Joyeux Noël

Merry Christmas
Glædelig Jul
Fröhliche Weinachten
Latchi Vajnachta
Wesolich Swionty

Non, je ne suis pas Juif. Je suis chrétien. Voilà pourquoi ...

J'ai eu un papy qui était Juif et Chrétien. Il a voulu que je choisisse si je voulais être Juif ou Chrétien. J'ai allumé une cierge de Hanukka. Mon alors beaupère a allumé les cierges du sapin de Noël. Et les cierges de Noël brillaient plus purement et plus brillament que ceux de Hanukkah.

Je ne maudis pas la Hanukkah. Je la bénis parce que le miracle dans le temple fut une répétition pour l'assomption de la vierge dans le temple. Et ça fut la préparation pour le premier Noël ...



Préparez-vous bien!

Je confesse ...

... comme le dit Philaret mais aussi surtout St Pie V et Trente, que depuis le péché d'Adam l'homme est sous une malédiction, que pour l'humanité Jésus, vrai Dieu, vrai Homme, vrai Messie des Juifs et des Goyim, ce qu'appellent en Grec le Christ, sur la Croix a annéanti, et que dans l'individu est levée par les sacrements vivifients. Et que la Sainte Vierge Pure et Théotoke n'a jamais été elle-même sous cette malédiction, ce qu'a confessé Pie IX conformément à la vérité et ordonné les Fidèles à le confesser également. A St Nicolas du Chardonnet j'ai trouvé un bon pasteur, image du Sacerdoce du Bon Pasteur, et quand ce matin j'ai haï, ce soir j'aime le prochain. Et ça importe infiniment plus que si j'ai raison ou par hazard pas, quand je dis des choses sur les sciences purement naturelles et humaines, car la Foi prévaut sur le savoir et les philosophies humaines.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
le 23 novembre 2009
Paris III, un quart d'heure de Paris V

But, Mr. Sungenis!

(link to question on stellatum and parallax, Jan. 2005)

The problem with annual "parallax" as measurement is that, unless you presume it is the Earth that moves each year, rather than Sun 360° round Zodiak, and Proxima Centauri (et c. some 10.000 stars with measured annual parallax in 1980) 0.76" around its center (and less for all other of those 10.000 stars), you have no one length and two angles, you have one angle and no length, and therefore no triangulation.*

Hans-Georg Lundahl

*Link to parallel diagrams, heliocentric and geocentric. (Comment text in French, you will unfortunately need to scroll).

L'erreur des "Nazoréens" comme les appelle Épiphane de Salamine

Aline Pourkier, L'Hérésiologie chez Épiphane de Salamine, éd. Beauchesne, coll. Christianisme Antique, p. 463, s:

Épiphane passe alors à la réfutation, qu'il a faite très courte. De son exposé de la doctrine des Nazoréens, il ne retient qu'un seul point, leur observance des pratiques juives, auquel il va opposer un fait, puis deux paroles de l'Écriture. ... partant de la constatation qu'il est impossible aux Juifs d'observer la Loi dans son intégralité puisque l'accès de Jérusalem leur est interdit, [il] en tire deux conséquences ... : ne pouvant accomplir toutes les prescriptions de la Loi, ils tombent sous le coup de la malédiction édictée par Moïse à la fin du Deutoronome [27, 26]; d'autre part, cette impossibilité même prouve que le Christ est déjà venu pour abolir la Loi et nous délivrer de la malédiction portée contre sa violation : dans ces conditions, continuer à s'y attacher est une erreur manifeste.

Ajoutons pour éviter cause de scandale, que les mots d'Épiphane sur le Christ sont:

que le Christ est venu comme celui qui achève la Loi, "non pour détruire la Loi, mais pour l'accomplir"

et un teneur d'une thèse proche des Nazoréens traduit le mot abolir/achever avec "rendre otieux". Certes une bonne traduction, car ainsi, ceux qui s'attachent encore aux sabbaths et aux cacheroutes, pour ne rien dire de la circoncision, rompent le repos de sabbath de ces mitzvoth. Il y a pourtant, comme j'ai vu chez lui, un autre motif pour ce genre d'erreur: la continuité d'Israel. Là ils rejoignent divers hérésies plus modernes, qui refusent au baptême d'enfants d'être un rite chrétien des origines. Pourquoi? Évidemment, si les chrétiens du debut ont baptisé des nouveaux-nés dans l'espace de huit jours, il y a trop d'évidence que le peuple d'Israel continue précisemment comme le peuple chrétien. De là l'interêt de certains de peindre le christianisme primitif comme une décision quasiment philosophique ou ascétique, mais surtout personnelle, pas quelque chose qui se transmet dans la famille, comme c'était le cas pour la vieille alliance et comme c'est du debut le cas pour la nouvelle aussi.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
dernier dimanche après Pentécôte
22 nov. 2009
G. Pompidou, Paris IV

L'Église s'acharne, jusqu'à canonisation...

J'ai assisté le requiem annuel pour José Antonio Primo de Rivera y Francisco Franco Bahamonde, por gracias de Dios Caudillo d'España. Ont-ils encore besoin? La question ne se pose pas, tant qu'ils ne sont pas canonisés, l'église prie pour eux.

J'avais auparavant accusé Franco d'avoir gardé une reforme d'obligation scolaire d'un régime anticlérical avant lui. C'était heureusement inexacte, si à son décès il y a eu beaucoup plus d'alphabétisés qu'avant sa victoire - une victoire parfois abusée, mais pas comme ça comme je préciserai, mais quand même une victoire qui est aussi celle de Moscardó*, Madrid, Église et Espagne - ce n'est pas par des lois si hérétiques et judaisants gardées d'un régime de gauche, c'est parce l'église avait trouvé utile et une garde contre révolutions futures de donner aux espagnols du bas peuple les lettres, les livres. Franco n'était pas coupable là-dedans.

HGL, qui dit Eviva Cristo Rey, comme en passant Montejurra en 2004

*Merci l'abbé Beauvais! Je m'étais trompé sur l'orthographe!

Émotion et passion, s'égalent-ils selon la Somme?

1) deretour : Émotion et passion, s'égalent-ils selon la Somme? ; 2) New blog on the kid : Pietro Gasparri avait tort sur la charité

Regardez d'abord quelques lieux clefs:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2022.htm#article3 I-II Pars, XXII, 3 (in English)

English http://o-x.fr/9ulc Français http://o-x.fr/gbek I Pars, LXXX, 2 (après on peut scroller vers le bas, dans le français et vérifier en quoi consiste la sensualité).

Il semble alors qu'il y a un "appetit rationnel" et une obéissance de l'irrationnel envers le rationnel. Donc, le fait d'identifier quelque chose comme émotif ne suffit pas de l'identifier comme contraire à la raison. D'abord, la raison elle-même a une appétence du bon (et se trouve par là identifiable comme volonté), ensuite la passion obéit à la raison, et il faudrait d'abord être sûr que le passionné ne soit déjà en obéissance plutôt qu'opposition à la recta ratio.

Celui qui dit "elle est enceinte après un viol, il faut avorter" et celui qui dit "voilà un mendiant, il vaut mieux donner (voir si je peux)" sont tous les deux émotifs, mais c'est l'opposition et la connivence de l'un et de l'autre avec la loi chrétienne, avec la loi naturelle, qui fait de l'un une pseudo-raison et de l'autre une raison valable.

