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