Anonymous said...
John,
Thanks for posting this, a very informative article.
Regards,
George F
August 10, 2009 12:37 AM
Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
About this:
The Mexican authorities do not exclude the possibility that his murderer was driven to his act through some sort of fanaticism
Since they are doing what they can to enflame Anticatholic fanaticism in masonic or atheist versions, they cannot exclude that he was murdered for being a so nearly Catholic Christian. And since it would look back for them to admit to being themselves the ground for that, that remark is very prudent, without being a direct lie.
October 20, 2009 9:52 AM
Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
In fact already during two earlier occasions, namely in 1327 and 1331, the Popes John XXII and Clemens VI had condemned and anathematized any one who dared deny that the Apostle Paul during his entire apostolic life was totally subordinate to the ecclesiastical monarchical authority of the first Pope and king of the Church, namely the Apostle Peter. And a lot later Pope Pius X in 1907 and Benedict XV in 1920, had repeated the same anathemas and the same condemnations.
When St Thomas Aquinas comments on St Paul correcting St Peter in the context whether fraternal correction may be adressed to superiors, he admits that St Paul was in a way equal to St Peter. Only in a way.
The meeting at Genezareth is by Roman Catholics interpreted as if the other apostles too are under the shepherdship of St Peter, not as if he is merely restored to equality with them.
But when this worthy man calls the prerogatives of the Pope "dictatorial" he forgets they are no more dictatorial than those of a bishop according to St Ignatius of Antioch "Do NOTHING without the bishop". But when he says ALL Church Fathers say St Peter was only equal to other apostles, he forgets St Augustine, maybe some others as well.
October 20, 2009 10:25 AM
Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
In the columns of a Portuguese book review, I replied: "The reality is that due to this infallibility you are the only Christians who cannot be certain about what they will demand that you believe tomorrow". My article ended with the following sentence: "Soon, the road you walk, you will name the Lord vicar of the Pope in heaven".
Maybe true for them that claim we must see buddhism as a road to Heaven because John Paul II hugged Dalai Lama or André Vingt-Trois greeting the arrival of Buddha's relics with a greeting of "solidarity with" the Buddhists - against which I protested.
NOT true for them who claim that Assisi meeting of 1986 is proof JohnPaul II was:
- a Pope neglecting the pastoral care and even faith required of his office (Mgr Lefèbvre)
or
- a Pope materially but not formally (as a corpse is to full manhood, so to speak - abbé de Nantes)
or
- a heretic and hence not validly elected to Papacy (sedisvacantist position)
or who try very eagerly to diminish the significance of that gesture ("he did not pray with buddhists/hindoos/Jews/Moslems, only side by side with them" - Soc. of St Peter, Le Barroux, Institute of Christ the King)
October 20, 2009 10:33 AM
Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
To clarify my first comment: in Mexico Roman Catholic priests too face martyrdom. They have done so since 1917 and since the Cristero rising failed.
October 20, 2009 10:35 AM
John Sanidopoulos said...
Actually St. Ignatius says: "Do nothing without the bishop or presbyters." But he says this only in the context of preserving unity in the local church, so people won't establish their own churches apart from the apostolic traddition. There is thus no dictatorship here, and it is very different from the model of the papacy.
Also, most Orthodox do not consider Augustine a Church Father. Nor would they support that he was an advocate of papal authority over all other bishops.
October 20, 2009 10:38 AM
Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
"Cardinal Bellarmine, who was declared a Saint by the Latin Church, says this simply: "If the Pope some day imposed sins and forbade virtues, the Church is obliged to believe that these sins are good and these virtues are bad"."
Source please!
I suspect the quote is from a place in his works where he is not stating his own opinion, but those of oponents he will dispose of. Or enumerating positions between which he will then make a decision, and he will reject that one.
As when St Thomas Aquinas begins the Article Whether God exists with the words
"It would seem that God does not exist.
Firstly, whenever one of two opposites is infinite the other is non-existent. But of God we understand that He is infinite goodness. Therefore, if God existed no evil would exist.
Secondly ..."
Only AFTER THAT does he get to the Christian answer which only after that he does defend, and only after that does he answer first and second objections (I think there was no third one on that article, but very often the objections are three as when Satan three times quoted the Bible to its Author) - similarly with the position attributed to St Bellarmine, he must have been quoting someone else's opinion. The one this author attributed to him has always been considered heresy.
