On Pat's Wall, by me

Series about my FB enemies: 1) Gossip About Cyber, 2) Gríma Wormtongue has his like in real life - at least as far as his choice of viewpoint is concerned, 3) My Innocence About the Vice of Curiosity, 4) Heated Discussion on Historical Backgrounds for Schism of 1054, 5) Misquoters and Conclusion Jumpers!, 6) Guns, Homeless, Shelters, My Own Situation, 7) On Pat's Wall, by me, 8) In case someone not my FB friend even past wonders, Pat whom I unfriended is not Buchanan, 9) Answering Psychiatry Friendly Comments by one GP (friend of a friend), 10) GP tries it again - after attacking Alveda King, 11) Unfriending someone who is friends with people considering homeless mentally ill

Do you or don't you agree with Enoch Powell's Water Tower speach, specifically the part in which doctors are tending mentally ill mainly outside mental institutions? Do you agree with his view of the sub-normal? And his view of criminally insane?

And, more importantly, do you consider me as being in either of these categories?

Here is his speech by the way:

http://studymore.org.uk/xpowell.htm

Your silence is speaking volumes, as the saying goes ... [Which is why I unfriended him, he had had fifteen hours to answer]

Heated Discussion on Historical Backgrounds for Schism of 1054

Series about my FB enemies: 1) Gossip About Cyber, 2) Gríma Wormtongue has his like in real life - at least as far as his choice of viewpoint is concerned, 3) My Innocence About the Vice of Curiosity, 4) Heated Discussion on Historical Backgrounds for Schism of 1054, 5) Misquoters and Conclusion Jumpers!, 6) Guns, Homeless, Shelters, My Own Situation, 7) On Pat's Wall, by me, 8) In case someone not my FB friend even past wonders, Pat whom I unfriended is not Buchanan, 9) Answering Psychiatry Friendly Comments by one GP (friend of a friend), 10) GP tries it again - after attacking Alveda King, 11) Unfriending someone who is friends with people considering homeless mentally ill

I also get insulted by Gregory Lauder-Frost, who seems to be a public figure.

Pat

I didn't know the Russian schismatic Metropolitan of St Petersburg (still Leningrad at the time) died while attending the inauguration Mass of Pope John Paul I. Of course, Metropolitan Nikodim was a KGB agent.

Also, with the cooperation of the Eastern schismatics during the Second Vatican Council, one might say that it was a truly ecumenical council; of course, one might also say that it was a truly invalid council, having had the participation of obstinate schismatics.

Regardless, it was a mess, and I still can't help but accuse Emperor Otto for his abdication, which continues to haunt us. Hopefully the abdication of our current Pontifex Maximus doesn't come back to haunt us just as frightfully.

Gregory Lauder-Frost (full name because public person)

I always thought it was Rome which was schismatic! it was they who broke away to do their own thing. Not visa versa.

Duc de Berwick (full name because just a pseudonym anyway, I think)

How the hell did Rome break away? It was the fat lard Henry VIII who broke off he is the schismatic.

Gregory Lauder-Frost

Rome broke with the Orthodox Church. (Orthodox meaning 'true'.)

John

I think Nikodim died during a private audience with John Paul I. A double agent so I don't know which side he was really on: he was both secretly in the church and a KGB agent. I don't think you can blame the Orthodox for the council. The Orthodox rite's like us, not the Novus Ordo!

Pat

The moniker "Orthodox Church" is a modern invention. Until the Mohammedans convinced them otherwise they always considered themselves Roman.

Gregory Lauder-Frost

Completely and utterly untrue.

Pat

What is?

Gregory Lauder-Frost

Your ridiculous last comment.

John

Good point. The medieval Greeks were the Roman Empire in the sense that Taiwan is the Republic of China.

Gregory Lauder-Frost

The fact remains that the Christian Church HQ was in Constantinople and the church was alive and well in the Eastern Empire when the western was being sacked by barbarians and when Rome was effectively a ghost city and the Christian population (a small minority) was being seriously persecuted. These are irrefutable historical facts.

John

Rome didn't 'break away'. The differences aren't big enough to warrant the East/West split, so I can't buy that true Christianity remained only in parts of Eastern Europe and the Mideast, plus most Orthodox have sold out on contraception.

Gregory Lauder-Frost

But we are not talking about what happened to Christianity in subsequent centuries following the decline and fall of the Eastern Empire. That is not under discussion here. The **schism** was Rome breaking away from the body of the church to do its own thing. I have never read anyone disputing this absolutely historical fact. It is beyond belief that the Catholics have rewritten history to suit themselves. Bit like Stalin really.

Pat

GL-F is always looking for a way to rationalise his own Anglican schism.

Gregory Lauder-Frost

No I'm not. Stick to the singular issue here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl = HGL (for short) = me

"The fact remains that the Christian Church HQ was in Constantinople and the church was alive and well in the Eastern Empire ..."

- True for alive, except well would imply better freedom from heresies and schisms. HQ - not true.

"... when the western was being sacked by barbarians and when Rome was effectively a ghost city ..."

