Something About Tolkien Just Struck Me

We know from the essay On Fairy-Stories that he appreciated "Morlocks and Eloi" which are from the H. G. Wells novel or story The Time Machine.

In that story (shorter than most novels I've read, hence my hesitation on classifying it as one) a man from our time is projected into a far off future where neither Eloi nor Morlocks look perfectly like us. But they have in their contrast a certain affinity to Tolkien's own Eldar and Orcs.

Meanwhile, The Time-Machine is putting the visitor in a time so far into the future, that it's well beyond any reasonable expectation of Harmageddon. That's how our kind came to develop into Eloi and Morlocks.

And Tolkien's mythos in most of its forms, certainly after Book of Lost Tales, puts the Eldar and Orcs into a time far older than any Christian calculations of Creation or at least Flood. That's how we forgot about them, mostly.

I wonder how many stories of travelling back in time existed before Tolkien nearly wrote one in The Lost Road. From my childhood I recall a comic book with Tarzan where Tarzan and Jane get from their jungle home to Pal Ul Don, but on their way back get into Ancient Egypt. Very clearly a direct time travel story about back in time ... but is it from Edgar Rice Burroughs or from someone else on the franchise?

Wait ... The House of Arden and Harding's Luck are from 1908 and 1909, by E. Nesbit. However, this is within the Anno Domini era (even since it's general adoption by c. 1100 AD).

Pierre Boitard's Paris avant les hommes is to Rahan a bit like Tolkien's unfinished The Lost Road is to Silmarillion (specifically Akallabêth) and ultimately to The Lord of the Rings.

The progressive H. G. Wells had fun? We can have fun too ... basically./HGL

ACER Paris et Diocèse (plus tard Archidiocèse) de Paris

ACER:

Est une église évangélique fondée par l'apôtre Alain-Patrick TSENGUE & le pasteur Paulette Tsengue. Membre de la CEAF et de la Fédération Protestante de France.

Diocèse*:

Fondé par un Saint Denis. Il vécut quand ? Il y a deux versions :

(I) Lutetiae Parisiorum natalis sanctorum Martyrum Dionysii Areopagitae Episcopi, Rustici Presbyteri, et Eleutherii Diaconi. Ex his Dionysius, ab Apostolo Paulo baptizatus, primus Atheniensium Episcopus ordinatus est; deinde Romam venit, atque inde a beato Clemente, Romano Pontifice, in Gallias praedicandi gratia directus est, et ad praefatam urbem devenit; ibique, cum per aliquot annos commissum sibi opus fideliter prosecutus esset, tandem, a Praefecto Fescennino, post gravissima tormentorum genera, una cum Sociis, gladio animadversus, martyrium complevit.

À la Lutèce des Parisiens [c'est] l'anniversaire [céleste] des saints Martyrs Denis l'Aréopagite, évêque, Rustique, prêtre, et Éleuthère, diacre. De ceux-ci, Denis, baptisé par l'Apôtre Paul est d'abord ordiné le premier évêque d'Athènes, ensuite vient à Rome, et ensuite est dirigé par le bienheureux Clément, Pontife Romain, aux Gaules dans le but de prêcher et arriva à la ville mentionné, et là [ici], après de poursuivre avec fidélité l'œuvre confiée à lui pendant quelques années, enfin, par le préfet Fescennin, après les pires genres de tourments, ensemble avec ses compagnons, accomplit son martyre par une peine de la glaive.**

(II) Personnage légendaire venu d'Italie en 245 apr. J.-C., il est chargé, selon l'illustration médiévale, avec six compagnons d'évangéliser le territoire des Gaules. Dans les premières légendes, Denis, oncle de Pancrace, évêque de Rome devenu saint Pancrace, a pris la place médiévale d'apôtre des Gaules. Saint Denis fonde au cours de son apostolat plusieurs églises en France, avant d'être martyrisé avec Rustique et Éleuthère, deux de ses compagnons, vers 250 à Montmartre (mons Martyrum).

Est-ce que le néveu est vraiment "évêque de Rome" ?

Pancrace de Rome, l'un des saint Pancrace, est selon la tradition né vers 289 ou 290, d'une famille noble de Phrygie ; il serait mort martyr à l'âge de 14 ans, en 304, lors des persécutions de Dioclétien à Rome. ... Originaire de Phrygie, Pancrace, ayant perdu ses parents, fut confié aux bons soins de son oncle paternel, Denis. Ils possédaient une grande fortune. Tous deux se rendirent à Rome.

Converti au christianisme par le pape Caïus, le jeune garçon fut dénoncé comme chrétien. Il comparut devant l'empereur Dioclétien ...

Bon, St. Pancrace n'a jamais été évêque, ça c'est une coquille dans la wikipédie sur St. Denis. Il est converti par la prêche du pape Caïus, donc entre 17 décembre 283 à sa mort, le 22 avril 296, et ensuite martyrisé à l'âge de 14 en 304. S'il est né en 290 et converti par la prêche de St. Caïus, il est converti à l'âge de six ans, au plus tard. Possible ? Oui, si l'oncle Denis est à la fois un Chrétien qui le permet de rester Chrétien et un pédagogue assez particulier qui n'a pas lui-même transmis le Christianisme à son neveu. Ou si l'oncle lui-même devient Chrétien au plus tard en 296.

Dans ce cas, cet oncle ne peut pas être le premier évêque de Paris. Regardons le martyrologe pour le 12 mai :

Item Romae, via Aurelia, sancti Pancratii Martyris, qui, cum esset annorum quatuordecim, sub Diocletiano, capitis obtruncatione martyrium complevit.

... Romae sancti Dionysii, qui exstitit patruus sancti Pancratii Martyris.

Aussi** à Rome, sur Via Aurelia, [anniversaire céleste du] martyr St. Pancrace, qui, quand il était âgé de 14 ans, sous Dioclétien, accomplit son martyre par déracinement de la tête.

... à Rome de St. Denis, qui était l'oncle paternel*** du martyr St. Pancrace.

Non, le St. Denis qui fonda le diocèse de Paris ne peut en aucun cas arriver de la Phrygie à Rome pour voir son neveu et puis soi-même martyrisés par Dioclétien après une conversion sous le pape Caïus. Rappelons que le texte de la wikipédie considère que c'est en 245 que St. Denis arrive de l'Italie. Avec ceci, je pense que tout le monde dirait que l'identification avec le disciple de St. Paul tient mieux. Au tel degré qu'on se poserait la question pourquoi on ne dit simplement pas que c'est le disciple de St. Paul. Est-ce juste une volonté de ne pas croire en St. Paul en quoi que ce soit où qu'une chose catholique puisse venir de lui ?

Non, il y a une autre raison. St. Denis de Paris ne serait pas le disciple de St. Paul, parce que le premier évêque de Paris se trouve très peu d'évêques avant Victorin de Paris, contemporain de St. Athanase :

240-250		Denis de Paris		Martyr
au IIIe siècle.
250-255		Mallon (Mallo)
255-260		Masse (Maxe)
260-265		Marcus (Marc)
265-344		Adventus (Aventus)
344-346		Victorinus (Victorin)		Témoigne
en faveur d'Athanase d'Alexandrie en 346.

Ignorons les indications des années pour l'instant. Regardons juste le nombre de personnes. Paris, peut-il avoir sept évêques consécutifs, et le dernier fait un témoignage en faveur de St. Athanase et le premier a rencontré St. Paul à l'Aréopage ? Non. On n'est plus dans les premiers siècles après le Déluge et en plus, un évêque de Paris risque fort d'avoir une expectance de vie beaucoup plus courte que la moyenne. Quelles possibilités a-t-on ?

1) Le diocèse de Paris est effectivement fondé plus tard que la vie de l'Aréopage.
2) La liste des évêques est incomplète.
3) Les évêques ne se sont pas suivis d'une manière consécutive, on a eu des époques quand Paris n'avait pas un évêque.

Comme 1) n'est pas mon hypothèse privilégiée, allons à 2). Je ne suis pas un expert de la question, mais une possibilité est qu'on ait eu dans ce cas un Denis I (l'Aréopagite, le Céphalophore) et un Denis II (prédécesseur immédiat de Mallon, lui aussi pas l'oncle de St. Pancrace).

Ma propre hypothèse privilégiée est, 3) il y a eu des lacunes dans la présence épiscopale. Des longues interregnes. Regardons les années, cette fois. Adventus entre 265 et 344 ? Un seul homme ? Vraiment ? Adventus I et Adventus II ? Ou cet Adventus est un seul homme, soit successeur immédiat de Marc, soit prédécesseur immédiat de Victorin, mais pas les deux. Ou, soit encore, ni ni, il y aurait de la sédévacance à Paris et entre Marc et Adventus, et entre Adventus et Victorin.

Je ne partage pas l'idée selon laquelle on a trop d'années après Jésus-Christ, on ne serait que par exemple 1725. Mais un des arguments proférés est la brévité des listes d'évêques. Il y a assez systématiquement trop peu d'évêques pour tenir entre les temps d'un premier très connu et les premiers qu'on peut attacher à une chronologie post-constantinienne. Regardons Lyon :

148 -177 :		Pothinus (Pothin, saint)
177-202 :		Irenaeus (Irénée, saint)
202- ? :		Zacharias (Zacharie, saint)
?		Hélius (Hélius ou Hélie, saint)
... 254 ... :		Faustinus ; (Faustin, saint)		connu
par une lettre de saint Cyprien (200-258), évêque de Carthage et père de l'Église écrite en 254 et destinée au pape Étienne Ier.
?		Lucius Verus
?		Julius
?		Ptolémaeus
... 314 ... :		Vocius		participe
au concile d'Arles du 1er août 314 condamnant le donatisme
?		Maximus (Maxime)
?		Tétradius (Tetrade)
... 343 ... :		Verissimus (Virisime)

Ici, les durées d'épiscopats sont plus crédibles, pourvu bien entendu que les persécutions étaient suffisamment intermittents. 148 à 254, 106 ans, 5 évêques, une moyenne de 21~22 ans par évêque et en plus les deux premiers dépassent cette moyenne, 202 à 254 c'est 52 ans, pour trois évêques, donc un peu plus que 17 ans par évêque. 314 à 343, 31 ans, quatre évêques. Et entre 254 et 314, entre Faustin et Vocius, 60 ans, trois évêques, 20 ans par évêque.