Dans les deux cas, ce n'est pas par un bas calcul qu'on rectifie les choses, mais en considérant ce qu'est vraiment honorable, ce que resonne avec la raison dans les émotions. L'enceinte peut avoir un motif valable pour vendette - envers le violeur. Mais pas envers l'enfant. Et il est honorable de repousser celui qui vous demande le déshonorable ou le criminel (comme le sex hors mariage, comme l'intrigue contre l'état et la paix publique, comme, enfin, l'avortement), pas celui qui demande le nécessaire et l'utile ou encor le plaisant innocent (comme une baguette, du fromage, une lessive, un café ou une bière - ou des pièces pour en avoir quelques bienfaiteurs plus tard).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Paris XI, Parmentier
21 nov. 2009, fête de la
Présentation de la Vierge au Temple

Mis à jour, mercredi 2 décembre:

Pourquoi je fais la manche pour lavéries/dans les lavéries:

Mon nom est mal orthographié*, ET le rendez-vous pour 30 nov. était donné le 19, entre-temps j'ai du laver.

pourquoi des Roumains viennent ici (et font parfois la manche), clicquer pour agrandir:

Nouvelle Solidarité 25 sept. 2009, p. 15. Signé Alexandra Bellea. *voir Lundahl, pas Lindhal, s v p

Thank you, Robert Sungenis (Ph D)! (link)

"Is the SSPX Antisemitic?"

St Elizabeth of Hungary

link

As beggar, exile, homeless, and as Catholic convert for a priest celebrating (probably still if he is still alive) at the Elizabeth Sisters' Chapel, I cherish this holiday!

Est-ce prudent de ne pas rejeter ce qu'on sait déjà rejetable? (reponse aux supérieur du district français)

Mr l'Abbé de Cacqueray fait un appel à la mésure et prudence requise par Pie XII en Humani Generis.

Pour moi, Humani Generis a posé des problèmes: comment un successeur infaillible du premier vicaire du Christ a-t-il pu dire chose pareille?

Car ce premier vicaire du Christ a bel et bien ne pas seulement cru le déluge, mais aussi que "dans les derniers jours" ça "sera" par leur propre faute que des gens ignoreraient ce chatiment (II St Pierre, III c.):

3 hoc primum scientes quod venient in novissimis diebus in deceptione inlusores iuxta proprias concupiscentias ambulantes 4 dicentes ubi est promissio aut adventus eius ex quo enim patres dormierunt omnia sic perseverant ab initio creaturae 5 latet enim eos hoc volentes quod caeli erant prius et terra de aqua et per aquam consistens Dei verbo 6 per quae ille tunc mundus aqua inundatus periit 7 caeli autem qui nunc sunt et terra eodem verbo repositi sunt igni servati in diem iudicii et perditionis impiorum hominum (source)

Or, il est connexe, scientifiquement, avec la question soulevé entre créationnistes de l'école jeune terre et les évolutionnistes. Ceux-ci utilisent les "strata" avec tyrannosaures (il y en a à peu près 30 ex-squélettes pétrifiés probables) comme plus bas statistiquement (ou dans un même endroit?) que les "strata" avec Lucy ou la nouvelle espèce quasi-humaine de Flores comme preuve d'une distance dans le temps, dans laquelle des espèces auraient eu le temps de se ramifier de mourir sous leurs vieilles formes et de parfois survivre en formes tellement éloignées de leurs vieilles que le sont la colombe, l'aigle, la poule, "el condor", des prétendus lézards ornithopodes (car les "vieux sauriens" se divisent, selon la conte de fées darwinienne, très tôt en pieds-de-lézards et pieds-d'oiseaux, en sauropodes et ornithopodes - bien qu'on n'aie pas des restes qui prouveraient que les "sauriens ornithopodes" manquaient plumage ni qu'ils avaient écailles) prétendument leurs ancêtres.

Si par contre ces "strata" proviennent du déluge de Noé, s'ils se sont stratifiés selons les habitats plus ou moins haut des espèces vivants les mêmes endroits et les mêmes temps, ou pour quelques-uns possiblement, selon quelques écoles catastrophistes à la Cuvier (érigé ou plutôt utilisé aussi en "conte de fée pour adultes" par la Quenta Silmarillion de Tolkien - qui aurait d'ailleurs dit que "conte de fée pour adultes" est une tautologie, ce n'est que très tardivement qu'on aie rélégué l'écriture de contes de fées aux auteurs d'enfants: Mille et une nuits n'est certainement pas une oeuvre pour d'enfants, par exemple, bien que des extraits ont été utilisés comme telles), des catastrophes datées avant le deuxième verset de la Génèse, il n'y a pas de preuve qu'il y aie découlé tant de temps depuis la première création, et par conséquent un des facteurs utilisé par les évolutionnistes reste pure hypothèse.

Même plus: la datation des strata selon un taux moyen de stratification lent est alors fausse, et les espèces ayant vécu et ayant laissé des cadavres dans le déluge auraient vécu dans un espace de temps beaucoup moins étendu que ne le prétendent les évolutionnistes, en fait un temps trop court pour permettre l'évolution comme normalement conçue.

Les "strata" nous ne parlent pas, on les interprète, de l'une ou de l'autre manière. Tout au moins une interprétation qu'on peut concilier avec le fait du déluge doit être libre pour les chrétiens. Les "strata", dois-je le rappeler, ne sont pas de l'écriture sainte, Dieu n'a pas mis institution par terre capable de les interpréter avec la même autorité que l'Église a vis-à-vis les Écritures Canoniques. Et, je le dis en logique scientifique, pas en écrivain inspiré ni en interprète autorisé, loin de moi de m'y ériger!, cette interprétation là, qui est conciliable avec le fait du déluge est irréconciliable avec le fait prétendu que les hommes descendraient avec les grands singes (gorilles, chimpanzés, bonobos, orang-utang) de Ramapithécus, celui-ci d'un premier primate ancêtre également des lémures ou des singes à queue, celui-ci d'un premier mammifère, ancêtre également des lions et des éléphants, des rats et des chats, et c.

En plus, depuis janv. 1999, un autre problème théorique est venu s'ajouter à ceux de la pure chronologie ou de la conciliabilité d'avec les sources de la révélation chrétienne. Il parait (selon un google qu'un adversaire de débat vient de faire, selon ce qu'il a dit) que l'article donne un nombre équivoqué pour le nombre de chromosomes du rhinocéros. Néanmoins, rhino 82 ou 84, gorille et chimpanzé 48, homme 46, souris entre 22 et 40, okapi 42, 43 ou 44 (ou une autre configuration ou un paire pouvait être un ou deux paires ou encore un paire et demi)... normalement la progéniture d'un ancêtre commun a un nombre stable de chromosomes. Les mécanismes pour varier se reduisent un peu pour les mammifères:

- polyploïdie convient aux plantes et, parmis les vertébrés aux batrachiens
- triploïdie arrive chez les oiseaux ou les lézards (et donne femelles stériles ou auto-fertilisants)
- monoploïdie ne convient pas aux mammifères non plus, ce sont des être pour ainsi dire farouchement diploïdes - les polyploïdies font partie des causes d'avortement spontané;

- en plus les microchromosomes ne sont pas connus chez les mammifères, les mamifères ont des chromosomes en pairs, qui consistent de: 1 télomère - 2 génôme - 3 centromère qui unit le chromosome à l'autre du même paire - 4 génôme - 5 télomère, et pour chromosomes c'est aussi bureaucratique et traditionnel que le système de nommer les Romains tribus nominibus;

- les cas des okapi et souris s'expliquent normalement (et ça devrait être admis par les créationnistes aussi), ainsi que les 46 de l'homme par rapport aux 48 supposés de Ramapithécus - selon ses autres descendants supposés - par fusion de chromosomes dite Richardsonienne, c-à-d un cromosome là perd une partie et un là perd une autre partie et ce que reste colle ensemble; en plus la fusion Richardsonienne et impliqué dans des cancers et des malformations (il y a un syndrome Downs proprement Downs, ou trisomique, il y en a aussi une forme Richardsonienne);

- mais, comme l'article disait en janv. 1999, pour fission de chromosomes, il n'y avait pas de mécanisme connu.