- Depends a bit on what you mean by sacked by barbarians.

"and the Christian population (a small minority) was being seriously persecuted."

- Totally wrong, since France (at the time including Western Germany and Benelux) did not allow persecution of Christian Orthodoxy, but rather persecuted Arian heresy. Also France had the more Christian public mores.*

So much for your "undisputable" historic facts. Some people here do know history.(You seem to think Romanides is a good source for Western Europe anno 400 - anno 500 - he is not.)

Gregory Lauder-Frost

You're delusional. Your posts have nothing to do with the discussion. We are discussing the schism. My qualifications are sufficient for me to believe that I know what I am talking about thank you, you insulting crétin.

Bennett

If we're dating the schism from 1054, as most historians date it today, it historically occurred over Michael Cerularius's accusation of the western Church of Judaizing by using unleavened bread in the mass and his subsequent refusal to meet with Papal legates to discuss the matter. The other stuff (That easterners at the time found the Filioque a bar to communion, that they considered the Papacy's claims a bar to communion, etc) have been made up by later EO.

Basically what it comes down to is that the Greeks didn't like the Latins for cultural and political reasons and decided to find a way to not be in communion with them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (to Gregory)

Oh, you speak of insulting? Never mind. Who was ruling Gaul 500? What confederation beat Attila at possibly Châlons sur Marne? What was the position of Catholics, a k a Orthodox under Burgundian rule? How did St Hilary of Poitiers relate to Pope St Leo I on a question where Photius thought only of St John of Damascus? What did the First Council of Toledo teach about the same question? Answer these correctly if your credntials are so good. And yes, it has to do with the schism since the staple argument for some "Orthodox" is "Western Europe was just Barbarians, so how could they have preserved Theology correctly?" How do you rate learning in Ireland and among Saxons of Britain? Six questions or seven if you rate the last one as two.

Easy for you, if your credentials are sufficient, right?

Oh, and when Corsica bought slaves from infidels and did not free them, who ordered them to free the slaves (for nothing but charity) and whom did he accuse of the custom of just bying them and keeping them as slaves?

(we are talking 800's or so on the last one)

Gregory Lauder-Frost

Do get a shave a haircut and a bath.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Shave and haircut is not for you to decide, bath cannot be ascertained over internet, and if some bastards over here gossip in your direction, I might smell better if I got money for washing clothes while begging. Now, keep on topic and answer the questions, please ...

You know your name is googlable, do you? I google mine once in a while, do take a look at your own ...

Gregory Lauder-Frost

The smears and the lies of the universal Left and the things they fail to mention are not my concern. Historical truth is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah, then your historical truth might include some exact historical knowledge about the seven to eight questions I posed you ...

Gregory Lauder-Frost

Irrelevant to the simple fact that the schism was a break by the Bishop of Rome with The Church. He recognised that the church in the Eastern Empire was failing due to the continued incursions of the Turks et al, and that the Dark Ages in Italy and Rome had passed and that the church in the Latin Empire was in the ascendancy and so it was a good political move for him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

All of them are questions of historical fact, all of them have exact answers, why do you hesitate and ... ah no. They are not irrelevant to that fact. One has recently posed the question whether it was John Paul II who broke with Mgr Lefèbvre or the reverse. What is your argument in disfavour of St Leo IX (or whatever Pope YOU consider as the guilty one)?

Because, in Rome the saying is that Caerularius was the one who broke with Pope St Leo IX as well as with the most simple Christian justice, charity and above all Eucharistic Piety.

Even if Rome is in ruins on a certain day, that does not make Constantinople the recognised heart of the Church. Never did, never will do. After schism, Constantinople posed as replacement for a Rome fallen into heresy - as Palmar de Troya does this day.

(I should know, I was after all Palmarian for fourteen months ... remaining part of a prison sentence I had already served two thirds of, so to speak)

B b l (might even take notice of your advice about a bath, although I have no clean clothes to change to after it - if you calls showers baths) (lundi, à 14:44)

Pat

Also, one could argue that the Great Schism was healed with Vatican II, with their participation, and Pope Paul VI abolishing the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople, etc.

I've come to the conclusion that if any group is to blame for Vatican II, it's the "Eastern Orthodox", who, themselves, have always been the tool of our enemies, whether they be Ottomans or Communists (same thing, really).

Gregory Lauder-Frost

Cyril, you know very well that is not the issue. We all know that the Latin rite was widespread in what had been the old western Empire. But we also know that the Orthodox rites were widely practised in the West (Charlemagne, for instance, used them) and in many parts of Italy. Rites are not the issue. Schism is the issue.

But we are not talking about rites.....

