Old Top Posts

Hans-Georg Lundahl

17 novembre 2010

Partagé avec Public

LINKS IN COMMENTS: Posting my top of the blogs (readers on mine), for each blog: last 24 h, last 7 days, last 30 days, all time (since may when blogger got its statistcs system). Four stats per blog when available and different. Two blogs also have pages as well as messages (except the other blogs page which is on every one of my blogs and does not count). THIS IS MY READERS' PRIORITIES.

Al essorcista Dom Gabriele Amorth (IT) · Conversations in a Scottish Krak · Beaubourg, près d'un collège, 2050, si le monde durera? (FR) · Citemus votum +Antonii de Castro-Mayer, Episcopi Camposini (LAT)

Is St Patrick's Breastplate Druidic in its inspiration? · Nouvelles questionnettes de philologie (FR) · Accusative and Dative for English speakers ...

Non-replies · Comme si leurs prières étaient "fais que nous soyons de plus en plus le levain dans la pâte" ... (FR) · De retour + conditions d'utilisations ultérieures + régistre français (FR)

Ordo Missae of Paul VI per se valid, probably (or may have been) · M. Onfray et St. Thomas d' Aquin

Added today to someone who claimed the Pope as "vicar of Christ" is an admitted "substitute for Christ" · Debate with mainly a Christian who is a scientist, but not a Christian Scientist · Someone posted a link to Fr. Corapi today

St Luke concludes five more days of debate with same person · Our Lady of the Rosary to today, debate between a geocentric thomist and some heliocentrics

[links to Creation vs Evolution, demoted to comments]

Tertiae declinationis neutra substantiva (LAT) · verba praeteriti imperfecti indicativus, futuri indicativus (LAT)

Div. Hukomster fra débatter på Blackmarket.dk med nyhedninger (DA)

Kristen medeltid vs. afkristnad nutid (SV) · Språken, the languages, die Sprachen, les langues (polyglotta) · Chantage pédagogique/psychiatrique (FR)

Relectures ... lou, journal infime (FR) · Impressionisme à la japonaise (FR)

Sonata Nemetodurica (musica)

Hair art · impressa in octavo (diagramma)

...on Tower of Babel or language evolution · Voice of Principle comments on my dialogue with olblucat · ...on Physics from Netscape Boards · What kind of editing I did ... and what kind of copy-pasting

Pas "peté les plombs"! (FR, 13+) · Bien assis par terre (FR, 13+)

MAJORITETSBESLUTETS PROBLEM & LÖSNING (SV) · När ska' psyket släppa morsan? (SV)

Justice sans religion - est-ce possible? (FR) - peut-être le texte le plus lu: 544 fois depuis mai!

Northernness · Theology, Pro-life, Christ King, Saints et c

Trento: III. THE DECALOGUE

Aus Chromosome/Wiki/de (DE)

Prolog: Litavens kulturhistoria, uppsats - intro & innehåll (SV/ENG) · Litavens kulturhistoria, problem 2 (SV/ENG) · Litavisk kulturhistoria, problem 1 (SV/ENG)

My Writings are NOT Outflows from My Innermost Devotion and are NOT Meant to be Seen and Read by God Alone

New blog on the kid: Some Guys on CMI Might be Overdoing Work Ethic · HGL's F.B. writings: My Writings are NOT Outflows from My Innermost Devotion and are NOT Meant to be Seen and Read by God Alone

I am writing as a writer, not as a man trying to converse with God.

My words are directed to readers whom I presume decently intelligent, but perhaps ignorant in some detail, not to God who reads my heart and kidneys. SOME evil peoople in the Catholic Church don't seem to get it. Here is an example on FB, with my comment below:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not true of bread baking.

You didn't get paid to bake Pågens that no one could find and you distributed only among the poor, you got paid becaue in Sweden Pågens is a well publicised bakery.

If it wasn't Pågens, sorry.

Similarily G.K. Chesterton (who got decorated by Pope Pius XI) didn't earn his money for the house on Beaconsfield by distributing GKC's Weekly ONLY among very few clergy.

There is a huge difference between professional production and individual acts of charity as they flow from grace. Did I get my point through this time, Sir?

UPDATE:

Phil Friedl

Status

How can you hear the whispers of the Holy Ghost if you do not love silence?

Pope Michael II

Silence is golden.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I do not love noise.

I do very much like writing.

Do NOT try to get me out of my trade just to give me spirituality.

As for silence from noise, I have more of it when writing at night.

However, my hope is to marry ... not to be the kind of person who cultivates silence at all times.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Is this video I came across in answer to your prayers, and was the point just to show me, my proposal is impossible or I have to change plans?

If You're Thinking of Writing a Book, Watch This
Lauren Erickson | 9 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js2_H5dIBe4

Because, I know the late Pope Michael I was fairly dismissive of my writing as a source of income, after he had tried to sell a reprinted tract about 9 condemnations of Heliocentrism via Amazon.

If he had asked me for advice, I'd have councelled him to create a pontifical printing press. Perhaps I even mentioned it. AND to get someone to do marketting even outside big companies like Amazon. I think the advice she gives from experience is more of a condemnation of his tactics than of mine.

Next Question on Geocentrism

HGL's F.B. writings: Quick Question on Geocentrism · Next Question on Geocentrism · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Levi Joshua Pingleton Nearly Right · Baronius is NOT Galileo · Moon Landing, Not TOTALLY Proven, and Even If Completely True, No Proof Against Geocentrism

Carl Tan

same group, 23.VIII.2024

Hello, i am sure you have all heard about the theories saying the moon landings were fake. I have my own theories about what really happened. I have watched a few of the moon landing videos on youtube. Here is my conclusion. The moon landings were real, but they did not see what they wanted to see, instead they saw what they did not want to see. And that is why the moon missions ended, because if they had continued doing the manned moon missions, the truth would eventually spill into the public.

I believe that they saw a completely still earth when they were on the moon, and i also believe they saw the sun and the rest of the universe revolving around the earth. And both would be visible on the moon, since the moon revolves much more slowly around the earth compared to the sun and the universe.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I believe that they saw a completely still earth when they were on the moon, and i also believe they saw the sun and the rest of the universe revolving around the earth. And both would be visible on the moon, since the moon revolves much more slowly around the earth compared to the sun and the universe.

No. The universe revolves around the Earth in 23 h 55 minutes, the Sun in 24 h, the Moon in 24 h 55 min.

The Moon would hide the universe revolving, since facing the Sun and revolving. Its movement would hide the stillness of Earth, since a moving train hides the stillness of trees.

The Moonlanding, if totally real, if totally honest and upright, is and remains irrelevant for the Heliocentrism / Geocentrism debate.

Mil Sneler

Hans-Georg Lundahl Exactly. It’s relativity and what moves as far as eyes can see is dependent on the perspective of the observer.

Carl Tan

Author

Hans-Georg Lundahl The moon revolves around the earth once every 28 days, so it is much slower. So the motions of the sun and the universe would be visible, as would the rotation of the earth if that were true.

Mil Sneler

Carl Tan the motion will be visible from any vantage point, from the moon, from the earth, from the sun. Eyes can’t tell us if anything is actually standing still and which is standing still and which one is moving. It’s called relative motion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Carl Tan "once every 28 days" - no, not around earth, but around the zodiac.

The Moon moves WITH the Zodiac, with a delay caused by that, so, while the Zodiac circles Earth once every 23 h 55 minutes, Moon does so once every 24 h 55 minutes. Have you seriously NEVER seen a moon rise and set the same night? THAT's the concrete movement the Moon has around Earth.

You looked up a fact, you didn't bother to translate it, and you consequently misapply it.

II

Simon Skinner

Without an absolute (preferred, special) frame of reference, ALL motion is relative. A preferred frame of reference has never been detected, nor is one required to explain what we see.

Observations from the moon would just show the same relative motions we already see.

II a

Levi J. Pingleton

Simon Skinner many experiments have aimed at detecting Earth's movement... they've all failed. Not once has their ever been experimental data they showed the Earth is moving. NOT ONE.

Simon Skinner

Levi J. Pingleton That's true, because as I wrote above 👆 there's no absolute / preferred frame of reference, meaning there's no such thing as absolute motion. Equally, there's no such thing as stationary in absolute terms.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Simon Skinner "there's no such thing as stationary in absolute terms."

