Offener Brief eines Franzosen an den Bischof Hamburgs, Stefan Heße.

Getheilt nach seiner Genehmigung am Ende des Briefs.

Jean Pierre Aussant 18.VIII.2022 Offener Brief eines Franzosen an den Bischof Hamburgs, Stefan Heße. Exzellenz, es ist ohne Freude, dass ich Ihnen diesen Brief schreibe. Gleichwohl, als Katholik, muss ich meine Pflicht machen. Zu schweigen, wäre eine Sünde. Ich wohne in Hamburg seit zehn Jahren, bin Franzose, Lehrer in einer Sprachschule und Schriftsteller. Obwohl ich die heilige Messe regelmäßig besuche, muss ich leider feststellen, dass nicht ein einziges Mal im Laufe dieser zehn Jahren, die zwei Ecksteine der Kultur des Todes und der ethischen Entchristianisierung der Welt (Mord an ungeborenen Kindern und „gegen Gott und Natur“ Legalisierung der Homo-Ehe), von irgendeinem Priester, erwähnt worden sind. Die Feigheit eines Großteils der Kirche wird allmählich unerträglich. Noch schlimmer, in Hamburg schweigen die Priester nicht nur, sondern seit einiger Zeit fangen sie sogar an, durch Andeutungen, die homosexuellen Paare als normal und nicht unvereinbar mit der Ethik des Lebens, die die Heilige Schrift und der Herr uns gegeben haben, zu präsentieren. Vor diesem Hintergrund, seien wir nicht erstaunt, wenn mehr und mehr Jugendliche die Versuchung haben zur Pius Bruderschaft überzutreten (Was übrigens und obwohl ich auch selbst diese Versuchung habe, ein Fehler wäre). Als Apostel Jesus Christi, Exzellenz, wissen Sie besser als ich, was die Mission der Kirche ist. Die Mission der Kirche ist nicht, wie eine politische Partei, die Mehrheit der Stimmen zu sammeln, sie ist auch nicht, sich mit den elastischen Kriterien einer „selbst gebastelten“ Ethik des Moments anzupassen, um den Medien oder wem auch immer zu gefallen, sondern die ewige Wahrheit Gottes zu verkünden und wenn die Kirche dafür allein in der Wüste der satanischen politisch-Korrektheit schreien sollte. Das Königreich Gottes ist keine Demokratie, sondern eben ein Königreich. Die Wahrheit hat zu tun mit der „Essenz“, nicht mit der „Zahl“; schließlich waren sie am Anfang nur zwölf… Niemand ist gezwungen Christ zu sein, wer aber behauptet katholisch zu sein, weiß, dass die Wahrheit von Gott kommt und nicht von der Mehrheit der Franzosen, der Araber, der Deutschen oder der Monegassen (Geschweige denn der Homo-Lobbys, des lesbischen Feminismus, der Freimaurerei und der Medien Hamburgs). Insofern wenn die Kirche „menschliche Stimmen“ verliert, ist es nicht so schlimm. Schlimm wäre es wenn, um „der Welt“ zu gefallen, sie ihrer heiligen Mission verraten und vor dem Altar des Zeitgeistes kriechen würde. Jesus Christus selbst hat deutlich hingewiesen, dass wenige noch auf ihn warten werden, wenn Er in Herrlichkeit zurückkommen wird. In einer Zeit wo eine Unmenge Christen überall auf der Welt verfolgt und getötet werden (aufgrund deren Treue zu Jesus Christus), die Feigheit der abendländischen Kirche-allen voran in Deutschland und Frankreich- ist einfach beschämend (Und das ist gelinde gesagt). Es ist eine richtige Sache wohlwollend den Sündern gegenüber zu sein; eine andere, aber, die Sünde zu legalisieren. Die Legalisierung der Sünde nicht frontal zu bekämpfen, ist als ob wir dem Teufel Recht geben würden. Und das ist eben die Kultur des Todes. Jedem Sünder „Misericordium“ (Barmherzigkeit), aber kein Misericordium für die Sünde „an sich“. Der Herr hat gesagt „Sie haben mich verfolgt, so werden sie auch euch verfolgen“. In dieser Zeit des Sieges der Kultur des Todes in der, langfristig und anthropologisch betrachtet, die wesentlichen und allerwichtigsten Pläne Gottes für die Fortpflanzung des Lebens radikal angegriffen werden (Abtreibung, Homo-Ehe, Gender Theorie), katholisch zu sein und gleichzeitig das wahre Engagement abzulehnen, um nicht von der Welt gehasst zu sein, hat zu tun mit der Quadratur des Kreises. Es ist höchste Zeit, dass die Kirche diese Evidenz akzeptiert und den frontalen Kampf gegen die heutige Kultur des Todes endlich anfängt. Wir können nicht mehr unter dem komfortablen Deckmantel einer falschen Toleranz und einer falschen Liebe, die nicht auf der Wahrheit beruhen, unsere Feigheit verbergen. Ich wünsche Ihnen Exzellenz und uns allen als Katholiken, gehasst zu werden, denn wer von der heutigen herrschenden Finsternis nicht zurückgewiesen wird, gehört selbst zu ihr. Andernfalls sind wir der heiligen Mission, die der Herr uns anvertraut hat, ob einfacher Katholik oder Papst, nicht gewachsen. Hochachtungsvoll, In Christus Jean-Pierre Aussant (J'ai écrit cette lettre uniquement en allemand, si vous la voyez en français, il s'agit d'une traduction automatique et non pas de mon texte initial) PS: J'autorise tout le monde à partager cette lettre

Ich bin in einer Sache mit Herrn Jean-Pierre Aussant uneinig: er hält Stefan Heße für den Bischoff von Hamburg, warscheinlich daher auch Bergoglio für den Pabst. Für mich starb der Pabst, der neulichste, am diesjährigen 2. August./HGL

Two Orthodox Continue

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Debate with Two Orthodox · Two Orthodox Continue · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Unconvincing "Testimony" on Peter the Aleut and his Supposed Martyrdom by Catholics

Continuing from previous, same thread:

Eugene Santalov

Hans-Georg Lundahl you completely ignored the book, based on extensive research, but did not offer anything to counter what the book claims. US authorities seemed to listen to the book author (apparently he was credible enough), but for emotionally attached to their agenda/faith no argument is good enough. It is their own opinion against all. This position is simply not convincing enough for those, who look for evidence. To me, a book like that is evidence enough of atrocities of the Latins, exactly like the ones described in the story of St. Peter, in the same area and in the same time period, killing THOUSANDS. The similarities are very convincing, especially considering the huge difference in the time, language, country, when the two accounts were created. Your arguments with regards to this have no substance (at least I didn't find any), because they have no backing.

As far as who believed the story of the Russians about St. Peter and who did not, your claim that "only Russians believed it", is no argument at all, as St. Peter is a saint in the Russian Church. Other faiths and other jurisdictions are busy praying to their ethnic saints, who are closer to them, or do not pray to saints at all. They simply have little interest in saints elsewhere. However, since we have become a melting pot of ethnic groups all over the world, and I have been around for a while, I have never met a Greek, an Arab or any other Orthodox Christian or a Roman Catholic to that matter, and I have met plenty of them over the past 3 decades, prayed with them, they saw icons of St. Peter, too, NONE of them would deny his martyrdom. After living on 3 continents, you are the first person I come across, who denies it. I think you do it, because it shows how the Latin Church treated Native Americans, and you dislike that part of history, so you have chosen to make an argument, where there was never one before, and the much more recent research, presented in the book, simply removes any reasonable doubts of authenticity of St. Peter's account.