Je dirais qu'entre le martyre de St. Denis, effectivement l'Aréopagite, et le temps de Mallon, Paris a eu une très longue sédévacance, peut-être même intermission de continuité pour des années, et que pendant ce temps, on faisait confiance à des prêtres ou évêques en visite d'ailleurs, d'abord Italie, ensuite Lyon. Je propose aussi que la sédévacance a pu reprendre après Marcus, avant Adventus. Et si les évêques de Lyon se déplacent un peu partout dans les Gaules, pour visiter Paris ou d'autres diocèses et endroits en position analogue, ça donne un taux d'absence à Lyon même qui aide à expliquer des longues périodes qu'ils n'étaient pas dépistés par les autorités romaines et persécutrices.

De toute manière, le diocèse et ensuite l'archidiocèse, avec délais ou interruptions, ça s'attache aux Apôtres. Rome a une présence de l'épiscopat bien plus serré que Lyon. Mais entre la mort du dernier Apôtre et Alain-Patrick TSENGUE, par contre, il n'y a pas de continuité.

L'ACER (Assemblée Chrétienne pour l'Évangélisation et le Réveil) est une structure regroupant plusieurs églises, qui a vu le jour en fin d'année 2003.

2003 - 100 = 1903 ans, on aimerait voir les intermédiaires. Et surtout, ça fait très louche que Mr. TSENGUE s'intitule Apôtre.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts. Anges Gardiens
2.X.2025

Festum sanctorum Angelorum Custodum.

PS. Je prévois une objection de la part de gens qui se demandent comment les dates peuvent avoir été tellement inconnues. N'a-t-on pas simplement daté le règne d'un évêque en simple Anno Domini, l'Année du Seigneur ? Non. L'idée est abordé ici et là un peu plus tard que l'époque qui nous concerne. Elle trouve un traitement systématique chez un autre Denis, Denis le Petit (Dionysius Exiguus). Mais pour lui, c'est surtout une aide au bon calcul de la date de Pâques. C'est entre Charlemagne et le XIIe siècle que l'usage se généralise et donc, non, simplement noter la date quand quelqu'un devint évêque à Paris ou à Lyon, ce n'était pas encore possible à cette époque là. Selon la wikipédie, Denys le Petit meurt à Rome entre 537 et 555.

J'ai aussi consulté : Denis de Paris, Pancrace de Rome, Caïus (pape), Liste des évêques puis archevêques de Paris, Liste des évêques et archevêques de Lyon, le martyrologe romain pour octobre et mai. Et le site de l'ACER PARIS./HGL

* Devenu archidiocèse en 1622, ça veut dire que d'autres diocèses sont attachés à Paris, que d'autres évêques, comme celui de Nanterre, obéissent à celui de Paris, devenu donc un "évêque maître," un archevêque. ** Non, ce n'est pas de la xénoglossie que je traduis le latin, c'est une langue que j'ai étudiée. ** La première commémoration pour le 12 mai est celle des frères Achille et Nérée, eunuques de Domitilla, oui, la Rome païenne était dégueulasse, qui à leur martyre se disaient baptisés par St. Pierre, donc des siècles avant St. Pancrace. D'où cet "aussi" quand on l'introduit. *** En latin, on ne peut pas dire simplement "oncle" mais soit on est oncle paternel (patruus), soit oncle maternel (avunculus, d'où le français oncle).

The Monsters ARE The Critics

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: The Beowulf Poet Knew Homer · Other Characteristic of the Beowulf Poet: · The Monsters ARE The Critics · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: On Beowulf and Clergy · Was Tolkien Any Good as a Philologist?

Any one who has read a rather famous essay by a decently known expert on Anglo-Saxon and early Middle English, namely J. R. R. Tolkien, will know, I'm alluding to its title "The Monsters and the Critics".

So much, I actually punned ... a more sober description would be, the monsters are the criticisms.

Let's get into what I recall of them from reading that essay, adding own reflections.

Grendel is described as Caines cynne (Cain's kinsman) and that obviously is also valid for his mother.

One can presume the poet either imagined misbegotten people with no full agency over their behaviour being demon possessed to do their evil stuff, or perhaps even imagined Grendel and his mother as undead. You see, the behaviour of Grendel is not totally unlike that of Glam, in Grettir's saga.

If Grendel is supposed to be undead, Beowulf is pretty much defeating a demon. Or two of them, Grendel's mother too.

If there is a line implying Grendel was actually dying only when Beowulf killed him (I think there was), this may be because the poet didn't believe in draugar like Glam, so preferred to make it a living culprit.

On his old age, he's facing a dragon which seems to be of the pterodactylish kind. In this case, Tolkien notes how the poet glides between describing a physical dragon and describing the "old dragon" who is the enemy of our souls.

Now, what are these enemies supposed to be a criticism of? Expendable Danes.

In Ludwigslied, the Vikings are slaughtered as defeated. No pity or remorse over slaying them, even justly in righteous defense, is expressed. They attacked the Franks, Lewis III kills them off, good riddance.

And the Beowulf poet replies:

• Grendel has lost humanity, and acts like a demon, he's killed, good riddance;
• apart from trying to avenger her son, dito for his mother, she's killed, good riddance;
• and a dragon is both a symbol of and guided by the Devil, the dragon's killed, good riddance.

While there is flesh and blood in the monsters, this comes pretty close to an echo of St. Paul who said:

For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places
[Ephesians 6:12]

Or in Tolkien's terms (after describing Orcs as expendibles) "there are no Orcs in real life." (I'll ask a Tolkien scholar what letter).

And if the Pagan Danes were seduced by demons to their unjust attack on Lewis III's West Francia, this is not much better luck for them than Danes being slaughtered by Grendel or Geats being slaughtered by a dragon.

The Beowulf poet was telling people very caught up in chivalrous or warlordlike cultures which glorified battles, "guys, remember we are Christians, remember who's the real enemy!"

It so happens, in one of the lines, he mentions Sigmund the dragon slayer (the poet in the hall, a bit like Demodocus to Homer, in the intention of the poet behind the poem, is foreboding the dragon slaying of Beowulf). A certain Sigfrid (named after another name of the dragon slayer) who came from England (where the poem could be heard) decided, he needed to go and give the Geats the road to real glory. He died as bishop of Wexio, in Smolandia, which may have been part of what earlier on was Beowulf's kingdom. Smolandia in the North borders East Geat-Land and in the West, West Geat-Land or as they are usually named in Latin (and English) Ostrogothia and Westrogothia. If Hygelac and Beowulf ruled Westrogothia and Ostrogothia, wouldn't he have ruled Smolandia too?

For some benighted people who say "Beowulf is Pagan" I'd just like to mention that the Beowulf poet was aware that the Danes and Geats of the time were Pagans, but he didn't go out of his way to mention false gods by name, he just dropped comments like "they knew not their maker" ... the poem is set among Pagans, but it is written by a Christian.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Feast of the Blessed Name of Mary
12.IX.2025

Festum sanctissimi Nominis beatae Mariae, quod Innocentius Undecimus, Pontifex Maximus, ob insignem victoriam de Turcis, ipsius Virginis praesidio, Vindobonae in Austria reportatam, celebrari jussit.

PS, seems that, given today's feast, Pope Innocent XI was saying, "Ludwigslied has a point too" .../HGL

Other Characteristic of the Beowulf Poet:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: The Beowulf Poet Knew Homer · Other Characteristic of the Beowulf Poet: · The Monsters ARE The Critics · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: On Beowulf and Clergy · Was Tolkien Any Good as a Philologist?

Either he knew or was known by the author of the Ludwigslied:

Einan kuning uueiz ih, heizsit her Hluduig
ther gerno gode thionot: ih uueiz her imos lonot.
Kind uuarth her faterlos. thes uuarth imo sar buoz:
holoda inan truhtin, magaczogo uuarth her sin.

I know of a king called Louis who gladly serves God and is rewarded for it. He lost his father as a child, but there was a recompense for this: the Lord called upon him and became his tutor (magaczago: lit., “son-shower”).*

It's not just that The Lord is "truhtin" in Old High German and "dryhten" in Old English, but the whole passage has a parallel in the description of Scyld Scefing:

... Syððan ærest wearð
feasceaft funden, he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þah
oðþæt him æghwylc ymbsittendra
ofer hron-rade hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan. Þæt wæs god cyning.

... Though he was first
a poor foundling, he lived to find comfort;
under heavens he flourished, with honors fulfilled—
till each neighboring nation, those over the whale-road,
bowed under his rule, paid the price of tribute.
That was a good king!**

The line "good king" is as close as you can say of a pagan or not explicit Christian what the other poet said of Lewis III of France: "who gladly serves God."

But in both you have the theme of orphanage, and in both it is mentioned he "found comfort" for such beginnings. In both poems also, you have a plight on one people who somehow had not served God. Danes, for idolatry, were given over to the ravages of Grendel, and French, under Lewis III, were given over to ... Danes. I wouldn't be surprised if Ludwigslied involves Danes paying some tribute.***

Victims of Viking raids would have probably been more at ease thinking of Danes as a punishment from God than thinking of Danes in more human terms, as sharing their own condition of sometimes punished by God. I would say it is highly probable that Beowulf was written after the Ludwigslied and served as a theological pendant to it, in order to not dehumanise the Danes, also created in God's image, also redeemed by Calvary, also destined for Glory Eternal, but so far missing out.

This is of course somewhat relativising my point about Photius being the author.° While Photius certainly knew the Iliad and Odyssey, he was a Greek, is it quite as sure he knew the Ludwigslied? If he did, he had made peace with his old adversaries, Franks that say "filioque" and if he did, he might have chosen to make Geats his heros because the Varangian guard in Constantinople included them.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Patient of Lyon
11.IX.2025

Lugduni, in Gallia, depositio sancti Patientis Episcopi.

* English translation by Jake Coen.

Ludwigslied
https://sites.nd.edu/manuscript-studies/translations/ludwigslied/

** English translation chosen is that by John McNamara.

Beowulf — opening lines (1–11)
https://drmarkwomack.com/pdfs/beowulf-opening-lines.pdf

*** Actually not, I skimmed the English translation to the end, and no, the Vikings are just beaten and struck with woe.

° In my essay from 2012, I had written: If someone knows of some Byzantine cleric who disappeared from history before he died, I am not sure the Beowulf poet in England can be excluded from being that person later in life. Obviously, Photius fits that bill.