If the universe is finite, there is.

Simon Skinner

Hans-Georg Lundahl No, there isn't. Your definition might be 'stationary relative to everything else' but that's still relative.

No measurable difference between any inertial frame has ever been found. This underpins general relativity which is one of the most accurately and widely validated theories in science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Stationary relative to everything else would be stationary in absolute terms.

"No measurable difference between any inertial frame has ever been found."

A thing does not need to be measurable from our perspective to exist. The limits of (our) observation are not the limits of being.

II b

Carl Tan

Author

Simon Skinner If the earth is the center of the universe and is motionless, then the earth is the absolute frame of reference, it means no motion is relative.

Simon Skinner

Carl Tan "IF". However, in reality we find absolutely NO detectable difference in the laws of physics between inertial frames. No preferred frame of reference has ever been found. Ever.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Simon Skinner Reality and what we find are not identic circles of the Venn diagramme.

There are other implications than the kind of tests you think of which can help to determine between the "reference frames."

Generally: if I am Geocentric, I take the observations of Sun, Moon, Stars (by sight, and for Sun also heat sensation) and of Earth's stillness (equilibrial sense of the inner ears) at face value, because there is no sign it SHOULD be taken as an illusion (of the parallactic type, like trees seen moving from a train window). I then take this reality as basis for further conclusions, like God exists and moves the whole shebang around us each day, and angels exist and move individual celestial bodies even somewhat in relation to the whole shebang. BUT if I'm Heliocentric, I discount that explanation (though there is no reason other than Atheist prejudice to determine I should), and conclude from a complex speculation on celestian mechanics that I ALSO should discount the face value of observations. The former makes more sense.

To a Christian, specifically: if I am a Geocentric, there is no trigonometry by parallax of starlight, as the distance moved by the star need not be the same as the distance moved by the Sun in their relations to the Zodiac or Sideral dome. This allows me to posit the fix stars are a relatively close by collection (say, 1 light day up) of relatively small celestial bodies (Betelgeuse, if one light day up: The radius of Betelgeuse would be around the distance of flight between Paris and Belushya Guba, Arkhangelsk Oblast, Russia. The diameter would be a bit larger than half the diameter of earth.).

This involves:
a) there is a beyond this limited sphere of fix stars (that's where Jesus went on Ascension Day, and Our Lady at Her Assumption)
b) the starlight takes one day of our time to go from star to our eyes or optical instruments, there is no Distant Starlight problem to interfere with YEC.

[Betelgeuse quote is from: With Stars in a Sphere One Light Day Up, How Big is Betelgeuse?, from 2019, on my main blog. The post also involves calculations on how I got that result.]

III

Johnny Proctor

Admin

I'd love to hear more about this theory. At first blush it seems plausible. I wonder what counterpoints contradict it.

Dolores Flynn

Johnny Proctor It would be so awesome to see. I would probably faint.

Carl Tan

Author

Johnny Proctor Ok, basically, the sun and the universe revolves around the earth once per day, while the moon revolves around the earth once per 28 days. So if you were on the moon, you would be able to see the sun and the rest of the universe revolve around the earth, because the moon's motion is much slower than the sun and the universe. Now if the earth were rotating once per day, then that would also be visible on the moon, since again, the moons orbit would be much slower than the so-called rotation of the earth. And i believed, the NASA astronauts did see a motionless earth and a moving sun and universe, and that is why they stopped the manned missions to the moon. They didn't want the Truth to get out.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Johnny Proctor If you have ever lived in a portal town with tides, I hope you know what to reply to "the moon revolves around the earth once per 28 days"

IV

Mike Fahy

How could they see a still earth if the moon was moving? I think Dr. Sungenis has come up with the most likely scenario about both the moon landings and relationship between the earth and the other bodies in our solar system.

Mil Sneler

Mike Fahy Can you explain further? I am not aware of any possible scientific scenario that could within the system itself distinguish between relative and absolute? You would have to be that absolute in order to accurately describe motions relative to absolute. In other words, you would have to be observer outside of the universe

Carl Tan

Author

Mike Fahy Because the moon moves much slower than the sun and the universe, and if the earth was indeed rotating then it would be visible from the moon because the moon revolves around the earth once every 28 days, whereas the sun is revolving around the earth once every day. If the earth was rotating then it would be rotating once every day, so such motion would be visible from the much slower moon.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Check the gif in this page by NASA, it's about tides:

https://science.nasa.gov/moon/tides/

The thing that's called "view from earth" in the lower left edge of it is what we as Geocentrics see the Moon doing. It is certainly NOT taking 28 days to cross the same horizon twice.

V

Hans-Georg Lundahl

since the moon revolves much more slowly around the earth compared to the sun and the universe.

I think you may be thinking of 27 d 7 h 43 min 11.5 s (sidereal) / 29 d 12 h 44 min 2.9 s (synodic).

To a Geocentric, this is not Moon's orbit around the Earth, it's Moon's orbit along the Zodiac or Ecliptic Plane.

As the Zodiac is rotating around Earth at 23 h 55 min (approx) in the opposite direction, Moon also has, concretely, a quasi-daily orbit around Earth. It's highly relevant for tides, and no Oceanographer is likely to ebb in information about the c. 24 h 55 minutes. Pun very certainly intended.

To clarify. Carl Tan is basically pretending that while the Sun circles Earth "28 times" (rough approximation), the Moon circles it once. He is very unlikely to have based this on direct observation. Direct observation would more like suggest that while Sun circles the Earth "28 times", the Moon circles it "27 times" ...

When I did, a failed, still attempt, at refuting tides as evidence reality is highly governed by gravity, I obviously learned about the Moon's daily movement in connexion with tides. The high tide, as opposed to the ebb, is when Moon is either in Zenith or Nadir, so, one circle of the Moon equals two high tides. There are very roughly speaking two high tides per day, but they don't come the same time each day. There are also solar high tides, coinciding with or getting in between the Lunar ones. At Full Moon and New Moon, a Solar Tide and a Lunar Tide will coincide. If they coincide for 12:00, any locality, the previous Solar one (there) was 00:00, but the previous Lunar one slightly before that, the next Solar one is 24:00, but the next Lunar one comes after that. Obviously, when a Solar and Lunar tide are separated by only 27 minutes, they will be the same tide, in a somewhat complex rhythm of prolongation combined with slight variations of maximal water height. This in turn is again an over simplification, since the gravitational pulls (of Moon or of Sun) on the water or backpulls on the earth are not directly tied to maximal height, but rather the gravitation difference is a tidal force which accelerates the movement of the water upward or earth downward, and this acceleration takes some time to get a tide actually effected.

But more realistically, when he admits the Sun circles Earth once every day, he's "applying the referential frame" of non-rotating Earth, and when he pretends the Moon circles Earth only once every 28 days, he's applying the incompatible "referential frame" of Earth rotating. If Geocentrism is in fact true, only the former applies, but whichever were true, or even if relativity were the only absolute, it's a mistake to mix the "referential frames."

Quick Question on Geocentrism

HGL's F.B. writings: Quick Question on Geocentrism · Next Question on Geocentrism · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Levi Joshua Pingleton Nearly Right · Baronius is NOT Galileo · Moon Landing, Not TOTALLY Proven, and Even If Completely True, No Proof Against Geocentrism

Catholic Cosmology and Geocentrism

Rick Todd · 17.VIII.2024

Quick question: what purpose do the stars serve in the geostatic/geostationary model? Do they act as gravitational pull to keep the earth as the center of mass? Why have stars at all? I am assuming that it is impossible to visit the stars from earth and that there is no life other than our planet, so is that why they were created? I consider the placement of the planets in our solar system to protect us from space debris and place our planet in a habitable zone so life can exist...

Carl Tan

For navigation on earth, and the fact that there is a pattern to the placement of the stars and galaxies and quasars means God is showing us that the earth is the center of the universe and that He is real.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Decoration.
Times and seasons (the seasons happen when the Sun goes through the Zodiac).
As Carl Tan mentioned, navigation, not just of men, but also of certain fish and birds.

This last point, as the fish and birds were created on day 5 and the stars on day 4 is a good reason to believe the stars were then, perhaps are still now, 1 lightday above earth.

