Friday, August 28, 2015

Popes elected while not yet bishops :

from List of papal coronations 1143–1963, an extract to correct the opinion that a non-bishop cannot validly be elected Pope.
 
Pope Date of coronation Note on episcopal consecration
 
Pope Celestine II* October 3, 1143 On September 26 he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Alberic de Beauvais bishop of Ostia.
 
Pope Lucius II March 12, 1144 On the same day he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Alberic de Beauvais, bishop of Ostia.
 
Pope Eugenius III March 14, 1145 On February 18 he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Corrado della Suburra bishop of Sabina and dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals.
 
Pope Alexander III September 20, 1159 On that same day, he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Ubaldo Allucingoli bishop of Ostia e Velletri.
 
Antipope Paschal III July 22, 1167 On April 22, 1164 he was consecrated bishop of Rome at Lucca by Henry II of Leez prince-bishop of Liège (not a cardinal).
 
Pope Gregory VIII October 25, 1187 On that same day he was consecrated bishop of Rome, probably by Cardinal Thibaud bishop of Ostia e Velletri (?).
 
Pope Celestine III April 14, 1191 On that same day he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Ottaviano di Paoli bishop of Ostia e Velletri and sub-dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals.
 
Pope Innocent III February 22, 1198 On that same day, he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Ottaviano di Paoli, bishop of Ostia e Velletri and sub-dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals
 
Pope Honorius III August 31, 1216 On July 24, he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Ugolino Conti di Segni bishop of Ostia e Velletri.
 
Pope Innocent IV June 28, 1243 On that same day, he was consectrated bishop of Rome, probably by Cardinal Rinaldo Conti di Segni bishop of Ostia e Velletri and dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals (?).
 
Pope Gregory X March 23, 1272 On March 19 he was consecrated bishop of Rome by (?) (possibly by Cardinal Odo of Châteauroux bishop of Frascati and dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals).
 
Pope Nicholas III December 26, 1277 On December 19 he was consecrated bishop of Rome by (?) (possibly by Cardinal Bertrand de Saint-Martin bishop of Sabina and dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals).
 
Pope Martin IV March 23, 1281 On that same day he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Latino Malabranca Orsini bishop of Ostia e Velletri.
 
Pope Honorius IV May 19, 1285 On that same day he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Latino Malabranca Orsini, bishop of Ostia e Velletri.
 
Pope Celestine V August 29, 1294 On that same day he was consecrated bishop of Rome probably by Cardinal Hugh Aycelin bishop of Ostia e Velletri. He was crowned again a few days later (the only instance of a double papal coronation).
 
Pope Boniface VIII January 23, 1295 On that same day he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Hugh Aycelin, bishop of Ostia e Velletri.
 
Antipope Nicholas V May 15, 1328 On May 12 he was consecrated bishop of Rome also by Giacomo Alberti, at that time bishop of Castello.
 
Further note on “Nicholas V” : I have usually not copied deaconry row, but here is entry for “Nicholas V”: “pseudocardinal-bishop of Ostia e Velletri” – seems he thought it important to connect with tradition of non-episcopal elect being consecrated by bishops of Ostia.
 
Pope Urban V November 6, 1362 On that same day he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Andouin Aubert bishop of Ostia e Velletri.
 
Pope Gregory XI January 3, 1371 On that same day, he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Guy de Boulogne bishop of Porto e Santa Rufina and dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals.
 
Pope Boniface IX November 9, 1389 On that same day he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Francesco Moricotti Prignano bishop of Palestrina and dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals.
 
Antipope Benedict XIII October 11, 1394 On that same day, he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Jean de Neufchâtel bishop of Ostia e Velletri.
 
Antipope John XXIII May 25, 1410 On that same day, he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Jean Allarmet de Brogny bishop of Ostia e Velletri and sub-dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals.
 
Pope Martin V November 21, 1417 On November 14 he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Jean Allarmet de Brogny, bishop of Ostia e Velletri and dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals.
 
Pope Sixtus IV August 25, 1471 On that same day, he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Guillaume d'Estouteville bishop of Ostia e Velletri and sub-dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals.
 
Pope Pius III October 8, 1503 On October 1 he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere, bishop of Ostia e Velletri and sub-dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals.
 
Pope Leo X March 19, 1513 On March 17 he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Raffaele Riario, bishop of Ostia e Velletri and dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals.
 
Pope Marcellus II April 10, 1555 On that same day he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Gian Pietro Carafa, bishop of Ostia e Velletri and dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals.
 
Pope Clement VIII February 9, 1592 On February 2 he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Alfonso Gesualdo bishop of Ostia e Velletri and dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals.
 
Pope Clement XI December 8, 1700 On November 30 he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal de Bouillon bishop of Porto e Santa Rufina and dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals.
 
Pope Clement XIV June 4, 1769 On May 28 he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Federico Marcello Lante bishop of Porto e Santa Rufina and sub-dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals.
 
