Sunday, 30 October 2022

Bandits Always Wear a Mask - Sharing!


Christian World News - Escape from Hell - October 28, 2022
CBN News, 29 Oct. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP2PLg0-8Jo


The quote is from the first story on the video./HGL

Is Nostra Aetate Saying Buddhists Can Actually Achieve Complete Liberation?


Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: From Ratzinger's New Letter · New blog on the kid: Is Nostra Aetate Saying Buddhists Can Actually Achieve Complete Liberation?

I feel a need to exonerate Nostra Aetate from an accusation made by Taylor Marshall. Not because I think Vatican II is a council, but because reasons disqualifying it should be chosen elsewhere than in clumsy translations to English. I'll quote from some lines in NA that Taylor Marshall impugned, in italics, and my own translation below. With italics used only for emphasis.

Ita in Hinduismo homines mysterium divinum scrutantur et exprimunt inexhausta fecunditate mythorum et acutis conatibus philosophiae, atque liberationem quaerunt ab angustiis nostrae condicionis vel per formas vitae asceticae vel per profundam meditationem vel per refugium ad Deum cum amore et confidentia.
Thus, in Hinduism men are scrutinising the divine mystery and expressing an unexhausted fertility of myths and acute tries at philosophy, and search for liberation from the anguishes of our condition, either by forms of the ascetic life or by profound meditation or by taking refuge to God with love and confidence.

In Buddhismo secundum varias eius formas radicalis insufficientia mundi huius mutabilis agnoscitur et via docetur qua homines, animo devoto et confidente, sive statum perfectae liberationis acquirere, sive, vel propriis conatibus vel superiore auxilio innixi, ad summam illuminationem pertingere valeant.
In Buddhism according to its various forms the radical insufficiency of this mutable world is admitted and a way is taught by which men, with devoted and confident courage are supposed to be able to acquire a state of perfect liberation, or in other words by their own efforts or leaning on superior help attain supreme illumination.

Sic ceterae quoque religiones, quae per totum mundum inveniuntur, inquietudini cordis hominum variis modis occurrere nituntur proponendo vias, doctrinas scilicet ac praecepta vitae, necnon ritus sacros.
The same way other religions also, which are found in all of the world, try to propose ways to in various manners meet the unquiet of men's heart, namely doctrines and life precepts not forgetting sacred rites.

Ecclesia catholica nihil eorum, quae in his religionibus vera et sancta sunt, reicit. ...
The Catholic Church rejects nothing of the things which in these religions are true and holy. ...

Now, in my translation of the comment on Buddhism, I gave two major divergences from the official English translation. For "sive X, sive Y" I have not translated "either X or Y" but "X or in other words Y" as "sive" is in Latin such a weak opposition that the alternative may often be one about word choice rather than concept. The other diverging translation is "are supposed to be able" for "may be able" ... the thing translated is a Latin subjunctive and the default translation is "may" for present subjunctive and "might" for preterite imperfect subjunctive. Now, to an English ear "may be able" suggests "I can't exclude they are able" but it's really expressing their intention to be able, and so (as this intention is in fact unrealistic) the translation "are supposed to be able" is in fact better.

Now, how does the text continue?

Sincera cum observantia considerat illos modos agendi et vivendi, illa praecepta et doctrinas,
With sincere observation She considers the modes of acting and living, those precepts and doctrines,

quae, quamvis ab iis quae ipsa tenet et proponit in multis discrepent,
which, while in much they are in discord with the ones which She Herself is holding and proposing,

haud raro referunt* tamen radium illius Veritatis, quae illuminat omnes homines.
nevertheless not seldom transmit* a beam of that Truth which enlightens all men.

It would seem the council, whether false or true, is on this exact issue saying:

  • Christ - the Way, the Truth and the Life - is the light of all men
  • He shines on pagans too
  • and some parts of each paganism reflect His light,
  • but "one beam at a time" rather than full day light.


In each paganism, the discrepancies or discords from the Catholic teaching are of two types:

  • basic error;
  • error in application of principles in and of themselves true


and obviously, while what discords from the Catholic teaching cannot be absolutely and correctly true, it can be misapplication of what is basically true. For instance, I'll take the example from a non-conformist, he can accept the truth of Matthew 5:32 without fully understanding it. Like, Mr. X marries a divorcee, he puts her away, because of adultery, and now even her former husband cannot take her back ... because doing so would be taking a divorceee. This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, but it is some kind of understanding of Matthew 5:32. Similarily, some erroneous parts of paganisms are in fact misapplications of truths - not simple head on collisions with them.

So, no, I do not think Nostra Aetate is right here doing publicity for Buddhism, I think Taylor Marshall is reading a "may be able" in a subsidiary clause of Latin to English translation as a "may be able" in colloquial English, without this being the correct translation of the passage. The "may be able" of colloquial English would not be "valeant" but "possunt valere" or "forsitan valent" which is very much not the actual text of the document.

But is there any other error in section 2? Let's look a bit earlier.

Iam ab antiquo usque ad tempus hodiernum apud diversas gentes invenitur quaedam perceptio illius arcanae virtutis,
Already from antiquity and all the way to the time of today, in diverse peoples is found some perception of the hidden power

quae cursui rerum et eventibus vitae humanae praesens est, immo aliquando agnitio Summi Numinis vel etiam Patris.
which is there at the course of things and the events of human life, and even sometimes a recognition there is a Supreme Numen or even Father.

So far, no problem.

Quae perceptio atque agnitio vitam earum intimo sensu religioso penetrant.
Which perception and recognition penetrates their lives by an inner religious sense.

Religiones vero cum progressu culturae connexae subtilioribus notionibus et lingua magis exculta ad easdem quaestiones respondere satagunt.
But religions with the progress of culture connected** to subtler notions and a more cultivated language fuss about to answer the same questions.

Do we have a case for the "council fathers" trying to dogmatise the idea that religious expression come from a "religious sense" instead of from either true or false revelations or from a kind of makeshift for such?

Do we have a case for them saying that religious expression changes as culture progresses and as language is honed out into precise terminology? And for notional content of religions being simply parts of such changing expressions? Or a case for them to be rehashing a recent anthropological idea "Monotheism is more advanced than Pantheism which is more advanced than Animism" or "Buddhism is a more advanced form of Pantheism than the seemingly Polytheistic Hinduism is" and so on?

On the one hand, if you apply such ideas to the True Revelation, this is one of the errors of Modernism. On the other hand, the condemnation of modernism didn't directly condemn the idea this was at least correct about the false religions. However, the thing is, false religions arguably do have more precise (if not more divinely truthful) sources. And the words about Hinduism having an "unexhausted fertility of myths" rather than a few main stories that arguably reflect conditions before the Flood and soon after the Flood*** doesn't sit well with me either. Ratzinger recently stated that the council made a radically new theology of the religions (namely outside Christianity). I unfortunately have to agree - this theology is a "novum" - meaning it is non-traditional. Clearly inferior to what Medievals would have had to say.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Feast of Christ the King
30.X.2022

I used:

DECLARATIO DE ECCLESIAE HABITUDINE AD RELIGIONES NON-CHRISTIANAS NOSTRA AETATE
https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_lt.html


and occasionally glanced on:

DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS NOSTRA AETATE
https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html


* I translated "referunt radium" with "transmit a beam" - and obviously a beam can be transmitted by reflection or refraction in directions not intended by the original light source.
** Classicising Latin, had to look up the translation, or I would have taken "connexae" as qualifying "culturae" rather than "religiones" - sth which Medieval Latin tends to avoid. Also had to look up satago - with "struggle" one could also use "fuss" or "have the hands full" ...
*** I place Mahabharata into the pre-Flood era and Ramayana into the post-Flood era, as historical events, with the actions obviously mixed with false and pagan explanations of how and what really happened.

Saturday, 29 October 2022

En France c'est mal vu de croire en Dieu ... la France est terrible pour ça ...


La Suède, ce n'est pas mieux.

Certes, c'est moins mal vu de simplement dire qu'on croit en Dieu, mais quand ça sort qu'on croit aux miracles des Évangiles, dans la Résurrection, la Création et le Déluge bibliques avec la Tour de Babel, la Suède ce n'est pas mieux.

Une chose que je considérais mieux en France, c'était la présence de Catholiques de droite.

Des gens sur lesquels j'ai quelque part compté, et là, j'ai été deçu.

