samedi 31 octobre 2009

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?


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

mercredi 28 octobre 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

lundi 26 octobre 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 - - 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

dimanche 25 octobre 2009

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

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?

samedi 24 octobre 2009

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:
No honest Christian can object to what is said by Ziegler here.
Here ends the quote from Borgehammar.
*My=Stephan Borgehammars, not mine.

jeudi 22 octobre 2009

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 morumOn 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".

mardi 20 octobre 2009

Mystagogy posts certainly false allegation on St Robert Bellarmine

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

Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting this, a very informative article.


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)


- a Pope materially but not formally (as a corpse is to full manhood, so to speak - abbé de Nantes)


- 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 - - 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]).


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...
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:

Here is more of Bellarmine:
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.
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.
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 ...
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.

samedi 17 octobre 2009

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.

mercredi 7 octobre 2009

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.

mardi 6 octobre 2009

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 (Alta Vista recherche: "Centre Georges Pompidou" "5 octobre 2009" accident)?


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

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 :
A political Apology from Monty Python

5 octobre, à 08:41 · Commenter · / · · 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:
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 - 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 25ème 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.

dimanche 4 octobre 2009

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) - 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 €.

vendredi 2 octobre 2009

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: - on Humility, by Thomas Fleming, on anti-Catholic bigotry in Dawkins, by Tom Piatak - message on Galileo process; gives a scheme of geocentric world-view during Middle Ages, whereas updates to Tycho Brahe. (nine gee zero) - "religion cause of all war" - no way, José! Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII of Old Rome, under whose pontificate my grandfather was born. - G. K. Chesterton's Works Online (oui, le mot latin qui veut dire "de Dieux") - Solidarité (et c), présente deux listes, texte sur Le Salon Beige. Carlista? Yo? (a letter o between the numerals)- youtube, une course entre cascadeur-courreur et minivoiture.

Youtube also censors, it seems: (one hundred forty). Why? maybe gives a hint. (seven bee ell) continues in same vein. This features Obama. As this blog post: - St Kateri Tekawitha, Lily of the Mohawks et et concernent aussi le travail du dimanche, comme aussi - James O'Keefe, author presentation on BigGovernment site. - Fidelio Magazine/Schiller Institute on the Frankfurt School - G.K. Chesterton: thinking backward, looking forward Par Stephen R. L. Clark (passage on Chesterton's opposition to enforced teaching of evolution) Charles A. Coulombe writes on Tolkien as a TradCat. (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) and (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: and - if they do not open properly or if the window shuts down for antivirus controls when reading her blog, do protest!

Savage on autism: .

Purely practical / purément pratique: =login Yahoo! Fr.

By myself / de moi-même / af mig sjelf: (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 - astronomie / parallax(e) / geo- vs helio (-centrism[e]s) - this blog in English - see also (vee seven oe) - ce blog les messages en français, voir aussi - denna bloggs svenska meddelanden, se äfven (enbart bokstäfver) och - planifier les groupes de chiffres d'un sudoku/planning the numeral groups on a sudoku - shoe strings / lacets / skosnor / skosnören - Music/Musique (sheet music/partitions, tabs, theorie) - on Creationism vs Evolution Theory general index, leading also to "Why is Teaching Evolution So IMPORTANT?" and to (letters only) about resisting a supposed next step in evolution (Meta Man or mankind hive) says "uses of homeschooling". - index générale/general index, three blogs/trois blogs (libellés/labels), une présentation générazlissime de mes idées en français - if you would like to print and distribute my writings on paper - on psychiatry (against), as also ...

2008:03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2009:01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 - blogroll meaning I link to others on a page I made myself; same is true of my youtube channel since as yet I have no own uploads, only favourites, playlists and "abonnements".

Credo ... in remissionem peccatorum (English & Français)

It seems Roman Polanski has already been pardoned by his victim. (English)
Who does NOT believe that this sin can be simply forgiven? (In English)
Introduction to open letter by Manu (this introduction in English, following sections in French
Citation de la lettre ouverte de Manu,, 30.09.09 (en français biensur)
Commentaire de la lettre ouverte de Manu (en français)
Credo ... in remissionem peccatorum (English and French)

It seems Roman Polanski has already asked his victim for forgiveness. It seems he has already payed damages. It seems she has already forgiven him. It seems she herself does not want him to go to prison. So WHY this insistance on getting him to US for a visit to a courtroom that may land him in prison for the rest of his years?

Up to index

Some neopagans maybe, some feminists maybe, some Moslems maybe, do not believe his sin can be forgiven.

First we had Wiesenthal insisting on a "justice" that denied the prisoner of Spandau release for old age and good behaviour and the Mossad that kidnapped people that had already found refuge. We had demands of John Demyanyuk going to Israeli courts. We had failed demands and failed kidnap attempts when it came to ex-officer of Waffen-SS, Léon Degrelle, refugee in Spain. Then we had scandals of pedophile priests, some of which payed for things they had done more than twenty years earlier. No regard for the hurt feelings of the rightwing young back in the nineties. No regard for the feelings of parishioners. Plenty of guilt by association for both.