Pope Pius VI February 22, 1775 On that same day, he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Giovanni Francesco Albani, bishop of Porto e Santa Rufina and dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals.
 
Pope Gregory XVI February 6, 1831 On that same day he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Bartolomeo Pacca bishop of Ostia e Velletri and dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals.

* Footnote on Pope Celestine II, here is from the wiki of the list:
3 October 1143 Rome Pope Celestine II Gregorio Tarquini SS. Sergio e Bacco On 26 September he was consecrated bishop of Rome by Cardinal Alberic de Beauvais, bishop of Ostia.
here is from the wiki on himself:
Papacy began 26 September 1143 Consecration 3 October 1143 by Alberic of Ostia

I e, his papacy began a week before he was made a bishop. The list was obviously tampered with, he could not have been consecrated bishop of Rome before he was elected. Anyone who is consecrated bishop of Rome is obviously already elected, otherwise it would be illegal to so consecrate him, and this means he was elected first and only afterwards consecrated bishop. Catholics don't reconsecrate bishops when they get elected to a higher place. Theoretically he could have been elected on the morning of 26 September, then consecrated, and only one week later crowned, but why separate the coronation from the consecration? It's improbable.

I think I copied from the list as it was back when I wrote the article. When an article of mine copies a wiki, it does not become a wiki and is not meant to be rearranged when the wiki changes, as it often does./HGL

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Sindarin or Swahili? Which SOUNDS more quenya?

I am not disputing in any way the proposition that grammatically and lexically Sindarin is (both as comparative fact and in Tolkien's legendarium) related to Quenya, while Sindarin is not.

I am taking one level of phonetic similarity, namely phonematic and phonotactic compatibility.

This is testable.

A Quenya word does not have ui in last syllable, nor end it certain groups which are acceptable internally.

If th is absent from later Quenya (Third age Q), it was earlier present, so I have not counted Sindarin th as an incompatibility. Later it becomes s. All internal s in later Quenya are either earlier th or earlier ss, since earlier z becomes r. Initial z was always non-extant, but internal, no, also there in earlier quenya. Like w which later became v (a development parallell to that of Latin). So, if I have not marked any th as incompatible with Quenya in the Sindarin text, except where final, neither have I maked any w as incompatible with Quenya in the Swahili text.

Each marking of incompatibility is an underscore.

We can add making w and z for Swahili and th for Sindarin incompatible with Exile Quenya, but this I mark with italics. I also marked a morpheme non-initial f with bold in Swahili : Quenya has f, but as far as I can recall always morpheme-if-not-word-initial.

In a Sindarin word like loth or a Swahili word like zao, there will be double marking. Underscoring is for all time impossibility in position : loth, zao, Quenya never having had th or z in these positions, italics for disappearance of th and z from Quenya: loth, zao, combined thus: loth, zao. For w, this is not absolute, there is still w in nw and in cw/qu.

By incompatibility, I mean not inability of a Quenya speaker to pronounce the words, but phonetic sentiment of using a word of another language. In 18th C. at court, French oi was still pronounced as even now in Québec. "Boîte" = Sw boett, same pronunciation, and most Swedes don't know it is borrowed from French, unless they recall hearing it in school. But if one pronounces "déjà vu" correctly, in English and in Swedish the phonetic incompatibility is such one immediately knows it is a foreign word.

Tested thus, which of Sindarin and Swahili has most phonetic incompatibilities with Quenya?

I take two poems, of Sindarin I refrain from A Elbereth Gilthoniel, and turn to a more profane, though still serious text, a Sindarin translation of La belle dame sans merci, by John Keats. And of Swahili I take a poem written by an immigrant or in Denmark of African origin.

I vrennil vain ben-dihenad
http://www.science-and-fiction.org/elvish/belle_dame_s.html


Man naeg mathal, ae maethor veren,
Erui reniol ar nimp ?
I thâr pellen uin ael
Ar ú-linnar in aew .

Man naeg mathal, ae maethor veren,
I naer ar pen-lalaith ?
I dorech en-nâr pant ,
Ar tolthad en-iau coren.

Cenin loth erin hin lín,
Na naeg ar lhêw limminnen,
Ar mi nêf lín veril firiel,
I lagor pêl.

Govannen vrennil na i nain,
I bainwain, hên in-edhil,
Finnel dín and, i dâl dín lim,
Ar hin dín vrêg.

Agoren rê an ndôl dín,
Ar mêr adh rainc ar loth;
Cenn na nin sui meliel,
Ar pent na lhoss velui.

Nan roch nín meleg harn,
Ar ú-gennin nad an aur and,
An tirn na venath linnol,
in glêr edhellin.

Hirn hylch velui enni,
Ar 'lê throvan ar Viruvor,
Na ú-istassen lam e pent,
'Gen melin thenin'

Tunc nin na i fela dín,
Ar ennas nêr dín siriant,
Ar ennas sollin hin dín mrêg
mithol canad lui.