Martin (a Seminarian)

"Gregory Lauder-Frost: Irrelevant to the simple fact that the schism was a break by the Bishop of Rome with The Church." Sir, are you intoxicated?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Schism of 1054 was about Michael Caerularius considering the Latin rite invalid. There was no mutuality in that barbarious prejudice of his, Latins did not and do not consider Greek rite invalid, and if it was not widespread exactly (or would you prove Old Sarum used leavened bread?) it did exist in Sicily, it had been temporarily suppressed by a Norman only a generation or two away from Viking Pagan ancestors and it was restored. Unlike the Caerularius attitude to the Latin rite. (lundi, à 16:33)

I note two things: one person I blocked ["Cyril"] and who had previously insulted me on items similar to those taken up by Gregory is on the thread, since he is being adressed by someone. The other is that I have been away for an hour, and Gregory Lauder-Frost, you have still not taken the time to google the relevant facts I was asking you about, and hysterically saying that they are irrelevant won't make them so. You give your version, I explain the relevance.

John

It's going too far to talk of a 'break' between John Paul II and Abp Lefebvre. Lefebvre, unlike the gradual estrangement of the Christian East or the schisms of Henry VIII and the Old Catholics (now a liberal rump sect), never broke with the church in principle. That's why SSPX bishops don't claim jurisdiction; only the Pope can give jurisdiction. The SSPX says it took an emergency action because of the crisis in the church. That the bishops aren't excommunicated anymore says it all. They're in the church.

Again I can't blame the Orthodox for V2. They're their own thing, traditional and at heart Catholic but they don't want to admit it, and want little to do with us. If the Orthodox caused V2, the Novus Ordo wouldn't exist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I may not blame the Orthodox for V-II, but I do blame them for abusing the weakness of Latins after it ... including by a weird game of probable excommunications against me.

Also, some items they were pretty "V-II-ish" or "Konzilsungeist" before the thing. Evolution, and very soon after V-II Contraception too.

(Note that not only before the Schism, but also on both sides of it after it occurred, for centuries one was Young Earth Creationist and Geocentric up till very recently, and it has not ended with exclusive ownership for opposite positions, at least not with us Latins as far as Geocentrism is concerned, and even Greeks some of them reject Evolution)

OK, since Gregory Lauder-Frost has not deigned to answer, I will offer up the answers:

Who was ruling Gaul 500?

- A Frankish King who was also a Roman Patrician (equal of Stilicho) by decree of the Basileus. So Franks were Barbarians? And what Christians did he persecute after conversion, since he could not get Gaul without converting?

What confederation beat Attila at possibly Châlons sur Marne?

- Romans with Bretons were assisted by a temporary alliance with Franks, Burgundians and Visigoths. So Franks were Barbarians?

What was the position of Catholics, a k a Orthodox under Burgundian rule?

- Unlike Visigothic rule, Catholics (sometimes referred to as Orthodox) at times had equal rights with the Arians.

So Franks were Barbarians and persecuting the faith?

John

That's great about Patriarch Kyrill. We and they are on parallel tracks with rival one-true-church claims, the only real difference being belief about papal authority. But sacramentally we're the same. And they're traditional! They rightly see us as allies in the culture war but union - they'd have to accept the Pope's authority - probably won't happen.

They want to be left in peace in Eastern Europe and in their immigrant communities. They're benignly indifferent to us and aren't strong enough to go after us. Reading Timothy Ware's 'The Orthodox Church' I picked up on the irony that the scant defined doctrine and decentralized ecclesiology sound like Modernists and mainliners. Scary. A dead end. But, except for contraception, they have their act together. Still more an estranged kind of Catholicism than a different church.

Hooray for Russia. Боже, храни Россию. A badass like Putin in charge, pictured in church lighting candles at icons, tearing down churches that have gay weddings, throwing P*ssy Riot in jail... blame THEM for V2? HET! (NYET!)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How did St Hilary of Poitiers relate to Pope St Leo I on a question where Photius thought only of St John of Damascus?

- Both St Hilary of Poitiers and Pope St Leo I taught the double procession of the Holy Ghost, unlike St John of Damascus and Photius. Oh, St Athanasius had also confessed it.

What did the First Council of Toledo teach about the same question?

- It was held in anno 400 and even used the very words qui ex patre filioque procedit in its rule of faith.

John

It's not rocket science. 'THROUGH the Son.' The rest, as has been said here, is bullsh*t rationalization for political and cultural reasons. No justification for schism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Now, in 400 Spain was Roman, precisely as Gaul. Not a case of filioque imposed by Barbarians who know nothing of the faith or who teach before having been taught. John, I also read Timothy Ware, some do not feel he represents Orthodox Theology.

No, [John], St Hilary, St Leo and St Athanasius were not content with "a patre per filium" but said "ab utroque". And first Council of Toledo also was not saying "a patre per filium", though that is not wrong, but "a patre filioque".

Trento - Philaret (Catechisms): Filioque far older than III Council of Toledo
http://trentophilaret.blogspot.fr/p/filioque-far-older-than-iii-council-of.html

John

Orthodoxy's grassroots folk Catholicism, resistant to change, is what Latin Catholicism needs to relearn.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Some have it.

John

When Benedict repeated Catholicism's one-true-church claim, the stupid or lying media acted like it was something new and shrieked with the mainline. The Russians respected him: he was talking their language.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Unfortunately it has been abused against me. I was unwise enough to convert to Orthodoxy in a moment when I had something else to say about filioque, I completed the conversion while re-believing filioque, under the understanding "Orthodoxy= Church Fathers" and Church Fathers do endorse filioque, and they seem to have excommunicated me. They seem to want authority over me back even though I converted back to Traditional Catholicism. And they use it in the end to defend undefensible positions like Evolution.