Pour croire ce que je viens d'évoquer en Suède, on ferait mieux d'être ce qu'on appelle ici "évangéliste" et là-bas "frikyrklig" - solution impossible pour moi comme Catholique./HGL

PS, bonus si vous devinez d'où le titre est une citation./HGL

I Can't Write to House of Lords For You!




Brits, the best is to imitate or surpass recent changes in the US - make abortion illegal. But the second best is to at least allow side-walk counselling. Do your duty to unborn countrymen and to their unhappy mothers./HGL

Stability of Readers and of Read Posts


In an upcoming statistics post, I have taken the views per post for the week up to yesterday and for the 24 hours to today.

It seems, certain posts have a fairly similar number of views per day.

15 / 1 day - Notes on Asimov, Isaac; On the Duty of Avoiding Errorists, exp. 105 in previous week

Notes on Asimov, Isaac - 122 (going down)
On the Duty of Avoiding Errorists - 105

13 / 1 day - Bon Vendredi Saint - Keep Good Friday Holy; J'avais vu un très mauvais vidéo à propos la Statue de Ste Jehanne; Trent Horn's Comment, Up to 12:45; Shanti, rescapée des attentats - victime de la psychiatrie ?; Actus de la Suède, exp. 91 in previous week

J'avais vu un très mauvais vidéo à propos la Statue de Ste Jehanne - 75
Shanti, rescapée des attentats - victime de la psychiatrie ? - 36
Bon Vendredi Saint - Keep Good Friday Holy - 30
Trent Horn's Comment, Up to 12:45 - 26
Actus de la Suède - not visible for week (all going up)

11 / 1 day Fr. Dominic shot himself in the foot, sorry, Legge, on Adam and Eve; Pas réponse d'Avenir de la Culture?; Stephan Borgehammar Brushing Up My Greek a Bit; Autour de Sébastien Antoni qui a nié l'individualité d'Adam et d'Ève; Le premier chef d'état finlandais parlait le suédois (avant le finnois); L'école pour les nuls? Inexacte.; Read an Article on Musical Tastes, exp. 77 in previous week

Le premier chef d'état finlandais parlait le suédois (avant le finnois) - 57
Stephan Borgehammar Brushing Up My Greek a Bit - 56
Fr. Dominic shot himself in the foot, sorry, Legge, on Adam and Eve - 45
Autour de Sébastien Antoni qui a nié l'individualité d'Adam et d'Ève - 44
Pas réponse d'Avenir de la Culture? - 42
Read an Article on Musical Tastes - 41
L'école pour les nuls? Inexacte. - 23 (all going up)

10 / day - Other Ghost Writer Eliminated : His Holiness Pope Michael; Beginning to update, Scope and Nature of Theology (Part II); Thomistic Institute Doesn't Answer?; Sonata Nemetodurica Secunda; Mariages hors l'église ? Et davantage, exp. 70 in previous week

Mariages hors l'église ? Et davantage - 74 (going down slightly or steady)
Other Ghost Writer Eliminated : His Holiness Pope Michael - 73 (going down slightly or steady)

Thomistic Institute Doesn't Answer? - 62 (going up)
Sonata Nemetodurica Secunda - 39 (going up)
Beginning to update, Scope and Nature of Theology (Part II) - not visible for the week before, so going up

What are these adding up to over time?

Beginning to update, Scope and Nature of Theology (Part II) (10 783)

Autour de Sébastien Antoni qui a nié l'individualité d'Adam et d'Ève (7636)

On the Duty of Avoiding Errorists (6366)

Notes on Asimov, Isaac (5850)
Pas réponse d'Avenir de la Culture? (5668)

Other Ghost Writer Eliminated : His Holiness Pope Michael (4924)
J'avais vu un très mauvais vidéo à propos la Statue de Ste Jehanne (4817)
L'école pour les nuls? Inexacte. (4254)

Bon Vendredi Saint - Keep Good Friday Holy (3833)
Thomistic Institute Doesn't Answer? (3654)

Le premier chef d'état finlandais parlait le suédois (avant le finnois) (2528)

Mariages hors l'église ? Et davantage (1270)

Read an Article on Musical Tastes (549)
Sonata Nemetodurica Secunda (544)
Stephan Borgehammar Brushing Up My Greek a Bit (535)

Trent Horn's Comment, Up to 12:45 (242)

Fr. Dominic shot himself in the foot, sorry, Legge, on Adam and Eve (193)
Shanti, rescapée des attentats - victime de la psychiatrie ? (150)

Actus de la Suède (96)

Let's see how varied the top one has been:

29.X.2022
7.VII.2020

29.X.2022 - 29.X.2020 = 730 days

29.X.2020 =
59.IX.2020 =
90.VIII.2020 =
121.VII.2020 -
7.VII.2020

121 - 7 = 114 + 730 = 844

10 783 / 844 = 12.776 per day (so 10 last 24 h is somewhat going down). Pretty close to the present number of page views per day.

Have all the pageviews been very few people checking in each day on whether I was going to pull that article down?

Obviously I wasn't.

Or whether I would change the fault in "L'école pour les nuls? Inexacte." - thing is, putting a final -e because I was unsure back in 2012 whether one would pronounce -ct finally without adding -e is arguably a thing to change if it is republished on paper, but with over 10 000 posts on the blogs, I don't think hunting small faults in every one of them is a feasible pastime. Hunting faults can be done otherwise, like in view of republication. And the post in question contained no other fault, unless some count convoluted syntax as one. I don't count convoluted syntax as a fault - perhaps a thing to avoid in advance, if I can simplify, but not a thing to correct in retrospect. What I said in it remains true.

It links back to another post, which I haven't seen surging. Again one fault in French - "age" instead of "âge"* - and no fault in content, though I forgot the occasion I was describing in one of the lines:

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Catholique ou Kinsey, ceci?
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2012/04/catholique-ou-kinsey-ceci.html


Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Day after Sts. Simon and Jude
28.X.2022

PS : And obviously, I was also not regretting Christian feast greetings!

* In fact two : "elle n'auront" for "elles n'auront" too. Btw, I just heard Jérôme Bourbon say "une presse écrit" ... just before 22:44.

Friday, 28 October 2022

Bonum Festum Sanctorum Simonis et Judae


Christifidelibus lectoribus exopoto./HGL

In Perside natalis beatorum Apostolorum Simonis Chananaei, et Thaddaei, qui et Judas dicitur. Ex ipsis autem Simon in Aegypto, Thaddaeus in Mesopotamia Evangelium praedicavit; deinde, in Persidem simul ingressi, ibi, cum innumeram gentis illius multitudinem Christo subdidissent, martyrium consummarunt.

Thursday, 27 October 2022

This Time, the Fault is Not Douglas Gresham's


8 Facts About the Cancelled “Silver Chair” Movie
by Glumpuddle · January 1, 2020
https://www.narniaweb.com/2020/01/8-facts-about-the-cancelled-silver-chair-movie/


8. Gresham liked the script. But then…

Douglas Gresham (co-producer, step-son of C.S. Lewis) said1 The Silver Chair would be “a corker of a movie,” and called an early draft one of the best scripts he has seen for a Narnia movie.

But then, after a change in leadership at the studio, there was pressure to make it a “girl power action movie.”2 At that point, Gresham walked away and the project petered out. Now, Netflix is developing3 Narnia adaptations with Gresham still listed as a co-producer.


1 The First Time Douglas Gresham Read the Screenplay for The Silver Chair
by Glumpuddle · February 27, 2018
https://www.narniaweb.com/2018/02/the-first-time-douglas-gresham-read-the-screenplay-for-the-silver-chair/


2 What Happened to The Silver Chair Movie
by Glumpuddle · November 8, 2019
https://www.narniaweb.com/2019/11/what-happened-to-the-silver-chair-movie/


3 Netflix’s Narnia Reboot: What We Know
Updated: October 28, 2021
https://www.narniaweb.com/netflixs-narnia-what-we-know/


There are some books one can read already as a child, and which stay with you for all of your life. And in some cases not just as nostalgia.

There are books for adults that show less maturity than C. S. Lewis' books for children (yes, I am glaring in retrospect at a returned copy of Down and Out in Paris and London - the author was actually putting shoe polish in the holes of his socks and getting too much alcohol by serving in a bar where it was the energy drink ... I'm not sure if bartenders find this mature, I don't).

And I think this one has the most inspired some of my own battles./HGL

PS, as CSL was a professor, he clarified things for one - whose grandson is Glumpuddle:

C. S. Lewis wrote these letters to my grandfather
Glumpuddle, 5 Jan. 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrNlQXL1SiQ

Wednesday, 26 October 2022

A Blocked Email?


