samedi 23 janvier 2016

Church Fathers, Learning, Paganism, Geocentricity, Angelic Movers

CC has added three new photos (icons).
It is a misnomer to call the earth a planet. It is an innovation of the last few centuries that arose with the error of heliocentrism. The great saints of antiquity, both in the East and the West, referred to the sun as a planet, but did not call the earth a planet. By definition, a planet is in motion, from the ancient Greek planan: ‘wander.’ Planets are called 'wandering stars'. The earth does not 'wander'.

His text under photos
then quotes four of the three Fathers depicted in icons:

St. John Chrysostom (4th century)
Homily III on Titus
For they who are mad imagine that nothing stands still, yet this arises not from the objects that are seen, but from the eyes that see. Because they are unsteady and giddy, they think that the earth turns round with them, which yet turns not, but stands firm. The derangement is of their own state, not from any affection of the element.

St. Basil the Great (4th century)
Nine Homilies on the Hexaemeron
Homily III
Let the learned people see if they do not disagree among themselves. The water which the sun consumes is, they say, what prevents the sea from rising and flooding the rivers; the warmth of the sun leaves behind the salts and the bitterness of the waters, and absorbs from them the pure and drinkable particles, thanks to the singular virtue of this planet in attracting all that is light and in allowing to fall, like mud and sediment, all which is thick and earthy. From thence come the bitterness, the salt taste and the power of withering and drying up which are characteristic of the sea. While as is notorious, they hold these views, they shift their ground and say that moisture cannot be lessened by the sun.

St. Augustine of Hippo (5th century)
The City of God
Book VII. Chapter 16
Although they would have Apollo to be a diviner and physician, they have nevertheless given him a place as some part of the world. They have said that he is also the sun; and likewise they have said that Diana, his sister, is the moon, and the guardian of roads. Whence also they will have her be a virgin, because a road brings forth nothing. They also make both of them have arrows, because those two planets send their rays from the heavens to the earth.

St. John of Damascus (8th century)
An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith
Book II Chapter VII
For there are said to be seven planets: Sol, Luna, Jupiter, Mercury, Mars, Venus and Saturn. But sometimes Venus is called Lucifer and sometimes Vesper. These are called planets because their movements are the reverse of those of the heaven. For while the heaven and all other stars move from east to west, these alone move from west to east. And this can easily be seen in the case of the moon, which moves each evening a little backwards.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (my comments with quotes)
"For they who are mad imagine that nothing stands still, yet this arises not from the objects that are seen, but from the eyes that see. Because they are unsteady and giddy, they think that the earth turns round with them, which yet turns not, but stands firm. The derangement is of their own state, not from any affection of the element."


Cited about Kate Petruccio in Taming of a Shrew:

"He who is giddy, thinks the world turns round"


St Basil seems to have got sth wrong:

"Let the learned people see if they do not disagree among themselves."


Well, at least he says to let them see.

"The water which the sun consumes is, they say, what prevents the sea from rising and flooding the rivers; the warmth of the sun leaves behind the salts and the bitterness of the waters, and absorbs from them the pure and drinkable particles, thanks to the singular virtue of this planet in attracting all that is light and in allowing to fall, like mud and sediment, all which is thick and earthy. From thence come the bitterness, the salt taste and the power of withering and drying up which are characteristic of the sea."


Water cycle described rather accurately.

"While as is notorious, they hold these views, they shift their ground and say that moisture cannot be lessened by the sun."


Overall water content not lessened by Sun.

St John of Damascus:

"For there are said to be seven planets: Sol, Luna, Jupiter, Mercury, Mars, Venus and Saturn. But sometimes Venus is called Lucifer and sometimes Vesper. These are called planets because their movements are the reverse of those of the heaven."


By movement of Heaven, he means the daily movement, at stellar circum-telluric angular speed, full circle in a few minutes less than 24 h.

"For while the heaven and all other stars move from east to west," (only) "these alone" (also) "move from west to east." (visibly to naked eye) "And this can easily be seen in the case of the moon, which moves each evening a little backwards."


These have a double movement, or a movement analysable as double, like he did here. The movement they have in common with stars, with ether, thus, namely the daily movement. And the reverse movement which differentiates their movement from that of stars, so as to make them wander through the zodiac.

Sun through zodiac - one year.

Moon through zodiac - one stellar month (somewhat shorter than lunar month, since this is about its faces, which also depend on position of Sun).

Note that many fix stars also have a movement, namely aberration and parallax, as they are called (geocentricity does not agree with calling them such, but they are named by heliocentrics), but these movements are only visible to telescopes and astronomic tubes. [They are also not through whole zodiac.]

"Although they would have Apollo to be a diviner and physician,"


I wonder whether the physician was not a Pagan/Gentile saint, or perhaps his son Asclepius was so. In whose school were Hippocrates and St Luke.

The diviner is the Pythonic spirit of Delphi. A k a Apollyon.

"they have nevertheless given him a place as some part of the world. They have said that he is also the sun; and likewise they have said that Diana, his sister, is the moon,"


I think that angels of Sun and Moon are very ill pleased of being imagined as deities of pythonic mantia and of witchcraft!

In case they care at all!

"and the guardian of roads. Whence also they will have her be a virgin, because a road brings forth nothing."


Pagan imagination, not very important.

We do the kind of thing too when St Anthony is patron of finding of lost objects - except that St Anthony is a real saint, they are not real gods.

"They also make both of them have arrows, because those two planets send their rays from the heavens to the earth."


Now, it may be the inverse, they were imagined as archers first (Apollo due to being plague god, Apollyon in another sense, or perhaps rather Beelzebub), and this was then rationalised as the rays from the planets - whence Apollo and Diana replaced Sol son of Hyperion and Luna, sister of Sol (of which Sol is also, alas, associated with witchcults: Medea is supposed to descend from him and have her magic powers from him).

St Augustine is great on analysing Paganism, but he sometimes (like other saints) doesn't give due credit to the capacity of Pagans to coalesce divinities from widely different sources.

Was Mercury a magician of Greece (Hermes) about 1000 BC (or of Egypt even earlier, Thot = Hermes Trismegistos) or was he a magician of Sweden 1st c BC (Oden)? Paul the Deacon presumes he can't be both. (Let alone all three.)

But two people can by Pagans have been imagined to be same divinity.