October 20, 2009 10:43 AM
Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
I googled for the quote - http://o-x.fr/ior - and as you can see no source wheresoever says this about St Robert Bellarmine except this bishop Paul, who may have misunderstood him in the way I stated.
October 20, 2009 10:49 AM
Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
Unfortunately one of these blogs - the Theotokos blog in Greek - does not allow comments, so I cannot there comment on this calumny against St Robert Bellarmine.
October 20, 2009 11:02 AM
Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
This article - published on "Pope Michael"'s apologetics, he does not recognise Popes after Pius XII and thinks he was validly elected by a lay conclave - Can a heretical Pope be deposed is much more representative for St Robert Bellarmine, the author of this text goes to the heart of what St Robert Bellarmine has to say on the subject of a Pope that is heretical, be it in morals (like forbidding virtues and ordering sins) or in dogmas of faith.
October 20, 2009 11:32 AM
Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
Oh, I did not see your comment:
But he says this only in the context of preserving unity in the local church, so people won't establish their own churches apart from the apostolic traddition. There is thus no dictatorship here, and it is very different from the model of the papacy.
I see no difference except same principle applied in one case world wide (papacy) in the other on local Church (episcopacy according to St Ignatius). Whether it is applicable on world wide level is of course another question.
Also, most Orthodox do not consider Augustine a Church Father.
Thereby differing clearly from St Photius the Great when he was writing the Bibliotheke. I read myself "ho en tois hagiois Augoustinos" and it was not in context of giving someone else's opinion about him.
Nor would they support that he was an advocate of papal authority over all other bishops.
Direct or ordinary? Bossuet would not support that either, Bellarmine would.
In context of conflict where Pope decides? St Augustine did just that when appealing to Rome against the Donatists. Roma locuta est, causa finita est, as the famous phrase goes.
So did Pope Gregory the Great (or The Dialogist): even as all bishops are equal when ... (they are not at fault) ... I know know bishop who cannot when he is at fault be corrected by (the roman bishop, the Pope, at that moment himself, earlier on his predecessors, after his death his successor, and so on). Quoting from memory here.
October 20, 2009 11:43 AM
Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
"Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire" (Letter to the Trallians 2:1–3 [A.D. 110]).
source
http://www.catholic.com/library/Bishop_Priest_and_Deacon.asp
October 20, 2009 11:48 AM
John Sanidopoulos said...
Hans, please keep your comments for one posting after you have read something, if possible. Your multiple posts are unbearbale.
Also, you clearly have an agenda since you did not properly respond to my previous reply and I don't think you care to discuss the matter. So if youre gonna state an opinion in this forum, keep it to one comment please.
And the quote by Bellarmine is not out of context, but appears in his Catechism as well as in one of his apologeical works which I can't remember off the top of my head. Many other Catholic sources have quoted this. Contact a Bellarmine scholar if you dont want to do the research and he will tell you.
October 20, 2009 11:51 AM
Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
and St Augustine is not alone though some of the quotes do not exclude that St Peter was the first bishop and bishop in every city he was, but succeeded by every other bishop, including the other apostles when they became bishops.
October 20, 2009 11:56 AM
John Sanidopoulos said...
I found the Bellarmine quote in his book "Controversies". Look it up. Please, no more posts Hans or I will have to start deleting your comments.
October 20, 2009 11:59 AM
Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
I will.
October 20, 2009 12:21 PM
Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
Which chapter?
John Sanidopoulos said...
I'm not sure. I do not possess the book. I found it in another source. I should note that Bellarmine makes many extreme statements in his apologetic works concerning the authorityof the Pope. The one quoted above isn't even the worst thing he has written on the Pope. So I suggest you do what Bishop Paul did and examine everything he says about papal authority, and you can decide whether you agree or not. Bishop Paul could not accept such things.
October 20, 2009 12:28 PM
Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
"I found the Bellarmine quote in his book "Controversies". ""I'm not sure. I do not possess the book. I found it in another source. "Ah, then you do NOT know that Bellarmine made such a statement!
October 20, 2009 12:35 PM
John Sanidopoulos said...