Hans-Georg Lundahl
2:39 The guy is not my type since the day when he in February 2009 turned off all of the MSN Groups - including my group Antimodernism.

I could not salvage all of the stuff to my blogger account, he took an opportunity to get my stuff off the internet, much of it, when I was not just homeless - still am - but based in a small town with little internet access and therefore little ability to attend to transferring material.

I had a smaller group as well, I tried his offer to transfer to "multiply" on that, it looked ugly and was incomplete in the very little time I had. So, I had no time to salvage all of my work.

Amy Taylor
Hello there👋👋.how are you doing today? Hope you’re having a wonderful day. God bless you!!!❤️❤️

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Amy Taylor Ate too much, slept a bit too little for the food, otherwise well, thank you.

Hope so for you too!

Amy Taylor
You’re welcome.☺️ thanks Ty. Where are you from?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Amy Taylor I'm perhaps made in Warszaw, born in Vienna, a Swede and currently based in Paris. France, not Texas.

Amy Taylor
Ohh okay. I’m originally from Virginia but I live in NC. How’s the weather there today?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Amy Taylor 17° C / 63° F, seems to be some wind and it's not shiny

Amy Taylor
Ohh okay? My it’s Morning. 61°. -- ; Afternoon. 68°. -- ; Evening. 55°. Chance of Rain1% ; Overnight. 50°. Chance of Rain5% ...
Are you doing anything for fun today?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Amy Taylor Debating on the internet.

Just had a joust with someone on Dutch quora who quoted Ingersoll.

Amy Taylor
Ohh ok. Do you mind we take our conversation off here? You can hit my email?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Amy Taylor here is mine:
hgl@dr.com




For some reason, the bar which allows me to sign the adress and my password doesn't pop up ... could someone have tried to put me off the internet by this? After Amy Taylor got my adress? Some people are following me around more or less like policemen. They seem to not really care about my rights, to use any opportunity to block me that's not too blatantly illegal or immoral before others, and blocking the email they consider as what I blog from (it isn't, I don't give that one out), could be their means to get me off the internet./HGL

PS - this was not the case in the library, from which I saw municipal policemen walking out when I was going in./HGL

PPS - the logging in is fixed now, even where above screen shot is from./HGL

Production One Month


27.IX.2022
I like being upfront on things... · Deflating a Star Size, Again, or Two · Cassman / Dimond, First Hour
28.IX.2022
What Would an Astrophysicist Object, and Why Don't I Buy It? · Stephan Borgehammar Brushing Up My Greek a Bit · Letter From and To Mr. Kevin R. Henke · Bonum Festum Sancti Michael (LAT)
29.IX.2022
Georges Morel - pourrait-il être victime d'une police de la moralité ? (FR) · Aeslin Bard of Sacratus Apologetics Does No More Believe the Book of Mormon · Mladeč caves
30.IX.2022
Semaine à 28.IX.2022 (FR) · Censure (FR) · Mes sujets de prédéliction, club 21, sous mes propres droits et de personne d'autre (FR) · Subjects I Love, Club 21, Noone Else's Copyright Involved · 440 incidents par jour dans l'école (primaire au lycée) (FR) · Continuing with J. Richard Middleton up to 31:14 · Shared Copyright (English, français, Deutsch, norsk), Club 21 (ENG/FR) · More on SPUC : Quarrel with BBC · XLVII : If I Enjoy Hypnosis So Much - Why Don't I Go to Hypnotherapy? (13+)
1.X.2022
Less Girl News · On the Most Holy Name of Jesus
2.X.2022
XLVIII - Some Dillon, Again. (13+) · RtT on Two Pronouncements by Bergoglio (feat. Sts Thomas and Pope Pius V) · Someone is Quickly Silencing My Dissent from Preterism · Counsel of Trent Depends on Patreon and Exclusivity · Was God's Motive Ethic or Aesthetic When Creating? · Bonum Festum Sanctae Teresiae a Jesu Infante (LAT)
3.X.2022
Who Has the Duty to Proselytise? · Bonum Festum Sancti Francisci (LAT)
4.X.2022
Trent Horn's Comment, Up to 12:45
5.X.2022
-
6.X.2022
Decrees of the Holy Office, in Common Form, Two Items · Can Someone Consider the Last Times Here and Be Innocent of Heresy? · Is Izzy a Hypocrite - Or Not? · Can One Wear a Capuce Without Being Dominican (Or Franciscan)? · Il y a 18 ans, j'arrivais à St. Jacques de Compostèle (FR) · Fr. Dominic shot himself in the foot, sorry, Legge, on Adam and Eve · "But Random Mutations Aren't Really All That Random"
7.X.2022
Bonum Festum Rosarii · Je ne promeus pas ce blog dans les rues (FR) · Candace and Walsh!
8.X.2022
Easter Eggs Will Not Replicate a Style · What is the Common Providence
9.X.2022
What Does Creation Mean - Answering Carl Krieg · Malachi Martin · Political Scientists Tend to Get History Wrong Father Spyridon Probably Mostly Right About the Antichrist
10.X.2022
À Partir de quand, l'imaginaire se paganise-t-il? · This is Not to Make Another or Stronger Indictment of Putin, It Involves Keeping Him as a Suspect · Brian Holdsworth Had His Five Cents [on the Dimond/Cassman debate]
11.X.2022
Donate to Legal Costs for "Lydia"! · Est-ce que Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn a affronté mes idées sur carbone 14, comme moi les siennes ?
12.X.2022
John MacArthur Actually Said ONE Good Thing (Last Minutes of Video)
13.X.2022
October 13th, 1917 · An Bewonern von Favoriten (10. Bez. Wien), eine Frage (DE) · Deutsche geboren 1713: 1 - 61 (DE) · "Beams of Distant Starlight" · La Suède rurale que je n'ai pas vécue (FR) · Michael Lofton : Bulverises Reactionary Christians · Trump's Speech, Courtesy of India Today
14.X.2022
Labels with Five Articles · Middle Ages : Europe Before Racism (featuring Olivette Otele) · I was reading Olivette Otele
15.X.2022
Statistiques de deux semaines (FR) · Top 145, un mois (FR) · But of Course Astrophysics is a Science, Right ...?
16.X.2022
7000 ou 4 500 000 000 ans? Réponse chrétienne (quora) (FR) · I Felt Hinted At, But Not Guilty
17.X.2022
Je ne pris pas une bière hier (FR) · While Campbellites are Young Earth Creationists, Young Earth Creationists Can Also be Catholic (and Should) · Alltagsleben Jesu (als Meister) (DE) · First Written Languages in Greece · Bonum Festum Sancti Lucae Evangelistae
18.X.2022
Quand commence la crise moderniste ? Peut-être en 1812 (FR) · "mortuus et sepultus est ..." (DE) · Morale intergénérationnelle (FR)
19.X.2022
La nature des miracles (FR) · Sharing · Adam Conover Promotes Some Bad Policies - But Reminds of Some Good Ones · L'école en France : les fauteurs de troubles sont plutôt : a) Catholiques d'extrême droite ? ou bien b) Musulmans (ou du groupe culturel) ? (FR) · Les visiteurs - 49 posts mieux vues en 24 heures (FR) · Every Nine Minutes
20.X.2022
Pour les Gens qui ont demandé si j'étais allemand (FR) · Comme je viens de dire, les Néanderthaliens pouvaient entendre comme nous (FR) · Shanti, rescapée des attentats - victime de la psychiatrie ? (FR) · No True Sc... · Can Mask- and Vax-Mandates be the Mark?
21.X.2022
Sharing · FB Blocking Again
22.X.2022
L'école obligatoire : un non-sens, une aubaine pour les harceleurs (FR)
23.X.2022
John Shelby Spong and Joseph Ratzinger
24.X.2022
Actus de la Suède (FR) · Fr. Pine Trying to Presume Sedevacantism is Heretical · Question on Epistemology
25.X.2022
More Syncretism · Old English - Spoken! · Brenda Has More Error Than Usually - I Still Think It Worthwhile Arguing · Indo-European and General Linguistics
26.X.2022
Production One Month · A Blocked Email? · Proselytism and Evangelisation - Michael Lofton encouraged Fact-Checking - and I Did That.

Tuesday, 25 October 2022

More Syncretism


News:

Wanted in Rome : Pope Francis prays for peace at Colosseum in Rome
25 Oct, 2022
https://www.wantedinrome.com/news/pope-francis-prays-for-peace-at-colosseum-in-rome.html


Pope Francis will join other religious leaders at a prayer service for peace at Rome’s Colosseum on the afternoon of Tuesday 25 October.