It does not make a difference to me that one of Latin popes is not "yours" and another one is. The popes speak on behalf of the Latin Church, and you defend it as "not heretical", though don't have the authority the popes do, to speak on behalf of the organization in the official capacity

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. Question 36. Article 2. Objection 2, in the Summa. St. Thomas states that Filioque is not to be found in the words of the Council of 381. This stands opposed to your contention. His statement regarding the Greeks is to be found as his answer to Objection 7. By Greeks is meant the eastern church which Rome regards as schismatic. If there is no patristic consensus, how then is the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of Filioque to be determined? As regards the Cappadocians, you are affirming that they taught Filioque and this is clear in their writings? As regards the Nestorians, two points. Firstly, their heresy is Christological not Trinitarian. Thus, their opposition to Filioque should be viewed as normative. Secondly, there were orthodox Antiochians. St. Chrysostom being most prominent among them and his name and purity of faith were defended by St. Cyril during the Nestorian controversy. St. Gregory of Cyprus was neither more nor less impartial than St. Thomas Aquinas. One being a great apologist of the East. The other, of the West. As regards Pope Leo and Charlemagne, both were united in their respective rebellion. That the former did not condemn the latter, is in no way surprising.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Eugene Santalov "you completely ignored the book, based on extensive research, but did not offer anything to counter what the book claims"

I have little time to consult it, and probably no opportunity here in France, and extensive research does not always make for good research, when one has a bad agenda, based on emotional bias.

US is one of the best countries in the world by today's standards, not quite a match for Poland, let alone for the Austria of Charles the Last - but it has a strong strand of Masonic influence in governance and governments, all levels, and therefore has lots of government agents (some of them nominal Catholics, like a certain Biden) who are willing to do a hatchet job on especially historic Catholicism. Your recommendation in fact isn't one. It's like recommending (in 1600) Foxe' Book of Martyrs because Elisabeth and James VI and I thought highly of it - they had an axe to grind against the Catholic Church and wanted "millions of martyrs" on the Catholic side to hide they were in fact martyring Catholics.

Now, it is still irrelevant for the fake canonisation of Peter the Aleut as precisely Martyr.

Even suppose *every* atrocity in it were correct as to facts, and correctly assessed as to morality of the facts, which I doubt, but let's suppose it. The atrocity committed by Inquisitors to Peter the Aleut doesn't become the least more credible because of that.

Why? Drunkenness, murder, lechery are all sins likely to get you to hell, but you cannot prove one of them because the other is proven about any given person. Elvis the Pelvis can't be tied to a murder just because he was no doubt at all about it a lecher (who may have repented just before he met his judge). Ted Bundy can't be in proven need of Alcoholics Anonymous (actually I think those are heretics, Hell is worse than alcoholism) just because he was, also beyond the shadow of a doubt, a murderer (who may also have made his peace with God before getting executed, dear St. Dismas, pray for us).

But even if we limit us to murders, and even if we counted Serra as a murderer (which I don't think holds up either), murderers are also different. A certain Mengele would commit atrocities in human bodies within medical research and while sterilising some people without their consent, does it mean he could be tied down to a crime like those in the chainsaw massacre? No, not because he is morally better, but because he psychologically different. It's like pretending some wheelchair bound very evil version of Dr. Strangelove would have got on a horse, taken a sabre and ridden into a crowd of women and children, hacking as many to death as he could.

So, whatever the book can tell, truthfully or otherwise, about Junipero Serra (remember, my Pope who died a week before yesterday didn't canonise him, the Antipope in Rome "did"), it doesn't mean Junipero Serra could have killed Peter the Aleut the way the story describes. End of story (at least should be).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alex Coleman "As regards Pope Leo and Charlemagne, both were united in their respective rebellion. That the former did not condemn the latter, is in no way surprising."

Leo III is a canonised saint in the Orthodox Church.

He is also famous for not approving Filioque in the Creed.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. You are correct about St. Leo III. What is your view of his opposition to Filioque? My point is that Charlemagne rebelled against the legitimate authority of the Emperor in the East when declared he himself Emperor in 800. The Papacy supported him as a means of affirming it's claim to primacy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Pope Leo III, by legitimising Charlemagne, certainly could have condemned Filioque as heresy, had he liked to, at least at a safe distance when Charlemagne was back in Aachen or fighting Saxons.

That he didn't means, that as a Byzantine cultured Pope, he was against including it in the creed, but had no hard feelings about the orthodoxy as such.

The background for the Christmas 800 coronation was this : basileus (not basilissa) Eirene Sarantapechaina was defending the iconodule position (so far all right) by gouging out the eyes of her own son and co-regent suspected or even condemned of being iconoclast.

The point was not "leave Constantine VI alone" but "gouging out eyes is Barbaric, not Roman" (as we Franks and Italians see Romanity) and as Constantine VI was technically lawful emperor, Eirene was technically usurper, as much as or more than Charlemagne.

"as a means of affirming it's claim to primacy."

Again an accusation against a Pope you consider (technically) a saint, and also, it was hardly an issue in his day.

I even think Photius showed some Papism by accepting the lawful Patriarch's appeal to precisely the Pope. After Leo III.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. By not including it in the creed, it is clear that St. Leo III did not regard Filioque as orthodox. Furthermore, if my ailing memory serves, was it not he who inscribed the creed in silver in it's original form, so as to make the orthodox position clear? That he did not condemn Charlemagne as a heretic is rooted in the necessity of their alliance. Charlemagne was such a powerful member of the Church and a force for the spread and upholding of it's teachings, that a relatively minor theological dispute could not separate the two men. The Empress Irene may indeed have been a barbaric usurper. However, the throne of the empire and it's capital was in Constantinople. The crowning of Charlemagne was an act of rebellion against the Emperor who was anointed by God. Pope Leo is indisputably a saint. However, few saints are without error. To interpret a consultation between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Patriarch of Rome as an appeal from the former to the latter in submission, strikes me as revisionist history. Patriarch Michael Cerularios called the Roman Pontiff brother, and the Pope was infuriated to not be called father. Why was St. Photios not the lawful patriarch, in your view?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"By not including it in the creed, it is clear that St. Leo III did not regard Filioque as orthodox."

Your number one unproven assumption.

For instance, it involves there are only two positions possible "Filioque is certain" and "Filioque is certainly false" - it doesn't account for Leo III being able to sit on the hedge doctrinally and for that precise reason prefer a creed that doesn't decide.

"Furthermore, if my ailing memory serves, was it not he who inscribed the creed in silver in it's original form, so as to make the orthodox position clear?"

Memory good, logic see previous. He made what he considered the correct text version clear.

"That he did not condemn Charlemagne as a heretic is rooted in the necessity of their alliance."

It's not. Schuschnigg signed an Anti-Comintern pact with Mussolini, Horthy and Hitler. Yet he opposed Hitler and was thrown into prison. Leo III is a saint, and you are saying Schuschnigg was braver?

"Charlemagne was such a powerful member of the Church and a force for the spread and upholding of it's teachings, that a relatively minor theological dispute could not separate the two men."

If it was "minor" that means Leo III did not regard Filioque as heresy, at worst as an error compatible with keeping the faith.

"The Empress Irene may indeed have been a barbaric usurper. However, the throne of the empire and it's capital was in Constantinople."

Not the actual case since Constantine the Great. There were Emperors East and West after him. I think Theodosius (I or II) was from the West.

"The crowning of Charlemagne was an act of rebellion against the Emperor who was anointed by God."

Highly disputable. Even apostles can lose their salt, and be worth only treading underfoot. Why not an Empire?

"Pope Leo is indisputably a saint."

Thank you.

"However, few saints are without error."

Including *major* error in both theology and political loyalty? Cringeworthy view of what sanctity means.

"To interpret a consultation between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Patriarch of Rome as an appeal from the former to the latter in submission, strikes me as revisionist history."

It was not a consultation, it was an appeal to get the usurper Photius deposed by the Pope. And Photius accepted the judge as such.

"Patriarch Michael Cerularios called the Roman Pontiff brother, and the Pope was infuriated to not be called father."

A few centuries after Photius.

"Why was St. Photios not the lawful patriarch, in your view?"

Because the emperor had no authority to depose the previous patriarch to impose a personal favourite layman (Photius' position up to then).

Eugene Santalov

Hans-Georg Lundahl more rhetoric with your personal opinion without authoritative references. Not convincing. All of it is subjective. I trust the authority of those who called St. Peter a martyr more than yours, sorry, with the general "practice" of mistreating Native Americans by the same organization at the same time and location confirmed by the research and the resulting book from a completely different culture, time and religion. Those people were more objective and had no agenda. You do.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Eugene Santalov They had no agenda - false, but thanks for it being over with you.