Cornthwaite présentait une vidéo sur les problèmes des évangiles

Je vais probablement faire une réfutatation en détail et y mettre le lien vers sa vidéo. Voici, je vais copier les six problèmes et y répondre :

Problème n° 1 : Origines inconnues

Pas si nous acceptons la tradition de l'Église comme indication des origines. Cornthwaite venait d'un milieu protestant, dans lequel il paraissait évident que l'Église catholique aurait introduit un bon nombre de traditions spurieuses, et apprenait que cette Église ne pouvait pas se distinguer de la première Église au moins du temps que nous avons le canon du Nouveau Testament. Pour lui, la question suivante était, si les auteurs des Évangiles aussi étaient des inventions par l'Église catholique.

Bon nombre de communeautés ont bon nombre de raisons à falsifier les propres traditions et parfois agissent sur ces mobiles, en les falsifiant. Mais les choses les moins aisées à falsifier sont les propres origines. Je ne dis pas les origines d'une communeauté antérieure, mais de la communeauté elle-même.

Supposons que la Sparte antique était à réformes inconnues ou mineurs à partir de Lycurgue. Nous avons davantage de raison de croire dans la Sparte comme réformée par lui que dans la Sparte dont les rois descendent d'Héracles, depuis le retour des Héraclides, et davantage de raisons de croire dans le retour des Héraclides que dans la fondation initiale par Lacédémon et sa femme Sparte. Néanmoins, à part l'origine prétendument divine de Lacédémon, ou de sa femme, je pense que la Sparte des temps mycénéens remonte à Lacédémon.

Pour Walter Leaf, le trope "fils de Zeus" pour ces personnages "mythologiques" désignait surtout un "self made man" (dont le père humain et réel n'avait pas d'intérêt). Item pour Minos ou pour Dardanos. Pour Héracle un peu différemment, je dirais, mais si la seule chose connue d'un "fils de Zeus" est la fondation ou recupération d'une ville ou île, je penche pour qu'il ait eu un père plus insignifiant que lui-même et que la superstition n'ait pas voulu accepter ça, on l'a donc fait prétendre "fils de Zeus" (très différemment d'un Fils de Dieu mort sur la Croix !). Certains prétendent d'ailleurs que Dardanos était fils de Corythos.

Appliquons ceci à une communauté protestante. Si elle dit "George Whitefield et John Wesley nous ont fondé au début du XVIII^e S. parce que l'Anglicanisme était devenu rigide comme l'Église catholique avant elle, et qu'elle avait donc trahi la Réforme" ... je veux bien croire ce qu'elle dit sur le propre origines du Méthodisme, je crois moins que l'Anglicanisme soit "devenu" rigide et impersonnelle et encore moins qu'une rigidité pareille dans l'Église catholique était le mobile des Réformateurs de s'en séparer. Si on compare la crédibilité sur les origines du Catholicisme entre Alexander Hislop et un Catholique, je note que Hislop faisait partie de l'Église libre d'Écosse, elle-même issue de l'Église d'Écosse et celle-ci issue de l'Église catholique à travers les critiques et révolutions de Jean Knox. Il y a donc deux bouleversements entre l'église qu'il prétendait définir et celle à laquelle il appartenait. Le catholique, par contre est lui-même dans la communauté qui a probablement une bonne mémoire de ses origines, et donc son explication de l'origine de l'Église catholique est plus crédible. À ceci appartient l'histoire de l'origine des évangiles. L'église se souvient de leurs origines, comme Rome de l'auteur des Commentaires sur la Guerre des Gaules.

Problème n° 2 : Usage inconnu (Magie et amulettes)

Les amulettes de l'Église catholique sont en connection avec de prières. La médaille miraculeuse à sa propre prière.

Et la prière judaïque comprend des tephillin, qui citent la loi de Moïse.

Les usages de brefs textes du Nouveau Testament utilisés (très visiblement, à partir du pli) comme amulettes devraient se comprendre comme des "tephillin catholiques" et donc pas mettre de doute sur l'existence d'un texte sacré comme ayant une existence aussi en dehors de ces brefs textes.

L'idée pourquoi ça rendrait l'origine traditionnelle moins crédible repose sur un préjugé de l'Évangélicalisme contre les "usages magiques" ou encore ritualistes. Cornthwaite avait effectivement été Évangéliste. Pour un Catholique, les usages en amulette de brefs extraits des Évangiles n'est pas un problème.

Problème n° 3 : Relations complexes (Problème synoptique)

Apparemment, il y aurait des répétitions verbatim très extensives entre les trois évangiles synoptiques.

Pour Cornthwaite, ceci serait infaisable sans un copiage à partir de l'écrit, la tradition orale aurait été trop fluctuante, n'aurait pas été rendue suffisamment uniforme dans sa mise en écrit.

Pour Bernard Scherrer, dernier numéro de 1000 raisons* Jésus est, selon la tradition syriaque, un malpana, un professeur qui enseigne en faisant apprendre des choses par cœur. Supposons que chaque mot attribué à Jésus en Matthieu ait été appris par cœur directement quand Jésus l'a dit. Ces paroles constituent d'ailleurs 56 % du contenu de l'Évangile de Matthieu. Ceci suppose qu'Il les aurait entrainé à apprendre des choses par cœur ou choisi pour avoir déjà une bonne maîtrise de cet art. Et avec ceci, ils avaient aussi un outil pour noter en mémoire, dans un texte fortement formalisé quoique oral, ce qu'ils voyaient dans les actes du maître également. Le résultat ?

L'Occident ne connaît pas la force de l'oralité, et pourtant on n'imagine pas, au sein d'un club des amoureux de La Fontaine, quelqu'un récitant La cigale et la fourmi en changeant un seul mot.**

Je pense que ceci peut expliquer pas mal de coïncidences entre les Apôtres en bloc (dont dépendait St. Luc sans en faire partie), St. Matthieu (un de ceux-ci), St. Pierre (un autre de ceux-ci, le principal, la source de St. Marc). En plus, pour Clément le Stromatiste, Luc aurait soumis son évangile au pape, au premier pape, St. Pierre, qui, ensuite, prit deux volumina ou rotuli*** et lisait de Mathieu, de Luc, de Mathieu, de Luc, en ajoutant parfois de commentaires propres. St. Marc, son sécretaire, crut qu'il était en train de rédiger finalement son évangile et prit notes, et quand St. Pierre découvrit ceci, il canonisa l'évangile de St. Marc avant celui de St. Luc.

Problème n° 4 : Manuscrits anciens manquants

Ici, Cornthwaite semble, soit ignorant, soit de mauvaise foi. Je devine, ignorant.

Pour la quasi-totalité de la littérature ancienne, beaucoup davantage de siècles manquent au début. L'exception est Homère. La transmission de ses poëmes avant les manuscrits, purement à l'oral, avant la mise à l'écrit par les fils de Pisistrate prouve aussi la possibilité d'apprendre un texte exact par cœur.

Pour un texte comme César, Commentaires sur la Guerre des Gaules, nos plus vieux manuscrits viennent de deux rédactions (une pour la Guerre des Gaules seule, une pour celle-ci avec la Guerre civile et encore quelques) dont le plus vieux se trouve en chaque cas entre 750 et 800 AdS.° Il y a des témoignages en des auteurs proches en temps à César, mais leur livres aussi sont attestés tardivement. Donc, entre 800 et 850 ans de l'histoire des manuscrits nous manque.

Problème n° 5 : Communautés incertaines

Ici, je ne suis pas sûr de compdrendre exactement le problème, j'y reviendrai en faisant la réfutation de la vidéo.

Je pense que ce qu'il vise est que pas juste les Catholiques ou "Proto-Orthodoxes" (le terme désigne pour ces siècles quelque chose bien avant le schisme entre Rome et Constantinople) mais aussi l'hérésie de Marcion se reclame de l'évangile de St. Luc.

La réponse devrait être que la communauté apostolique se laisse tracer. Ça ne fait pas de sens que de dire que Polycarpe appartenait à une communauté, Irénée à une autre quand ils décrivent, les deux, leur communauté de manières très semblables. Quand Irénée fait référence à Polycarpe comme l'ayant vu. Quand les doctrines sur morale, sur l'hérésie (une contagion à éviter), et sur l'orthoxie (l'inverse positif de l'hérésie) et son contenu sont sensiblement identiques.

Ceci est donc la communauté dont la tradition dit que Jésus les a fondés sur les douze, dont St. Pierre et dont St. Matthias en remplaçant de Judas le traître, ceci est la communauté dont la tradition dit que les gens des Nations peuvent être membres sans de judaïser, et ceci enfin est aussi la communauté dont la tradition dit que les évangiles préservés à nous sont quatre, Matthieu, Marc, Luc, Jean.

Problème n° 6 : Contradictions évidentes

Pour Cornthwaite, la contradiction la plus éclatante est la mort de Judas. Voici la reconciliation attribué à St. Jean, qui connut bien l'affaire (dans la Vie de St. Jean), étape par étape, comme je la comprends.

• Judas jette l'argent et va se pendre ;
• il ne meurt pas, quelqu'un le sauve ;
• les prêtres achètent le champs avec en premier plan que les étrangers soient ensévélis là-bas ;
• il obtient le champs une fois qu'on se rend compte qu'il est encore en vie ;
• en se mettant à la charrue, il explode et en meurt finalement ;
• enfin, son champs ne sert même pas à ensévélir d'étrangers, il reste inoccupé comme maudit quand St. Pierre parle en chapitre premier des Actes.

Alternativement, le plan que les étrangers y soient ensévélis est pris dans un second temps de la réflexion des gens qui avaient agi comme les gardiens de Judas et de sa fortune, même si St. Mathieu résume leur pensée en une phrase.

Vu que la vidéo pourrait contenir d'autres problèmes que juste les six problèmes ici mentionnés, je préfère donner le lien avec une réfutation plus complète, en anglais, sous la vidéo.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
L'évêque St. Pierre de Compostelle
10.IX.2025

Compostellae sancti Petri Episcopi, qui multis virtutibus et miraculis claruit.