Can Buddha have been a man? St Francis Xaver concludes negatively, since the diverse incarnations add up to 9000 years of life. But the "last of incarnations" (and some earlier ones) can certainly have been real people. Siddharta Gautama is supposed to be last incarnation of Buddha, I think he did exist. I don't think he was a god in any sense, I don't think he attained supreme enlightenment and I don't think he was reincarnation of previous people, some of whom might nevertheless have lived.

samedi 16 janvier 2016

Catholic and Lutheran (or neither) declaration of ... sth like Apostasy

KB
Oh dear.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Catholic Herald : Catholics asked to thank God for the ‘insights’ of the Reformation
by David V Barrett, posted Friday, 15 Jan 2016
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/01/15/catholics-asked-to-thank-god-for-the-insights-of-the-reformation/


Ruari McCallion
I haven't read the article but the insight into the sale of indulgences was indisputably valuable!

GD
I think it's fair to say that without the Reformation we'd not have had Trent, the Counter-Reformation, the Jesuits, attacks on nepotism and simony, clampdowns on indulgence-selling, improved training for priests... So, yes, disastrous in terms of being a split in Christendom and the wars that followed, but not a cloud without silver linings.

HGL (me, as you know) to Ruari
"the insight into the sale of indulgences was indisputably valuable!"

Was it?

Was there, first of all, any "sale" of indulgences? Tetzel could not "sell" an indulgence and pocket the money, he could of course probably use some to simply survive with some decency, but he was a friar, a "beggar monk" as they are called in Swedish and German. So was Luther, btw.

Then Julius II and Leo X could not pocket the money either. It was contributions to rebuilding the St Peter's Cathedral. So, an indulgence was given, as usual for a good deed, and that good deed was helping to build St Peter's. I am sure same indulgence was also valid for any building workers who came to build for free - except that the Papacy back then was too Unionist to envisage workers working without wages. So it wasn't offered.

And monetary contributions to Crusades, equal with Crusading as such, were on the decline. There also, Church men could not pocket the money, they had to hand it on to the Crusading military and other activity.

Oh, wait, due to my low fluency in English, I may have misunderstood your irony?

HGL to GD
GD, False.

[St ]Ignatius of Loyola lived in a Spain where the main threat of heterodoxy was Alumbrados and Crypto-Jews.

I'd say Luther and Calvin contributed zilch to his holiness.

Many of the first Jesuits - notably St Francis Xaver - were occupied in mission to Heathens not to Protestants. All the while, Protestants were not very active as missionaries (Lutherans in Lapponia perhaps excepted, perhaps Baltics too, where Christianisation was late and partly retarded).

Erasmus was promoting reform and he was not doing so on very Protestant lines, he retained a belief in Seven Sacraments and in Free Will. The Cénacle of Meaux was liturgically somewhat "reformish" and also somewhat bad, but its bishop never went full Protestant, though one member Farel did ("and I met with captain Farrel and his money he was counting" ... certainly not the Reformer, but very possibly one of his posterity after Louis XIV expelled them) while another member went Jesuit.

And I could go on.

Ruari McCallion
Yes, there were sales of indulgences. It had become quite a scandal during Luther ' s time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, the so called "sales" were not such.

It is not my fault you have a bad grasp of Reformation history.

KB
Ruari, it was the prayers that made me wince.

Ruari McCallion
Having read it, it seems mostly a Lutheran idea for joint celebrations. So, far from being an imposition.

[Mostly Lutheran? No, a joint declaration.]

I note that Rorate Caeli is against it. So it can't be all bad... [smiley with twinkle]

DM
OK - every heretical movement draws the Church's attention to matters that need clarification, and brings about development of doctrine. The actual reform, of course, happened at the Counter-Reformation.

Nice one on Rorate Caeli, Ruari.

MT
Never! lol

DOM
Trent

Ruari McCallion
Mornington Crescent.

[I first thought he had written "morning crescent" and referred to the bakery, but that was the Turks who provoked it by the siege of Vienna in 1529, not the Reformers - but I have no idea what Mornington Crescent is, so I can't reply to what he really said, here]

DC
The reformation was a Disaster.....full stop.!!!.......Can anyone justify the splitting asunder of Christendom?

KH
Oh, but it brought about such good things...erm.....

HGL
Insights of the Reformation .... like insight of Tyrants wanting excuses to plunder monasteries and to divorce and remarry and not stopping at theological mayhem?

Or clerics being there, sometimes before it happens, to cheer them on?

Or Catholics being caught in APPARENT conflicts of duty and siding with Apostasy?

Well, these are perhaps insights we need to meditate on.

Any sign that anyone meant something else by the words?

Checked
and came back.

HGL
Yes, I saw one [sign that someone etc.]. The words were those of Bergoglio.

[I was wrong, I just saw a photo of Bergoglio. He might not yet make them his, these words.]

And another one: it was a joint declaration.

[This was not wrong.]

Quoting
Liturgic prayer and readings, when commenting:

HGL
// the many guiding theological and spiritual insights that we have all received through the Reformation. //


Any insight which was common to both sides?

// Thanks be to you for the good transformations and reforms that were set in motion by the Reformation or by struggling with its challenges. //


The Pietism (if one may call it so) of Counter Reformation Catholicism was NOT set in motion by the Reformation. St Ignatius was a Pietist well before he knew there were any Protestants to challenge, and the Protestants of the time were anything BUT Pietist.

The later Pietism within Protestantism has more to do with Protestants Protesting against original Protestants, without knowing it. And sometimes getting called Papist of Crypto-Papist over that.

// Thanks be to you for the proclamation of the gospel that occurred during the Reformation //


Is Reformation purely temporal, like Catholics proclaiming Gospel during the time they were persecuted for it?

// “In the 16th century, Catholics and Lutherans frequently not only misunderstood but also exaggerated and caricatured their opponents in order to make them look ridiculous. They repeatedly violated the eighth commandment, which prohibits bearing false witness against one’s neighbour.” //


What Catholic did so?

If none is named, is this not breaking the 8th about Catholics of that time?

CSL may from time to time have promoted sth like this, but there he relied on not very reliable Anglican clergy.


Link in status in its turn linked to:

Important - Lutheran World Federation, Pontifical Council for Christian Unity launch "Common Prayer" service extolling Martin Luther and the Reformation
UPDATE: A note on where to find the text of the "Common Prayer", and the letter co-signed by Cardinal Koch promoting it.
Originally published 1/14/16 at 1:54 PM GMT
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/01/important-lutheran-world-federation.html


with the words:

// Rorate Caeli, the traditionalist site, criticised the Common Prayer, saying it was the “first time that the drive for Catholic-Lutheran union and the glorification of the Reformation has taken a quasi-liturgical shape”. //

vendredi 8 janvier 2016

Difference between "sodomy" and "homosexuality"

Status of an Orthodox Deacon, Aristobule Adams:

Classical Christianity : Byzantine Law on Homosexuality
Monday, September 12, 2011 By Admin Leave a Comment
http://classicalchristianity.com/2011/09/12/byzantine-law-on-homosexuality/


My comment directly to status*:

"For there will be no relaxation of enquiry and correction so far as this matter is concerned"

This may have been the reason why Byzantium and Russia have been more plagued by Sodomy and such than the Latin West, at least during the middle ages.