During his Angelus at the Vatican on Sunday, the pontiff said he would pray for peace in Ukraine and around the world at "The Cry for Peace" event on Tuesday.


What "religious leaders"? Catholic ones?

Representatives of the world’s major religions are joining political leaders in the three-day event which opened on Sunday at Rome's Nuvola Conference Centre in the presence of Italian president Sergio Mattarella and French president Emmanuel Macron.


No, not just those. But "[r]epresentatives of the world’s major religions" as the news stated.

Remember the peace prayer of San Egidio, and Srebrenica coming after that?/HGL

Monday, 24 October 2022

Actus de la Suède


Une dame chrétienne (d'origine immigrée) avait fait ses études de professeure de primaire.

L'école primaire en Suède commence à 7 ans.

Elle fut licencié pour avoir réfusé d'appeler en garçon de sept ans "hen" comme pronom non binaire. Le pronom "hen" est un emprunt du finnois, "hän" [dans les deux cas, prononcer c'hène], et le finnois est tellement non genré en grammaire que le pronom veut dire "lui" ou "elle" selon le contexte. Ce qui ne veut pas dire que la culture finnoise soit non binaire, au contraire, entre les deux peuple, qui existent dans les deux pays, ce sont plutôt les Suédois qui courent le risque de passer pour androgynes auprès des Finnois. Par contre, le suédois a les pronoms "han, hon, den, det" [c'hane, c'houne, dène, dééte] dont les derniers s'utilisent pour des choses, mais les premiers deux pour des personnes masculins ou féminins (ou parfois pour des animaux de compagnie). Le pronom correct pour un garçon est donc "han" ... la professeure a refusé de dire "hen" et se trouve depuis février 2021 licenciée de l'école pour ce refus. La mère du garçon ayant fait des vagues auprès de la direction.

La professeure avait eu la volonté de dire le nom du garçon, d'éviter totalement les pronoms, si "han" serait blessant - ce qui ne suffisait pas pour la mère.

Coupée du service depuis janvier, elle a été finalement licenciée en février 2021 (après une semaine coupée des élèves pour repenser, et un mois de préavis).

Comme je viens de dire, souvent, l'école suédoise est merveilleuse en pédagogue de langues étrangères, mais à part ça, elle a de quoi mériter d'être détestée.

Avec ce licenciement, d'une chrétienne qui avait refusé de respecter une "identité non-binaire" - il y a encore davantage de raison de ne pas retourner dans un pays où un éventuel travail serait dans ce type d'école (pas forcément primaire en mon cas) et où mes éventuels futurs enfants auraient à fréquenter une telle école./HGL

Correction, la mère du garçon semble avoir pris action contre la professeure le 3 février, donc c'est en mars qu'elle a été licenciée./HGL

Elle a donné la permission de partager la vidéo en dehors de FB aussi, tack så mycket! Voici:

Selma Gamaleldin - om avskedet
https://www.facebook.com/selma.gamaleldin/videos/340757761125708

Sunday, 23 October 2022

John Shelby Spong and Joseph Ratzinger


Great Bishop of Geneva!: Apostatic Rejection of "Fundamentalism" in 1994 · New blog on the kid John Shelby Spong and Joseph Ratzinger

I got a newletter from Progressing Spirit, where the following was quoted, with attribution:

Unless biblical literalism is challenged overtly in the Christian church itself, it will, in my opinion, kill the Christian faith. It is not just a benign nuisance that afflicts Christianity at its edges; it is a mentality that renders the Christian faith unbelievable to an increasing number of the citizens of our world.

John Shelby Spong.


I started subscribing to it, because I want to be able to refute next bad thing from Gretta Vosper or Carl Krieg - however, the above quote is one that comes from their deceased hero John Shelby Spong in person, and one which they quote from time to time ...

I will now quote, in full, the passage on Fundamentalism, by Joseph Ratzinger, then styled Cardinal under one style "Pope John Paul II" - though his name does not appear on the following version of the document:

"The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church"
Presented by the Pontifical Biblical Commission to Pope John Paul II on April 23, 1993
(as published in Origins, January 6, 1994)
https://www.catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp-FullText.htm


It would have appeared on this other version of the text, when I commented on it earlier:

The resource cannot be found.
Description: HTTP 404. The resource you are looking for (or one of its dependencies) could have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. Please review the following URL and make sure that it is spelled correctly.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.htm


That is the reason that in the following I attribute these positions to Ratzinger.

F. Fundamentalist Interpretation

Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by "literal interpretation" it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development. It is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical- critical method, as indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the interpretation of Scripture.

The fundamentalist interpretation had its origin at the time of the Reformation, arising out of a concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of Scripture. After the century of the Enlightenment it emerged in Protestantism as a bulwark against liberal exegesis.

The actual term fundamentalist is connected directly with the American Biblical Congress held at Niagara, N.Y., in 1895. At this meeting, conservative Protestant exegetes defined "five points of fundamentalism": the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, his virginal birth, the doctrine of vicarious expiation and the bodily resurrection at the time of the second coming of Christ. As the fundamentalist way of reading the Bible spread to other parts of the world, it gave rise to other ways of interpretation, equally "literalist," in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. As the 20th century comes to an end, this kind of interpretation is winning more and more adherents, in religious groups and sects, as also among Catholics.

Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.

The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods. It pays no attention to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.

Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.

Fundamentalism often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old or present-day. By the same token it fails to take account of the "rereadings" (relectures) of certain texts which are found within the Bible itself.

In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus). At the same time fundamentalism neglects an important fact: The way in which the first Christian communities themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message. But it is precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian faith and its direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call voiced by the Gospel itself.

Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith. Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices--racism, for example--quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.

Finally, in its attachment to the principle "Scripture alone," fundamentalism separates the interpretation of the Bible from the tradition, which, guided by the Spirit, has authentically developed in union with Scripture in the heart of the community of faith. It fails to realize that the New Testament took form within the Christian church and that it is the Holy Scripture of this church, the existence of which preceded the composition of the texts. Because of this, fundamentalism is often anti-church, it considers of little importance the creeds, the doctrines and liturgical practices which have become part of church tradition, as well as the teaching function of the church itself. It presents itself as a form of private interpretation which does not acknowledge that the church is founded on the Bible and draws its life and inspiration from Scripture.

The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.


Historical questions, first. And I mean the ones about the history of Fundamentalism, not the ones about Biblical History.

Ratzinger claims that while the term comes from the American Biblical Congress held at Niagara, N.Y., in 1895, or from its result "five fundamentals" the method originated at the time of the Reformation, which seems neutral between Protestants and Catholics - you know the guys Ratzinger and his "Pope" were supposed to represent, except for the context.

  • 1) a Catholic exegesis in a less important matter could theoretically arise at the time of the Reformation, like in answer to it, but when it comes to wide swathes of exegesis, basically all of the historic books (representing 680 chapters on my count out of 1184 - less if you exclude Daniel, Jonas and the Law, obviously, but still only pulls it down from majority to above 40 %), if it arises at the time of the Reformation, it would presumably either be exclusively Protestant or marginal within Catholicism;
  • 2) next step is "after Enlightenment" and "in Protestantism" - so, basically doesn't much concern Catholicism?
  • 3) final step being of course this congress of 1895, an exclusively Protestant event.


Overall, it is safe to say, Ratzinger paints Fundamentalism as a Protestant thing. He doesn't say in so many words here that it isn't Catholic, he knows it is wrong, but he pretends that it is mainly Protestant by omission. And by one direct untruth - lie or bad attention on his part, I don't know - namely that it "arose in the time of the Reformation" ...

Here are a few of the facts:

  • 1) St. Thomas would have agreed on literal inerrancy and specifically as it was understood at Niagara Falls or even more strictly - and he predates the Reformation by two and a half centuries at his death;
  • 2) Fundamentalism was so little marginal in the Catholic Church that it was the actual reason why Galileo was condemned;
  • 3) whether earliest Protestant Fundamentalist first objecting to the Enlightenment or the ones needing to formulate the five points, the Protestant Fundamentalists were a minority within Protestantism, but the Catholic Church agreed with them, not where they agreed with liberals against Catholicism, but where they were Biblical litteralists against Liberalism.


I think it is easy to see where Ratzinger and Spong agree. Fundamentalism is illusory, requires the suicide of intellect, and whether the one stresses that this is unattractive to the world at large, and the other that it is seemingly attractive to some, that's an agreement that is pretty substantial.

