Against Stoics

• Stoics were Pantheist
• Stoic Emperor Marcus Aurelius was a Persecutor of the Church
• In Boethius De Consolatione, the ancient philosophies are related to the house of wisdom like this : Plato and Aristotle inside, Stoics just outside, and Epicureans far away.
• Stoics are ethically connected to Immanuel Kant. Whose followers are "going to perdition".
• AND a Masonic Grand Lodge is, in Modern Greed, a Μεγάλη Στοά, just like the Stoics are named after he poikile stoa. For instance, The Grand Lodge of Greece is in Modern Greek, η Μεγάλη Στοά της Ελλάδος, as I found out today.

Five solid reasons not to admire Stoicism!/HGL

Answering William Savage's Cleanliness and Class

1) Answering William Savage's Cleanliness and Class · 2) "If you wanted bacon you had to make it yourself—and what a lengthy, laborious job it was!" · 3) Fridge Logic · 4) Speaking of Drinking Problem for Georgians? That is Anachronistic. · 5) A Distinction and a Gratitude to William Savage

Source for quotations from him

Cleanliness and Class
Posted on October 12, 2016
https://penandpension.com/2016/10/12/cleanliness-and-class/

William Savage

Being clean was expensive.

HGL interposes.

Oh, yeah?

William Savage

All water for washing or bathing would have to be fetched in buckets from a well or a stream.

HGL interposes.

Unless someone strong enough to take a tub with water helped carrying (ok, don't see many paintings with men carrying tubs of water, point granted, probably didn't happen too often).

More to the point, the expense in this case is of work, not of money.

And the well was usually not far off. When you lived in town.

William Savage

Then it had to be heated by burning suitable amounts of wood or coal.

HGL interposes.

Depending on season or your willingness to take ablutions in cold water even in winter.

Btw, ablutions may be made by a glove dipped in little water and applied to body, these gloves are still offered as part of showers in France, even if original intent is no longer there.

Not sure if this was used in England, though.

William Savage

To heat enough even for a shallow bath

HGL interposes.

Meaning the writer had not considered gloves dipped in water.

Perhaps they never were in, in England?

William Savage

would take a good deal of fuel — fuel which otherwise could have been used for cooking or heating a room.

HGL interposes.

Who says it couldn't be used for both at the same time?

You heat water in cauldrons on a fire, you have to light it. You light it and it gives heat to the room as well.

And who says it would really be all that great a quantity?

William Savage

Many of the wealthy would have used perfumes to keep themselves smelling good — another expense beyond the reach of the poorer classes — and had access to clean underclothes, shirts and bed-linen whenever they wanted. If you couldn’t afford the large quantity of linens needed for this, you might wash, but you wouldn’t stay clean for very long. This was a time when washing clothes was both labour-intensive and expensive, as I shall show in an upcoming post, so even the better off might undertake it once only every few weeks.

HGL interposes.

Labour intensive, granted.

If poor could NOT afford the labour, that means they were being too much harassed and their labour taken too much in requisition by the paymasters or landlords. This only happened at Industrial revolution, where it was at its most intense.

But expensive, not if you did it yourself at a lavanderie - a large basin where water would fill in (given for free by the city, in France) which could be propped so you could let your laundry soak and then rince it. Obviously, women would take turns washing.

And if you have enough clothes for keeping clean with a large wash once every two weeks (unlike homeless who cannot carry that much clothes), this should be no problem for cleanliness.

William Savage

However, while this might have been fine in the summer, outdoor winter bathing during the “Little Ice Age” was never going to be possible.

HGL interposes.

Meaning that the fuel for heating your bath was doing double work in heating also your room.

William Savage

What any type of bathing, or even extensive washing, needed was energy to fetch water, heat it and carry the used water away afterwards. That energy was supplied by servants.

HGL interposes.

In case you were rich. In case you were poor, you served yourself.

William Savage

I’ve included time and leisure in the list of essentials for two reasons. Although actually bathing or washing might take no longer for the individual than it does today, the entire process was lengthy. Servants engaged in making it possible would need to be taken off other duties. Fine, if you had many of them. Not so easy if you had only one or two.

HGL interposes.

The argument presumes people were as harrassed by financial pursuits as the girl working overtime until she killed herself on last Christmas Day or Christmas Eve in Japan at age 24!

Not true for people before the Industrial Revolution. His argument was most apt about Manchester in later part of 18th Century.

William Savage

Working people would be on the go from dawn to dusk, probably six days a week. When could they find the time for more than an essential minimum of washing?

HGL interposes.

If you were working on your farm, you decided that for yourself. If you were working as a farm hand, your farmer decided it for you when you stank.

If labour hours or opening hours were indeed dawn to dusk, they were not without pauses or as intensive as in a Lao Gai.

As for six days a week, probably exactly Saturdays had an afternoon off for housecleaning and washing and such - except during Industrial Revolution.

William Savage

Artisans and the poor — the very classes most likely to become sweaty and grimy in the course of their employment — would have least time to clean themselves.

HGL interposes.

An artisan was usually self employed, meaning he could take time off when he thought he needed it.

Imagine a notice on the cobbler's front porch: BATHING, WILL BE BACK IN HALF AN HOUR OR LESS.

Or even more, WILL BE BACK IN HALF AN HOUR without specifying exactly why. Happens when people own their own shops.