However, as for the rest, I see the same case I made about De horrendo scelere can be made also about this one: it does NOT forbid people plagued by Same Sex Attraction to contract real marriages.

As for the use of the word penance, indeed, celibacy might be one such. BUT when Inquisition inquired in Provence about Albigensians, some former heretics seem to have done penance by "iit in matrimonium" - now these heretics had indeed also heterosexual perversions, but in their agenda to avoid procreation also sodomy was admitted, except by their perfects. So some of the knights who, making penance each "iit in matrimonium" before witnessing inquisitors, some might have been former sodomites.

One problem about the heading. It says "Homosexuality", but the text itself does not say "homosexuality", it says "sodomy". In other words the living out of homosexuality. This latter word also means same sex attraction, and as far as it is not lived out, the text by Justinian has NOTHING to say about it.

Two things follow, pastorally:

  • 1) a man should if returning from the base illdeed of sodomy usually have the choice between celibate chastity and marriage;
  • 2) no man should be barred from marriage only due to a rumour about same sex attraction.


Some clergy today have some difficulty in understanding that this is NOT tantamount to the gay agenda. Some seem to presume that with people plagued by same sex attraction, OF COURSE "marriage" must be a misnomer for the equally misnamed "gay marriage". No, marriage in my above statement means precisely marriage, as instituted by God in Eden and in Cana. One man, one woman.

By "rumour about same sex attraction", I am not referring only to wild rumours, but also including "medical" or pseudo-such diagnoses about it.

If a priest sees a man and a woman come along, and decides not to marry them, because a doctor claiming to be psychiatrist of the man has called him a homosexual, that priest is doing a very evil thing, and is fulfilling the prophecy of Saint Paul, at least partially, in which it says about "heeding doctrines of evil spirits" and "forbidding marriage".

Same if a pastor is confronted with a celibate man and warns every girl in the parish to keep away from him, because a doctor told him the man is "homosexual".

* Omitting my interaction with other commenters.

mardi 5 janvier 2016

Disagreeing with Michelle Arnold and an Anonymous Catholic


1) HGL's F.B. writings : Disagreeing with Michelle Arnold and an Anonymous Catholic, 2) New blog on the kid : Carl F. Hostetter on me:

For article of Michelle Arnold, I would normally have used my main blog. But since my comments came under a status by Father John Matthew Fewel, well, it comes in FB writings category.

The Worst Pope Ever
Michelle Arnold, November 12, 2014
http://www.catholic.com/blog/michelle-arnold/the-worst-pope-ever


Does this person really believe that John Paul II deserves to be placed in the same league as Alexander VI, usually considered by historians to be the most notorious pope in Church history?


My dear, Alexander VI was, a bad liver, but a good Pope.

His public deeds as Pope are beyond reproach, it is just his private life that was a mess (OK, one nomination of a bishop had to do with this, when he tried to force his son Cesare into an ecclesiastical carreer).

And, since he is NOT known for any heresy either before or after election, he was very certainly a POPE. That really makes it impossible to compare him with Antipope Wojtyla.

H/T Belloc for "bad liver, good Pope".

After all, he did concede that John Paul was kind, charismatic, warm, and connected with people in a positive manner.


A good liver - but a bad Pope (if one at all).

I am reminded of Father Bryan Houghton's remarks about his bishop in Viviers. A really good man, with the one default of having no religion.

Last of these comments ("I am reminded") could not be posted.

Reading more on article, after giving up commenting:

The most recent entry on Esquire's list was a pope who reigned five centuries ago:

Leo X (1513–1521) famously said when elected to office, "Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it." And he promptly made it rain. His extravagant expenses angered Martin Luther and caused a gang of cardinals to plot his assassination. The alleged attempt failed, and a not-so-mysterious bout of food poisoning soon plagued the conspirators.


Would perhaps Esquire be a somewhat Protestant (a k a unreliable) source? [I also found it is a somewhat "man's magazine" ... if no nudes, at least lingerie is shown.]

I really doubt these food poisonings came from sources close to Papal court - or that news of them did. I am more prone to think of, if not Foxe, someone like Bilious Bale.

Even Protestant apologists like the man behind tecktonics will balk at taking Bilious Bale's word for Gospel truth.

Leo X was a good Pope, as far as doctrine was concerned, unless you count accepting Mounts of Piety (session X, I think, of Lateran V) as too pragmatic. Even there, he prefers if interest ONLY covers HALF the clarks' expenses and communal taxes covers other half, plus they have to live modestly. It is not like giving them a GOOD wage based on interest taken.

But let's suck the juice out of words like "The most recent entry on Esquire's list was a pope who reigned five centuries ago" ... is she implying there is a trend, and as time goes on Popes are automatically getting better?

Or, perhaps, the truth was rather there was a Reform, called Trent, Counterreformation, all that. And as long as followed it led to good Popes, at least decent ones. But was Wojtyla, is Bergoglio, anywhere near the Counterreformation?

Now to the other Catholic, the one I anonymise. She had uploaded pictures of a Christmas party. When a small boy was twice marked with name of a girl - actually, as we shall realise, of her mother - and a teen girl was marked, also at least twice with name of her father, I was wondering whether this Catholic friend of mine was intentionally mislabelling in order to see if a certain one of her friends - me - was sane enough to notice. Not so. I asked and got another reply, to my mind only barely less strange than such a procedure:

HGL
xqz me, but why was a girl marked [man's name] more than once?

Catholic FB friend:
I assume you mean from my pics from FTMS party? If so, then that's the father, while the girl is not on FB.

We commonly tag the parents as our young ones are not allowed to have an FB account.

HGL
Ah, ok! So "[man's name]" is short for "daughter of [man's name]". At what age do you allow your young ones to have one?

Catholic FB friend:
Depends on the parents. A lot of our parents homeschool their children, so they are held to a different set of standards than public school kids. These parents value their right to make decisions for their children. The ones who are on FB are either past 18 or who are later converts to traditionalism, so the kids were already used to more worldliness. Our FSSP priests do not recommend FB, even for some adults.

HGL
Ah, ok. And TV, radio, is that better seen than FB?

Catholic FB friend:
Usually these families are very selective in their choices of tv programs, many don't subscribe to cable services either. In terms of radio, most listen to stations that provide "oldies" but most listen to Catholuc radio. But with homeschooling, there is usually little time for such things anyway.

They are more readers than tv watchers.

