The Introibo Blogger Repeats A Blunder by Henry Drummond

Creation vs. Evolution: I Hope, For Galileo's Sake, He Did Retract · Parallax and Heliocentrism · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: What's the Nature of Theism and the Pagan Alternative to Theism in Romans 1? · The Introibo Blogger Repeats A Blunder by Henry Drummond

At a certain point here, in this* post, he makes Abiogenesis out to be very unlikely. So true.

Then he continues:

Now you might expect me to say, “Therefore, God must have started life on Earth! It’s the only possible explanation. We must have a Creator!” However, making that kind of argument would be a mistake. As a matter of fact, I do believe that God is the one who got life started on our planet. Yet I don’t believe it just because scientists haven’t come up with a definite explanation.

I want you to imagine for a moment that you have grown up believing in Zeus—the Greek god of lightning. Every time there is a storm, you look out of your window and shudder at the rumbling thunder and flashes of light. You know that what you’re seeing is Zeus hurling a thunderbolt through the sky, and you fear for those who are feeling the full effects of his anger.

Now imagine that you go to school one day, and your physics teacher announces that the topic for today’s lesson is lightning. You listen in amazement as you discover how electrical charges build up inside clouds as ice crystals rub together. The lecturer explains that a flash of lightning is a huge spark that discharges this built-up electricity. In other words, lightning and thunder are just a giant version of the snap that happens when you’ve rubbed a balloon against your woolly sweater and then someone touches you.

You stare at your teacher as the penny finally drops: Zeus isn’t real. You believed in Zeus because you needed an explanation for thunder and lightning. But now you have a better explanation—one based on science. So you don’t need Zeus anymore. It makes no sense to believe in him, now that you know what you know. This is because Zeus is what we call a “god of the gaps.”

I'm sorry if this might encourage some Neo-Pagan, but no.

A god or spirit of lightning is not reduntant because ...

electrical charges build up inside clouds as ice crystals rub together

... since the unpredictable event of when the built-up electricity will discharge is still unpredictable.

Ice crystals are material objects. Material objects can be moved by God or by angelic beings at will. The frequency of the rubbing can therefore to some degree be controlled by either of above (to a total degree by God, to some degree by an angel who is only moving material objects). Clouds move at various speeds. Wind also is material objects in movement.

If an angel is allowed to control or is informed of the speed and will know who passes by at a certain time in the direction of the cloud, either guessing or being informed by God, he can, by controlling the movement to the degree he is allowed, make sure that the discharge is (with probability or certainty) when a certain person shall pass.

In other words, a spirit can control lightning, and to some degree (under what God allows) even whom it will kill.

It may be needed to add, the spirit most often seen by Christian theologians as enjoying this hobby is Satan. There is a case for the "seat of Satan" in Pergamon (Apoc. 2:13) being the Zeus-altar, which has been moved to Berlin and part time to Leningrad. The other alternative would be, it's the Red Basilica.

The case for it being the Pergamon Altar is then that Zeus and Satan are sharing the hobby of lightning wielding.

The point being, the lesson on the ice crystals need not turn the Zeus believer into a sceptic. And a Christian should perhaps not require him to be so, he should perhaps concentrate on making the Zeus believer see he is worshipping sth real, but also evil: Satan enjoying a power because of Adam's sin.

If I'm right that Odin (the guy who told Swedes or possibly Swabians that "Odin, Vile, Vé" were brothers, killed a giant and created Earth and even the sky from it, not the imagined giant killer on a gigantic scale) was from the Holy Land, and perhaps his son Thor repented for playing the role of Thunder God, then the Boanergs would have a very real case of moaning like oxen if Jesus ever brought up they were "sons of Thunder" ... I right now stare in disbelief in seeing the Vulgate say:

et imposuit eis nomina Boanerges, quod est, Filii tonitrui

and the interlinear say:

καὶ ἐπέθηκεν αὐτοῖς ὀνόματα Βοανηργές, ὅ ἐστιν, Υἱοὶ Βροντῆς;

I recall them saying:

et imposuit eis nomina Boanerges, quia, Filii tonitrui

and:

καὶ ἐπέθηκεν αὐτοῖς ὀνόματα Βοανηργές, ὅτι Υἱοὶ Βροντῆς;

A bit like a certain Apollo mentioned in Acts might have felt when reminded of the demon in Delphi (but he could have been thinking of the physician, the father of Aesculapius).

Given what the immediate control over thunder and lightning implies in Christian theology, "Υἱοὶ Βροντῆς" would make someone moan. And Boanerx means "maker/doer" of "an ox-moan". If the reading "ὅτι" exists, I think it's preferrable. Either way:

According to the course of this world, (i.e. the customs of this wicked corrupt world) according to the prince of the power of this air, of the spirit, &c. meaning the devils, who are permitted to exercise their power upon the earth, or in the air. See John xii. 10.; xiv. 30.; xvi. 11. (Witham)

From the Haydock comment on Ephesians 2:2. George Witham was a Catholic bishop for the English who ... had a relative who was named Robert Witham. When Haydock quotes "Witham" it's probably Annotations on the New Testament of Jesus Christ, in which, 1. The literal sense is explained according to the Expositions of the ancient Fathers. 2. The false Interpretations, both of the ancient and modern Writers, which are contrary to the received Doctrine of the Catholic Church, are briefly examined and disproved. 3. With an Account of the chief differences betwixt the Text of the ancient Latin Version and the Greek in the printed Editions and Manuscripts, [Douay], 1730, 2 vols. By the latter.

But apart from the logical blunder about the hypothetic Zeus believer, you could ask Hindus is they believe in Indra, the sentiment as a whole is summed up:

Throughout history, many people have believed in various gods because they wanted explanations for things they had no other way of understanding. The gods filled the gaps in people’s knowledge. But as science has developed, many of those gaps have gone away. We don’t need to believe in a god of lightning anymore because lightning isn’t a gap anymore: we know how it works. So if your only reason to believe in God is “We don’t know how life on Earth began; therefore there must be a God who miraculously made it happen,” you’re making the same error as the ancient Greeks. You’re believing in yet another god of the gaps—it’s just a different gap. If scientists discover more about what was going on in the very earliest stages of the earth, the gap might go away, and so will your belief in God. By contrast, the reason why I think God is the person who started off life on Earth is that I have lots of other reasons to believe that he exists and that he created the world. My belief in God doesn’t depend on a particular gap, or even on a combination of gaps.

There are several problems with this one, one being that a fanatic Free Church of Scotland pastor named Henry Drummond coined the exact phrase and that Friedrich Nietzsche had expressed a very similar sentiment.

But beyond Nietzsche being an Apostate and Henry Drummond a Heretic close to Apostate, a believer in an Evolutionary origin for the human body and soul, probably a denier of an individual Adam, as well, there are other problems.

In modern popular media, notably social ones, "God of the gaps" is presented as a fallacy. Now, the problem is, modern fads don't have the power to add a new fallacy any more than to add a new valid syllogism. Syllogisms of the first figure, where the predicate of the minor is the subject of the major, only come in the flavours Barbara, Celarent, Darii and Ferio. The syllables are coded with the vowels meaning specific types of sentence, and the order is Major, Minor, Conclusion. Barbara has three A, that being a universal and affirmative sentence. There are only these four. A "Barbari" or a "Celaront" would indeed prove the stated conclusion, but they actually prove a more universal conclusion as in Barbara and Celarent.

Similarily, the fallacies are already predefined, you don't invent new ones. A "Celerant" would be totally invalid. It's a fallacy of a false syllogistic form. Let's start with a "Celarent" that's valid. "No mammals have feathers, all dogs are mammals, therefore no dogs have feathers" ... the conclusion really does follow from the premisses. It's impossible to imagine a syllogism really having this form and premisses being true but conclusion being false.