There is a very interesting disagreement. Spong pretends that fewer and fewer can accept Fundamentalism ...

"renders the Christian faith unbelievable to an increasing number of the citizens of our world."


Ratzinger on the other hand says:

"As the 20th century comes to an end, this kind of interpretation is winning more and more adherents, in religious groups and sects, as also among Catholics."


I would say Spong knew Newark pretty well, while Ratzinger knew the world pretty well. Ratzinger is the better sociologist of the two.

Now, for Ratzinger's critique, detail by detail:

Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.


Where do I begin? Unshakable adherence to doctrine is Biblical, and "rejecting all questioning and any kind of critical research" is parodic. The Bible doesn't say "believe what God has revealed if you feel like it" or "believe as much of it as you want" it says "believe or you will die" or in other words "if you want salvation, believe" - the Fundamentalists do quite a lot of questioning, just not the kind liberals and modernists like Ratzinger are used to, and make a research that is critical of quite a lot, except of course of God's revealed truth (it is beside the point that a Protestant Fundamentalist is critical of the revealed truths about individual salvation, sanctification, Church and Sacraments - that is because he is a Protestant, not because he is a Fundamentalist).

The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself.


Rejecting the Historical-Critical method is very far from rejecting the historical character of biblical revelation.

Those who really do reject the historical character of revelation, namely it is revealed and authenticised as divine by miracles occurring in history, and who really do reject the incarnation are not the ones who are referred to Fundamentalists, least of all Catholic ones (as Ratzinger admitted there were), but not even most Protestant ones.

As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources.


Ratzinger wants his reader to get the impression that:

  • 1) Moses and Joshua had limited resources, since they didn't know the theory of evolution and heliocentrism;
  • 2) we, knowing these theories, have less limited resources and can therefore bypass the actual words in their books.


The second part is left for us to infer. So are the actual examples involved in the first part.

For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit.


A very welcome opportunity to document that the approach is older than the Reformation era!

Quaedam enim sunt per se substantia fidei, ut Deum esse trinum et unum, et hujusmodi: in quibus nulli licet aliter opinari ...  For some things are of themselves substance of the Faith, like God being three and one, and things like this: in which it is licit for noone to opine otherwise; ...
 
Quaedam vero per accidens tantum, inquantum scilicet in Scriptura traduntur, quam fides supponit spiritu sancto dictante promulgatam esse: quae quidem ignorari sine periculo possunt ab his qui Scripturas scire non tenentur, sicut multa historialia: et in his etiam sancti diversa senserunt, Scripturam divinam diversimode exponentes. But some are [of the faith] only "per accidens", namely insofar as they are transmitted in Writ, which Faith presumes to be promulgated by dictation of the Holy Spirit: which on the one hand can be ignored without danger by those who are not obliged to know Writ, like many historic things: and in these also the saints have sensed diversely, exposing divine Writ in different ways.


So, while saints (in anyone using the word it means real believers and to St. Thomas specifically it means Church Fathers) have disagreed on the meaning, in the discussion at hand (it is from II Sent. Dist. XII q.1, a.2, the translation to English is my own) this being one-moment creation vs six literal days, the base line remains that the words of the Bible actually do belong to the faith, because the Holy Spirit has dictated them - or in Ratzinger's terms, the Bible text should (according to St. Thomas, and who am I to disagree!) be treated as "dictated word for word by the Spirit."

It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods.


Unless the "language and expression" are supposed to be such as to induce readers using the grammatical sense into error, the Fundamentalist approach absolutely does not fail to recognise this.

Here is a clear example that does recognise it:

Many presume the pharaoh of the Exodus must have been a Ramesside king (and hence they adhere to a late date) because the Bible says that the Hebrews built the store cities of Pithom and Rameses (Exodus 1:11; cf. Exodus 12:37; Numbers 33:3). They point out that the latter site was likely named after Rameses II, and that construction occurred there during his reign. Or, at least, the city was named for one of the Ramesside kings, the first of whom (Rameses I) founded the 19th Dynasty. However, there are multiple ways we can account for the term ‘Rameses’ in Exodus 1:11 which do not require a late Exodus. See Case Study: Rameses.

One possibility is that, since the name of this site changed over time (it was previously known as Avaris and went by other names in other periods), scribes may have updated the name in the Scriptural text as well, so later readers would still be able to identify the city to which the text referred. This is not inconsistent with biblical inspiration since there are other clear examples where this happened. A robust concept of inspiration must include the Holy Spirit’s oversight of such textual updating. Genesis 14:14, for instance, mentions Abraham traveling to the city of Dan in order to rescue Lot. Yet the city of Dan was not yet called Dan in either Abraham’s time or the time of Moses, who wrote Genesis. The city was formerly called Laish and was not renamed by the tribe of Dan until the period of the Judges, as the Bible itself tells us (Judges 18:29). So the name of the city in Genesis 14:14 was updated well after the time of Moses.


Exodus evidence revisited
Feedback archive → Feedback 2022
https://creation.com/exodus-evidence


It specifically does state that the language of the Bible evolved - over copying, even - to adapt to changing nomenclature.

It pays no attention to the literary forms


I suspect this refers to "myth" being a literary form, when it isn't. It is a concept broadly speaking parallel to "classic" or "epic" - while epic properly speaking is a literary form, it is often misused as not being one. Myth and classic are not literary forms at all. The difference is that in "myth" we deal with a story that's important for a society, with "classic" we deal with a literary work which is so. But being important for a society, even being an "origins myth" is in no way shape or form being a specific literary form, for instance alternative to and excluding historic narrative.

and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.


Unclear what this refers to. A Protestant would ignore the implication of the last words in Luke 1:28 regardless of being a Fundamentalist or a Liberal. It refers to Jael and Judith and therefore implies Mary had killed an enemy of Israel by wounding its head, and in verse 42 the repetition along with the last addition makes it about the serpent, since Mary and Jesus are the woman and her seed of Genesis 3:15. She obviously had killed no human enemies of Israel, which is why she was perplexed by the greeting. But a Catholic who was a Fundamentalist would so much not be deaf to this.

Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth.


Here the "horsefoot" (do you say "goatfoot" in English?) shows.

Ratzinger wants us to believe the chapters Genesis 5 and 11 do not place 2025 to 3507 years (depending on text version, Masoretic being shortest, LXX longest and here its longest versions, Julius Africanus' reading of Genesis 5, a Genesis 11 of a LXX with a second Cainan and with Nachor being 170 rather than 70 when begetting) between, here it comes, creation of the universe and Abraham visiting a pharao.* He does not want us to believe that no fossils came before the creation of Adam or that they were laid down in the Flood of Noah.

It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.


First, verbs in the past tense are verbs in the prophetic future tense too. Baruch 3:38 Afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men.

Challoner comments: [38] "Was seen upon earth": viz., by the mystery of the incarnation, by means of which the son of God came visibly amongst us, and conversed with men. The prophets often speak of things to come as if they were past, to express the certainty of the event of the things foretold.

Similarily in St. John's Apocalypse, a Greek verb in a past tense is often used about an image of the future yet to come. Many Fundamentalists do not make Preterism their conclusion of this. Neither do I.

He did not dare to - second - counterdistinguish historical with fictitious. He did counterdistinguish it with "symbolic or figurative" ... and according to St. Thomas this is a very bad counterdistinction.

Prima Pars : Q 1 The nature and extent of sacred doctrine : A 10 Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm#article10


I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it. ...

...

Reply to Objection 1. The multiplicity of these senses does not produce equivocation or any other kind of multiplicity, seeing that these senses are not multiplied because one word signifies several things, but because the things signified by the words can be themselves types of other things. Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses are founded on one — the literal — from which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory, as Augustine says (Epis. 48). Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense.


So, the figurative or symbolic sense so dear to Ratzinger, does not belong to the words of the text, but to the history signified by the text. Hence it is in no way or shape an argument against taking the history as history, and as inerrant history because it is in the Bible.

Third, how does a book claim to be history? Including boring detail with no or little action attached to most would be a candidate for internal evidence of historic intention.

Genesis 4:[17] And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, and brought forth Henoch: and he built a city, and called the name thereof by the name of his son Henoch. [18] And Henoch begot Irad, and Irad begot Maviael, and Maviael begot Mathusael, and Mathusael begot Lamech:

Genesis 5:[6] Seth also lived a hundred and five years, and begot Enos. [7] And Seth lived after he begot Enos, eight hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters. [8] And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died. [9] And Enos lived ninety years, and begot Cainan. [10] After whose birth he lived eight hundred and fifteen years, and begot sons and daughters.