Eugene Santalov

Hans-Georg Lundahl they made conclusions based on their findings. Orthodox Church has ALWAYS taken glorification of saints very seriously, after much research. You make conclusions based on biased rhetoric, NO findings, no references, no research. You have zilch. Your rhetoric has no weight to it, no backing and no objectivity. You blindly defend the Latin Church by denying its crimes, at least in this case.

For examples of heretical and brutal conduct of the Latins one doesn't even need to travel to the New World. If they burned those of their own race at the stake what kind of treatment can be expected towards "savages"? And it did not end in Middle Ages. Mistreating and killing children, molesting and raping them, have been a Latin Church stigma in Americas for centuries now.

Latin religious courts would condemn innocent to exile and death even for such things as singing, dancing and having goose bumps when it is cold. Those were considered to be some symptoms of leprosy or witchcraft.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. By not including Filioque in the creed and by engraving the creed as such in silver, St. Leo did not hedge but clearly demonstrated his opposition. I call Filioque a relatively minor theological dispute because although the clause has heretical implications, it is not an explicit heresy such as Arianism. There were Christian emperors in the West, to be sure. However, with the fall of the western empire in 476, the eastern emperor became sole ruler of Christendom. If the West had desired independence, it would have had to be done with the permission of Constantinople. Yes, saints can be guilty of major errors. St. Augustine, for example, was a great and holy man. Yet his teaching against free-will and view of corporate guilt for the sin of Adam, are both serious errors. The appeal to Rome of which you speak does not demonstrate that the East accepted the Papal monarchy. Surely St. Photios did not! It demonstrates that the patriarch of rome was held in high esteem, as is proper and right. St. Photios was not a layman when he ascended to the patriarchate and that is all that is relevant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Eugene Santalov "they made conclusions based on their findings."

With Peter the Aleut, the first findings were the words of fellow Aleuts who might have wanted to protect him against the curse of Hermann of Alaska.

If later on miracles were added to that, I would suggest, Peter lived a holy life as a Latin, married in California.

"If they burned those of their own race at the stake what kind of treatment can be expected towards "savages"?"

Burning at the stake was not for "the eucharist isn't in azymes" but for "the good God didn't create earth" or "Christians must have no deal with political power" ... or sorcery. In each case, when there was either no repentance or relapse. And what they would do to Amerindians or Aleuts in such a case is precisely the same thing : burning at the stake. Not slow dismemberment.

"Mistreating and killing children, molesting and raping them, have been a Latin Church stigma in Americas for centuries now."

You failed to document the "for centuries" part, as well as the "killing" part.

Molesting or raping children has been a plague of a set of apostates, like deniers of Biblical creation, affirmers that Adam had a childhood among beasts. Exists since the 1940's.

"Latin religious courts would condemn innocent to exile and death even for such things as singing, dancing and having goose bumps when it is cold."

Wonderful story, but where is your source? A complaint by a Wiccan?

There is no proof that the picture shown goes along with what you are telling.

"Those were considered to be some symptoms of leprosy or witchcraft."

Leprosy was not an offense with the Inquisition. Lepers were quarantined, not exiled thousands of miles.

If a Wiccan coven wants someone to tell horror stories about Roman Catholicism, I think they will welcome you. For my part, I'd like sources when facing allegations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alex Coleman "By not including Filioque in the creed and by engraving the creed as such in silver, St. Leo did not hedge but clearly demonstrated his opposition."

A b o u t exactly one question : it's inclusion into the creed. Perfectly copatible with hedging on the theological question, especially as there was no follow up in condemnations.

"There were Christian emperors in the West, to be sure. However, with the fall of the western empire in 476, the eastern emperor became sole ruler of Christendom."

And by 800, this changed. Constantinople had shown itself totally an-axios.

"If the West had desired independence, it would have had to be done with the permission of Constantinople."

Like with Venice? You know how Doge Dandolo had his eyes put out by a Basileus because he insisted Venice was independent of Constantinople?

Venice became so when Doge's refused to pay tax to Iconoclast Emperors who persecuted Orthodox.

"Yes, saints can be guilty of major errors. St. Augustine, for example, was a great and holy man. Yet his teaching against free-will"

None that I know of ... some Protestants and Jansenists have claimed such. Jesuits have proven that false.

"and view of corporate guilt for the sin of Adam, are both serious errors."

Palamas shared this view and viewed the Blessed Virgin as exempt thereof. Aren't you celebrating him one of the Sundays either of Triodion or early Lent as a "defender of Orthodoxy"?

In other words, you have proven no major fault in St. Augustine ....

"The appeal to Rome of which you speak does not demonstrate that the East accepted the Papal monarchy. Surely St. Photios did not! It demonstrates that the patriarch of rome was held in high esteem, as is proper and right."

It demonstrates at the very least that both claimants saw Rome as a court of higher appeal.

"St. Photios was not a layman when he ascended to the patriarchate and that is all that is relevant."

When was he ordained and when was he made patriarch? Two weeks between?

No, it's not all that is relevant. The imprisoned former patriarch who made an appeal to Rome clearly was not a heretic or an apostate and the Basileus had no reason to depose him just to favour an old favourite of the court.

Eugene Santalov

Hans-Georg Lundahl "With Peter the Aleut, the first findings were the words of fellow Aleuts who might have wanted to protect him against the curse of Hermann of Alaska."

That's your biased interpretation without a shred of evidence to back it up, vs the words of simple honest people, who had fear of God in them after becoming Christians. Guess whose testimonies have more weight?

"If later on miracles were added to that, I would suggest, Peter lived a holy life as a Latin, married in California."

More fantasies in place of a testimony of witnesses, whom you accuse of lying with no evidence to support your accusation, but rather evidence to the contrary, even if secondary, still overwhelming (and you simply chose to ignore it without zilch of your own evidence to the contrary).

"And what they would do to Amerindians or Aleuts in such a case is precisely the same thing : burning at the stake. Not slow dismemberment."

This statement goes against the research and the book which I referred to. You are making things up again. Not good.

"You failed to document the "for centuries" part, as well as the "killing" part. Molesting or raping children has been a plague of a set of apostates, like deniers of Biblical creation, affirmers that Adam had a childhood among beasts. Exists since the 1940's."

Of course, they began mistreating Native American children only after 1940s, and before that they were all good to them. Talk about denial...

"Wonderful story, but where is your source? A complaint by a Wiccan?"

The source is an 11th century description on how they dealt with determining who were the lepers in a Western European city, and what happened to those people afterwards.

"There is no proof the picture shown..."

Considering your statements with no backing, it is funny to hear such statements from you. In this topic you seem to use arguments, which have no proof to them, even the opposite, they are illogical, just biased rhetoric.

This is a sort of gaslighting, I suppose. Examine your own statements before doubting those of others.

"Lepers were quarantined, not exiled thousands of miles."

Again a false statement and distorting of what I wrote. I did not say "thousands of miles", and of course they were exiled, at least from the society, NOT thousands of miles. You must live in an alternate reality, plus make things up, as if they were part of my statements. Why such dishonest methods of discussion? How then you expect then to be taken seriously?

"I'd like sources when facing allegations."

I have been asking you for sources all along, so far I have provided way more than you have. It is also funny to hear you asking for more sources, when you chose to ignore those I referred to before. Means you will keep using the same partial approach no matter my sources. So what's the use? I might as well present my sources to a donkey.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. Constantinople had become an-axios because of iconoclasm? If so, that would render Charlemagne unfit to be the Western Emperor, for he too was an iconoclast! By demonstrating that heretics sat upon the throne in the East, you do not thereby demonstrate that the East had lost authority. Pope Honorius was a heretic, yet you hold that he was the Vicar of Christ. Perhaps Jansenus and his followers had a clearer understanding of St. Augustine than did the followers of Loyola? If you are indeed correct about Palamas, why then does the Roman Church not venerate him? The Latins tend to devalue the Greek Fathers. St. Cyril of Alexandria had no feast day in the Western Church until the 1880's. Rome was granted primacy of honor at the 6th Ecumenical Council. Thus, an appeal to Rome was perfectly reasonable but does not prove the doctrine of Roman Primacy as understood in the West. Did the Emperor have the authority to depose the patriarch and install St. Photios? If so, he did no evil, though perhaps we can say that what was done was not a good........

