloggus [avec les -us abrégés en neuf]". Quand à des ignares qui prétendent qu'ils ne captent pas les lettres, toute question de prononciation mise à part, ou encore des faux ignares, je les trouve méprisables. Alors ils ne seraient pas capables à lire des pochettes psychédéliques, ce qui est absurde. Ou encore pire, ils seraient capables à lire les pochettes d'album psychédéliques, mais uniquement en voyant le lettrage coloré psychédéliquement en jaune et vert et orange et en ayant consommé des drogues psychédéliques. Moi, j'arrive à les lire sans ça. J'arrive aussi à juger la musique selon le son plutôt que selon la pochette, et de comprendre que le lettrage en majuscules psychédélique correspond non pas à un état de conscience altéré, mais au besoin pratique d'avoir des lettres avec une surface, soit à colorer - sur les pochettes psychédéliques - soit à décorer avec des hachures - dans le cas de mes url.
Donc, vous êtes arrivé Monsieur, vous êtes arrivée Madame ou Mademoiselle, vous n'avez pas trouvé mon url impossible à lire. Mais en plus, vous n'avez pas été découragé (au moins pas totalement) par le fait que d'autres prétendent que mes blogs soient ...
- du nombrilisme sur une vie dégradée
- du nazisme
- de l'antisémitisme ou du racisme
- d'une niaiserie que l'homme qui décrit mes blogs se complait à décrire et refuter avant que vous ne les lisiez ...
Madame, Mademoiselle, Monsieur, je vous trouve impressionant pour le public français actuel! Mais ça commence à changer, aujourd'hui j'ai eu de la France des visiteurs en nombre de 17 ... ces dernières 24 heures. Sur ce blog.
Par contre, il y a un autre reproche qu'on a pu me faire, avec un peu moins de mauvaise volonté ... que je ne mets jamais mes blogs à jour.
Il y a des blogs auquel on m'a privé d'accès:
un jacobite
http://jacobita.blogspot.com
le même jacobite
http://hglundahl.blogspot.com
Il y a d'autres que j'ai laissés tels quels après qu'ils soient remplis de messages (précurseurs de celui-ci):
deretour
[premier blog général sur ce profil blogger]
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com
Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera
[à lire comme: trivium, quadrivium et cætera
deuxième blog général sur ce profil blogger]
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com
Ce dernier avait exactement 400 messages, et deretour avait 633 messages, sans compter les pages.
Il y a d'autres que je laisse à côté parce que finis, quand au contenu. Les blogs sur mon pélérinage rangent de ce message ci:
La première cinquième du pélérinage : 15-VII-2004, Svallerup, Kalundborg, AArhus
http://premierequintedupel.blogspot.com/2011/02/15-vii-2004.html
à ce message ci:
La cinquième cinquième du pélérinage : 7-X-2004, L'anniversaire de la concernée
http://dernierequintedupel.blogspot.com/2011/02/7x2004.html
et il n'y a plus, c'est un message par jour de pélé pour un ensemble de 85 jours, distribués par 5 blogs. Des jours n'ont pas été complètement décrits, mais les complétions seront ajoutés sur des messages existants.
Mais il y a aussi des temps que je laisse temporairement reposer un blog - comme celui-ci - parce que le message en haut me semble convenable pour nouveaux arrivants parmi les lecteurs ou parce que les messages en haut me semblent convenables de cette manière. Entretemps, il m'arrive quand même à me publier, car j'ai d'autres blogs:
La cinquième cinquième du pélérinage : Mes autres blogs
http://dernierequintedupel.blogspot.com/p/mes-autres-blogs.html
Et c'est pour ça que le titre de ce message n'est pas "Vous êtes arrivé(e) à mon blog q[uand] m[ême]?" mais "Vous êtes arrivé(e) à mes blogs q[uand] m[ême]?"
Hans Georg Lundahl
Georges Pompidou
St Léonard de Limoges
6-XI-2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)