Ar tunc nan êdh nin ennas,
Ar ennas oltha enni, ae,
I ôl vedui i oltha uireb
Nan dalad amon ring.

Cennin erain thind, ar conin nimp,
ar vaethyr vith , sui firn pain;
Nallant 'I vrennil vain ben-dihenad
Si baugla le.'

Cennin i nêf thairn hýn,
Nan gortheb pith edrannen pann,
Ar echui nin hirnin si,
Nan dalad amon ring.

Ar sen an darthon hi,
Erui reniol ar nimp,
Ir thâr pellen uin ael
Ar ú-linnar in aew .

John Keats

http://www.glcom.com/hassan/poems/swahili_poems.html

1. Natowa kitandawili / mwenye jawabu kutowa
Wako watu sura mbili / majaraha yasopowa
Kuchupa kwao kuwili / nyoyo zao zaunguwa
Watakayo ni muhali / milele hayatokuwa.

2. Akili zao ni ghali / kutu zinawasumbuwa
Wapigana na makali / mwenye fani hupekuwa
Warejea ya awali / hawavuki zao puwa
Wala hawana muhali / wamegeuka viluwa.

3. Wanapeta pili pili / ungó wao chandaruwa
Upungufu wa akili / ukweli kuutambuwa
Wasemavyo waawali / wengine wajisumbuwa
Hatari yawakabili / kuviwasha vilopowa.

4. Mkahawa sihoteli / kushindana kutambuwa
Dibeti zisoukweli / mtuno wakitumbuwa
Kisu kutiwa makali / mwerevu anang´amuwa
Ukweli muukubali / mwiko mwenziwe upawa.

My impression is, looking at preview, to see how markings look on page, that except for ubiquitous w, Swahili got less marks than Sindarin.

On the other hand, if one were to take a Quenya text or even an earlier Qenya text, Fíriel's lament, for instance, it would get more marks for incompatibility with Swahili, due to consontant groups not found in these languages and due to some final consonants, where Swahili ends all words in vowels, than from Sindarin.

Note there are other levels of phonetic similarity than phonotactic compatibility. A word like nyoyo, if respelled nyoio, could theoretically be a quenya word, but not very typical. A word like hayatokuwa could more easily be Japanese than Quenya. Kisu rhymes with Finnish sisu and could more easily be Finnish than Quenya. But hayatokuwa could be (early) Quenya, just as it could be Japanese and is actually Swahili. And kisu could be Quenya, just as it could be Finnish and actually is Swahili.

But I think we have spotted an origin of the Quenya future ending, if Swahili -(u)wa ending* (whatever it means, it may be sth totally other than future of verbs) has a similar sounding ending in Sesotho - or if JRRT ever looked in Carl Meinhof's books on Bantu languages (Swahili, Zulu and Sesotho).

Note, I am not claiming Quenya is in the ordinary linguistic sense of the word related to Swahili. But neither is Sindarin to Welsh. Neither is Quenya to Finnish. Neither is Quenya to Classic or Homeric Greek. I am making a claim about sound similarities, just as Tolkien himself made about Welsh for the one, and about Finnish and Greek for the other.

Tolkien could have been merely mistaken and I can be merely mistaken. Or Tolkien could have been right, and I can be right.

There is no philological proof of the direct kind used by those considering that Nase and nasus have a common (presumed proto-indoeuropean) origin. Because these suppose both sound and meaning and regular correspondences in sound. This lack of proof is both a weakness in my proposition - and in Tolkien's autobiographical claim of having based Sindarin phonology on Welsh.

The next level to look at is of course to look not just at compatibility, which I did here, but also on relative frequencies. I have not marked the monosyllables of Sindarin as incompatible, unless the final consonant or consonant group is outside Quenya (in that position). But their relative frequency is un-Quenya in Sindarin, but not in Swahili, if anything their near absence is somewhat less un-Quenya.

As of course, Swahili's absence of words ending in consonants.

Note that I am doing this on a purely phonetic level. I have forgotten most words I knew from Fauskanger's Quenya course, I have not mastered Sindarin, and I have no idea about Swahili except the kind of generalities that I can gather from encyclopedial articles about it (class prefixes repeated between subject, verb, adjectives, these distinguishing living and intelligent from animal and plant, but not male from female, etc) - and the samples I see from a phonetic view. So, I have no way to immediately understand the words.

If you wish to look at content, for La belle dame dans merci it's just a question of looking up the English version. For the poem in Swahili, it may be more difficult. Unless you know a speaker. I tried Google translate, it didn't work at all for some halflines.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St Narn of Bergamo
27-VIII-2015

* Cautiously here including derivational morphemes in "endings" ...