If I turned sentences around changing one premiss to the conclusion and the conclusion to one premiss, it would be the faulty syllogism "Celerant", as in "no mammals have feathers, no dogs have feathers, therefore all dogs are mammals" ... while all dogs are mammals, one can easily imagine a conclusion of this form that's false. Simply tirn the two first sentences around and then subject and predicate in the last one. "No dogs have feathers, no mammals have feathers, therefore all mammals are dogs" ... no, they aren't.**

So, Introibo tries to show "God of the gaps" is a fallacy by a hypothetic scenario. In a sense, that scenario is as hypothetic as my "No dogs have feathers, no mammals have feathers, therefore all mammals are dogs". But the problem is, while "No dogs have feathers," and "no mammals have feathers" are not hypothetical, in Introibo's case it would be the premisses of the scenario that are hypothetical, not just the argument. That's not how you diagnose a fallacy, and that's not how Aristotle diagnoses fallacies.

If scientists discover more about what was going on in the very earliest stages of the earth, the gap might go away, and so will your belief in God.

Here is another very absurd part. He pretends scientists can "discover what was going on" not just in a specific layer, behind a specific result (like a giant volcanic eruption in Campi Flegrei being behind the volcanic layer as deep as one metre and as far away as Czech Republic), but "at the very earliest stages of the earth" ... sorry, but divination isn't discovery. And if you say "if a coherent scenario is given which would have a specific result and that result is found, then it isn't divination" you have validated my view of Boanerges even more than I'm sure of it, because if the father of Zebedee had posed as a false god and made him do so in a bad youth, the mention of him posing as Thunder would certainly make his sons "moan like oxen" which is the grammatical meaning of Boan-Erges, as explained.***

But in order to get what Introibo wants, one would need to make hypothesis on hypothesis on hypothesis and hypothesis. And the origin of the code, which Introibo mentions, as clearly "information" and therefore "from intelligence" is no more obvious than other obvious things, which have been called into question. Like Geocentrism. Plus, Miller Urey conditions have very clearly not produced phospholipids in labs, and that's what cell membranes are from. It's not a question of "not yet" finding a solution, but of what we already know showing there isn't one. You have to imagine the unknown being known and the unimagined being imagined to get to the hypothetical where "God of the gaps" would be a fallacy.

Again, belief in Zeus and Thor as gods wasn't eradicated by Benjamin Franklin, but by Christian theology. Not by lecturing on ice crystals, but by exorcists. And most certainly not by freely adding to the list of fallacies.

In fact, the hypothetic scenario deals less with logic and fallacies, than with the feeling of being let down and psychology. All who are doomed to a life in psychiatry don't opt for suicide, hope I won't be tested on that one, and all who are offered a scientific explanation don't reject a theological or philosophical one ... some don't even accept the scientific one as a valid explanation. But all can see that a Celerant like "No dogs have feathers, no mammals have feathers, therefore all mammals are dogs" is refuted by the existence of cats. Therefore, Celerant is not a valid mode.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre BU
St. Hermenegildis
13.IV.2026

Hispali, in Hispania, sancti Hermenegildi Martyris, qui fuit filius Leovigildi, Regis Visigothorum Ariani; atque ob catholicae fidei confessionem conjectus in carcerem, et, cum in solemnitate Paschali Communionem ab Episcopo Ariano accipere noluisset, perfidi patris jussu securi percussus est, ac regnum caeleste pro terreno Rex et Martyr intravit.

PS, if obviously information in DNA is proof of a creator, it's not one of those that St. Paul directly spoke of in Romans 1./HGL

* Contending For The Faith---Part 50 | The "God of the Gaps"
Monday, April 6, 2026 | Posted by Introibo Ad Altare Dei at 5:15 AM
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2026/04/contending-for-faith-part-50.html

** I didn't enjoy E. T. A. Hoffmann's Kater Murr as much as I expected to when I had his collected works, but this was the first cat image I could find with a jpg rather than some other image format.

*** The Aramaic bene-reghesh would be rendered in Greek letters as Βανηρεγές, which doesn't seem to be the reading we find mostly. If you can say Βοανηργές is corrupt for Βανηρεγές, you can say ὅ ἐστιν is corrupt for ὅτι. I don't know how many would argue that Hebrew has bōḥănê in state construct for the plural of "sons" ... apart from Hanoch Ben Keshet. The interlinear for Genesis 10:1 has bə·nê-nō·aḥ, not **bōḥănê-nō·aḥ.

Est-ce qu'un écrivain est un homme instruit ? Et, est-ce qu'un homme instruit aime Dostoïevski ?

Je n'ai pas lu Les Frères Karamazov. J'ai lâché Crime et Punition après la moitié, juste regardant à la page finale. Une nuit, quand j'étais en 10e ou 11e année scolaire, au lycée (Seconde ou Première selon le système français), j'ai lu la première moitié. J'ai dû interrompre pour petit-déjeuner et une journée de sport. L'expérience était traumatisante, à un tel niveau que je n'ai pas pu résumer la lecture où je l'avais lâché, ce livre.

J'ai par contre lu une bande dessinée, des Classics Illustrated. Sur la vie de cet auteur, l'activité avant la fausse exécution et le temps en Sibérie après. Assez franchement, j'aime moins bien l'écrivain (une fois les romans approchés) que la personne humaine.

Et la personne humaine n'est pas non plus ma tasse de thé totalement. Désolé, c'est pas avec moi qu'on discute ce Fiodor.

Suis-je donc mal instruit ? Et, est-ce que ça me disqualifie comme auteur ?

D'abord la question de principe. Un auteur doit pouvoir écrire de quelque chose qu'il connaît bien, pour l'avoir inventé très en détail (comme Tolkien inventa le Quenya) ou pour avoir bien étudié la question (comme Tolkien était expert de batailles, pas juste des siennes à la Guerre de 14—18). Mais "instruit" ? Pas si le mot renvoie à la reconnaissance et la familiarité avec un canon préexistant, dont selon certains Dostoïevski.

Platon n'avait pas lu Beaudelaire. Aristote n'avait pas lu Boileau. Virgile et Homère n'avaient pas lu les Inklings Tolkien et Lewis.* Si même être un auteur canonique ne vous oblige pas de connaître, reconnaître et aimer un certain canon litéraire, alors être auteur tout court ne vous n'y oblige pas non plus.

Si être auteur veut dire apporter un point de vue spécifique (certains définiraient être essayiste ainsi) simplement partager le point de vue d'une masse d'hommes est en contraste avec cette description. L'auteur n'est pas le bon écolier qui se fait instruire par les moyens que son prof juge les moyens de s'instruire. Il peut avoir un côté de ça, mais il ne l'est pas par essence.

Je ne suis pas le bon écolier ambitieux qui cherche des lectures en fonction de ce qui va socialement me gêner ou profiter. J'ai cherché la lecture d'Homère et de Virgile parce que CSL et JRRT semblaient les trouver très bons à lire. Et j'ai pris l'opinion de ces deux auteurs, pas en fonction d'une ambition sociale (à l'époque ça aurait été encore davantage foûtu de le faire en Suède), mais en fonction de mon propre goût.

Si je regarde un autre essayiste aussi de la Scanie, Frans G. Bengtsson, il cultiva Homère directement par son goût (et peut-être un brin d'ambition sociale, parce qu'Homère était déjà prestigieux), mais à ma meilleure connaissance, pas Dostoïevski.

Avant de connaître l'auteur*** des Mérovingiens qui laissent pousser les cheveux, je connus déjà Gilbert Keith Chesterton. À droite sur cette image° :

Apprécié°° jusqu'à par le pape:

Encore un homme ou deux qui n'étaient pas totalement fans de Dostoïevski. Pour Tolstoï, Chesterton admirait le raconteur mais déplorait le penseur.