If Catholics are misquoting their own sources, then shame on them. What can I say. Like I said, I have peronally read many horrific things Bellarmine has said.
October 20, 2009 12:37 PM
Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
Because, you see, you do not know if the book quoting him misunderstood or not.
October 20, 2009 12:37 PM
John Sanidopoulos said...
I have absolutely no doubts. Im surprised you would deny this. Please do the research. Ive narrowed down your search for you.
October 20, 2009 12:39 PM
Hans-Georg said...
"If Catholics are misquoting their own sources"
Well, bishop Paul did not exactly remain a Catholic, did he?
John Sanidopoulos said...
I didnt get my source from him. Please do your own research. If I had the book I would do it. When I go to the local Catholic Seminary library I also will look it up. Stop being so argumentative please.
October 20, 2009 12:42 PM
- Ok, I found the exact source to help you in your research: "Tractatus de potestate Summi Pontificis in rebus temporalibus, adversus Gulielmum Barclay" in ch. 13. Also in Controversies, "On Papal Supremecy" iv.5.
And here is a more detailed quote from Bellarmine: "If the Pope should command vice, or prohibit virtue, the church is obliged to believe vice to be good and virtue to be evil. All the sanctions of the Apostolic see are so to be understood, as if confirmed by the voice of St. Peter himself; whatsoever the Church, doth determine, whatever it doth appoint, is perpetual and irrevocable, and to be observed by all men. Christ has bestowed on the Pope, who is Peter's successor, the same infallible spirit that he had; and, therefore, the Pope's decretory letters are to be received as if they were the words of St. Peter, and to be accounted as the very Bible itself."
This also has sources for the quote:
http://books.google.com/books?id=FCMQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=bellarmine+on+virtue+vice+and+the+pope&source=bl&ots=JZcajxkpFp&sig=F4Yp2qUgKml5sB7MTJ_FV5snvUU&hl=en&ei=efTdSoiZNIWd8AbRuYh0&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CBgQ6AEwBjgy
Here is more of Bellarmine:
http://books.google.com/books?id=dCXSAAAAMAAJ&pg=PT232&lpg=PT232&dq=bellarmine+on+virtue+vice+and+the+pope&source=bl&ots=5a5bpOBp3A&sig=aKjhbD1deGlGRIinpJK5WFtJa6Q&hl=en&ei=xO7dSvHHGtGo8AbZus1f&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBg - October 20, 2009 1:46 PM
- Your FIRST reference is from a book by William Craig Brownlee who was certainly neither friendly to Bellarmine, nor simply neutral. I'll be back soon for second reference.
- October 20, 2009 3:17 PM
- Your SECOND is from a book that has been in a "Presbyterian library", it's authors are Archibald Bower, Samuel Hanson Cox. The former was a Scotsman who was Jesuit, Church of England and Jesuit again. The latter is a presbyterian. Now, presbyterians are neither friends of St Robert Bellarmine, nor simply neutral. And at that time ... well not always honest either. Or, at best, as misunderstanding as I said of bishop Paul right earlier.
It gives a reference for the quote though. De Romano Pontifice, I. 4. ch 5 - When we get THERE, things may look differently. - Not found yet, BUT, while we are waiting, something from his second book of same work, quoted with introductory presentation by a sedisvacantist. On the Roman Pontiff, an extract from St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30.
Look if you find it consistent with the allegation that Bellarmine had as his own thesis (rather than quoting others) that if the pope command vice and condemn virtue we are bound to the pope ... - Another quote from Bellarmine, introduced by comparison with St Thomas Aquinas:
Implicit in Saint Thomas's teaching, however, is that the Pope who commits "scandal concerning the faith" remains the Pope, though he may be rebuked and corrected, as was John XXII. This same Catholic principle is summarized by the great Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine, who wrote in his work De Romano Pontifice:
Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff that aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these acts are proper to a superior.
Here is my immediate source for this quote.
However St Robert Bellarmine also thought that such a thing could never happen. God would not allow it, he thought.
28 commentaires:
This post has been saved on webcite:
http://www.webcitation.org/5kgZ8JXet
It has a short url in original format: http://o-x.fr/yaa.
First reference given by John is now compressed as http://o-x.fr/fb-.
