Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Thomistic Theology Relevant for 5-II-1998, a bit South of Sysslebaeck

Summa Theologica > Second Part of the Second Part > Question 41 Strife > Article 1. Whether strife is always a sin?

Objection 3. Further, strife seems to be a war between individuals. But war is not always sinful. Therefore strife is not always a sin. ... Reply to Objection 3. In order for a war to be just it must be declared by authority of the governing power, as stated above (Question 40, Article 1); whereas strife proceeds from a private feeling of anger or hatred. For if the servants of a sovereign or judge, in virtue of their public authority, attack certain men and these defend themselves, it is not the former who are said to be guilty of strife, but those who resist the public authority. Hence it is not the assailants in this case who are guilty of strife and commit sin, but those who defend themselves inordinately.

Summa Theologica > Second Part of the Second Part > Question 42 Sedition > Article 2. Whether sedition is always a mortal sin?

Objection 3. Further, it is praiseworthy to deliver a multitude from a tyrannical rule. Yet this cannot easily be done without some dissension in the multitude, if one part of the multitude seeks to retain the tyrant, while the rest strive to dethrone him. Therefore there can be sedition without mortal sin. ... Reply to Objection 3. A tyrannical government is not just, because it is directed, not to the common good, but to the private good of the ruler, as the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5; Ethic. viii, 10). Consequently there is no sedition in disturbing a government of this kind, unless indeed the tyrant's rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than from the tyrant's government. Ondeed it is the tyrant rather that is guilty of sedition, since he encourages discord and sedition among his subjects, that he may lord over them more securely; for this is tyranny, being conducive to the private good of the ruler, and to the injury of the multitude.

5-II-1998 the policeman was not acting on behalf of a judge but of psychiatry.

Which is tyrannical as well as pharisaical and heretical and idolatrous.

Pharisaical and Heretical, see here:

Idolatrous and superstitious, see here:

Tyrannous? Directed not to the public good but to the private good of the tyrant?

See this list of accusations against it:

  1. 1.Jerome's "crime" IS obedience to THE 1st & 2nd GREAT COMMANDMENTS.
  2. 2.Jerome's "crime" IS Loving God FIRST and then Loving himself and Loving his neighbor AS himself and thereby Loving his neighbor and family in the right order for the Love of God. That is why Christ said He had come : "NOT to bring peace but the sword ... to put a MAN against his father ..." (No room for fiends and liars and murderers there -- it puts you at odds with the Enemy of Mankind, his works, display, and followers).
  3. 3.Jerome's "crime" IS Loving the Truth, the Good, the Beautiful Who IS a Person.
  4. 4.Jerome's "crime" remains NOT consenting to be "silenced".
  5. 5.Jerome's "crime" was NOT killing himself.
  6. 6.Jerome's "crime" was NOT killing others who were trying to kill him body and soul.
  7. 7.Jerome's "crime" was to reject and correct attempts to make him assent to false accusations and refusing to sign his name except with the modifier "under duress".
  8. 8.Jerome's "crime" was going to a real medical doctor with the help of a professional friend and alumni from his college and actually getting an authentic medical diagnosis for a real medical disorder that was medically (and scientifically) treatable, then actually beginning to recover and repair --
  9. 9.Jerome's "crime" was losing 60 lbs in 3 months after beginning a highly successful 24/7 medically supervised full taper from the toxins after a highly successful medically supervised 6 month partial taper from 20 years of being tortured and experimented on using deadly toxic poisons (to be triple thrice three times redundant) by a bunch of witch practioners (abortionists for adult males who do NOT cooperate with the same sax unnatural occult agenda (to be triple thrice three times redundant).
  10. 10.Jerome's "crime" was getting well enough to think his own father would be "happy" for his hard work -- and it was VERY hard work for Jerome but Jerome stuck fast to his resolutions -- and made daily progress that astounded his medical doctors. Jerome's "crime" was partial and temporary memory impairment (this heals with time and rather quickly with proper medical recovery).
  11. 11.Jerome's ORIGINAL "crime" was rejecting the homomafia in Lithuania when they tried to seduced and attack him.
  12. 12.Jerome's "crime" was going up against Hell because Jerome was "innocent" and fought with the Grace of Innocence of a Saint and with the Grace of Christ and the Sacraments and Sacramentals, especially the Most Holy Rosary and the Most Precious Blood of Christ. Jerome's "crime" was accepting to be a "Victim Soul".
  13. 13.Jerome's "crime" IS wanting to WIN, Conquer and Vanquish EVIL. Jerome WILL win because Christ WINS and Jerome's friends "in Christ" -- Church Militant, Church Suffering AND Our Lady, Ever-Virgin Mother of God and the Saints or Church Triumphant -- will NOT abandon Jerome but are at Jerome's side 24/7. Tri (triple thrice three times in and with the Grace of the Most Holy Trinity) Themia

This is not about myself. It is not about my mother. Yet our cases are similar, except mine, because I shot, but I neither killed nor willed to kill.

I had studied above answers by St Thomas Aquinas more than once before I decided to defend myself in such a case. I did not kill. Nor did I rebel against what then I recognised as lawful authority, I even notified the policeman I did not regard him in that errand as serving justice.

I have served prison already, 3 and a half years (for, deceitfully, attempted homicide, despite my insistance I did not try to kill or believe I would kill) of which I served 2/3.

I did not rebel against prison as such. Whoever calls me a rebel is a liar. Whoever calls me a killer is a liar. And after prison, excepting one week or less (Wednesday August 15 to following monday) I have not been in psychiatry either.

Other dissimilarity: I have not suffered from any (prolonged) medical condition, excepting caries and scabies.

When I see what Jerome is suffering as psychiatry detainee - I came up with the comparison after his showing a picture about a Guantanmo detainee, I am glad I defended myself without killing. If I had killed, I might have been guilty in another sense. If I had not defended myself, I am afraid I would have been treated as Jerome.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Médiatèque Musicale, Paris
Sts Abdon and Sennen in Rome
St Rufinus in Assisi

Saturday, July 27, 2013

L'École n'est pas le Bon Dieu, la réussite scolaire n'est pas la vision béatifique

Petit regard sur ma situation. On n'est pas (dernière fois que je pouvais vérifier on n'était pas) en train de m'imprimer mes articles ou de jouer mes compositions pour lecteurs ou publique payant. Donc, il m'arrive encore d'aller à un endroit bénévole pour un petit déjeuner les samedis matins. Le café - excellent. Le pain - excellent. La nut et la confiture - excellentes. Les œufs - excellents. La compagnie, parfois un peu moins excellente. Telle jolie fille est trop timide. Telle autre, moins timide physiquement est timide intellectuellement. Telle autre, avec qui je peux parler n'est presque jamais là. Je ne sais pas si elle est encore aux fouilles en Pouilles. Il s'agit des bénévoles et non pas d'accueillies, comme on peut comprendre. Tel homme avait l'habitude de me toucher l'épaule, je lui ai dit que non. C'était un accueillant. Tel autre, accueilli, a noté que je lui donne la main mais pas l'épaule. Tel autre, acueilli paroissien, un bienfaiteur qui mange avec les bénéficiés, a commencé. Mais ce n'est pas de la part des hommes que je trouve que je suis en panne d'affection! Au contraire!

Bon, allons alors à cette autre fille, accueillante, qui me côtoyait brièvement ce matin.

En conversation avec un accueilli, elle disait qu'il ne fallait jamais dire à un élève qu'il est nul.

Pourquoi? Parce que ça pourrait le suivre tout au long de la vie. Ça pourrait lui causer des complexes d'avoir entendu ça de sa prof. Quand il l'est effectivement, il faut toujours dire autre chose pour ne pas être blessant ou cassant. Jamais, grand jamais décourager l'élève le plus nul qu'il y a dans la ou même dans les classes de poursuivre assidument les études scolaires!

Mais ça ne fait pas un peu idolatrie de l'école ça? Cette même idolatrie institué par Jules Ferry et que l'exsecrable Azaña et l'exsecrable Hitler ont introduite ou essayée d'introduire en Allemagne et Espagne?

Un élève pourrait avoir sa vie cassée par le fait d'apprendre que la lecture qu'il fait sans vraiment s'y interesser il le fait mal aussi? Un élève pourrait avoir sa vie cassée par le fait d'apprendre ce qu'il sait déjà qu'il n'a pas la bosse des maths?


Au contraire, un élève peut avoir sa vie cassée par le fait de savoir au fond de son cœur qu'il est mauvais aux maths et à la lecture et qu'il devrait faire autre chose, mais que quelque part c'est interdit pour lui-même et même pour ses professeurs de dire ça honnêtement.

Et les élèves qui ont leur vie cassée comme ça, tout aussi bien que les élèves deuxièmes ou troisièmes de la classe peuvent en vouloir à l'as de la classe, parce qu'il est bon en lecture, parce qu'il est passable en maths. Ils peuvent lui vouloir casser la vie aussi. Je n'ai pas idolisé les sujets de l'école, ils venaient en deuxième rang de mes interêts, mais j'étais un bon élève parmi les mauvais et parmi les bons mais pas si bons que moi. J'ai eu ma vie cassée par la jalousie, et surtout peut-être des élèves de deuxième ou troisième rang plutôt que des vraiment nuls.

Si l'idolatrie scolaire n'avait pas été si prôné, peut-être les nuls qui à leurs moments soutenaient mes harceleurs auraient fait autre chose et auraient la faite très bien au lieu de végéter sous mon ombre, une prééminence vis-à-vis eux que je n'ai jamais cherchée. Et quand à la prééminence que j'ai cherchée, vis-à-vis les deuxièmes et troisièmes de la classe, ils auraient peut-être toléré cette prééminence un peu mieux avec un peu moins d'idolatrie ambiante pour cette activité.

Une activité que les Grecs appelaient loisir, σχολη, mais qui avec cette idolatrie devient un peu plus une prison. Y compris pour les as de la classe.

