Shared

One of the biggest changes for me post retirement (which I hope doesnt mean I am turning into an alkie)🤣 is the desire and ability to enjoy a Guinness on any day. At work in the University I didn't drink during the day - contact with students and complex meetings precluded that). Now I do it when I choose, if I have walked the calories off beforehand and eat with it.

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

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?

Les 7 Paroles Evangéliques de La Sainte Vierge Marie ?

- Elles sont, peu nombreuses, seulement au nombre de Sept !!! Lisons....

1. Deux de ces Paroles Mariales s’adressent à l’Ange..
2. Deux à Elisabeth..
3. Deux à Jésus..
4. Une aux Serviteurs des Noces de Cana !

= Sept(7) Paroles Evangéliques de La Sainte Vierge Marie.......

En m’inspirant du très beau et très profond commentaire que Saint Bernardin de Sienne nous a laissé à leur sujet, je vous invite, à regarder ces sept paroles de la Vierge comme autant de flammes d’amour, chacune exprimant cet amour sous un aspect particulier.

- La Première Parole de Marie : «Comment cela se fera-t-il, je connais point d’homme ?!»

C’est la vive flamme de l’amour qui sépare. Il y a là, pour nous, un enseignement particulièrement clair et qui est une des exigences fondamentales de la vie spirituelle à savoir qu’on ne peut entrer à fond dans l’Amour de Dieu, dans une communion intime avec Lui, sans accepter à fond toutes les séparations.

Autrement dit : pour que Dieu règne à l’aise dans notre cœur, rien ne doit l’encombrer.

C’est la raison pour laquelle Jésus nous demande instamment de nous détacher de tout et principalement de nous-mêmes, « si quelqu’un veut être mon disciple, qu’il renonce à soi-même, qu’il prenne sa croix et me suive ».

L’amour divin, il ne faut jamais l’oublier est total ; c’est un feu consumant qui ne laisse rien subsister. Quand on a ainsi renoncé à tout ce que l’on a et à tout ce que l’on est, l’amour triomphe et il est transformant.

- C’est ainsi qu’il faut comprendre La Deuxième Parole de Marie à l’Ange : « Voici la Servante du Seigneur, qu’il me soit fait selon ta parole ».

C’est la Vive Flamme de l’Amour qui transforme et ça va beaucoup plus loin que l’amour qui consent, car le consentement pourrait n’être que sur un point.

Mais Marie ne dit pas seulement : j’accepte ceci ou cela, Elle se livre au plein gré de l’action divine, ayant parfaitement bien saisi que le mystère de sa Maternité Divine c’est une transformation qui prend son être totalement.

L’Esprit-Saint, dès lors, peut survenir en Elle et le Verbe de Dieu peut s’incarner en son sein virginal pour la plus grande Gloire de Dieu et pour le salut des hommes.

Notre existence, Chers Sœurs et Frères, prend une toute autre allure quand à l’exemple de Marie et en communion d’âme avec Elle, nous nous livrons à l’action de l’Esprit-Saint, quand nous lui laissons la liberté de nous transformer selon son bon plaisir…

Alors, quand il y a cela, je veux dire quand le cœur est complètement transformé, la vive flamme de l’amour qui brûle en lui peut se communiquer.

C’est ce qui advint lorsque Marie, lors de sa Visitation, salua sa Cousine Elisabeth à la manière dont on se disait bonjour chez les Juifs : « La Paix soit avec Toi » :

- C’est La Troisième Parole de Marie. Il y eut alors comme une transfusion d’amour entre le Cœur de Marie et celui d’Elisabeth, à tel point que l’enfant que cette dernière portait en elle en fut lui-même envahi et en tressaillit d’allégresse.

Il y a là pour nous, frères et sœurs, concernant l’action apostolique qui doit être la nôtre, une leçon de la plus haute importance, mais trop oubliée, hélas ! de nos jours. On fait remarquer souvent que l’on est apôtre non pas d’abord par ce que l’on dit ou par ce que l’on fait, mais par ce que l’on est.

Oui, mais quelle transformation en Dieu ne faut-il pas pour que cela soit vrai, pour que nos moindres gestes, paroles, actions, actes (un sourire par exemple) apportent l’amour de Dieu…

On ne dira jamais assez, frères et sœurs, l’efficacité apostolique d’une âme qui est entièrement vidée de l’humain et par conséquent remplie de divin, d’une âme toute donnée à Dieu par Marie !