William Savage

Perhaps the unwillingness of their masters to come into more than the essential contact with the servants — more marked as you passed into the 19th century, when the facilities for the family to wash were much improved — stemmed originally from trying to avoid unpleasant human smells. Certainly the 19th century records of Felbrigg Hall show quite a few servants being dismissed for being dirty.

HGL interposes.

That is 19th C. and an increased work burden for the employees. AND after Industrial Revolution had really taken off.

William Savage

Was cleanliness next to godliness? Maybe it was in the evangelical 19th century, when the links between hygiene and freedom from disease were becoming clear. Before that, it was more likely to be next to wealth and social class, as so much else at the time. The rich man in his castle enjoyed a clean body in clean clothes. The poor man at his gate had neither, and never would have. That was the way of the world.

HGL interposes.

No, not really. And when we talk about "castle" we talk about Middle Ages, and thus of times when, excepting high seasons, work was even though spread from dawn to dusk not too intense for surviving that.

If William Savage had set his historical novels in Manchester 1800, he might have been more likely to be right, but Norfolk was not among the earliest victims of Industrialisation.

Was the Synagogue Chief "Slave to the Law"? And what does "Slave" mean?

1) How Many Theologians WERE Jean Gerson OR von Nieheim? · 2) Was the Synagogue Chief "Slave to the Law"? And what does "Slave" mean?

Another Bergoglionism:

The Son of God calls the synagogue chief a hypocrite, a word “he uses so often to refer to those who are rigid and unyielding in their insistence on applying the law down to the last letter”. These people are not free, “they are slaves of the Law”. But “the Law was not made to enslave us but to set us free, to make us children” of the Lord. “Beneath rigidity there is something else, always! This is why Jesus says: hypocrites!”

I go through a search. Exodus does NOT say not to work miracles on the sabbath. The chief of the synagogue is indeed a hypocrite, but it is not the last letter of the law that he is zealous for.

Or perhaps there was such a thing as breach of sabbath in the command to the lame man "take thy bed and go"? But if so, why was the lame man not apprehended for taking the bed and walking?

Ah, perhaps these hypocrites WERE enforcing a Church discipline (remember, there was a Jewish Church leading up to the Catholic Church, and the Aaronite Priests but also Rabbis in this time were still not apostates but part of it and regulating parts of it) IN WHICH a poor man could be asked to take away his belongings if he was trespassing somewhere on the sabbath. Or perhaps the bed was a very light thing and he was not going very far away with it.

There seem to be Jews and similar who these days think it is ok to interrupt a loafer's night sleep in order to make him and his slender property leave the house.

But in that case, neither did Jesus command a breach of the sabbath by "take thy bed and walk".

And what if Jesus had been doing the works of a physician? Well, that might have been a sabbath breach to change his bandages if he had sores, or his plaster, if he had a broken leg. Not sure about that one. But what Christ did was SPEAKING. And there is no rule against SPEAKING on the sabbath. And if the principle was that the effect of the words were to do the EQUIVALENT of illicit medical work on the sabbath, well, God is by His word dragging the Universe around Earth each day, including the sabbath. That is the EQUIVALENT not of oxen dragging a millstone around but of very much more than that. And the miracle Christ accomplished was also of very much more than just equivalent of what could have been done by medical work which in that late part of the Old Testament MIGHT have been illicit. So, equivalent of more than the illicit work = illicit work, even if no physical effort of work is done? Well, that would make God a sabbath breaker.

No, it was NOT "every letter" of the law that the chief of the synagogue zealously observed and wanted observed.

He was probably of the school of Hillel, considered Jesus as of the school of Shammai (Shammai agreed with Our Lord on indissolubility of marriage!) and wanted to show Him "you aren't following your own rules". And in order to do so, he had to resort to subterfuges and go way outside any letter of the law.

Yes, the chief of the synagogue was in a sense a SLAVE of the law. A slave looking for as much wiggle room as possible. A slave paying lip service to the principle of zeal for every letter, but actually having no such zeal. He was not able to say "after all, the law as stated does not call this a sabbath breach". He could have used

Exodus 31:14 Keep you my sabbath: for it is holy unto you: he that shall profane it, shall be put to death: he that shall do my work in it, his soul shall perish out of the midst of his people.

But from context we know that Exodus 31:14 is not speaking about each and every act which can be termed "the Lord's work", not of cultic acts per se, but of preparations for these. If you want flowers on the altar for a Marian feast, well, it's not on the feast day itself you provide the flower pots, but the day before. Some would say the idea is not excellent, for floristic reasons, and some have suggested flowers on the altar are an abuse. But if one puts the flowers on the altar there in order the same morning, at least we live in another covenant than that when Exodus 31:14 was binding law. However, Exodus 31:14 is NOT talking about making miracles, in context.

So, even that idea for an excuse for the chief of the synagogue being zealous is false.

Slaves are not really zealous for their masters. Read Roman comedy, every slave in Plautus is only thinking on how to cheat his way out of the words of the master. But if the chief of the synagogue is "slave of the law", perhaps he was as little zealous as the chief of the synagogue.*

Christ had no more broken the law than a priest entering the sanctuary on Yom Kippur [Leviticus 16:31-34]. Indeed, the words of "thy sins are forgiven" mean that that was precisely what Christ was doing.