A Creationist More or Less Friend Goes Anti-Catholic, Again + Update on Rick DeLano

Kukoleck Adam

“Not only is Rome the source and center of Fascism, but it has been the seat of a Pope [Pius XII], who, as we shall show, has been an open ally of the Nazi-Fascist-Shinto Axis since his enthronement. He has never raised his voice against that Axis, he has never denounced the abominable aggressions, murder and cruelties they have inflicted upon mankind, and the pleas he is now making for peace and forgiveness are manifestly designed to assist the escape of these criminals, so that they may launch a fresh assault upon all that is decent in humanity." H.G. Wells "Crux Ansata, An Indictment of the Roman Catholic Church." Chapter 1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

This lie by the Marxist Wells is rebuked by the correspondence between Pius XII and Truman, during the war.

"the pleas he is now making for peace and forgiveness are manifestly designed to assist the escape of these criminals"

I'm noting that Wells was eager to make high demands for hangings and war reparations, and would have been as eager to lay even more of Germany waste in 1945. He is - like his near master Lenin - a liar and a killer.

[As a Fabian, Wells did not have Lenin totally as master, especially not in economic things.]

I

Kukoleck Adam

I don’t see it. Criticism of the pope may be wrong but it’s never misplaced

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If it is wrong, it's misplaced because it is wrong.

Kukoleck Adam

Hans-Georg Lundahl I don’t know that it’s wrong

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I do.

Peter Godman, Hitler et le Vatican, Paris, Perrin, 2010, 368 pages, 23 €

https://www.piexii.com/20100215hitler-et-le-vatican/

My accusations against the possible apostate in 50-51 is opposite : he gave orders for Montini and Roncalli (both future antipopes) to succour the Jews. He hid a lot of them in the Vatican (from which German occupants of Italy were excluded) and all three got close to them, and they were already Evolution accepters and modernist apostates.

But the antisemitic criminal is ludicrous. Later research has shown he had previously not been fond of Jews, but he did more than most to save their lives.

Other instance : The Assisi Underground. By Alexander Ramati. Bishop of Assisi and Fascist mayor of Assisi hid Jews.

Kukoleck Adam

Hans-Georg Lundahlante pavelich?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Like when did Christians get a duty to help vindictive prosecution?

Tito may have been OK about farmers (unlike Stalin), but he was already massacring people (including Croat refuges in Austrian Bleiburg).

It was obvious Ante Pavelic had no chance of a fair trial.

Are you a fan of the Jewish Massonic liar who was promoted by Chick tracts and described himself as a "hereditary knight of Malta" which is not sth that exists?

Kukoleck Adam

Hans-Georg Lundahl Jewish Masonic liar? Who? Are you saying it was right to hide him because he couldn’t receive a fair trial?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It was right to help people flee from unfair trials, including both Ustashi and Nazis.

It is a Christian act of mercy.

Recall the role of the altar in the OT?

Who? One often cited by Serbs with anti-Catholic accusations.

Kukoleck Adam

John Wilkes booth was hid and buried at the Vatican. Why?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

John Wilkes Booth never left US. You brought up one of his helpers, he was extradicted.

Btw, I meant Avro Manhattan.

Kukoleck Adam

Hans-Georg LundahlI think Mussolini couldn’t get a fair trial but he got what was coming

Oh I’m a fan. Not because I believe everything he said was true but because he was one person that believed in telling both sides of the story about the pope. The msm doesnt

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If Mussolini had appealed to the Catholic Church, they would have been obliged to give him shelter against for instance partisans.

"And among the cities, which you shall give to the Levites, six shall be separated for refuge to fugitives, that he who hath shed blood may flee to them: and besides these there shall be other forty-two cities,"
[Numbers 35:6]

And when did Avro Manhattan ever tell the pro-Catholic side of any part of the papacy?

When was he even moderately honest about the anti-Catholic stuff?

What is "msm"?

Kukoleck Adam

Hans-Georg Lundahl mainstream media

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, they are not wrong on everything, and they are catching up after - in English speaking countries - being too Avro Manhattan.

Kukoleck Adam

Hans-Georg Lundahlhow’s Rick Delano george?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, he is as far as I know not attacking Pius XII for participation in the NS persecution of Jews.

We are divided about details in Geocentric cosmology, like whether angels move celestial bodies (me, yes, he, no) and whether the phenomenon classified as parallax really is that and tells us about stellar distances (he, yes, me, no).

I don't know what he is even doing in this discussion.

Update

Kukoleck Adam

Hans-Georg LundahlI see no I was curious about his health I believe I had heard he had several different health issues from time to time and I haven’t heard from them lately travel in different circles so

Not to be evasive at all this my time is pretty limited these days but I appreciate your reference and it’s Sunday I happen to acquire the means to to get that I may well really believe it but I wouldn’t have any opinion at all if I Change it every time somebody came along with a contradictory reference

Ron Eclavea

Kukoleck Adam
Sadly ...he passed away a few days ago. 🙏🏻⛪️⛪️⛪️

Kukoleck Adam

I had no idea . Just seemed he had been sick on and off. Do you know what from?

Ron Eclavea

Kukoleck Adam

Sorry ...not a few days ago.

He passed on Sunday morning, January 23.

He had been ill for some time.

I found out on a Facebook chat on one of Sungenis Facebook podcast

Sungenis also commented a bit on his time with Rick 🙏🏻

Kukoleck Adam

That’s a loss for us. He knew his stuff. So good at presenting it.

Ron Eclavea

Kukoleck Adam

True! He will be greatly missed.

Animated and very passionate, articulate and smart.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ron Eclavea Thank you for telling. RIP

II

Kukoleck Adam

Did the Vatican not assist anti-Pavelich to escape justice and hide him in continents did they not assist do assassin of Lincoln and hide him in the Vatican how many World War II enemies were hidden by the ratlines and the Vatican. Does the Vatican have money from the Jews and others does that not make them complicit in murder and stealing

[already answered on Ante Pavelich above.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Kukoleck Adam I already answered, no, the assassin's indirect helper was certainly in the Papal States, but not known to authorities there to have been such, and they helped extradict him.

III

Kukoleck Adam

What is the pope wrong about George what is the Vatican wrong about

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Kukoleck Adam If you mean the historic Vatican - nothing.

If you mean the Vatican in Exile - at utmost Pope Michael's social ethics are too bourgeois and capitalistic.

Perhaps, at worst, amounting to Puritan.

If you mean "Pope Francis" - his Vatican is not Catholic. But it is also very far from Antisemitic.

Who? One often cited by Serbs with anti-Catholic accusations.

Guest Post and Comment on Medieval Bible, Catholicism and Heresy

A guest post by Drew Gasaway. A FB status, but great as a standalone. I'll add my two cents below it.

Drew Gasaway Admin · 18 h There is lots of revisionism in Protestant books about there history. For example their books will claim the Lollard's and Hussite's had the same objections as Luther Zwingli and Calvin. In the case of both the groups purgatory and paid indulgences weren't in existence (they were not sold in Hussite areas) when they began. The Fourth Lantern Council addressed paid indulgences and abuses but didn't go as far as Trent did and allowed lower clergy to grant them which was the problem. There is misunderstanding what "dedication is about in the Fourth Lantern Council and people read basilica and think it is St. Peter's but this was about churches in general and might be talking about then Lateran Basilica. The Lollard's were anti-clerical and their basis was Wycliffite principle that the laity should restrict and restrain the power of the clergy believing each layperson was a leader in the Church of their own. Lollard's remained members of the Catholic Church and Wycliff was a professor who was fired and remained in communion afterwards. The main issue of the Hussite's was communion under both kinds started by Jacob of Mies 1414 which their understanding was a denial of real presence or it as a sacrament both groups embraced the save sacraments. The Church had already rejected the practice of communion under both kinds in in the 13th century because Fathers of the Church taught another kind of communion. The Hussites who put killed over indulgences weren't opposing paid indulgences but were in opposition to certain people with mortal sins being forgiven. It is true that some Catholic clergy testified in Jan Hus's trial but was run by he government not the Church and heresy was considered treason and was put to death by he state in 1415. Most of the people who became Hussite's were Beghards and they were Saxon's not ethnically indigenous people. Just before King Wenceslaus IV died he so these people as a foreign insurrection rebelling against the institutions of his society. His brother the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund took over for him the same year. The Hussite's then revolted adopting the Wycliffite principle. As Holy Roman Emperor he had the armies of most of Europe at his disposal. The pope didn't have to call for a crusade and that isn't what happened. After the war was underway Pope Martin V issued a Bull stating that Christians should defend a Christian country. One of the Hussite top generals Sigismund Korybut was negotiating with the pope the whole time and was caught and temporarily jailed for it but was later let go. He died almost year after the battle of the Hussite's total defeat in 1434 at the Battle of Lipany. In 1435 the Hussite's signed a treaty with Rome agreeing to enter communion with the Church but were given permission to use communion of both kinds in the country. The Polish Hussite's were defeated by Polish royal forces in the Battle of Grotniki in 1439. The other false claim is that they were trying to translate the Bible in their language and the Church opposed this. The authorities mainly just had rules about translating a Bible to insure it was accurate because of cult bibles in the past you had Saxon bibles and early French Bibles and there were many early German translations that were Catholic like the Mentelin-Bibel (1466) Eggestein-Bibel (1470), Zainer-Bibel (1475), Pflanzmann-Bibel (1475) Sensenschmidt-Bibel 1476–78, Zainer-Bibel (1477), Sorg-Bibel (1477), Kolner Bibeln (1478/79), Sorg-Bibel (1480), Koberger-Bibel (1483), Gruninger-Bibel (1485), Schonsperger-Bibel (1487), Schonsperger-Bibel second version (1490), Lübecker Bibel (1494) and the Otmar-Bibel (1507). You can see thee was no shortage Bibles not in Latin. The issue was until after the Dark Ages most people who could read did it Latin.