Non, pour les nuls de la classe ça serait mieux d'entendre: "t'es nul en lettres, mais t'es fort, essaie si le cuistot te prendra en apprenti" ou "essaie-toi sur l'agriculture chez ton père le fermier, on n'a pas besoin de l'école pour ça" (comme c'est normalement le cas et comme ça a été le cas socialement aussi pendant des siècles).

Mais il y a un obstacle à cette solution. Une autre idolatrie. Celle qui fait du si-dit Esprit de Lumières le Saveur de la Planète. Et des Fondamentalismes le menace pour la planète. J'invente pas. J'ai trouvé, en anglais, un vidéo, le premier dans une série "Discovering Religion", qui prétend que c'est la croyance inerrantiste dans les visions apocalyptiques des divers religions qui menace de déclencher une véritable fin du monde.

youtube : Discovering Religion: Ep 01 - Ready-Made World

Je l'ai aussi commenté (tourjours en anglais):

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Apocalyptic fears of Atheists and some more

La médicine a été - ce que prône encore le producteur de cette série de vidéos - la croyance athée en big bang, héliocentrisme quand au système solaire, acentrisme ou téléiocentrisme dans la perspective entre les galaxes. La médicine a été la croyance athée dans l'évolution des êtres vivants à partir d'une cellule ancêtre ou de quelques cellules ancêtres. La médicine à été la croyance athée dans une évolution culturelle où les Égyptiens et Babyloniens et parfois aussi les Phéniciens prennent une place honorable avant les Grecs et les Romains. La médicine a été la croyance protestante, juive et athée dans la malfaisance du système de Constantin et de Théodose, des croisades et des inquisitions, de Cortez comme Pizarro et des inquisieteurs de Galilée comme de de Giordano Bruno, donc de St Robert Bellarmin comme de Pape Urbain VIII.

La médicine sera peut-être plus tard - comme le prône Marianne maintenant - "Spinoza contre toutes les fondamentalismes", ou encore Averroës, ou pourquoi pas aussi les extraterrestres "venus d'une civilisation plus avancée".

Mais on préscrit une médicine contre une maladie dont on n'a aucune sûreté réelle qu'elle le soit vraiment.

Ce n'est pas en fin de compte les gens comme abbé Constant Pel ou Tom Zimmer ou comme Jonathan Sarfati ou Rob Skiba, inerrantistes bibliques, qui prônent l'idolatrie scolaire. Ce sont des gens qui ont fréquenté Skull and Bones ou Grand Orient. Ou des Catholiques qui ne les osent pas affronter correctement.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Delbo, Paris
St Pantaléon, Médecin et Martyr

Saturday, July 20, 2013

La sagesse chrétienne de Jacques VII et II, contre mensonges en "Marianne"

Jacques VII et II d'Écosse, d'Angleterre et d'Irlande "s'obstine de favoriser les catholiques" ... en quoi?

Son frère Charles II avait été Catholique convaincu depuis son exile en France. Il avait néanmoins assisté à une hystérie anticatholique, dont les victimes furent des Catholiques que j'honore comme des martyrs. Pourquoi? Comme Ponce Pilate, il avait peur du peuple.

Jacques avait été farouchement Protestant à la restauration qui le plaça d'abord comme Duc de York. Il avait commencé de faire de la Marine anglaise un pouvoir militaire redoutable (ce qui avait été le but de l'impôt "ship money" qu'avait proposé Charles I avant de perdre tête et couronne).*

Mais, sa femme devint Catholique en s'informant sur le sujet de la Présence Réelle de Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ dans la Sainte Eucharistie. Ceci pourtant juste avant de mourir. Leur filles ont déjà reçu une éducation protestante. Elles regneront sur les Royaumes, et sur les Royaumes Unis depuis Reine Anne. Leur fils qui suivra ses parents sera Jacques VIII et III en faveur duquel se soulèvent les Jacobites en 1713 et en 1745 (ce second soulèvement Jacobite sera sous la comande militaire de Bonnie Prince Charlie, le futur Charles III ... qui ne regnera pas).

Jacques le Prince de York deviendra donc veuf comme récemment converti au Catholicisme.

Va-t-il tolérer que les Catholiques resteront persécutés? Non pas tant qu'il sera roi.

Charles II aura vécu en pseudo-Protestant et complice des persécuteurs de l'Église, il mourra comme Catholique.

Succède Jacques VII et II.

On prétend qu'il va persécuter les Protestants - parce qu'il veut tolérer les Catholiques. Une fois qu'il est vaincu, les Catholiques des trois royaumes et puis des Royaumes Unis ne retrouveront pas leur liberté avant 1830. Les Penal Laws sont en Occident la Persécution la plus dure et prolongée que les Catholiques auront eu à supporter depuis la fin des 280 premières années de l'Église, la persécution entre la Crucifixion et le martyre de St Étienne au début et à la fin la battaille de Ponte Milvio avec Constantin - peut-être même saint Constantin - comme vainqueur.

Qui sont donc les Protestants qui avaient hystériquement trouvé dans la présence des Catholiques dans le pays une menace contre le régime et la liberté du culte protestant? Les Anglo-Catholiques? Non. Les autres Anglicains, oui, dans leur partie la plus Calvinisante. Et les Calvinistes en Écosse et en Ulster. Et les Huguenots refugiés de la France, avec leurs amertûmes anticatholiques et antifrançais. Ceux-ci, traumatisés par Louis XIV, ont peur de toute concession faite aux Catholiques. Ils renforcent les Penal Laws et leur application. Ils contribuent à faire des Catholiques d'Irlande (pays majoritairement catholique malgré les Réformes et Révolutions, et les répressions faites par Cromwell et par Guillaume d'Orange et les Penal Laws) des parias dans leur propre pays.

Louis XIV, a-t-il vraiment fait mal pour la France de perdre leur savoir-faire? Ou bien de débarasser le pays de leur fanatisme anticatholique? Belloc disait que le maudit édit fut revoqué trop tard. Que les 200.000 non-populaires étaient irremplaçables n'est pas la leçon que nous donne le futur de France après 1685. De toute manière Jacques VII et II en les accueillant, pour généreux qu'il a été, il n'a pas été remunéré par une gratitude en sa personne, ni par une tolérance pour les pauvres de sa religion qui, à différence de lui-même, ne se pouvaient pas réfugier chez Louis XIV à St Germain en Laye ou autre part. Ils ont été durs contre les Catholiques et contribué aux duretés faites aux Catholiques et contribué aux fables anticatholiques. Ils ont été durs contre la mémoire de Jacques VII et II.

Marianne prétend que Louis XIV était le maître à penser de celui-ci. Que non. D'abord, le Roi de France offre de l'assistance militaire à son cousin. Mais celui-ci refuse de participer à une invasion étrangère de son pays. Ensuite, à la cour de Versailles il fait l'objet des mocqueries de la part des courtisans de Louis XIV, pour ce fait même, et pour le fait de s'interesser ... bon, troisièmement, il a plus en commun avec Madame de Maintenon qu'avec Louis XIV, car il est l'ami d'un moine qui l'encourage à supporter le célibat comme veuf et les mocqueries avec patience chrétienne. Il est ami épistolaire de l'abbé Rancé, celui qui fonda la Congrégation Trappiste dans l'ordre des Cisterciens. Et il fera pénitence pour sa mondaineté d'antan.

Il semble que cette pénitence ait été agréable à Dieu. Après sa mort il fut invoqué comme possible saint et il y a eu - si ma mémoire ou ma source oubliée ne me trompent pas - 50 miracles de guérison. Pour des femmes, souvent à propos maladies intimes. Après son culte a été oublié. Probablement en même temps que celui de Sainte Marie la Jussienne, c'est à dire Marie l'Égyptienne. Prostituée entre 12 et 29, pénitente anorectique le restant de sa vie mortelle, après un rencontre marquant. Mais elle n'est pas oubliée des Orthodoxes, à différence de l'Occident.

C'est d'ailleurs une calomnie que la Restauration avait un pouvoir royal absolu ou que Jacques VII et II ait cherché à renverser le Parlement. Son refus d'accepter l'aide de Louis XIV était marqué par le zèle de la légalité ... aussi constitutionnelle que nationnelle.

On vient de critiquer aussi Constantin et Clovis. Ont-ils perdu l'unité de leurs territoires? Peut-être oui. Et peut-être ont-ils aussi par là empêché une forte capitale de devenir en Occident le centre des cabales peu commendables. Peut-être ont-ils par là sauvé le monde de la domination de l'Antéchrist pour des siècles ou des millénaires.

Quand au propos que le rejet du paganisme ait été un troisième erreur de Constantin, avec son acceptation du Christianisme (il y a eu deux "erreurs" qui les deux se rapportent à l'unité de l'Empire), ceci est indigne ou digne de l'infamie qui a voulu calomnier Jacques VII et II.

Je ne recommende à personne d'acheter Marianne. Je ne l'ai d'ailleurs pas acheté moi-même, juste lu dans la bibliothèque.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou
St Élie le Prophète
sur Mont Carmel

*C'est pour l'honorer que Niew Amsterdam devint New York.

Monday, July 15, 2013

Pour répondre à l'Abbé Carmignac (post humum)

Il a donné (publié Samedi 13 juillet 2013 à PRÉSENT mais qu'il avait écrit en 1982, il est d'ailleurs depuis décédé en 1986, que Dieu ait son âme) un exposé sur le fondamentalisme qui ne manque pas totalement de véracité. Mais qui est en même temps fortement dépassé par les fondamentalistes protestants qu'il y a eu depuis.


En plus il manque de détail accessible déjà à l'époque.

Wilberforce, "évêque" anglicain qui avait fait (on prétend: "perdu") le célèbre débat contre Huxley, était High Church, son frère était converti au catholicisme, leur père était le célèbre abolitionniste. Aucun des trois ne peut être sans honte décrit comme Calviniste, sauf par un fourbe. Pourtant l'abbé parlait de "la stricte orthodoxie du calvinisme originel". Sans blague. S'il est au Ciel, il doit s'être mieux renseigné depuis. S'il est au purgatoire, conviendrait peut-être pour les prêtres qui prient pour son âme de faire pénitence pour le compromis sur l'inerrance biblique, qui est pourtant un dogme du Concile de Trente (maintenu contre les deux Sozzini et même contre Münzer qui l'avaient mise en doute en 1517, année où Luther confessait encore l'existence des Indulgences et du Purgatoire, voir les derniers thèses de lui condamnées en Exsurge Domine).