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Eugene Santalov "the words of simple honest people, who had fear of God in them after becoming Christians."

If they were afraid of Hermann's curse, on azyme communion, they had reason to protect Peter against it.

"More fantasies in place of a testimony of witnesses,"

Indeed, the miracles could equally have been faked - or granted more for the piety and need of those getting than for the glory of Peter. It was indeed speculation. By the way, I have not even heard what miracles are attributed to him, but think miracles are a standard requirement for canonisation.

"This statement goes against the research and the book which I referred to."

Your book is by an author making up things. Roman Catholicism is not racist. The penalties meted out by the Inquisition are the same for white, black, red or yellow skinned people.

While you may yourself not be making up things, you are a dupe of one who is doing so.

"Of course, they began mistreating Native American children only after 1940s, and before that they were all good to them."

We were talking of molesting and rape. Pedophile cases start in the 40's in France.

I do not know what you can point to as done to Amerindian children before this, but it is more like exposing them to death in tuberculosis by obeying the evil laws of Canada requiring residential schools.

"The source is an 11th century description on how they dealt with determining who were the lepers in a Western European city, and what happened to those people afterwards."

Would you mind mentioning the author of the 11th C. description so I can check it independently of your book?

"Examine your own statements before doubting those of others."

In fact, I was not doubting your honesty. I have seen modern researchers abuse pictures for presenting a horror story of the past. Horror story : "children were regularly helping in ploughing and risked getting maimed by ploughs" - one of the pictures is a baby before a plough, and I could make out the text with Telemachus over the baby and Ulixes over the man with the plough - it is a depiction of a very unique situation (possibly fictional) which if it happened is from some time 1200 BC, Ulysses feigning madness by using the plough wrong, and those wanting to draft him putting the baby before the plough to prove him sane when he stopped. The other picture was not of a child, but of a teen, and it was of a collection of miracles, so hardly a source the secularists would accept as honest anyway, even if I do. What I definitely cannot guarantee is that the book you refer to is made by someone using pictures in a more honest way than that. Sorry. Frauds are rampant when people try to demonise the Middle Ages.

Obviously, the picture of burning heretics was not what I doubted.

"Again a false statement and distorting of what I wrote. I did not say "thousands of miles", and of course they were exiled, at least from the society, NOT thousands of miles."

Still, their loved ones could take a walk and bring them something - keeping the distance. In my book this is extreme quarantine, but not "exile" in the normal sense of the word.

"You must live in an alternate reality, plus make things up, as if they were part of my statements"

You used the word "exile" without adding "from society" ... to my ear that means exile many miles away, like Ovid was exiled to the Black Sea or St. Athanasius to Trier. If you had said "exile from society" I would have understood you better. But you said "condemned to exile and death" ... basically putting leprosy (a condition which was dealt with by very extreme quarantine) and witchcraft (in some jurisdiction a death penalty offense, but that was mostly way after 11th C.) in the same breath. I was taking your statement at what it made most coherently sense as meaning, had you used a clearer phrase, you could have avoided it. And you were speaking of gaslighting?

"I have been asking you for sources all along,"

I checked with a F search. The first mention of "sources" (plural) is actually my word you are now answering. I'll try "source" (singular) as well ... did. Nada. You maybe used another word?

Or, again, you may be the one doing the gaslighting ... and you have referred to a book of research, but you have not referred to the primary sources in it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alex Coleman "Constantinople had become an-axios because of iconoclasm?"

In the case of Venetian secession, which happened earlier than Charlemagne's - yes.

"If so, that would render Charlemagne unfit to be the Western Emperor, for he too was an iconoclast!"

He was not quit iconodule by the standards of Nicaea II, is the worst I have heard, but definitely not iconoclast or persecuter of iconodules.

"By demonstrating that heretics sat upon the throne in the East, you do not thereby demonstrate that the East had lost authority."

The iconoclast emperor was not just heretic, he was using tax money to persecute those who weren't.

"Pope Honorius was a heretic, yet you hold that he was the Vicar of Christ."

As far as I know, he was not a Monothelite, he simply banned polemics about the subject - bad enough. Pope St. Leo II signed an act saying he had favoured heresy, but not that he was a heretic.

"Perhaps Jansenus and his followers had a clearer understanding of St. Augustine than did the followers of Loyola?"

Or perhaps not.

"If you are indeed correct about Palamas, why then does the Roman Church not venerate him?"

Some Uniates tend to do that. However, the most simple answer, he was on the wrong side of a schism that had already taken place in his day.

"The Latins tend to devalue the Greek Fathers. St. Cyril of Alexandria had no feast day in the Western Church until the 1880's."

I'd have to ask my Church Historian friend about this ....

"Rome was granted primacy of honor at the 6th Ecumenical Council. Thus, an appeal to Rome was perfectly reasonable"

Even against the Emperor?

"but does not prove the doctrine of Roman Primacy as understood in the West."

Both the "deposed" and imprisoned real patriarch and Photius actually appealed to him as a kind of judge.

"Did the Emperor have the authority to depose the patriarch and install St. Photios? If so, he did no evil, though perhaps we can say that what was done was not a good........"

But the point is, he hadn't.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alex Coleman "Constantinople had become an-axios because of iconoclasm?"

Back to this ... in the case of the Carolingian secession, no. But because the return to Orthodoxy was as barbaric as the persecutions by iconoclasts had been.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Eugene Santalov "The source is an 11th century description on how they dealt with determining who were the lepers in a Western European city, and what happened to those people afterwards."

Whether the original text is an 11th C. text, I think the illustration looks like later - 12th, 13th, up to 15th ...

If you were willing to give sources, why not say what Western European City and what the description is named? I know Latin, so no problem if the description is in Latin.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. We both could continue this disputation ad infinitum. I will allow you the last word, brother. I am reminded of the words of St. Ambrose of Milan: "in essentials unity. In nonessentials, diversity. In all things, charity."

Eugene Santalov

Hans-Georg Lundahl the source was quoted in a lecture in Russian, they didn't specify the city. Even if illustrations are done a little later, it does not cancel history before that time. In any case, I repeat, asking for sources is humorous coming out from someone whose statements with regards to the questions you and I discussed here, had ZERO sources, even remote ones. All your statements were based on not very convincing and often obviously flawed/subjective logic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Eugene Santalov "the source was quoted in a lecture in Russian"

Sounds v e r y reassuring for objectivity and for fairness as against Latins (or not quite so).

"statements with regards to the questions you and I discussed here, had ZERO sources, even remote ones."

Which one were you even remotely asking one source from?

I went over the two posts on my blog (extant and upcoming) where this is mirrored, and I searched the word "sources" and the word "source" and I was the first to use it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alex Coleman I just checked with a Church Historian, Stephan Borgehammar, and while certain Greek fathers were really well known, they were celebrated only in few localities. The saints feasts are, as he said, originally a local affair, it's rare for a feast to penetrate even one whole patriarchate.

This obviously not to add new fuel to the debate, but to fix a side issue I lacked an answer to.

Eugene Santalov

Hans-Georg Lundahl in ALL your statements to me you had NO references. I did even without you asking. Please, provide sources for ANY of them? Anyone refuted the account of St. Peter the Aleut and based it on research? Anyone refuted torture of Native Americans, based on evidence? Anyone refuted inquisition in Europe, exiling of so called lepers in the Middle Ages and murder of Native American children by Roman Catholics? Anyone refuted any other statements I made which you disagree with, based on evidence? You question my evidence with ZERO of your own. Your doubts have ZERO weight, especially after some of your statements, which distort facts, all without facts of your own, just your own ideas, obviously set on defending your organization even if it means ignoring or denying facts of history.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"in ALL your statements to me you had NO references."

I was prepared to give any reference for a statement you challenged.

"Anyone refuted the account of St. Peter the Aleut and based it on research?"

Yes, I, based on what I know of the Inquisition. Catholicism distinguishes Heresy from Schism, and refusing Azymes would be Schism. Heresy as death penalty offense (repeat offense of very long refusal to repent) meant burning, sometimes mitigated by strangulation before it. NOT the kind of death this "martyrdom" history presents.