Monday, August 24, 2015

Une bonne phrase de Bossuet



Source p. 1 de la citation:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k57459f/f3.image


Et p. 2 de la citation:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k57459f/f4.image


La voici en entier:

Si les Protestans sçavoient à fonds comment s’est formée leur religion ; avec combien de variations et avec quelle inconstance leurs Confessions de foy ont esté dressées ; comment ils se sont séparez premiérement de nous, et puis entre-eux ; par combien de subtilitez, de détours, et d’équivoques ils ont tasché de réparer leurs divisions, et de rassembler les membres épars de leur réforme désunie : cette réforme dont ils se vantent ne les contenteroit guéres, et pour dire franchement ce que je pense, elle ne leur inspireroit que du mépris.


Ceci est UNE phrase, peut-être pas de syntaxe très simple. Donc, je fais d’abord une division pour les lecteurs non-latinistes ni familiers avec Bossuet :

Antécédent :
Si les Protestans sçavoient à fonds comment s’est formée leur religion ; avec combien de variations et avec quelle inconstance leurs Confessions de foy ont esté dressées ; comment ils se sont séparez premiérement de nous, et puis entre-eux ; par combien de subtilitez, de détours, et d’équivoques ils ont tasché de réparer leurs divisions, et de rassembler les membres épars de leur réforme désunie :

Conséquent :
: cette réforme dont ils se vantent ne les contenteroit guéres, et pour dire franchement ce que je pense, elle ne leur inspireroit que du mépris.

Mais encore cette division contient deux membres en eux-mêmes pas simples, donc je les sous-divise encore :

Antécédent :
« Principale » :
Si les Protestans sçavoient à fonds
Subordoonnée 1
comment s’est formée leur religion ;
Subordonnée 2
avec combien de variations et avec quelle inconstance leurs Confessions de foy ont esté dressées ;
Subordonnée 3
comment ils se sont séparez premiérement de nous,
Subordonnée 4
et puis entre-eux ; [=et comment ils se sont séparez puis entre-eux]
Subordonnée 5
par combien de subtilitez, de détours, et d’équivoques ils ont tasché de réparer leurs divisions,
Subordonnée 6
et de rassembler les membres épars de leur réforme désunie : [= et par combien de subtilitez, de détours, et d’équivoques ils ont tasché de rassembler les membres épars de leur réforme désunie :]

Conséquent :
Principale 1 commencée :
: cette réforme …
Subordonnée :
dont ils se vantent
Principale 1 finie :
… ne les contenteroit guéres,
Principale 2 commencée :
et …
Subordonnée
pour dire franchement ce que je pense,
Principale 2 finie :
… elle ne leur inspireroit que du mépris.

Donc :

Si les Protestants savaient à fonds = Les Protestants ne savent pas à fonds comment s’est formée leur religion.

Ils ne savent pas non plus à fonds avec quelle inconstance ou en combien de variations leurs Confessions de foi ont été dressées.

Non plus comment ils se sont séparés d’abord de nous et ensuite entre eux.

Non plus comment leur œcuménisme inter-protestant a coûté d’équivoques et subterfuges et généralement des « subtilités » du genre pas trop honnêtes.

Mais s’ils savaient tout ça, ils se vanteraient moins de leur Réforme.

Franchement, j’aime les deux formulations, mais celle de Bossuet plus que la mienne. Et encore un point pour Bossuet, il a prédit avec exactitude pourquoi je suis devenu Catholique.

Car si l’histoire du Protestantisme a tous ces scandales, celui du Catholicisme ne les a pas.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St Bartholomée Apôtre
24-VIII-2015

Saturday, August 22, 2015

Joseph de Maistre, est-il une source fiable sur l'affaire Galilée?

Il y a des traditionalistes qui l'affirment, puisque "Bibliothèque de combat" cite un passage de lui comme un message blog (un des cinq portant le libellé Galilée):

Il est inconcevable de parler encore de l’affaire Galilée
Publié le 9 septembre 2013 par bibliothequedecombat
https://bibliothequedecombat.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/il-est-inconcevable-de-parler-encore-de-laffaire-galilee/


Le message ou l'article n'est pas une production originelle de ce blog avec ses blogueurs ou son blogueur, il est cité d'après lui, car attribué "Joseph de Maistre – Examen de la philosophie de Bacon (posthume – vers 1830)".

Or, contrairement peut-être à Rousseau, Joseph de Maistre était un franc-maçon. De Rousseau, je n'ai aucune indication, sauf qu'il visitait la loge, de Joseph de Maistre on sait qu'il était dans la loge.

Je cite pour ma part la wiki:

Joseph de Maistre était membre du souverain Sénat de Savoie, avant d'émigrer en 1792 quand les forces armées françaises occupent la Savoie. Il passe ensuite quelques années en Russie, avant de retourner à Turin. Il est l'un des pères de la philosophie contre-révolutionnaire, membre éminent de la Franc-maçonnerie, et incliné vers l'ésotérisme.


S'il était Franc-maçon, s'il était incliné vers l'ésotérisme, alors, on peut de ça déduire qu'il était partiel pour l'héliocentrisme.