[11] And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years, and he died. [12] And Cainan lived seventy years, and begot Malaleel. [13] And Cainan lived after he begot Malaleel, eight hundred and forty years, and begot sons and daughters. [14] And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years, and he died. [15] And Malaleel lived sixty-five years, and begot Jared.

[16] And Malaleel lived after he begot Jared, eight hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters. [17] And all the days of Malaleel were eight hundred and ninety-five years, and he died. [18] And Jared lived a hundred and sixty-two years, and begot Henoch. [19] And Jared lived after he begot Henoch, eight hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. [20] And all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years, and he died.

Iliad II : First the Boeotians, led by Peneleos, Leitus, Arcesilaus, Prothoenor and Clonius; they came from Hyrie and stony Aulis, from Schoenus, Scolus and high-ridged Eteonus; from Thespeia and Graea, and spacious Mycalessus; from the villages of Harma, Eilesium and Erythrae; from Eleon, Hyle, Peteon, Ocalea and Medeon’s stronghold; from Copae, Eutresis, and dove-haunted Thisbe; from Coroneia and grassy Haliartus, Plataea and Glisas, and the great citadel of Thebes; from sacred Onchestus, Poseidon’s bright grove; from vine-rich Arne, Mideia, holy Nisa and coastal Anthedon. They captained fifty ships, each with a hundred and twenty young men.

Next those from Aspledon and Minyan Orchomenos, led by Ascalaphus and Ialmenus, sons of Ares whom the fair maiden Astyoche bore to the mighty god, for he lay with her in secret, in her room in the house of Actor, son of Azeus. They brought thirty hollow ships.

Then the Phocians, led by Schedius and Epistrophus, sons of Iphitus, great-heart, Naubolus’ son, men who held Cyparissus and rocky Pytho, holy Crisa, Daulis and Panopeus; dwellers in Anemoreia and Hyampolis; those from Lilaea by the springs of noble Cephisus, and those who lived along its banks. Forty black ships were their fleet, and the leaders ranked their Phocians beside the Boeotians on the left, and prepared to fight.

The Locrians followed Oileus’ swift-footed son Ajax the Lesser: inferior to, and not to be compared with, Telamonian Ajax. He was short, wore a linen corslet, but was more skilful with the spear than any other Hellene or Achaean. His troops came from Cynus, Opoeis, Calliarus, Bessa, and Scarphe, beautiful Augeiae, Tarphe and Thronium and the banks of Boagrius. Forty black Locrian ships he led from the shores facing sacred Euboea.

But, this characteristic can be mimicked in fiction (see Tolkien's appendices to Lord of the Rings!). A safer approach would be the external evidence for historic intent. No one is taking Lord of the Rings as a work of history, everyone is taking it as fiction meant to entertain (even if some** consider the appendices to result in boredom rather than entertainment).

So, to formulate this external criterium, it is not the text itself that claims to be historic, it is its status in a society claiming it for it, and the evidence for historicity is, first known reception of the text taking it as history.

Now, it is possible that for the Iliad Herodotus who put it in doubt is more ancient than Eratosthenes who used fall of Troy as starting point of well documented chronology.*** It is however to be noted that Herodotus expresses doubts on the story of the Iliad as a way of countering the Persian argument for invading Greece.° Herodotus is basically saying Homer was a bad historian. Or wait° I looked it up, and no, he is not denying historicity to the Iliad, he is refusing to make his stakes on the historicity of Persian and Phenician historiography.°

But when it comes to Genesis, the earliest known reception would be that in the Gospels and perhaps some early Talmud tractates from before Christ's time.°° They would agree - Christ with Hillel or Gamaliel or Shammai, if any of them touched the subject - that Genesis was historical. Here the argument is not about Christ being inerrant as being God. The argument is, the reception seen as giving credence as to facts to the Genesis text is earlier than any approach - say Ratzinger's own or John Shelby Spong's - that pretends Genesis history somehow should not be used for historic facts. This is an argument for the genre being historic narrative. Its words are prima facie evidence for historic facts. Don't leave the prima facie, unless there really is some stronger argument opposing it.

Fundamentalism often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old or present-day. By the same token it fails to take account of the "rereadings" (relectures) of certain texts which are found within the Bible itself.


Thank you for "often" and "a tendency" - in other words, it is a matter of varying talent and competence, not a matter of principle within Fundamentalism itself. Much as I value Kent Hovind on chariots and chariot warriors, or on a Gilligan's Island situation just after leaving the Ark, or showing forth polystrate fossils or things, I am far less impressed by King James Onlyism.

Or actually, not at all. As I am using the chronology of the Roman martyrology for Christmas Day, I am obviously not a King James Onlyist. The genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are also found in both Vulgate and LXX - with varying chronology, that of the Vulgate, therefore also Douay Rheims and Crampon, agreeing with King James. The ones in LXX (with one text variant for Genesis 11 agreeing with Samaritan Pentateuch) do not agree with King James.

In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus).


I am sorry, but Ratzinger is the one who is naive in pretending to know a) there even was a "development of the Gospel tradition" rather than a straightforward and faithful tradition for the Gospels that depend on tradition (Luke and Mark) and b) a tradition rather than memory for the Gospels stating or being attributed to eyewitnesses. The product of modern reconstruction is no substitute for ancient documentation. There is no documentation for Matthew depending on tradition rather than on memory, and there is no documentation for tradition always and everywhere being a telephone game when there actually was a tradition and not a straightforward account by the eyewitness himself.

C. S. Lewis exposed the methodological ineptness of this modern scholarship in the essay Fernseeds and Elephants.

At the same time fundamentalism neglects an important fact: The way in which the first Christian communities themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message.


It is very arguable that the Protestants do so when it comes to impacts like episcopal succession or upcoming conversion of entire societies, but Fundamentalism as a phenomenon is not tied to Protestantism, and this disconnect with evidence for episcopal succession is arguably as much there in Liberal Protestantism - once again Ratzinger is poisoning the well for Catholics, by attributing to Fundamentalism errors that should only be attributed to Protestantism.

But it is precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian faith and its direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call voiced by the Gospel itself.


There is no evidence that this is the case. Fundamentalists will appeal to Sts. Irenaeus and Papias.

Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith. Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices--racism, for example--quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.


Pretending one point of view is "narrow" and another point of you is "broad" is an appeal to emotion. A given person can be narrow in such and such a way (favourite examples for Protestants being narrow: imagining Hislop as an Assyriologist or Kent Hovind as an expert on 1st C. Wine and Grape Juice productions), but this does not mean an actual point of view is narrow, even if actually expressed by a narrow person. The point of view that Christians should accept all cosmology that is proven to be Biblical is not a narrow one.

Ratzinger's way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith is that not just some few expressions of the faith are ignorant on fact and hence erroneous in opinion on fact due to the culture of the one expressing, but that this could also be the case even in hagiographers. Ignorance could or could not be there, but error not. There is no way one of the positions is culturally narrow and the other culturally broad because of the position that it is. It can happen that someone holding it holds it because of broad or narrow experience with culture and it seems Ratzinger is the one who has a narrow culture here.

Especially when he falls for Evolutionists claiming Fundamentalists are the ones blocking dialogue. Ah, no. Evolution believers are expert at blocking dialogue and pretending someone else's point of view is narrow is a favourite weapon in this game. How Ratzinger could miss this, is perhaps due to some overenthusiastic school teachers of Nazi Germany (if school start was at six years back in his time, he started school in 1933). The same can be said for his endorsement of "Gospel development" a favourite idea with Academic institutions of Bismarck's Second Reich, for which Hitler had a high regard. He's dupe of a weapon in the Kulturkampf, and that one on the wrong side of the quarrel.

Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible


So, the Bible should be read "critically" as in "what errors could have crept in into the sacred text?"

serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices--racism, for example--quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.


It is ironic that all Fundies I know of are anti-racist, that some Catholics are considering me basically a dupe of Protestantism and Judaism are doing so because I am a Fundie and an Anti-Racist.

It is also ironic that the racist-leaning reading of certain texts do not depend the least on a coherent Fundamentalist approach - the Ku Klux Klan or such spokesman of it as I found on the web extols the "finding" of the clearly racist and clearly anti-Fundie Isaac La Peyrère, that Adam somehow weren't father of the blacks. Those who had an evolution based view of black inferiority in the 19th C. could clearly use the curse of Ham without any general Fundamentalism, and also Fundamentalist readings of it do not imply black inferiority.