* 1000 raisons à croire, n° 9, juillet — septembre 2025, pp. 22—27, "À la recherche de la version originale des évangiles". ** Ibid. p. 23. *** Deux manières de rouler un livre quand le livre était un rouleau. ° Rédaction seule Guerre des Gaules, le plus vieux est MS. Amsterdam 73, écrit à l'abbaye de Fleury dans le neuvième siècle tardif. Pour la rédaction plus extensive, le plus vieux est écrit à Corbie, dans le dernier quart du neuvième siècle, il s'appelle MS Paris lat. 3864. Merci à la wiki anglophone pour ...

Commentarii de Bello Gallico : Manuscripts and publication history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentarii_de_Bello_Gallico#Manuscripts_and_publication_history

Good Reason for Me NOT to Be a Nazi in Sweden

Slaget vid Breitenfeld
https://nordfront.se/slaget-vid-breitenfeld.smr

They sometimes do tell fairly interesting stories in what seems to be decent journalism. Like Swedish military ammunition in the hands of criminal gangs. The story as such in above article is arguably very correctly told, it was decades since I read up on it, and I found no fault in my memory of what happened.

But, the caption:

Dagens datum 7 september: Denna dag år 1631 besegrade en svenskledd armé under Gustav II Adolf den papistiska hären vid Breitenfeld.

Today's date, 7 Sept.: this day in 1631 a Swedish led army under Gustavus Adolphus defeated the Papist host at Breitenfeld.

Those on the German Emperor's side (yes, this was when the German Emperor was Austrian), were Catholics. Nordfront for some reason has to call them "Papists" ... the nickname given by Reformers and by Protestant Imperialists like Gustavus Adolphus. And preserved in the 19th and 20th C. among the more virulently anti-Catholics.

If the whole world can be wrong about religion, so can one country. I do not have a duty to detest the Church that God founded on His disciple Peter, just because it is impopular in some corners of Swedish society. I'm also born in Vienna, so, I have a South German view of Swedish soldiers in the Thirty Years' War. In the time of Queen Christina, before her abdication, they came down to near Vienna and lost a battle because they were too drunk since the evening before.

National Socialists would obviously not require members to adher to Lutheran tenets such as Christ is risen or the Bible is true. But they would want members to adher to Lutheran prejudice against Catholicism. Or especially against certain Catholic tenets, like the equality of human persons independently of race:

Debatten mellan Jared Taylor och E. Michael Jones
https://nordfront.se/debatten-mellan-jared-taylor-och-e-michael-jones

Jared Taylor is not a Catholic, he's upheld by the National Socialist journalist and his colleagues, E. Michael Jones is a Catholic, and they dislike his saying that as a Catholic he has a loyalty to all Catholics, but not as a white to all white people. I agree with E. Michael Jones, obviously.

Meanwhile, I see no problems of this degree with supporting Fundación Nacional Francisco Franco. I may prefer Carlism, especially before the split in 1976, and after it both the portions of Carlism, but if one of the problems with the Franco régime was (and probably the biggest one) sometimes not acting as if the peace had already been won in 1939, this seems to be a thing he made up for on his deathbed:

Pido perdón a todos, como de todo corazón perdono a cuantos se declararon mis enemigos, sin que yo los tuviera como tales.

I ask forgiveness of all, as of all heart I forgive a howsomany have declared themselves my enemies, without me having held them as such.

Último mensaje del Jefe del Estado, D. Francisco Franco Bahamonde
https://fnff.es/francisco-franco/ultimo-mensaje/

As per my own ill fortunes, I'd be happier to follow his example if I knew I were dying or going to get executed. I could forgive an enemy if death parted me from me in less than a week, or if he had ceased to hurt, but it's less easy if I foresee he will hurt me years from now. Franco had no ethnic or racial group he was cracking down on. He also was not loyal to Russia or England just because they are white nations. If immigrants could be a problem, which I have not wanted to make a major issue of my writing, it would at least not be because of their racial characteristics as such.

That said, I'd appreciate fewer expropriations from Boers, or none at all, in South Africa. And fewer murders.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Our Lady's Nativity
8.IX.2025

Nativitas beatissimae semper Virginis Genitricis Dei Mariae. Sancti Hadriani Martyris; cujus dies natalis quarto Nonas Martii recensetur, sed festivitas hac die, qua sacrum ejus corpus Romam translatum fuit, potissime celebratur.

Certains ont une horreur de l'idée que Caïn et Seth aient épousé chacun une des sœurs

Doit-on conclure que la position traditionnelle et consentanée avec le droit naturel soit qu'il y ait eu d'autres personnes humaines qui ne descendaient pas d'Adam et Ève ?

Écoutons l'Abbé Fulcran Vigouroux*, qui se charge de l'erreur de La Peyrère :

Citons les propos sur les pages 529 et 530.

2° Pour réfuter l'opinion de la Peyrère, il suffit de remarquer : — 1° que c'est fausser le sens du texte sacré que de supposer que l'homme, créé le sixième jour, Adam en hébreu [Gen. 1:27] , n'est pas le même que l'Adam placé dans le paradis terrestre [Gen. 2:7,13] : tous les commentateurs sont unanimes à reconnaître l'identité de ces deux Adam. — 2° Caïn pouvait facilement prévoir que le nombre des hommes qui descendrait d'Adam serait bientôt assez considérable pour qu'il eût à craindre d'être tué par l'un deux. — 3° Caïn, comme Seth, épousa une de ses sœurs, de l'aveu de tous les interprètes. — 4° À la difficulté tirée de l'invraisemblance que Caïn ait bâti une ville lorsqu'il n'y avait, dit la Peyrère, personne pour l'habiter, S. Augustin avait répondu à l'avance que les hommes s'étaient rapidement multipliés et que la Genèse n'avait pas énuméré tout les descendant d'Adam. Il exista certainement bientôt assez d'hommes pour que Caïn bâtit non pas sans doute une grande ville, mais un groupe d'habitations fixes et stables, qui pouvait porter en hébreu le nom de ville, 'ir "lieu où l'on est à l'abri". — 5° Les Préadamites ont le tort de vouloir s'appuyer sur la Bible, d'une part, et de la contredire de l'autre. S'ils acceptent son autorité, ils doivent admettre l'unité de l'espèce humaine, puisqu'il est évident qu'elle l'enseigne [Actes 17:26, 1 Cor 15:45, 1 Tim 2:13]. S'ils ne l'acceptaient pas, comment peuvent-ils soutenir qu'il a existé des hommes avant Adam et même qu'il y a eu un Adam, puisque son existence ne nous est connue que par l'Écriture?

Aucune trace d'une répugnance contre le prétendu inceste entre frère et sœur dans la première génération après Adam et Ève. Pas non plus, sans doute, de discussion d'une éventuelle répugnance derrière l'idée de la Peyrère, si une telle chose se trouve dans son livre, contrairement au résumé.

Dans une note en bas de page, Vigouroux cite St. Augustine dans le latin pour le nombre d'hommes quand Caïn fonde la cité de Hénoch. Cité de Dieu, livre XV, chapitre 8. Pour le propos dans le titre, allons plutôt à l'argument du chapitre 16.

Je le résume ainsi, avec observations supplémentaires : — 1° l'inceste (entre frère et sœur) est abhorré comme posant une coalescence entre relations qui diminue le nombre de personnes avec qui on est dans une relation amicale. (Il ne parle même pas de toute un autre problème encore plus grave entre parent et progéniture, puisque ce n'est pas du tout dans le texte, Genèse 4 et 5 n'ai rién de la tragédie de Thèbes). Idéalement, donc, deux fonctions de relations doivent vous unir à deux personnes différentes. — 2° Mais la génération après Adam et Ève, il y avait juste deux fonctions qui coïncidèrent : père et beau-père, la relation d'Adam à Caïn et à sa femme (mère et belle-mère pour Ève) et à l'inverse fils et beau-fils pour Caïn, fille et belle-fille pour sa femme. Et ce n'était pas évitable. — 3° Par contre, la génération prochaine, c'était déjà évitable, on pouvait épouser une cousine germaine, et la coïncidence aurait été de trois relations : Caïn aurait été à la fois père et beau-père de Hénoch et encore l'oncle maternel aussi, si Hénoch avait épousé sa sœur; donc, si Hénoch a épousé une cousine, Caïn n'était que juste père et oncle, mais pas encore beau-père au-dessus du marché. — 4° Dès la génération d'Irad, c'était possible d'avoir Hénoch uniquement comme père, quelqu'un d'autre comme beaupère et quelqu'un d'autre comme oncle maternel. Depuis, on ne fait même pas coïncider deux relations. C'est à dire, licitement. — 5° Avant de répondre que l'affaire entre un frère et une sœur de nos jours ferait juste coïncider deux relations, puisque leur père et mère ne sont pas frère et sœur comme Adam et Ève ne l'étaient pas, les relations licitent doive se pouvoir répéter sans trop d'inconvénient, et là on aurait dans la génération suivante une coïncidance entre trois relations. Et ce qui est dit de Caïn, Hénoch, Irad doit s'entendre aussi de Seth, Énos, Caïnan.

C'est aussi le mobile pourquoi la loi canonique de l'Église catholique extend les relations interdites aussi aux cousins germains, il faut aller au-delà des quatre degrés de consanguinité pour pouvoir se marier, quoique pour les infidèles convertis, seuls les consanguins en premier degré sont obligés de se séparer. Je parle bien entendu en terre de missions, puisque en Occident, les règles de l'Église sont plus ou moins réfléchies dans les législations.

Certains prétendent que la science moderne aurait prouvé que la consanguinité en soi soit malsaine, que les fils de Seth et Caïn auraient donc obligatoirement dû être viciés. Notons ici, l'exemple qu'on donne tellement souvent d'une dynastie viciée par consanguinté, les Habsbourg**, dépendait très de dispenses papales mais uniquement sur les degrés acceptés dans la loi mosaïque (le pape ne prétendait pas délier là où la loi avait interdit un degré). Pourtant, les enfants de Philippe IV d'Espagne avec sa nièce Marianne d'Autriche, soit meurent vite, soit pour un est totalement débile (Charles II d'Espagne), soit pour une autre, Marguerite-Thérèse d'Autriche, aligne les fausses couches et les enfants vite morts, et aura une fille, Marie-Antoinette d'Autriche, qui aura un enfant vivant jusqu'à l'âge de presque sept ans, Joseph-Ferdinand de Bavière.

