There is an order among virtues ...

One of them deals with our emotions towards God, and is thus part of divine Charity, it is called

D-E-V-O-T-I-O-N.

One of them deals with our emotions as concerning oneself, it is called

G-O-O-D S-P-I-R-I-T-S or G-O-O-D C-H-E-E-R

and is part of human charity (or possibly of hope, like when involving hopefulness), as also the emotions concerning neighbour, like

T-R-U-S-T (when not obviously undeserved)
A-F-F-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y (dito)
K-I-N-D-H-E-A-R-T-E-D-N-E-S-S (possible dito here too)

None of them is identical with Charity or with its bases Faith and Hope. But without them it is easy to loose at least charity and hope, if not faith. And when faith was not given with baptism on eighth day after birth, it is not easy to get it without them. We get to faith by rationailty, not passion, but there are "states of the passions" which are part of human rationality* - and such are usually referred to as emotions in modern lingo, along with the passions properly speaking.

If any Catholic is willing to doubt this, I refer to a book, written possibly for an emotional woman, but certainly by a saintly bishop who had suffered emotionally before getting to holiness, meaning St Francis of Sales. The book is double titled:

Philothea,
or, Introduction to the Devout Life

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Georges Pompidou
31 July 2011

*A rationality without trust, like a rationality of deep mistrust, could not get beyond solipsism or Hindoo-Matrix Maya thinking. Lack of trust is not illogic as syllogisms go, but misses true and even certain premisses (as certain as human certainty goes) out of unnecessary mistrust. *bows thankfully to Chesterton and Fr Bryan Houghton at this point - oh, do not trust the part about bowing, I am sitting in a library* I suppose same goes for Charity without affability and trust.

Grunwald and Vienna

Nobody who admires crusaders will deny John III Sobieski was one, when defeating Turks at Vienna - or that Geoffrey of Bouillon was one, when taking Jerusalem. Some people also tend to admire Teutonic Order and Knights Templar. I do not.

Now, who won at Vienna? Vienna and Prague obviously won liberty from Turks. But John III Sobieski also won, more actively so. He represented Krakow, Warszaw, Vilnius, Trakai, Minsk and Kiev. That coalation had once before been victorious: Grunwald.

Now, Jerusalem was taken by Geoffrey and Eustace of Bouillon on 15th of July 1099. Grunwald was a victory on the same date, 311 years later, 15th of July 1410. It stands to reason Grunwald ought to have been a victory for crusaders. It was - against pseudo-crusaders. That is all I can call the Teutonic Order in that context. You see, battling against infidels is not all it takes to be a crusader - they must also have given a just cause to fight them.

The Teutonic Order was not formed to battle Polish and Lithuanian Catholics, it was formed centuries earlier to battle pagan Prussians who ravaged their Christian neighbours. But there was a theory, that once a war was on, it should be continued until Christian society - opportunity of baptism for everyone, armies for no infidel, public cult for no idolater - was duly imposed. Now, Poles - Krakow, Warszaw - were Catholics about as early as the Teutonic Order was founded, Lithuanians - Vilnius, Trakai - were beginning to become Catholics, except for Samogitians who remained Pagan another century or so. And the big Slavonic East of Lithuanian Grand Duchy - Minsk, Kiev - had Byzantine Rite and sometimes Schism from Rome. By 1410 the Crusading excuse was worn down to Lithuanians as such not being all Christians but sometimes still idolaters, though none battled against Christians, and to Lithuanian Subjects being non-Latins. This is at least what I have learned about it. And Samogitians had a very special excuse for not taking Christianity from Teutonic Order: under Grand Duke Gedimynas there were already conversions to Catholicism, his sister was Orthodox and buried some Franciscan martyrs of Vilnius (yes, he was culpable, about as Charles II was also culpable of persecuting Catholics, though at heart a Catholic), he wanted to become a Catholic Christian, he negotiated with Pope John XXII, and it came to nothing because the Teutonic Order - about at same time excommunicated for attacking the archbishop of Riga - bribed the Samogitians to threaten Gedimynas with rebellion, should he convert. He did not, he was a man who was burnt not buried whole in the ground (the Slavonic word for paganism is sovitsa - burning, especially as in cremation) and Lithuania remained Pagan till the next dynasty.

On a 15th of July, the Order maybe counted on same heavenly favour as given Geoffrey of Bouillon. But they started off shooting cannons - and moisture favoured Lithuania as moisture had favoured crusaders when Egyptian troops of Jerusalem poured down Greek fire. Yes, Saracens in 1099 and Teutonics in 1410 relied on pyrotechnics, and both were beaten. Mark the dates, 15th of July both battles.

By 17th C. the Samogitians were duly Christian (they had left their Paganism as freely as the Roman Empire or the Irish, as Paganism was an extremely social religion that became partly pointless when head of state no longer shared it, so conversions of Constantine, Irish Kings, St Vladimir of Kiev and Iagiello of Lithuania made for collective conversions, which then priests of the Christian religion revaluated by making as many of the new Christians individually believing as they could by honest persuasion) and came along with the Christians of Trakai and Vilnius, of Krakow and Warszaw, of Kiev and Minsk, to save Vienna from the Turks. The siege started one 14th of July (!) 1683, with Kara Mustafa in Nussdorf and John Sobieski in Wienerwald. It ended in a victory for Sobieski on 12th of September, thanks to Rosary praying - and to the victors, of course, of Grunwald. Or their great-grand-children some generations removed.

But even orders engaged in regular crusades sometimes betrayed. From Vienna we go to Vienne in Isère: Templars are condemned to dissolution for - forcing new recruits to tread on the cross and other heinous crimes against God. The Bull Vox in excelso compared the Templars to Israelites fallen away to giving their children over "to strange gods". One Templar who admitted the crime explained it was a symbol of St Peter's three times denial of Christ (but we are to imitate his virtues, not his sins, and St Peter would have said so himself!) and another said one grandmaster had been captive under saracens and promised them to impose this on the order (but a promise to do abominations does not oblige, ever, nor does an order to do so, since we must obey God rather than men).

Vienna and Council of Vienne also have a date connexion: Vox in excelso is from 1312, March 22, and alliance of John Sobieski with Austria is from 1683, March 20.

Now, is there any reason to believe that Vienna and Prague (where did Prague come in? - well, I kind of remembered from 8 years ago in Lund University that Bohemians were allied to the Lithuanians and Poles at Grunwald too!), Kiev and Minsk, Krakow and Trakai, Warszaw and Krakow will once again be the true champions of Christian society when and where it really needs defence? I have no reason to put trust in a Freemason dressing up as a Templar after committing an atrocity, as my main hope, anyway. Especially as it was a man who in his declaration took the side of "science" over Bible as real state religion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
III. Circle Mayor's Office in Paris
29th of July 2011