HGL
That does figure. However, I wondered what marriageable age was in CA. [table entry, cited:] [California[4] : N/A : 18 : No minimum age with approval of a superior court judge and parental consent]. In other words, some of them would be of marriageable age. Even by modern legal standards in your state, if I got it right.

Catholic FB friend:
I am not sure what that age is as it can vary state to state. But the US considers under 18yo to be minors.

HGL
Age of marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_the_United_States

[Preview of article: The age of marriage in the United States varies by state, but is generally 18. There are, however, two exceptions—Nebraska (19) and Mississippi (21). Most states, however, allow minors below 18 to marry (generally they have to be at least 16 but sometimes lower) with parental and/or judicial consent… en.wikipedia.org]

Catholic Church has (without parental consent and as per older Canon law, still valid and agreed as such one hundred years ago) same age limit as Massachusetts WITH consent: 12 for females, 14 for males, Consent can be either parental or judicial.

Catholic FB friend:
But I am certain that no Catholic parents in their right mind, in this day and age, would allow a 12 or 14 y.o. to marry.

In the US, that is.

HGL
"In their right mind"? Where do you get that from? No "Catholic"? Why should the schismatics and heretics have a privilege on ACTING Catholic?

Catholic FB friend:
Soory, what??

HGL
OK, here is a bit Aquinas:

Third Part's Supplement ... On Matrimony ... Impediments ... the pertinent ones being in impotence, spell, insanity, incest, and defective age (58), so we click Q58 and get to 5 Is defective age? [an impediment to marriage]:

Summa, Supplement, Q58, A5
http://newadvent.com/summa/5058.htm#article5


it is determined that marriage may not be contracted before the age of discretion when each party is capable of sufficient deliberation about marriage, and of mutual fulfilment of the marriage debt, and that marriages otherwise contracted are void. Now for the most part this age is the fourteenth year in males and the twelfth year in women: but since the ordinances of positive law are consequent upon what happens in the majority of cases, if anyone reach the required perfection before the aforesaid age, so that nature and reason are sufficiently developed to supply the lack of age, the marriage is not annulled. Wherefore if the parties who marry before the age of puberty have marital intercourse before the aforesaid age, their marriage is none the less perpetually indissoluble.


Catholic FB friend:
Hans-Georg, this is getting strange. Why do you keep sending me sources to read, as if to educate me? And I did find your interest in young girls in my photos a bit unusual in my friends, but decided to answer your inquiries anyway. And the topic got to marriageable age (young!!) and you brought up schismatics/heretics, out of nowhere. Who are you accusing? I honor honest, innocent inquiries from my friends. But when things become stranger and stranger, I will not participate. I am protective towards my friends' children. If I sense anyone with less than honorable intentions towards them, I will warn the parents. I'm sorry if my words are unkind, but when minors are concerned, especially ones in my circle, I am watchful.

HGL
OK, I see where you come from. In my book, and I have St Thomas Aquinas on my side, the girl marked by her father's name is certainly NOT a child, and wasn't last year either, probably.

Catholic FB friend:
Again, what??

And what's it to you whether she is or isn't a child? What's it to you how I tag my friends? If I want to tag myself with someone else's name, so what?

HGL
You just mentioned sth as if she had no choice, since not allowed to have a FB account. I am reminded of the site "myparentsjoinedfacebook". In other words, fun for young people gone when parents come in as hawks.

Does Lobelia Sackville-Baggins ring a bell?

My point is, Protestants are acting more Catholic than you if and when allowing their teen girls to marry should they wish so and other circumstances allow.

Catholic FB friend:
Pictures can (and do) lie, haven't you noticed? How old she or anybody is, especially when in candid shots, should not be judged by one such picture. I am sensing you are being obsessed by this one rather young girl. And stop using Tolkien and his works in this matter. Again, what does Prot/Cath have to do with this?

HGL
You are fortunately not Tolkien Estate and even Christopher Tolkien himself could not sue me for making observations to fellow Tolkien fans with comparisons from his work. As said, Protestant parents ARE acting what St Thomas Aquinas thought. And I do NOT think the girl was really under twelve.


So, when referring to Protestants acting more Catholic than she (recommended very intensely), I am among other things thinking of that girl who back in 1995 had the chance of quitting school at 12, by marrying a (much older) man. And of the (girls') magazine adding comment that Clinton had gone out of his way to comment and state he would change the law so as to make that impossible.

I assume that girl had, in South Carolina, Protestant parents.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Vigil of Epiphany
5-I-2016

Update:
Catholic NO LONGER FB friend:
How they behave in France, I haven't got much clue. What I know is my friends are protective of their children and if you think this is wrong, then what you want is for our youth to be left vulnerable. And I have nothing more to argue with you on this because I am sensing more and more you might belong to the group of creeps who troll young girls' site, and this is not acceptable and I must unfriend you, unless you unfriend me first, whichever. You are fast to accuse my friends of fallacies and being schismatics, etc. without knowing who they are. This is unacceptable. You also seem quick to bring up things that are unrelated to the topic at hand. Who's talking about suing? I simply said do not quote the professor's work. It has nothing to do with marriageable age and the impropriety of watching young girls.

HGL
In France, first of all, that is NOT my comparison, I have only lived here for ten years. Soon eleven.

Second, when I came, marital age without consent was 18 for males, 15 for females. Next year, 24-III-2006 it was 18/18. Seven years after that, 23-IV-2013, gay marriage was introduced. If girls age 15 could still have married in 2013, perhaps one would have NOT accepted a law which would have made a 15 year old girl a possible victim for lesbian seduction and it being prolonged. There is a connexion between raising matrimonial age for teens and allowing counternatural things. Or at least two: 1) if youngest age needs less proection, so does institution, 2) both agree with depopulationist agenda (both national and world wide). One may add a third, like both are done by people who are really dirty, at least some of the politicians and some of their friends would like to take advantage of things like girls under 18 not being able to marry, or of girls and boys from 18 being able to "marry" someone their own sex.

"what you want is for our youth to be left vulnerable" Not exactly. The higher age limit makes for sexual frustration and vulnerability. Matrimony is also a protection. And being too over protective of at home daughters can provoke strange things. When Yspadadden did, no big problem, he got killed for it, he deserved it, he was a giant. When Shylock did, no problem either, his daughter Jessica ran off with a Catholic Christian, so much the better for her and in the end for him. But when Christians do it, where are they pushing their children, those most frustrated?

HGL
"And I have nothing more to argue with you on this because I am sensing more and more you might belong to the group of creeps who troll young girls' site, and this is not acceptable and I must unfriend you, unless you unfriend me first, whichever." Will be done, when I have answered. I am unmarried. Young girls are unmarried. I am too old to get a wife my own age, if I want to have a large family.