On peut doubler parti du génôme, soit:

1 télom - 2 génôme (a b c d b c d e) - 3 centromère - 4 génôme - 5 télomère

On peut avoir un nouveau centromère, peut-être de cette façon:

1 télomère - 2 génome a b c d e - 3 centromère - 4 génôme f g h 2 bis c d e 3 bis centromère - 4 bis génôme f g h i k l - 5 télomère

Mais c'étaient aussi les nouveaux télomères qui avaient besoin d'explication.

Ou préférez-vous peut-être attribuer les chromosomes surnuméraires aux trisomies que je viens de nommer?

Mais trisomie veut toujours dire malfonction.

Mais trisomie augmenté en tétrasomie ne donne pas deux paires de chromosomes, ça donne précisement une tétrasomie, c à d malfonction aggravé par rapport à la trisomie. En Kleinfeldts syndrome, la configuration YXX est moins sure de stériliser un homme et de la rendre efféminé que la configuration YXXX. Et une femme ayant XXX a encore plus de chances d'avoir un enfant qu'une ayant XXXX.

Loin d'expliquer un nouveau paire chez la progéniture, l'explication met en cause la possibilité même d'en avoir (pas seulement par rapport aux chromosomes sexués, qui touchent directement la fertilité, mais aussi par rapport à tous les autres paires, qui ont chacun sa fonction vitale, qui se détériore par trisomie pour ne pas parler de tétrasomie).

Vous voulez les mêmes arguments en anglais? Les voici (si vous pouvez cliquer).

Il y a d'autres choses dans le créationnisme qui ne sont pas directement accessibles aux preuves scientifiques. Si un nordique me dirait: "Je crois que Odin, Vili et Vé ont tué le géant Ymir, causant ..." - mes excuses, ce créationnisme alternatif là est trop bien ancré dans la terre platte pour être possible. Si un musulman me dirait: "Je crois que c'était Ham qui était ivre et ne pas Noé" alors je ne peux pas le refuter avec des arguments scientifiques si aisés que je peux utiliser contre l'évolutionnisme (et que, bien entendu, il me semble un peu que la maçonnerie d'ici* ne veule pas que les lycéens y aient accès, sauf peut-être en des extraits adultérés et facilement refutables)**, je dois faire appel (et s'il est comme beaucoup que j'ai rencontrés, ça le fâchera ou il me prendra pour un fou ou un ivrogne defendant l'ivrognerie) au fait que la version de la Génèse n'est pas seulement antérieure à la tradition musulmane tel que nous l'avons, mais encore qu'elle est soutenu par deux religions, le Christianisme et le Judaïsme, sans oublier les Samaritains. Là on change totalement terrain, on devient historique et ne pas scientifique dans l'argumentation.

Et là je m'arrête, au moins pour cette fois ci, car l'histoire revient à la tradition. Le créationnisme comme courant scientifique ou critique des sciences ou érudit n'est pas une attaque à la tradition, elle en est une défense. Au temps de Darwin, un érudit Italien a reçu un ordre de chevalerie par Bx Pie IX, pour le fait de dire (et de prouver) que le darwinisme n'est pas prouvé.

Puis-je rêver d'être semblablement honoré par Benoît XVI pour avoir detruit la tenabilité même scientifique du néo-darwinisme? Ou pour avoir demontré que l'héliocentrisme n'est pas prouvé (et la terre fixe est donc préférable, car plus proche de nos sens au sens obvie)?

Puis-je au moins rêver d'une vie tranquille, me reposant financièrement sur mes compositions musicales (que vous trouverez, avec des licences suffisants, ici, ou plutôt une partie)? Ou est-ce que ce petit appel à la raison (éclairé par la foi) me sera aussi peu utile que le propos de Socrates d'être reçu le restant de sa vie au Prytanée?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
14 nov. 2009
Paris X

*voir là dessus: On discute quoi entre policiers et enseignants?

**ce blog est déjà lisible en Pompidou comme dans les bibliothèques municipales - merci!

Et bonne fête de St Martin et de l'Armistice à vous!

Good and Holy Feast of St Martin to you!

St Martin of Tours
St Martin of Tours
St Gregory of Tours (who, in his Historiae wrote that the relics of St Martin raise three dead)
St Martin of Tours, again

Voss and Foulkes - or when "Orthodox" love liars and nincompoops

From Catholic Encyclopedia, both quotes:

In the year 1644, Gerard Voss, in his "De Tribus Symbolis", gave weighty probability to the opinion that St. Athanasius was not its author. His reasons may be reduced to the two following:

• firstly, no early writer of authority speaks of it as the work of this doctor; and


• secondly, its language and structure point to a Western, rather than to an Alexandrian, origin.

Most modern scholars agree in admitting the strength of these reasons, and hence this view is the one generally received today. Whether the Creed can be ascribed to St. Athanasius or not, and most probably it cannot, it undoubtedly owes it existence to Athanasian influences, for the expressions and doctrinal colouring exhibit too marked a correspondence, in subject-matter and in phraseology, with the literature of the latter half of the fourth century and especially with the writings of the saint,
to be merely accidental. These internal evidences seem to justify the conclusion that it grew out of several provincial synods, chiefly that of Alexandria, held about the year 361, and presided over by St. Athanasius. It should be said, however, that these arguments have failed to shake the conviction of some Catholic authors, who refuse to give it an earlier origin than the fifth century.

To this has been added a third point: the creed that St Athanasius used was the Nicene (before the additions by the Council of Constantinople). On which I will answer that it was never in the West thought of as used by St Athanasius as a creed, but as an explanation of the Faith, later to be raised to status of liturgic creed by a Pope of Rome: Reply to Objection 3. Athanasius drew up a declaration of faith, not under the form of a symbol, but rather by way of an exposition of doctrine, as appears from his way of speaking. But since it contained briefly the whole truth of faith, it was accepted by the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, so as to be considered as a rule of faith. (source)

Answering Voss: Caesarius of Arles quotes this writing. That is as long as the lapse between Synoptics and Papias. No reason to doubt synoptics, no reason to doubt this writing either.