And here is my commentary thereon:

First, "purgatory and paid indulgences".

They are not the same. Purgatory implies some kind of indulgences, as it implies some kind of intercession for the dead. We find that in Maccabees (which as historical even to most not accepting it as canonic would imply that the idea would have been sth Jesus would have known and rejected if it was wrong) and in Tobit.

The Greeks to this day use the Tobit book indulgence for hosting poor to agapes, if these poor are just. But hosting implies expense of money, and the other OT example was Maccabees, a sacrifice, also implies some expense of money.

Purgatory definitely was taught very widely even in areas and times when indulgences were not for direct money gifts. Hus would have known it and he did not poor out the main brunt of his objections there.

Second point is last sentence:

"The issue was until after the Dark Ages most people who could read did it Latin."

Until 813 and even further, a Romance speaker in Francia would if reading and writing been doing that in Latin, since Latin was the one accepted spelling of his Romance vernacular. Early probable exceptions, priests from 813 putting together the vernacular version or paraphrase or explanation of the Gospel, since the new Alcuinian pronunciation was not understood. However, some people would have spoken Germanic or Celtic languages, and would have been able to occasionally at least read or write those. King Alfred specifically ordered or himself made an Anglo-Saxon translation of 50 psalms, and the audience were nobles who would arguably not all be good at Latin, but who definitely would have read Anglo-Saxon.

When it comes to the limit 1500, we are not speaking of "Dark Ages" in any historically acceptable meaning of the phrase, it would just be a faulty nickname of the Middle Ages, and the statement would be untrue. Shadiversity made an estimate about Late Medieval England according to which at least one in every household could read.

It's rather that, if you didn't read Latin, you could read five other languages and still be considered illiteratus. Apart from that, excellent résumé. I am very happy that you confirm the statement I had from Konvertiten-Katechismus on 14 High German Bible translations authorised by the "Roman" Catholic Church prior to Luther. If challenged before reading you, I could of course have stated that Luther himself referred to them in a polemic way in his "Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen". But still, I highly value seeing a list like "the Mentelin-Bibel (1466) Eggestein-Bibel (1470), Zainer-Bibel (1475), Pflanzmann-Bibel (1475) Sensenschmidt-Bibel 1476–78, Zainer-Bibel (1477), Sorg-Bibel (1477), Kolner Bibeln (1478/79), Sorg-Bibel (1480), Koberger-Bibel (1483), Gruninger-Bibel (1485), Schonsperger-Bibel (1487), Schonsperger-Bibel second version (1490), Lübecker Bibel (1494) and the Otmar-Bibel (1507)"

"There is lots of revisionism in Protestant books about there history."

You can say that again.

Debate ensued:

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl there was no heaven for us anyway at the time of the Maccabees that was talking about purification while awaiting judgment in Sheol.

Making restitution is different then indulgences and there is a difference between indulgences and paid ones. Luther in the 95 Theses even supported normative indulgences. The Dark Ages which were 476 AD to 1453 AD according to most history books. This time period is right around the time things began to change. People read Latin more than their spoken language until after the Dark Ages.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Purgatory is purgatory, it's a portion of Sheol between Abraham's bosom and Hell of the damned.

Meaning, someone who got out of Purgatory in the OT period got to Abraham's bosom.

"The Dark Ages which were 476 AD to 1453 AD according to most history books."

No, that is what most history books called the MIDDLE AGES.

In normal history books the Dark Ages is a rare term, but if used, it is more like Early Middle Ages. Like from 476 to 1066 or sth.

That was a military darkness of attacks from Goth here, Huns there, Hungarians here and Vikings there. As 1066 is the end of the Viking Age, it is the end of what could with remote possibility be called Dark Ages.

By 1453 reading abilities were very well spread even among people not reading Latin, but 1453 is half a millennium past any "Dark Ages" anyway, while it is one caindidate for when Middle Ages ended (1492, 1517, 1520 being other ones).

"Luther in the 95 Theses even supported normative indulgences."

Luther in the 95 Theses was more a Jansenist than a Lutheran.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl in Hebrews christ permanently ended Sheol. My history books show a different timeline for the Dark Ages there were the later Dark Ages. You had other groups after the date you mentioned. Literacy was 5% in Roman antiquity and even got lower in the Dark Ages. They didn't just magically all learn how to read overnight after the Dark Ages that occurred in about a 200 year period to get to 30% literacy after 1440 when the printing press was invented.

Hans-Georg Lundahl Luther supported normative indulgences but the reason Luther differed on Purgatory was Trent and Florence developed different concepts. It was developing in his lifetime.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Drew Gasaway "My history books"

Sure they actually used the word "Dark Ages"?

"in Hebrews christ permanently ended Sheol."

Christ ended the abiding in the part of Sheol called Abraham's bosom. Meaning, those who were there are now in Heaven.

"You had other groups after the date you mentioned."

Groups of what? I mentioned where? There is a reason that I cite what I reply to, even if it's not as nice paragraphs.

"Literacy was 5% in Roman antiquity and even got lower in the Dark Ages."

I don't know what that is based on. It is certainly not based on let's say archaeology.

"They didn't just magically all learn how to read overnight after the Dark Ages that occurred in about a 200 year period to get to 30% literacy after 1440 when the printing press was invented."

It so happens, literacy rates were definitely far higher in 1300 than in 1100 - BOTH dates before the printing press. And unfortunately, you made the blooper of calling 1100, 1300 Dark Ages while claiming - it seems on your wording now - these had a literacy rate of 5 %.

Shadiversity who is much better than you at Middle Ages (and remember these were a very important part of my university studies, unlike yours, so I can tell) actually estimates at least 15th C. England (which was mostly before William Caxton) to 50 %. Unless he swallows final n of 15% at 13:27 or just before in this video:

Medieval Misconceptions: EDUCATION and LITERACY
13.II.2020 | Shadiversity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-abyQLl8mPI

"Luther supported normative indulgences"

For a short while, in 95 Sentences.

"but the reason Luther differed on Purgatory was Trent and Florence developed different concepts."

Luther rejected Purgatory way before Trent.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl it depends on when the history book was written in what term they might use. Older books used the other term. Your YouTube video is revisionist. There is a reason that there was no Greek New Testament in the west before the council of Florence. The Barbarians from the north and later the Muslims and others mostly from the south destroyed documents when they raided places along with most other culturally significant items. They also tied off the more educated class when they took power because it was easier to conquer them and control them when they started doing occupations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Older books used the other term"

Older books use Dark Ages, newer ones use Middle Ages.

"Your YouTube video is revisionist."

Not the least. You are avoiding modern updates on history of Middle Ages.

"There is a reason that there was no Greek New Testament in the west before the council of Florence."

What has that got to do with literacy in Latin, Provençal, French and non-French vernaculars? Greek was indeed a specialist's domaine in the Middle Ages (Moerbeke read and Aquinas didn't read Greek, so Aquinas depended on Moerbeke's translation of Aristotle).