Mais, quand même, Dostoïevski n'est pas rien. Il écrit très bien sur les faits de culpabilité, du choix moralement mauvais, de l'existence de la loi divine et de l'occurrence de sa négation par des méchants ! En effet. J'ai un jour décrit Tolkien comme un homme capable à donner des messages essentiels de Dostoïevski mais de le faire dans un récit pas trop sombre, donc lisible.

Pourtant, les Inklings, ce n'est pas juste Dostoïevski moins l'illisible (pour ma sensibilité, au moins, voir en haut), mais aussi une solide connaissance de Chesterton et de St. Thomas. C'est de Tolkien que je me vais vers Chesterton, et c'est de Chesterton que je me vais vers St. Thomas d'Aquin. Homme assez inconnu par Dostoïevski, chose à méditer pour ceux qui prétendraient que tous et chacun devraient connaître et apprécier un canon spécifique avant de devenir éventuellement des écrivains.

Et contrairement à Dostoïevski, le Docteur Angélique est lisible, pour moi.°°°

Je pense que d'aimer St. Thomas vaut aussi bien d'être considéré instruit comme d'aimer Dostoïevski. Au minimum. Mais comme dit, l'auteur n'a pas besoin d'être un homme instruit dans un canon litéraire. Item pour le fait d'aimer Chesterton et les Inklings, pas le moins si on y ajoute Hilaire Belloc et Charles Maurras.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre BU
Samedi de Pâques
11.IV.2026

Images sourcées: Frans G. Bengtsson (1894-1954), Swedish author, with his son Joachim.}} |Source =''en:Vecko-Journalen'', Christmas issue 1943 |Author =Unknown photographer. |Date =1943 or earlie; George Bernard Shaw, Hilaire Belloc, and G. K. Chesterton; Telegram sent by Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pius XII) on behalf of Pope Pius XI to the people of England following the death of Chesterton

* JRRT et CSL, vu que parmi les Inklings se trouvaient aussi le fils de Tolkien, Christopher, et le frère de Lewis, Warren H. **De långhåriga merovingerna *** L'image avec le fils Joachim est par un photographe inconnu, de 1943 et en domaine public. ° Également en domaine public, 1927, The Guardian. J'apprécie également Hilaire Belloc, au milieu. °° L'image n'est pas en domaine public, car créé en 2013. Par contre les conditions CC BY-SA 3.0 me permettent de l'utiliser. Et l'ayant droit semble ne plus exister sur wikimedia: AmChestertonSoc = probablement American Chesterton Society. °°° Je pense avoir un peu mieux compris Prima Via que ce qu'en exprime Chesterton en son livre sur St. Thomas. What's the Nature of Theism and the Pagan Alternative to Theism in Romans 1? Par contre, Chesterton exprime très bien Tertia Via en son livre et après d'avoir feuilleté Gilson, il dicte la seconde moitié de son livre à sa sécretaire. Gilson réplique en disant qu'il avait raison. Did Chesterton Even Read Any Aquinas? w/ Dale Ahlquist.

What's the Nature of Theism and the Pagan Alternative to Theism in Romans 1?

Creation vs. Evolution: I Hope, For Galileo's Sake, He Did Retract · Parallax and Heliocentrism · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: What's the Nature of Theism and the Pagan Alternative to Theism in Romans 1? · The Introibo Blogger Repeats A Blunder by Henry Drummond

I'm listening to (or watching without sound but with subtitles) a video where Keaton Halley argues from Romans 1 that humanity is coeval with creation.

However, while he's perfectly right that mankind since Adam and Eve (and that being at the beginning of the world) have been able to conclude for God, he says "we can know from watching creation, there is a Creator" ... but that's not exactly what St. Paul says.

It makes sense in the modern world, where we are aware that an eternal stedy-state universe with an eternal steady-state earth isn't an option.

Hydrogen meets Hydrogen, becomes Deuterium. Deuterium meets Deuterium, becomes Helium. Happens over and over again in the Sun and all self luminous stars. It's a one way process. Hydrogen is being depleted. Helium is being replenished. There is no opposed process known to science. If this had been going on since all eternity, Hydrogen would already be completely depleted and Helium would be all that was left. Or heavier elements. However, given spectral lines, we know Hydrogen is more abundant than Helium:

For example, the abundance of oxygen in pure water can be measured in two ways: the mass fraction is about 89%, because that is the fraction of water's mass which is oxygen. However, the mole fraction is about 33% because only 1 atom of 3 in water, H₂O, is oxygen. As another example, looking at the mass fraction abundance of hydrogen and helium in both the universe as a whole and in the atmospheres of gas-giant planets such as Jupiter, it is 74% for hydrogen and 23–25% for helium; while the (atomic) mole fraction for hydrogen is 92%, and for helium is 8%, in these environments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements

So, given the universe had a beginning, a finite time ago, sorry, I'm repeating myself, how did it begin? And we can rule out Big Bang from spiral galaxies "13 billion light years away" and we can rule out Abiogenesis from the fact that Miller Urey conditions can't provide materials for cell membranes (which are essential to preserving amino acids from disintegrating in Miller Urey conditions) and we can rule out non-human apes turning to men because of language, as I have argued here:

HGL's F.B. writings: Challenge not met
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2026/03/challenge-not-met.html

If you aren't a linguist having never heard of "dual patterning" or "double articulation", check out the link I give in the status on the forum:

All Human Languages are Human, None are "Primitive"
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2026/03/all-human-languages-are-human-none-are.html

So, yes, we are in a position to argue not just generally for God in a Theistic sense, but specifically for a Creator God. There was never when God wasn't (and this is true of God the Son too, see the condemnation of Arians in the Fourth Century), but there was a beginning when the creation hadn't been before. And a beginning that could only originate from a conscious God, not from sth like unconscious space-time with natural laws.

By the way, in Einsteinian terms, Big Bang is a contradiction in terms. "Once, all of them matter and energy in the universe was concentrated in a point as small as an atom, then it expanded" — this doesn't work if space itself is a kind of material substance or force field. Because that one would have been expanding, but there is no extension to measure of it as a whole apart from what it contains, so the logic consequence would be, a universe as big as ours could "in our universe" take up the space of an atom, but not that the universe could gain in size against the outside, since there is no space outside it. Space can't expand, even if finite, since there are no "empty space coordinates" for it to expand in.

But, Lucretius didn't believe in the Big Bang. I'll actually go to the Pagans first. Specifically the most non-Theistic ones, the precursors (very indirectly) of modern Atheism.

He had no spectral lines. He had no idea of what happens as hydrogen to helium fusion in the Sun. He had no indication the universe had a beginning.

In the 12th C. the Shroud of Turin could have been a forgery. After Secondo Pia and Barry Schwortz we can't. Just the same way, we know the universe had a beginning, but in the 12th C we didn't know it and Lucretius didn't know it. Noah knew it because he recalled that Adam had been created a celibate adult, but some of the peoples after Babel forgot that and therefore didn't know it any more. St. Paul speaks of what observation can tell us. Even without the tradition from Adam and Eve.

Can you think of a specific observational item, not "special instruments" but "naked eye" observation, since the beginning of the world, which tells us of God, but not necessarily that He created? I can. If we take the words "his eternal power also" these are in the Greek: ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις and 126. aidios has two definitions:

1. (forward and backward) eternal
2. (forward only) everlasting

It's both, if it's everlasting, as we observe it to be, it can't be acquired from somewhere else, so it's eternal in the first sense too, but what we observe is, "no God didn't get tired, He gave us another day" or "another night".