An elaborate attempt was made in England, in 1871, by E.C. Foulkes to assign the Creed to the ninth century. From a passing remark in a letter written by Alcuin he constructed the following remarkable piece of fiction. The Emperor Charlemagne, he says, wished to consolidate the Western Empire by a religious, as well as a political, separation from the East. To this end he suppressed the Nicene Creed, dear to the Oriental Church, and substituted a formulary composed by Paulinus of Aquileia, with whose approval and that of Alcuin, a distinguished scholar of the time, he ensured its ready acceptance by the people, by affixing to it the name of St. Athanasius. This gratuitous attack upon the reputation of men whom every worthy historian regards as incapable of such a fraud, added to the undoubted proofs of the Creed's having been in use long before the ninth century, leaves this theory without any foundation.

On discute quoi entre policiers et enseignants?

Nouvel Observateur, 5 novembre 2009:

J.-M. Quillardet. - Ce qu'écrit Sophie Coignard dans son livre [«Un Etat dans l'Etat», Albin Michel] n'est pas faux, mais ce qu'elle met en cause, c'est la nomenklatura française, cette élite qui se partage les postes, les prébendes, le pouvoir et qui fonctionne en réseaux. Mais ce n'est pas la franc-maçonnerie qui structure ces happy few. Dans ma loge, il y a moins de politiques et de hauts fonctionnaires que de policiers, d'enseignants ou de cadres.

Je me demande, si mon site et les blocages dont il est l'objet (notemment dans les bibliothèques jusqu'au présent)* auraient qqc à faire avec leurs conventicules. /HGL

*comme noté dans les commentaires, le blocage technique est fini - merci!

"Pride, not suffering, then"

A friend on FB gave me that diagnosis.

I will give you the letter I wrote which prompted it, starting with the quote that prompted my letter:

"And you wander in poverty, unable to work, and too often despised."

I am poor because my work is not read. Or read only by people too poor too pay.

http://o-x.fr/vru is main index for right now, bibliography to left, own work column right. One of links gets to my musical site. It is not played, musicians are asking if I know how to play it myself, and I don't. And some are encouraging them precisely by claiming me psychologically unable to work and needing healing.

I could not face an employer as long as such a man could pity me for not yet having a wife and imagine himself called to be some kind of extra father for me. I've had such employers too often. So, I am not working as someone's employee. But that has nothing to do with not being able to work.

I could not work in a place where lots of Muslims tried to be my comrades. They would fail, partly from their own vanity (like the writer who claims it was such great tolerance to grant Christian mercenaries a Church, a priest and even a bishop) partly because I would need to be alone from them for a while, and partly because I do not want them in my future children's upbringing. And failing they would stamp me as islamophobic and mentally ill and in need of healing.

I got working out my Latin all right the day I read that thing about St Robert Bellarmine, remember, but that is work some people in Orthodox Church (key word Romanides, a Greek priest who studied in Harvard of all anticlerical places, who was a diabetic and thought that ALL religions except hesychastic orthodoxy as he read it were psychophysical illnesses) would stamp as illness symptom rather than as work.

If I were read, some misunderstandings would quickly be dissolved.

As long as I am not I am getting at least informally diagnosed as confused for positions not at all my own. It is even bad enough to be admired for them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
6 Nov. 2009
G. Pompidou, Paris IV

Arne Naess = Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Belloc said what needed to be said about deep ecology when improving a stanza of Coleridge's Lay of the Ancient Mariner:

He loveth best who loveth most
	all creatures, great and small.
The streptococcus is the test:
	I love him least of all.

From some essay collection of Belloc's works.

Dans le jardin de l'épouse du Christ fleurissent trois miracles:

• la sagesse de Pères et des Docteurs
• le héroisme des Saints et des Martyrs
• la beauté de la liturgie

et hi tres unum sunt.

(par un moine bénédictin)

What are fractions?

Found on internet:

Sometimes the part of math that some homeschoolers have difficulty with is when it comes to working with fractions.

Now, I think the difficulty comes from not understanding what fractions are. A simplified way is to say that fractions are like portions, like the 1/8 slices of a pizza. It would be better to say that that is a particular kind of fraction.

A "fraction" is a proportion. Each 1/8 slice of a pizza or any other 1/8 part or fraction is in proportion to the whole pizza (which existed as such before it was sliced) as one is to eight.

The funny thing about proportions is ...

that it does not really matter how many are involved:

Take ten pizzas, slice them to eighty slices, the slice is still one to eight compared to the pizza.

Which explains that: 10/80=1/8.

that it may just as easily by "how much" "how long" "how heavy" "how much worth" et c as how many:

Take a pizza sliced into eight slices, again. Each piece, from the moment the slice is made, even before all the eight slices are there, is and remains one eighth of the size of the whole pizza.

But add two pizza slices like the ones before - your neighbour ate only six slices. Each slice will be 1/10 of the number of slices. It is a less proportion, but it will still be same amount of pizza. But the total amount, of which it is now only 1/10, will be those two slices bigger.

That involves:

• - each slice is still 1/8 the size of the pizza it was made from
• - each slice is now 1/10 the number of slices (since those two were added)
• - each slice is a less proportion (1/10 is less than 1/8) but same amount
• - total amount is, as such, same proportion to itself (1/1) but bigger, because new total amount is 10/8 to old total amount
• - that last proportion, 10/8, simplifies into 5/4 or 1/1 and 1/4, and the amount of pizza you have is the same as if you had had a whole pizza and a quarter slice

AND the fact that I have to apologise to my readers for making them hungry by thinking of pizza while having a math lesson. I'm getting a bit hungry myself, though I have just eaten!

Back from a meal?

Good.

Each time you eat one pizza slice, the total amount of remaining slices is less, each remaining slice remains as big as it was (until you go on and eat it) AND each slice is a bigger proportion of the remainder of pizza:

• Before you eat, each slice is 1/10 of the total amount of pizza (but still 1/8 of the pizza it was made from).
• You eat one slice, each slice is now 1/9 of the total amount of pizza (but still 1/8 of the pizza it was made from).
• You eat another, each slice is now 1/8 both ways (as much of the remainder as it was originally to the whole pizza - which remains true even if you've eaten a slice from the old pizza, which is replaced by one from the new).
• Eat three slices more, each slice is now 1/5 of the remainder (but still 1/8 of the pizza it was made from). Since the proportion has risen from 1/10 to 1/5=2/10, you might think it was twice as big? Of course not. Something wrong with the logic? No: for on the other hand, you only have 5 left instead of ten, which is 1/2; so each slice is as big as it was (if you need to check it out in maths: 1/2*2 = 1/2*2/1 = 2/2 = 1/1).
• Another big bite, each slice is 1/4 of the remainder - so, as 4/8 = 1/2 the remainder equals half a pizza. (But each slice is still 1/8 of the pizza it was made from). And if I had a pay pal account, u might have been sending me money for half a pizza (which I could not use until another one sent me money for the other half), but I have not.

If on the other hand u r a parent and think I have helped your young ones over much of the year, well consider a somewhat bigger donation. (Donativo.) If you think it needs more, click on 7 artes label or look at other related subjects at my main index page.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Paris V, Mouffetard
31 october 2009

Przepraszam, druga Litwa!

Nežiniau, kad yra jusu himnas tautininkas "Kur bega Sesupe", rašas jas harmonias.