Catholic NO LONGER FB friend:
I am done with this topic. I have unfriended you. I apologize if this is unwarranted, but I will not continue to participate in what I sense might be predatorial behaviors.

If by that you deem me heretic/schismatic/whatever, so be it.

HGL
"You are fast to accuse my friends of fallacies and being schismatics," I didn't. But again, I consider you as acting like Lobelia. You said yourself that CATHOLICS in US would NOT let daughters under 18 marry, which would leave this very proper behaviour of letting them do so the privilege of schismatics. And as for "predatorial behaviour", you are again acting Lobelia.


As for schismatics doing better, or heretics, I'd call LDS at least that if not Pagans, and here is how they did (and were interfered with for) a few years ago:

deretour : Another take on FLDS (two sets of links) + update
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/another-take-on-flds.html

samedi 5 décembre 2015

Father John Matthew Fewel posed a few questions

John Matthew Fewel
If the earth is stationary at the center of the universe, how do the heavens move about the earth? At what calculated speed is the distant star moving, so that it can circle the globe in a year. If gravity isn't the force, what is it, that keeps the Sun, as well as the distant heavenly bodies, captive and orbiting the earth?

Alex Naszados
I think that the answer to the origin of the spin of the heavens ultimately lies in Genesis, in the account of the first days of creation. (If you read Robert Sungenis' short book ("The First Four Days of Creation") day & night occurred on the second & third days, before the creation of the sun & moon, by way of a spinning).

But I think the idea of that the universe could have been "born spinning" is supported by science. If you read the work of Dr. Longo on galaxy handedness, you discover not only another violation of the Copernican Principle in the universe, but support for this idea that the whole thing is spinning. See:

"The universe may have been born spinning, according to new findings on the symmetry of the cosmos"


Michigan News : The universe may have been born spinning, according to new findings on the symmetry of the cosmos
Jul 07, 2011 Contact Nicole Casal Moore
http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/8467-the-universe-may-have-been-born-spinning-according-to-new-findings-on-the-symmetry-of-the-cosmos


Also, the following quotation form a Discovery News article appears in GWW:

<< If the whole universe is rotating, then an excess number of galaxies on the opposite part of the sky, below the galactic plane, should be whirling in a clockwise direction. And indeed they are according to a separate 1991 survey of 8287 spiral galaxies in the southern galactic hemisphere.

Galaxies spin, stars spin, and planets spin. So, why not the whole universe? The consequences of a spinning universe would be profound. The cornerstone of modern cosmology is that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic — it has no preferred orientation and looks the same in all directions.

This isn’t the first time astronomers claimed to have observed a carousel universe. The cosmic microwave background from the big bang had suspected anomalies that were once suggested as evidence of rotation, but were later dismissed as instrumental effects.

This result might just be a statistical fluke. Or is it somehow biased because we are only looking at the local universe?

What is very curious to me is that the Milky Way’s own spin axis roughly aligns to the universe’s purported spin axis within just a few degrees, as deduced from the two galaxy surveys. That seems very anti-Copernican too. It has also been used to bolster biblical creationist arguments that we are at the “center” of the universe. >>


Discovery : Is the Universe Spinning?
Jul 8, 2011 07:22 PM ET // by Ray Villard
http://news.discovery.com/space/do-we-live-in-a-spinning-universe-110708.htm


Regarding the calculating the speed of distant stars:

"Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rw [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O' [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u [less than] c = 3 x 10^8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c . However, this is not true when gravitational fields are present. In addition to the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks the velocity of light is affected by a gravitational field. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x 10^8 m/sec under these conditions."

(An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, W. G. V. Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 460)


Hans-Georg Lundahl
"If the earth is stationary at the center of the universe, how do the heavens move about the earth?"

Two options. St Thomas Aquinas : God is moving all of Heaven around Earth (sphere touching sphere, but that can be accomodated to some cohesion within aether).

Riccioli: heavens are actually empty space, each heavenly body alone is moving westward each day, moved by an angel.

NB, St Thomas Aquinas also believes each body is moved by angels, however, the difference is that for Riccioli, angel of Sun is concretely moving the Sun westward throuugh empty space, but a little slower than the angels of the fixed stars are moving these westward each day. But for St Thomas, the angel of the Sun is moving the Sun eastward, through a sphere that is moved Westward each day by God. This gives the angel only 1/365 as much speed as the Riccioli scenario.

"At what calculated speed is the distant star moving, so that it can circle the globe in a year."

Only star which takes a year in any kind of sense "around earth" (I would rather say : around the zodiac, moving with it around Earth) is the Sun. All heavenly bodies are moving or moved with aether westward each day. If α Centauri and so on also have a yearly movement, it is not "around earth", but about its locus in relation to the other stars.

"If gravity isn't the force, what is it, that keeps the Sun, as well as the distant heavenly bodies, captive and orbiting the earth?"

Captive is only applicable in a scenario of claustrophobia or potential such. Visible Sun is presumably not alive, its angel is presumably not feeling calustrophobic about it, since he would count as captor rather than captive.

NB, I have it from Latin Mass Magazine about a decade ago, from the successor of Mgr Lefèbvre at Dakar, (Mgr Thiandoum, isn't it?) that angels are so strong that demons would easily, each one of them, make earth or any heavenly body explode, and hate us so much they would easily go on and do it, unless God's greater strength were stopping them. But demons have no more force than angels loyal to God and God is not stopping the kind of movements He ordered angels to perform when creating such bodies for them to move on day four.

As I have a pet theory that stars are one light day away from us, that means that each day they are moving a distance of 2pi light days (just a bit more than "six light days", but mostly resting "the seventh").

That, since I forgot to answer about "what speed".

John Matthew Fewel
Thank you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You are welcome!

John Matthew Fewel
Isn't it possible that the earth rotates on its axis at the center of the universe?

Mass and gravitational pull have a huge roll to play in the stellar traverse of manned and unmanned space vehicles and the behavior of other objects moving in relation to each other.

If the Sun with its huge mass isn't holding nine planets, etc., captive in its orbit, and is rather circling the earth from 93 million miles away at nearly the speed of light (is that right?) what keeps that massive Sun captive in earth orbit?

Rick DeLano
John Matthew Fewel:
Earth cannot rotate on its axis and not orbit the sun ( unless we want to go with angels of course).

If we want to account for the motions of the heavenly bodies by known physical forces, then gravity works in the case of a rotating and orbiting earth or a rotating and precessing cosmos.

But if Earth is rotating on its axis but not orbiting the sun we cannot account for the seasons without adopting angels and abandoning classical physics.

John Matthew Fewel
In classical physics doesn't the more massive Star hold the much smaller bodies in its orbit? What is the motion of the Sun in geocentric motion? My gap in understanding is the force which keeps massive stars precessing around earth - if I have understood geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Isn't it possible that the earth rotates on its axis at the center of the universe?"