S'il ne partageait pas les idées de la loge sur la quasi-sainteté de Galilée, néanmoins il considère qu'il avait, ne fût-ce que par coïncidence, raison d'être héliocentrique. Il considère donc que l'inquisition avait tort.

il y a deux cents millions de catholiques sur la terre, vivant sous une foule de souverainetés différentes : comment se trouvèrent-ils gênés tous à la fois et pour toujours par le décret d’un tribunal séant dans les murs de Rome ?


Bon, les par exemples index librorum prohibitorum ou syllabus errorum étaient aussi prononcés par décret d'un tribunal séant dans les murs de Rome : celui du Pape et celui de l'Inquisition.

Tiraboschi a démontré, dans trois dissertations intéressantes, que les Souverains Pontifes, loin de retarder la connaissance du véritable système du monde, l’avaient, au contraire, grandement avancée, et que, pendant deux siècles entiers, trois Papes et trois Cardinaux avaient successivement soutenu, encouragé, récompensé, et Copernic lui-même et les différents astronomes précurseurs plus ou moins heureux de ce grand homme ; en sorte que c’est en grande partie à l’Eglise romaine que l’on doit la véritable connaissance du système du monde.


Tiraboschi peut-être, Joseph de Maistre certes ici-même, oublie de dire que Copernic n'avait pas prétendu à davantage qu'une hypothèse, sans que de réclamer la vérité pour cette hypothèse. Il oublie aussi de dire que c'est tard que Copernic ose la publier. Quand les Papes le soutenaient, il n'avait pas encore prononcé cette thèse.

Quant aux "différents astronomes précurseurs plus ou moins heureux de ce grand homme", il n'est pas douteux qu'il parle entre autres des "précurseurs" qui soit envisageaient l'héliocentrisme sans y tenir (comme Nicole Oresme), soit peut-être aussi l'étaient plutôt de Tychon Brahé (pas d'exemples que je pourrais directement citer).

Mais soutenir un homme n'est pas la même chose que de partager ou même tolérer entre Catholiques son opinion.

On se plaint de la persécution que souffrit Galilée pour avoir soutenu le mouvement de la terre, et l’on ne veut pas se rappeler ... que, dans l’année même qui vit la condamnation de Galilée, la cour de Rome n’oublia rien pour amener dans l’université de Bologne ce fameux Kepler, qui non seulement avait embrassé l’opinion de Galilée sur le mouvement de la terre, mais qui prêtait de plus un poids immense à cette opinion par l’autorité de ses immortelles découvertes, complément à jamais fameux de la démonstration du système copernicien.


Peut-être fut-il alors invité comme possible soutien à la cause de Galilée. Ensuite, Kepler étant un Luthérien, mais pas engagé en théologie, il n'avait rien à craindre des autorités romaines, pas non plus que le possiblement crypto-arien Anglicain ou Puritain Milton, qui visita Galilée "en prison de l'Inquisition" (chez lui-même, mais interdit de sortir) - chose qui contribuait à le héroïser en Angleterre : un hérétique étranger qui ne fait pas de bruit théologique n'était pas persécutable en pratique. Les thèses de Kepler reposent - comme on peut vérifier chez Riccioli - entre autres sur la théorie que les astres dits planètes sont mus par des forces naturelles, comme le magnétisme (la gravitation newtonienne n'était pas encore à la mode ou même pensée par un homme), tandis que la position traditionnelle à Rome (voir encore Riccioli) était au contraire qu'ils sont mus par des anges.

Aux temps de Joseph de Maistre, la Maçonnerie avait à travers les Lumières (citons Voltaire qui soutenait Newton contre Descartes) fait oublier cette théorie assez commune des anges qui meuvent les astres. Comment ça, assez commune? Selon Riccioli elle était partagée par pas mal de gens dont je ne sais rien, mais parmi ceux qu'il cite et dont je connais qqc, pour St Thomas je peux vérifier, pour Nicole de Cuse, je ne peux pas nier. Et le Franc-maçon qu'était de Maistre n'avait pas intérêt de changer les choses dessus, ni de baser la lutte pro-catholique (car il y a dans la loge au moins eu des pro-catholiques) sur un regain du géocentrisme. En plus, il avait peut-être cru opportun de promouvoir la décision de Pie VII - ou de l’exagérer quant à sa portée.

Ni les soutiens à Copernic et prédécesseurs, ni la décision de Pie VII, n'étaient des décisions directement doctrinales. La décision en 1633 l'était. Elle portait sur ce qu'on peut ou ne peut pas croire comme Catholique. Celle de Pie VII uniquement sur ce qu'on peut lire.

On aurait pu dire que la décision de 1633 n'était pas papale si les choses étaient restées à Rome, mais après procès le Pape lui-même décida d'envoyer le verdict à toute université du monde catholique. Donc aussi aux évêques qui en étaient les protecteurs.

Quant à celle de de 1820 elle était autant papale et autant peu papale que celle de 1633, car le pape avait approuvé mais pas siégé, et en même temps, elle ne portait que sur le contenu des livres, laissant quasi deviner sans jamais directement affirmer que c'était devenu licite de croire l'héliocentrisme.