Since I did not study Lithuanian very long and Polish even less time, I turn to English. Sigute Radžieviciene, Vilniaus Universitete profesorius Skandinovuju kalbu, very clearly told me that Maironis was the national poet, but I cannot remember quite as clearly - maybe she did tell and I forgot - that that poem in particular was the national anthem, and as such already a musical composition.

Hans-Georg (Jonas Jurgis) Lundahl
Paris III
28 october 2009

The author of this blog notes

Not without satisfaction, after reading the Eleison comment CXX in yesterday's mail from Mgr Williamson's column, that my compositions - http://o-x.fr/z5k - are not centered on the Tristan chord, nor on semitones invading everything. I made one composition very discordant (trying to reach the emotion of pain, but miscalculating and reaching the disgusting and unbearable), and regret it deeply. I hope that one will not be for ever an excuse for FSSPX to oppose my making a carreer as a composer.

Added: Tristan chord, by the way, is part of the Hungarian Gipsy scale./HGL

Am I too libertarian for FSSPX? Hope not.

The priest on whose mass I heard the sermon in St Nicolas de Chardonnet named libertarianism as one of the heretical false philosophies that ruin Christian society or societies that should be Christian. Because, as the Gospel today (Feast of Christ the King) states, the Divine truth about God and about man to which Christ came to bear witness, has royal prerogatives.

Before I repost debates, let me state I am libertarian about some things in order not to be libertarian about other things. I am libertarian about poor parents begging in the street keeping their children, since I am not libertarian at all about abortion or about adoption by homosexual couples. I am libertarian about two homosexual couples, one male and one female, exchanging partners into making two two-sexed couples in order to marry. The idea is not of personal importance to me, but it is of juridic importance, since in some states denying people the right to marry on account of their homosexual leanings constitutes or may easily be construed as constituting a crime of discrimination. Notably the land I left in 2004. It is also of pastoral importance, because I am not libertarian at all about priests trying to remake homosexual couples into chaste friendships and giving communion to public sinners in the process.

I was debating some on libertarianism on Facebook, where a friend (whom I consider one, and whom I would be honoured to dine with) was debating with a friend of his (whether he considers him so or is a superficial acquaintance I known not) who admires Ayn Rand. I am not about to repost their entire remarks on the Ayn Rand link and on each others' remarks, since I have not asked permission to do so. I will however, as often before, repost my remarks, which sometimes quote what they answer.

Here comes my first remark, quoting other remarks:

Who agrees that a man who has no home has a right to squat wherever the owners and flat renters wil[l] let him?

The Catholic Social teaching, as existing before Vatican II, had a solid base in history, and laissez-faire as a step away from that has been such a big step to:

• state socialism by ways of
• private enterprise monopoly/oligopoly socialism
• rich man decides what charity poor man gets from medium income man socialism

"If a worker should be able to keep the object of his labors, lest it be socialism, how would you split a toy amongst those on the assembly line who made it?"

1 why assembly line? if more toys _but nothing else_ were made by artisans, the other ones who worked on assembly lines could not afford them, but if more toys _and about more of everything else_ were made by artisans, it would be feasible

2 _even with_ an assembly line: a toy does not come out of it alone, if there are ten workers and hundred toys made, why not ten toys to each worker, he can go and sell in market place next day, while those who are selling can go back to work and invest what they want in materials, et c

"The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas."

True. But it does mean that if a tribune IS provided, like free internet in libraries, it must be available without suppression for expressing wrong ideas. Or for using expression to get in income (see my music page http://o-x.fr/z5k)

and here is my second remark:

"There are no “rights to a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘fair’ price” if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no “rights of consumers” to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself)."

That is where you are wrong. There is the right not to be cheated.

If a set of rich men ruin small producers by undercutting their prices for as long as it takes to ruin competition and then raise prices so as to compensate for that, if thus former competitors have been given the option to change their branch of business, to be dependents or to get real broke, and that in turn means a lot of more men depending on lowered prices and making those rich men richer, I think that both craftsmen _and_ general public have been cheated by them.

"There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals."

Wrong again. That is socialism.

Before me making my third remark, some of my remarks had been answered and answers answered, here goes:

"As for someone by selling a product cheaper or better the competition being cheating, it is not of course. It is simply winning."

Unless it is done in a fraudulent way so as to suggest permanently lower prices, whereas in effect the prices are raised soon after the competition is gone.

"As for people having the right to take property anywhere because they feel it is "vacant" or in "disuse"= this is socialism, which brings us back to the fact that many Christians argue for socialism, for slavery, for evil- which indicated clearly that your ideology has serious problems."

Not so. The right for a "first occupant" to take a "res nullius" is at the core of classic Roman property juridics. Socialism is when you say everyone has a duty to bring along a bureaucracy which will give the homeless a home, and every homeless has a duty to pass by that bureaucracy, avoiding all squatting.

Actually, the question whether a building which is condemned by authorities for ordinary purposes and certainly not being repaired at the moment is to be considered a "res nullius" was not my actual question. There are squatter collectives which answer in the affirmative, I am not part of them.

Mine was: if I enter an open door this night and noone minds if I stay one night beside their flat, as long as it is understood it is just one night and as long as I do not degrade, is it my right to do so?

Some people cannot see beyond family

And, even very intellectual people sometimes confuse As and Gs, I suppose.

G. K. Chesterton IS NOT A. K. Chesterton.

The latter was not only fascist (which may sometimes be OK), but racialist and a xenophobe (which is not so). The former is so NOT all that.

As myself for many years and still going strong, my friend Jeff likes GKC - Gilbert K. Chesterton.

He describes him as:

Not a literal 'prophet' but a decent man and a good writer.

I comment:

What I am trying to be too.

This remark is not totally off the hook, since people who are trying to give me a false alternative "are you a true prophet who takes no money or a false prophet who takes money" without stating it in so many words, but all to often implying it, are starting to annoy me. Chesterton too got money from writing, as I hope to, and one did not describe him as a false prophet for that. In order to be a false prophet you have to pretend to be a true one. People who claim I told them I made that claim, are liars. People who think I made that claim because they heard it from such liars, are people believing liars. Just as the people calling Chesterton - the Gilbert one - a fascist divide into liars, people who read sloppily and people who believe sloppy readers to be acribious and lying tellers to be truthful.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
24 october 2009
Paris IV, Baudoyer

Further faults of fact in the Mystagogy post

This was checked by my friend Stephan Borgehammar, author of How the Holy Cross Was Found, I am, with his permission, reprinting what he found out:

The "horrible findings" seem to be partly errors of fact, partly misunderstandings.
The article of the Inquisition from 1647 is not quoted, so it can't be assessed.
The papal statements from 1331 and 1920 cannot be identified on basis of the information given (Clemens VI was not yet pope in 1331 so in that particular case either the year or the name of the pope is wrong).
The papal statements of 1327 and 1907 would seem to be the following:
Medieval Sourcebook (internet resource): The following sentences taken from Marsilius of Padua and John of Jandun were condemned by John XXII, 1327[...]
(2) That St. Peter had no more authority than the other apostles, and was not the head over the other apostles; and that Christ left behind no head of the church, and did not appoint anyone as his vicar. (Latin original, quoted from Denzinger Enchiridion no. 942: "Quod beatus Petrus Apostolus non plus auctoritatis habuit quam alii Apostoli habuerunt [non fuit plus caput Ecclesiae quam quilibet aliorum Apostolorum], nec aliorum apostolorum fuit caput. Item quod Christus nullum caput dimisit Ecclesiae, nec aliquem suum vicarium fecit." [] = variant reading from the concluding section of the bull.)
Pius X, 1907, Decr. "Lamentabili" - list of teachings of the modernists that the pope condemned:
55. Simon Peter never even supposed that Christ required him to exercize primacy in the church. (My* translation from Denzinger no. 3455: "Simon Petrus ne suspicatus quidem umquam est, sibi a Christo demandatum esse primatum in ecclesia.")
There is a good, simple exposition by Jeff Ziegler of Catholic doctrine on the subordination of Paul here:
http://www.cuf.org/FileDownloads/sspeterandpaul.pdf
No honest Christian can object to what is said by Ziegler here.