No, the chief of the synagogue was simply not zealous for the law at all, but eager for an opportunity of criticism. He was not rigid, he was indeed extremely flexible in exegesis, in claiming to find any fault. He was not applying the actual law, he was bluffing so as to give an impression of doing so, like certain policemen bluff when dealing with people they want to humiliate and have no legal charge against. Slave, yes. Rigid, no.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Holy Martyr couple
Chrysanthus and Daria
25.X.2016

* Obviously the chief of the synagogue was as little or as much zealous as the chief of the synagogue. I meant as little zealous as the slave in Plautus. Sorry, had too much too eat and too little rest the last dark part of a nychthemeron./HGL

How Many Theologians WERE Jean Gerson OR von Nieheim?

1) How Many Theologians WERE Jean Gerson OR von Nieheim? · 2) Was the Synagogue Chief "Slave to the Law"? And what does "Slave" mean?

One of them seems to have said "ecclesia semper reformanda" ... except that reference seems to be elusive. In my search for a precise reference, I have gone through documents in English, French and Dutch, so you will excuse me that my own tongue wavers in response to the ones I was reading.

I

La réforme des diocèses " à la manière contre réformée " a donc commencé avant la révolte luthérienne, d'autant que depuis la fin de la guerre de Cent ans, les appels à une meilleure conscience des évêques (Gerson) et les visites pastorales se sont succédées, souvent pour des raisons fiscales mais aussi pour suivre la reconstruction des paroisses et faire entrer dans les faits le désir de réformes. C'est d'ailleurs sur ces principes que le concile de Trente va légiférer et réussir à faire passer ses idées. Pour l'heure, le problème est qu'un évêque n'est pas éternel et, en principe, ne choisit pas son successeur, bien qu'en Dauphiné comme en Rouergue, on trouve des dynasties à l'œuvre pendant toute la période de la reconstruction. Bien souvent, comme à Grenoble ou à Rodez, une très bonne série de visites n'est pas poursuivie par le successeur qui se contente, comme Laurent II Allemand ou Georges d'Armagnac d'exploiter les renseignements alors glanés et n'éprouvent pas le besoin de se faire connaître des rustres. Il est vrai que visiter est une entreprise à la fois épuisante et décevante (une à trois paroisses par jour), mais surtout incomplète car les évêques n'ont aucun pouvoir sur les couvents de réguliers et leurs dépendances, qui sont en général exempts de l'autorité épiscopale parce qu'ils relèvent directement du Saint Siège.

....

A travers ces visites et l'activité des évêques résidents ou du moins de celle de leurs vicaires, beaucoup plus nombreux, formés et motivés qu'on ne l'a longtemps cru, à travers les législations synodales, on peut suivre à la fois les tentatives de réforme du clergé, pour lesquelles les évêques sont bien mal armés (peu de pouvoir sur leur promotion mais aussi fossé intellectuel du fait du manque de formation uniforme du clergé local…). Au bout du compte, les seuls succès semblent provenir du contrôle des desservants (convoqués au synode annuel, autorisés ou non pour les confessions, incités à lire les opuscules de Gerson ou de quelques autres pour mieux assurer leur métier, suivis de façon plus systématiques dans leurs mœurs…).

...

Une évidence n'a pas été assez explorée encore par les historiens, l'universalité de l'aspiration à la réforme commune à l'ensemble de l'Europe. La réforme in capite et in membris pour l'Eglise (concept né au concile de Vienne, 1311) mais aussi la réforme de la justice, c'est à dire de l'administration, de la noblesse… dont l'urgence est exprimée sous une forme morale (les danses macabres) mais aussi sous une forme pratique : réformer, c'est re-former, donner à la matière une forme pure correspondant à l'ordre voulu par Dieu, une forme d'avant la dégradation, aussi proche que possible de l'origine. L'idée de réforme appartient en même temps à la tradition chrétienne selon l'adage : Ecclesia semper reformanda (à la fois réforme personnelle et structurelle).

Cf B. Chevallier et P. Contamine, La France à la fin du XVe siècle : renouveau et apogée, Paris, 1985.
J. Le Goff, éd. Hérésies et sociétés dans l'Europe préindustrielle, 11e-18e s., Paris, 1968.
http://histoire.univ-paris1.fr/agregation/moderne2003/cours9.htm

II

Footnote quoting "ecclesia semper reformanda" without attribution on page 288 of Cuaresma y Pascua en las oraciones feriales, Cornelio Urtasun,Cornelio Urtasun Irisarri. http://www.worldcat.org/title/cuaresma-y-pascua-en-las-oraciones-feriales/oclc/49758804

When clicking on cover, I saw a scan of another book, Historia de la Liturgia, Xabier Basurko. Mayo 2006, Barcelona.

III

Un commentaire sous un blog:

DEPASSER LES INCOMPREHENSIONS MUTUELLES

> Il est choquant pour un catholique pratiquant et priant de constater tant d'incompréhensions mutuelles ..... Marthe Robin a vraiment raison de déclarer que ce monde est trop agité, avec trop de paroles, silence et respect doivent être les maîtres mots durant ce temps de réflexion, seul l'Esprit Saint sera capable de guider l'Eglise dans ses difficultés ; d'ailleurs l'Eglise a toujours eu plus besoin de saints que de réformateurs (voir St François d'Assise) modernistes ou réactionnaires.