Second reference is now compressed as http://o-x.fr/0-3.
Clicking them will get you to the misquotes from Bellarmine. Scrolling up will get you to covers, it is a question of antiquated Proetstant books. Even without scrolling, you will find authors on these works, and these authors are NOT St Robert Bellarmine.
http://o-x.fr/t1m = Bellarmino, Il catechismo.
When trying to find De Romano Pontifice, I stumbled on http://o-x.fr/kf0 (kay, eff, zero) = Lumen Gentium, which cites that work somewhere.
Here we find, in French, a reference to De Romano Pontifice, book five chapter six, where St Robert Bellarmine says that, as the soul commandeth the body, the Roman Pontiff has a right to intervene if the "prince" (i e secular power) should legislate against the good of souls. THAT allegation from first reference offered by John is therefore correct.
Oh, forgot the link, short url http://o-x.fr/fu8
Catalogues de toutes les bibliothèques municipales de Paris.fr :
Résultats de la recherche
Votre recherche: Mots recherchés="De Romano Pontifice" et Titre="De Romano Pontifice"
Il n'y a pas de document correspondant à votre recherche.
Résultats de la recherche
Votre recherche: Auteur="Robert Bellarmin"
Il n'y a pas de document correspondant à votre recherche.
In case you did not realise that you should click title to get to the blog post on MYSTAGOGY, I have a short url to it: http://o-x.fr/hc0
And HERE I link to real quote: Pseudoquote identified. What De Romano Pontifice, book IV, chapter V really says (quote)
Here is a google search http://o-x.fr/b8v on the surname of that exfranciscan bishop and Barcelona, a city where he claims to have been and have been obliged to leave. Funnily enough ALL links are to reprints of this article. Even the one named "Bishop Barcelona" only links to it in English and in Greek.
Did the man exist before writing this piece? Did the piece exist before recent "republishing" on internet?
Further faults of fact in the mystagogy post
http://o-x.fr/4ug - Roman Catholic martyrs in Mexico (where that bishop Paul is said to have been killed, by people trying to make it appear it were by a Catholic fanatic)
Hans-Georg,
Thank you for your work. May God continue to bless you with the Spirit of Lepanto.
Thank You, Father Angelo!
Do you read French?
Non, Noël ne coincide pas "plus ou moins" avec les Saturnalies (et Toussaints n'est pas Samhain, voir les commentaires)
http://o-x.fr/j05 and http://o-x.fr/mr0 (zero, not owe, on both)include my posted comments in debate with Orthodox. Continued on http://o-x.fr/9xw.
Mon retour des Orthodoxes à la Société St Pie X, III:
25 L'abbé Pierre était pire que je ne croyait ... (ci... 26 Consécration de Russie - peut un orthodoxe être d'accord?... 27 Miracle du 10 juillet 1628, Carpentras 28 Lien à vieux message sur Ste Ursule (cliquer ici) 29 St Pie X, son œuvre en six actes (sermon à St Nicolas du Chardonnet)... 30 Dostoïno iest - il est digne (lien, cliquez ce tit... 31 St François d'Assise (lien en titre) 32, le décisif, en anglais: a Mystagogy posts certainly false allegation on St Robert Bellarmine... - b Pseudoquote identified. What De Romano Pontifice, ... really says - c Further faults of fact in the Mystagogy post 33 Dans le jardin de l'épouse du Christ fleurissent trois miracles... 34 Je confesse ... 35/36 Trois grandes ... et combien de petites? - Solidaire avec les bouddhistes? Non.