Même chose semble s'imposer quant à celle de 1757, quoique là je n'ai pas lu les détailles même par intermédiaire d'une étude moderne.

Anfossi qui perd le cas en 1820 et en 1822, n'est pas censé devenir héliocentrique : donc, on ne peut pas dire que le géocentrisme soit devenu illicite. Il ne l'est encore pas. Alors, on ne peut pas non plus taxer d'hérésie ceux qui soutiennent qu'elle demeure en légalité légitime, sinon en légalité appliquée, la position de l'église. Et c'est ceci qui Joseph de Maistre veut obfusquer, en faveur moins de l'Église devant ses critiques en effets (qu'elle que soit son intention intime) qu'en faveur de l'héliocentrisme devant l'Église.

Non, il n'est pas fiable. Pas sur l'affaire Galilée, ni sur l'astronomie, Joseph de Maistre.

Hans Georg Lundahl
St Ouen, Persépolis
Octave de l'Assomption
et fête du Cœur Immaculé de la BVM
22-VIII-2015

Friday, August 21, 2015

Was Pius XII a Good Pope to Adolf Hitler?

I will cite His Exc. Bishop Schneider:

Q. Your Excellency, since the legalisation of abortion in Ireland in 2013, Catholic hospitals such as the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, have issued statements indicating that they will comply with the new abortion laws. In these circumstances, what is the duty of an archbishop or bishop in whose jurisdiction these hospitals reside?

Bishop Schneider: The duty of a Catholic bishop in such a case is to deprive the hospital the title “Catholic” and remind his faithful that accomplices of the horrible crime of abortion commit a grave sin and are threatened with excommunication. The punishment of excommunication is a medicinal measure in order to prevent the guilty person from committing further crimes and so to ensure his eternal salvation. This was the method of God Himself (the preaching of judgement and punishment through the prophets), of Our Lord Jesus Christ (the speech of excommunication in Mt. 18:15-18) and of the Apostles (the excommunication realized by St. Paul, cf. 1 Cor. 5: 4-5) and so it has to be also the method of the Church.

When the Church desists of this divine method, she will be no more faithful to God, she will be no more a real mother who punishes her child in order to save it. On the contrary, such a church will be a false mother who disastrously pampers the child to its damage or a stepmother who is indifferent about the child’s salvation. The following words of excommunication pronounced by St. Paul and inspired by the Holy Spirit, remain valid for all periods of the Church’s history inclusively for our days:

With the power of our Lord Jesus we deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" (1 Cor. 5: 4-5).


Note very well this:

Hitler being baptised, he had a right to the pastoral of the Church - including to the excommunication he would seem to have needed since at least 1933 for the camps where shirking loafers could be put to death for refusal to work.

Nevertheless, he did not. He hoped for results about saving Jews (btw, in 1933 the loafers put in camps were not mainly Jewish as yet, that came a bit later, in WW-II), if he showed a smile and did a good show in secret urging every Catholic he could reach with the order to be a little Schindler.

However, a Pope may do very well to hide persecuted people, even in the temple of God, if they are Christians (a High Priest hid King David, when Saul persecuted him), this does not absolve a successor of St Peter from the order by St Paul :

Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. (Second Epistle Of Saint Paul To Timothy, Chapter 4, verse 2).

Hans Georg Lundahl
in Paris
St Jeanne Françoise Frémiot de Chantal
21-VIII-2015

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Mythology and Antichrists

I was just looking at the site Bible code wisdom. King James as such has 54 matches. King James Bible, zero, King James Version, zero. By an act of laziness I actually looked up the description. It ended "do sceptics think Antichrist is a myth?" So I did a search on Antichrist myth.

Here is the first match:

The First Epistle General of John 2:18
Little children, it is the last hour and as ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now have there arisen many antichrists whereby we know that it is the last hour.

ANTICHRISTCOMETHEVENNOWHAVETHEREARISENMANYANTICHRISTS

There was even a plural s. If we continue every third letter:

WHEREBYWEKNOWTHATITISTHELASTHOUR

A wry face might be appropriate?

Now, in a certain sense, one can say that Pagan myths contain many Christ figures - but in another sense, they also contain many Antichrist figures. Not just the obvious bad guys, who were obvious as such to Greeks, like Antonous the suitor of Penelope. He tortured the bride of Ulysses to make her his bride - though he really didn't care for her, just for the power. And Ulysses, appropriately, killed him. But also some of the apparent good guys. Hercules - because he allowed Pagans to worship him as a saviour, because he was a false prophet about Gigantomachy, in which he claimed to have had a role which he did not have. And because he attacked his wife. The beast will hate the harlot (or is doing so even now). And he killed his wife and children in madness.