Possible, yes. In abstract physics. But we are not just human philosophers, we are also Christians and Joshua X:12 would seem to preclude that.

"In classical physics doesn't the more massive Star hold the much smaller bodies in its orbit?"

In Newtonian physics this is indeed so, but Newton was successor therein to Kepler, whose theory about magnetic force keeping planets around Sun was rejected by Riccioli as less pious than assuming God gave the nobility of spirit, if not to the Sun and Moon as visible bodies, at least to the principle moving them (because heaven is higher and nobler than earth).

Rick DeLano
John Matthew Fewel:
Newton plus Mach's principle provides a complete gravitational solution to a stationary earth and a rotating cosmos.

A paper deriving these solutions was published in 2013 in the European Journal of Physics.

The author is Luka Popov, and the title is Newton- Machian Analysis of Planetary Motions in the Neo-Tychonic system.

The answer to your question is that the rotating masses of the distant stars and other objects generate a real gravitational force which is treated as the fictitious (centrifugal) force by Newton.

This gravitational force generated by the rotating cosmos is what accounts for all observed motions.

John Matthew Fewel
Thank you. Now, what about earth's gravity? You describe the gravity of the spinning cosmos, but what about on earth, where, "what goes up must come down?"

Rick DeLano
Each object of course generates its own gravitational field, exactly as per Newton.

If you get a chance to look over the referenced paper you will see exactly how the gravitational interactions work mathematically.

John Matthew Fewel
I shall do that. Thank you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
May I with all due respect for questioner, John Matthew Fewel, ask Rick DeLano whence this preference of naturalistic (a k a "physical" by now, though even angels have a "physis", and God has two of them) causation over divine and angelic ones?

Rick DeLano
Hans-Georg Lundahl: It is an excellent question.

It is perfectly acceptable so far as I am concerned to say that the planets and stars are moved n their courses by angels.

All that physics can tell us are the principles by which the angels are commanded by God to move them (apart from miraculous intervention), to a less and less imperfect degree of precision.

It is customary in this civilization at this time to prefer a term like "forces", or a term like "fields".

To really try and pin down what the physicist means by these terms is to understand that he means something that is very much like a messenger from the God he is not permitted to behave as if he believed in if he wishes to remain employed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"All that physics can tell us are the principles by which the angels are commanded by God to move them (apart from miraculous intervention), to a less and less imperfect degree of precision."

Er, no.

If I drop a pen, physics will tell you exactly where on the floor it will drop - if I let it fall all the way.

BUT, physics cannot tell if I will catch it before it touches the floor.

Physics in the sense we talk about deal with how material bodies influence material bodies and how "physical forces" influence material bodies.

They say nothing on how spirits influence material movements.

So, if we want to know the laws by which bodies move, these are:

  • 1) Everything in Creation (or in all creations, in the case of a multiverse) obeys the direct acts of will of God. Whether a material body or a soul or a pure spirit.
  • 2) Under that, angels move whatever they want (but can only be present on one locality at a time), whereas human souls move their own bodies (under the limitation of its strength).
  • 3) Under THAT we get the laws of movement studied by Newton and stated or misstated by Newton (I suspect it is a bad misstatement to equate uniform movement with absolute rest - it makes the Prima Via of St Thomas Aquinas moot, which the other aspects of same law do not).


Obviously souls moving their bodies have limitations from third level laws, because these determine bodily strength. Angels moving bodies are not similarily limited by 3rd level laws.

Therefore, these laws do NOT show is the principles by which angels are commanded by God to move stars artistically.

They would show us the principles by which angels normally conform when acting down on earth so as not to make their presence nearly directly visible through undeniable effects. They decide which way a windgust will blow, but it blows because of physical effects ultimately derived from the daily motion which God gives the aether from Ocean currents up to fix stars.

"It is customary in this civilization at this time to prefer a term like "forces", or a term like "fields"."

These things are, probably, distinct from angelic action.

If not, any time we used electricity, we would be meddling in the spiritual world, and thus probably sinning. I hope this is not the case.

[Its seems he was giving instead an angelistic version of Occasionalism, which properly speaking makes the habitual acts of God only appear as causation between created things, as in Geulincqx and Malebranche, one of whom was condemned for saying same thing about free will.]

"To really try and pin down what the physicist means by these terms is to understand that he means something that is very much like a messenger from the God he is not permitted to behave as if he believed in if he wishes to remain employed."

The physicists' problems of employment are one problem, should they admit angelic and divine action beside and above the physical one.

But normally, by "forces", I am not expecting even a physicist employed under the terms of Sorbonne AD 1377 (different from modern conditions) to mean "angelic and divine action".

The only thing I generally have to say about football/socker is, that if the ball were left to obey the law of gravitation, the mutual between the ball and Earth (if Newton's analysis is correct on this one, which I am not positive on), it would just be lying on the football field, and there would be no match, no interest in watching.

However, I can grant, "forces" in the physical sense is no more visible in itself or themselves, than God or angels. They are mysteries, not empirically obvious evidence, but proven by evidence more visible than they.

Rick DeLano
Hans-Georg Lundahl.

It is one thing to say that what physics attributes to forces or fields can equally be attributable to an observed lawfulness in the actions of angels.

it is quite another to propose that physics is an incorrect, or uncatholic, or inadmissible knowledge domain, or that its empirically demonstrable results must be rejected unless they are attributed to the free-will and hence unpredictable actions of angelic beings.

Since you explicitly reject the former, may I say that I explicitly reject the latter.

One cannot use the laws of physics to predict the outcome of a soccer match.

One can use the laws of physics to predict the outcome of a given application of force to a given soccer ball.

If one were to conclude from this that the laws of physics were false, and motion could only be attributed to the free will actions of soccer players, one would have made a truly monumental error.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"It is one thing to say that what physics attributes to forces or fields can equally be attributable to an observed lawfulness in the actions of angels."

If we speak of all forces and fields in general, we are including magnetism and electricity.

If these are only done by angelic beings, then we might fear they are done by demons. Note very well, this is not a question of physical knowledge being inadmissible, but of a certain use, interpreted to be not ordinarily physical, should be considered as spiritual and occult.

While using electricity, I feel morally safer to consider these fields and forces as not angelic bot corporeal states or activities.

[The question of Occasionalism in classical sense, as direct actions of God, being irrelevant for the question of "meddling with spiritual world.]

"it is quite another to propose that physics is an incorrect, or uncatholic, or inadmissible knowledge domain,"

You are mixing apples and oranges. You are lumping "electricity", "astrophysics" and ordinary "mechanics" together as "physics" with a take all or leave all label. All correct or all incorrect. All licit or all occult. I can agree electricity is not necessarily occult, but this on condition it is more or less basically what physicists say it is.