L'enjeu de bataille était d'importance : pour un protestant, dont la foi repose uniquement sur l'Écriture, si l'on met en péril l'inerrance de la Bible, tout est compromis : alors la vérité révélée risque d'être remplacée par le produit d'une simple philosophie religieuse.

Pour un Catholique, alors, autrement? Trente nous affirme:
  • que la Bible n'est pas source unique de la véritée, mais avec la Tradition;
  • que le Dimanche, le Signe de la Croix, des Prières importantes, les destins des personnes bibliques après - parfois aussi avant - leur mention dans la Bible, et pas le moindre, le Canon de la Bible nous sont connus de la Tradition et non pas des paroles dedans la Bible;
  • que le vrai sens d'un endroit de l'Écriture ne peut pas échapper à toute la Tradition, donc que là où la Tradition est unanime, il faut se tenir à son sens, et ne pas aller vers l'erreur d'Helvidius (qui n'était pas en cause chez Luther et Calvin, ils croyaient encore la Virginité Perpétuelle) ou le thnétopsychisme ou l'Arianisme ...

Trente nous n'affirme pas, par contre, que des paroles de la Bible doivent quand à leur sens historique être pris dans le figuratif là où des protestants les prennent au litéral. Nous n'avons pas eu autre Concile depuis pour condamner le Protestantisme classique. Vatican I était un supplément en ceci qu'elle condamnait surtout dans sa première partie le protestantisme libéral (l'ennemi des fondamentalistes aussi) et dans sa deuxième partie ce qui est commun aux Protestants, Gallicains et bonne partie des Orthodoxes sinon tous, le refus de l'autorité du Souverain Pontife, celui de l'Ancienne Rome. Vatican II non plus ne n'est pas une condamnation des fondamentalistes, si ce n'est pas en l'étant du Catholicisme Traditionnel et donc de Trente aussi et dans ce cas précis (et en des cas autres mais parallèles) Vatican II n'est pas un Concile.

Goûtons aussi les derniers mots cités: "si l'on met en péril l'inerrance de la Bible, tout est compromis : alors la vérité révélée risque d'être remplacée par le produit d'une simple philosophie religieuse." Pour un Catholique ça serait autrement? Georges Lemaître et Pierre Theilhard de Chardin sont alors des lumières de l'orthodoxie traditionnelle? Ils nous donnent la fine fleur de la Tradition quand aux premiers chapîtres de la Genèse? Ou ils philosophisent sur les données de leurs sciences humaines (et peut-être erronnées) et comment reconcilier la révélation - non pas en chaque détail selon le critère de Trente, et quand à certains chapîtres même pas grosso modo - avec leur philosophies?

Ainsi les fondamentalistes ne combattent pas seulement les excès ou les déviations qui peuvent affecter telle ou telle opinion tenue par certains spécialistes des sciences bibliques ; ce sont les sciences bibliques comme telles qu'ils recusent ou qu'ils contestent. En particulier, comme leurs positions se sont cristallisées et momifiées avant les études récentes sur "les genres litéraires" ...

Mais les positions catholiques aussi, si ce sont celles du Concile de Trente!

... ils interprêtent uniformement les textes bibliques comme s'ils étaient en permanence des définitions dogmatiques, des énoncés juridiques ou des affirmations péremptoires.

Sûr que l'abbé Carmignac n'avait pas besoin d'un exorciste? Selon le Concile de Trente aussi les textes bibliques, notemment comme interprétés par une tradition qui "s'est fossilisée ou momifiée" avant Trente et à plus forte raison avant les récentes études sur "les genres litéraires" étaient à prendre comme des définitions doctrinales et juridiques.

Qu'on aille chez Balsamon qui interprêtait un texte de St Basile comme obligation pour les soldats de s'abstenir de la Communion pendant toute la guerre et ensuite encore trois ans, ou qu'on aille chez la tradition canonique romaine qui dit qu'un soldat peut communier tant qu'il n'a pas tué, et encore après avoir tué en battaille juste, il resera autorisé à communier dès qu'il s'est confessé, les deux positions se basent sur le texte du livre des Nombres où les gens qui avaient tué des ennemis d'Israël étaient obligés à rester en dehors du camps pour sept jours pour se purifier après les tuéries. Les deux droits canon, chez Catholiques comme chez Orthodoxes, prennent donc ce texte comme un énoncé juridique. Et quid des "affirmations péremptoires"? Certes, un texte mal compris de la Bible, comme ça arrive chez les Protestants (modernistes comme fondamentalistes confondus) n'est pas et ne peut pas être péremptoire contre un texte bien compris, comme l'a l'Église Catholique. Mais ce même texte que les Protestants comprennent mal en argumentant contre l'Église et ses us, a quand même en sens qui peut être correctement compris. Et ce sens est péremptoire contre une quelleconque hérésie opposée à ce texte.

C'est d'ailleurs rare chez les Protestants (plus commun parmi les Calvinistes et les Catholiques que parmi les Pentécôtistes ou Méthodistes) de prendre les textes des Psaumes comme péremptoires contre l'aberration philosophique de l'héliocentrisme. Sur creation.com (ou CMI International), Lita Cosner et Jonathan Sarfati (les deux me semblent être Juifs Messianiques, au moins le deuxième) poussent la théorie du genre litéraire jusqu'à dire que les dires des Psaumes sont poëtiques et "donc" non à prendre à la lettre.

Selon Lita Cosner (qui écrit pour CMI), la phrase "sub umbra alarum tuarum" ne signifie pas que Dieu ait du plumage. Dans ma réponse* je valorise pour la vérité litérale de cette phrase, que Dieu a extendu ses bras en forme d'ailes sur la croix. Les fausses dieux cruciformes, ce sont "ailes d'oiseaux" qui forment l'horizontale de la croix. Chez le vrai Dieu crucifié, ce sont les bras qui formes ces ailes. Et Il les a extendus audessus les os d'Adam, qui se trouvait donc "sub umbra alarum" suarum. La liturgie orientale valorise ce verset dans ce sens pour Samedi saint (ou quelle que soit l'occasion de méditer sur la descente aux Enfers). Donc, genre poëtique ne signifie pas absence de véracité très litérale.

Mais quand à la Genèse, Lita Cosner donne précisément dans l'école des genres litéraires une analyse qui l'identifie comme texte historique et non comme texte poëtique.*

Les Adventistes et les Témoins de Jéhovah sont deux catégories de fondamentalistes qui attachent une importance spéciale aux prédictions de l'Apocalypse, mais sans tenir compte de leur valeur symbolique ...

Il y a des textes dont la valeur symbolise autre chose qu'une prédiction sur la dernière tribulation, certes. S'il y a des âmes sous l'autel de l'Agneu aux Ciel, c'est parce qu'il y a des réliques corporels sous les autels de l'Épouse de l'Agneau sur terre. Un point le plus souvent loupé par les interprêtes de l'Apocalypse de ce genre.

Par contre, que les prédictions elles-mêmes sur les dernières tribulations seraient tellement symboliques que n'en reste qu'une typologie, ce n'est pas ça la doctrine de l'Église Catholique.

Si on croit que l'Antéchrist regnera 3 ans et demi en persécutant les Chrétiens fidèles et qu'il est "le huitième" et "un parmi les sept", on ne risque pas d'identifier, comme le faisait Luther, la Papauté entre Saint Grégoire I et Léon X (avec successeurs qui également condamnaient Luther) avec l'Antéchrist. J'avais comme enfant, pas encore pubère, affaire avec des fondamentalistes comme ça, et je répondais, en bon inerrantiste à propos l'Apocalypse, que entre 500 et 1500 c'est mil ans** et non pas 3 ans et 6 mois. Donc, la Papauté ne pouvait pas être l'Antéchrist.

Qu'un faux pape le puisse être, ça c'est un autre propos. Cette accusation - celle des Protestants contre la Papauté - commença par Wycliffe quand les Papes d'Avignon et de Rome se déclaraient mutuellement "Antéchrist" (peut-être dans le sens qu'il y a plusieurs Antéchrists, comme quand l'Église Orthodoxe Russe déclarait Tolstoï "hérétique et antéchrist" il y a un siècle) et qu'il disait "les deux ont raison, l'un sur l'autre". Donc il y a eu des Papes qui ont dit que l'usurpation de la Papauté peut être une signe de l'Antéchrist ou des Antéchrists. Mais que la Papauté comme institution puisse être le fait de l'Antéchrist plutôt que de l'Église du Christ, ce n'est pas possible avec une lecture inerrantiste de l'Apocalypse comme prédiction.

En plus, si l'on croit que l'Antéchrist est un type plutôt que tel ou tel individu peut-être déjà venu sur terre, si l'on lit les 3 ans et demi de manière symbolique uniquement, exclusivement, on vient en conflit avec toute une litérature de l'Église. Les prophéties de Sainte Brigitte de Vadstena en Suède ou les ouvrages portant le tître Historia Antichristi ou la prière accordé à St Patrick qu'Irlande sera avalé par l'Océan sept ans avant le Jour de Jugement, pour éviter que les Irlandais vivant encore là soient exposés aux horreurs des Dernières Tribulations.

Maintenant à l'erreur clef de M. l'abbé Carmignac (que Dieu pardonne à son âme!):

Tous les fondamentalistes, puisqu'ils sont fidèles aux anciennes positions protestantes, sont de vigoureux adversaires du catholicisme, qu'ils rejettent aussi catégoriquement que le mondernisme.