I seem to have been condemned by both sides because I thought the one true church survived both sides of 1054.

John

Well, as a traditional Catholic you wouldn't ask the Orthodox for Communion anyway. You can ask in an emergency but their rules say never. So why care if they excommunicate you?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am stating they are abusing excommunication as a spiritual weapon. Handing my body over to the demon and that stuff. I do not know if their power comes from having stayed part of true church or from Vatican II and Paul VI lifting excommunications. But I seem haunted by a curse.

I did communicate with Orthodox, when I had a quarrel with the Trad Catholic parish where I was. People thinking of me about as Gregory Lauder-Frost does ...

John

Unlike conservative Protestants, evolution vs. creationism's not a hill I'll die for. The church says theistic evolution's fine: somewhere along the line, God gave man an immortal, rational soul. Not the same as, I understand, Darwin's random evolution.

Very sorry to read of the curse, Hans-Georg. God is greater than any curse.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

He is, but so far ... as for Evolution, I can live with a bishop who says it is licit to believe, but here in France bishops want us to call Young Earth Creationism a Protestant heresy or a Paganism. Biblical Inerrancy is under a general attack from people like Bible scholar Marc Sevin.

(I do not know if he is Assumptionist, may presently look it up, but the Assumptionists gave him a cathedra for their "Summer University" back in 2005)

Of course, it is possible that excommunications and curses have come from the pariush priest of St Nicolas du Chardonnet. Or from French bishops who hate Creationism.

pariush? parish of course! there you see what I mean, not the first misspelling I correct on this thread, and I used to be an excellent speller!

John

If that's true, those bishops are wrong. As far as I know neither evolution nor creationism is Catholic doctrine. As for inerrancy, the Bible's the church's book; it means what the church says it means.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Bible means what Church Fathers throughout two thousand years have said it means.

(Trent stated something about never to expose Scripture "except according to the unanimous consensus of the holy fathers" ... and hopefully they did not impose silence on all topics where Church Fathers disagree)

Anna

Russian church did not participate last Assisi. 90% of Russian bishops condemn V2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fortunately. But when it comes to contraception and evolution they are more modernist than Roman Catholics ....

David

Russia reminds me of one giant gangster state ruled by pimp daddy Putin. Very similar to Mexican cartels.

Duc de Berwick

Little do I post one comment and then I have to catch up good 85 other comments. Right Orthodox this, Constantine XI the last Roman Emperor died in Union with the Papacy the archbishop of Constantinople at that period died in Rome and as a Greek Catholic in Union with the Papacy.

If a bunch of schismatics wish to follow their muppet archbishop appointed by the Turban-Sultan it is their problem, not Rome's.

Anna

excuse me?do you mean this masonic pedophile hierarchy of Vatican 2 is a legitimate succession of St. Peter? If so- you should see a doctor. Russians at least have a valid Mass and apostolic faith. For Vatican there is but sulfur and smoke ... No where it is written that one should follow the POPE even if he is in apostasy and has but nominal value!

'Schismatic' is reserved for those who are excommunicated by the valid pope/bishop. No one in the russian church was excommunicated, and they are NOT in your reach to rape them too. I am very glad for Russians. Armenian current patriarch is a criminal and whore who destroys the church; other than it- I am glad for them too. Kiril is a VERY good patriarch. he is SMART a GOOD diplomat, and he fools all globalist demons in WCC and vatican . ha, ha, ha...

Duc de Berwick

With all due respect Mrs. [Anna], the Armenian current patriarch is still the head of the armenians! Whether he is a criminal or not cannot be your cup to judge, but up to God. In the same manner if John XXIII, Paul VI and the list of V2 Popes are criminals, then how do you think Catholics feel about it?

We must be strong and avoid judging our fellow patriarchs, God's judgment will be reserved for them in the afterlife. For now we must make do, we should follow not the acts and deeds but the principle of Papacy. Schisms have plagued Christianity a lot, one after another from 1054 to Henry VIII.

And whenever the good people such as Constantine XI Palaiologos and Patriarch Gregory III of Constantinople came close to unite Rome with the East. You always had idiots who were ready to break up these divine unions.

Same can be said with Protestant England. Mary I of England brought England back out of the darkness and the court of Elizabeth I was only too quick to make things worse.

Anna

First of all- you KNOW NOTHING what about you are talking.and apostasy is the ONLY THING which can be judged by all true Christians. What happened to your brothel - vatican- it will NEVER happen to the Armenian Church, for Armenians are not filthy demonicas like neo-catholics. They FIGHT and we will win!

Look for your 'papacy' only in Lucifer's hell. they are no longer on the earth. God had annihilated them. next is you.

Duc de Berwick

I am sorry Mrs. [Anna] for having got you angry. Can I still recant and join the Armenian Apostolic Church?