Krishna was a false prophet to Arjuna, if he pretended to be divine, and if he really said that gold, dung heaps, cows and wise men were all the same. Perhaps his real words may have been slightly distorted, but if so we don't have them. Perhaps one could make some sense of someone telling horrible rich guys they would be better off valuing gold as little as a dung heap and wise men as much as cows. But that is not the exact words, though I am not at any rate an expert on Bhagavad Gita, and the claim of being divine, as given in the myth, is, when we compare this to reality (outside the world of this myth) a blasphemy.

Antonous, Krishna, Hercules. How about some of the major gods also originating as Antichrists? What if Nimrod after getting a bit slow in killing a monster (he began to be a giant and he was of some use in killing monsters, like Hercules after him) and hearing a pique about it answered sth like "you should have seen me in my youth, I killed off Tiamat and created the universe off the carcass!" And the sceptic asking him if he couldn't climb to heaven then, and him starting the Tower of Babel ... and when they concluded either he wasn't the god who had done this or that his human body was not the appropriate mode for his most divine operations, they still kept that myth. And Hermes Trismegistus - also known as Thot - was a magician. Odin assumed both identities, when appearing in Uppsala to fool the Swedes.

Next match is basically same verse, only Antichrists coincides with many instead of Antichrist coming before.

Third match has "myth" in "many Antichrists", but "Antichrist" a few verses later:

They went out from us, but they were not of us for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us.

And ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and ye know all the things.

I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and because no lie is of the truth.

Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, [even] he that denieth the Father and the Son.

Here is verse 22, end of fourth match.

And fourth match is also St John, next epistle:

The Second Epistle of John 1:7 - 9

For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, [even] they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Look to yourselves, that ye lose not the things which we have wrought, but that ye receive a full reward.

Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son.

I had better highlight in context this time:

For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, [even] they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Look to yourselves, that ye lose not the things which we have wrought, but that ye receive a full reward.

Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son.

Here all the letters in "myth" are in "good words" even if these are negated in context. Jesus Christ "cometh" in the flesh. The "yourselves" is the Church. We are adminished to do sth "that" we receive a full reward. And even if the h is from first "abideth" which is followed by a "not", "abideth" is still a good word.

We may here be reminded that the Antichrists - both heresiarchs and false saviours - will prefer a "spiritualised" Christianity (the version back then was as crude as Docetism, it may rise again) and refer to true Christianity and certain true Christian doctrines as "mythology" - or even "pagan mythology". I have heard some apostate "Catholic" Bishops have resorted to calling a literal belief in Genesis 1 as written "Pagan Mythology".

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. M. Audoux
St John Eudes
19-VIII-2015

PS: Let's worship the Sacred Heart and not the figures of mythology - but let's not accept to call all "myths" "lies".

http://www.biblecodewisdom.com/code/antichrist-myth/4

Monday, August 10, 2015

Les Inklings et Mozart

Sarastro n'est pas Gandalf - c'est Saruman qui est futuriste, qui trouve que le sage (mais par là il n'entend pas l'homme) est en certaine mesure "égal de Dieu" en ce qu'il peut par exemple redéfinir le bien et le mal.

Elrond n'est pas Sarastro, car si sa fille n'est ni exposée à un Monostatos (par lui ou de tout), ni (comme ça se fait aussi par les Sarastri de nos jours) à devenir vieille fille avant de se marier*.

Et si Monostatos symbolise "Cupidon tout cru", oui, les Sarastri de nos jours exposent même les enfants de Kindergarten à une sexualisation prématurée et qui risque de se tourner Monostatosienne plus tard (adolescence atteint sans un sens de honte) pour ne rien dire des adolescents exposés au rock et à la coéducation.

Non, Tolkien n'est pas pro-Sarastro, moi non plus, et CSL ne l'était pas ce que je sache non plus. Mais si les Inklings n'étaient pas pro-Sarastro, par contre, ils sont "un peu" dans la Flûte Enchantée.

Tamino et le Serpent? Silver Chair.

La Reine de la Nuit révélée comme néfaste? Lady of the Green Kirtle dedans.

Tamino commence en croyant les fausses promesses de la Reine de la Nuit pour se convertir plus tard? Bon, Aslan n'est pas Sarastro, mais il y a Edmund qui fait cette erreur avec la Sorcière Blanche.

Le compagnon qui parle trop? Papageno, mais triste au lieu de gai, en Silver Chair il s'appelle Puddleglum (bon, c'est peut-être chercher un peu loin?).

Pour retourner à Tolkien:

Comme Saruman est en Lord of the Rings un Sarastro qui se révèle méchant après avoir été pris pour bon (l'inverse donc par rapport à la Flûte Enchantée), Galadriel est une Reine de la Nuit qui ne se révèle pas telle.

Et le voyage de Tamino est assez évoqué en Smith of Wootton Major - à moins qu'Alf serait un peu Papageno. Et encore dans un modèle intermédiaire, Phantastes par Georges MacDonald.