Astrophysics is not empirical knowledge. You cannot stop the "solar system", pick out one body for a while and check how this affects the gravitational interplay of other bodies.

"or that its empirically demonstrable results must be rejected unless they are attributed to the free-will and hence unpredictable actions of angelic beings."

As said, astrophysics is not empirical.

In heliocentrism, attributing the empirical results of planar or even three dimensional observations to gravitation and inertia may have some a priori merit (unless you watch an empirical parallel, which the stone on string experiment is not), but with Tychonian orbits of Geocentric astronomy, I think we have a fair demonstration of free wills engaged in art is a better option.

"free-will and hence unpredictable" is a confusion of categories. Free-willed actions are sometimes predictable. If you have watched a dance (not rock, more like square dance or European folk dances) you CAN fairly predict the next moves. This does not make dancers automata.

"One cannot use the laws of physics to predict the outcome of a soccer match."

One cannot even use the laws of physics to explain why socker is played or the rules of a socker match.

"One can use the laws of physics to predict the outcome of a given application of force to a given soccer ball."

But one cannot predict exactly which application will be given.

However, one can predict that if it is given by a socker player, it is mostly free-willed.

Astrophysics is like physicists watching a socker game, then ignoring the players (which is easier with invisible angels) and then try to determine the changing masses or gravitational constants of Earth and ball in order to "predict" the movements of a game (grosso modo) as if predicting how the ball lies still on the ground.

And that a socker game is unpredictable while stellar movements are very predictable, really changes very little to the meaning of this parable. Hence the other one about dancers moving predictably, though free-willed.

The question if this belief in astrophysics of yours is just erroneous or heretical is beyond "my pay grade".

It is thoughtless. I am arguing against it as a philosopher on natural grounds, not as expressing devotion or claiming either prophecy or megisterium.

Btw, here IS an empirical experiment, clearly parallel to basic assumptions of celestial mechanics:

[ISS] Don Petit, Science Off The Sphere - Water Droplets Orbiting Charged Knitting Needle
SpaceVids.tv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyRv8bNDvq4


Orbits cease [in this video and for each droplet, there being many successive ones] after between 10 and 20. That is the physically PREDICTABLE result [both for droplets and celestial mechanics], even with heliocentrism [for celestial mechanics], if gravitation, inertia and masses of different magnitude or intensity were all to it.

I predicted sth like it (even less like modern astrophysics) on Thomistic grounds : a balance between two opposing forces is not stable, if that is all there is to it (in stone on string experiment, or bikers on perpendicular walls of a tub, that is NOT all there is, since string and tub are solids, not per se forces).

Rick DeLano
Because the movements of the stars and planets are exquisitely predictable, it is false to say that the empirical evidence of that predictable motion is not part of the science of astrophysics.

It is a very strong argument for the correctness of the scientific method that it has managed to derive an excellent physical theory to account for all such observed motions until we reach the scales above a stellar cluster, at which point our present physical theories of gravity fail completely.

So our physics is incomplete, even wrong perhaps.

But it is by far the most empirically supported and useful- in its predictive power- theory ever advanced.

It is simply incorrect to suggest as you do above that the modern Tycho model is somehow less compatible with our present theory of gravity than a heliocentric model.

Both models are identically accounted for under present theories of gravity.

Since my points here are neither erroneous nor heretical, there is no.pay grade too low to dismiss your risible mischaracterization of them.

Lastly, the fascinating video provides not the slightest empirical evidence against present theories of either gravitation or electromagnetism.

// Orbits cease after between 10 and 20. That is the physically PREDICTABLE result, even with heliocentrism, if gravitation, inertia and masses of different magnitude or intensity were all to it.//


Since orbits manifestly do not cease between 10 and 20, your prediction is falsified, and the equations upon which it was based (if any) will be found to involve error.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
« Because the movements of the stars and planets are exquisitely predictable, it is false to say that the empirical evidence of that predictable motion is not part of the science of astrophysics. »

How about sticking to what I said in what you want to refute ? Or was that an introductory remark ?

I have NOT said that « empirical evidence of predictable motion » is not there or is not part of the celestial mechanics or astrophysics stuff, I have mentioned it is NOT enough of a part of it to be guaranteeing it. In other words, there are other premisses which are not empirical.

« It is a very strong argument for the correctness of the scientific method that it has managed to derive an excellent physical theory to account for all such observed motions until we reach the scales above a stellar cluster, at which point our present physical theories of gravity fail completely. »

There is always that failure which is a strong argument against.

« So our physics is incomplete, even wrong perhaps. But it is by far the most empirically supported and useful- in its predictive power- theory ever advanced. »

Predictive power was also overrated by Apollo worshippers after Apollo predicted Perseus killing his maternal gramp and Oedipus killing his father and marrying his mother.

In the clearly demonic case, the devil knew (and still knows) how to fool people into selffulfilling prophecies, and in the scientific or astronomic case, planar astronomy is enough to make predictions about regularity. ONE exception was finding Neptune by calculations about gravity. But other calculations are enough to account for most predictions of regularity.

Furthermore, supposing gravity is what it is said to be, the video certainly provides an example of how a parallel (electricity) behaves in NOT providing lasting orbits, you have only thrown that evidence off, you have provided no calculation as to why gravity would work on astronomic levels for thousands of orbits of several orbits within orbits, while electricity fails to go beyond twenty turns of an orbit at two droplets orbitting at a time.

In other words, I do not need to be denying gravity is there, I only need to propose that a balance of gravity inertia is an unstable one per se, unless something is added, and that therefore the balancing out of the forces needs a kind of « biker » to stay in motion and upright. You know how a bike may roll forward and forward and forward, with very little pedalling, but there needs to be a biker on the bike, if there is no biker to control it, somehow the good theoretical balance doesn’t keep it either upright or rolling very long.

« Since orbits manifestly do not cease between 10 and 20, your prediction is falsified, »

The orbits in the video do so.

My prediction is not about orbits as they are, but about them as they WOULD be if only two opposing forces (gravity and inertia) were involved.

It is NOT manifest now and has not been so before, but even more so not since this video, that the orbits of celestial objects as they are depend as uniquely on two opposing physical forces as the water droplet orbits in the video.

« and the equations upon which it was based (if any) will be found to involve error. »

I based the prediction on no equation but on parallel.

Precisely as physics teachers base their predictions also not on giving exact intricate equations, but on the false parallel of a stone on a string experiment.

mercredi 2 décembre 2015

Bergoglio misuses "Fundamentalism" too ....