JYM

[ De PP à JYM :
- C'est sans doute choquant, mais c'est la réalité humaine, et "l'homme est le chemin de l'Eglise". Vouloir fuir les réalités (même inconfortables) n'est pas catholique, puisque ce n'est pas réaliste.
Il faut les assumer et les transcender.
- Pour cela, il faut se rencontrer entre gens séparés par leurs habitudes mentales, voire leurs préjugés réciproques.
- Ce type de rencontre fonctionne très bien aux Etats-généraux du christianisme, carrefour organisé par 'La Vie'. Vendredi dernier, dans l'amphi auxquel j'intervenais sur la politique, catholiques "de gauche" et catholiques sans étiquette étaient côte à côte et se parlaient de façon constructive. Il y avait peut-être même des catholiques "de droite", certains commençant à avoir la folle audace d'accepter de rencontrer des gens qui ne sont pas exactement comme eux. Résultat : tout le monde échangeant sur l'essentiel, en mettant de côté l'accessoire.
- Ce type de rencontre fonctionne aussi, dans un autre domaine (la contestation économique et écologique), avec les colloques lyonnais de 'Chrétiens et pic de pétrole'. Le prochain se tient dans six semaines : 18-20 novembre, http://www.chretiens-et-pic-de-petrole.org/
- L'idée selon laquelle l'Eglise a d'abord besoin de saints est certaine depuis toujours.
- Mais elle ne doit pas servir d'excuse à un repli hors du monde : "Ce que vous faites au plus petit d'entre les miens, c'est à moi que vous le faites", et il est impossible de faire du bien à quiconque si l'on est parti s'enfermer dans une noble retraite. Je ne vois pas non plus comment on peut "expliquer les raisons de notre espérance" (1ère lettre de Pierre) si l'on s'enferme dans le silence. Nous ne sommes pas des chartreux : nous sommes des laïcs dans la société, donc des catholiques sociaux, et cela exige la présence et la parole - évidemment équilibrées par la prière et la méditation.
- Et pour se recentrer en permanence sur l'Evangile, l'Eglise a toujours, en tous temps, en tous lieux, besoin de réformes : "Ecclesia semper reformanda", disait déjà au XIVe siècle le théologien Jean Gerson ! ]

réponse au commentaire

Écrit par : JYM / | 11/10/2011

Patrice de Plunkett : le blog : Lefebvristes / Rome : un conflit sur l'idée de Rédemption ?
http://plunkett.hautetfort.com/archive/2011/10/10/entre-les-lefebvristes-et-rome-un-conflit-sur-l-idee-de-rede.html

Donc, notre référence pour que Gerson ait dit ça est sur ce blog ici un JYM. Ou le commentaire par PP qu'il citait.

IV

La même affirmation se trouve ici:

« Ecclesia semper reformanda » : le célèbre adage n’est pas protestant, il a été forgé au 15ème s. par le prêtre et théologien mystique Jean Gerson, et il vise à la fois la personne du croyant et l’institution ecclésiale.

Abbé Alain Arbez / A la rencontre de Jean Calvin Par Rédaction le 20 septembre 2013
https://actualitechretienne.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/abbe-alain-arbez-a-la-rencontre-de-jean-calvin/

Notons, Actu-Chrétienne est un webzine évangélique. Et ni l'abbé, ni la rédaction du webzine donnent une référence précise.

V

Here is a book also saying Gerson said such a thing:

Beyond the Reformation?: Authority, Primacy and Unity in the Conciliar Tradition by Paul Avis

Pages 200-201 say "Vatican II which belatedly came to terms with much that had turned out to seem valid in the legacy of the Reformation, echoed in its own tones the Protestant mantra ecclesia reformata semper reformanda ..." after mentioning earlier on page 200 a certain affinity between Gerson and Calvin.

That is an opinion, not a precise attribution to a precise place in the writings of Gerson.

VI

Un certain Jean Gerson (1363-1429), théoricien de la théologie mystique, s’est déjà exprimé en ces termes. - a Footnote to the text

« Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda ». Mais en fait, d’où vient cette expression ? Je me suis lancé sur Google, mais devant plus de 8000 références, je me suis vite découragé. La seule chose que j’ai retenue est que personne ne connaît avec exactitude l’origine de cette expression. Nulle part on ne retrouve une citation forte de ce grand principe de la Réforme. Ni chez Luther, ni chez Calvin, ni chez Zwingli, ni chez Bullinger. Qui plus est, il paraît que la vraie devise est « Ecclesia semper reformanda », utilisée bien avant les réformateurs !

The article was signed:

Novembre 2008
Jan Albert Roetman

And from the rest, he seems to be a Protestant.

VII

Here a Protestant who actually does not quite like the Protestant slogan:

Always Abusing Semper Reformanda
by R. Scott Clark
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/always-abusing-semper-reformanda/

The full phrase ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei (the church reformed, always reforming according to the Word of God) is a post-World War II creature. It was given new impetus by the modernist Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968), who used variations of the phrase with some frequency. Mainline (liberal) Presbyterian denominations have sometimes used variations of this phrase in official ways. In effect, the phrase is most commonly taken to mean “the church is reformed but needs to be changed in various ways.” It is frequently invoked as a way of expressing dissatisfaction with Reformed theology as received and expressed by the Reformed churches in the Reformed confessions (for example, the Belgic Confession, 1561; the Heidelberg Catechism, 1563; the Westminster Standards, 1648). Thus, in 1967, the United Presbyterian Church in the USA rejected the historic Christian and Reformed understanding that Scripture is the inerrant (does not err), infallible (cannot err) Word of God written. Ironically, under the modern misunderstanding of the phrase the church reformed, always reforming, the denomination moved away from the Reformed view and adopted a view taught by the Anabaptist radical Thomas Müntzer (1489-1525) that the Reformers knew and rejected.