Anna

you have to! there are many GOOD priests who are doing their job with utmost fear of God. We have problems with this post-KGB imposter patriarch only. he like a snake spits in the cup we drink from.

Paul

I love these "nationalists" and their "national churches" , ever so Universal is their Faith, especially the ones that claim to be a woman... Armenian, Serbian,Romanian, Bulgarian they all share that same standard line of " you know nothing of what you speak of"

It never gets old.......

Before you react Anna, just know that I know that I know nothing, I'm just a baby afterall as you can tell by my photo. [profile picture = photo of a baby]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

To complete the quiz answers, I had asked:

Oh, and when Corsica bought slaves from infidels and did not free them, who ordered them to free the slaves (for nothing but charity) and whom did he accuse of the custom of just bying them and keeping them asslaves?

- The answer is, the Pope ordered Corsicans to free the slaves for nothing, and he accused "The Greeks" for having persuaded Corsicans to keep the slaves they had redeemed from infidels.

Whether the accusation was just is for better experts of Byzantine history than me to decide, but in the West it was believed Byzantine influence on Corsica was pro-slavery. And France had abolished slavery under Queen St Bathilde. Now does that strike anyone as if the Franks were Barbarians and Byzantium the only refuge of civilisation? Note, I am talking about back then, when the schism was made and prepared.

Btw, Gregory, "Orthodox" means right-believing or right-opining or right-praising. True is "alethos" in Greek.

Nicholas

this broad is nuts.

Duc de Berwick

Which broad?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Do we even wan't to know whom he is discourteous to?

*True about punishments too, insofar as Byzantine punishment of blinding a man was never introduced in France, or rather Frankish Kingdom and any successor state, since the Church opposed it./HGL

Guns, Homeless, Shelters, My Own Situation

Series about my FB enemies: 1) Gossip About Cyber, 2) Gríma Wormtongue has his like in real life - at least as far as his choice of viewpoint is concerned, 3) My Innocence About the Vice of Curiosity, 4) Heated Discussion on Historical Backgrounds for Schism of 1054, 5) Misquoters and Conclusion Jumpers!, 6) Guns, Homeless, Shelters, My Own Situation, 7) On Pat's Wall, by me, 8) In case someone not my FB friend even past wonders, Pat whom I unfriended is not Buchanan, 9) Answering Psychiatry Friendly Comments by one GP (friend of a friend), 10) GP tries it again - after attacking Alveda King, 11) Unfriending someone who is friends with people considering homeless mentally ill

Pat

He's right.

However, he's wrong when he says, "if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony ... take that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house."

No, fire blasts into the intruder.

il y a 23 heures

....

Drake

I think the term 'self-defense' can be misunderstood. It is really defense of family and community

il y a 22 heures

Hans-Georg Lundahl = HGL = me

How do you count a homeless person either asleep in a sleeping bag outside your flat (or, if you have a house: under your garage roof or veranda) to avoid the cold for the night? Or, if not asleep saying politely as possible: "just one night here please?"

I can tell you one morning I had slept outside a field, I woke up with two barrels before my eyes. When I had explained the situation, I was invited for breakfast, and it was delicious.

il y a 22 heures

Drake

France sins in that. Taking shelter differs from invasion

il y a 22 heures

HGL

Thank God you agree. Now, I can tell you that France is not as bad as you may have had a first impression of when reading that, I have had plenty of breakfasts or suppers under better shelter without any sight of gunbarrels. Plenty. Lately some have gotten to the idea I should "be taught manners" and have started waking me up an hour or two after midnight to make me go and search another shelter. I find that annoying and last two times I was so asked, I did not comply. Someone saw better sense after all.

il y a 22 heures

Drake

Is that the assumption? That rural Americans want guns to hunt the poor? God forbid. It is to defend the weak from the greedy and rapacious.

il y a 22 heures

HGL

No, no. It was in France all this happened. And only one occasion was at field limit and waking up under a farmer's gunbarrels. But that farmer did like to hear my explanation and invite me after seeing I was not too afraid. A bit of Farmer Maggot in him. My own assumption is totally in favour of US Gun Ownership.

il y a 22 heures

Drake

I know what it is like to sleep under bridges too. If we were a truly Christian society we would still have almshouses and bedesmen.

il y a 22 heures

HGL

There are almshouses, if you like. They are a bit overran in my taste by such people as do not like me. Imagine how you would be received among Gipsies and Arabs if someone had presented you as a mad Nazi to them behind your back. Since whatever put them off me was mainly behind my back, I cannot tell if that is what they were told, but they reacted as if told something to that effect.

il y a 22 heures

Corinne

Firing shots into the intruder doesn't necessarily mean killing them. Blast them in the legs & arms; they'll get the idea.

il y a 22 heures

HGL

Corinne - for public buildings, I was given that precise order as a military: first a "halt", then a shot in the air, then a shot in the leg. I did it at Stockholm castle. Oh, and of course, escalation stops the very moment that the man complies.

il y a 22 heures

HGL

I distinguish between day shelters and night shelters. Day shelters used to be all right for breakfasts and showers. Night shelters are a bit less ideal for sleeping, although the meals are quite all right.