Ceci était peut-être encore vrai pour le cercle autour de la campagne avec les brochures sur The Fundamentals. Il y a cent ans. Je ne le trouve aucunement vérifié chez les fondamentalismes de nos jours. Ceux qui combattent surtout l'athéisme - ceux qui "nous" disent que la Bible est fiable, que la création a eu lieu il y a quelques milliers et non pas quelques millions d'années, ceux qui défendent la Résurrection se trouvent obligés à être moins sévères avec le Catholicisme.

Sur CMI International on cite volontiers la Prima Pars de la Somme Théologique. Sur Tectoniks, on défend Pape Jules II et Pape Léon X de certaines des calomnies proférés par tel ou tel personnage amer, deuxième génération des réformateurs d'Angleterre.

Quand à Chick Tracts (et semblables, je me refuse de donner un lien à eux), qui effectivement attaquent amèrement l'Église Catholique, notemment en accusant Pie XII de complicité avec les génocides des Nazis, des Ustashi, et des Italiens en Éthiopie, ils se fient volontairement sur des sources anticatholiques qui ne sont pas fondamentalistes. Avro Manhattan - un homme né d'une famille juive néoyarkaise en Suisse - se trouve attribué des vertus les plus magnifiques, malgré l'aveu qu'il ne prenait pas la Genèse à la Lettre. Un franc-maçon anticatholique des États-Unis se trouve également cité, sans trop le disqualifier du fait qu'il n'est pas fondamentaliste. Maria Monk (que Chesterton avait dénoncé comme un escroc, compris comme tel même avant qu'il avait lui-même la moindre intention encore de devenir catholique) leur est familier et ils en donnent le texte. Entre eux et CMI il y a un monde de différence.

Rob Skiba aussi avec L. A. Marzulli, comme CMI ou Tektonics, ont d'autres chats à fouetter que l'Église Catholique. Et ce n'est pas sur Chick Tracts qu'on les trouve.

Après, on se demande lequel de ces deux groupes aura mieux le droit d'être considéré comme fondamentaliste - les anticathos, les plus farouchement antiécuméniques parmi les Protestants - ou les Apologètes pour Genèse et pour la Bible en général. Je ne suis pas sûr que Jean Carmignac nous aide vraiment. Regardons d'abord sa source:

Et pourtant l'étude du fondamentalisme est maintenant très facile : un de ses adversaires, le professeur James Barr, qui enseigne à Oxford et jouit d'une réputation internationale, a publié un livre de 379 pages, en typographie bien tassée, intitulé Fundamentalism (S.C.N. Press, Londres, 1977). Grâce à lui on peut maintenant répondre à la question : quest-ce que le fondamentalisme?

Énumérons ce qui me dérange:
  • un de leurs adversaires nous donne la bonne définition d'eux - la même méthodologie comme si on prenait Chick Tracts pour savoir quoi qu'on doive entendre par un "Catholique";
  • son œuvre est publié en 1977 - décade bien connu pour objectivité et honnêteté, non?
  • il enseigne à Oxford, mais l'ouvrage n'est pas publié à Oxford University Press mais à une édition à Londres - peut-être OUP n'a pas tellement apprécié la qualité académique?
  • sinembargo notre abbé croit maintenant pouvoir répondre à la question "quest-ce que le fondamentalisme?" - car James Barr est spécialiste et "à chaque spécialiste il faut faire confiance quand il parle dans le domaine de sa propre spécialité". Dicton thomiste très juste en soi (dès qu'on sait bien quelles peuvent être et quelles ne peuvent pas être les savoir spécialisés humainement accessibles et accessibles de manière objective non-controversielle), mais peut-être un peu abusé entre-temps qu'on a fait confiance à James Barr et à Georges Lemaître, non?

Je viens de vérifier (par une récherche google) que S. C. N. press Londres se spécialisent sur les "sciences bibliques" et qu'ils pourraient donc avoir eu un interêt de défendre leurs exégètes des critiques pertinentes des fondamentalistes.

Je viens aussi de vérifier que le modèle selon lequel les gens vivants de manière rustre, sans agriculture, dont on trouve les traces dans les fouilles dites paléolithiques déscendent d'autres hommes ayant connu l'agriculture, soutenu par CMI, a également été soutenu par le prologue des Commentarii Conimbricenses de la logique d'Aristote. Écrit non par des Protestants mais par des Jésuites. Juste un parmi les nombreuses parallèles entre les Cathos d'antan et les Fondamentalistes de nos jours. Contre les Démokritiens d'antan et les Évolutionnistes de nos jours.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou
St Vladimir de Kiev
et St Felix de Pavia

*Oxford Hebrew scholar, Professor James Barr, on the meaning of Genesis cité dans Is Genesis poetry? and Who was the father of hermeneutics? par Lita Cosner. Pour savoir sur notre débat, voici les liens rélévants:

Who is being divisive about creation?
A review of Seven Days that Divide the World by John Lennox
reviewed by Lita Cosner

Mes réponses:

Creation vs. Evolution : Answering Lita Cosner of Creation dot com on Galileo

item : Continued from Last vs. CMI on Galileo Case

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Wings of God?

**Comme le millénaire que "regnera" le Christ - j'avais une lecture futuriste du chapître 20 et je ne tenais pas encore compte de la "première résurrection" comme celle de l'âme (par baptême et par confession).

Saturday, July 13, 2013

Tower of Babel and later

First a few faults in Rob Skiba's research.

This page, Man of Many Names:


"No. Nimrod was building what we might call a "Stargate" today. The Tower of Babel was literally a portal through which Nimrod intended to reach into Heaven."

A stargate would so to speak only function in a multiverse. We have no indication from 72 books of Catholic Bible or from Christian tradition that God created such a thing. We know he is omnipotent and could have if he had wanted to. I speculated if God had created, in a sense similar to the fictional "world of Narnia" a "world of Patmos" in which certain realities in our world took the shapes seen by St John.

Look at Mathematician and Physician Ulam, project Orion - even more feasible if the universe is small, right? See video if you do not know what I am talking about:


Except, God would not let it happen. If you look at Göbekli Tepe, that might have been a space launch, or rather: intended to be one. I e, that rather than a ziggurat may have been the Tower of Babel.

Now, if a space ship gets outside solar system and into stellatum or past stellatum, into the region where the Seraphs and the Blessed Virgin Mary adore Jesus Christ, God and the good angels are not letting it do damage.

However, to have launched such a thing with the much smaller population back then, would have meant drafting just about everybody into the project.

That way, had it succeeded, any ruler doing that would have been "omnipotent" on earth. In human society. Hence:

"and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

December 25

"This would seem to go along with the NUMEROUS dying and resurrecting sun gods born on December 25th that are found in the ancient world. And suffice it to say, it is not by chance, coincidence or accident that the Son of God was crucified on the symbol of the sun god!

With that in mind, I feel it is important to note that in Nimrod's incarnation as Osiris, you can truly see a mirror (reversed) image of Jesus. Where Jesus is the Son of God, the Christ, the Messiah, Osiris is the exact antithesis. He is the sun god, the false messiah, the ANTI-Christ! This is one of the primary reasons why I believe Christians should have absolutely nothing to do with associating Jesus Christ and the date, December 25th. It was NOT Jesus' birthday.[2] It was the birthday of Nimrod/Osiris/Baal/Mithra."

Satan knew when Christ was born. The temptation "bow down to me" might have been offered as a birthday present (which if accepted would have been an extra act of idolatry, since celebrating birthdays was considered breaking the law forbidding horoscopes). Christ refused it and got another one, an angel ministering to Him, probably one and same who also came to minister to Him in Gethsemane.

Now, Satan could have done this if Christ and Nimrod were born the same day. You see, Jacob and Esau were also born one and the same day.

A few days later He is chosing disciples (he is now older than exactly on the day 30 years) and a bit later than that he is going to Canah with His Mother and recently chosen disciples. Now, if the original meaning of Epiphany was feast of Canah, it makes sense having it on January 6 if Jesus Christ was born on December 25 or something like that.

This said, I see no evidence for the "Christmas basher 'Christian'" allegation as well as "Christianity bashing Jesus-was-a-myth" allegation (check out Acharya Sanning) that December 25 was birthday of so many deities.

Egyptian calendar was not exactly the same as Julius Caesar's though the latter based his on it. Egyptian calendar = every year 365 days. Julian = 3 out of 4 years 365, the fourth 366. Gregorian = as Julian except for centurial years were only those divisible with 400 (anno Domini) are leap years.

This means that a certain Egyptian date might correspond to Julian December 25 under those years, four years later to Julian December 24, four years later to Julian December 23 ...

So much about Oswiris' possible feast in Egypt, of which I do not happen to know the date. If it was December 25 when Julius Caesar made the calendar, it may well have receded to December 17 (=Roman Saturnalia) or rather something even earlier when Christ was born.

And Saturnalia are Satanic, they coincided with nearly last days of Christmas fast (=Advent) under which Christians preparing to celebrate Christmas would have been obliged not to either revel or feast on food or wine. There was a Christian slave who was martyred during Saturnalia for refusing to participate in them. His role would, for a Pagan, have been a pleasant one, since he was elected basically "carnival king". As I recall it, he was going to be sacrificed after the party, so he was dying either way and could do what he fealt like. He did not feel like partying during Saturnalia, i e under the space of December 17-21 (or, longer version, 17-23). He died as a martyr. I think it was in Dacia, in present day Roumania or close by.

Other deities would of course have been celebrated in other calendars, neither Roman nor Egyptian. With even more complex interaction with Julian calendar and even less of a chance to identify with a Julian calendar date.

I will not scrap the research done to prove another date for the birth of Christ, here is this:


I am no astronomer. Supposing this is right, the Rosh Hashanah in question may well have been that of conception of St John the Baptist. And the star the magi followed may well have been a star especially created for the Birth of Christ. That may well have been or according to St Thomas was what they had been looking for for centuries, that being foretold by Balaam (or with other vocalisation Bileam).

Now one more thing: if God sees the Church intends to celebrate the Birth of Christ and unwittiingly they have the date for the birth of Nimrod instead, God will not hold it culpable. But it is hardly probably He would have allowed the Catholic Church or the Roman Martyrology to be wrong on that one in the first place.