Elle peut rayonner et donner le Christ sans même en avoir conscience.

Elle n’a pas à se soucier d’ailleurs des effets de ses paroles ou de ses actions…

Il suffit qu’elle se soucie d’être de plus en plus possédée par l’amour divin et Dieu fait le reste ; c’est Lui qui se communique et change les cœurs.

Et cela c’est bien autre chose, infiniment autre chose que de chercher à faire du bien ; c’est le Soleil Divin de Lumière, d’Amour, de Paix qui rayonne et qui réchauffe.

- La Quatrième Parole de Marie : « Le Magnificat ».

C’est la vive flamme de l’amour qui jubile.

Ce qui étonne dans cette parole, c’est sa longueur, alors que les six autres paroles sont très brèves !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Saint Bernardin de Sienne explique cela en disant que lorsqu’il s’agit de jubiler la Sainte Vierge a voulu que nous sachions que cette jubilation devait se développer sans fin.
Cette quatrième parole est la conséquence de la troisième : l’amour qui rayonne et se communique produit des merveilles ; il exulte et il chante.
Marie chante son propre bonheur, Elle chante surtout son action de grâce au Seigneur qui fait des merveilles pour Elle et pour nous.

Quand l’Amour divin règne dans un Cœur, il le fait "Exulter" car la Joie est Fille de l’Amour.

- La Cinquième Parole de Marie a été prononcée après les trois jours d’absence de Jésus et son recouvrement au Temple.

C’est l’Amour des Retrouvailles, de l’Inquiétude qui s’apaise : « Mon Enfant pourquoi avoir agi ainsi envers Nous ? »

Marie nous rappelle par là que le Seigneur est toujours déroutant ; Il n’avertit pas quand Il prend d’autres routes que celles que nous avions prévues et désirées.

Que de pourquoi sans réponse dans notre existence !

Jésus veut que nous lui fassions une absolue confiance !!!!!

Les deux dernières paroles de Notre-Dame ont été prononcées aux Noces de Cana.

- La Sixième Parole de Marie : « Ils n’ont plus de Vin ».

C’est la Vive Flamme de l’Amour qui compatit.

Marie se préoccupe des autres, Elle se penche sur toutes les Misères, sur celles du Corps, mais plus encore sur celles du Cœur, surtout si ces dernières sont le résultat du péché, lequel péché prive du vin de la noce, c’est-à-dire de la Joie de l’Amour Divin.

Dans le cœur qui aime ardemment, Jésus inculque toujours sa Pitié et sa tendresse.

A nous de nous préoccuper de tous ceux qui ont besoin de notre secours, de notre affection de nos conseils et de nos prières.

- La Septième Parole de Marie est la Consigne que Marie a donné aux serviteurs : « quoiqu’Il vous dise, faites-le ».

C’est la vive Flamme de l’Amour qui consomme en Perfection, qui parvient à son achèvement lequel consiste à ne plus faire qu’un Seul Cœur, une seule Volonté avec le Seigneur.

Ce qui a fait son bonheur à Elle, Marie veut nous l’enseigner.

Comme Elle a toujours uni totalement sa volonté à celle de Dieu, Elle veut que nous vivions comme Elle, avec Elle et en Elle, tout ce que l’Amour Divin nous demande instant par instant.

Telles sont chers Sœurs et Frères, Les Sept Paroles que l’Esprit-Saint, a bien voulu nous communiquer par la bouche de Marie, sa fidèle Epouse.

Elles sont comme toutes les autres Paroles de l’Evangile, des Semences de Vie.

Puisse Marie Elle-même par son Influence Maternelle disposer notre cœur pour qu’il soit cette « Bonne Terre » (dont parle Jésus dans la Parabole du Semeur) qui les accueille, les retient, et leur fait porter du fruit par la persévérance.

[Trouvé sur le mur de Marie de Nazareth]

Les 18 Apparitions de Lourdes, par Micheline Albert Tawil Tramp

Cette amie sur FB, Carmélite séculière, m'a donné la permission de republier ici.

Les 18 Apparitions de Lourdes

- Jeudi 11 février 1858 : la première rencontre

Première apparition. Accompagnée de sa sœur et d’une amie, Bernadette se rend à Massabielle, le long du Gave, pour ramasser des os et du bois mort. Enlevant ses bas pour traverser le ruisseau et aller dans la Grotte, elle entend un bruit qui ressemblait à un coup de vent, elle lève la tête vers la Grotte : « J’aperçus une dame vêtue de blanc : elle portait une robe blanche, un voile blanc également, une ceinture bleue et une rose jaune sur chaque pied. » Bernadette fait le signe de la croix et récite le chapelet avec la Dame. La prière terminée, la Dame disparaît brusquement.