St. Ambrose puts it in a very nice way in a hymn before going to bed (technically Compline, I think, no, Saturday Vespers), here:

DEUS creator omnium
polique rector, vestiens
diem decoro lumine,
noctem soporis gratia

Here is a translation:

GOD that all things didst create
and the heavens doth regulate,
Who doth clothe the day with light,
and with gracious sleep the night....

So, "didst create" is a statement of the past and is known through faith. But the rest of it "and the heavens doth regulate, / Who doth clothe the day with light, / and with gracious sleep the night...." is known by observation. This is the kind of thing we observe and which St. Paul speaks of.

What was the Atheist response? It actually wasn't Heliocentrism, Lucrece was also a Geocentric, though not as much as Sts. Paul and Ambrose. Here is a quote from a translation of De Rerum Natura, book I, 979 to 1068:

Air divides the hills; the earth
Creates the sea, and the sea gives birth
To it, and so it goes. The traits of space
Are such that even thunderbolts can’t race
Across the endless tracts of time, nor may
They rest awhile while they go on their way;
There’s such a huge abundance spread around
In all directions: lest a thing is bound
By limits, every body must enclose
Each void, each void each body, and this shows
That both of them possess no boundaries:
Unless it hemmed the other, one of these
Would be extended, stretched immeasurably,
And thus the earth, the bright-blue sky, the sea,
Mankind and the immortals could not stay
An hour in place, for all things, swept away,
Would through the massive void be borne, indeed
Would never have combined to be the seed
Of anything. For prime germs certainly
Did not with any perspicacity
Fashion themselves in order or decide
What movements for each one they should provide,
But, since they’re multitudinous and change
In many ways among the All, they range
Abroad, pushed out and beaten, venturing
All kinds of movement and of coupling
Until they settle down eventually
With those designs through which totality
Is made: for countless years they’ve been protected
Now they acceptably have been projected
Into their proper motions – thus the sea
By all the streams is freshened constantly,
The earth, lapped by the vapours of the sun,
Brings forth new brood, all creatures, every one,
Flourish and all the gliding fires which flow
Above us yet live on. They could not, though,
Have managed this at all had no supply
Of matter risen from the void, whereby
They could repair lost things. With scarcity
Of food beasts waste away, while similarly
All things must fade when matter, blown aside
Somehow, is then unable to provide
Succour, nor from outside can blows maintain
The world’s united sum. For blows can rain
Often and check a part while others come
Along, enabled to fill up the sum;
But meanwhile they are often forced to spring,
Thus to the primal germs contributing
A space and time for flight that they may be
Borne from this union to liberty.
So many things, we’re brought to understand,
Must rise, and yet the blows must be at hand
Always in order that there’ll always be
A force of matter universally.
Don’t listen to those people who profess
That all things inward to the centre press,
Dear Memmius, and that the entire world
Stands firmly while no outward blows are hurled
Against it, since neither their depth nor height
Can be unbound and all things are pressed tight
Into the centre. Therefore, do not think
That heavy weights beneath the earth can shrink
Upon it, having striven from below
To settle upside down, as images show
Upon the ocean. They also propound
That every breathing thing wanders around
And can’t fall up to the sky any more than we
Can reach the heavens by flying; when they see
The sun, the constellations of the night
Are what we view - we thus detach our sight
From theirs, our night coequal to their day.
These dreams have made these people fools since they
Embrace them faultily, for there can’t be
A centre when there is infinity.

So, his point is, the Geocentrism we observe is kind of a whirlpool movement, by lack of stability. It is also an illusion from lack of circumspection insofar as Earth is only a local centre. Much as modern Heliocentrism isn't cosmic Heliocentrism, but makes the Sun only centre of the locality known as the "Solar System".

This obviously depends on lots of unobserved assumptions, not quite unlike, in our modern Atheism, "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy". He is asking us to take unobserved "infinity" as inherent in things that are observed as finite, having limits.

So, in contrast, St. Paul tells us we can trust our perception, we don't have to fumble with unproven assumptions in the unknown, especially where they contradict what we know of things by observation, Geocentrism really is absolute, movement isn't just a whirlpool effect, and it comes from God.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Easter Thursday
9.IV.2026

Jean Colson or St. Augustine? Who's Right?

In Tractate 119 of Homilies on the Gospel of St. John, St. Augustine tells us how the Gospeller becomes the Son of the Mother of God, from the Gospel.

After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own
John 19:27

Here St. Augustine pauses to ask, "how could he even have anything 'his own' to take Her to?"

Obviously, St. Augustine belongs to the tradition after St. Irenaeus, and considers St. John the Beloved as St. John the Son of Zebedee. As one of the twelve. About whom the Synoptics say:

Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have?
Matthew 19:27

In other words, St. John the Beloved lived in Apostolic Poverty, and didn't have a house of his own. Nothing with his property deed to it.

Part of how St. Augustine answers is this:

And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting
Matthew 19:29

The hundredfold is involved even in this life, and part of that, for St. John, was, he had enough to host the Mother of His Master Who was now his own Mother, by adoption. So far St. Augustine. He doesn't stop here. He gives a very concrete suggestion:

And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need
Acts Of Apostles 2:43-45

And on this occasion, St. John had need of a house to host the Mother of God.

Did St. Augustine imagine that St. John and the Blessed Virgin were teleported forward in time to when this was happening after the First Pentecost? Probably not. In Acts 1, Our Lady is among those praying. Part of the idea behind Mediatrix of All Graces is, while we do not know if the Holy Spirit would have been sent anyway if She hadn't been there and prayed, we do know He was not sent without Her being there and praying for Him. The Apostles received the Holy Spirit to Strength and to Witness after She prayed and that means because She prayed. Also after they prayed, and that means because they prayed, but it was worth noticing She was there to pray with them.

And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren
Acts Of Apostles 1:13-14

So, St. Augustine definitely could have a point that community of property in Jerusalem had started before Pentecost because it was already practised before. If the practise already existed before the Crucifixion, then this could be how it happened.

However, Jean Colson said: St. John the Beloved was not one of the twelve, he was the host at the Last Supper (and left his guests among themselves before the First Mass, which means that Judas had also already left and didn't receive the Eucharist). He was a Cohen and as such he was a rich proprietor. He was the man to whom this house belonged.

After hosting God's Mother, he later came to host Her already extant legal stepsons or nephews or whatever, the "brethren of Jesus" after they became believers, like after Jesus appeared to St. James the Brother-of-God. But on Good Friday, he hosted Her, not them. One reason why She did not become their mother after the flesh is, if She had been so, they, not John, would have hosted Her. Hence, two explanations, one is they were sons of St. Joseph's first wife, and he was a widower, another is, they were sons to Her sister or halfsister. Otherwise it would be very curious, to say they least, why they weren't taking care of Her.

However, back to the practical question. In favour of Jean Colson:

And on the first day of the Azymes, the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the pasch But Jesus said: Go ye into the city to a certain man, and say to him: the master saith, My time is near at hand, with thee I make the pasch with my disciples And the disciples did as Jesus appointed to them, and they prepared the pasch
Matthew 26:17-19

According to Jean Colson, the "certain man" here is John the Beloved. And the scene doesn't show the disciples of Jesus and believers in Jesus already practising perfect communion of property before the Last Supper. That certain man seems to have spent his time in his property as his property. It was not full of other believers, it was not full of the poor, it was his to do with as he saw fit, and he could host a very large party.

This is then how Jean Colson explains how St. John took the Mother of Salvation home to his own that very day, that Good Friday. This is a case for his not having been one of the twelve.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Good Friday
3.IV.2026

"What is the sole linguistic source you base your language on?"

I frankly don't know what the question means.

On Quora, someone posed it, and I was tagged, but probably not the only one.