Now the one facing charges is of Jewish extraction and has sympathies among left wing intellectuals. Does that change anything?

To me the important thing is that the culprit has already faced his sins and already done what could be done to make up for them. AND that his victim has forgiven him.

Up to index

A French man who has been in prison and is now an invalid without any employment wrote an open letter to French politicians. It is on and I shortened the full url of the open letter to from which I quote (in French, I will comment in French too), but before I quote the passage that I coment, I just note that the writer has not understood that Polanski has already done an "amende honorable" in Civil Courts and paying his victim damages (pretty big ones, though considering his riches they might have been higher):

Up to index

Le fait est que la prison, le procès et la psychanalyse aidant, j'ai fini par saisir une subtilité qui jusque là m'avait échappé et qui, je l'avoue, était sinon à l'origine de mon acte, tout du moins un élément déclencheur de ce que j'infligeais à ma victime. Comme j'ai pu constater, suite à l'affaire Polanski, que cette subtilité vous échappe à tous deux, je m'empresse de vous en faire part. J'ai appris à mes dépends, mais aussi et surtout aux dépends de celle à qui j'ai fait tant de mal, qu'une gamine de 13 ans ne peut en aucun cas donner son consentement pour une relation sexuelle avec un adulte. Je le répète, il est impossible qu'elle donne son consentement, y compris lorsqu'elle est explicitement demandeuse, c'est vous dire combien certains font fausse route et pourquoi je fus très justement condamné pour viol. Si vous me demandiez la raison de cette impossibilité, je vous répondrais ce par quoi je commençais ce paragraphe. D'où, Messieurs les ministres, la nécessité de répondre de ses actes devant la justice, devant la victime et de les revoir, les mâcher, les ruminer, jour après jour, nuit après nuit. Tout cela bien sûr dans la douleur, les larmes, la contrainte, l'humiliation, la honte et la solitude de la prison. Travail qu'on ne peut nullement réaliser dans le strass et les paillettes. Travail que vous, Messieurs les ministres et tous ceux qui protègent Polanski depuis si longtemps, l'avez empêché de réaliser.

Up to index

Manu, le travail que vous avez fait dans les larmes dans la prison avec la psychanalyse, vous a trompé. D'abord à croire que vous et votre victime n'auraient pas pu vous marier - p ex après un an que vous étiez dans le prison - si elle était explicitement demandeuse, ensuite de croire que toute explicitement demandeuse à l'age de 14 se trompe sur sa volonté, parce que celle-ci n'est pas encouragée par la législation actuelle (en 2006, carrément le 24 mars, veille de l'Annonciation, jour de St Gabriel, l'age légale pour mariage de la mariée a été élévée à celle de l'age du marié, à savoir à 18, quand auparavent elle était pour elle 15 selon le §144 du Code Civil) et finalement que vous fites amende honorable à la victime en vous laissant humilier par la psychanalyse quand probablement vous avez juste donné aux psychanalystes les moyens d'infliger des humiliations correspondants à elle.

Il semble que maintenant - la psychanalyse et les humiliations de la prison aidants, j'imagine - vous êtes invalide sans métier. Donc sans possibilité d'aider vos enfants si vous en auriez eu après les rapports sexuels entre vous et votre victime. Sans possibilité de vous marier. Sans possibilité d'avoir et de garder d'enfants. Êtes vous mieux avec le bon Dieu qu'avec les hommes et les femmes au moins? J'en doute, la psychanalyse n'est pas la pénitence ecclésiatsique.

M. Polanski ne partage pas votre malheur actuel. Est-ce uniquement parce qu'il est connu et vous un petit homme? Non. Lui, c'était en 1977, vous c'était le décade après. Les années 70 ont aussi vu les psychiatres dire à des évêques que George Gheoghan était prêt de laisser tomber son passé pédéraste et de redevenir prêtre actif. Mais il y a là une différence, George Gheoghan est rechuté, vous et Polanski, selon ce qu'on sache, pas. Avec vous, c'est les humiliations. Avec lui, c'est le fait qu'il a une femme et deux enfants. Ce qu'aurait sans doute convenu mieux à vous aussi, et peut-être juste avec votre victime. Une subtilité apprise par la psychanalyse vous en a empêché. La victime de Polanski, elle aussi a un mari et des enfants. Elle non plus n'a pas envie de travail durissime pour comprendre ce que c'est passé de l'angle de vue que préfèrent les psychanalystes. Elle a dit officiellement qu'elle a pardonné Polanski, et qu'elle ne veut pas qu'il aille en prison.

Up to index

Peut-être c'est trop simple pour un subtile comme vous après votre psychanalyse, mais je crois dans la rémission des pêchés. Notemment quand la victime elle-même pardonne.

Maybe it is too simple for subtle men like the readers who supported the extradictions of anyone whom Wiesenthal and the present US courts want extradicted. But I do believe in the remission of sins. Indeed, when the victime herself has pardoned, it may even exist as a social fact before men, and not just before God.

Signed/Signé en Paris XI, Parmentier; Saturday/Samedi 10 octobre (new/nouv. cal.)
Hans-Georg Lundahl

Up to index