Aragorn et Arwen sont, comme dit à propos Elrond, un Tamino et une Pamina sans l'absurdité de l'ascèse imposée par Sarastro (et un autre franc-maçon aura en Obéron persiflé comme absurde l'ascèse des moines ou même dit qu'elle n'était qu'hypocrisie - mais celle-ci n'est pas appliquée "fraternellement" à tout le monde). Aravis est quasi une Pamina qui est prête à se suicider, mais qui est retenue - je m'arrête.

Il est très palpable que les Inklings plus ou moins voulaient donner quasi une "flûte enchantée" - mais avec de la doctrine chrétienne intacte et sans la maçonnerie.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris, non pas Bpi
St Laurent
10-VIII-2015

* Arwen étant elfe ne vieillit pas, elle ne commence de vieillir après de devenir humaine en se mariant avec Aragorn.

Sunday, August 9, 2015

Not Bad, if I Went to London, I might Take Chelsea

It seems, the UK Parliament has a constituency called Chelsea and Fulham.

From the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham: Fulham Broadway; Munster; Palace Riverside; Parsons Green and Walham; Sands End; Town.

From the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: Cremorne; Hans Town; Redcliffe; Royal Hospital; Stanley. The borough was created in 1965 from the former boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea. From the 1983 redistribution, Chelsea consisted of Abingdon, Brompton, Cheyne, Church, Courtfield, Earls Court, Hans Town, North Stanley, Redcliffe, Royal Hospital and South Stanley wards of Kensington and Chelsea.


Now, why is there a Hans Town?

Sloane Square ... is part of the Hans Town area designed in 1771 by Henry Holland Snr. and Henry Holland Jnr. Both the town and square were named after Sir Hans Sloane (1660–1753), whose heirs owned the land at the time.


Since I have so much been occupied in defending pre-Industrial life expectation (once one had survived child mortality threat), I note Hans Sloane was 92 or 93 years old when he died. 1660 - 1700 = 40 years (obviously he had a birthday in 1700). 1700 - 1753 another 53 years - or not fully so, if he died before his birthday that year. And 40+53=93, 40+52=92.

So, "Leopold Mozart was an old man at 40, when medium life expectancy was 45" is, as far as I am concerned, BS - but I was really reading that (in French) in a book by Jean Blot on his son Wolfgang (and I am NOT recommending the book by JB, if I get time I will in French give a few well chosen comments on clearly erroneous passages.

Wonder why he was called Hans instead of John ...

Sloane was born on 16 April 1660 at Killyleagh in County Down, Ireland. He was the seventh son of Alexander Sloane (died 1666), agent for James Hamilton, second Viscount Claneboye and later first Earl of Clanbrassil. Sloane's family had migrated from Scotland, but settled in the north of Ireland under James I. His father died when he was six years old.


Ah, makes sense.

John, Ian or Sean - can't make up your mind? Well, Hans evades the issue!

He died before April 16 1753, btw:

Hans Sloane was buried on 18 January 1753


At an age of 92.

He has been a President of Royal Society. Another such, second previous to him, Somers, took an unglorious part in the illnamed "Glorious" Revolution.

In his maiden speech on 28 January 1689, Somers argued that James II had forfeited his claim to the allegiance of the English by casting himself into the hands of Louis XIV of France and conspiring "to subject the Nation to the Pope, as much as to a foreign prince".


James the VII and II had, first of all, rejected Lewis XIV's offer of helping him get back the throne by an invasion. Second, giving back Civil Rights to Catholics was something quite other than making England, Scotland and Ireland a vassal state to Papal States (though Magna Charta actually was signed by John Lackland, who did so!). Third, ruling after a Catholic conscience doesn't make an English King any more vassal to Rome than ruling after a Protestant one would make England a vassal state to Wittenberg, Strassburg or Geneva (or, before the Union, to Edinburgh).

So, Somers was as Parliamentarian and Historian a total liar - not the last time that happens with scientists, even good ones.

As we talk of Hamiltons (whom Hans Sloane's father Alexander served) and especially Hamiltons of Ireland, it seems the family intermarried with a certain family called Lewis, probably from Wales. Clive Staples Lewis had a brother named Warren Hamilton Lewis - and that obviously after the Hamilton grandfather or Hamilton grandmother's father. I actually think it was their mother who was born a Hamilton.

Of course, the learned and historical aspect of this post, very indebted to various articles of wikipedia, is not the only reason I put the post on this blog. There is another one. In Chelsea and Fulham there is a Socker Team which seems to be famous. Now, on my main blog, I have promised it deals with all subjects "except football/socker".

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
but not Georges Pompidou
Sunday a Week Before Assumption
8-VIII-2015

First found, not much cited:

Wickipeejuh : Chelsea Football Club
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_F.C.


Wickipeejuh : Chealsea and Fulham
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_and_Fulham_(UK_Parliament_constituency)


Wickipeejuh : Sloane Square
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloane_Square


Wickipeejuh : Hans Sloane
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Sloane


Wickipeejuh : John Somers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Somers,_1st_Baron_Somers#Glorious_Revolution