Joseph Foster considered the question strange, as he grew up with two different dialects of English and had a teacher who grew up from early childhood in English and French.

Rolf Willers stated "it would have to be the mother tongue" ... and in a sense, that is correct. In a sense that only by learning to speak in the right slot of years (with one or more mother tongues) does one get access to learning more languages. It doesn't mean the mother tongue contains all the words you ever learn to use or things like that, it means that whatever language learning you do later is based on having learned that first. Note, you can forget your first language if you never practise it, but only if you are using another one. It also doesn't mean everyone has only one mother tongue.

But suggesting only one mother tongue is everyone's fare or reminding of the fact that no one learns a second language without having a mother tongue first seems an odd question to pose on Quora. In fact, that wasn't my initial interpretation of the question.

So, here is what I thought. Someone thinks, what I write about language must be wrong, so, thinks my linguistic source is outdated or has sectarian bias, and I don't have any other or better one, and in a offhand manner, like I would answer without thinking, or he were hoping so, asks what that is. He hopes to identify it, identify its fault and the point me to better sources. More modern. Less sectarian.

Here is my reply to that. I have studied linguistics in one way or another since I was a child. My early readings in this area involve:

• an essay or two in Junior Woodchuckers' Handbook (Disney concern), probably not written by the usual comic book staff, though illustrated with Disney style illustrations;
• an essay by Tolkien on English and Welsh, which among other things tell us that Rotomagus, while it became Rouen in French, would have become Rhoddfa in Welsh;
• a book about linguistics which featured examples in Germanic and Finno-Ugrian to examplify language family differences and different language typology (it taught me the difference between Isolating, Agglutinative, Flective, Polysynthetic), no longer on the Malmö library's catalogue*;
• a book about Medieval languages of Europe that suggested the development of definite article in both Romance and Germanic (absent from Latin and Gothic!) was a Sprachbund phenomenon, dependent on influence from Greek Hebrew, Arabic (it also said a thing or two about the process of how English and French and I think German too were standardised), no longer on the Malmö Library's catalogue;
• Languages of the British Isles past and present — I fortunately recall the title, so don't need the Malmö library catalogue to identify it, and I find it is from 1975;
• Der kleine Stowasser, which was a Latin lexicon my mother used before her Latin exam prior to entry into Med school in Vienna. It has lots of the words given with etymological equivalents in Germanic or Greek. Though, to be fair, Menge-Güthling has more of those. Also true of the Greek version of Menge Güthling. It says in a undertitle "mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Etymologie";
• Die Fähre, a school book of German literary history, involving some language history, bought in Berlin during a visit — it could be from a series of school books by Dr. W. Urbanek, but I don't think it was Bd. 10. = Oberstufe. Weiter Horizont; it began with Our Father in Greek, Latin, Gothic, then Old High German, Middle High German and early Modern German from Luther's Bible, it ended with Opitz and Simplicissimus and had good portions from Niebelungenlied and I also think Gûdrûn, both Middle High German and Modern German translation;
• a similar book for Swedish, I think it was "Svensk litteraturhistoria" ...
• observation of typological differences between Germanic languages, German having four cases, Swedish, Danish, to some extent English, two, Dutch like Romance consistently replaces Genitive with "van" ... English has "of" with common nouns, Genitive with proper names.

By "early" I mean, before I started learning Latin in school, in 11th grade.

Thanks to both Stowasser, Woodchuckers' Handbook, and item three, I was familiar with the theory of Indo-European languages coming from a common prior language. My earliest vision of an alternative was when dismissing my Greek professor's reference to Trubetskoy, which he took up in the interest of Pyrrhonism (yes, his favourite Greek school of philosophy was Pyrrhon), and only much later did I connect back to that when someone said "your timeline from the Bible doesn't line up with Proto-Indo-European being spoken 3000 BC" ... while I don't think glottochronology is an exact science, I think the argument holds. I looked up Trubetskoy and found he was the founder of Balkan linguistics, plus I recalled the Sprachbund arguments in item four on my list.

So, my knowledge of language studies is not based on just one source of linguistic scholarship.

But back to the answer of Rolf Willers. Someone may have meant another kind of snyde remark against me. Swedish is not French, not even English. As none of these two is my native language he may imagine "I'll never be fluent" ... that's wrong. Now, in the last two weeks, I've twice made embarrassing gender mistakes in French in contexts where Swedish wouldn't necessarily gender the nouns. I have also admitted to my Swedish perception of the phoneme [e] overlapping to some degree with the French perception of the phoneme [i] (Swedish has the series [i — e — ε — æ — a] in the space where French has the series [i — e — ε — a], so French has more space of variation allotted to [i] than Swedish has — item three taught me about vowel triangles or vowel diagrams). I also regularly confuse in words I have not fully learned yet whether the syllable has an e or an é in spelling, since to my ear "böcker" with -ər and with -εr sound the same, it's the same word, just regional variation. Yes, the very finest points about French phonetics are filtered from my experience of Swedish.

However, I do not propose to become a conférencier in French. As to my capacity of writing in French, that's the kind of thing I can check before publishing, and often do. When a "bésoin de debut" (instead of "besoin de début") slips by, I actually authorise the correction of it.

An even worse kind of snyde remark would be if someone thought I had some mental trouble about my language capacity in Swedish, because I write "vi ha elfva timmar qvar" instead of "vi har elva timmar kvar" ... the use of plural verbs was standard Swedish up to 1950, and is very unlike the proposal of corresponding to English "thou art" from Shakespear, one needs to be really uneducated to make that connection, it's far closer to "nous arrivâmes en moins des onze heures qui nous restaient" instead of "nous sommes arrivés etc" ... and "elfva" and "qvar" is like using a "colour labelled axe" in English spelling rather than a "color labeled ax" in American spelling. Both the US and Sweden had reforms in 1906. So, no, nothing like a language incapacitating mental symptom in my most basic, i e native language, just a use of my actual capacity of Swedish to make a polemic point in a consistent, but low key way. The point being I hate modernity and not least modern administrative tyranny, whether directed against language (Frans G. Bengtsson was against the spelling reform) or against family (see Sweden Doesn't Have Communism for Everyone, Just Selective Communism Where it Hurts).

No, my Swedish is fine, just not to everyone's taste, and so are my later learned languages English and French. Well, French is languishing somewhat from lack of practise. When a whole neighbourhood agrees to overwhelm me with lots of "bonjour" and "comment allez-vous" and nearly nothing else, that's not conversational practise. But not to the degree that anyone has to take into account I could have "meant something else" since French is not my first language. If someone says "Fascist" in French means "Nazi or at least very close", sorry, that's not a feature of French, that's a feature of a political climate I try to change.**

Another possibility is, someone has had "the mother tongue is the sole linguistic source one bases language learning on" in the homework and wanted to check if the homework actually made sense. And it doesn't.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Turibius of Mogrovejo
23.III.2026

Limae, in Peruvia, sancti Turibii Episcopi, cujus virtute fides et disciplina ecclesiastica per Americam diffusae sunt.

PS. There is a question which some classify as "linguistics" and I don't, where I also had an early source. For evolutionary linguistics, the kind of thing that Jean Aitchison is trying in The Seeds of Speech: Language Origin and Evolution (Canto), I did have a loaned and later given book on anthropology which pretended the first phoneme and word was the sound "φφφ" as per blowing on a fire, it was a pretty racist one, but the thing is, later works (I've seen samples) seem to retreat from even that question. However, I'd not classify that as linguistics, but as one of the more problematic problems in the Theory of Evolution. The problem should be apparent from my essay doublet (from two quora questions) All Human Languages are Human, None are "Primitive"./HGL

* It also involved the concept of phonetic change. I thought "fagus" meant "book", which is actually "liber", since "book" in Swedish is "bok" but that also means "beechtree" which is the real meaning of "fagus" .... ** It has two different meanings, applicable either to Italian Fascism only or to all of the Fascisms many of which were even less like National Socialism than Italian Fascism was. I use it in the latter sense.