VIII

Here is a Protestant pastor citing it:

L'Intégrisme, Dossier Complet
http://cplush.ch/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/lintégrisme-dossier-complet.pdf

Il correspond bien au principe ecclesia semper reformanda est, qui rappelons-le, n’est pas un principe protestant, mais un principe catholique dès le 14ème siècle qui a conduit à la Réforme.

Philippe Genton, né le 19 mai 1951, père de trois enfants, et rejoint régulièrement par des petits enfants est pasteur de paroisse depuis plus de 30 ans, après avoir été technicien dentiste, puis diacre dans l'EERV. Il est actuellement pasteur de Monthey depuis plus de 17 ans, et espère bien y franchir le cap des 21 ans avant de commencer une nouvelle étape de vie comme pasteur retraité.

Un bon mot (ou un mauvais mot) d'un homme est ici cité comme "principe catholique". Bof ...

IX

Un peu plus prometteur:

De papen van Brugge: De seculiere clerus in een middeleeuwse wereldstad
Par Hendrik Callewier

Hier hebben wij twee noten. 35 zegt

Gazzaniga, 'Ecclesia semper reformanda' p. 1 - 9.

Die toezammenheng was "De Kerk was immer vortdurend in beweging". En 36 zegt

van Peteghem, 'Gérard Grote et l'image du "Bon Pasteur"' p. 17 - 25; Glorieux Oeuvres complètes de Jean Gerson, V, p. 125-142.

Die toezammenheng was: "De Parijse kanselier en deken van het Brugse Sint-Donaaskapittel, Johannes Gerson, gaf de idee van de goede herder vorm."

Unfortunately, the preview does not include the letter v in bibliography, so I can't consult van Peteghem. Glorieux is missing too. Along with Gazzaniga.

Know what?

You win. Jean Gerson, as far as I know DID say sth like that (though I wouldn't be sure, there was a factoid going on about St Jerome having said words about Genesis which have then been interpreted as a liberty to reinterpret it more or less completely as to storyline. But C. S. Lewis was wrong when attributing those words to St Jerome.)

So, when did he do it?

In a Church Council? Well, let's have a look:

A council was resolved upon, to meet at Pisa, and Gerson poured forth tract after tract for its guidance. The most important are Trilogus in materia schismatis (ii. 83), and De unitate Ecclesiae (ii. 113), in which, following Pierre d'Ailly (see Paul Tschackert, Peter von Ailli, p. 153), Gerson demonstrates that the ideal unity of the church, based upon Christ, destroyed by the popes, can only be restored by a general council, supreme and legitimate, though unsummoned by a pope. The council met, deposed both antipopes, and elected Alexander V. Gerson officially addressed the new pope on his duties in Sermo coram Alexandro Papa in die ascensionis in concilio Pisano (ii. 131). All hopes of reformation, however, were crushed by the conduct of the new pope, especially his immoderate partiality toward the Franciscan Order, of which he had been a monk. He issued a bull which laid the parish clergy and the universities at the mercy of the mendicants. The University of Paris rose in revolt, headed by its chancellor Gerson, who wrote the fierce pamphlet Censura professorum in theologia circa bullam Alexandri V (ii. 442). The pope died soon after, and John XXIII (Baldassare Cossa), was elected his successor. Instead of peace, the council of Pisa had produced only a third papacy. Pierre d'Ailly despaired of general councils (see his De difficultate reformationis in concilio universali), but Gerson struggled on. ... His efforts were powerfully seconded by the emperor Sigismund, and the result was the Council of Constance. Gerson's influence at the council was supreme up to the election of a new pope. It was he who dictated the form of submission and cession made by John XXIII, and directed the condemnation of Jan Hus. Many of Gerson's biographers have found it difficult to reconcile his proceedings against Hus with his own opinions upon the supremacy of the pope; but the difficulty has arisen partly from misunderstanding Gerson's position, partly from supposing him to be the author of a famous tract De modis uniendi et reformandi Ecclesiam in concilio universali. This, and the treatises De modis uniendi et reformandi Ecclesiam, and De difficultate reformationis in concilio universali, long ascribed to Gerson, were proved by Johann Baptist Schwab in his Johannes Gerson not to be his work, and have since been ascribed to Abbot Andreas of Randuf, and with more reason to Dietrich of Nieheim. All Gerson's high-sounding phrases about the supremacy of a council were meant to apply only in times of emergency. He was essentially a trimmer, not a reformer, and he hated Hus with all the rancor of a conservative at heart.

La ouiquipédie : Jean Gerson
(cité sélectivement)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Gerson

Well, perhaps the phrase was after all not from Gerson, but from the non-Gerson tractates "De modis uniendi et reformandi Ecclesiam in concilio universali", "De modis uniendi et reformandi Ecclesiam", and "De difficultate reformationis in concilio universali".

But suppose the works were even by Gerson.

The works as such were plans - not conciliar decisions.

And Gerson has also probably participated in the Pisa council after it was already schismatic, though he came around to Constance council?

Anyway, an adage like "ecclesia reformanda" was NOT put into capitula or canones of the actual council.