"The Barbarians from the north and later the Muslims and others mostly from the south destroyed documents when they raided places along with most other culturally significant items."

Describes the time period I would call "dark ages" except I don't think Barbarians of the North destroyed much documents. They were too greedy to get Roman culture.

"They also tied off the more educated class when they took power because it was easier to conquer them and control them when they started doing occupations."

Totally idiotic. Do you get this thrash from Romanides and Metallinos?

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl no their assertions aren't entirely accurate and demonstrably so.

The earlier Latin works disappeared/were destroyed mostly as well. They just were better able to keep Latin than Greek. Monks memorized whole works as copying often had to be done that way.

A handful of works surviving through memorization and hiding them doesn't make them a normative thing.

Your last response lacks understanding of how ancient invaders operated. They wanted a weaker opposing society. An educated and culturally affluent people are more likely to raise an army and do a counteroffensive. If you salt the fields foes can't come back. The Hittites and Assyrians did this. Pope Boniface VIII had this done when he defeated Palestrina saying it was practiced by the Carthaginians. They always tried to cripple a civilization indefinitely.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I will be picking this apart:

"no their assertions aren't entirely accurate and demonstrably so."

Waiting for your "demonstration" ...

"The earlier Latin works disappeared/were destroyed mostly as well."

Dito for most of the Greek works. Even so, not just a digest, but a real ... in Swedish you say "brick" of thick books ... like Macrobius was preserved.

Note well, right now we are talking, not of 476 to 1453, but of 476 or even some decades earlier to 800. Not to 1500, just to 800.

From 800 and taking more speed from 1100, you have a reversal of the process and a production of both written culture and literacy/

"They just were better able to keep Latin than Greek."

Indeed, just as the Greek speaking East was, outside the court, much better at keeping Greek than Latin.

"Monks memorized whole works as copying often had to be done that way."

What exactly are you talking about?

Monks memorised the whole breviary because they sung the breviary once every week. Still do, except the Novus Ordo in the Vatican II sect makes it once in two weeks instead.

There is a joke about a Benedictine, a Dominican, a Carmelite and a Jesuit who were singing the hours together (realistically, this could happen if they all were on a journey, like to a Eucharistic congress, like in a Hotel). The light bulb goes out. The Benedictine goes on chanting, because he knows the breviary by heart. The Dominican takes the rosary from the belt. The Carmelite switches to inner prayer. And the Jesuit changes the light bulb.

Now, what did the Benedictine, the actual monk, do in this joke? Continued praying because he knew the breviary by heart.

"A handful of works surviving through memorization and hiding them doesn't make them a normative thing."

If your source for this statement is a history text book, I can tell you it's about as accurate as A Connecticut Yankee and Washington Irving's novel about Christopher Columbus.

I will now quote your so far stated credentials:

"RB I have an MDiv from Yale and a bachelor's in Biblical Studies from Wheaton and I also have a degree in biology. I also took courses at Hebrew University in Hebrew and courses in the near east at UCLA and other places. I have seen lectures on Genesis and Enuma Elish from scholars at Oxford, Harvard, and Yale when we covered Genesis."

NONE of this has any bearing on literacy in the Middle Ages. MY STUDIES most definitely have. It's ME, not YOU who is relatively the academic expert on this field. And you are NOT content to point out faults in reasoning, you pretend to give lectures on things where the facts depend on documentation, where your point depends on having access to actual documentation.

"Your last response lacks understanding of how ancient invaders operated."

I am sorry, but were you taught in a madhouse?

"They wanted a weaker opposing society."

Who says Romans were opposing them?

"An educated and culturally affluent people are more likely to raise an army and do a counteroffensive."

Why would the Romans even have been suspected of doing this? You are reading into them a patriotism like in the days when they opposed Brennus - the only real example would be Arthur's opposition to Saxons, unless that was simply an opposition to Pagans. But it could be Celtic patriotism. In the case of Syagrius and St. Genevieve and St. Remigius temporarily opposing the onbursts of Huns and then Franks, it was basically only in defense of the faith. As soon as Clovis was baptised and confirmed by St. Remigius, he was also anointed king by him.

And as opposed to Huns, the Germanic invaders (except perhaps Anglo-Saxons) all started out as auxiliarii. They were not like "we have an Empire that the gods should favour more than Roman Empire" they were more like "we know the Roman Empire is fine, but we would be even finer with it if we ruled it, if not as Caesars, at least nearly so".

If Rome had held them in their troops for 100 years at least before the conflict, how could you even imagine them as parallels to Anitta invading Hattusha or Cyrus invading Babylon? Or the Khans invading China?

By the way, by the time of Kublai Khan, the Mongol Khans were as fine with being Chinese (as long as they were the top dogs in China) and with China preserving its culture (which they, as top dogs could enjoy) as the Germanic invaders were with being, basically, Romans.

"If you salt the fields foes can't come back."

Anitta from Nesha had a definite rivalry with an Empire speaking Hattic.

"The Hittites and Assyrians did this."

Yeah, I just stated Anitta, I think you can provide the Assyrian for me.

HOWEVER the Germanic invaders didn't come from a rival Empire in the North, they came via infiltration of Roman troops. BIG difference in type of invasion.

"Pope Boniface VIII had this done when he defeated Palestrina saying it was practiced by the Carthaginians."

According to some chronicler who arguably was his foe, and who was favoured by some of the guys who let him die in prison. If YOU try to tell ME I should take your word for Boniface VIII doing this, you ilustrate a point made by Dunning and Kruger.

"They always tried to cripple a civilization indefinitely."

That's the point Romanides and Metallinos were making about the Germanic invaders. They have even theorised that French Revolution was the Romans getting on top of the Franks, again.

I am sorry, but as historians of the Middle Ages in the West, these two semi-modernist theologians of the Eastern Schismatics are totally worthless. Their point is political : a) they do welcome the Latin West as more or less nearly become as of very late some kind of heirs of Rome, b) they insist, in order to be fully Roman, we have to take lessons from Byzantines. As to their statements on facts, they are worthless. Romanides is definitely more accurate when he states that Aeneas and Latinus spoke, but in that respect he is not original, he is trying to make the point they must have spoken Greek, but in that respect he is forgetting that they could have spoken Hittite or Carthaginian or Etruscan as well as Mycenaean Greek, and also that Mycenaean Greek in Rome's beginnings would not have resulted in good Attic-Ionic Koiné in Caesar's time.

But when it comes to the Germanic invasions, he is frankly (!) worthless. And so is whoever else you have got this from.

You said "demonstrably so" - where was your demonstration, again?

By the way, your statement about Pope Boniface VIII, whether from real quote or from calumny, clearly means in his time - he died 11 October 1303, I just checked - Medievals (himself or his calumniator) were educated enough to have read Livy.

So, part of your supporting evidence, as parallel on invader behaviour, turns out to contradict your main point.

You WILL concede 1303 is before 1453, right?

Initial Reaction to an Article on One Peter Five by Eric Sammons

His article:

Is Francis the Pope?
Eric Sammons | October 29, 2019
https://onepeterfive.com/is-francis-the-pope/

I start where he is discussing the positions of St. Robert Bellarmine on a heretical pope. Here is the enumeration of them:

• 1. The pope cannot be a heretic.
• 2. The pope who falls into heresy, even secret heresy, is ipso facto no longer the pope, which gives the Church authority over him to declare his deposition official since he’s no longer pope.
• 3. Even if a pope were a heretic, he cannot be deposed of his papacy by any means.
• 4. If a pope becomes a formal heretic, he is not automatically deposed, but the Church can indirectly depose him. This is done by legally separating the faithful from the pope, which makes him no longer the valid pope.
• 5. If the pope becomes a formal heretic, the Church can recognize that fact and declare him separated from his office.

Cited from De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chapter 30.

Before he (see my discussion later down) accepts position 3, while admitting it is most miserable and finding comfort in that since Catholicism is supposedly built on suffering, any and all of it ... he considers 2, 4 and 5 as essentially the same thing:

"But they all are struggling with a crucial issue: according to canon law and the perennial teaching of the Church, the “first see is judged by no one.” In other words, there is no court above the pope to judge him."

When Innocent III pronounced "prima sedes a nemine juidcatur" he added "nisi a fide deprehenditur devia".