Could China See the Sun Go Dark on Good Friday?

31°46′44″N 35°13′32″E, the coordinates of Jerusalem. Let's keep 31°46′44″N as it is.

3 hours = 1/8 of the nychthemeron (of the 24 hours).

365° / 8 = 182° 30' / 4 = 91° 15' / 2 = 45° 37' 30"

So, at the end of the three hours darkness, the Sun was at 10° 23' 58" W.

180° - 10° = 170° E
169° 60' - 23' = 169° 37' E
169° 36' 60" - 58" = 169° 36' 02" E.

That's South of Sakhalin, basically, that the Sun was in nadir at the end of the Cross Death.

However, it's below horizon 90° to either side of that.

79° 36' 02" E is pretty close to Qangzê, which historically is in Tibet, not China.

However, let's recall the beginning, at 12 noon. Then the Sun was 45° 37' 30" further East.

045° 37' 30"
079° 36' 02"
______________
124° 73' 32" = 125° 13' 32"

When the Sun went dark, the Sun was setting at a place a bit East of China, and the Jerusalem latitude is a bit South of Western Korean Peninsula.

So, supposing the Sun went dark at one specific time, in relation to any place not under the horizon, in China, it would have been observed as going dark a bit before normal sunset, which would have been at / near 6 PM.

How far East was Luoyang?

34°37′11″N 112°27′14″E

125° 13' 32"
112° 27′ 14″
___________________
012° 46' 18" (less than 15° = c. 1/24 of 365°)

So, grosso modo, in Luoyang, the time when Jesus was nailed to the Cross and the Sun went dark, 12:00 in Jerusalem, would have been 17:00 (or actually, less than an hour before sunset, later than astronomical 17:00).

More than 2 of the three hours would have been after sunset. What if Beijing had been the capital?

39°54′24″N 116°23′51″E

125° 13' 32"
116° 23′ 51″
__________________
008° 49' 41" (little more than 15° / 2)

That is just 8~9° West of the "sunset" meridian for noon in Jerusalem. In Beijing, one would have seen it for a little more than 30 minutes, not for 3 hours.

I've contacted Prof. Emer. Christopher Cullen, an expert on Ancient Chinese astronomy, we'll see if he answers.*

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Matthias Apostle
24.II.2026

In Judaea natalis sancti Matthiae Apostoli, qui, post Ascensionem Domini ab Apostolis in Judae proditoris locum sorte electus, pro Evangelii praedicatione martyrium passus est.

I wonder if Laramie Hirsch permitted himself an April Fools joke on April 1 2021, even if it was Maundy Thursday that year, in the post Historical World Accounts of the Crucifixion’s Darkness The parts of Thallus and Julius Africanus is however genuine. But the citation from Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound apparently isn't from an F-search in ÆSCHYLUS' PROMETHEUS BOUND AND THE SEVEN AGAINST THEBES.

PPS, wonder what time it was in Ulster (Emain Macha) when it was 12:00 in Jerusalem? 54°20′53″N 6°41′50″W

06° 41′ 50″ W
35° 13′ 32″ E
41° 54' 82" = 41° 55' 22", pretty close to 45° 37' 30"

It would have been from about 9 AM to 12 that the Sun went dark over Emain Macha./HGL

* I was referred to Quora:
Is there an ancient Chinese record of Jesus's death and resurrection?
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-an-ancient-Chinese-record-of-Jesuss-death-and-resurrection?top_ans=353431258
probably mostly:
Yugan Talovich answers: Did emperor Guangwu really mention Jesus' atonement? Is there any evidence for it's authenticity? (Christian answers please) Source: History of the Latter Han dynasty, Volume 1, Chronicles of emperor Guangwu, 7th year
https://www.quora.com/Did-emperor-Guangwu-really-mention-Jesus-atonement-Is-there-any-evidence-for-its-authenticity-Christian-answers-please-Source-History-of-the-Latter-Han-dynasty-Volume-1-Chronicles-of-emperor-Guangwu-7th-year/answer/Yugan-Talovich

Sassafras et goutte ?

Le sassafras excite la transpiration, la sueur & les urines. Il incise & résout les humeurs visqueuses & épaisses ; il leve les obstructions des visceres ; il est bon pour la cachexie, les pâles couleurs, & l’hydropisie. Il éloigne les attaques de la goutte. Il tend à remédier à la paralysie & aux fluxions froides. On l’emploie utilement dans les maladies vénériennes. On le donne en infusion depuis demi-once jusqu’à deux onces ; on l’emploie souvent dans des décoctions sudorifiques & échauffantes.

SASSAFRAS, signé (D. J.)
https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/L’Encyclopédie/1re_édition/SASSAFRAS

Some People Can't Tell Guido von List from Snorri Sturlason from Tolkien

I'd appreciate if guys like that were kind enough to end their efforts to detect the next Magician behind the next Hitler and leave that to competent people.

You don't validly discredit, you just smudge, Dollfuss by a reductio ad Hitlerum.

And you don't validly discredit, you just smudge, Snorri, Tolkien, or myself, by a reductio ad Guidonem von List./HGL

What's Verbicide?

Sharing:

The Spiritual Perils of Verbicide
Jared Selim | Feb 05, 2026
https://substack.com/home/post/p-185556609

How Murdered Words Lose Meaning—and How Logos Revives Them

L'histoire capétienne

Répliques Assorties : Publication et association, pas la même chose · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : L'histoire capétienne

Et puis et 3:42 puis on n'oublie pas surtout voilà, je 3:43 vous dis d'histoire capécienne, c'est 3:47 des paysans pauvres, des gens qui ont 3:49 qui ont crevé, c'est le servage, c'est 3:51 tous ces trucs-là.

Ainsi Antoine, NPA, en proteste contre un requiem pour Louis XVI. La vidéo, elle est déjà sur mon billet blog sur l'Action française.

des paysans pauvres

Jusqu'à trés récemment, il y a eu davantage de possibilité pour une société d'avoir 1/3 ou moins aisé et 2/3 ou plus pauvres. En Suède actuelle, on parle de l'inverse, 2/3 aisés, dont une poignée de riches, et 1/3 pauvres.

Quand la majorité est pauvre, et unie, elle est plus solidaire en elle-même que quand les pauvres sont des catégories très diverses qui s'ajoutent à 1/3. Au lieu d'être exploités ensemble, ils sont assistés séparément.

Et quand les paysans sont pauvres, ça veut dire que pas mal de fermes sont petits, les paysans sont nombreux.

des gens qui ont qui ont crevé

De temps en temps, dont les années 1788 et 1789.

Entre Henri IV et Louis XVI, la population des villes augmente, pour les soutenir, les paysans travaillent davantage de jours par an et bien entendu, ce qui crève est surtout une population citadine, faute de suffisamment de paysans.

c'est le servage

Le servage avait été adouci pendant le Moyen âge. Et ensuite durci pendant les siècles de hausse pour les villes. Comme les autres moyens par lesquels les paysans payaient la vie des non-paysans, des gens en dehors du secteur primaire.

Par contre, les serfs, s'il y en a encore à la veille de 1789, ça serait pas beaucoup :

Towards the end of the 9th century the serf-tenants were already proprietors of their holdings ; under the third dynasty they were rather subjects than tenants, and the dues they paid were rather taxes than rents ; they were, in short, vassals occupying the lowest round of the feudal ladder. Guérard enumerates as immediate causes which led to the liberation of serfs (besides the master’s voluntary gift or bequest) their flight,—with the prescription which arose after a certain interval of absence,—ordination, redemption by themselves or others, marriages with women of higher status, and the action of law in the case of certain wrongs inflicted by the master.