Links, mostly, including to Fr. Huneycutt, Bishop Williamson, John Sandinopoulos, and some of my comments, these being English counterpart to "Mon retour des Orthodoxes à la FSSPX":
1 Hungarians do play guitar (link) 2 China 3 Orthodixie: "Of course Sponge Bob is gay" (link) 4 Dale Ahlquist: "G.K. Chesterton and The Perils of ... 5 "Generous Orthodoxy" defends fallibilism? 6 Brain death diagnosis kills? (link) 7a "Kill your parents" +40ys=Educate your children! (link) b I don't believe in Weathermen c How e v e r 8 "When does His Grace Hilarion sleep?" /Orthodixie ... 9 Airport Tyranny/Dinoscopus (link) 10 Mark Pivarunas, bishop, speaks (link) 11 Between Sunday of Genealogy and Christmas Day (links) 12 Two courageous men, two heavily conformist communities... 13 Reading time for Mgr Williamson! 14 Update 1: Mgr Williamson apologises for hurting people... 15 Update 3: some do not apologise or avoid schism (update 2 is in French series) 16 Count-down to St Patrick's - a link to his "breast plate"... 17 Happy St Patrick's day, all of you ... 18 Annunciation 19 Happy Annunciation, Old Calendarists! - 20 Great and Holy Tuesday (link to Fr. James) - 21 Orthodox Holy Week (link to Fr Huneycutt) - 22 Christ is risen! - 23 Il est vraiment ressuscité 24 Piracy and slavehunt are not Christian things 25 A book and a site they might not want you to read ... 26 Today's celebrations: 27 Blessed feast of the Dormition! 28 My dear Bishop Williamson, if I had earned money a... 29 Brother Dimond refutes claim that Shroud of Turin is a fake (link, youtube)... 30 Am I too libertarian for FSSPX? Hope not. 31 a Mystagogy posts certainly false allegation on St Robert Bellarmine... - b Pseudoquote identified. What De Romano Pontifice, ... really says - c Further faults of fact in the Mystagogy post
New link to John Sandinopoulos' blogpost: http://o-x.fr/2f87
New links:
tiny.cc/f2rmz tiny.cc/ipmu0 tiny.cc/c2gxq
Who cares what a Roman Catholic "saint" said, or did not say? Papism is error based on error ... Period.
Rather, No-Popery is.
And as a Catholic and as a devout venerator of St Robert, I do of course care what is said about him.
I can see why John was irritated, Mr. Lundahl, you made micro-post after micro-post, which is very bad (ne)ettiquette, and difficult to process in any event.
Even if you expose one single quote as inaccurate, you would still have many, many more issues and historical facts to contend with regarding the fallibility of the Popes (Papal infallibility is a more recent dogma, as you surely must know), and the insanity of several ex-Cathedra, Magisterium-authored Bulls. I'm an ex-Roman Catholic...after visiting the Vatican in 1991, I was disgusted and heart-broken by the paganism I saw on the grounds; in the library and in the Vatican Gardens. I began looking more carefully at the Roman Catholic church's claims, and sadly, discovered just how WRONG She could be, and not just Her Popes.
I wish no ill to Roman Catholics, I know many are wonderfully pious people, and that Jesus is in the SAVING business, not the condemnation business (you get the opposite impression from all but the last two Popes; the Roman Catholic god is just angry and vengeful, not like Jesus at all). The RC church was seriously comprimised after being essentially taken over by the Franks. The German Barbarians hijacked the crumbling OLD Roman empire (if St. Peter's "throne" could move from Antioch to Old Rome, it could certainly move from Old Rome to New Rome - Constantinople - as Canon 28 seems to imply; a Canon signed by the Roman legates, by the way), and destroyed the Mediterranean family structure upon which the Church was built, a loving, embracing structure still common to Greeks, Eastern Mediterranean Semites, and Southern Italians.
Seriously, coming back to post one-sentence posts every couple of minutes looks neurotic, and is hardly conducive to making a persuasive argument, Herr Lundahl!
Peace in Christ to you,
Gregory
Even if you expose one single quote as inaccurate
It was the one chosen by Paul Ballaster. Or one of his two, to prove St Robert Bellarmine was "papolatrous".
It is very different to state "if a Pope WERE to solemnly define truth as falsehood or falsehood as truth, the Church WOULD be obliged to believe so" like St Robert really wrote, and to state "if the Pope DOES ... the Church IS OBLIGED ..." as Paul Ballaster misquoted him.
See next post for real quote.
And note that Paul Ballaster claimed to have read St Robert in original, in the library of the Franciscans. He can't have, unless he had a lousy memory, so he was probably lying.
That is why he should NOT be canonised by the Greeks.
Which was the whole point I was trying to make.
You state you have seen lots of otehr examples where solemn definitions of Popes were erroneous. But you give no examples. If you mean Gaudium et Spes by Vatican II signed by Paul VI, I consider Vatican II was no valid Council, Paul VI was no valid Pope and even if they had been Gaudium et Spes is not formulated as a valid Church document.