Mais regardons les générations entre Adam et Ève et Joseph-Ferdinand de Bavière. Entre nos premiers parents et Notre Seigneur, il y a selon Luc 3 72 générations. Entre lui et Joseph-Ferdinand de Bavière, comptons 3 ou 4 générations par siècle, et il se trouve ... entre 51 et 68 générations de plus, donc, entre 123 et 140 générations qui ont pu accumuler des mutations nocives, dont certaines surtout en combinaison avec la gène identique dans le chromosome homologue. Et si on compte qu'après le Déluge, la lignée de Jésus comporte pas mal de générations espacées, ce serait plutôt peut-être même 200 ou 250 générations après Adam et Ève pour le pauvre. Qui ne l'est plus, il est baptisé, il est mort avant de pouvoir commettre un péché, il est donc au Ciel. Mais je parle de la génétique. Ces mutations nocives étaient encore absentes chez Adam et Ève et leurs enfants. Ce qui change la donne génétique radicalement.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
XIII^e dim. après Pentecôte
7.IX.2025

* Clicquer les images pour élargir, si vous voulez lire in extenso. Ou consultez le texte :

Manuel Biblique ou Cours d'Écriture Sainte à l'usage des séminaristes
ANCIEN TESTAMENT
Par F. Vigouroux, prêtre de Saint-Sulpice
http://areopage.net/PDF/VigourouxBacuez_ManuelBiblique.pdf

** Ceci ne concerne qu'une épisode de leur dynastie, certes la raison derrière la Guerre de Succession d'Espagne. Les Habsbourg-Lothringen n'ont pas ce problème.

Our Lady of The Good Event, Genuine Revelation or Masonic Defector Giving a Warning?

We have no reason to doubt there is a holy person, an incorrupt nun involved. She is a natural mummy.

The question is, did she receive certain revelations or were they later attributed to her? It's not like with St. Bridget of Sweden, who became famous all over Sweden and then all over Spain through her revelations, and whose Father confessor wrote them down (or actually two fathers confessor, Father Matthias, from Jönköping or Linköping, I think the latter, and Alfonso Pecha of Jaén, he became her confessor only after retiring from the See of Jaén: on discussing his case, that of abdicating his episcopate, a Lutheran considered certain phrases about him as "typical hagiographical fiorituras" — "floskler", I replied it looked like a burnout). In this case, her canonisation was discussing her revelations, on two criteria: no deviation from dogma allowed, no predictions that were both unconditional and unfulfilled allowed. Even an atheist who studied them, my professor of Latin back then, Birger Bergh, considered it spooky how accurate her predictions were.

By contrast, those of Sr. Mariana de Jesús Torres, it seems the first now known printed edition is from 1790.

Could an older manuscript or forgotten edition be there? Could be. That would confirm they are absolutely from her. Meanwhile ... as the predictions mention "Masonic Sects" I think we should take a historic look at these. God is certainly capable of exact prediction, all times are laid out before Him, even as they are connected and involve free choices that we make one moment at a time. So, if something is suspicious about mentioning someone or something directly by name in a prophecy, it's because previous direct knowledge of the name could hinder or otherwise unduly influence the outcome. Prophecies are also not self fulfilling. Let's take a look at Isaias and Cyrus:

Who say to Cyrus: Thou art my shepherd, and thou shalt perform all my pleasure. Who say to Jerusalem: Thou shalt be built: and to the temple: Thy foundations shall be laid.
[Isaias (Isaiah) 44:28]

Thus saith the Lord to my anointed Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue nations before his face, and to turn the backs of kings, and to open the doors before him, and the gates shall not be shut.
[Isaias (Isaiah) 45:1]

Why is this allowed? Because Isaias who certainly lived before Cyrus, wrote in Hebrew, a language which the parents of Cyrus did not speak. Anshan or Tall-e Malyan is three days walking distance from Shiraz, which is 2000 km from Jerusalem.* Cyrus' parents had no way possible to know naming their son would be a luck charm, and rival claimants to power had no way to know the name boded ill for their own keeping of it. This is why the Antichrist is NOT named by name in the Apocalypse, but only his gematria is given. I'd argue God knowing all of today as much in the day of Patmos as today, could very well have given his gematria in ASCII, and he** could have been born before that was a thing. If end times wait 4 decades more, this will with current lifespans not be possible. But as he is arguably an Apostate from Christianity, naming him directly would have been too clear, he could have been eliminated by someone who had read too many books about going back in time and eliminating Hitler before he came to power. Also, it would have been too clear in another way, since he was going to seduce "if it were possible even the elect" ...

We'll see how this applies to Masonic sects if the revelation is from 1590.

Lodges of Free Masons started out as a simple somewhat unusual type of guild. An artisan guild would usually in the Middle Ages be not just attached to a specific city, but even allowed to perform their craft only inside it. A baker from Paris could not set up a shop in Lyons. A butcher from Lyons could not set up a shop in Marseille. A potter from Marseille could not sell his ceramics (directly, except through merchants) in Bordeaux. A cooper from Bordeaux could not come to Paris to make barrells. But a builder of Cathedrals or Castles needed to be able to move to where a Cathedral or a Castle was being built. These Masons were called Free, because they were not tied to a specific city (unlike a normal house mason, making private houses in it). Instead of a guild hall, outside where they came from, they had a lodge, a kind of wooden room that was hoisted unto the scaffolding of a building. I think, but could be wrong, when a Cathedral was built, several lodges were at work at the same time, even if only one of them provided the architect. In the jargon of freemasonry, such lodges are retrospectively called "operative lodges" and their members "operative masons" ... an operative mason is simply one who exercises the craft of building stone buildings.

These things existed all over Europe. However, a specific event in England was going to change their nature there. Elisabeth I made England a Capitalist country, where guilds were forbidden. Each craftsman became his contractor on any terms the law allowed, there was no guild to tell him "you can't build that cheap" or "you can't work that late at night" ... two craftsmen of the same trade were supposed to be rivals, not comrades with a common code. The one type of guilds that survived this (or somewhat better than the rest) were Lodges of Masons.

From the Deformation to 1688, England was in turmoil. Ireland and Scotland even longer. Many rich men were persecuted, and many of them paid to be members of an also persecuted, but less so, Masons' lodge. In some cases, the new members were Catholics, persecuted for Catholicism. And they were not always well catechised. In some cases, they were trying to restore Stuarts, succeeding with Charles II and failing with James III, perhaps failing, perhaps betraying with Charles III (not meaning the present ruler). Some of them were Catholics. Some of them were other religions persecuted by Anglicans or Puritans, and some of these may even have included witches and warlocks. In other words, the lodges did not always help Catholics to stay Catholics, they sometimes helped a Catholic veneer (more or less thin) to veil heterodoxy. When a Catholic or Catholic leaning was allergic to the available Protestant "orthodoxy" and cut off from actual orthodox Catechisms and priests, like Penny Catechism, like a priest martyred in Tyburn, he sometimes turned into something very heterodox.

In 1717, a few lodges were started into a united lodge that were explicitly denying the necessity of being a Christian in order to be part of their guild. Anderson's Constitutions. Desaguyliers. The latter was part of the persecuted Huguenots as a child and young man. When he noticed Newton had (to his satisfaction, not mine) proven Heliocentrism, and therefore put the Inquisitors of Galileo in the wrong, he made sure Bruno and Galileo were ever after part of the Masonic ideals, or "Great Men" ... their reply to both Plutarch and the Catholic hagiography. Anderson was a Scottish Calvinist.

However, a Stuartite lodge in 1688 or a Williamite one (there were lodges on both sides) or Anderson and Desaguyliers were not reading Spanish. Still less a nun from Quito. IF God chose to reveal the name "Masonic lodges" that would have no more effect on their doings than Isaias revealing Cyrus could have at Shiraz or more precisely at Anshan.

Meanwhile, for most of this time, the preparation of the fulfilment would have been very obscure over in Quito, where her texts are accessed. By 1790, this was not so. This could have been a reason if the revelations were genuine, to decide to publish them then.

On the other hand, by 1790, anyone could write the words "Masonic Sects" and even the idea of them trying to dominate society. Revd. Barruel (who gives another origin for Freemasons, which may or may not be true in complement to the one I gave, namely Templar origins) could not have written the whole history of Jacobins in 1790, since they were only coming into power later and were still a thing, but he could probably already have given his views of Masons, as found, presumably, in that work.

And if certain conspiracy theories are true, Masons could already have known what they were going to do in the 19th and 20th C. However, even that kind of conspirers doesn't control everything, so, they could not have known where they were going to be successful.

A shortage of baptisms and confirmations has certainly been the case in the 20th C. in USSR and in Albania. Perhaps less so in Ecuador. Girls remaining virgins until they marry have a shortage in Sweden and in the US. Again, perhaps less so in Ecuador. However, Ecuador has had Masonic governments. José María Velasco Ibarra was a Mason. His two successors are not explicitly stated as Masons, but also not as Catholics. Guillermo Rodríguez Lara, Jaime Roldós Aguilera. If the latter was a Catholic, that could be why he was assassinated, if the air plane crash was an assassination. Osvaldo Hurtado Larrea is however a (Novus Ordo, presumably) Catholic. León Febres-Cordero Ribadeneyra probably too. But Rodrigo Borja Cevallos is an Agnostic.*** Sixto Alfonso Durán-Ballén Cordovez probably a Catholic. Abdalá Bucaram, nothing noted. Rosalía Arteaga, a lady by definition can't be Mason. She also went to the Pontifical University. Fabián Ernesto Alarcón Rivera is a Catholic. Jorge Jamil Mahuad Witt is a Maronite, so a Catholic. Gustavo José Joaquín Noboa Bejarano was a Catholic. Lucio Gutiérrez is a Catholic. Alfredo Palacio was a Catholic, he died this year. Rafael Vicente Correa Delgado is possibly a Catholic and a Boy Scout. Lenín Boltaire Moreno Garcés is a Socialist. But even so a Catholic. Guillermo Alberto Santiago Lasso Mendoza is as Catholic as you can expect from Opus Dei and bankers ... Daniel Roy Gilchrist Noboa Azín is a Catholic, born arguably among Catholic exile Cubans in Miami. He is the current president.