1) New blog on the kid : Bergoglio Shows He Doesn't Get Christianity ... or Gnosticism, 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Bergoglio NOT Getting Gnosticism, Discussion on FB, 3) Ruari McCallion Tries to Make Allowances for my English, 4) Bergoglio misuses "Fundamentalism" too ....

1) HGL's F.B. writings : Fundamentalism Attacked as Pharisaism - by a Methodist Pharisee, 2) Bergoglio misuses "Fundamentalism" too ....

Paddy McCafferty
Our Holy Father the Pope has correctly identified the disorder of fundamentalism as a dysfunctional form of religiosity: those of a rigid and rigorist attitude, obsessed with the letter of the Law, making no provision for the spirit of the Law. Fundamentalism is often a psychological issue of radical insecurity, underpinned by scrupulosity. It gets projected onto others as an overtly harsh and unbending type of religiosity. It is judgemental. It is devoid of mercy. It ties up heavy burdens and lays them on peoples' shoulders, without lifting a finger to lift them. It is the hostile and stubborn sulking rage of the elder brother in Our Lord's Parable of the Prodigal Son. In its most extreme form, it becomes unfettered self-righteousness that believes it has God's approval for its every action - even to the extent of murder and slaughter. And yes - the Holy Father is spot on. We certainly do have our "Catholic" version of the malaise of fundamentalism.

[Picture of a High Priest among those accusing Jesus.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You prefer the Bergoglio fan club to the Catholic Church, don't you?

Furthermore, Fundamentalism is usually more a question of belief and of eschatology than of law observation.

Furthermore, the Pharisees of the Gospel were not so very obviously rigorists. One could argue that they were pragmatics. That for instance the "corban" reference was a pilpul to allow sons their age to refuse their fathers the occasion of giving a gift to Jesus, on the real (but erroneous) understanding that said fathers were mentally disabled by age.

Furthermore, the so called "holy father" has not shown over great talent in using words about theological beliefs in the past either, PLUS he has already shown a hatred of Fundies, very early on.

Perhaps a take over from his liberal Anglican former friend, erroneously given the burial of a Catholic Bishop - or perhaps his conflicts with the other, presumable, Antipope from Buenos Aires, Alejendro Greijo, styling himself Alejandro IX, who on top of being a Fundie (which I appreciate him for) is also a Feeneyite, has in his "icr" dogmatised Feeneyism and canonised Leonard Feeney.

But even Alejandro IX is preferrable to the man who in Buenos Aires allowed Rotary and Jewry to count him as a very official friend, not just to persons among them, but to the sects themselves.

Ruari McCallion
"Bergoglio fan club" is pushing the envelope somewhat, Hans-Georg. A bit of courtesy towards the vast majority of Catholics would be in order.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
(Impossible de publier ce commentaire.)
Rick DeLano is accepting Bergoglio as Pope (or was last time I checked, unless he is considering Ratzinger's abdication invalid). But he is not acting like Bergoglio's fan club. You are.

Supposing we were dealing with Alexander VI. Would it have been appropriate to praise him for naming his son Cesare as a bishop, when it was nepotism and also against the wish of Cesare to be bishop?

[Cesare, like myself, wanted a layman's life, obviously.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl (continued from my first):
On Bergoglio's misuse of other theological terminology:

New blog on the kid : Bergoglio Shows He Doesn't Get Christianity ... or Gnosticism
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/11/bergoglio-shows-he-doesnt-get.html


Paddy McCafferty
Hans-Georg Lundahl your hatred for the Holy Father is an affront to every faithful Catholic. I am not even going to engage with your disgusting rubbish.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ask Pope Michael if I hate him.

Or if I hate Ratzinger, whom once I thought to be Pope.

I do certainly not hate the Papacy, nor all modern misclaimants who are misrunning the Vatican.

If anything is disgusting rubbish, it is your sectarian adhesion to any and every burp that comes from Bergoglios bad digestion - metaphorically speaking, since it is a bad digestion of what would otherwise perhaps have been theological knowledge.

(continuing posting links about Bergoglios previous terminological débâcle)
HGL's F.B. writings : Bergoglio NOT Getting Gnosticism, Discussion on FB
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2015/11/bergoglio-not-getting-gnosticism.html


HGL's F.B. writings : Ruari McCallion Tries to Make Allowances for my English
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2015/11/ruari-mccallion-tries-to-make.html


Ruari McCallion
I think we saw this stuff a wee while ago.

Have you got nothing new to offer, Hans-Georg?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It is not new to you, but might be so to Paddy McCafferty.

Paddy McCafferty
Hans-Georg Lundahl there is nothing new in your ideological meanderings and they certainly wasted on me..

Hans-Georg Lundahl
There is nothing meandering about my ideology, if you wish to call it such. Only meandering has been about whom I accept as successor of St Peter.

That they are wasted on you was perhaps foreseeable by you, but not by me, I think it is, if not the first time we meet, at least the other time was just once and a long time ago.

Paddy McCafferty
Hans-Georg Lundahl you have no choice about who you accept as the successor of Peter if you wish to be a Catholic. If you do not accept our Holy Father Pope Francis as the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ then you are not a Catholic. Period. Goodbye.

MF
The state of the catholic church is the very opposite to what this post is saying. Where are the catholics that are described there - you would have to travel far and wide to find one or are you referring to those who attend daily mass. These FUNDEMENTAL catholics are big charity givers and have converted the world. Yes true catholics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Paddy McCafferty, that is your outlook.

St Vincent Ferrer was NOT agreeing, he considered it schismatic to deny importance, but considered those accepting wrong Pope as Catholics, though deluded such.

We are again living in times when there is more than one option.

TV
Just another blogging self publicist.émoticône wink

Hans-Georg Lundahl
What blogger is not a self publicist?

What is "just" about one such attacking Bergoglio? Especially if the attacks are just?

KI
Father Paddy, i couldn't agree more. Some people need to get off their high horse and stop judging all the time. As you show mercy mercy will be given. relax God's got it covered. Be gentle with others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Some people need to get off their high horse and stop judging all the time."

What exactly has that got to do with Fundamentalism?

Who says Kent Hovind is more judgemental than other Baptists? Or that Jonathan Sarfati is more judgemental than other Jewish Calvinists or Baptists? And why would Rick DeLano be considered more judgemental than other Catholics (of those who accept Bergoglio)?

Fundie means inerrantist, it is a requirement of the council of Trent, and it does not mean judgemental or Pharisaic.

Among Christ-rejecting Jewry, the best candidate for Fundie label are Chassidic Jews, they are NOT Talmudic and it is Talmudism which is Puritan, judgemental, and heir to Pharisees.

When trying to make more comments:
Cette publication a été supprimée ou ne peut pas être chargée.