The issue at hand was not if clearly heretical people could be judged as non-popes, the issue at hand was if Emperors could assemble synods to depose the Popes for things like treason or political schism with the empire.

"While these options are in the realm of theological opinion, it’s the infallible teaching of the Church that the pope has universal jurisdiction, which means no one has jurisdiction over him."

While a clear heretic has no jurisdiction.

Here he goes on to excuse position 3:

"The entire Catholic faith is founded upon suffering."

Not to the point : I have refused the most miserable position and avoided suffering of conscience, which is not the suffering Catholicism has at its heart, but I have suffered exclusion and censorship for doing so, meaning, his point is nil.

He's sitting in a comfy armchair and bragging of the suffering of a theologically most miserable position.

"We say we want suffering, but whenever suffering comes that isn’t exactly the type we desire, we flee from it."

Since when exactly should Catholics say they positively want suffering?

We should want to do our penances (prescribed for all like fasting in Lent or prescribed for self in confessional), this does not mean we should want our penances to be sufferings, and if they aren't does not mean we should go searching for more suffering.

Accepting a heretic as your spiritual guide has never been a recommended penance.

"While it might be comforting to assume that Francis is not really the pope and move along, that’s exactly what the Enemy wants."

I am not assuming JP-II, B-XVI and PF aren't popes and moving along, I am assuming they aren't popes, proving it and accepting as solution the emergency conclave held 4 years after Assisi 86.

Vivat Pope Michael.

Above (except bald) is my initial answer, since it is on the wall of a FB group, there will be replies which will give rise to separate posts on that debate./HGL

CSL Not Arian

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Were the Inklings a Forbidden Society? No. · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Craig Crawford's view on Harry Potter (feat. réprise of his view on Tolkien and CSL, feat. Dan Brown) · CSL Not Arian · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Commenting on Schnoebelen's at al:s comments on HP

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2 octobre 2018

This is not a real or mis-conception, but an open question between two conceptions.

How close was C. S. Lewis to Milton and Newton on the issue of subordinationism?

Was he in a clear risk zone of Arianism, since George MacDonald whom he respected was Arian in Christology?

I

Alexander J. Wei

First I'd say the supposed Arianism of Milton and MacDonald is in dispute. I myself don't hold to that. As for Newton, something like that or Unitarianism at least, does seem to be true.

Furthermore, I'm not aware of any such with Lewis. Although he calls MacDonald his Master, his views are not identical.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you.

Alexander J. Wei

I am returning to this question because I am making a detailed look at Lewis's A Preface to Paradise Lost. In Chapter XII, "The Theology of Paradise Lost" he talks about the whole question of how heretical the poem is, divided up analytically. This is in response to a Professor Saurat, who makes what Lewis thinks are unjustified attacks on the poem and poet.

He outlines four categories:

• 1) things that occur in the poem that are in fact not heretical.
• 2) heretical things that do not occur in Milton
• 3) heretical things that occur in Milton's De Doctrina
• 4) possibly heretical things that occur in Paradise Lost.

Lewis says for point 3, p. 85 in this edition, that only one thing qualifies here. He says outright that Milton was an Arian. I see no evidence that Lewis followed Milton here; I don't know his preface to Athanasius, but I suspect he was completely orthodox about Arianism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you very much.

As I have to do some clearing of CSL before some people unduly impressed by people listening to Fritz Springmeier who considered John Todd both honest and knowledgeable, it is good to hear this!

II

Dianne Mosley

What a great questions! I can’t wait to read the answers you are going to get.

David Jack

pretty certain that MacDonald wasn't an Arian...where did you see this suggested?

Michelle Harmon

He certainly never denied the divinity of Christ.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I thought George MacDonald was Unitarian?

Ken Howes

Universalist; the two groups were not identical at the time, though they eventually merged. I don't know whether his universalism was as a general belief or as a membership in a universalist association.

III

Paul Penfold

This article contains a lengthy purported quote from Lewis that robustly defends Trinitarianism and denounces Arianism:

//christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/how-arianism-almost-won

I've never seen anything other than full Trinitarian orthodoxy in Lewis's writings and have long had the impression that he regarded such a thing as being greatly important

Alexander J. Wei

Yes, now that I think of it, didn't he write a great foreword to Athanasius's Incarnation!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Paul Penfold - thank you very much!

Paul Penfold

No worries :)

Blocages abusifs, encore

Vous êtes temporairement bloqué
Il semble que vous n’avez pas utilisé cette fonctionnalité correctement en allant trop vite. Vous n’êtes plus autorisé à l’utiliser.
Pour en savoir plus sur les blocages, consultez les Pages d’aide.
	Fermer

On peut noter le commentaire que j'étais en train de faire.

« Jones montre que la guerre culturelle qui se poursuit depuis un peu plus de quarante ans entre les catholiques et les Juifs se caractérise par une longue série de victoires pour le camp juif. Il signale que les Juifs avec qui « dialoguent » les prélats et intellectuels catholiques libéraux sont des créatures non pas de la Torah, qui est la Parole de Dieu, mais du Talmud, à savoir le système rabbinique mis en place ultérieurement dans le but, entre autres, d’empêcher les Juifs de se convertir au christianisme. » If even that much. You see, much of those dialoguing with Catholics or supposed such are "liberal theologians" and that dates more from Maimonides than from Talmud, even Talmud Babli. I know a Jew who at least is defending the historicity of the Torah.

Le passage cité en français est de l'endorsement par Robert Sungenis au livre d'Eugene Michael Jones, traduit en français.

L’ESPRIT RÉVOLUTIONNAIRE JUIF, et son impact sur l’histoire du monde
http://saint-remi.fr/fr/livres/1617-lesprit-revolutionnaire-juif-et-son-impact-sur-lhistoire-du-monde.html

FB Blocking

Kukoleck Adam is sharing this link:

Kenyan Doctors Say UNICEF Is Making Women Barren Through Polio Vaccine
MAY 27, 2019 LIBERTYWRITERSAFRICA NEWS
https://libertywritersafrica.com/kenyan-doctors-say-unicef-is-making-women-barren-through-polio-vaccine/

I try to share it. Publically on my wall.

This happens (click to enlarge):

Btw, I did succeed in sharing to my wall after all, since someone reacted to my share ...

Mark Shea's Post and My Comments + Debate

Creation vs. Evolution : Answering Mark Shea · HGL's F.B. writings : Mark Shea's Post and My Comments + Debate · New blog on the kid : Mark Hausam on Infallibility

Mark Shea

linked to his post

Hans-Georg Lundahl / HGL

linked to my answer

FT and HS

are two people who visited the FB page of Mark Shea and who commented under my link.

FT

Hans-Georg Lundahl You do know that a “Catholic Fundamentalist “ is a contemporary creative fiction, right? There is nothing in the catechism or Sacred Tradition that requires Catholics to be “fundamentalist.” Just like there is no doctrine that requires a belief in creationism.

HS

Hans-Georg Lundahl:
FT is correct, and so is Pope Francis. You put yourself outside Catholic Church teaching if you *require* a specific, literal reading of Genesis.

HGL

// There is nothing in the catechism or Sacred Tradition that requires Catholics to be “fundamentalist.” Just like there is no doctrine that requires a belief in creationism. //

If by "the Catechism" you refer to the non-Catholic work by Wojtyla / Ratzinger from the nineties, I couldn't care less.

If you look up Catechism of Pope St Pius X (including the short work "brief history of the sacred religion") or any older Catechisms and some somewhat younger, there clearly is.

Tradition means things like St Augstine and St Thomas Aquinas. The latter had sworn an oath on upholding three works - one of which is Historia Scholastica, which is a YEC work. De Civitate Dei is also a very clearly YEC work.

Doctrine, does Trent count?

New blog on the kid : Grammatica et Logica de Canone Celeberrimo Concilii Tridentini
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/07/grammatica-et-logica-de-canone.html

Plus, you are both very evasive of the Bible texts on which I commented in polemics to Mark Shea's spurious claim.

// You put yourself outside Catholic Church teaching if you *require* a specific, literal reading of Genesis. //

Very interesting idea on what it means to be Catholic, these days.

And isn't one or two prominent figures, like Mark Shea and "Pope Francis" actually requiring the avoidance of that literal one?