I can understand the viewpoint that the predictions didn't come true if "these lands" refer to Ecuador. A best case scenario could be for them to refer to the US where the revelations have become popular. Some who are very rejecting of Vatican II could also pretend that any Catholic accepting it were ipso facto a Freemason, which I think is over the top. I think the late Pope Michael I did not think so.

If a Freemason in 1790 wanted to reveal secret plans of the Lodges (by then meaning Speculative Lodges or what the Popes call Masonic Sects, having left the trade of Masons aside from 1717 if not earlier) why would he plant a text purporting to be a revelation in the previous centuries? Why would his superiors or pastors allow him to do so? Well, those damned Sects have a kind of Oath, which I have not taken and do not intend to take, of secrecy. Revealing the real source would have put a defector from Freemasonry at danger.

This would explain why much of the prophecies did occur, pretty much when expected, but not in "these lands" if that means Ecuador.

A third option would be, no, the source for the info is neither the Blessed Virgin, nor a defector, but a man like Barruel.

Both of these alternatives share the feature of Freemasonry (or what was labelled so in 1790, perhaps later more often labelled Socialist) being predictable on lines pretty closely resembling those of Barruel.

I'm of course presuming that the predictions are there in the first known edition from 1790.

But I cannot exclude the possibility that "these lands" means something other than Ecuador, and so also not that the predictions are really supernatural. I only know a few quotes of the revelations.°

However, that Pius IX did two things and suffered a third, whcih nails it for some, is also possible by accurate predictions about how freemasons would interact with him ... up to 80 years before it happened. He proclaimed the Immaculate Conception, as he should. A lodge started a campaign impugning it by contesting his authority to do so, he proclaimed Papal infallibility too ... by signing the vote of a council ... and the next step was easy enough. Garibaldi was already in action. He was indeed a Freemason and a Carbonaro. And a few decades later, in Romagna, a certain Alessandro Serenelli was finding a certain Maria Goretti too quaint for not relinquishing her virginity even when some pressure gave her an excuse. Garibaldi in 1870 obviously had raised the marital age from 12 to 18 for girls, from 14 to 18 for boys. And in many cases that extra waiting time proves difficult.

Does Italy count as "these lands"?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Our Lady's Assumption
15.VIII.2025

Assumptio sanctissimae Dei Genitricis Virginis Mariae.

PS, if it had been "our lands" one could have made a case that it was those lands dedicated to Our Lord and Our Lady and in that case a large swathe of them actually did suffer what was said. "These lands"? Is the Spanish pronoun one which has different meanings in Spain and Latin America?/HGL

* On main roads, like shorter as the bird flies. ** My word "he" means the Antichrist, of course. Clumsy sentence, I know. *** Borja is the Spanish spelling for Borgia. ° From Are The Apparitions Of Our Lady Of Good Success Authentic? and from Chilling Prophecies of Our Lady of Good Success and I quoted the phrase "these lands" and cited specific predictions from memory.

Gematria of CSL vs Interests

822, Dewey:

What is the Dewey Decimal number 822?

822 would be English drama and 824 indicates English essays. As you can see and as mentioned before, the more specific the number gets, the more specific a topic is.

Source:
What is the Dewey Decimal System?
https://library.nicc.edu/c.php?g=1238185

The delicious thing is, C. S. Lewis was as a professor in Cambridge doing English Medieval and Renaissance Literature, specifically EXCLUDING drama. He hated Ben Johnson and some ...

But he knew them.

Meanwhile, C. S. Lewis is 822.

C		67
S		83		140		10
L		76		210		16
E		69		270		25
W		87		350		32
I		73		420		35
S		83		500		38

OK, but 538 isn't 822? No, but that was just the upper case actual letters. Each lower case (there are four) as well as each space (two) is 32 (more than the uppercase or simply), while each full stop is 46.

6 * 32 + 2 * 46 = 284
284 + 538 = 822

Recall, when he was a boy, he wanted to write (in English) a Greek drama called Loki bound ... all of it with stasima and the other typical parts of an Attic drama. Expressing a very English agreement with Epicure's dilemma. In a sense he spent lots of his adult life replying to what Loki would have said in that drama./HGL

"Do You Speak Jewish?"

By an US American to a couple speaking Portuguese.

Pretty obviously, the person asking wasn't referring to Yiddish, which can be described as Ashkenaz Jewish Medieval German.

She was pretty certainly referring to Djudezmo, which can be described as Sephardic Jewish Medieval Spanish.

One thing which it shares with Portuguese rather than Spanish is, no diphthongs. Perhaps not "non at all" but not the ones in PUEDO and TIEMPO, those are "podo" and "tempo" in Djudezmo.

Again, DJ is closer to Portuguese and French J, than to Spanish "J is actually ACH-Laut".

SH is still distinguished and so that's closer to Portuguese than to Spanish "X is also actually ACH-Laut, but we spell it J now" (¿verdad, Méjico?).

DZ is Z, Ç is S. More Latin American than European Spanish but distinguishing Z from S is more Portuguese than Latin American Spanish.

Also B and D and "hard" G are closer to English or Italian letters than to Spanish ones. Again, not unlike Portuguese.

And it's definitely NOT like Latin American Spanish where CALLE is sometimes KASHE, nope, it's KALYE.

So, if someone confuses Djudezmo and Portuguese, it's probably not a nincompoop, ¿de akodro?

And calling Djudezmo "Jewish" is literally just translating.

So, no, they weren't speaking Sephardic Jewish, they were speaking Portuguese, but that's a kind of mix-up that happens./HGL

(I happen to be more than a Euro short of the kaviko in this cyber, I'm off).

Does Sungenis Number St. Augustine Among Papias, Lactantius, Irenaeus, and, Not Quite a CF, Tertullian?

If I understood his live stream as it aired a few minutes ago and I just viewed with delay, his position is that the majority of Church Fathers who are NOT Pre-Millennialists did not believe in a Mass Conversion of Jews.

Now, St. Augustine is definitely not a Pre-Millennialist, and in City of God, he actually does not just believe in a Mass Conversion of Jews, but reports this as the common belief.

Here is City of God, Book XX, I'll excerpt chapter 29
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120120.htm

Chapter 29.— Of the Coming of Elias Before the Judgment, that the Jews May Be Converted to Christ by His Preaching and Explanation of Scripture.

After admonishing them to give heed to the law of Moses, as he foresaw that for a long time to come they would not understand it spiritually and rightly, he went on to say, And, behold, I will send to you Elias the Tishbite before the great and signal day of the Lord come: and he shall turn the heart of the father to the son, and the heart of a man to his next of kin, lest I come and utterly smite the earth. Malachi 4:5-6 It is a familiar theme in the conversation and heart of the faithful, that in the last days before the judgment the Jews shall believe in the true Christ, that is, our Christ, by means of this great and admirable prophet Elias who shall expound the law to them. For not without reason do we hope that before the coming of our Judge and Saviour Elias shall come, because we have good reason to believe that he is now alive; for, as Scripture most distinctly informs us, 2 Kings 2:11 he was taken up from this life in a chariot of fire. When, therefore, he has come, he shall give a spiritual explanation of the law which the Jews at present understand carnally, and shall thus turn the heart of the father to the son, that is, the heart of fathers to their children; for the Septuagint translators have frequently put the singular for the plural number. And the meaning is, that the sons, that is, the Jews, shall understand the law as the fathers, that is, the prophets, and among them Moses himself, understood it. For the heart of the fathers shall be turned to their children when the children understand the law as their fathers did; and the heart of the children shall be turned to their fathers when they have the same sentiments as the fathers. The Septuagint used the expression, and the heart of a man to his next of kin, because fathers and children are eminently neighbors to one another. Another and a preferable sense can be found in the words of the Septuagint translators, who have translated Scripture with an eye to prophecy, the sense, viz., that Elias shall turn the heart of God the Father to the Son, not certainly as if he should bring about this love of the Father for the Son, but meaning that he should make it known, and that the Jews also, who had previously hated, should then love the Son who is our Christ. For so far as regards the Jews, God has His heart turned away from our Christ, this being their conception about God and Christ. But in their case the heart of God shall be turned to the Son when they themselves shall turn in heart, and learn the love of the Father towards the Son. The words following, and the heart of a man to his next of kin, — that is, Elias shall also turn the heart of a man to his next of kin — how can we understand this better than as the heart of a man to the man Christ? For though in the form of God He is our God, yet, taking the form of a servant, He condescended to become also our next of kin. It is this, then, which Elias will do, lest, he says, I come and smite the earth utterly. For they who mind earthly things are the earth. Such are the carnal Jews until this day; and hence these murmurs of theirs against God, The wicked are pleasing to Him, and It is a vain thing to serve God.

Just in case Sungenis might be tempted to consider this as following from a carnal reading of prophecy, the very previous chapter, St. Augustine condemns the carnal reading of the Law.

When Tertullian speaks of the Millennium, as upcoming after the Second Coming, he does mention an opposing school. But when St. Augustine speaks of the upcoming conversion of Jews, he quite frankly does not mention an opposing school. On a previous occasion, he argued against the return of Elias the Thishbite in Apoc. 11, on the ground that that is a Septuagint reading. But basically to the Church Fathers, unless you go as late as Sts. Gregory and Bede, even Latin and not just Greek ones, the Septuagint was the Bible. That's why a Vulgate only stance would contradict the "consensus patrum" stipulation.

Now, check St. John of Damascus who died 749, well after Millennialism was laid aside.

An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book IV), I'll excerpt chapter 26:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm

Chapter 26. Concerning the Antichrist.

It should be known that the Antichrist is bound to come. Every one, therefore, who confesses not that the Son of God came in the flesh and is perfect God and became perfect man, after being God, is Antichrist. 1 John 2:22 But in a peculiar and special sense he who comes at the consummation of the age is called Antichrist. First, then, it is requisite that the Gospel should be preached among all nations, as the Lord said Matthew 24:14, and then he will come to refute the impious Jews. For the Lord said to them: I have come in My Father's name and you receive Me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive. John 5:43 And the apostle says, Because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved, for this cause God shall send them a strong delusion that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. The Jews accordingly did not receive the Lord Jesus Christ who was the Son of God and God, but receive the impostor who calls himself God. For that he will assume the name of God, the angel teaches Daniel, saying these words, Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers. Daniel 11:37 And the apostle says: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition: who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sits in the temple of God 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 , showing himself that he is God; in the temple of God he said; not our temple, but the old Jewish temple. For he will come not to us but to the Jews: not for Christ or the things of Christ: wherefore he is called Antichrist.