Tertia Pars, Question 36, Article 6, Reply to Objection 3. There are two opinions about the apparition of the star seen by the Magi. For Chrysostom (Hom. ii in Matth. [Opus Imperf. in Matth., falsely ascribed to Chrysostom], and Augustine in a sermon on the Epiphany (cxxxi, cxxxii), say that the star was seen by the Magi during the two years that preceded the birth of Christ: and then, having first considered the matter and prepared themselves for the journey, they came from the farthest east to Christ, arriving on the thirteenth day after His birth. Wherefore Herod, immediately after the departure of the Magi, "perceiving that He was deluded by them," commanded the male children to be killed "from two years old and under," being doubtful lest Christ were already born when the star appeared, according as he had heard from the Magi.

But others say that the star first appeared when Christ was born, and that the Magi set off as soon as they saw the star, and accomplished a journey of very great length in thirteen days, owing partly to the Divine assistance, and partly to the fleetness of the dromedaries. And I say this on the supposition that they came from the far east. But others, again, say that they came from a neighboring country, whence also was Balaam, to whose teaching they were heirs; and they are said to have come from the east, because their country was to the east of the country of the Jews. In this case Herod killed the babes, not as soon as the Magi departed, but two years after: and that either because he is said to have gone to Rome in the meanwhile on account of an accusation brought against him, or because he was troubled at some imminent peril, and for the time being desisted from his anxiety to slay the child, or because he may have thought that the Magi, "being deceived by the illusory appearance of the star, and not finding the child, as they had expected to, were ashamed to return to him": as Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii). And the reason why he killed not only those who were two years old, but also the younger children, would be, as Augustine says in a sermon on Innocents, because he feared lest a child whom the stars obey, might make himself appear older or younger.

... Article 7, Sed Contra: On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. ii): "It was not one of those stars which since the beginning of the creation observe the course appointed to them by the Creator; but this star was a stranger to the heavens, and made its appearance at the strange sight of a virgin in childbirth."

[Source, Summa online (from Article six you scroll down to article seven)

Nephelim have no power to raise the dead. Jesus Christ was no such being. He rose from the dead and he had raised dead on more occasions, I think, than Elijah and Elisaeus taken together. However, that seems to have been what the impious Herod feared. More on Holy Innocents from Catholic Encyclopedia:


Catholic Encyclopedia gives as reason why Josephus does not mention the slaughter that they were so few beside Herod's other victims that the killing seemed insignificant. It could be on the contrary that it was so huge and traumatising and incriminating to Jewish complicity that he omitted it for prudence, in order not to make room for antisemitic feelings (seeing he wrote this after a recent outburst of such on Roman Imperial level), or that alerady before his time there was an agreemnt among Jews not to talk about it. On Easter Island, when Thor Heyerdahl came there, magic was done according to old rituals, but nobody talked about it. "Es otra cosa aparte" - something unconnected to the rest of the lives of the participants. Nobody talked about it. And if Herod Antipas founded Freemasonry, as some have claimed, he may have made the memory of the Killing of the Innocents also "an occult and esoteric secret knowledge" that was "otra cosa aparte" and something nobody talked about.

What about Hercules?

Did he raise Alcestis from the dead?

If he did, it was not by physical wrestling with Thanatos, whatever the Greek legend says. We have been shown by Elijah, by Elisaeus, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, by Saint Paul, by Saint Martin of Tours, by Saint Genevieve how saints raise people from the dead. None of these, who genuinely raised dead, took a wrestling match with Thanatos. Or rather, Christ did, but that was on Calvary and on the Third Day He showed His victory. Raising Himself from the Grave.

Hercules will not really have been able to do so, but he may have had occasions to pretend. The whole Alcestis episode may be later miracles, such as of Elijah, wrongly attributed to Hercules, or it may be as little a raising from the dead as when Voodoo doctors use poison to induce sham death and another poison to restore waking capabilities, though not necessarily all of them.

He was by some Ancients identified with Melqart - King of Tyre, Moloch - and that was probably because of when he killed his wife and children. Especially the killing of his children. He may have had very little to do with the Melqart cult otherwise. But if he did once visit Tyre and introduce that cult, he was not just very unfortunate but also very evil. With the relation to Iolaos (as given by Argonautica, admittedly a very late source but it seems consistent with earlier indications) he cannot have been a good man at the time.

Now, Rob Skiba denies the possibility of Hercules having been engendered by a demon actually copulating with a woman after the flood. He says after the very severe punishment of the 200 Watchers, no demon would have dared such a thing. But he admits they may be into what he calls "lab stuff" when it comes to whatever aliens are producing. Now, Saint Thomas Aquinas, as well as Saint Augustine, say that Genesis 6:4 was about the sons of Seth (the people of God) chosing wives among the daughters of Cain, but he also says that angels and demons completely lack sexual apparatus or bodies, so any baby "engendered" by demons would have both parents human, just that the demon had acted like sperm bank and like fertility doctor inbetween. Even, if it comes to Genesis 6:4, the "first offense". Saint Augustine also considered book of Henoch as possibly contaminated with late corruptions. If this theory is wrong, Hercules may well, just as Goliath, have been of the "later giants" stock among the Philistines. And these guys would typically have lived in a society where such a thing popping up would trigger a suspicion of being "children of Zeus", or of other deities. And sometimes demons might have been ready and more than willing "to act the part".

Poseidon is actually Posei-Daon, so if Daon is Dagon we have evidence of Philistine-Achaean connexion (if Athenians were Achaeans), and he was considered the father of Theseus of Athens, and "he" heard and granted "his son's" request to kill "his grandson" Hippolytos. One of the clearest diabolical activities attributed by Greeks themselves to their gods, along those things where Delphic Oracle and its Pythic spirits represented Apollo, or when that "god" sent plague, quasi on his own behalf - not just handed over someone to the plague by judgement, but acted it out himself.

ει θεοι τι δρωσιν αισχρον ουκ εισιν θεοι

The Greeks had a past where demons deluded the strongest and the brightest and trapped the purest and got away with being called gods, but they were getting tired of it. Many learned Christians have considered that philosophy like that of Platon was "Moses speaking in Greek", i e that the merit of that belongs to the Hebrew people while they were still faithful to God.

One more thing, if Hippolytos the Pagan hero (there was later a Christian martyr, who died the same way) was considered grandson of "Lord Dagon" or Poseidaon, Telephos the founder of Pergamon was considered grandson of "Zeus". Something to meditate on next time you either visit or shun the Musäumsinsel in Berlin - since Pergamonmusäum with its Pagan attire has on the view of Skiba which may be quite right a connexion to World War one, possibly to Lenin (but Trotski was launched into Russia by the Northern Kaiser's enemy - or supposed such - Woodrow Wilson a bit later), to World War two and to Communist Dictator Honecker. And if the sons of Hercules did not get Sparta, later Heraclids with the Dorian invasion did, so it has a reference to Sparta - a city where men were encouraged to close and sometimes sodomitic relations at least later on.

Was Gilgamesh the first shrink?

Rob Skiba argues that Gilgamesh is another name for Nimrod.

Bible says Nimrod was "a mighty hunter before the Lord" and a Catholic comment says "not of beasts but of men" and same or other commentator cited in the same comment - that of Haydock - adds "before the Lord who knows things as they are".*

What did this look like to men?

If you have read any summary of the Gilgamesh epic, I ask you to recall Enkidu.

He may have lost his soul as well as having a life with no wife but with a comradeship imposed by Gilgamesh, since the day he was trapped by a harlot Gilgamesh sent him. But to those writing the epic it looked as if thereby Gilgamesh had cured Enkidu of madness.

We find very little about Gilgamesh as having a spouse - unlike Ulysses as described by Homer - but very much about how he did "the right thing" and how he was "responsable" when it comes to Enkidu, up to when Enkidu dies. I think he liked domineering Enkidu. And people engaged in the personal development of others (teachers, gymnastic teachers, shrinks, analysts, and so forth ...) to me at least seem often to do so. Was he Nimrod? I think, alas, yes. "A mighty hunter before the Lord" ...

It seems to me that my own situation is a bit spammed (or was so till a few days ago) by people desiring me to "come to my senses" and take some kind of guidance (from them or from people they trust), and it seems to me I am getting a worse person by this situation, like a lamb outward (the people I meet could be innocent and if not it could be dangerous confronting them) but a wolf inward (my inner desires for some I have been suspecting of such have gone up from slapping and boxing to murder or maiming, should I get what I consider a legitimate occasion and not be afraid to use it). I feel I am, due to the attentions of some, getting as little occasion to live my life as Enkidu under the attentions of Gilgamesh.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou
St Anaclet, Pape et Martyr

Preliminary update on the Gilgamesh and shrink question:

I spoke of the Epic of Gilgamesh as I recalled the summary given in a collection of Mythological stories. I found a quote which contradicts my memory, and have not yet had the time to get through how this affects the question. Nevertheless, Psychiatry is Babylonian whichever is the case, since its Demonology vastly abuses the concept of Demonic possession onto behaviours that are perfectly normal but were seen as "socially unacceptable" by the élite. If not, where did the Pharisees get their abuse of that concept from?/HGL (17/IX/2013)

Update on December 25 Question:

Actually, "winter solstice" was indeed, according to some researchers (Bojana Mojsov) associated to the cult of Osiris, but not as his birthday, rather as birthday of his posthumous son Horus. Since Egyptian year was 365 days exactly without any leap years, I am not sure this means that a date on a certain year started out as winter solstice bt astronomically moved away from it, or whether this means that it remained on winter solstice independently of date in the 365 day calendar. In the French translation by Flammarion, I did not find appropriate footnotes, for certain informations, this like the next: at the time of Shishak I in Abydos an Osirian rite was supposed to be performed on the statue "of his father Nimrod". In the English edition, the preview includes some footnotes but not the pages they are footnotes to.**

Now, assuming that Osiris were indeed the same person as Nimrod (which we need not, the Midrash called Book of Jasher could be mistaken, it is not the word of God as Genesis or Joshua are, and the information I just cited may mean Osiris was son of Nimrod rather than Nimrod himself), that means that winter solstice is not the birthday of Nimrod, but of another person who can have been a much better guy.