What I read about Hermann of Alaska says he already prior to these reports had a devotion to one St. John of Persia, who was executed that precise way - but by Sassanids, not Inquisitors. Points to the story having been adapted to what he would found believable.

Here it is:
Φιλολoγικά / Philologica : Was Peter the Aleut a Martyr?
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2012/09/was-peter-aleut-martyr.html

I didn't feel like needing to cite it to you, since it would be myself I were citing and I was offering the same arguments.

"Anyone refuted torture of Native Americans, based on evidence?"

Depends on what kind of torture, by whom - lay Spaniards may have done so more than once. Spanish ex-Colonies made it worse. This is about Inquisitors, not laymen. Before you pretend Native Americans were tortured by Church men, what exactly do you count as torture? Putting an offender in irons?

"Anyone refuted inquisition in Europe,"

I don't intend to. It's my knowledge of the Inquisition that's my argument against the story.

"exiling of so called lepers in the Middle Ages"

Quarantining may be "exile from society" but it is not "exile" in the sense this has as a kind of punishment. First bc leprosy is not an offense, but a contagious disease, second because the leper colonies were put outside the city walls, the lepers were neither required nor even allowed perhaps to wander far away (except on pilgrimages hoping for healing?), and this means the people they knew could go and visit them (seeing each other at a safe distance) rather than, as in real exile, being cut off.

The idea simply having goose bumps in cold counted as a symptom of leprosy is absurd. Perhaps things looking like goose bumps but staying that way when not in cold were mistranslated? I don't know if that could be an early symptom or not.

"and murder of Native American children by Roman Catholics?"

If you mean Roman Catholic either clergymen or laymen acting on orders of clergymen, you are far out.

Unless you count it as murder to obey an evil law of Canada and keep children in a boarding school where Tuberculosis is spreading - but this law came into existence by a vote in Ottawa 1890, way after the purported martyrdom of Peter the Aleut, and Canada voting this law had a Protestant majority within the English majority.

"Anyone refuted any other statements I made which you disagree with, based on evidence?"

You didn't give much evidence. The major refutation remains that.

But if you want evidence about the Inquisition and not from me, check:

The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision Paperback – July 11, 1999
by Henry Kamen (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/Spanish-Inquisition-Historical-Revision/dp/0300078803

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kamen

"Your doubts have ZERO weight, especially after some of your statements, which distort facts, all without facts of your own, just your own ideas, obviously set on defending your organization even if it means ignoring or denying facts of history."

If anyone distorts facts of history, it's you.

Check Kamen if you think I suck on Medieval history and early modern history among Latins, but that's one of the lines where my university studies in precisely Latin helps get the eyes open for more research and historians than most people get.

Debate with Two Orthodox

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Debate with Two Orthodox · Two Orthodox Continue · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Unconvincing "Testimony" on Peter the Aleut and his Supposed Martyrdom by Catholics

Alex Coleman

July 27 2022, 15:12

[shared meme:]

Every modern western philosophy is a heresy of western christianity. Western christianity is a heresy of Orthodoxy.

[own words:]

Neitzche and the existentialists are the only exception among the modern thinkers of the West. Canadian philosopher George Grant stated that all atheists were on the Left until Nietzsche. Neitzsche is the father of the atheist Right. The Neitzschian defense of hierarchy is one that should be avoided by Christians. God has established His order of creation for the benefit of all creatures who exist within the chain of being. "The greatest among you shall be servant of the least," said the Savior.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I would not consider Catholicism a heresy.

Eugene Santalov

Hans-Georg Lundahl the Pope's jurisdictional supremacy over all and the Filioque were the two main innovations of the Western Church a thousand years ago, which were rejected by the rest of the Christendom, which resulted in the Latins excommunicating all who were not under the pope. Over the past thousand years we have seen the sad fruits of it. The holy tree of saints has dried out, Western medieval spirituality became more and more different from that of the early Church, while those the Rome excommunicated, have had flourishing spirituality and saints like in the early centuries, a clear sign of continuity and work of the Holy Spirit, present uniquely in the Church. Then followed various other innovations in the West, which are rather numerous to list here, the infallibility of the pope, the Immaculate Conception and the role of co-mediatrix being just some of them. So, yeah, it's a heresy, and has been growing more and more apart from historic Christian Tradition into a new entity - Papacy or Latinism insomuch as it is different from the Orthodoxy of the first Christian millennium.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

• Pope's jurisdictional supremacy - see Second Clement (only First Clement can be explained totally as response to an active appeal);
• Filioque was taught by St. Athanasius and by the FIRST council of Toledo*;
• Andreas Faulhaber, killed over refusing to reveal the secret of confession is not a dired out saint, his tongue is preserved;
• it is not a flourishing spirituality to invent a fake martyrdom for "St. Peter the Aleut";
• infallibility of the Pope follows from infallibility of the Church and jurisdictional supremacy
• the Immaculate conception was taught by Greeks and Copts while Latins were doubting (due to a false conclusion by St. Augustine) and more specifically, in the Greek and Coptic versions of Sub tuum praesidium, and by Palamas and by Avvakum, while Nikon attacked it due to copying a manual from Venice by an "Orthodox" who had made part of his studied under Lutherans (because they weren't Catholic)
• Co-Mediatrix was taught by the late Anthony of Sourozh in School for Prayer.

footnote interruption

* See my translation work from Latin to English on this page:

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

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. If the Roman Church limited the supremacy of the Pope to the West, Orthodoxy would not object. St. Irenaeus of Lyon said that, "all come to Rome to settle their disputations." This indicates supremacy of authority in the West but not over the Church as a whole. In terms of Filioque, the chief error of the Latins is that Rome altered the creed in the absence of an Ecumenical Council. St. Thomas cites St. Athanasius as teaching Filioque. However, in the version which I read, there is no footnote with that citation. I presume that St. Thomas is citing a document that is no longer extant. I have read in fact that the Old Believers may well have a stronger claim than has been believed in the past.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If the Roman Church limited the supremacy of the Pope to the West, Orthodoxy would not object."

First, Uniate Churches do enjoy in practise far greater autonomy than dioceses within the Latin one. Second, while Constantinople was "carved out of" the original "Latin patriarchate" if such, it is dubious whether patriarchates are really an apostolic tradition or a disciplinary innovation by Nicaea. St. Clement wrote to Corinth which is now in patriarchate of Constantinople.

"In terms of Filioque, the chief error of the Latins is that Rome altered the creed in the absence of an Ecumenical Council."

Or the fourth council has a truncated text of it. The now extant Greek texts, Nicaea ends with "and in the Holy Spirit, Amen" and only Chalcedon has the creed from two councils earlier. In Spain, the text tradition as shown by Third Council of Toledo about the Creed itself, and also the belief as shown in an explicatory creed in condemning Priscillianism at the First Council of Toledo (AD 400) show filioque was believed.

Finally, there has been an ecumenical council for Filioque, in Florence.

"St. Thomas cites St. Athanasius as teaching Filioque. However, in the version which I read, there is no footnote with that citation."

I have found it not just in the ultrafamous Quicumque vult (creed-essay handed in by St. Athanasius to the Pope and later elevated to creed for hours, replacing Apostolic one, on certain days), but also in his letters.

"I presume that St. Thomas is citing a document that is no longer extant."

He's most presumably referring to Quicumque vult. Extant.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. I am not familiar with the incident of St. Clement of Rome and Corinth. I will have to study the matter. The quotation by St. Thomas of St. Athanasius is indeed of the Athanasian Creed. That I did not immediately recognize this, demonstrates the deficiency of my learning. It is odd that there was no footnote to this famous document. The Orthodox are well aware of Toledo and it's inclusion of Filioque. The Arian controversy caused that council to embrace the teaching despite it's Sabellian implications. It is odd that you invoke an argument against the apostolic origin of patriarchates. If true, this negates not only the Orthodox Church but the Roman Church also. Such an argument is very Protestant.

Eugene Santalov

Hans-Georg Lundahlthank you for the reply. I read your statements, but they are without references. One thing is an opinion of an individual bishop or even a local council (NOT Ecumentical), another thing is the universal teaching of the Church. Filioque was NEVER accepted conciliarly outside the Latin See. Same goes for the Pope's universal mandatory authority. It was NOT a common early Church practice.