Sorry, I was under the impression that almshouses were the kind of things they called dépôts de mendicité which were introduced the year the Jesuits were expelled. Not quite same thing.

il y a 22 heures

Pat

Heer Lundahl, having volunteered at the shelter (run by the Church) here in Atlanta, you would be more than welcome, plus, it hasn't been infested with Mohammedans and Gypsies, so you would be quite comfortable.

il y a 22 heures

HGL

It would be very nice for the meal no doubt. For the night I am less sure of not being waken up by either someone snoring or waking me up for snoring or waking someone else up for snoring and waking me up in the process. If you have been at a night shelter, have you noticed how many have already drunk before arriving? It is because it is not easy to sleep in a dormitory with strangers unless you: 1) drink, 2) smoke pot, 3) take sleeping pills ...

Plus there has been my being caught between two fires, the ones hoping for me to get an ordinary job, the others for me to live out the life of St Joseph Benedict Labre (I had mentioned his life as an example when challenged to get the usual social workers calls in Trier when trying to get to one girl in Paris, but not as an exemple I was integrally following, just as an example that begging is no sin), and neither side getting into the printers business for my essays or the musicians' business for my compositions.

il y a 22 heures

Pat

Heer Lundahl, at the shelter here coming in drunk, or otherwise inebriated, is not allowed. It is relatively quiet, and the men get a good night's sleep. Of course, not just anyone is allowed inside, so that is the difference. All of the men are part of a program, run in cooperation with the Church.

il y a 22 heures

HGL

Ah, ok. First problem I would not sign up for the program, since I have another schedual. In Berlin there was a decent place like that, fifty cents per night, you could incur one night's debt but not pay in advance, and first two weeks were without any program. It was not far from Israeli embassy. There also there were only twelve places, and one took turns to help cooking and to help cleaning up.

il y a 21 heures

Pat

The program isn't overbearing, only to make sure the men are in good health, and stay out of trouble.

il y a 21 heures

HGL

Oh, what is it?

il y a 21 heures

Pat

What do you mean?

il y a 21 heures

HGL

What is the program?

il y a 21 heures

Pat

This is them:

Central Outreach & Advocacy Center
http://www.centraloutreachandadvocacy.org

il y a 21 heures

HGL

Pat - I noted the page:

Central Outreach&Advocacy Center - Outreach
http://www.centraloutreachandadvocacy.org/mainframe.html

Now, that is exactly what I would avoid as, precisely already said, having my own schedual. Of course, I cannot insist on them taking me if I do not comply with that program, but they cannot insist it is wrong for me in such a case to forego their services. I use libraries to write. I used to compose. There are people getting paid for that, and some of them who do it are also doing some good, which I hope is my case. So, why should I "get a job" or show willingness to search it? If they do not take me, they do not. Fine with me as long as they do not start judging me or arranging for others to receive me less well than before.

il y a 21 heures

Pat

There's no requirement to get a job.

il y a 21 heures

HGL

Pat - did you read the page? Main frame is a program which does not require you to achieve getting a job, but wants you to do things that kind of symbolise one is keeping trying.

"The Main Frame offers ten four-week courses each year. Participants attend classes Monday through Friday from 9:00am to 12:30pm for the duration of the course. During that time, they receive instruction in job search skills, employment retention skills and life skills that will improve their housing stability once employed."

Of course, their emergency outreach does not require this, but for how long? One night?

Oh, ten courses each year means ... 40 weeks out of 52. Meaning a week or two without attending it would at least be feasible. But I do dread that certain of the job seeking skills and other life skills taught there are about getting along with bosses - even if one is by both talent and personal disgust for such an arrangement better suited to live without having a boss.

il y a 21 heures

Pat

Heer Lundahl, don't believe everything you read. None of that is compulsory.

il y a 21 heures

HGL

Pat - yes, that is a good thing, then.

However, it is in the States, and a homeless shelter there won't shelter me here nor there either unless I get there. What could be done either here or there is - start printing my articles, start playing my compositions. And here it is blocked, and among certain people over there it is blocked too. Why? Probably because SSPX priests in US listen to SSPX priests in France who listen to SSPX laymen at St Nicolas du Chardonnet who go to a bar called Le Palais owned by Arabs, who listen to other Arabs ... Oh, I am actually not sure whether owners of Le Palais are Arabs or Berber/Kabyls.

il y a 21 heures

Drake

Maiming is considered cruel and unusual punishment.

Hans-Georg, it seems over here that most social work is tainted by a preachy Yankee schoolmarm Puritanism. Poor falsely assumes also lack of intelligence, cleanliness, morals, sanity or civilisation - Weber's Protestant Work Ethic. Criminals are treated better - ironically by those who claim to carry the banner of the poor.