- Dimanche 14 février 1858 : l’eau bénite

Deuxième apparition. Bernadette ressent une force intérieure qui la pousse à retourner à la Grotte malgré l’interdiction de ses parents. Sur son insistance, sa mère l’y autorise ; après la première dizaine de chapelet, elle voit apparaître la même Dame. Elle lui jette de l’eau bénite. La Dame sourit et incline la tête. La prière du chapelet terminée, elle disparaît.

- Jeudi 18 février 1858 : la Dame parle

Troisième apparition. Pour la première fois, la Dame parle. Bernadette lui présente une écritoire et lui demande d’écrire son nom. Elle lui dit : « Ce n’est pas nécessaire. » Elle ajoute : « Je ne vous promets pas de vous rendre heureuse en ce monde mais dans l’autre. Voulez-vous me faire la grâce de venir ici pendant quinze jours ? »

- Vendredi 19 février 1858 : le premier cierge

Quatrième apparition. Bernadette vient à la Grotte avec un cierge bénit et allumé. C’est de ce geste qu’est née la coutume de porter des cierges et de les allumer devant la Grotte.

- Samedi 20 février 1858 : la grande tristesse

Cinquième apparition. La Dame a appris une prière personnelle à Bernadette. A la fin de la vision, une grande tristesse envahit Bernadette.

- Dimanche 21 février 1858 : « Aquero »

Sixième apparition. La Dame se présente à Bernadette le matin de bonne heure. Une centaine de personnes l’accompagnent. Elle est ensuite interrogée par le commissaire de police Jacomet. Il veut lui faire dire ce qu’elle a vu. Bernadette ne lui parle que d’ « Aquero » (cela).

- Mardi 23 février 1858 : le secret

Septième apparition. Entourée de cent cinquante personnes, Bernadette se rend à la Grotte. L’Apparition lui révèle un secret « rien que pour elle. »

- Mercredi 24 février 1858 : «Pénitence !»

Huitième apparition. Message de la Dame : « Pénitence ! Pénitence ! Pénitence ! Priez Dieu pour les pécheurs ! Allez baiser la terre en pénitence pour les pécheurs ! »

- Jeudi 25 février 1858 : la source

Neuvième apparition. Trois cents personnes sont présentes. Bernadette raconte : « Elle me dit d’aller boire à la source (…). Je ne trouvai qu’un peu d’eau vaseuse. Au quatrième essai je pus boire. Elle me fit également manger une herbe qui se trouvait près de la fontaine puis la vision disparut et je m’en allai. » Devant la foule qui lui demande: « Sais-tu qu’on te croit folle de faire des choses pareilles ? » Elle répond : « C’est pour les pécheurs. »

- Samedi 27 février 1858 : silence

Dixième apparition. Huit cents personnes sont présentes. L’Apparition est silencieuse. Bernadette boit l’eau de la source et accomplit les gestes habituels de pénitence.

- Dimanche 28 février 1858 : l’extase

Onzième apparition. Plus de mille personnes assistent à l’extase. Bernadette prie, baise la terre et rampe sur les genoux en signe de pénitence. Elle est ensuite emmenée chez le juge Ribes qui la menace de prison.

- Lundi 1er mars 1858 : la première guérison miraculeuse

Douzième apparition. Plus de mille cinq cents personnes sont rassemblées et parmi elles, pour la première fois, un prêtre. Dans la nuit, Catherine Latapie, une amie lourdaise, se rend à la Grotte, elle trempe son bras déboîté dans l’eau de la source : son bras et sa main retrouvent leur souplesse.

- Mardi 2 mars 1858 : le message aux prêtres

Treizième apparition. La foule grossit de plus en plus. La Dame lui demande : « Allez dire aux prêtres qu’on vienne ici en procession et qu’on y bâtisse une chapelle ». Bernadette en parle à l’abbé Peyramale, curé de Lourdes. Celui-ci ne veut savoir qu’une chose : le nom de la Dame. Il exige en plus une preuve : voir fleurir en plein hiver le rosier (l’églantier) de la Grotte.