The martyrdom of St. Peter the Aleut is no dogmatic issue and your words denying it seem like being in denial. What are you going to deny next? Perhaps that crusaders massacred Orthodox Christians and robbed their churches?

Antony of Surozh was in the Soviet KGB Church, had various New Agish ideas, not a dogmatic authority for sure.

The Immaculate Conception is NOT taught by the Orthodox Church and was never talked about on the Ecumenical Council level. It is NOT a dogma of the early Church, just a Latin one, taking away the crown of holy struggle against one's fallen nature from the Mother of God, like she did not earn her holiness, it was given to her before birth and she did not have to make the effort other saints did. It is an insult to the greatest saint and an attempt to turn her into a deity, same as the comediatrix concept. Yeah, a heresy for sure.

Now Vatican has been infiltrated by Freemasons anyway, kind of nullifying what's left of Latin Church's continuity with the historic Roman See. It is a worldly organization, which uses religion to help the one world govt influence and control world population. Most Orthodox sees have also fallen to this scourge, with just small portions of it remaining true to Holy Tradition among their hierarchy. Obviously the true to Tradition churches are not in communion with heretical bishops. The current Latin Pope is considered a heretic even by many Catholics for his interesting opinions, which hint at his Freemason affiliation, trying to liberalize the modern Catholic faith even more so.

And we come back to Latin spirituality. It is nonexistent now, but even in Middle Ages it was deviating. I has all but dried up over the centuries since the Great Schism, with emotions taking its place. Just judging the tree by its fruit.

Orthodox Christian Information Center* : A Comparison: Francis of Assisi and St. Seraphim of Sarov
http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx

footnote interruption

* Didn't have time to look the link up. I don't use internet 24 by 24 and the debate with him and Alex Coleman are not my only ones and Eugene sends links and links that save time for him (see below too) and put time on me if meant as arguments I get an obligation to answer.

A very quick look : "The truly righteous always consider themselves unworthy of God." / —Dictum of St Isaac the Syrian

As much an argument against Sts. Bridget (and Barbara and Lucy, I think Agnes and Agatha too, and they are pre-schism), and against St. Thérèse of Lisieux.

Scenario, whether I know it or not, I am in fact right at a given point in time (not necessarily while writing this) truly righteous.

Do I consider myself unworthy of God, even if my father confessor told me I was worthy? Is that my "true righteousness" or my disobedience to the priest who wields God's forgiveness?

Could it be, St. Augustine is more relevant for the tradition of sainthood in the West Mediterranean than a Saint known not just as "the Syrian" but also "of Nineveh" and "of Qatar" even if we assume both were in fact perfectly holy?

Unlike Saint Barbara (who thought herself "worthy of God" at least in the sense of wanting to be His bride (I'm pretty sure this was the case with Lucy, but think also the other two virgin martyrs Agnes and Agatha)), Isaac is not honoured BOTH by all Roman Catholics AND by all Eastern Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox may have adopted him as a Saint, but his communion was with Nestorius, not with Chalcedon. A fine authority by which to debunk Sts Thérèse de Lisieux, and Chiara di Assisi and Birgitta af Vadstena - or is Saint Barbara (before the schisms against Ephesus I and Chalcedon a better one to uphold them?

Before that, there is a quote from Father Serge, by the writer Tolstoy whom Pobodonostsev excommunicated and called an antichrist for his Arian heresy (shared with the Swede Rydberg) and also for heresies on moral theology about certain items in the Sermon of the Mount closer to Albigensians than to Arians, and fortunately not shared by my countryman.

There is a deepened discussion about the stigmata of St. Francis. They refer to G. Dumas, Revue des deux mondes to say the stigmata can be a nervous, psychosomatic phenomenon. Any miracle must be evaluated when it happens by the knowledge available then. Hansens disease, also known as leprosy, can now be healed without miracle. But it takes six months of antibiotics. If Christ healed as rapidly as stated in the Gospels it was still a miracle. However, it may be added, G. Dumas' analysis would seem to have been wrong, and a way to gain some kind of medical dictatorship over stigmatics. The alpha state has been studied very well since the days when his article appeared in 1907, in a publication that started to be offered to the public in 1829. I wonder if the publication has since then published any article debunking G. Dumas.

A Catholic considers there are three means to get stigmata:

• human agency (some accused Padre Pio of using carbolic acid), but a perfectly direct conscious one, not the alpha or even delta state (though the latter seems still a bit unexplored)
• God (via angels)
• demons

The protocols of the canonisation process for the Poverello should be somewhere in the Vatican libraries, and there were many other miracles to his favour.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alex Coleman "I am not familiar with the incident of St. Clement of Rome and Corinth. I will have to study the matter."

First Clementine : can be explained by an appeal from Corinth to Rome.
Second Clementine : the Pope follows up, without any extra appeal.

"The Orthodox are well aware of Toledo and it's inclusion of Filioque."

No, you aren't. You have pretended that Third Council of Toledo (589) decided to include Filioque into the creed. This is simply not the case. Its acts start with the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, with the Filioque, as if this was the most natural thing in the world, and how they had always said this creed.

Now, there is another creed, decided on as an extra explanation of the faith to Priscillianists, which is far earlier, from the First Council of Toledo. September 400. Romans only, no Wisigoths present as yet.

"The Arian controversy caused that council to embrace the teaching despite it's Sabellian implications."

• 1) Where in the Third Council's acts do you find any kind of controversy about the Filioque or any kind of decision on it?
• 2) Why would it have been (as a teaching) in need of any extra decision, when the exact same region had Filioque in another creed (against Priscillianism) 189 years earlier, and with no big Arian controversy ongoing?
• 3) Just because Photius considered Filioque implies Sabellianism doesn't mean that it does so, see St. Thomas Aquinas.

"It is odd that you invoke an argument against the apostolic origin of patriarchates."

I am not arguing against a Petrine origin of Rome, Antioch and Jerusalem, nor a semi-Petrine one of Alexandria.

Whether Constantinople has a proper background in St. Andrew is possible, but it seems he only left priests, presbyters, there, not bishops.

I am questioning whether the level "patriarch" between papacy and metropolitan is an apostolic formal division of the Church or came about at Nicea for disciplinary reasons.

"If true, this negates not only the Orthodox Church but the Roman Church also."

Not insofar as papacy is a higher and therefore other level than patriarchy and one that I was not questioning.

"Such an argument is very Protestant."

Not as I put it.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. You are a formidable opponent. That is to be welcomed. "Iron sharpens iron."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Eugene Santalov Before we discuss the rest, how about this one?

"The martyrdom of St. Peter the Aleut is no dogmatic issue and your words denying it seem like being in denial."

• 1) It is highly implausible that Spanish Inquisitors would kill anyone for the disciplinary reason of refusing azymes. Pretending leavened bread is the only proper matter is a disciplinary form of schism, but it is insofar not heretical that leavened bread is regarded as valid matter for uniate churches (and the unions had been made before his supposed date of death).
  
  
• 2) It is also highly implausible they would kill a foreigner rather than expel him. Unless for some reason he had decided to stay, at the very least.
  
  
• 3) It is not just implausible, but impossible that, if killing him, they would have imitated the Persian killers of St. John of Persia instead of using their own normal procedure (also used by Russians for Avvakum), that being burning, optionally strangulation for mercy before the burning or before the full burning.
  
  
• 4) It is a highly noteworthy coincidence that Hermann of Alaska had a devotion to St. John of Persia and therefore knew that precise martyrdom and had presumably more than once preached it to Aleuts before they went on the trip. It is equally noteworthy that his warnings against azymes may have seemed to them like a curse.
  
  
• 5) My guess is, he decided to stay in California to marry, he became a Latin, his comrades invented the martyrdom to preserve him against Hermann's curse.

This is the more benign interpretation, Russia was also seeking reasons to interfere into the then possession of Spain.

"Perhaps that crusaders massacred Orthodox Christians and robbed their churches?"

No, there were such massacres on both sides. And when the Catholics were Uniates, there were also such Church robberies on both sides. But those weren't processes for heresy in the Inquisition, they were fights about who was to control what was thought of as Christianity in a certain place.