Here ends the quote from Borgehammar.
*My=Stephan Borgehammars, not mine.

Pseudoquote identified. What De Romano Pontifice, book IV, chapter V really says (quote)

Introductory note: From my handwritten copy collationed with numeric photograph of page columns 968/969 in Second Edition 1588 of De Controversiis. Trying to identify source of pseudoquote "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" I debate with someone who goes to antiquated Protestant scholarship mistaking it for Catholic, and get close to a source in that antiquated Protestant scholarship, though it misquotes its source. I identified the quote first as book one, chapter 4, c.=something else 5. That gave no clue whatsoever. Then I said, well, it is maybe volume or tome one, book four and chapter (=c.) five. Here we go. It does talk about Popes legislating on morals, and it does talk about legislating wrongly, and it does insist on obedience. But it does not say that if a Pope legislates wrongly in an important matter, we are still bound to obey the Pope. It says only that God who demanded of us to obey the Pope cannot permit him to legislate wrongly in such an important matter. English translation by myself.
Source: Bibliothèque de Salchoire
De decretis morum		On decrees on morals
Tertia propositio haec esse potest. Non solùm in decretis fidei errare non potest summus Pontifex, sed neque in praeceptis morum, quae toti Ecclesiae praescribuntur; & quae in rebus necessariis ad salutem, vel in iis quae per se bona, vel mala sunt, versantur.		The third proposition can be this one. Not only in decrees of the faith the Supreme Pontiff [=Highest Bishop]* cannot err, but neither in precepts of moral matters, which are prescribed to all of the Church; & which have their scope in things necessary for salvation, or in them that are good, or bad, by themselves.
Dicimus PRIMVM, non posse errare Pontificem in iis praeceptis, quae toti Ecclesiae praescribuntur; quia, vt suprà diximus, in praeceptis, & iudiciis particularibus, non est absurdum Pontificem errare. Addimus SECVNDO, quae in rebus necessariis ad salutem, vel per se bonis, aut malis versantur; quia non est erroneum dicere, Pontificem in aliis legibus posse errare, nimirum superfluam legem condendo, vel minus discretam, & c.		FIRSTLY we say, that the Pontiff cannot err in precepts, which are prescribed for all the Church; since, as we said above, it is not absurd that a Pontiff err in precepts or judgements on particular matters. SECONDLY we add, which have their scope in things necessary for salvation, or in what is good, or bad by itself; since it is not erroneous to say that the Pontiff can err in other legislations, that is by making a superfluous law, or a not so well thought through, & c.
Ac vt rem totam exemplis declaremus; Non potest fieri vt Pontifex erret, praecipiendo aliquid vitium, vt vsuram; vel prohibendo virtutem, vt restitutionem: quia haec sunt per se bona, vel mala. nec potest fieri vt erret praecipiendo aliquid contra salutem, vt Circumcisionem, vel Sabbathum; vel prohibendo aliquid necessarium ad salutem, vt Baptismum, aut Eucharistiam; licet haec non sint per se bona, vel mala: vt autem iubeat aliquid quod non est bonum, neque malum ex se, neque contra salutem, sed tamen est inutile, vel sub poena nimis graui illud praecipiat, non est absurdum dicere posse fieri; quamquam non est subditorum de hac re dubitare, sed simpliciter obedire.		And in order to clarify all the matter with examples; It cannot happen that the Pontiff err precepting some vice, like usury; or forbidding some virtue, like restitution: since these are good, or bad by themselves. nor can it happen that he err precepting something against salvation, as Circumcision or Sabbath; or forbidding something necessary for salvation, as Baptism or Eucharist; even though these be not good or bad by themselves: but that he order something which is not good, nor bad out of itself, nor against salvation, but is only useless, or that he give that precept under too grave a sanction, is not abusrd to say it can happen; still, it is not for the ones under him to doubt about this thing, but simply to obey.
Probatur iam propositio; & PRIMO, quòd non possit Papa errare in praeceptis morum ad salutem necessariorum: quia tunc tota Ecclesia grauiter laederetur, et erraret in rebus necessariis, quod est contra promissionem Domini. Ioannis 16. Cùm venerit ille spiritus veritatis, docebit vos omnem veritatem. Quod intelligitur (vt minimum) de veritate necessaria ad salutem. SECVNDO, quia Deus tunc deesset Ecclesiae suae in necessariis; quandoquidem praecepit illi, vt sequatur Pontificem, & Pontificem permittit errare in necessariis. At certè si Deus nulli rei deest in necessariis, quantò minus Ecclesiae suae?		Now the proposition is proven; & FIRSTLY, that a Pope cannot err in precepts of usages necessary to salvation: since then all Church would suffer grieveous damage, and err in necessary things, which is against the promise of the Lord. John 16. But when that Spirit of Truth shall come, he will teach you all the truth. Which is understood (at the very least) about Truth necessary for salvation. SECONDLY, since God then would let down his Church in necessities; since he gave her the precept to follow the Pontiff, & let the Pontiff err in necessities. But surely, if God lets not one thing down in necessities, how much less his Church?
Quod autem non possit Pontifex errare in moribus per se bonis, vel malis, probatur. NAM tunc Ecclesia non posset verè dici sancta, vt in Symbolo Apostolorum vocatur. Nam sancta dicitur potissimùm ob sanctam professionem, vt alibi ostendimus; quia nimirum legem, & professionem sanctam profitetur, quae nil docet falsum, nihil praecipit malum. SECVNDO, quia tunc necessariò erraret etiam circa fidem. Nam fides Catholica docet, omnem virtutem esse bonam, omne vitium esse malum: si autem Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia, vel prohibendo virtutes, teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona, & virtutes malas, nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare.		But that the Pontiff cannot err in moral matters that are goo, or bad, by themselves, is proven. FOR then the Church could not be truly called holy, as she is called in the Apostles' Creed. For holy she is most of all called because of her holy profession, as we have shown elsewhere; since indeed she professes a holy law and profession, which teaches nothing false, and gives no evil precept. THEN AGAIN, since then she would by necessity err also about the faith. For the Catholic faith teaches that all virtue is good, all vice is evil: but if the Pope erred giving precepts for vices or forbidding virtues, the Church would be obliged to believe vices good & virtues bad, unless she wanted to sin against her conscience.
I wonder what St Robert Bellarmine would have said about Benedict XV who in 1917 ceased to forbid the taking of interest as usury. Or about the canonist who counselled him so - Eugene Pacelli was the one responsible for preparing the then new code of canon law - becoming later Pope under name of Pius XII. To St Robert Bellarmine - as indeed to me too - taking interest on a loan of goods in themselves not productive, as is necessarily the case with the goods of exchange, "productive money" being as useless for exchange of values as yardsticks still growing as branches are for measuring, is in of and by itself wrong or evil. Yet, Pacelli counselled Benedict XV otherwise, and when Pope ordered one monastery to pay interest to another cleric (AAS for one of years 1943, 1947 or 1950). He has been much accused for being Hitler's Pope - wrongly - but that is no cause to canonise him. HE and HIS modernisms are what made me doubt first that he was truly Pope, then that Papacy was the true succession of St Peter. What is amply clear is that St Robert Bellarmine did not know that and that a man who claims to have read him and cites this chapter as "if a Pope decrees vices or forbids virtues, the Church is obliged to obey him" is not very scholarly or even honest. Hans-Georg Lundahl, 22 october 2009, St Caecilia, in Musical Médiatèque of Paris