I am reminded of how Protestants see Sts Jerome and Augustine. St Augustine of Hippo is praised for his opposition to Pelagius (though some Orthodox would say Pelagius was misunderstood) even to the point of tracing their own foibles about enslaved will back to him. And St Jerome, poor guy, was just commonplace in insisting we have after all a free will. But when the Vulgate was to be translated, St Jerome was the daring guy, who wanted to have ONLY the books that he would be translating from Hebrew (it would have resulted in a 66 book Bible, and you know how fond the protestants are of this idea), whereas St Augustine was the commonplace one who wanted to preserve Baruch and Maccabees, Judith and Tobit and Syrach.

They love the idea of a "reformer" who stands up against the rest of the Church like an OT prophet, but are curiously silent about the qualities of St Athanasius in this respect. And as for the commonplace Catholics of the past (including those who are cast for the role of prophets in another context) they are just barely not being compared to "stoning the prophets and building them fine sepulchres" for not taking the new and bold and daring idea to their heart.

Sts Augustine and Jerome valued for what they have least in common with rest of bishops and clergy (at least in degree of vehemence), but they are not quite perfect for such idolatry. After all, they are canonised saints and as such suspect of being "idols" to Catholics. No, Gerson is better.

He is not a canonised saint.

I was going to write he believed in astrology, but it seems on the contrary he wrote a book against it, against the Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly, if I can trust the reference in Jean Gerson Par A.L. Masson, pp. 181 and following. Anne Louise Masson published it in 1894, in Lyons. On the other hand, it is possible the idea I had found about it in a wikipedian article was a remnant about astrology which he accepted after rejecting most of it. And that Anne Louise Masson was not quite gone through all of Trilogue de l'astrologie.

But either way, he is not a canonised saint. Nor is Baronius. What a Catholic calls "Catholic principles" is what we get from Church Fathers, from Doctors, from Saints. Gerson was not canonised. Even if he said it on a council, it could have been an obiter dictum. It is not included in the acts of any council, as far as I know (I say without consulting Constance decisions, but I'd be surprised if such a thing were included in a Conciliar Decision by any sober council, that is any Catholic council NOT identic to or inspired by Vatican II).

Now, what is the latest Bergoglionism?

“Medieval theologians used to say in Latin, that the Church is always in need of reform,” Ecclesia semper reformanda, the Pope said, receiving waves of applause that rippled through the Paul VI Hall where around a thousand Lutheran pilgrims were gathered: “This is what progress and maturing is about and the Church progresses, matures and so many small and not so small Church reforms moved, wanted to move along this path, some reforms were not successful, they were too much. Human things never are but reformation is an ecclesial process, that is what I mean. The question was: ‘who do you see as the Church’s the Churches’ and history’s greatest reformers?,” Francis said repeating the question. “I would say,” he continued, “that the Church’s greatest reformers are the saints, in other words the men and women who follow the Word of the Lord and practice it. This is the path we need to take, this is what reforms the church and they are great reformers, they may not be theologians, they may not have studied, they may be humble but these people’s soul is steeped in the Gospel, it’s full of it and they are the ones who successfully reform the Church. Both in the Lutheran and Catholic Churches there are saints, men and women with a holy heart who follow the Gospel: they are the Church’s reformers.”

Vatican Insider : Pope: Those who defend Christ but turn away refugees are hypocrites
http://www.lastampa.it/2016/10/13/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/pope-those-who-defend-christ-but-turn-away-refugees-are-hypocrites-2ILkzSdjbPv0WqHIkDKcOJ/pagina.html

So one Gerson or possibly von Nieheim becomes "Medieval theologians" in the plural? There was a time when Jesuit used to imply scholar!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Saint Luke, Gospeller
18.X.2016

Les Deux Calvin et la Quatrième Bête

Le second Calvin, c'est le Réformateur.

Le premier Calvin, c'est le fondateur d'Aix en Provence. Gaius Sextius Calvinus. La république romaine était à mon avis la quatrième bête de Daniel. Un peu avant, cette même république avait vaincu le père d'un Antioque Épiphane:

Antiochos IV Épiphane (l'Illustre) est le fils d'Antiochos III le Grand, né vers -215, il gouverne le royaume séleucide de -175 à -164, date de sa mort. La tradition chrétienne en fait une figure de l'Antéchrist. ... Après la défaite de son père et la paix d'Apamée, il est envoyé comme otage à Rome, où il passe plusieurs années avant d'être échangé en 178 ou 179 avec son neveu Démétrios, après l'avènement de son frère Séleucos IV. Il séjourne alors environ trois ans à Athènes, avec laquelle il noue des liens étroits.

La paix d'Apamée n'avait pas été revoquée. Antioque était à cette époque et plus tard un vassal de la Rome républicaine.

Rome va aussi être admiratrice d'Athènes.

Soutenu par les rois de Pergame Eumène et Attale, il succède à l'automne 175 à son frère Séleucos, assassiné par son ministre Héliodore qu'il élimine rapidement.

Personne qui pourrait imaginer (genre comme Tacitus fera à propos certain faits de Néron) qu'Héliodore avait agi sur l'ordre d'Antiochos et ensuite été éliminé pour ne pas trop bavarder?

De 171 à 168, il se lance dans une guerre contre l'Égypte, où il bat les pharaons Ptolémée VI et Ptolémée VII, s'emparant de l'Égypte et de Chypre en 168.