Assuming furthermore that Esau killed Nimrod and this was Osiris "killed by Seth", Horus may have saved the life of Esau (in that case identified as "Seth") by pretending he - Esau, "Seth" - changed himself into a hippopotamus and then he - Horus - killed this hippopotamus. And that was the revenge taken for "Osiris". Of course, he could have put up such a charade after learning Esau was already dead too, of course.

Such researchers may of course also have an agenda, like trying to prove Christianity a calque on Osiris worship. Indeed Mojsov calls the killers of Hypatia "fanatics" and deplores the burning of the Serapeion. She does in that context not dare to blame St Cyril of Alexandria for it. As to what she might have tried to prove, she claims that Horus and Isis "became" Christ Child and Madonna, and that Horus and Seth "became" St George and the Dragon. Even if we accept her take on how Egyptians believed and so, this does not make such a conclusion true.

A Pagan myth as much as an Old Hebrew revelation may contain a real prophecy about the real Christ. First of all, not all myths come from devil's, although the relation of Enlil and Enki certainly does, and the Theogony of Hesiod may do so too, unless it is more like harmless spirits playing a joke (fairies may appear on Judgement Day and say "we never knew Hesiod would be that stupid, we thought shepherds were wiser than that, look at Abel for one"). But not only certain real persons have by Kingship and Courage and Goodness and by being saviours in certain contexts been prophecies about Christ, sometimes the demons have prophecied the truth as well.

A Sibyl is a woman possessed by a Sibylline spirit. Those very evil things would for instance plague their mediums into frenzies (like Voodoo mediums today or like the Sibyl of Cumae in Aeneid VI) and abuse the credulity of those consulting mediums to destroy their lives (like the one of Delphi did to Perseus' grandfather or to Acrisius, Iocaste and Oedipous). But sometimes they do speak truth. Judgement day will dissolve the centuries into ashes "teste David cum Sibylla". Both King David, oracle of the true God and a Sibyl, oracle of the Devil, concur there will be a Judgement Day. Again, when Jesus Christ met possessed people, the demons speaking through their mouth could very correctly identify Him as the true Messiah and as Son of the Living God. And of course as a terror to themselves.

Meaning that even if the myth of Horus were entirely demonic rather than part human part fake, still he could be a prophecy. Meaning that there is no reason to debunk Christianity as Horus worship however many parallels you find. In actual fact some parallels are a bit farfetched. Like the December 25 parallel, since even if Horus was born (physically or fictionally) on winter solstice, that did not become December 25 of earliest version of Julian calendar until more than thousand years later./HGL

PS: If Horus was a really bad guy, it is still true that people unaware thereof, worshipping him and really the devil, were nevertheless prepared to worship the true Christ by a very much less evil memory of him. But we do not know whether he was actively promoting the cult of Osiris and of himself as gods or was only caught up in it. At a much later stage Odin was certainly a culprit (I wonder if he was an Egyptian priest or mage), but Thor might have been only caught up in it. If Osiris was really the same man as Nimrod, which we are not sure of since we are not sure Sephar ha-Yasher is the real book of Jasher mentioned in Holy Writ, and if (according to same source) he was killed by Esau, then Abraham's Pharao would have been an underling of Nimrod, but Joseph's Pharao a successor of Osiris ... maybe the immediate successor Horus. I am not at all sure what Book of Jasher says thereof, since I only know what Rob Skiba cites from it, I do not have it myself./HGL

Update on identity of Serapis (Osiris), from City of God:

St Augustine disagrees with the so called Book of Jasher - supposing Ninus and Nimrod to be the same:

At Abraham's birth, then, the second kings of Assyria and Sicyon respectively were Ninus and Europs, the first having been Belus and Ægialeus. But when God promised Abraham, on his departure from Babylonia, that he should become a great nation, and that in his seed all nations of the earth should be blessed, the Assyrians had their seventh king, the Sicyons their fifth; for the son of Ninus reigned among them after his mother Semiramis, who is said to have been put to death by him for attempting to defile him by incestuously lying with him. Some think that she founded Babylon, and indeed she may have founded it anew. But we have told, in the sixteenth book, when or by whom it was founded. Now the son of Ninus and Semiramis, who succeeded his mother in the kingdom, is also called Ninus by some, but by others Ninias, a patronymic word. Telexion then held the kingdom of the Sicyons. In his reign times were quiet and joyful to such a degree, that after his death they worshipped him as a god by offering sacrifices and by celebrating games, which are said to have been first instituted on this occasion.

City of God, Book 18, chapter 2.

If this is true, Nimrod was already dead long before Esau. Supposing he was Ninus.

Confer all of chapter 5:

Of Apis King of Argos, Whom the Egyptians Called Serapis, and Worshipped with Divine Honors.

In these times Apis king of Argos crossed over into Egypt in ships, and, on dying there, was made Serapis, the chief god of all the Egyptians. Now Varro gives this very ready reason why, after his death, he was called, not Apis, but Serapis. The ark in which he was placed when dead, which every one now calls a sarcophagus, was then called in Greek σορὸς, and they began to worship him when buried in it before his temple was built; and from Soros and Apis he was called first [Sorosapis, or] Sorapis, and then Serapis, by changing a letter, as easily happens. It was decreed regarding him also, that whoever should say he had been a man should be capitally punished. And since in every temple where Isis and Serapis were worshipped there was also an image which, with finger pressed on the lips, seemed to warn men to keep silence, Varro thinks this signifies that it should be kept secret that they had been human. But that bull which, with wonderful folly, deluded Egypt nourished with abundant delicacies in honor of him, was not called Serapis, but Apis, because they worshipped him alive without a sarcophagus. On the death of that bull, when they sought and found a calf of the same color—that is, similarly marked with certain white spots—they believed it was something miraculous, and divinely provided for them. Yet it was no great thing for the demons, in order to deceive them, to show to a cow when she was conceiving and pregnant the image of such a bull, which she alone could see, and by it attract the breeding passion of the mother, so that it might appear in a bodily shape in her young, just as Jacob so managed with the spotted rods that the sheep and goats were born spotted. For what men can do with real colors and substances, the demons can very easily do by showing unreal forms to breeding animals.

This chronology hardly leaves room for Esau having killed Nimrod./HGL

Second thoughts on previous one:

However, as I was just thinking, what if Argos in Greece is a kind of stand-in (like Rome for both Troy and Babylon) for another ... Eridu. Which is where Nimrod built the tower. If I am wrong about my hunch of Göbekli Tepe being the site. Even if I am right, Eridu seems associated with his evil cult, notably of Enki.

Eridu > Argo-s (Final -s is a grammatic ending, like in Ioanne-s, from Iohannan in Hebrew lent as Ioanne-n - n taken as grammatical ending alternative to -s, depending on parsing of sentence) ... no way on basis of regular sound laws any language I know of, d > g is not credible without a set purpose.

However, study the acoustic traits - using terminology of Roman Jakobsen - in those changes.

The I, which is high and diffuse, disappears. Its opposite direction, low, compact, prevails in every change:

  • E > A, high to low, already compact.
  • D > G, high to low, diffuse to compact.
  • U > O, already low, diffuse to compact.

Those traits, and the letters I assign them to, I did not make them up. They are from Roman Jakobsen's system of phonetics. Later replaced by Noam Chomsky's, which is articulatory and thus does not take into account acoustic similarities of different articulations. Front (except lips) being acoustically high and back (plus lips) acoustically low is valid for both vowels and consonants. But for compact and diffuse, the vowels are tongue further up if diffuse, tongue further down if compact. Whereas in consonants, the two front ones (lips and teeth) are diffuse, the two back ones (palatals and velars, like Spanish che and que) are compact. Which means that if you really feel d is both thinner and shriller than g - g as in goth - and I for one do, then the newer terminology of Chomsky is hiding an acoustic similarity apparent from Jakobsen's terminology. Now, look again at the changes between Eridu and Argo:

  • The I, which is high and diffuse, disappears.
  • E > A, high to low, already compact.
  • D > G, high to low, diffuse to compact.
  • U > O, already low, diffuse to compact.

Every other trait, except disappearance of other traits of I as well as those noted, exactly the same. There is no language in which a coincidence of changes like E > A with U > O and so on, occurring independently and working on different occasions within the language (what is called sound laws) would give exactly this relation between Eridu and Argo as older and newer stages of same name. And even if there were, it is suspicious all changes went the same way.

Now the other discrepancy between St Augustine giving Apis of Argos as historic man Osiris, posthumously worshipped as a god, and Giza Discovery giving Nimrod is not as important. It would only mean that an earlier king of "Argos" (i e Eridu) was mistaken for a later one. And that in its turn is what one may expect from Pagan Greek records. Deucalion and Pyrrha come in Greek chronology so much later (a few generations before Troyan War) that it has been surmised it was another flood in Thessaly confounded with that of Noah (this is what Bossuet taught), and if so there are four Biblical and and one extrabiblical figure involved in legend of "Deucalion". Adam's "mother" can be considered the earth, since he had no real mother. Noah survived flood in an arch. Abraham was warned by three angels of Sodom's destruction and when Lot had survived it his daughters thought there was some need to repopulate the earth. All this and possibly even a fifth Thessalian man in a lesser flood is there in Deucalion. But the Thessalian is not necessary if you consider it possible, as I do, that Greeks very much reduced pre-Troyan chronology. At same time as they suppressed memory of Hittite Empire under which Priam and Agamemnon were only satraps, basically.

Is there, then, any connexion between Babylon and Argos?

Actually archaeologists have studied far later influences of Assyrian culture on Greece - there were some - but what has been studied about the Achæan Empire, which was a satrapy (to use the Persian word) of the Hittite Empire, and which waged war against Troy or Phrygia which was also such a satrapy, though all that larger political connexion has been lost in the later legends of the war as Homer wrote them, suggests there might be an older one.