*Supreme Pontiff, I have also seen Sovereign Pontiff=usual title, Highest Bishop=what St Robert Bellarmine is talking about, the Bishop of rome being higher than others. Both are in Latin "Summus Pontifex".

Mystagogy posts certainly false allegation on St Robert Bellarmine

Here are comments before John starts deleting them (see threat further down):

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

John Sanidopoulos said...

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl said...

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl said...

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.

October 20, 2009 3:25 PM

Hans-Georg Lundahl said...

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 ...

October 20, 2009 3:33 PM

Hans-Georg Lundahl said...

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.

October 20, 2009 3:50 PM

M. Mitterand, ministre de la culture ...

... vient d'affirmer récemment qu'on ne fait pas littérature avec des beaux sentiments (ou mots de la même signification). Unpeu d'histoire de la culture pour le ministre:

• Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, c'est quoi sinon beaux sentiments? Quand à un autre sujet que le ministre pourrait trouver d'interêt culturel, voici wikipedia:
  
  

  Whitman's sexuality is often discussed alongside his poetry. Though biographers continue to debate his sexuality, he is usually labeled as either homosexual or bisexual.[4] It is not clear if Whitman had sexual relationships with men.[5]

  
  
  
• Oscar Wilde est principalement lu par des hétérosexuels qui admirent ses beaux sentiments, par exemple à l'égard de la virginité et la piété envers les défunts en The Ghost of Canterville, ou encore la générosité avant les richesses (en fait cet histore reclame plus de dépouillement que des exégèses moins hétérodoxes du Sermon sur la Montagne) en The Happy Prince. Même Dorian Gray's Portrait a la beauté morale de dire qu'il vaut mieux être que paraître innocent. Et quand à ses comédies, "we all live in the gutter but some of us look at the stars" est quoi sinon un beau sentiment (un peu payen et fataliste, c'est vrai)?
  
  D'ailleurs à part cette affaire malheureuse qui ruina sa vie (assez directement après les faits, selon une législation qui condamna justement sodomie à prison ferme avec travail forcé) il était avant ça un mari (et pas pacsé) et il avait d'enfants. S'il avait été chrétien et pas franc-maçon (j'allais visiter le tombeau de ce pénitent avant de me rendre compte que c'est à cause de son appartenance à la loge qu'il est enterré là où il est enterré et qu'il a un monument d'Epstein) peut-être aurait-il été préservé de cette aberration.
  
  
• Shakespear est plus lu et joué en théatre à cause de beaux sentiments (comme ceux de Portia ou de Jessica) qu'à cause d'un soupçon que certains sonnettes ont évoqué chez certains critiques. Et notons que ce n'est qu'un soupçon et qu'il est connu comme mari de l'Anne Hathaway et comme père.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Paris XIII, Italie
17 octobre 2009

PS: Peut-être les soupçons et allégations d'homosexualité dans les cas Whitman et Shakespear disent plus sur les critiques que sur les auteurs en question.

Brother Dimond refutes claim that Shroud of Turin has been duplicated (link, youtube)

Les Gogo sont basques?

De toute manière, le mot Gogo est un mot basque.

Lat: anima, spiritus, mens

Voir: Vocabulaire Européen des Philosophies, pp 514 s.

Georges Pompidou, 5 octobre 2009

Qu'est-ce que c'est passé? Quelqu'un tombé? Encore en vie?

Et porquoi n'écrit on pas dans les journaux ou sur le web là-dessus, à part moi?

Ou pouvez-vous trouver qqc de pertinent sur http://o-x.fr/h25 (Alta Vista recherche: "Centre Georges Pompidou" "5 octobre 2009" accident)?

MISE À JOUR :

J'essaie, vendredi le 9 octobre, d'ajouter au blog brocante de LeParisien.fr :

puisque c'est un blog de la rédac, et puisque c'est la même journée:

Votre actualité pour Paris IV manque infos sur ÇA

Voici le message blog auquel j'essaie de commenter. J'ai vu un message que le commantaire est reçu et sera visible dès qu'aprouvé par la propriétaire du blog.

MISE À JOUR II, même jour:

De Facebook:

An Apology
Source : www.youtube.com
A political Apology from Monty Python


5 octobre, à 08:41 · Commenter · J'aime / Je n'aime plus · Afficher le feedback (2)Masquer le feedback (2) · Partager

NN* aime ça.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
lol or nearly
5 octobre, à 17:01 · Supprimer

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I think it was a little later than that that I was stopped from usual exit on G. Pompidou Centre:http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/georges-pompidou-5-octobre-2009.html
il y a environ une minute

*NN=nom d'un ami de l'ami sur la page duquel ces commentaires se trouvent - pour localiser l'événément dans le temps.

MISE À JOUR, 18 octobre 2009:

Résultats pour “5 octobre 2009, Georges Pompidou” Aucun résultat pour “5 octobre 2009, Georges Pompidou”.

Ça s'annonce après la recherche sur le site du journal LeParisien.fr - un homme m'avait dit dimanche passé que peut-être ce n'était pas noté à cause de la fréquence, il estimait qu'il y avait environ 40 morts par an à Georges Pompidou, mais ça - la banalité des décès trop répétés - n'empêche pas que le 25^ème suicide d'un entreprise privé se trouve annoncé ces jours ci dans un journal gratuit.

En plus, les gardiens de la sécurité ne trouvent pas que des bizutages envers des visiteurs soient de mauvais goût. Je me pose paisiblement pour boir un café, je m'enlève les chaussures - ayant une plaie que ces baskets empirent - et deux gardiens viennent me harceler sur le réglement quoiqu'il n'y avait personne sauf eux à place que ça pourrait déranger, ayant fait un vrai détour pour m'embêter là-dessus. Je qualifie la demande de remettre les chaussures tout de suite comme bizutage et je bois mon café - ils attendent jusqu'à ce que les chaussures sont mis. En bas je me mets à la queue pour l'internet (je constate après que le URL pur de ce blog reste bloqué) un pic qui tient les cordes tombe et quand j'essaie de le relever, une bibliothécaire vient, "averti" par l'un des deux gardiens me faire reproches d'avoir sauté la corde pour me mettre devant les autres.

St François d'Assise (lien en titre)

Thanks for the fifty cents, but WHO told you off? And why?