It so happens, I found the dialogue invisible when checking back and reposted the link under a previous, which I commented on in the PPS - and no dialogue there./HGL

Mark Shea has a Good Point in Article, a Less Good one Against me (though it's me saying so)

Mark Shea

28 juin, 10:48

How Monks Helped Invent Sign Language
JUNE 28, 2019 BY MARK SHEA
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2019/06/how-monks-helped-invent-sign-language.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I wonder if anybody has ever undertaken to do an exhaustive catalogue of all the spinoffs and side-benefits the world owes to the Catholic tradition and the work of enterprising Catholics who were either just puzzling over the Tradition and stumbled on something cool, beautiful or useful or who were just trying to get stuff done (like teaching the deaf or teaching Slavs) and just cooked up sign language or the Cyrillic alphabet in order to get the job done? I wonder if such a project is even possible?"

To do, yes, as long as you don't hope for too exact comprehensiveness, it would always be updated.

To spread? Not by links when FB can block them as spam ... by the way, you weren't one of the guys helping to get my links marked as spam or whatever else incompatible with community standards, were you?

Mark Shea

No. I have better things to do. Stop being paranoid.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

With seven thousand plus articles on line, with FB blocking for no valid reason, when I link to them, with readers documented in my stats as very much from Russia and Ukraine, I don't think it paranoid to ask who's behind invalid blocking.

I did not flat out accuse you, I asked "you weren't one of ... were you?"

Also, marking a thing as spam is done quickly and often thoughtlessly when suppressing a comment.

I have other suspects, though.

Copyright on Narnia / Lost Road / Famous Five, brought up

Phil Melton

a partagé une publication.

2 mai, 02:28

...

Brenton Dickieson

a partagé un lien.

2 mai, 00:29

As you know, the Susan debate in Narnia has gone on for a long time. Last week, Kat Coffin share her thoughts on Susan, which started conversations in various facebook groups and on A Pilgrim in Narnia. I decided to take some time to think through the kinds of questions we should be asking when we have disturbing or engaging ideas in a text that we want to talk about. Here are 8 questions that we need to answer well to talk about this issue, which also work as a conversation starter for all good books.

8 Questions about the Problem of Susan Narnia Debate, or How to Read Well
Posted on May 1, 2019 | A Pilgrim in Narnia
https://apilgriminnarnia.com/2019/05/01/how-to-read-well/

(links to:

Lewis, Tolkien and Different Views of Fan Fiction
Posted on August 1, 2018 | A Pilgrim in Narnia
https://apilgriminnarnia.com/2018/08/01/csl-jrrt-copyright/ )

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Both on the "problem of Susan" side (bc my fan fic deals with it) and on related article on CSL/JRRT different attitudes to fan fic side:

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Prologue to Chronicle on Susan Pevensie : Chiefly on Fan Fiction
https://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2019/01/prologue-to-chronicle-on-susan-pevensie.html

You have actually shown nothing in that other article stating JRRT was against fan fiction per se.

He may have been, but hating a misspelling in any edition of his own text is sth else than hating fan fictions, which by definition are someone else's text.

Could the Sir Orfeo he loved and translated be considered fan fic on some Greek work? Maybe. Could Troilus and Cressida by Chaucer be considered fan fic on some other Greek work? Maybe. Could Sir Gawain and the Green knight be considered fan fic on Nennius and did he write such himself? Maybe.

Either way : your example of Anne of Green Gables is not germane to the issue, since written by an author dead so long copyright control does not apply.

And it should not be applicable to fan fic offered for free on the internet, as mine is.

If anyone has a problem with the idea of my monetising my work (when it will, if ever, be ready, it is half written), in a paper edition, I have already stated that anyone wanting one such is advised to check with copy right holders of CSL, JRRT, Enid Blyton, while Father Brown's and Conan Doyle's copyright has expired.

However, it is absurd to - as I think some have done - paint my making fan fic as "stealing" or my non-right to unilaterally monetise my fan fic as a non-right about my own work as well.

My chapters on Susan Pevensie are so far about 75 and my overall blog posts are 7500. Give or take a few.

You don't block a whole production from monetisation because one very clearly defined percentage of it could be interpreted as copy right infringement.

Oh, by the way, I am very much guessing on who it is who may have contributed to my work (outside the fan fic) NOT being printed commercially at all.

If my guess is wrong, too bad.

Update

Some guys of course could be complaining about this very different type of potential copy right infringement (none in this example as yet, but may be upcoming if you answer):

HGL's F.B. writings : Copyright on Narnia / Lost Road / Famous Five, brought up
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2019/05/copyright-on-narnia-lost-road-famous.html

Example where such could be an issue already:

HGL's F.B. writings : Shorty with William P. Lazarus on Geocentrism
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2019/05/shorty-with-william-p-lazarus-on.html

And where it is so, if he dares take it to court:

HGL's F.B. writings : Matthew Hunt Tries to Ban my Previous Post and Starts Explaining Michelson Morly
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2018/03/matthew-hunt-tries-to-ban-my-previous.html

In fact, this type of modern copy right sticklerism would have made impossible passages in Gospels where Pharisees are quoted (presumably without written previous consent, because they look stupid), or the dialogues with Gorgias and a few more by Socrates.

[added in FB:]

I owe an excuse for "You have actually shown nothing in that other article stating JRRT was against fan fiction per se." I had missed the 1966 letter to Miss Hill. It may not be sufficient to demonstrate JRRT hated any and all fan fic, but it is an indication going that way. He certainly hated the contents of two proposals of fan fic. My excuse is now published in the post where I put this:

[after which I added a copy of following:]

Was so tired that:

• a) I forgot to make the links clickable;
• b) I had not noticed the letter by Tolkien in 12 December 1966 to Miss Hill.

It seems the post was not modified (I not sure wordpress does show "last modified" as blogger does), so I presumably skimmed over it.

My excuse is, some people are involved in making my situation as homeless so desperately stressed that I lose sleep over what places seem available but then either aren't, or aren't quiet. Also, in making it so I have less time on the internet (I got a notification 23.IV.2019 that the card to Nanterre UL had not been renewed and anyway they would during rebuilding works priorise students over external readers on computer time), and one hour is simply not enough to do good work.

Ma calibration, c'est la chronologie biblique is fairly good, it was done on a library where I had a two hour session, and it was started before first hour was over or even half over, as I recall, and ended only twenty minutes before the session was over.

Even so, I missed that my multiplied value for binary divisions of 5730 in 1234 years did not include the nearly three years left after deducting smaller and smaller halves and therefore 0.861639 is rather the value for 1231 than for 1234 years. Not very important, but I missed pointing it out.

This post was published yesterday 4:41 am Pacific time, meaning a pm hour in Paris (I'll have to correct Pacific to European time). This means it was not in a library session, and the cyber had some connection problems which made my writing there somewhat stressful./HGL

Shorty with William P. Lazarus on Geocentrism

Shared : Lita's defense · Robert Sungenis Published a Book · Shorty with William P. Lazarus on Geocentrism · The ultimate bonus of Geocentrism

Hans-Georg Lundahl

shared:

Alex Naszados

shared a link in the group Catholic Cosmology and Geocentrism.
22 janvier
Robert Sungenis has just released a book on geocentrism which is suitable for homeschooling:

<>

Geocentrism for Dumskies and Smart Kids, Vol. 1, The Science
http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/geocentrism-for-dumskies-and-smart-kids-vol-1-the-science/

Hans-Georg Lundahl

shared:

Creation vs. Evolution : Robert Sungenis Published a Book
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/05/robert-sungenis-published-book.html

William P. Lazarus

For smart kids? Good heavens, someone would have to be a complete idiot to deny centuries of scientific research, not to mention the studies by astronauts in space.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Part 2 will deal with the centuries of scientific research along with censorships by the Church.

As for studies by astronauts in space, what would on your view differ "if Geocentrism were true"?

William P. Lazarus

What if it isn't? After all, to be true, every bit of scientific study of space would have to be wrong. I go with actual study over belief every time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"every bit of scientific study of space would have to be wrong."

Name one.*

"I go with actual study over belief every time."

Nice rhetoric as long as you refuse to specify.