But there is a very different area where Fundies generally do show attitudes that some would consider "political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices" - opposition to abortion, to contraception, to gay marriage, to encouraging gays to remain homosexual, as the gay movement does.

And John Shelby Spong would clearly have considered these oppositions as "quite contrary to the Christian Gospel" - and "Pope Francis" is clearly in agreement with this.

I left the Swedish Church partly in horror over its John Shelby Spongs. I did not in 1988 know a Catholic institution was going to contribute to the John Shelby Spong thing.

Finally, in its attachment to the principle "Scripture alone," fundamentalism separates the interpretation of the Bible from the tradition,


While Protestant Fundamentalists have a tendency to attach Fundamentalism to "Scripture alone" it is the Protestant interpretations (found among people clearly not Fundamentalist), like a misreading of Matthew 6:7 based on a mistranslation of βαττολογειν and not the Fundamentalist ones that actually do separate the interpretation of the Bible from tradition. And the non-Fundie interpretations also separate the interpretation of the Bible from tradition.

from the tradition, which, guided by the Spirit, has authentically developed in union with Scripture in the heart of the community of faith.


Oops! Developing tradition. Tradition changing its mind. Modernisms or nova making it to the status of tradition.

No, that is not a Catholic understanding of what Tradition is. It is also not what Newman understood in "Development of Christian Doctrine" which is also not a fully Catholic books, since he was specifically asked to write it from his standpoint when deciding conversion, and wrote it before receiving instruction.

It fails to realize that the New Testament took form within the Christian church


Protestants fail to realise that it took form within the Catholic Church. But even so, they admit, if Fundamentalists, it took form within the Christian Church, which abusively they pretend to counterdistinguish from the Catholic Church.

and that it is the Holy Scripture of this church, the existence of which preceded the composition of the texts.


Preceded it by years to decades, not by centuries, as to the individual texts.

Because of this, fundamentalism is often anti-church, it considers of little importance the creeds, the doctrines and liturgical practices which have become part of church tradition, as well as the teaching function of the church itself.


This kind of anti-Church attitude is typical of a certain type of Baptism - and it certainly exists outside the strictest Fundamentalisms. It has its roots in the idea of Catholicism not being the New Testament Church, and the parallel idea of Baptist Continuity surviving in hiding.

It presents itself as a form of private interpretation which does not acknowledge that the church is founded on the Bible and draws its life and inspiration from Scripture.


Would Ratzinger mind checking what kind of "private interpretation" the Church actually condemned at Trent? The one that comes to other conclusions than the Church Fathers. And the most typical expressions of Fundamentalism - Jesus really did walk on water, it really was demons He expelled, He was expressing both divine and human prophetic knowledge as well as correctly transmitted knowledge from the OT Church when He said there was no (at least significant) time between the first atom or light beam and the first couple, these clearly are in accordance with the Church Fathers.

But what about "the Church"?

"whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures"

Session IV actually says:

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; ...

If Ratzinger can somehow pretend before himself and his adherents that "a broader dialogue" (with Evolutionist and Higher Text Critical pseudo-science) is the sense the Church now "doth hold," he at least cannot pretend it is the one that the Church "hath held and doth hold" (the Trentine Fathers may have sensed a danger of Antichrist's takeover attempts if only stating "doth hold" at any given moment), nor that it is the one that has a unanimous consent of the Fathers.

With the kind of "cultural luggage" scenario on hagiographers, so that their texts are not inerrant, he no doubt is not far from a similar scenario not making the actual wording of Trent Session IV infallible either.

Like a liberal racist cherrypicking (and misinterpreting) the curse on Canaan, but denying universality of the Flood, he can cherrypick (and misinterpret) the "whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures" but ignore the ensuing words.

The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.


The Church hath not held and doth not hold that there is such a distinction within what the Bible says. There may be human limitations in what a hagiographer does not say. But they do not appear as errors in what he says.

When Ratzinger describes the attitude of one believing the Bible in a Fundamentalist way as "intellectual suicide" he is the one who is offering a false certitude namely in Science. He invites Catholics to Scientism, to taking Science as the criterium of factual truth. That is his false certitude. Apparent, and amply, in the earlier words.

And if Ratzinger had nothing to do with the document, too bad, sorry, but I find that unlikely.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
XXth Lord's Day after Pentecost
23.X.2022

Update next day:
This is referred to in:

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Question on Epistemology
https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2022/10/question-on-epistemology.html


* Actually, one could make it even shorter, namely combining 1307 years up to the Flood of the Samaritan Pentateuch with the 292 years from Flood to Abraham's birth from the Masoretic, plus, common to all versions, 75 years up to his vocation which is prior to his visit to Egypt. 1307 + 292 + 75 = 1674 years, from Creation of Sun and Moon and Stars and Adam and Eve and few days before that heaven and earth, up to early Pharaos. But one cannot with full respect for the Biblical text make it longer than 2262 + 1170 + 75 = 3507 years.
** While I have read Aragorn and Arwen, I could not win The $64,000 Question on Tolkien by answering correctly on all the kings and stewarts of Gondor.
*** My memory served me well, Herodotus is more ancient: Herodotus (Greek: Ἡρόδοτος; c. 484 – c. 425 BC) / Eratosthenes of Cyrene (Greek: Ἐρατοσθένης; c. 276 BC – c. 195/194 BC)
° He provides us with this discussion in Book I, at the very outset.

3. In the next generation after this, they say, Alexander the son of Priam, having heard of these things, desired to get a wife for himself by violence 4 from Hellas, being fully assured that he would not be compelled to give any satisfaction for this wrong, inasmuch as the Hellenes gave none for theirs. So he carried off Helen, and the Hellenes resolved to send messengers first and to demand her back with satisfaction for the rape; and when they put forth this demand, the others alleged to them the rape of Medea, saying that the Hellenes were now desiring satisfaction to be given to them by others, though they had given none themselves nor had surrendered the person when demand was made.

4. Up to this point, they say, nothing more happened than the carrying away of women on both sides; but after this the Hellenes were very greatly to blame; for they set the first example of war, making an expedition into Asia before the Barbarians made any into Europe. Now they say that in their judgment, though it is an act of wrong to carry away women by force, it is a folly to set one's heart on taking vengeance for their rape, and the wise course is to pay no regard when they have been carried away; for it is evident that they would never be carried away if they were not themselves willing to go. And the Persians say that they, namely the people of Asia, when their women were carried away by force, had made it a matter of no account, but the Hellenes on account of a woman of Lacedemon gathered together a great armament, and then came to Asia and destroyed the dominion of Priam; and that from this time forward they had always considered the Hellenic race to be their enemy: for Asia and the Barbarian races which dwell there the Persians claim as belonging to them; but Europe and the Hellenic race they consider to be parted off from them.

5. The Persians for their part say that things happened thus; and they conclude that the beginning of their quarrel with the Hellenes was on account of the taking of Ilion: but as regards Io the Phenicians do not agree with the Persians in telling the tale thus; for they deny that they carried her off to Egypt by violent means, and they say on the other hand that when they were in Argos she was intimate with the master of their ship, and perceiving that she was with child, she was ashamed to confess it to her parents, and therefore sailed away with the Phenicians of her own will, for fear of being found out. These are the tales told by the Persians and the Phenicians severally: and concerning these things I am not going to say that they happened thus or thus, 401 but when I have pointed to the man who first within my own knowledge began to commit wrong against the Hellenes, I shall go forward further with the story, giving an account of the cities of men, small as well as great: for those which in old times were great have for the most part become small, while those that were in my own time great used in former times to be small: so then, since I know that human prosperity never continues steadfast, I shall make mention of both indifferently.

°° While the Mishna as a whole is later than books of the New Testament, some of its tractates are earlier.

Thursday, 20 October 2022

Shanti, rescapée des attentats - victime de la psychiatrie ?


Selon un tract de Commission Citoyenne des Droits Humains, l'usage des antidépresseurs peut déclenchers des violences, y compris suicides.

En plus, les séjours en hôpital psychiatrique sont un facteur de désespoir, de la pensée qu'on ne va jamais avoir une vie normale.

Pour Le Nouveau Détective, la psychiatrie belge aurait fait ce qu'on pouvait. Elle était simplement trop traumatisée par l'attentat qu'elle avait vu.