St Augustine can therefore hardly be used to exclude the possibility that Osiris = Nimrod./HGL


*Challoner, cited by Haydock

Quoting the wording:

Ver. 9. A stout hunter. Not of beasts, but of men; whom by violence and tyranny he brought under his dominion. And such he was, not only in the opinion of men, but before the Lord; that is, in his sight who cannot be deceived. (Challoner) --- The Septuagint call him a giant; that is, a violent man. According to Josephus, he stirred up men to rebel against the Lord, maintaining that all their happiness must come from themselves, &c., Antiquities i. 4. Thus he broached the first heresy after the deluge. (Worthington) --- He seems to have been the same as Bel, father of Ninus, and the author of idolatry. (Menochius)

**Bojana Mojsov, Osiris: Death and Afterlife of a God (Amazon)

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Rapprochons encore une fois Evelyn Waugh et Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Il y a des lecteurs de PRÉSENT parmi les miens, j’espère, et ils savent que samedi il y avait un article sur Louis Veuillot. Dedans celui-ci est comparé avec deux autres convertis, les anglais Chesterton et Waugh, différant du mode de conversion par le fait de ne pas avoir rejoint une secte à abjurer (comme les anglais ont dû abjurer l’anglicanisme), et en termes d’œuvre ressemblant plutôt à GKC qu’à EW. Comment ça? D’abord : GKC et Veuillot étaient avant tout des journalistes et leurs romans avaient un message à l’époque, tandis que Waugh était romancier et artiste avant tout, ses romans durent encore … ils sont « a joy forever » pour parler avec Keats (Ode to a Grecian Urn).

Bon, là ils me lâchent. Je ne suis pas d’accord avec cette manière de comparer Chesterton et Waugh.

Sebastian Flyte est immortel – avec son nounours Aloysius* avec ses hospitalités en fraises et champagne, ses leçons d’un gentil cynisme données au raconteur de Brideshead Revisited, sa conviction d’avoir une vocation qu’il ne souhaite pas tandis que son frère le séminariste manque la vocation. Il est surtout immortel dans les traits de cet acteur qui ressemble un peu à Macauley Culkin mais en adulte, qu’on voit dans la série télévisée. Relire Evelyn Waugh ne me manque pas tellement, car après avoir lu Le Cher disparu pendant le service militaire, je suis devenu un peu allergique aux cynismes de son auteur.

Si après avoir revisité Brideshead et surtout Oxford dans la compagnie de Sebastian Flyte je veux davantage de ça, je ne vais pas vers Evelyn Waugh, mais vers une payenne et lesbienne, une Finlandaise**, une dessinatrice de BD qui fait un style mélangé entre Ligne Claire et Art Nouveau, dans les bandes dessinées destinées aux adultes mais beaucoup lues par les enfants et prises comme litérature enfantine, que sont les Moumine. Elle s’appelait dans la vie mortelle Tove Jansson.

Je voudrais peut-être davantage de cette tristesse discrète avec laquelle le raconteur devenu militaire pendant la II GM revoit Brideshead ? Bon, Tove Jansson a aussi décrit les Moumine dans des romans, dont Sent i november, un roman avec la tristesse de l'absence. Et toujours sans le cynisme assez brutal du roman Le Cher disparu par Waugh.

Est-ce un gain pour le catholicisme que Waugh a essayé le roman ? Je ne crois pas. Je crois que le message véhiculé par Tove Jansson est plus catholique que celui par Evelyn Waugh (à part la beauté de la liturgie latine, chose qui me dépassait quand je voyais la série, et la grandeur parfois tragique des questions de vocation).

Mais à l’autre auteur catholique converti … on vient de faire un tort à Gilbert Keith Chesterton en disant qu’il était plus journaliste et donc moins artiste et romancier. D’abord, comme Tove Jansson, il était dessinateur avant d’être écrivain. Mais ensuite il a écrit davantage de choses qui me semblent mémorables. Même du simple point du romancier.

Father Brown a plus de substance artistique que Le Cher disparu. Car aux cynismes de ses criminels s’ajoute la charité chrétienne et la compréhension du curé jésuite. Il arrive même parfois à sauver des gens du suicide et du meurtre. Surtout du suicide.

Et quand à l’artistique, il y a tous les « skyscapes » (paysages de ciel) qui donnent atmosphère à tant de récits. Comme le jour ensoleillé et la neige qui craque sous les pieds pendant la promenade de Père Brown et de son ami Flambeau dans The Sign of the Broken Sword.

Mais ce n’est pas juste qu’il est un plus grand écrivain qu’Evelyn Waugh, comparable à Tove Jansson mais en catholique quand, une fois converti, il écrit les histoires de Father Brown (cinq collections). Il l’est déjà avant sa conversion catholique, en écrivant des romans comme The Man Who was Thursday, ou The Flying Inn. Ou le permier que j'ai lu, celui-là en traduction allemande: The Return of Don Quixote. Il l’est encore déjà dans sa première période comme raconteur, avant de même être décidé pour la foi chrétienne, quand il écrit The True Story of Jack the Giant Killer.

Celle, vous savez, dans laquelle Jack pointe son épée vers la plante du pied du géant pour qu’il perce son pied lui-même sur l’épée, ensuite le géant donne un immense coup de pied à Jack qui vole par l’air assommé et survit presque par miracle. Et quand il se réveille (avec une sale douleur de tête), il voit le géant encore en train de sautiller sur un seul pied, et enfin tomber par manque d’équilibre dans l’océan, où il se noie car incapable de rester debout, très tard au soir devant les yeux du pauvre Jack. Mais sans l’épée de celui-ci, le géant aurait gardé son équilibre et continué à terroriser les gens.

Encore dans la série d’historiettes appelée The Club of Queer Trades il est un bon écrivain et un esprit catholique, même avant sa conversion catholique. Le premier de ces métiers étranges est l’invention avant le mot du Live Role Playing. Ou d’une forme avancée de ceci qui n’a pas encore été essayée.

Il ne manque pas davantage en artisterie ni en esprit catholique en répondant à Herbert George Wells qui venait d’écrire The Outline of History, avec sa propre version de la silhouette de l’histoire humaine, The Everlasting Man. L’argument apologétique est assez semblable à celui du Discours sur l'Histoire universelle par Bossuet. Il a pu le connaître, car il était francophile (et lecteur du français) et il avait été catholique déjà trois ans quand il le publiait.

L’article de samedi passé oppose Evelyn Waugh et Gilbert Keith Chesterton en encore un aspect : Chesterton, comme Veuillot, a été journaliste (l’article laisse faussement sous-entendre « à dépense de son artistique ») et donc il a voulu se rendre utile.

Ceci est indubitable. C’est également indubitable qu’en voulant se rendre utile, Gilbert Keith Chesterton n’a pas demandé l’avis de Philippe Ploncard d’Assac ou des Templiers à Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet pour savoir comment. Il a voulu se rendre utile en écrivant la vérité telle qu’il le connaissait. Pas du tout en demandant l’avis d’une éminence grise quelle vérité ou demi-vérité serait le plus opportun. Cette démarche là il aurait considéré non comme le fait de se rendre utile au grand public, mais comme une trahison envers ses lecteurs.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sept Frères Martyrs à Rome
fils de Sainte Félicité

*Luigi Gonzaga ne latinisait pas son nom en Ludovicus (peut-être parce que les chiffres romains donnent 666 ou 664, selon ce que le dernier i est ajouté au v avant ou détracté au c après), il le grécisait en Aloysius. Pour un catholique anglophone, Aloysius est donc le nom de « Saint Aloysius Gonzaga » (St Louis de Gonzague) – ainsi pour Sebastian Flyte aussi – et pour les autres anglophones, Aloysius est, si ça dit quelque chose, surtout le nounours de Sebastian Flyte.

**Finlandaise et peut-être pas Finnoise. Le nom de famille comme le prénom sont suédois, elle a donc pu appartenir à la minorité suéco-finlandaise. Sent i november = tard en novembre.

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Two Philological Questions connected to fallen angels (OK, a few more as I went on)

How is Satan "King of Tyrus"?

Luther and Rob Skiba would say he is not, but a very bad human king was. According to Rob Skiba it is one of the Seven Kings, one of whom returns as the eighth, the end-time Antichrist (Rob Skiba's list has them spaced out since his number 1 was Nimrod and his number 7 was Hitler, I have seen other lists where they immediately succeed each other). Now, a bad king and a king bad enough to fit into the Antichrist List of Kings are obviouly two different things. The latter comes very close to Satan. But the Patristic reading where the King of Tyre is "a fallen lucifer" or "a fallen morning star" in the sense of being a fallen angel or even THE fallen angel is not out of question. Not at all.

I went to a site discussing the probably upcoming advent of Antichrist, and up for discussion was also a novel series by C. S. Lewis. In it Satan or The Bent One is Oyarsa of Earth - not fallen out of orbit into the Sun, but fallen out of decent communication with other Oyerasu. This is of course according to the theory, in my opinion slightly heretical, that Earth orbist the Sun in the Third Heaven above or around it. I. e. according to heliocentrism.

In Geocentrism, Satan on Earth is not an Oyarsa. However, he may very well be former and deposed Oyarsa of Venus, a k a Phosphoros and Hesperos or Lucifer and Vesperus or Morning Star and Evening Star. Now of course Venus would have another Oyarsa.

What is an Oyarsa anyway? Well, in C. S. Lewis' novels (of the Space Trilogy) planets circle the Sun anyway (as modern Newtonian Heliocentrism would have it), the inhabited planets Mars, Earth and Venus have Oyerasu overseeing all their living and even rational bodies, themselves being spirits and directing the Eldila - angels - on those planets. In other words, Satan was once chief angel on Earth, and demons - bent eldila - are those who were loyal to him rather than to the ultimate loyalty, God. The Oyerasu of Jupiter and Saturn and Mercury have other, unknown functions.