Un "roi du Nord" qui bat un (ou en fait deux) "roi(s) du Sud". Comme prédit en Daniel, comme répété par Lincoln en 1865 et par la Prusse en 1866, comme répété - quand on regarde la capitale - par Staline en 1945.

Cependant, l'ultimatum de l'ambassadeur romain Gaius Popilius Laenas, l'oblige à abandonner ses conquêtes. À la suite de l’expédition d’Antiochos contre l'Égypte, la guerre civile s'installe à Jérusalem entre les grands-prêtres Jason et Ménélas, après l'assassinat d'Onias III. Antiochos doit quitter l'Égypte pour réprimer la révolte à Jérusalem.

Regardons celui-ci:

En 168 av. J.-C., pendant le conflit entre Rome et la Macédoine, il est envoyé comme ambassadeur avec Caius Decimius et Caius Hostilius pour éviter une guerre entre Antiochos IV, roi séleucide qui veut envahir Alexandrie, et le roi d'Égypte Ptolémée VI. Passant par Rhodes, il impose aux habitants de sévir contre ceux d'entre eux qui ont aidé Persée dans sa guerre contre les Romains.

L'ambassade romaine rencontre Antiochos près d'Alexandrie. Pour hâter une négociation difficile, Popillius trace le fameux « cercle de Popillius » : avec un bâton, il entoure d'un cercle le roi Antiochos lui interdisant d'en sortir tant qu'il n'aurait pas donné sa réponse à l'injonction romaine. Ébahi, Antiochos accepte de renoncer à sa conquête de l'Égypte. À son retour, passant par Chypre, Popillius intime à la flotte syrienne de cesser ses attaques contre les positions égyptiennes et de retourner en Syrie. Les Séleucides se retirent finalement d'Égypte et concluent une paix durable avec les Ptolémées.

Cette attitude impérieuse de la diplomatie romaine et ses effets témoignent de la puissance que Rome peut afficher au début du IIe siècle av. J.-C.. Les paroles de Popillius font grande impression et ont des échos dans la culture romaine : Cicéron les évoque dans sa huitième Philippiquea 8 et Valère Maxime les met au nombre des paroles mémorables des Romainsa 9. Plus tard, au XVIIIe siècle, l’épisode est repris dans l’ouvrage éducatif De viris illustribus, rédigé par l'abbé Lhomond.

Et j'avais tellement souvent marché rue Lhomond sans m'en douter qu'il était collègue de Cornélius Népos!

Antiochos figure donc comme un "vir illuster", et donc comme un de ces "héros qui furent fameux dans l'antiquité". Antiochos est par là un Titan.

Genèse 6 : 4 Les géants étaient sur la terre en ces temps-là, après que les fils de Dieu furent venus vers les filles des hommes, et qu'elles leur eurent donné des enfants: ce sont ces héros qui furent fameux dans l'antiquité.

Mais le passage montre aussi que cet Antiochos se laissait traiter comme un vassal de Rome. Que donc, si Rome est la quatrième bête (notemment dans sa forme républicaine, car Pompilius Laenas avec Sextius Calvinus vivaient bien avant Jules César!), Antiochos IV peut l'être. Et si Antiochos IV peut être la quatrième bête, Rome (au moins dans sa forme républicaine) peut l'être.

Allons un peu plus loin.

Défenseur zélé de la culture grecque, il finance la construction du temple de Zeus à Athènes. Sous l'influence du mathématicien et poète Philonidès de Laodicée, il adopte la philosophie de l'épicurisme. Sa tentative d'hellénisation forcée de la Judée, soutenue par les grands-prêtres Jason et Ménélas, provoque la colère des Juifs traditionalistes.

Ah, Antiochos IV est matérialiste assumé? Ceci est tellement important, pas généralement connu, j'aimerais voir la référence en les notes données par la wikipédie. Note 3 est référencée juste après le mot épicurisme et nous dit:

Maurice Sartre, D'Alexandre à Zénobie, Histoire du Levant antique, IVe siècle av. J.-C. - IIIe siècle ap. J.-C., Fayard, p. 296.

Bon, mot de Sartre, Antiochos IV était épicuréen. Matérialiste.

C'est peut-être pour ça que St Paul dit aux Colossiens:

2:8 Prenez garde que personne ne fasse de vous sa proie par la philosophie et par de vaines deceptions, selon l'enseignement des hommes, selon les elements du monde, et non selon Christ;

Antiochos IV était épicuréen, le grand Antéchrist des derniers temps le sera aussi. Au moins matérialiste. Les elementa mundi, même les atomes, St Paul ne nie pas qu'ils éxistent. Mais il nie que la bonne philosophie doive suivre un trajet dirigé par eux.

Donc, Sextius Calvinus a ramené - probablement - la quatrième bête de Daniel en France.

Mais Jean Calvin, le réformateur? Bon, l'esprit calviniste pousse certaines découvertes de l'antiquité romaine de l'humanisme à une pertinence théologique inconnue auparavant. Certains gestes des prêtres catholiques sont chez lui soudainement jugés selon le critère "quelle signification aurait-ce dans un peplum?" ou à peu près.

De la suite, le calvinisme va contribuer à faire chuter les monarchies et à faire triompher les républiques. Et si Rome était la quatrième Bête de Daniel par Antiochos IV, alors Rome l'était à une époque quand elle était encore une République, comme le mot était compris avant César et comme normalement nous comprenons ce mot. Et ne va pas condamner par Colossiens 2:8 l'épicurisme.