Je traduis :

Vers la fin du IXe S. les serfs / tenanciers étaient déjà propriétaires de leur lottements ; sous la troisième race, ils étaient plutôt des sujets que des tenanciers, et les redevances payées étaient plutôt des impôts que des loyers ; ils étaient, en bref, des vassaux qui occupaient l'échelon le plus bas de l'échelle féodale. Guérard énumère comme les causes immédiates qui menaient à la libération de serfs (à part les dons ou legs volontaires du maître) leur fuite,—avec la prescription après une certaine intervalle d'absence,—ordination, rachat par eux-mêmes ou autrui, mariages avec des femmes de statut plus haut, et l'action de la loi dans le cas de certains torts infligés par le maître.

La source :

1902 Encyclopedia > Slavery > Disappearance of Serfdom. France. England. Italy. Germany. Spain.
[More than 6,000 articles from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th and 10th editions]
https://www.1902encyclopedia.com/S/SLA/slavery-12.html

Depuis 1315 et 1318, il restait très peu de servage, localement, en France, jusqu'au 4 août 1789. Il s'agit des decrets de Louis X et de Philippe V.

M Guérard, Monsieur Guérard, c'est qui ?

Benjamin Guérard, né le 15 mars 1797 à Montbard (Côte-d'Or)[1], mort le 10 mars 1854 à Paris, est un bibliothécaire et historien français, particulièrement connu pour son édition de cartulaires d'abbayes de l'époque carolingienne.

Ah, c'est pour ça qu'il cite les libérations de serfs par St. Benoît d'Aniane !

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Dim. Sexagésima
8.II.2026

Pourquoi le secret maçonnique est-il mauvais ?

New blog on the kid : Pourquoi la Franc-Maçonnerie est-elle une secte ? · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Pourquoi le secret maçonnique est-il mauvais ?

Débutons avec Disney (qui descend des chevaliers normands d'Isigny, d'où le nom).

Dans le Manuel des Castors Juniors, Riri, Fifi et Loulou consultent des articles (qui au fur et mesure s'ajoutent à un volume de corpus comparable à la wikipédie) qui parfois ajoutent juste une petite correction, mais parfois donnent une info assez inédite ou encore très à propos. Dans un article sur Nicolas Flamel ils pourraient lire qu'il était réputé d'avoir trouvé la pierre philosophale, mais que celle-ci n'ait jamais été retrouvée après. Occasion pour eux de refouiller la chambre secrète dans le sous-sol de sa maison, que pour quelque raison les Oncles Scrooge et Donald auraient eu l'occasion d'accesser avec eux.

Trève de fiction, à part peut-être l'autofiction. Un certain Joseph Smith affirme s'être pour quelque raison doté d'accès à des plâques d'or, inscrites dans une langue que pour quelque raison il sera capable de déchiffrer, et il découvre une histoire qui finit dans le temps du prophète Moroni, entre 400 et 421 AD. Lui-même, il fait cette découverte le 22 septembre de 1823. Personne n'est capable de vérifier de sa mémoire d'avoir entendu du prophète Moroni, indépendamment, on est (entre les premiers Mormons) entièrement livré à faire confiance aveugle à Joseph Smith et aux plâques d'or.

Et Anderson, 1717 ? Il affirme que du passé, ça aurait été la règle de tous les franc-maçons de simplement suivre la religion du pays, mais qu'on venait de décider de se borner à la religion naturelle. La religion d'Angleterre (Anglicanisme), d'Écosse (Calvinisme), de France (Catholicisme) deviennent dès lors comparables à la partie déjà fouillée de la maison de Nicolas Flamel ou à la colline où l'on trouva les plâques d'or. Ou à l'enveloppe d'une lettre ou au papier d'emballage d'un cadeau. Inessentiel. L'essentiel devient alors de remplir le croquis de la religion naturelle. Car, pour un Catholique, ou encore un Anglican ou Calviniste, théologie naturelle et morale naturelle sont des croquis, mais Dieu les a remplis dans la religion Chrétienne — véritable (car il y a des copies fautives) en ajoutant des choses essentielles pour le salut que la simple connaissance de religion naturelle ignore totalement (Trinité, Incarnation, rédemption par Croix et Résurrection ...). Or, si le remplissage de Dieu devient du "papier d'emballage" ce sera aux membres de la loge de faire leur propre remplissage.

Et vu que les nouveaux membres de la loge d'Anderson, première grand-loge, se trouvent devant une affirmation sur l'histoire de la Franc-Maçonnerie qu'ils ne peuvent pas vérifier indépendamment, Anderson et Désaguiliers sont capables à profiter de la même confiance aveugle pour imposer, par exemple, de célébrer Galilée et Giordano Bruno, précurseurs de Newton, comme si "primauté pour les sciences sur la religion" faisait partie de la religion naturelle. Ce n'est pas le cas. Item, les vénérables de la loge sont capables à imposer licéité ou non de la sodomie, du divorce et remariage et j'en passe, parce qu'on leur fait une confiance aveugle.

"Et le Catholique n'aurait pas une confiance aveugle semblable ?" Non. Les règles sont simples :

• une vérité pour être telle doit avoir été déjà enseignée par le magistère ;
• et le magistère ne peut rien enseigner en secret.

Si d'ordinaire je laisse le souci à mon prêtre de vérifier leurs vérités chez les prédécesseurs, les prédécesseurs sont quand même déjà publiés. En principe, je peux le vérifier. Pour la Bible aussi, en principe je peux vérifier. C'est peut-être mal vu par certains, mais si je l'ignore, je peux. Pour les vénérables du passé, pour pas mal des choses, ma seule source accessible serait mon propre vénérable, en me posant dans la situation d'un initié.

Si je lis que Riri, Fifi et Loulou font de l'or avec la pierre philosophale, ce n'est pas grave. Je ne le crois pas, au moins pas après de poser la BD. Si je crois que l'église de Moroni ait survécu plus longtemps aux Amériques que l'église des Apôtres dans l'Ancien Monde, c'est pire, surtout si j'ajoute que, entre Moroni et Joseph Smith il y a 1400 ans. Et si je fais confiance à Joseph Smith que Dieu autorise, aussi dans la Nouvelle Alliance, la polygamie. Les deux ont une certaine connexion maçonnique. Walt Disney a probablement été un de Molay, pour son frère Roy, c'est probable qu'il ait été un franc-maçon, même (la maçonnerie propre se fait juste entre adultes et les de Molays sont du scoutisme pour jeunes dans l'esprit de la maçonnerie). Joseph Smith, avant d'être le premier Mormon, a été Franc-Maçon.

Et si votre loge prétend, avec Nicolas Notovitch, que Jésus soit, pas Dieu dans la Chair, mais adepte d'un monastère bouddhiste tibétain, c'est très grave. Nicolas était Juif, et comme pas mal, il trouvait peu populaire et un peu dangéreux de se tenir aux enseignements rabbiniques sur Jésus. Mais comme Juif, il ne voulait pas non plus croire l'Incarnation et la Trinité. Au Tibet, les monastères bouddhistes, comme le Bouddhisme tout cort, commencent bien plus tard que le 1^er Siècle. En plus, Max Müller, en correspondance avec le monastère, débusque une fraude derrière l'affirmation de Notovitch.

Et si, en plus, vous faites passer les Catholiques pour niais, parce que nous croyons la Divinité de Jésus, si entre vous ou face à un Catholique (que vous jugez) en train de déconstruire, vous faites passer "les études tibétaines de Jésus" comme le "fait" génial qui dénonce "l'erreur" des Catholiques, vous vous donnez une fausse assurance, doublée d'un mépris des Catholiques, en plus du blasphême.