Or, letter to an English lady in teaching profession whom I met outside the Georges Pompidou library today:

We met today, Sunday Oct 4th YooL 2009, New Calendar (the Old one being as usual 13 days behind, and saying it is Sept 21, but even so Sunday) in presence of two of your collegues and four of your students, all ladies.

You said "I shouldn't be doing this, you've persuaded me, I feel bad about this", me answering "God bless your sweet heart"; but while you searched for an euro as asked for (and eventually found the fifty cents) you said something which ticked me off: "I have been told off". When I tried to ask you who had told you off, you said: "Don't ask for more" and I assure you once again, I was not asking for more money. I do want to know WHO is telling even TOURISTS (or study visitors) off from giving alms to a beggar or poor man who has wet hair and wants a coffee, and why they are so important that the tourists listen to them. Or what they argued by to make a tourist listen.

If it had been only the French who reacted like that today, it might have been some people who think they are doing me a favour by making it less easy for me to live by begging. Indeed, I would prefer living by my writing (including the service of linking to other writers, which, if done on paper is called writing or editing bibliographies) - http://o-x.fr/vru on this blog links to most of my extant writings and some other writers as well. Or it might have been people who consider it begging to ask for an euro for coffee, and who think I should not be doing it on Sunday. Indeed, on Sundays I do not sit down in a corner to beg for money, which I do sometimes on week days.

But you are English. So, thank you again for the fifty cents, but who told you off?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Paris IV, G. Pompidou
Oct 4 2009,
Feast of St Francis of Assisi,
whom I would rather not continue imitating, only revering!

PS, I am off to have that coffee, if someone will give me the remaining 35 c - here there are automata that give you coffee for 85 c, but outside the cheapest is generally 1 €.

Links/liens/länkar (o-x dot fr)

The o-x dot fr slash is a short url service, first character after h(yper) t(ext) t(ransfer) p(rotocol) colon slash slash is an oe, not a zero.
By others / d'autres / af andra: http://o-x.fr/yoj - on Humility, by Thomas Fleming, http://o-x.fr/suv on anti-Catholic bigotry in Dawkins, by Tom Piatak http://o-x.fr/qb3 - message on Galileo process; http://o-x.fr/u7c gives a scheme of geocentric world-view during Middle Ages, whereas http://o-x.fr/9ql updates to Tycho Brahe. http://o-x.fr/9g0 (nine gee zero) - "religion cause of all war" - no way, José! http://o-x.fr/jf4 Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII of Old Rome, under whose pontificate my grandfather was born. http://o-x.fr/j-i - G. K. Chesterton's Works Online http://o-x.fr/dei (oui, le mot latin qui veut dire "de Dieux") - Solidarité (et c), présente deux listes, texte sur Le Salon Beige. http://o-x.fr/gui Carlista? Yo? http://o-x.fr/1o2 (a letter o between the numerals)- youtube, une course entre cascadeur-courreur et minivoiture. Youtube also censors, it seems: http://o-x.fr/140 (one hundred forty). Why? http://o-x.fr/y-y maybe gives a hint. http://o-x.fr/7bl (seven bee ell) continues in same vein. This http://o-x.fr/35- features Obama. As this blog post: http://o-x.fr/-mu http://o-x.fr/zwu - St Kateri Tekawitha, Lily of the Mohawks http://o-x.fr/fzi et http://o-x.fr/352 et http://o-x.fr/wwa concernent aussi le travail du dimanche, comme aussi http://o-x.fr/shb http://o-x.fr/vq5 - James O'Keefe, author presentation on BigGovernment site. http://o-x.fr/y2p - Fidelio Magazine/Schiller Institute on the Frankfurt School http://o-x.fr/e4e - G.K. Chesterton: thinking backward, looking forward Par Stephen R. L. Clark (passage on Chesterton's opposition to enforced teaching of evolution) http://o-x.fr/9iv Charles A. Coulombe writes on Tolkien as a TradCat. http://o-x.fr/b0d (a zero between the letters) is about same Tolkien as grandfather of Simon Tolkien. The Tolkien Gateway wiki gives chapter summaries of three books of LotR (click on chapter titles) http://o-x.fr/qrk http://o-x.fr/ox8 and http://o-x.fr/lmc (all letters, ell emm cee). Tea at Trianon is the blog of novelist Elena Maria Vidal (really her grandmother's name, chosen as pen name), here are some on Lepanto: http://o-x.fr/fmj and http://o-x.fr/2-u - if they do not open properly or if the window shuts down for antivirus controls when reading her blog, do protest! Savage on autism: http://o-x.fr/-vr . Purely practical / purément pratique: http://o-x.fr/4-5 =login Yahoo! Fr.	By myself / de moi-même / af mig sjelf: http://o-x.fr/501 (numerals all through) - mes écrits sur / my writings on "septem artes": grammatica (vide et Latinitatis morphologia simplificata necnon Βιβλιογράφικα / Bibliographica et Φιλολόγικα / Philologica), rhetorica, logica; arithmetica, geometrica, musica, astronomia http://o-x.fr/cxf - astronomie / parallax(e) / geo- vs helio (-centrism[e]s) http://o-x.fr/suu - this blog in English - see also http://o-x.fr/v7o (vee seven oe) http://o-x.fr/gij - ce blog les messages en français, voir aussi http://o-x.fr/vn8 http://o-x.fr/3qs - denna bloggs svenska meddelanden, se äfven http://o-x.fr/oog (enbart bokstäfver) och http://o-x.fr/ztf http://o-x.fr/e54 - planifier les groupes de chiffres d'un sudoku/planning the numeral groups on a sudoku http://o-x.fr/lyy - shoe strings / lacets / skosnor / skosnören http://o-x.fr/z5k - Music/Musique (sheet music/partitions, tabs, theorie) http://o-x.fr/lsf - on Creationism vs Evolution Theory general index, leading also to http://o-x.fr/yss "Why is Teaching Evolution So IMPORTANT?" and to http://o-x.fr/foo (letters only) about resisting a supposed next step in evolution (Meta Man or mankind hive) http://o-x.fr/4tp says "uses of homeschooling". http://o-x.fr/2a5 - index générale/general index, three blogs/trois blogs (libellés/labels), une présentation générazlissime de mes idées en français http://o-x.fr/kx2 - if you would like to print and distribute my writings on paper http://o-x.fr/cly - on psychiatry (against), as also ... http://o-x.fr/ck6 2008:03 http://o-x.fr/xky 04 http://o-x.fr/0k7 05 http://o-x.fr/snl 06 http://o-x.fr/hdq 07 http://o-x.fr/2g1 08 http://o-x.fr/74v 09 http://o-x.fr/r0u 10 http://o-x.fr/3xb 11 http://o-x.fr/8rv 12 http://o-x.fr/nx7 2009:01 http://o-x.fr/5ku 02 http://o-x.fr/4vs 03 http://o-x.fr/9pa 04 http://o-x.fr/iy1 05 http://o-x.fr/w9m 06 http://o-x.fr/sma 07 http://o-x.fr/ira 08 http://o-x.fr/oei 09 http://o-x.fr/6gk 10 http://o-x.fr/cxv 11 http://o-x.fr/89n
http://o-x.fr/9-k - blogroll meaning I link to others on a page I made myself; same is true of my youtube channel http://o-x.fr/994 since as yet I have no own uploads, only favourites, playlists and "abonnements".