The RC church was seriously comprimised after being essentially taken over by the Franks. The German Barbarians hijacked the crumbling OLD Roman empire (if St. Peter's "throne" could move from Antioch to Old Rome, it could certainly move from Old Rome to New Rome - Constantinople - as Canon 28 seems to imply; a Canon signed by the Roman legates, by the way), and destroyed the Mediterranean family structure upon which the Church was built, a loving, embracing structure still common to Greeks, Eastern Mediterranean Semites, and Southern Italians.
I think this is totally erroneous. If you get it from Romanides, consider that Romanides was a fraud, intellectually, since he misspent his time at Harvard (a bad choice of university anyway, ecclesiastically speaking, very Puritan and Anticatholic) in digging up accusations very probably originating in some 19th C. Anglican who was flirting with Orthodoxy and grasping at straws to find accusations against Rome so as to motivate the Reformation, which some of them were anyway not very proud of due to Protestant influence disgusting them.
(if St. Peter's "throne" could move from Antioch to Old Rome, it could certainly move from Old Rome to New Rome - Constantinople - as Canon 28 seems to imply; a Canon signed by the Roman legates, by the way)
St Peter had two thrones, as personal bishop.
In one of them he was during his lifetime succeeded by Bishop St Eleutherius, who on his death was succeded by St Ignatius. If Peter remained Pope, this means he took Papacy with himself to Rome.
As to his throne there, dying he established St Linus as his successor.
So, St Linus and not St Eleutherius is successor to his Papacy.
Now, the throne of Peter has temporarily moved from Rome and back to Rome. I have been in Avignon, which was "Rome in exile" so to speak.
But when Popes moved to Avignon, they did not claim that from now on Papacy would be bishops of Avignon, rather that they were even IN Avignon bishops OF Rome, while bishops of Avignon remained distinct from them.
Therefore, Papacy cannot shift from one line of bishops, that in Rome, to another line in Constantinople, if it is constitutive of the Church.
Seriously, coming back to post one-sentence posts every couple of minutes looks neurotic, ...
I was very probably making them in an internet café where connexion could suffer once every while and therefore posting what I had written as soon as possible, so as not to write a long answer and get it lost. That is a neuroticising experience.
... and is hardly conducive to making a persuasive argument, Herr Lundahl!
Now, an argument in oral communication when one has little time to rethink things, stands very much on rhetoric means of the one argumenting.
But when one is writing, one has time to read and to reread, and therefore to examine the thought.
It is therefore unworthy to make a point about unpersuasiveness of any behaviour (especially one which can have an explanation you don't know) rather than looking at the actual arguments.
Oh, forgot before posting : it is true that I have both Swedish background by descent and by where I stayed most of my life, and German-Austrian by where I stayed large parts of my childhood.
It is also true that "Herr Lundahl" is correct in both languages.
However, to persons not knowing Swedish, it sounds as if stampingt me as primarily German or Austrian. To anyone knowing Swedish, it sounds unfamiliar.
In Sweden I was adressed mostly as "Hans-Georg" or as "HG" or as "du", since titulation (even "ni") was abolished by Social Democrats, and that abolishment has entered into the general mores of Sweden, unlike the spelling reforms earlier (which alas also have done so), it is not sth I actively try to reverse, even for my own part.
You see, I don't think Swedish as spoken now sounds ugly. I only think it looks ugly to write it as written by the revolutionary minds who initiated spelling reforms.
Which is why, whenever I am adressed as "Herr Lundahl!" I feel a sense of suspicion as if someone was trying to exploit anti-German sentiments by stamping me as German. Even in Austria, I hope I could still get away with saying "oh, i' bin nit so alt doß du 'Herr' sogen muß".
I looked up the passage where things on thread get a few minutes apart:
October 20, 2009 3:17 PM I adressed his « first reference », October 20, 2009 3:25 PM (eight minutes later), I adressed his second reference and promised to look for sth, October 20, 2009 3:33 PM (another eight minutes later) I admitted not having found it.
How is that “neurotic”? I was simply looking up things between posting answers.
Enregistrer un commentaire