I don't know if the connection between alcohol and extreme violence is a norm outside the US. I was reading a late 19th c. article by a Mississippi journalist who noted the increase in alcohol related violence only after the defeat - Saying that he blamed it on possibly tainted whiskey from Cincinnati. ;-)

il y a 21 heures

HGL

Now, extreme consumtion of alcohol and extreme violence can have some connexion. One reason I prefer staircases and porches where I each night have a theoretical chance of sleeping without having drunk. Ordinary consumption of alcohol and extreme violence would seem to be unrelated. Drake - as a distiller's grandson, I find it very ill to taint whiskey.

il y a 21 heures

Drake

Well, his argument was that the new violence was due to loss of local production and speculated that the Yankees were adding some ingredient that inflamed men. It didn't seem to occur to him that the ingredient was loss and humiliation.

il y a 21 heures

HGL

That can bring both over much quantities of drinking and over much anger, and in combination or each buy itsel they can raise violence.

il y a 21 heures

Drake

A man in sorrow needs some wine I think.

il y a 21 heures

HGL

That is quite true, Drake. I am not exactly in sorrow but in continual frustration. Here is my situation for these last weeks:

Triviu, Quadriviu, 7 cætera: Open Questions to Rick Ross Center
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/02/open-questions-to-rick-ross-center.html

First entry resumes the attitude of St Nicolas over past years too.

il y a 21 heures

Drake

The ecclesiastical rumour mill is a great cause of mischief.

il y a 21 heures

HGL

Ah yes, it is.

As a blogger, I at least try usually to identify my sources, if other than me, and when writing on a blog by me alone, I am an identified source (to anyone not stupid enough to mix my articles as such with quotes within them or my blogs with other blogs, not my own, that I link to).

Pat, look at this:

May 15, 2012 - May I Bring You Anything?
http://centraloutreach.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/may-15-2012/

il y a 21 heures

Pat

Yes, and?

il y a 21 heures

HGL

So many volunteers have received the url of x number of my blogs, x number of times. Have I got intelligent comments? No. Have I got anyone printing my essays? No. Why? Because they felt "how sweet he's trying to give something in return" - precisely as the writer of that post - and not touched it. That is what has kept me homeless for years. Secours Catholique could have rocket started my carreer as composer, by accepting my offer they could play some of my compositions on their next welfare concert. OK, they are not rock, but some would resemble rock ballads.

And that was back in Aix, between 2006 and 2009.

Well, if she or he had taken the sub, I would have felt more confident the volunteer, behind the inequality of volunteer and aid receiver still felt the equality of men as images of God.

Now, if my offer had been received, I would not have had a penny from that concert, but I would have been known. And I would have been able to pay a dentist in time to save a few more of my teeth.

musicalia: Sonatine V pour Guitarre
http://hglundahlsmusik.blogspot.fr/2008/11/sonatine-v-pour-guitarre.html

musicalia: Sonatine VI pour Guitarre
http://hglundahlsmusik.blogspot.fr/2008/11/sonatine-pour-guitarre-vi.html

Both from 2007

My latest so far:

musicalia: Mediæval Modal Jingle for Ukulele
http://hglundahlsmusik.blogspot.fr/2012/10/medival-modal-jingle-for-ukulele.html

Not had much inspiration these last months ...

il y a 21 - 19 heures

HGL

It suddenly went very silent on this thread ... how come?

il y a 3 heures

HGL

It is not like "a homeless who wants more confort is OK, but a homeless who wants to get off the street as an author and composer is just too much" - or is it? If so, I would like to know ...

il y a 2 heures

And it is not as if Pat - as I chose to call him to anyonymise him here (but not to where he is volunteering, they will know whom I mean) - had not been on FB since back when we had this debate. On the contrary, he has made quite a few status updates since then.

Nearly looks as if he wanted to hide what I had written. Maybe there is something to the last comment I made?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Chaptal Library
in Paris FR
[St Peter Damian]*
St Paterius
21-II-2013

*Day after tomorrow in Traditional Calendar!

Over used adage about "unconditional love"

From FB Friend's status:

“Unconditional love is not affirming another in every decision they make especially when those choices are unhealthy. Unconditional love will risk offending in the name of genuine concern. It will risk relationship for the ultimate well-being of the other. To indiscriminately affirm the unhealthy choices of others is not love at all but perhaps the worst kind of fraud.” -Michael M. Rose

A very overused adage. Very over used in our days.

First of all, it is one of the "real love is not x but y" meme. One very productive meme when it comes to manipulating girls away from would be husbands, wives away from husbands.

Next, people are not just risking but destroying relationships obeying injunctions about what shrinks consider "unhealthy choices".

Third, the Catechism does not state one should not support loved ones in "unhealthy" choices, but that one should not do so in SINFUL ones. And claiming that a choice becomes sinful "because it is unhealthy" is claiming something which is not always true. Especially when it comes to one's neighbours non-physical health. Telling your hubby to cut down on drink or smoke or fat is another matter. Cardiac crises do exist, as does Ulcer and Lung Cancer.

But when it comes to choices considered "unhealthy" for mental reasons, there is such a thing as being too much of a watchdog about mental health, and that thing can actually destroy or harm it just as much as any "unhealthy choice".