- Mercredi 3 mars 1858 : le sourire de la Dame

Quatorzième apparition. Dès 7 h le matin, en présence de trois mille personnes, Bernadette se rend à la Grotte, mais la vision n’apparaît pas ! Après l’école, elle entend l’invitation intérieure de la Dame. Elle se rend à la Grotte et lui redemande son nom. La réponse est un sourire. Le curé Peyramale lui redit : « Si la Dame désire vraiment une chapelle, qu’elle dise son nom et qu’elle fasse fleurir le rosier de la Grotte ».

- Jeudi 4 mars 1858 : 8 000 personnes à la Grotte

Quinzième apparition. La foule toujours plus nombreuse (environ huit mille personnes) attend un miracle à la fin de cette quinzaine. La vision est silencieuse. Le curé Peyramale campe sur sa position. Pendant vingt jours, Bernadette ne va plus se rendre à la Grotte : elle n’en ressent plus l’irrésistible attrait.

- Jeudi 25 mars 1858 : la Dame révèle son nom

Seizième apparition. La vision révèle enfin son nom, mais le rosier (ou églantier) sur lequel elle pose les pieds au cours de ses Apparitions ne fleurit pas. Bernadette raconte : « Elle leva les yeux au ciel, joignant en signe de prière ses mains qui étaient tendues et ouvertes vers la terre, et me dit: Que soy era immaculada councepciou ». Bernadette part en courant et répète sans cesse, sur le chemin, des mots qu’elle ne comprend pas. Ces mots troublent le brave curé. Bernadette ignorait cette expression théologique qui désigne la Sainte Vierge. Quatre ans plus tôt, en 1854, le pape Pie IX en avait fait une vérité de la foi catholique (dogme de l’Immaculée Conception).

- Mercredi 7 avril 1858 : le miracle du cierge

Dix-septième apparition. Pendant cette apparition, Bernadette tient son cierge allumé. La flamme entoure longuement sa main sans la brûler. Ce fait est immédiatement constaté par le médecin, le docteur Douzous..

- Vendredi 16 juillet 1858 : la dernière apparition

Dix-huitième apparition. Bernadette ressent le mystérieux appel de la Grotte, mais l’accès à Massabielle est interdit et fermé par une palissade. Elle se rend donc en face, de l’autre côté du Gave… et voit la Vierge Marie, une ultime fois : « Il me semblait que j’étais devant la grotte, à la même distance que les autres fois, je voyais seulement la Vierge, jamais je ne l’ai vue aussi belle ! ».

A Christian has One Chance in 4200 to be Right, Really? [Guest Post]

SG made an excellent essay, as I noted yesterday, and here is his answer to me on links to blogs:

thanks. I made that change.. I don't know of another blog. But you can copy and paste and make changes as you see fit and link it or put it to whatever you want.

I thanked him gently, am awaiting his answer on whether to expand SG into his name, and here is his actual essay:

The argument used by atheists is that there are so many religions in the world, some websites, report as many as 4200 or so, that the probability that one religion is right is equal to the amount of religions in the world. Now first, 1/4200 odds or whatever the estimated religions are, for coming to a religious truth is an exaggeration, because these so called different religions come under groupings of main religious ideas, thus there can be many dialects of the same language. This high number stat is looking at each religious name as all being separate totally distinct religions and religious viewpoints rather than potentially some being different dialects of the same religion. In fact, many of these religious titles come under more generalized categories, so there could be many nuances or dialects of the same religion, as there are many denominations in Christianity, yet it’s all Christianity, many different versions of Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. In reality they can be condensed to an exceedingly smaller number once we categorize them more broadly, showing the atheist’s argument is an exaggeration. In fact, all these religions fall under one of 4 worldviews on religions (Pantheism, atheism, theism, polytheism), making the probability of general religious/metaphysical truth ¼.

Additionally, there is no good reason to exempt Secular Humanism from these probabilities. Since Secular Humanism, which includes evolutionism, atheism and agnosticism has been declared to be a religion by the courts then it too is under the same probabilities of being true as the non-secular religions, making the probability of atheism just as equally improbable, whatever those probabilities may be.