I'll be back when you say more about this, about the other things too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alex Coleman Thank you!

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. Let me see if I understand you correctly. You affirm that Filioque is present in the original version of the creed from the council of 381? Furthermore, you affirm that four of the five centers of the Church prior to Chalcedon and the formal Pentarchy, derive their origin and authority from St. Peter? I am aware of the argument of St. Thomas against St. Photios, although he does not actually name him. The argument is brilliant to be sure and displays the genius of the Angelic Doctor. However, as with all earthly things, there is always point and counterpoint. I must study that matter further as well.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You affirm that Filioque is present in the original version of the creed from the council of 381?"

I consider this a possibility, the other one being that Filioque in the text is a doctrinally innocuous contamination from the explanatory creed of the First Council of Toledo. Bad memory for exact words, good memory for exact doctrine.

"Furthermore, you affirm that four of the five centers of the Church prior to Chalcedon and the formal Pentarchy, derive their origin and authority from St. Peter?"

Rome was head of the college of Apostles in Jerusalem before he left (Jerusalem), he was bishop in Antioch (Antioch) between Jerusalem and Rome, but Rome is where he left his papacy. His disciple and secretary St. Mark founded the see of Alexandria.

The question is not whether the centres existed since apostolic times, but whether there was a fourfold, later with Constantinople fivefold *division* of all Christendom between these since apostolic times.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. St. James was first bishop of Jerusalem, not St. Peter. St. Peter was bishop of Antioch for seven years. Thus, would not the patriarch of Antioch have the same authority as the patriarch of Rome, in accordance with your argument? In point of fact, if one affirms a Petrine source of authority for the four original centers, how then does primacy of authority rest with Rome?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"St. James was first bishop of Jerusalem, not St. Peter."

The first monarchic bishop, who came to episcopate there after the dispersion of the Apostles (twelve) - and in this first collective period, St. Peter was foremost of the ruling body.

"St. Peter was bishop of Antioch for seven years. Thus, would not the patriarch of Antioch have the same authority as the patriarch of Rome, in accordance with your argument?"

St. Peter was personally pope (Matthew 16:19, John 21:17) to the end of his life. He remained Pope over St. James, when leaving him in Jerusalem, and he remained Pope over St. Evodius when he succeeded him in Antioch. He could not remain pope over St. Linus after dying, by contrast. Therefore, St. Linus inherited the papacy not just in Rome, but over the sees of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. You have presented the history of the early Church as understood by the Latins. Obviously, Orthodoxy disputes that interpretation. Let us however, work within the framework that you have presented. Why would the patriarch of Rome have final authority over the other sees, under this scenario? Why would the successor to St. Peter in Antioch have either more or less authority, than his successor in Rome? Both inherited the throne of Peter in your view.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not really the throne of Peter as Pope.

Evodius did not inherit papacy, Linus did.

Evodius, like James, could only inherit local episcopacy and possibly (if such) a patriarchal division, since both took over when St. Peter left and remained Pope.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. Yes but why? Why would St. Linus and his successor have the final authority? Simply because St. Peter became bishop of Rome as the third and last of his bishopric, this would not grant any special status to Rome.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It would, because he could not leave papacy behind when not dying and had to leave papacy behind when dying.

(Btw, Jerusalem was not technically a bishopric of St. Peter, he was there before inventing monarchic episcopacy for Jerusalem, as ruling with the other 11).

Eugene Santalov

Hans-Georg Lundahlit appears your basis for denying the story of St. Peter the Aleut is all in your own rhetoric, part of which is trying to discredit an account by Saint Herman. A logical chain of suppositions, but with errors, and all can be plausibly denied, as your guesses may simply be incorrect, while St. Herman's account, based on what was told him by the surviving Aleuts has never been doubted, except by those who have an agenda, like trying to whitewash the Latin criminals. Aleuts were simple and honest people, and St. Herman had the discernment to trust or not trust their accounts, better than your and my fallen human logic, being much further away from God's Grace than he was/is. I'll trust St. Herman's account before any modern fallen logic. The monks in San Francisco were trying to convince the Aleuts to be baptized, and when they refused they made an example of St. Peter. This is surely not a unique way for Catholics to treat Native Americans. What was the logic? Kill the body and thus save the soul or other souls. It goes well with inquisition and other atrocities, typical for medieval Catholicism, especially in the new world. There was a good reason the pope even issued a public apology for the treatment of Native Americans by Catholic invaders

Survival International* : Pope** apologizes for Catholic church’s crimes against indigenous peoples
July 15, 2015
https://www.survivalinternational.org/news/10845

Then we have mistreatment of Native American children even in recent centuries and even recent decades, resulting in killing hundreds of them, while supposedly trying to enlighten them. Unfortunately there are plenty of materials to support the Latin monks' attitudes and even methods in S. F. in those times. The common grave in Mission Dolores most likely contains the martyr's holy relics. Perhaps one day they'll let them be exhumed.

The Cougar*** : The Catholic Church must take responsibility for its anti-Indigenous history
By Anna Baker June 11, 2021
http://thedailycougar.com/2021/06/11/the-catholic-church-must-take-responsibility-for-its-anti-indigenous-history/

Hans-Georg Lundahl some interesting research results here. You can even buy a book to learn of Latin monks' atrocities in more detail. A lot of it around the same time of the martyrdom of St. Peter. I doubt you have done anything that comes even remotely close to this depth of research to substantiate your claim, denying the crime. We can talk about one murder, or we can talk about thousands, which makes the one of St. Peter just one of a multitude in a statistic. Denying a heretical nature of an organization, which committed crimes in such proportions, is simply emotional denial, devoid of objectivity

The Lesser-Told Story Of The California Missions
By Caitlin Harrington - Published on March 20, 2016.
https://hoodline.com/2016/03/the-lesser-told-story-of-the-california-missions/

Amazon : A Cross of Thorns: The Enslavement of California’s Indians by the Spanish Missions Paperback – April 1, 2017
by Elias Castillo (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/Cross-Thorns-Enslavement-Californias-Missions/dp/1610353048

Amazing revelations of the current "infallible" head of the church

wp Pope** Francis says evolution is real and God is no wizard
By Ishaan Tharoor - October 28, 2014 at 12:36 p.m. EDT
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/10/28/pope-francis-backs-theory-of-evolution-says-god-is-no-wizard/

footnote interruption

* They may be well meaning, but are they good historians? Is a publication there, on non-environmental issues, worth more than a blog post?

** The title "Pope" not given to the actual one who died on Tuesday, 2 August, but to the "Intruder Bishop Jorge" who blocked His Holiness from residing in Santa Marta

*** The Cougar : "tout un programme" they say here! Also, as he commented "even in recent decades" that's well after Spaniards ruled or Catholics had an Inquisition with death penalties, so totally irrelevant for Peter the Aleut. And while he's not dogma (with us, canonisations are at least very close to), the topic was "preservation of sainthood and spirituality" as brought up by Eugene Santalov himself. The most doubtful adverb being "even" as a comparison of equation with the days of Herman of Alaska. St. Pius X issued an encyclical to denounce contemporary cruelties to Indians.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. Let us return to the Filioque controversy. If the first Council of Toledo, which was not an Ecumenical Council, altered the creed of 381, that is illegitimate. The third council of 431 upheld the creed of the second council and decreed that the creed could not be altered in the absence of an ecumenical council.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Eugene Santalov "A logical chain of suppositions, but with errors, and all can be plausibly denied, as your guesses may simply be incorrect, while St. Herman's account, based on what was told him by the surviving Aleuts has never been doubted, except by those who have an agenda, like trying to whitewash the Latin criminals."

It has never been believed except by those having an agenda, like Russians (against the Spaniards) or Orthodox (to not discredit Orthodox Russians).

Whether an Encomienda constituted harsh slavery or not (I would be considering the proper answer not so), it does not in any way, shape or form involve 1) inquisitors judging people who could simply get expelled; 2) inquisitors judging people for the judgement that azymes are invalid matter; and 3) inquisitors replacing bonfire (or strangulation plus bonfire) with cutting someone into pieces.

So, whatever your book recommendations may be worth for or against Junípero Serra, Pope Michael has as far as I know not said anything about that "canonisation" it is no argument for Peter the Aleut getting killed as described.