And in the older medieval text, Ousiarches of a heavenly body - Ousiarches seems to have been misspelt as Oyarses in one manuscript - is simply the spirit, we Christians would say the angel, that turns or moves a heavenly body in whatever orbit it has.

In the case that the Biblical text applies to Satan rather than a mortal king, Satan could be former ousiarches of Venus. A Count rebels against his King, is exiled to a smaller hamlet, corrupts and emprisons the inhabitants ... he was of course not count of that hamlet. Although he makes himself its tyrant.

Now, is there any case for the text referring to Satan rather than to a very ancient antichrist? Well, a human being would hardly ever have been ousiarches of Venus. And in very many Christian and even Pre-Christian centuries that would have been a very natural reading of the verse.

But what about "king of Tyrus"? Well, some Pagan deities are so much more clearly Satanic than others. With Hercules and Aesculapius you may find it possible there were Greek Pagans who were after death deified. With Caesar and Augustus there is no doubt even. I like to add Odin, Frey* and Thor, possibly other Aesir, as well as Krishna to the Euhemeristic List of Pagan deities. There is also a Mistaken Theology and Philosophy List, such as Zeus as a caricature of the Most High or Helios a bad guess at the character of the ousiarches of the Sun.

But there is also a type of Pagan deities where one can say "that god's name means Satan and nothing else". Apollo (not necessarily Apollo-the-Father-of-Aesculapius, but Apollo of Delphi, Apollo Apollyon, Apollo of the Rats, Apollo of the Flies ... I am not making these up) is one candidate for "Satan showing the horsefoot" as far as Greek religion is concerned. And another one of these is "King-of-the-City" or Melkqart. If a god feeds on human flesh, it is Satan, no doubt about it. And in Tyre the deity known as Melkqart would in the usual semi-biblical context be called Moloch - consonants of Melk, vowels of the pronunciation Bopheth, meaning Excrement. But in Tyre that "gentleman" was known as Melkqart. "King of the City."

Of course that monstrousity can only have become so if some human king made it so. And that human king would of course fit very well into the Antichrist King List of Rob Skiba.

Can people of Nephelim stock be Christians and be saved?

According to Rob Skiba's research, Canaanite giants were there because Nephelim genes were particularly strong in Cham's son Canaan.

According to the legend, St Christopher - whose first name (or the nickname he later gave for his earlier life) was Reprobus, the reprobate, the damned (or heading-for-damnation) - was of uncommon heighth and precisely from Canaan. He started out badly, as could be expected from a Canaanite giant, from one called with some kind of justice Reprobus. He wanted to serve - not bad in itself - but he wanted to serve the mightiest king. Not the most kind to the poor. Not the most just. Not the best scholar nor the wisest. And - fortunately he was no faggot, I think - not the best looking either. But the mightiest.

He found out his king was afraid of Satan, so he decided to serve Satan instead, concluding he was the mightiest. If he had lived back in the days of a king in Tyrus, he might have stayed in that illusion. But someone had raised a cross because of Christ. (I just found out that four letters of God's name mean "hand - praise - nail - praise" - and Christ praised the Father while stretching out His hands to heal and also when stretching them out to have them pierced by nails.) And it so happened that Reprobus - who ceased to be so - saw his lord and master - who also ceased to be so - afraid. Just of a wooden cross or of a cross of stone or metal. "Hey, I thought you were the mightiest! Look on this crucified man, even his dead image scares the shit out of you! It's Him I'll serve, now!" And Satan had no power whatsoever to call Reprobus back.

The giant went to find anyone who could tell him anything about the man on the cross. He found a hermit who baptised him. Possibly his baptismal name was Christopher, since he had carried the cross to the hermit. But he was later to merit the name in another way. You see, although it was a very bright idea to serve Christ instead of Satan, it was hardly one that squeezed for space with lots of other bright ideas in the brain of Christopher.

"I'm afraid giants are very stupid, even those with only one head."

Now, what could he do? Christ was not exactly down on earth giving Christopher orders, as his king had been and as Satan had been. And knowing himself what to do best was not his forte. Hermit kindly suggested that as he was big and strong he could be a ferry man.** And one day the ferry man carried on his shoulder a child. A child whom we celebrate December 25, and the ferry man's martyrdom was one July 25. How did St Christopher know it was the Christ child he had carried?

First of all, the child was heavier than any other man he had carried across that stream. So he wondered and asked. You carried the weight of the sins of the world, said the child. He identified Himself as the lamb of God there. Second, as Christopher was not in a hurry to believe he had received this honour, he asked the giant to plant his dead staff in the ground. It took on branches and leaves and life.

Why I am a traddy trad Catholic.

By the liturgic reform of Paul VI, St Christopher was taken away from the feasts that the Church must celebrate. Same as with St Barbara. I learned this very sad fact from one Barbara who after liturgic reform of Catholic Church (or of what appeared to remain so) went on to become Russian Orthodox.

Did Satan owe anything to St Christopher?

We know that St Christopher owed nothing to Satan after he had discovered Satan's pretence of being the mightiest ws sham. But did Satan owe anything to St Christopher for that?

Well, it seems Satan promised Our Lord kingdoms if Our Lord would adore him. Our Lord refused. Reprobus for a while did not refuse. Reprobus had paid exactly the same price as Nimrod had paid and as Antichrist will have paid, except that he had not continued to do so up to damning himself. Now, Christopher himself was no king. But was he ancestor of kings?

Well, he was a giant. In Anglosaxon the word for giant is eotan. In Swedish it is jette. Both words mean, basically, glutton. Anyone who think Reprobus was chaste while both serving an earthly king and serving satan and on both occasions over eating even considering a giant's need of calories? Not me. And I do not think he was sophisticated or bad enough to "protect himself" against making babies either.

Christian Kingdoms may have come into existance because Kingship was by now owed by Satan to St Christopher and his family. And because as intercessor (under Christ) for his family, he made sure they were eventually Christians. He was himself killed by one King Decius (not necessarily identic to Roman Emperor Decius who persecuted c. anno 250) and as to local kingships under Pagan Roman Empire, we do not know enough to claim this must have been wrong. I am even prepared to say Constantine may well have been grandson and St Helen daughter to King Cole of Colchester.*** So anyway, St Christopher was killed during a still Pagan kingship. But not very long before there were Christian Kings - Ethiopia, Armenia, Rome itself ... Kings all over the place started helping the Apostles' Successors to make disciples of all Nations.

Of course I am not denying that Kingship ultimately belongs to God and to Jesus Christ through both His Divinity and His Humanity as well as His Conquest over Satan. Christian Kingdoms would have been there even without St Christopher and even without his earlier errors. But the exact timing? I do not know.

Can not quite human possible nephelim descendants be Christians?

We do not quite know. If they really do descend from nephelim, they should descend from Adam as well.

Fauns and Centaurs - well, Rob Skiba has made a certain possible argument about their origin - seem to have come in sometimes good behaving individuals. As I spoke of King Decius and of Caesar Decius the persecuting Emperor, that reminds me of St Paul the First Hermit. Who in year 250 fled into the Egyptian desert. When St Anthony wanted to visit him, he met a Centaur who showed the way and a Faun who cried bitter tears after learning about idolatry given by Egyptian or other Pagans to the Fauns.°

Should aliens be regarded as coming from other planets and as having evolved more than we?


Either they are demons outright, or some funny version of the mixed up nephelim theme. But as for "other stars than sun" having around them other planets inhabitable as earth is inhabitable ... to a Geocentric this is science fiction. Or Moon Shine of the worst kind. We have no geometric guarantee for stars being so distant that planets are so big. If we believe stars as well as planets have ousiarchai, we seem to have no physical guarantee that some of the exoplanets exist even.

Gliese 667 C°° may be circled with seven planets (of which Gliese 667 Cb) and be moving funnily because of that, if Heliocentrism and Newton are all right. But if ousiarchai are all right, Gliese 667 C may be moving funnily because that is the way its ousiarches is moving it. So I would not believe aliens claiming to come from there, nor recommend you to do so.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou
Queen St Isabel of Aragon, widow
Died in Estremoz in 1336,
Canonised by Pope Urban VIII
4th of July 2013

Links on Geocentrism:

Geometric possibility, or why trigonometry does not prove light years for a Geocentric:

deretour : Trigonometry, principles, astronomic applications

Physical possibility, or why stars and planets may move except from gravitational and inertial causes:

hanslundahl (livejournal) : Neglected Angelology in the Angelic Doctor


*Yngwe "Frey" with his father Njord and stepfather Oden is pretty undisputed human ancestor of King St Olaf Tryggvason. My hunch about The Black (the charioteer of Arjoona, known to Hindoos as "Lord" Krishna, "Lord the Black") is that he may well have been some man or nephelim living before the Flood in the Wars of Noah of which Ethiopian Book of Henoch (or some other of them or "Book of Jasher the Midrash") tells more than Genesis does. And that Cham's wife was of his line, so that his descendants in India - Flood minimisers, like Egyptian believers in a merely Atlantis targetted flood - remembered him for that reason.

**Odin had appeared as a ferry-man too, although that might have been so late it was not the man but Satan taking his appearance, so it was poetic justice that if a probably real reprobate of probably nephelim tainted stock was ferry-man, so should the former reprobate of very probably nephelim stock be so.

***As Chesterton pointed out, if other sources claim St Helen was daughter of an innkeeper, what we know about Old King Cole is quite compatible with his being innkeeper as well - either on occasion of his kingship in Colchester or on occasion of some loss of fortune and exile from Colchester. Except that back then it was of course not called Colchester, that is a name it got after him - whatever Cole may have been in Latin or in British. As to English, it was not yet an extant language. And "he called for his bowl and he called for his pipe and he called for his fiddlers three" contains a delicious anachronism in the history of musical instruments.

° "I am such a bad faun" - if you can place that scene. It's in C. S. Lewis, but not the Space Trilogy.

°° In the constellation of Scorpio, btw. Just as the star first observed with "yearly aberration of light" was observed in Draco.