But what is meant by the phrase — elements of the world ? (364) There can be no doubt that it means ceremonies. For he immediately afterwards adduces one instance by way of example — circumcision.

Cité de Studylight, un site ensemble avec des commentaires le plus souvent protestants. Celui-ci du commentaire de Calvin, page pour chapitre 2, et je ne donne pas du tout l'intégrité du passage pour le verset 8. La première partie est probablement souvent pensée quand on condamne, de manière protestante puritaine le scholasticisme. Ou - plus puritainement encore - toute érudition qui n'est pas théologie révélée. Mais il refuse d'identifier "element of this world" ou "selon les elements du monde' avec l'épicurisme.

Ce n'est simplement pas vrai que la circumcision est mentionné immédiatement par St Paul, mais à travers un verset, où il se réfère au Christ et un peu plus tard contraste la circoncision spirituelle du coeur avec la circoncision matérielle. Et les Juifs de nos jours, ils sont souvent ... épicuréens.

Plus récemment, on trouve la philosophe Ayn Rand, liée au mouvement libertarien, mais aussi les leaders du mouvement de Mai 1968, aux USA Jerry Rubin, en France Daniel Cohn-Bendit, au Royaume-Uni, le leader du Parti travailliste aux élections de 2015, Ed Miliband.

Le philosophe français juif Jacques Derrida, penseur de la déconstruction, écrivit : « Je me considère comme athée. »

Enfin, dans le monde du divertissement, Woody Allen a mis en avant ses doutes sur la religion.

Un très célèbre épicuréen, sinon circoncis au moins de famille juive, c'était Karl Marx. Sa thèse en philosophie niait que la philosophie visée par St Paul était celle des épicuréens. Elle est la première œuvre des &Oelig;uvres de Karl Marx (qui se trouve à la Pompidolienne, à lire uniquement sur place, je ne suis pas sûr si c'est la MEW ou la MEGA, probablement MEW). Et sa mère, Henrietta Pressburg, était juive religieuse.

N'oublions donc pas qu'en 1945 Moscou ( 55° 45′ 0″ N, 37° 37′ 0″ E ) a vaincu Berlin ( 52° 31′ N, 13° 24′ E ). Encore une fois un roi du Nord vaincant un roi du Sud. Et Moscou avait, en 1945, une philosophie épicuréenne, comme l'avait eu Antiochos IV.

Mon soupçon, c'est que les quatre bêtes se sont réveillées par l'humanisme, par la renaissance, par les réformes protestantes, par les révolutions, par les sociétés secrètes, par les mouvements révolutionnaires, par les républiques qui remplaces les monarchies chrétiennes, notamment quand les républiques sont sécularistes. Et par le Zionisme.

Rome en tant que république avait d'une certaine manière "dix cornes". Car sa loi était écrite sur Douze Tablets, mais par les Decemviri legibus ferundis. Israel avait une loi de dix commandements, aussi dits mots, logoi, pour ses douze tribus d'hommes, par un seul Dieu. Rome comme république avait une loi beaucoup plus large que le décalogue, par dix hommes. Le Zionisme de nos jour a aussi dix cornes:

1 Chaim Weizmann		17. Mai 1948		9. November 1952		Allgemeine Zionisten
Zionistischer Politiker, Chemiker		gestorben am 9. November 1952 in Jerusalem
2 Jizchak Ben Zwi		8. Dezember 1952		23. April 1963		Mapai
Zionistischer Politiker, Historiker		gestorben am 23. April 1963 in Jerusalem
3 Salman Schasar		21. Mai 1963		24. Mai 1973		Mapai
Schriftsteller, Dichter, Politiker		† 5. Oktober 1974 in Jerusalem
4 Ephraim Katzir		24. Mai 1973		19. April 1978		Awoda
Biophysiker		† 30. Mai 2009 in Rechowot
5 Jitzchak Nawon		19. April 1978		5. Mai 1983		Awoda
Pädagoge, Schriftsteller		† 6. November 2015 ebenda
6 Chaim Herzog		5. Mai 1983		13. Mai 1993		Awoda
Anwalt, General, Diplomat		† 17. April 1997 in Tel Aviv
7 Ezer Weizmann		13. Mai 1993		13. Juli 2000		Awoda
General der Luftstreitkräfte, Politiker		gestorben am 24. April 2005 in Caesarea
8 Mosche Katzav		1. August 2000		1. Juli 2007		Likud
Politiker		lebt noch
9 Schimon Peres		15. Juli 2007		24. Juli 2014		Kadima
Politiker		gestorben am 28. September 2016 in Tel Aviv
10 Reuven Rivlin		24. Juli 2014				Likud
Politiker, Jurist		lebt noch

Dont deux peuvent être éliminés par "la petite corne", si ça se trouvera que Schimon Peres fut assassiné ou autrement enlevé par celui-ci. Et le Zionisme n'est ni Talmudique, ni Catholique, mais assez sécularisé. Ce qui va bien avec le reste, si mon analyse en ceci serait valable.

La prostitué qui chevauche sur la bête (était-ce la quatrième ou est-ce encore leur coalition en une seule bête, déjà là ou encore à venir?) ce sera probablement l'Écuménisme sous égide "catholique". Si le vrai catholicisme ce sont les dix vierges, l'abandon lâche du catholicisme qu'on est censé soutenir est très proche du fait de se prostituer.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Saint Édouard d'Angleterre
13.X.2016