Pour moi, la psychiatrie a pu ajouter des traumatismes et un facteur d'instabilité en forme d'antidépresseurs.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Source de mes renseignements sur elle:
Le Nouveau Détective n° 2093 du 19 octobre 2022
l'édito sur p. 3

PS - Voir aussi: 75% of Children Taken by Texas CPS are Based on Unfounded Accusations
June 11, 2017
https://medicalkidnap.com/2017/06/11/75-of-children-taken-by-texas-cps-are-based-on-unfounded-accusations/


La sécurité des droits est comparable, les deux corps sont assez apparentés et semblables.

Pour les Gens qui ont demandé si j'étais allemand


Je n'ai pas l'honneur d'être Autrichien ou autre Allemand, j'ai par contre un peu trop d'exactitude allemande pour me dire tel. Sans de l'être./HGL

Comme je viens de dire, les Néanderthaliens pouvaient entendre comme nous


Un singe, par exemple un chimpanzé, ne peut pas entendre comme nous. Un chimpanzé n'est pas capable d'entendre les consonnes p, t, b, d, probablement même pas k, gué - trop aigus.

Et si les cris de chimpanzés nous paraissent horribles dans les sons aigus, c'est possible que le chimpanzé entend tout un autre régistre, même très probable. Donc loupe ce qui est strident dans ses propres cris.

Entre les deux, nous et eux, le Néanderthalien entendait exactement comme nous et le Homo Antecessor de Sima de los Huesos - déjà subsumé sous Homo heidelbergensis, devrait l'être avec Terra Amata sous Dénisoviens, à mon avis - à peu près comme nous et très loin de ce que c'est le cas pour les singes.

Neanderthals could hear like modern man
by Michael Oard | This article is from
Journal of Creation 35(2):5–6, August 2021
https://creation.com/neanderthal-hearing


Que l'ouie des hommes de Sima de Huesos était, sinon inhumaine ou simienne, au moins plus proche de simienne qua la nôtre, ensemble avec le fait qu'on y a trouvé de traces de cannibalisme, me dit que ça pourrait donner les Néphilim d'avant le Déluge. Les oreilles de Homo erectus soloensis aussi. Qui, d'ailleurs, semblait avoir pratiqué le cannibalisme :

In 1951, Weidenreich and von Koenigswald made note of major injuries in Skulls IV and VI, which they believed were caused by a cutting instrument and a blunt instrument, respectively. They bear evidence of inflammation and healing, so the individuals probably survived the altercation. Weidenreich and von Koenigswald noted that only the skullcaps were found, lacking even the teeth, which is highly unusual. So, they interpreted at least Skulls IV and VI as victims of an "unsuccessful assault", and the other skulls where the base was broken out "the result of more successful attempts to slay the victims," presuming this was done by other humans to access and consume the brain. They were unsure if this was done by a neighbouring H. e. soloensis tribe, or "by more advanced human beings who would have given evidence of their 'superior' culture by slaying their more primitive fellowsman". The latter scenario had already been proposed for the Peking Man (which has similarly conspicuous pathology) by French palaeontologist Marcellin Boule in 1937. Nonetheless, Weidenreich and von Koenigswald conceded that some of the injuries could have been related to the volcanic eruption instead. Von Koenigswald suggested only skullcaps exist because Solo Man was modifying skulls into skull cups, but Weidenreich was sceptical of this as the jagged rims of especially Skulls I, V, and X are not well suited for this purpose.


Je venais de citer l'article Solo Man sur la wikipédie anglophone - pour une information qui manque sur la wikipédie francophone et que j'aurai donc à traduire :

En 1951, Weidenreich et von Koenigswald notèrent des traumatismes majeures sur les crânes IV et VI, qu'ils considérèrent comme causés respectivement par une arme tranchante et une arme contondante. Ils portent les traces d'inflammation et de guérison, donc les individus ont probablement survécu à l'altercation. Weidenreich et von Koenigswald notèrent que juste les voûtes de crâne ont été trouvés, sans même les dents, ce qui est très inusuel. Donc, ils ont interprêté au moins les crânes IV et VI comme victimes d'un assaut échoué, et les autres crânes dont la base était extraite comme "les résultats de tentatives plus réussis à tuer les victimes," en présumant que ceci fut fait par d'autres hommes pour accéder à leur cerveau et le consommer. Ils n'ont pas pu trancher si ceci fut le fait d'une tribu de H. e. soloensis voisinante ou "par des hommes plus avancés qui auraient fait preuve de leur 'supériorité' culturelle en tuant leurs semblable plus primitif." Le second scénario fut déjà proposé pour l'homme de Pékin (qui avait une pathologie semblablement voyante) par le paléontologue français Marcellin Boule en 1937. Néanmoins, Weidenreich et von Koenigswald concédèrent que quelques-uns des traumes pourraient être en relation avec une éruption volcanique, plutôt. von Koenigswald suggéra que les voûtes de crâne existent seules parce que l'homme de Solo avait l'habitude de modifier des crânes en coupes crâniennes, mais Weidenreich en était sceptique, puisque les bords déchiquetés surtout des crânes I, V et X ne se prêtaient pas à ce genre d'usage.

Est-ce que l'homme de Solo était antédiluvien ?

Ma théorie qu'ils étaient cannibales en tant que néphélim, qui furent là avant le Déluge, se trouve un peu confortée par ce que je trouve sur la wikipédie francophones cette fois :

Les fossiles de Ngandong ont été datés de 53 000 à 27 000 ans en 1996, et on a pensé alors que l'Homme de Solo avait probablement côtoyé Homo sapiens3. En 2011, une étude a donné aux mêmes fossiles un âge minimum de 143 000 ans et un âge probable d'au moins 550 000 ans, excluant ainsi tout contact avec l'Homme moderne4.


3) C. Swisher et al., Latest Homo erectus of Java : Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia [archive], 1996 https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.274.5294.1870
4) Staff Writers, « Finding showing human ancestor older than previously thought offers new insights into evolution » [archive], sur terradaily.com, 2011 https://www.terradaily.com/reports/Finding_showing_human_ancestor_older_than_previously_thought_offers_new_insights_into_evolution_999.html

Ou aurait pu le faire ... je trouve ceci sur le lien de notre 3 :

Electron spin resonance (ESR) and mass spectrometric U-series dating of fossil bovid teeth collected from the hominid-bearing levels at these sites gave mean ages of 27 ± 2 to 53.3 ± 4 thousand years ago; the range in ages reflects uncertainties in uranium migration histories.


Peu m'importe la traduction exacte, "ESR" et "mass spectrometric U-series dating" ne veut pas dire datation carbonique. Ce que je trouve ne peut donc pas prouver que ce serait aussi en âges carboniques plus jeune que 39000 avant le présent ce que je dois considérer comme l'âge carbonique du Déluge.

Confirmation ratée ... mais j'aimerais savoir si l'arme tranchante pour crâne IV s'accorde bien avec un objet en métal, parce que Tubal-Caïn, vivant avant le Déluge, inventa la métallurgie.

Entretemps, la deuxième datation de 2011 n'est de toute manière pas carbonique, ajoute donc rien contre (et peut-être pas si beaucoup pour) la chronologie biblique, qui est évidemment plus courte que ces datations.

Entretemps, des endroits où les seuls hommes rencontrés en très anciens skelettes sont des erectus (de Java, de Solo ou de Pékin) ont aussi contenu des outils de pierre, un peu comme la technique de Levallois. Pour la faire - on a fait d'expériences - il faut faire quelques opérations qu'on ne peut pas montrer, pour lesquelles l'instruction des apprentis devait prendre une forme linguistique, parce que l'opération exacte est caché pour l'œil et accessible pour le toucher - et pour la descrition du toucher.

L'homme de Solo a donc aussi eu une langue, comme on peut deviner à partir de l'aire de Broca (cet aire du cerveau laisse des traces au crâne, à l'intérieur), comme on peut deviner de l'ouie presque entièrement humaine.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Capraise d'Agen, martyr
20.X.2022

Agenni, in Gallia, sancti Caprasii Martyris, qui, cum rabiem persecutionis declinans lateret in spelunca, tandem, audiens qualiter beata Fides Virgo pro Christo agonizaret, indeque animatus ad tolerantiam passionum, oravit ad Dominum, ut, si eum gloria martyrii dignum judicaret, ex lapide speluncae limpidissima aqua manaret; quod cum Dominus praestitisset, securus ad aream certaminis properavit, et palmam martyrii, sub Maximiano Imperatore, fortiter dimicando promeruit.