Furthermore, when one appeals to probabilities, the assumption is that all the different religious viewpoints are equally probable of being true, but there is no way one can know that as an atheists. What knowledge would you have to suggest they are all equally probable? As atheists, they deny supernatural revelation, so would have no means or mechanism they would be privy to, thus could not know that by reason of naturalism. In various systems, number of possibilities are not always weighted equally, since in many systems these possible outcomes are not determined by random chance. If certain outcomes are more probable than alternatives, then we can’t weigh them equally. For example, if you flip a coin there is an equal chance of getting heads or tails, but if a regular, knowledgeable horse gambler who knows horses well and often wins bets on a horse, in a race of 10 horses, the probability of him winning is 1/10 only if the gambler, horses and jockeys all are equal in ability, but if some horses and jockeys are better, and the horse gambler is a better more knowledgeable gambler and knows which horses and jockeys are better, than the probability is no longer as high as 1/10, so he has a better chance of being right by his advanced knowledge. In fact, this is the basis of the odds system in horse racing on the original odds at the outset of the race and why some horses have better odds than others. This means not all odds are equal even if there are numerous alternatives. Hence, alternative religions don’t mean equal probabilities of being true for each.

A thesis of 1/4200 or whatever is only valid if the outcome is determined by random chance, but that is an assumption one can’t justify and is also denied by the proponents of religious viewpoints in which you are debating against. How would one know they were wrong? One might argue that they know they are wrong because they have different religious viewpoints, but that is to beg the question whether these viewpoints are purely random.

Now let’s apply that same logic and statistic theory atheists employ to another field to see if it consistent! For example, the probabilities of getting the finetuned ratio between the electromagnetic force and gravity was altered more than 1 in 10 ^40, which is astronomically higher than any probability presented for religions being true, but that precise constant is what is featured in the electromagnetic force and gravity, allowing for a life permitting universe. And yet as high as those odds are against getting within that range, it is within that range, so here we are. If it was random chance we shouldn’t have a universe, but we do. Should I assume that probabilities for this finetuning that permits a life bearing universe so astronomical, that we should deny the truth that we live in a life permitting universe? Of course not. Yet that is just what atheists do with the religious probability argument. Denying the specific truth because probabilities, yet as an atheists/naturalists one must believe that finetuning is due to chance, not design, since that would mean God exists, yet atheists would believe it did happen by chance even given the 1 in 10 ^ 40 probabilities against such, but ironically deny people can come to truth about religion with such exceedingly lower probabilities (1/4200), showing a total inconsistency on their part. They simply don’t apply the criticism to other venues, but if they did, they should see its fallacious nature. However, the most plausible explanation for overcoming the 1 in 10 ^ 40 odds of the electromagnetic constant falling into the correct range to permit a a life bearing universe is that the correct range is not due to chance at all, but due to design. Therefore, the system is rigged by the designer, making the other possible outcomes not equal, explaining why the electromagnetic force fell into correct range to begin with. Given the finetuning constant, design is the best explanation over chance, meaning God does exist, and if he does than coming to religious truth would not be random either, just as finetuning wasn’t! It is reasonable to think that if God exists, he can and would make himself known and his truth to those that seek him. Jesus says such in his famous Sermon On the Mount accepted even by skeptical scholars. “Ask it shall be given, seek ye shall find and knock and it shall be opened unto you.” In fact, so does Jeremiah in the Old Testament. “Ye shall seek me and find me when you shall search for me with all your heart.” Why don’t all come to the true God in proper relationship? They don’t seek him in truth (Romans 3:10-13), but seek a god, a religion, a comfort, an accountability system or no accountability at all (as atheists don’t), or an acceptance by their family or culture, or something palpable for their own beliefs and lifestyles, or permission to do as they please (as atheists do). If you never get past those things, you will not be seeking God in truth, but if you do seek the Lord for his own sake, no strings attached, the God that designed this universe evidenced by finetuning, and powerful enough to create it, is the same God who is able and willing to reveal himself to us in relationship made possible by sending his Son to be our Savior, which is testified historically in the person of Jesus Christ, further giving us evidence via history, making the likelihood of knowing the truth more probable, showing it is not random at all, making this atheist/naturalist objection utterly fail. For it to be true, a good God must not exist, but that begs the question. Jesus says, “ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” One would have to know Jesus is a liar for that not to be valid, showing one knows what religious viewpoints are untrue, meaning one knows something of religious truth, but how could they if they are claiming we can’t know religious truth, especially given the odds against them being right on a religious belief according to their own thesis, ironically blowing up their own argument. Atheists/naturalists/unbelievers need to think more thoroughly, accurately and objectively before they make unsustainable arguments. But that doesn’t seem to be their strong point! Rejecting God, is a rejection of reason!