First, therefore, it is necessary that the Gospel should be preached among all nations Matthew 25:14: And then shall that wicked one be revealed, even him whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders , with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, whom the Lord shall consume with the word of His mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming. The devil himself , therefore does not become man in the way that the Lord was made man. God forbid! But he becomes man as the offspring of fornication and receives all the energy of Satan. For God, foreknowing the strangeness of the choice that he would make, allows the devil to take up his abode in him.

He is, therefore, as we said, the offspring of fornication and is nurtured in secret, and on a sudden he rises up and rebels and assumes rule. And in the beginning of his rule, or rather tyranny, he assumes the role of sanctity. But when he becomes master he persecutes the Church of God and displays all his wickedness. But he will come with signs and lying wonders 2 Thessalonians 2:9, fictitious and not real, and he will deceive and lead away from the living God those whose mind rests on an unsound and unstable foundation, so that even the elect shall, if it be possible, be made to stumble Matthew 24:24 .

But Enoch and Elias the Thesbite shall be sent and shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children , that is, the synagogue to our Lord Jesus Christ and the preaching of the apostles: and they will be destroyed by him. And the Lord shall come out of heaven, just as the holy apostles beheld Him going into heaven, perfect God and perfect man, with glory and power, and will destroy the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, with the breath of His mouth. Acts 1:11 Let no one, therefore, look for the Lord to come from earth, but out of Heaven, as He himself has made sure 2 Thessalonians 2:8 .

In other words, St. John of Damascus also says Elias will come, and also specifies, along with Henoch. But even more, he also says, they will convert such Jews as are not impious. I think the position of Sungenis against a Mass Conversion of Jews can be dismissed. I'm not Elias, I was not born under Ahab or Omri or their predecessors, in Samaria, I did not flee from Jezebel. I will not see the Mass Conversion of Jews unless my life overlaps with their arrival, but maybe I can persuade a smaller conversion of Jews, prior to their coming. Obviously, if they are right around the corner, that means there are 7 or 3 and 1/2 years until the Second Coming, so, it means there are small chances of earthly happiness. Whichever it is depends on whether their preaching is concurrent with Antichrist's persecution or precedes it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Our Lady of Mt. Carmel
16.VII.2025

Castelnuovo (Bosnia) and Lexington (Massachusetts)

The places are close to 90° apart from each other, so close that if you add exactly 90° W along the same equatorial parallel plane to the coordinates of Castelnuovo or Herceg Novi, you land between Acton and Bloomsbury, 11.9 miles being the distance between Lexington and Acton.

Now, each place was the place of a battle. The siege of Castelnuovo ended on Aug. 7th 1539. The battle of Lextington and Concord took place on April 19th 1775.

Date calculator allowed me to verify that, between these dates, there are 2828 months and 12 days.

In Castelnuovo, Machín de Munguía was killed by the Ottomans. The night before Lexington battle, Paul Revere was fortunately not killed by two English commissars.

Perhaps a reason to sing "El pendón estrellado"?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Feast of the Sacred Blood
1.VII.2025

Nations Exist, Ted Cruz, I Agree on That One

Sometimes nations divide, though, and sometimes they mix.

For instance, is the US nation (if one, some argue US has 14 nations, New Englanders and Texans being two different ones), identic to the English nation? Or did some kind of divide happen, like 1775 or even earlier?

And is the US nation just a separation of the English or is it admixture of Celtic Fringe, French, Dutch, Germans, Poles, Irish (but I already said Celtic Fringe), Cherokee, other Amerindian and Hispanic origins?* Would Cruz in 1775 more properly have been found in the 13 Colonies or in a Spanish colony?

Now, 2000 years ago, the nation of Israel was** split into two. Jews and Samarians. Jews were the population of Judaea and Galilee, Samarians of Samaria. Prophets had mentioned a demilitarisation and reunification of Judah and Ephraim, that is of Jews and Samarians. Did it happen?

Check Acts 2 and 8.

Was this ephemeral or did it last? I would say the reunited and Christian nation of Israel exists to this very day, and the modern name for them is Christian Palestinians.

If you want to dispute that, prove me wrong on the history of the region, but just to be fair, I'm not taking Netanyahu as an unbiassed and overall on all sides well-informed historian.

A mother and a daughter in Gaza were pulled out of Church while praying and killed by an IDF soldier. He was never punished, the IDF and Israel denied the incident. Church authorities however confirmed it.

About the modern state of Israel, I'd like to mention that there is another passage in the Bible than the one you miscited to Tucker Carlson. Apocalypse 11.

And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city, which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord also was crucified
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 11:8]

We are clearly dealing with earthly Jerusalem, since it says "where their Lord also was crucified". Now, what kind of situation could Jerusalem be in if it is called spiritually "Sodom and Egypt"? Well, Jerusalem could be hosting a Pride Parade. And Jerusalem could be oppressing Israelites, for instance the Palestinians. Speaking of oppressing Israelites, some have characterised the oppression as genocide, and some have replied that it would be a weird genocide in which the victim population increased. Well, check out Exodus chapter 1, pharaos clearly tried out genocidal policies, and Israelites clearly increased nonetheless.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Corpus Christi
19.VI.2025

PS, if anyone pretends Palestinians come from the Peninsula, watch this:

Palestinians Did Not Come from Arabia: Debunking another Zionist Origin Myth
History.Culture.projects | 18 June 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3-UlTACbko

* Mea culpa, Robert Sungenis, I forgot Italians, and my first meal on US soil was in an Italian restaurant in New York!
** Since about 1000 years, not since back then.

See also:
Tucker Was Right: Ted Cruz Took the Bible Out of Context on Israel
Reason & Theology | 19.VI.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpzMGnzAuYI

Who Destroyed the Régime of Czar Nicolas II?

To some degree, one can say that World War I was the autodestruction of Rome.

West Roman Emperors Francis Joseph II and Charles I against the East Roman Emperor Nicolas II.

So, World War I was a very huge thing. About Austria-Hungary with successor states obviously too.

But some have said, Czar Nicolas got destroyed by Rasputin's influence. Obviously, Rasputin was not a brigade of Austrian or Prussian soldiers.

In so far as there was an internal cause, independent of World War I, and added to it, I would prefer putting Sergei Witte in the position than Rasputin.

I agree with Lyndon LaRouche on many things. But Sergei Witte wanted to industrialise, and while this added the presence of produced goods, it neglected agriculture.

A man who wanted to describe Lenin as an evil man, which I think he was, noted there was a starvation in the Volga area. Lenin's sister and other family members were in the relief force, but Lenin said "fine, this has revolutionary potential" .... I disagree with "fine" but agree this was part of what doomed Czar Russia. Industrial Capitalism, i e Sergei Witte.

If potatoes grow badly in Ireland, perhaps those growing them could instead eat wheat, which they were also growing? Nope. The landowners wanted the usual monetary gains from selling the wheat.

In Czar Russia's case, second manmade starvation of apocalyptic proportions, between Potato Famine and Holodomor, the landowners wanted quick profits to invest in Sergei Witte's industrial ventures. While doing so, they neglected the farms.

If Rasputin made the Czar impopular with any, it was with people who were arguably part of the problem. I highly doubt any Мужик ever had less to eat because of Rasputin's advice, but when Sergei Witte told people left and right to invest into industry, I think this led to many of them neglecting the agriculture they were doing routinely, and that fields were abandoned in the process, leading to the starvation that gave the people the impression that God wasn't blessing the leaders of Russia.

I don't think either Turgot or Necker contributed as much to the bad harvests in France as Witte to those in Russia (especially Volga valley — Ukraine was more spared, as it was less industrialised, and would have been more spared in 1932—33 as well, if their good harvests, and those in Kuban, hadn't been displaced by force in order to make a giant Potemkin village of the Volga area, where the capital now was. A Potemkin village to show that yes, industrialism is fine, the Czar was simply not very good at it, Commies are better. The price of this Potemkin village is in Ukraine known as Holodomor.

In fact, if Rasputin did anything, with the people, healing the Czarevitch (or keeping him alive or even effecting nothing, but having an air of doing so) was rather an asset compared to Lewis XVI and Marie-Antoinette losing a daughter in 1787 and a Dauphin, an oldest son, in 1789.

Now, Rasputin was obviously impopular with the élite, but they could not have pulled off anything like the Russian Revolution all by themselves, without some solid misery among the people. The Bloody Sunday of 1905 (namegiver for another Bloody Sunday in 1972 and a song by US), was before Rasputin had met the Czar and while Witte was in power. Starvation, Russo-Japanese war, repression of 1905, World War I, losses on their West front (the Prussian East front), drafts during losses, all of these have some more connection to Witte than to Rasputin. Unless you argue the Czar's alliance with Serbia was Rasputin's doing, but so far I have not heard that version.

The Czarevitch was simply not anything comparable to the Mayerling drama, which led to some overreaction after Francis Ferdinand was assassinated (roughly speaking between Lincoln and Kennedy). Supporting a mystic couldn't give the Czar and Czaritsa any such aura of "Madame Déficit" as slander about jewelry gave Marie-Antoinette.

If Rasputin changed anything for the Czar family, apart from emotional support about the Czarevitch, it was possibly preparing them to meat their death in a fashion approaching martyrdom, rather than in vain bitterness. I don't know.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. John Nepomuk
16.V.2025

Pragae, in Bohemia, sancti Joannis Nepomuceni, Metropolitanae Ecclesiae Canonici; qui, frustra tentatus ut sigilli sacramentalis fidem proderet, martyrii palmam, in flumen Moldavam dejectus, emeruit.

People forget what things mean, specifically words and phrases

And while it would be good form to lightheartedly go through a number of fun but insignificant examples, that's what Chesterton would have done, I'm too tired to think of them and will get to the point.

I happen to like Liz Wheeler, who's interviewing Jimmy Akin (a likeable person with some very good takes in theology leading to his conversion and some very bad one in the case of the nature of inerrancy). So, I look her up. 35, has a husband, has two children, started podcasting in 2020.