William P. Lazarus

I'll restrain myself: I went to our local library and found five new books on astronomy which calmly and rationally explain our place in the universe -- on the outer arm of a small galaxy. Ignorance is inexcusable. Ignorance on behalf of religious belief is a crime against intelligence. Try* A Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, which is just one of a myriad of books for anyone who actually wants to learn what generations of humans already know.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am not ignorant of that doctrine.

Explanation and proof are two distinct things, and proofs you did not give.

Added next day

Perhaps your education in journalism never taught you the difference between logic and rhetoric?

Update

after I posted link to as yet above (and the footnote below) on his wall.

William P. Lazarus

One final note: the Earth orbits the sun, unless you deny that, too. That makes the sun the center. Except the entire galaxy is orbiting a black hole, as all galaxies seem to, which makes the black hole the center. Except that our galaxy, like all galaxies, is moving, which puts something else in the center. Galileo showed that the Earth was not the center of anything more than 400 years ago. Do you honestly think that astronomers and scientists have spent centuries deliberately misleading people? Enough of this silliness.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Galileo showed that the Earth was not the center of anything more than 400 years ago."

How did he do that?

(Btw, even on your and his theory, Earth is centre of Moon, or, if you prefer, Earth-Moon system has a centre closer to centre of Earth so mch that one can just as well say Earth is its centre).

"the Earth orbits the sun, unless you deny that, too."

Both I and the book I promoted both deny it and refute it.

The best I can say for Heliocentrism is "not proven".

"Do you honestly think that astronomers and scientists have spent centuries deliberately misleading people?"

Who said "deliberately"? Does their presumed goodwill guarantee them to be right?

"Enough of this silliness. / One final note:"

This will obviously be included in an update.

William P. Lazarus

Good grief! Using a rude telescope, he saw that there were moons circulating other planets. Don't you know anything? he was condemned by the church for his research. The church has much more recently apologized. Try opening a book. General knowledge is available anywhere. Geocentrism was the prevailing theory until Galileo -- and before him Copernicus -- showed that idea was wrong. Galileo verified Copernicus' findings. Nothing has changed in the intervening centuries simply because simple observation proves the Earth isn't the center of anything.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"he saw that there were moons circulating other planets."

So earth is not direct centre of everything - and Tycho Brahe and his judges agreed.

" he was condemned by the church for his research."

No, for unwarranted conclusions, no actual research result was remotely condemned.

"Try opening a book."

I checked an astroniomy book from 1980 before deciding to be Geocentric.

William P. Lazarus

ou remind of the boss I once had who quoted TV books from the 1930s as proof of something. Geocentriciity has been overthrown for 400 years. Try reading Sagan or any more recent astronomer, or any astronomy textbook.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Geocentriciity has been overthrown for 400 years."

Since 1616, Galileo process?

403 years .... no, it hasn't. As I have some German culture (too much to consider myself as "a German" when that is only nearly true and not actually true), I refuse to gloss over the Galileo affair in so superficial rhetoric as you do.

"You remind of the boss I once had who quoted TV books from the 1930s as proof of something."

You pretend a Draper White inspired "history textbook" in its chapters on Galileo is proof who was right in the process, or am I missing your point?

"Try reading Sagan or any more recent astronomer, or any astronomy textbook."

You forgot I read up in one from 1980 before deciding for Geocentrism, as I just told you.

I checked out a few facts which are to my mind relevant to the parallax argument evoked in the process.

And you STILL persistently keep sticking to cheap rhetoric, and STILL avoiding giving any actual arguments (once I refuted your point about Moons of Jupiter as irrelevant).

* To clarify, A Sceptic's Guide to the Universe is not a study, it's a whole book. I was asking William P. Lazarus to name one study which he finds reliable and which would need to be false if Geocentrism were true.

Carter's Tactics

Creation vs. Evolution : Responding to Dystopian Science · Part II of Dystopian Science, my answer part A · Part II, part B - CMI on Deeper Waters · HGL's F.B. writings : Carter's Tactics · Back to Creation vs. Evolution : Part III : On Bradley and Bessel · New blog on the kid : Do Lorentz Transformations Prove a Universal Inconditional Speed Limit? · Back to Creation vs. Evolution : John Hartnett Pleads Operational Science · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Steven Taylor on Lorentz Transformations, Speed of Light, Distant Starlight Problem, Creation Week, Miracles

Here is a former status on the wall of Carter.

It links to:

Dystopian science Part 1: Why the Bible enables science to work
by Lita Cosner, Robert Carter | Published: 28 March 2019
https://creation.com/dystopian-science-1

I link to my own answers, as far as they have gone.

Here is what happened, first showing page as clearly as possible, upper and lower part:





Then showing why the last of my comments is in red, that is impossible to add comment:



Was he simply replacing the old status with a status linking to part 2.

At first, it does not look like that:



I have just shown the upper part of his wall, to where he has his upper bar, so as to show that seven minutes later, the latest status is from 30th of March.

Now that it is fifteen minutes later (19:30, in the meantime I linked my three posts to each other, will link them here), I think I can assume he's not replacing the status, so publishing this is not maligning him.

I think I have shown him in action as avoiding debate, precisely as I told you in that passage here:

"We should all strive for consistency in the way we think."

Sure.

And since one should try to make sure, one should also test one's consistency in debate.

I do that all the time.

Certain on CMI have avoided this when it comes to debating Geocentrics.

Is AI a Threat to Man?

Is AI a Threat to Man? · Still Censored (for Fast Typing?) · Well, I was after all ... · Zuckerberg's Vandalism Continues · Yes, as Said ... · Blockade Over After All? · Or Maybe Not? · Could not Post to Page Wall · OK, Not Over · Still Not Over · FB Censors Links

Yes, by its stupidity!



My comment, which is visible, was on the point, since the meme I commented under showed a parodic "Sola Scriptura" guy who concluded from Koalas not being mentioned in the Bible that "Australia is Unbiblical".

Nevertheless, I was blocked, for having commented too fast, or because some other comments previous to that had been made too fast.

If it was this one, I was typing fast.

If it was some previous ones, I prepared the comment on a notepad, in some length, with good both taking time to write exactly what I wanted to say and overview over what I was saying (better than on the combox space provided on facebook) and then copy pasted it into the combox and quickly published comment.

Either way, some evil mind has determined that spam and hasty comments can be reduced by a software that determines whether one spent enough time on editing a comment before one published it.

Such a block could theoretically have some function with teens. I am fifty, and not the only FB user my age, and such things are not likely to actually make us change habits, nor should one change good habits like typing fast or editing long comments on notepads before publishing in combox, it is only useful to add irritation to some users.

If it is not just the awful bottomless stupidity of trusting a software to determine how much time a man should spend on a comment before publishing it, what is it?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Phocas, Martyr
at Antioch
5.III.2019

Antiochiae natalis sancti Phocae Martyris, qui, post multas, quas pro nomine Redemptoris passus est, injurias, qualiter de antiquo illo serpente triumphaverit, hodie quoque populis eo miraculo declaratur, quod, si quispiam a serpente morsus fuerit, hic, ut januam Basilicae Martyris credens attigerit, confestim, evacuata veneni virtute, sanatur.

Update:

I had no problems commenting under a few other ones, though not on persons' walls, so far, so, I begin to wonder whether it was that friend (?) who had used a blocking device for that feature?

Because, on same wall, this:



Update II:

Same under the wall of Tom Trinko, the writer of Conversations about the obvious:



Here the text of my comment is not visible, I show it here, from notepad:

Bibles certainly did exist then, if only virtually, since the scrolls were too cumbrous to have all Tanakh on one.

The Church certainly did have basically the same Bible as Biblia Hebraica, except mostly LXX version.

Saying "the Church started out without a Bible" is claiming Catholics are Albigensians (without OT).

However, what is true is She started out without a complete Bible and we have one such because the Church (in Apostolic times) very literally added to the Bible.

A better approach against Sola Scriptura is, OT in many cases proves Our Lord only via a specific OT exegesis which Christ taught the apostles and which only in very small part was written down in NT, as in Matthew early chapters.

As I noted here:

https://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2019/02/in-answer-to-rabbi-skobac.html

However, a bit earlier I had no problem commenting, also on Tom Trinko's page:



So, either both the other guy and Tom Trinko manually blocked me, or there is some monkey business over at my internet provider.

Update III:

Now it is involving also my dialogue with Craig Crawford:





Update IV, some days later:



The underlined words "en allant trop vite" mean "typing too fast" basically./HGL