As to your Washington Post link - Bergoglio is, as I mentioned Pope Michael, not my Pope. You can take Bergoglio up with people who take him for "Pope Francis" and that does not include me.*

footnote interruption

* To put two of the statements in the long sentence side by side, shorter:

Bergoglio alias "Pope Francis" is not my Pope.
Pope Michael is my Pope.

By now, was, he died 2.VIII.2022

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. Why do you call Francis, "Pope Michael?"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alex Coleman "If the first Council of Toledo, which was not an Ecumenical Council, altered the creed of 381, that is illegitimate"

The First Council is not altering any pre-existing creed, it is giving an explanatory creed condemning Priscillianism. It includes filioque.

The Third Council is not altering any pre-existing creed, it is reciting the creed of 381 with the Filioque as an introduction to its acts.

So, if the creed from 381 included Filioque, the Third Council of Toledo recited it correctly, and if not, between 400 and 589 one had contaminated the one from 381 (used in liturgy) with one phrase from the one of 400 (only explanatory to a controversy in the Toledo province).

"The third council of 431 upheld the creed of the second council"

But the preserved acts of 381 and 431 do not give us the text of it. So, from then we cannot tell whether it involved the Filioque or not.

The fourth council gives *us* the text, without the Filioque.

The question between 381 and 451, 381 and 589 is, where had the text been altered? I don't know.

I do know that the 381 text cannot have been meant to stamp Filioque (as a teaching) as heresy, since a council in communion with the Church in 400 is using Filioque in an explanatory creed and since St. Athanasius at least twice (in the Quicumque vult and in a letter) upheld that the Holy Ghost was neither Father, nor Son, but proceeding *from both.*

In the time of Charlemagne and Leo III, either Charlemagne had got the wrong text from for instance Spain or Leo III had got it from Byzantines.

And as to the disciplinary rule of 431, we have since then a Ecumenical council, Florence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alex Coleman, they are definitely not the same person.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a heretic, schismatic and arguably apostate who is sometimes termed "Pope Francis" - he comes from Argentina.

David Allen Bawden in 1990 (after the proof 1986 that Wojtyla was neither Catholic nor Pope) convoked an emergency conclave, got elected and took the papal name Michael. He lives in Kansas and may have lived in Oklahoma too.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. I am not familiar with this narrative. I am familiar with the narrative that Pope John was not actually elected by the College of Cardinals but rather a conservative protege of Pius XII.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You may know that by 1989 there were lots of people considering that "John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I" and by then also "John Paul II" were antipopes.

People thinking so were generally known as sedevacantist, and David Bawden was a sedevacantist who thought he had a right to proceed to do something about it. Which he did in 1990.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. I am familiar with the sedevacantists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, since 1990, there are also conclavists.

Pope Michael quickly got some rivals, seems he has lost all or most of them.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. If you state that the text of the Nicean-Constantinople creed of 381 has been altered, to remove Filioque, where is the evidence? That the fourth council did not include Filioque is evidence against it's orthodoxy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It cannot be evidence against its orthodoxy, it could also be evidence against a then and there unity about it.

Why cannot it be evidence against the orthodoxy? Because we have previous evidence for its orthodoxy.

"If you state ... where is the evidence?"
I was giving that as one of two alternatives.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. Is your position that Filioque is the consensus of the Fathers and that it was St. Photios who was the first to reject the teaching? Furthermore, you imply that our present text of Chalcedon has been altered. Am I understanding you correctly? As regards Florence, two points. Firstly, over a millennium intervened between the first council of toledo and the council of florence-ferrara. Thus, the western church upheld filioque for centuries in an illegitimate manner. Secondly, the eastern church only agreed to the council for pragmatic reasons. St. Mark of Ephesus alone remained true to Orthodoxy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My position is neither that Filioque was the consensus, nor that there was a consensus against it.

It quickly became consensus in the West.

Photius, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, followed the half and half rejection of St. John of Damascus. He had stated "we say that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and we say that He is the Spirit of the Son, we say that He proceeds from the Father, but we do not say that He proceeds from the Son."

Which, again according to St. Thomas, would have been traceable to some Nestorians, I think Theodoret comes to mind.

"Firstly, over a millennium intervened between the first council of toledo and the council of florence-ferrara. Thus, the western church upheld filioque for centuries in an illegitimate manner."

In an illegal manner, as to the text in the creed.

If even so.

In the West, one would have been very keen on considering the Chalcedon text (with full article on Holy Spirit and that one without the Filioque) as a fraud. During basically all of these 1000 years.

The third council of Toledo recited the Nicene Creed with the Filioque simply as believing that was how Constantinople I had redacted it. There never was a decision to add Filioque to this liturgic creed, for them it had always been there.

The *first* council of Toledo did a special creed to be recited by converts from Priscillianism, it involves matters not adressed by the Nicene Creed.

It includes the Filioque, not as part of the Nicene Creed, but as part of the Catholic Faith. There was no ban on that in the Council of 381.

My point is, Filioque is traceable further back in time than any of its rejections, whether St. John of Damascus or Photius.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. The patristic consensus is key to resolving this longstanding dispute. In the West, Filioque did not become the consensus until the Photian Schism, although it had influence among the Latins, to be certain. My understanding from my studies, is as follows. The view of St. John Damascene is the consensus of the Holy Fathers. Namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. St. Thomas attributes this view to the Greeks and regards it as an error based upon obstinacy. He does indeed cite the view of the Nestorian, Theodoret of Cyrett. However, the view of Theodoret is in fact proof against Filioque. He accused St. Cyril of heresy for teaching Filioque, which indicates that the teaching was generally understood to be heretical in the 5th century. St. Gregory of Cyprus expounds upon this matter. He clarifies that the later Latin theologians misunderstood the teaching of the Greek Fathers and falsely accused them of teaching Filioque.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Gregory II of Cyprus (Greek: Γρηγόριος ο Κύπριος, 1241–1290) was Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople between 1283 and 1289."

He is NOT an impartial judge NOR from 5th C.

"The patristic consensus is key to resolving this longstanding dispute. In the West"

P a r d o n me? IN THE WEST?

Wait, bad punctuation. [On part of my reading, not his writing.]

The "patristic consensus" (tout court, not "in the West") is key to resolving this longstanding dispute" (also tout court, also not "in the West") PERIOD

Makes sense and the answer is simple : there is not one.

"In the West, Filioque did not become the consensus until the Photian Schism, although it had influence among the Latins, to be certain."

I would say it was *near* consensus with the locally small but prestigiuously important Byzantine contacts (Rome, Ravenna ....) holding out against getting it into the Creed. Including the famous example of Leo III (who didn't excommunicate Charlemagne for keeping it in the Creed).

Precisely as Constantinople and Antioch had a near or total consensus of "at least not de fide definita" or in other words "has nothing to do in the Creed"

"The view of St. John Damascene is the consensus of the Holy Fathers."

Not the words I quoted. You may have read lots more than the quote I saw through St. Thomas.

"Namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son."

As I recall it, it's a way of stating it that he attributes to not St. John of Damascus but to Kappadocians - who are on the Latin and Uniate side at least in the Photian quarrel.

"St. Thomas attributes this view to the Greeks and regards it as an error based upon obstinacy."

What exact work?

He would have used the phrase "the Greeks" (about Christians) as referring to:

• a) Byzantine Schismatics who despite the best efforts of the new Patriarchs of Constantinople hadn't come to Communion with Rome
• b) The Patrologiae Graeca, or what he knew of it from Moerbeke

Your quote sounds like a composite of what he would consider aboout A, with what he would quote from B agains A. Perhaps you need to look it up after a coffee.

"He does indeed cite the view of the Nestorian, Theodoret of Cyrett. However, the view of Theodoret is in fact proof against Filioque. He accused St. Cyril of heresy for teaching Filioque, which indicates that the teaching was generally understood to be heretical in the 5th century."

It indicates ANTIOCHIANS (or some) considered it heretical in the 5th C.

As Theodoret is heterodox, and St. Cyril as Orthodox as the First council of Toledo or St. Martin, you have now provided two witnesses For and just one, already known to be bad witness Against from the 5th C.