AND:

In January 2023, following football player Damar Hamlin's in-game collapse, Wheeler promoted a conspiracy theory that the COVID-19 vaccine was responsible for a "surge" in athlete deaths and injuries.

Can you spot what's wrong, what phrase is being misused?

Conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory means a result (usually considered unpleasant or dangerous or both by the conspiracy theorist) that is in mainstream media (including public schools as much as big newspapers) attributed to well informed decisions, chance interaction, small players, is in reality the result of some big players conspiring. If Arizona Cardinals lost a match, and someone Catholic, football fanatic and living in Phoenix said "Rockefeller has Calvinist roots, so he conspired to bribe the umpire to let the team with Catholic symbolism lose" that would be a conspiracy theory. If I replied that the match was in 2013 and a symbol of the college of cardinals losing it and so an actual judgement by God, that would not be a conspiracy theory. It may be as ridiculous as a conspiracy theory. But it is not a conspiracy theory. Because it doesn't involve an actual conspiracy about the Arizona Cardinals.

So, "Mussolini caused the death of Matteotti" is a conspiracy theory. "King Victor Emmanuel III caused the death of Matteotti" is a conspiracy theory. The latter is the one favoured by Matteotti's son, by the way, and no, Matteotti's son, like his father, is a socialist, not a Fascist. But why is it a conspiracy theory? Well, because X who "caused the death" did so by hiring some less in the limelight person to do the dirty job for him. Amerigo Dumini is no doubt less in the limelight than Il Duce. He's also less in the limelight than King Victor Emmanuel III. Il Duce could have a motive insofar as Matteotti had denounced elections. King Victor Emmanuel III could have a motive insofar as Matteotti wanted transparency on a petrol deal. When Amerigo Dumini's judges in, I think 1947, had more reasons to smear Mussolini than to smear the King who died that year sentenced him (for the second time) for the murder of Matteotti, they stated that the order was given him by Mussolini.

I would like to know what was written with notaries in Texas, or if Amerigo Dumini was bluffing, back after his release.

Freed in 1927, Amerigo Dumini left for Italian Somaliland, having been awarded a large state pension (5,000 lire). Apparently, he was still viewed as troublesome, since he was detained and interned on the Tremiti Islands. Meanwhile, he warned General Emilio De Bono that he had filed a manuscript detailing Matteotti's murder with notaries in Texas. This claim led to his release and an increase in pension to as much as 50,000 lire. He left for Italian Libya, where his pension was further increased by 2,500 lire (together with a single payment of 125,000 lire).

Well, this at least would involve either of the conspiracy theories being true, since the paying of the pension would imply that someone very important in Italy (Mussolini and Victor Emmanuel III, as Prime Minister and as King, both fit that bill) wanted the papers in Texas not to be disclosed. I wonder if they ever were, and if the judgement in 1947 was based on them, or on any statement by Dumini.

But either of these things, "Mussolini caused the death of Matteotti" and "King Victor Emmanuel III caused the death of Matteotti", is a conspiracy theory, not just because it goes beyond the obvious cause, Dumini. BUT. Because it also does so by means of a supposed criminal conspiracy.

Now, what about the statement "the COVID-19 vaccine was responsible for a "surge" in athlete deaths and injuries"? Is that a conspiracy theory? No. The COVID-19 vaccine is not supposed to be a person. Is not supposed to enter a criminal conspiracy. It is therefore very literally not a conspiracy theory. It is a medical theory. And, when it comes to personal caution, I think it's the kind of medical theory each and every person has the right to entertain and to advice others on. It's not an advice for a specific treatment, it's not medical advice that only medical practitioners can give. But right or wrong, legal or illegal, it is definitely not a conspiracy theory. People should start to remember what words mean.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Easter Octave Friday
25.IV.2025

Does The Spanish Princess Misrepresent Margaret Tudor, Queen of Scots?

My daughter is like a commodity #movie #music #the Spanish princess
Many Sheldon | 104 k views
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_jFmbg1cb9Y

This is arguably a clip from The Spanish Princess. I look it up, yes, Georgie Henley is playing Margaret Tudor in The Spanish Princess, so, I look up Margaret Tudor to find out ...

First. She was born in 1489, on the 28th of November. She married by procuration in 1502 and in real life in 1503, her first husband being James IV of Scotland. As they were married on the 8th of August, she wasn't yet 14. So, for some modern minds, an ideal candidate to illustrate the idea that royal marriages were arranged and in practise forced marriages. Or indeed that girls marrying around 14 had arranged and in practise forced marriages.

Second, no. She was not shellshocked to find out that she was marrying the Scottish King in her teens. Her father had played around with this since she was 6 or somewhat earlier. In 1497, when she was 8, a truce was made with Scotland. Any raids around the border either ceased or ceaesed to be endorsed by the Scottish King. By the time she was twelve, when the marriage by procuration was concluded, she had known about the plan for long and England and Scotland had had a truce longer and better respected than that between Gaza and the Knesset.

Third, no again. This is what ticked me off. 1502 (I didn't know the exact year, but knew it was before the Deformation), England and Scotland were Catholic countries. Unlike a Jewish girl younger than 12 years and one day, a Catholic girl couldn't get married by the word of her father. She had a say. Yes, even if she were a teen. Or just twelve. It may seem outlandish to some modern parents to allow a twelve year old girl to take major decisions in her life, they would be imposed by dad and mum, and if for some reason marriage was there, they would conclude that marriage too was imposed, as in the daughter really having no say. Well, no. Sum of Theology, Supplement to the Third Part, Question 47, Article 3, I'm citing the authority and the explanation only first:

Article 3. Whether compulsory consent invalidates a marriage?

...

On the contrary, A Decretal says (cap. Cum locum, De sponsal. et matrim.): "Since there is no room for consent where fear or compulsion enters in, it follows that where a person's consent is required, every pretext for compulsion must be set aside." Now mutual contract is necessary in marriage. Therefore, etc.

Further, Matrimony signifies the union of Christ with the Church, which union is according to the liberty of love. Therefore it cannot be the result of compulsory consent.

I answer that, The marriage bond is everlasting. Hence whatever is inconsistent with its perpetuity invalidates marriage. Now the fear which compels a constant man deprives the contract of its perpetuity, since its complete rescission can be demanded. Wherefore this compulsion by fear which influences a constant man, invalidates marriage, but not the other compulsion. Now a constant man is reckoned a virtuous man who, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 4), is a measure in all human actions.

However, some say that if there be consent although compulsory, the marriage is valid in conscience and in God's sight, but not in the eyes of the Church, who presumes that there was no inward consent on account of the fear. But this is of no account, because the Church should not presume a person to sin until it be proved; and he sinned if he said that he consented whereas he did not consent. Wherefore the Church presumes that he did consent, but judges this compulsory consent to be insufficient for a valid marriage.

I would further say, this is one of the things that Sts. Lucy and Barbara died for. In the Pagan Roman world, in theory also the marriage was contracted freely, but this was not quite respected. Indeed, the patron saint of Margaret Tudor, in whose Church she was baptised, was also a martyr for opposing an unwanted marriage, though in her case the adoptive parent was set aside by the Roman prefect.

St. Margaret Virgin and martyr; also called MARINA; belonged to Pisidian Antioch in Asia Minor, where her father was a pagan priest. Her mother dying soon after her birth, Margaret was nursed by a pious woman five or six leagues from Antioch. Having embraced Christianity and consecrated her virginity to God, she was disowned by her father and adopted by her nurse.

While she was one day engaged in watching the flocks of her mistress, a lustful Roman prefect named Olybrius caught sight of her, and attracted by her great beauty sought to make her his concubine or wife.

...

The Greek Church honors her under the name Marine on 13 July; the Latin, as Margaret on 20 July. ...

So, no. If Margaret Tudor had said "no, I won't" (or "just like that?") she would NOT have been met with "you knew that one day a husband would be chosen for you" ... the person seemingly mother of Margaret* is also off. Margaret's real mother was Elisabeth of York, and she died when Margaret was still married by procuration, in England, namely at age 37. A woman of 37 doesn't look that wrinkled. Even if one late pregnancy too many was what killed her (she died in puerperal fever, i e infection after childbirth, when her last daughter was 7 days old).

This may be the key why the marriage may have been consumed some time later, she was still in mourning after her mother had died. I am no expert on the case, I do not have the books written about her, but it sometimes happened that marriages concluded early in the age of the bride were delayed in consummation, and wikipedia notes the first child of Margaret as Queen consort of Scotland was born in 1507. However, it could also be, it took time for her to get pregnant, but if not, recall, her mother had died before she left England and she suffered from nosebleeds for a while.

Did Margaret ever want to divorce? Yes, but that was her second husband, as she was a widow. Part of it was, there was a rumour that James IV hadn't really died at Flodden, so she doubted she was really a widow. If she hadn't been, I suppose he was killed, that would have made her second marriage invalid.

So, the scene in The Spanish Princess seems to have been written, while the parents aren't absolute monsters, only about as monstrous as some parents to teens these days, by people who had watched too much Game of Thrones. It's not a documentary, not even about the War of the Roses. And while the moral dissonance from what are now conceived as human values, and rightly so as far as horror from forced marriage is concerned, is far less than in Game of Thrones, it's still an extra layer of unnecessary moral distance.

Before I end, there is one more part of the Aquinas article I want to share. Objection 2 and its answer:

Objection 2. Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 1), that which is done on account of mixed violence is more voluntary than involuntary. Now consent cannot be compelled except by mixed violence. Therefore it is not entirely involuntary, and consequently the marriage is valid.

...

Reply to Objection 2. Not any kind of voluntariness suffices for marriage: it must be completely voluntary, because it has to be perpetual; and consequently it is invalidated by violence of a mixed nature.

Annulments due to lack of consent happened, and were somewhat scandalous. The parents of Margaret Tudor would not have wanted to risk that.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Maundy Thursday
17.IV.2025

* It seems this was not Elisabeth of York, but someone who spoke to "the Spanish Princess" (Catherine of Aragon) as regent after the death of Elisabeth of York. My bad. It would be Lady Margaret Beaufort, the most important lady after Elisabeth of York died. However, as she died at only 66, I don't think even so she would be that wrinkled. It's not as if "51 then was" (overall) "like 75 now" as someone said, it's more like women dying younger because of untreated breast cancer and things.