I commented February 6 and post this February 16, Year of Our Lord MMXIII, Les Halles Musical Library of Paris.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Trade Unions Are Not Intrinsically Evil.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/popes-possible-successor-promotes-marxist-for-sainthood/

Quote: "…I have provided proof, drawn from archival evidence and other authentic sources, that even after her conversion to Catholicism, Day became a member of several socialist organizations and was actively involved in political groups (including trade unions) whose founders and leaders were predominantly Communist Party members. She also supported the causes of individual Communists who were in the pay of the Soviet Union."

If a Communist founds a Trade Union, the Communist Party of the Communist remains evil, but the Trade Union may not be so.

Quote: "in July 1949 Pope Pius XII issued a decree of excommunication against anyone who collaborated with Communists or joined their associations."

Their associations would be either the party cells or possibly - we have seen such things in France - Trade Unions affiliated to Communist Parties. But a Trade Union not so affiliated, open to non-communists and anti-communists, offering or demanding no membership of Communist Party at same time (in Sweden some unions till recently were collectively members of Swedish Social Democratic Partic) would not automatically be excommunicated.

Collaborating with Communists, does that extend to joining same Trade Union or serving at same University or non-Communist army as one who is a Communist?

Quote: "His letter to the Pope went on to say that he was particularly concerned about Day's 'favorable writings regarding Lenin, Castro, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh. As you well know, each of the above dictators ordered the execution of Catholic priests among the millions of other Christians murdered by these regimes.'"

That starts looking like a problem. Unless of course it was approval with a reservation. I approved for about two years of Hitler "with a reservation" - namely against his persecution of Jews (and I obviously did not mean it was OK to persecute gipsies either) until later in adolescence I took Franco for my anti-Communist hero. I have approved of Tito - with a similar restriction - namely insofar as his Communism was not so much Communism as Fascism, not quite unlike that of Austrofascism. Obviously I do not approve of:

• - [his] murders during partisan period
• - anticlerical measures
• - feminist idiocies including [but not limited to] abortion.

Those are, like the purely market related things of Lenin and Stalin, Communist things and not approvable. [They are indeed worse than the purely market things.]

Obviously I do approve of keeping small business possible and free, and big business in the monopoly of the state (post offices, mines, railways ....) as Dollfuß did and as Father Ignaz Seipel S.J. recommended. And unlike Tito, Austrofascism did not make school attendance mandatory, they did allow homeschooling, but did make mandatory a course of one's religion (usually Catholic, alternatively Protestant or Hebrew) for achieving the "Matura" (Baccalaureate).

And though Austrofascism encouraged Cooperatives, like those in the Milk Industry, I do not think they were mandatory, whatever the case may have been with Tito.

But I have not read Doris Day, cannot say in what sense she can have defended Lenin (if she did so) and what restrictions she made and made public about the approval. I would certainly not approve Trotskiy, who first used and then butchered poor "useful idiot" Makhnov. And as we speak of Ukraine, Makhnov was better than Petliura in avoiding Pogroms, but Petliura better than Makhnov in avoiding expropriation.

Anyone who cares to stamp me as a Communist, when my Distributist hero is not even Doris Day but Gilbert Keith Chesterton? Because if anyone is as dishonest (or stupid) as that, he or she might do better to unfriend me. [From my FB Friends' List].


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Chaptal, Paris
St Valentin
14-II-2013

Contre Vincenzo Paglia

http://www.lepoint.fr/monde/le-vatican-reconnait-le-droit-des-couples-gay-05-02-2013-1623969_24.php

"Dans une vingtaine de pays, l'homosexualité est un délit. Je souhaite que nous nous battions contre ça." !!!

Ah bon? L'homosexualité - comme état d'âme? Ou bien la sodomie - comme acte? Mais la sodomie devait être un délit!

En même temps, il semble y avoir depuis Vatican II une reconnaissance de l'homosexualité comme état d'âme tellement grande qu'on la reconnaît même comme obstacle au mariage. Voir le fameux et fumeux "les homosexuels sont appelés à la chasteté" (sous-entendu parafaite, non la matrimoniale).

Pour Innocent III un homosexuel ayant commi la sodomie et n'étant pas déjà obligé au célibat pouvait très bien se marier - avec une femme. Mais la sodomie était un délit punissable par la mort. Pour Benoît XVI ou son entourage la sodomie ne devait pas être un délit - mais un homosexuel, ayant la commise ou non, ne devrait pas essayer de se marier.

Je prefère évidemment Innocent III. Pour ceux qui ont cette tare, et pour ceux qui, comme moi, ont été calomniés là-dessus./HGL

PS, depuis Vincenzo Paglia a fait une clarification, voici un texte en anglais:

http://www.romereports.com/palio/vaticans-head-of-family-council-says-his-words-about-homosexuals-were-misinterpreted-english-8942.html

Je vois qu'il ne souhaite que de protéger les droits individuels de tous - y compris des gays. Ce qui est bien.

Mais je ne vois pas qu'il ne considère pas que la sodomie en tant que partie de la vie privée relève des droits individuels. Or, en cela il aurait tort./HGL