Quand la version italienne de Quo Graviora parle de "sette clandestine" ou encore "sette clandestine di uomini nemici di Cristo" le mot "setta" (secta en latin et secte en français) est donc beacoup moins grave que "clandestina" (secrète en français), lui-même moins grave que "di uomini nemici di Cristo" (d'hommes ennemis du Christ).

Et le caractère ésotérique, initiatique ou secret de la Maçonnerie peut donner cette fausse sécurité aux membres de s'imaginer dans la présence d'une tradition vénérable, plus ancien que le Moyen âge et mêmes les Césars, tandis que le projet de reduire métaphysique et morale à "religion naturelle" naît en réalité comme fruit de la Guerre de Trente Ans, sur l'idée qu'on pourraît éviter les guerres religieuses en se posant sur un terrain neutre entre Catholiques et Protestants, et de fait on aura juste ajouté encore une religion à faire la guerre aux autres.

Le prédécesseur de la Franc-Maçonnerie, le Rosicrucianisme, a davantage de liens avec le Christianisme, et semble avoir été une version ésotérique du grand réveil. Et commence avec deux tracts anonymes, Fama Fraternitatis Rosae Crucis ou ce n'est pas Jésus-Christ, mais bien un curé qui va en Orient pour se faire initier, et Confessio Fraternitatis qui déduit ce grand réveil de nouvelles étoiles vues dans les Serpentarius et le Cygne. Les livres apparaissent en 1610 et 1615, Cassel et Frankfurt. Bien que la Guerre de Trente Ans n'avait pas débuté, l'Allemagne avait une triste histoire de guerres réligieux, depuis la guerre de Smalkalde, celle-ci préparée par l'incendie d'Einbeck et les propos inflammatoires de Luther et d'autres pour mettre la faute aux Catholiques, comme si le feu avait été une incendie criminelle. Le Rosicrucianisme est donc Protestant, car il propose encore une Réformation. Il est sinon biaisé vers une loi naturelle à refaire, au moin à un Protestantisme aconfessionnel. S'il y ait eu des loges réels ou non, à cette époque, est incertain. La Société peut à ce moment avoir été autant une fiction que la ville dans la Civitas Solis, de Tommaso Campanella. À la fac de latin une autre étudiante fit une analyse sur Civitas Solis. Elle était elle-même plus charmante que la fiction disneyesque (moins l'humour) du Dominicain.

Entretemps, des vraies loges secrètes existent déjà. Et c'est un problème.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre BU
St. Blaise
3.II.2026

Sebaste, in Armenia, passio sancti Blasii, Episcopi et Martyris; qui, multorum patrator miraculorum, sub Agricolao Praeside, post diutinam caesionem, atque in ligno suspensionem, ubi ferreis pectinibus carnes ejus diruptae sunt, post teterrimum carcerem et in lacum demersionem, unde salvus exivit, tandem, jubente eodem Judice, una cum duobus pueris, capite truncatur. Ante ipsum vero septem mulieres, quae guttas sanguinis, ex ejusdem Martyris corpore defluentes, dum torqueretur, colligebant, propterea, deprehensae quod essent Christianae, omnes, post dira tormenta, gladio percussae sunt.

J'ai utilisé d'articles de la wikipédie, pas juste pour Campanella, mais aussi pour les frères Disney (mais aussi d'autres recherches) et pour le Rosicrucianisme et la F...M...erie./HGL

"There are those who want to control the narrative ..." — Oh, really? Perhaps not like you think.

This video features:

• Uruk had between 40 000 and 80 000 inhabitants in 2800 BC;
• and the Kings' List includes a female ruler.
• This was discovered in 2013, btw. Anthropologist Guillermo Algaze.

Here's the video, of the type youtube calls a "short":

@mruink
A Shocking Truth About the Ancient Sumerians
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/J8lju2oC9xE

Now, the video ends with a question and offers an answer: Why haven't we heard of this before? The truth is, there are those who want to control the narrative.

The colloquial expression I might use about this is a matter that can be used as fertiliser most of the world and in India, when dried, is also used as fire fuel. I don't want to be too vulgar and spell it out.

First, I'm far from certain that we never heard of any of this before. I hear of this now, nearly 13 years after 2013. Some may have heard of it before Algaze stepped in. In fact, he had written about similar things before, in an article called The Sumerian Takeoff. It's from 2005 and same year it got a critique:

Critique of Guillermo Algaze’s “The Sumerian Takeoff”
2005, Adams, Robert McC.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5m8043vf

I cite the first paragraph after the absstract:

My discomfort with this article is primarily with its didactic, positivistic tone, rather than its ably argued, if somewhat too narrowly focused, contents. We are informed already in the Abstract, on the authority of “economic geographers” without knowledge of the ancient Near Eastern background, that “regional variations in economic activity and population agglomeration are always the result of self-reinforcing processes of resource production, accumulation, exchange, and innovation.” And again, “that emergence of early cities in the southern Mesopotamian alluvium must be understood in terms of, both, the unique ecological conditions that existed across the region during the fourth millennium… and the enduring geographical framework…” (emphases added).

Sounds like Algaze (born in Cuba, working in Chicago, by the way) is himself a man who wants to control the narrative.

But apart from this, there is an omission of a way more obvious reason. Around 100 AD, both Sumerian and Akkadian were extinct languages. Not "dead" in the sense that Classic languages like Latin, Greek or Sanskrit are sometimes called "dead" for lack of native speakers. No, they had been that already in the time of Alexander. But extinct. No one able to study them any more. The study of Cuneiform writing was rebooted from scratch, first by deciphering Old Persian Cuneiform between 1802 and 1836, then by extending the study to Elamite and Akkadian (Babylonian dialect) over the Behistun trilingual, which was partly copied in 1835 as to the Old Persian stuff, but Elamite and Akkadian had to wait till 1847. It was only later than that, that it was discovered that part of the text was missing due to dissolution of the limestone it was carved in, part was missing due to limestone covering it.

In 1938, the inscription became of interest to the Nazi German think tank Ahnenerbe, although research plans were cancelled due to the onset of World War II.

From the Behistun material, copied and published in 1849, one continued to learn Akadian:

By 1851, Hincks and Rawlinson could read 200 Akkadian signs. They were soon joined by two other decipherers: young German-born scholar Julius Oppert, and versatile British Orientalist William Henry Fox Talbot. In 1857, the four men were requested to take part in a famous experiment to test the accuracy of their decipherments. Edwin Norris, the secretary of the Royal Asiatic Society, gave each of them a copy of a recently discovered inscription from the reign of the Assyrian emperor Tiglath-Pileser I. A jury of experts was impaneled to examine the resulting translations and assess their accuracy. In all essential points, the translations produced by the four scholars were found to be in close agreement with one another. There were, of course, some slight discrepancies. The inexperienced Talbot had made a number of mistakes, and Oppert's translation contained a few doubtful passages which the jury politely ascribed to his unfamiliarity with the English language. But Hincks' and Rawlinson's versions corresponded remarkably closely in many respects. The jury declared itself satisfied, and the decipherment of Akkadian cuneiform was adjudged a fait accompli.

And only then did one start learning Sumerian. This is by the way a reason why Hislop's book The Two Babylons from 1853 is nonsense. Learning an ancient culture in accurate detail takes time. Lorenzo Valla already knew Latin when he started a work of bettering the understanding of ancient Roman culture (he made a work on its coinage, which hadn't been understood, De Asse et partibus eius). He died in 1457. The work of getting to know Ancient Rome and Greece is still not finished. Understanding Old (Classic) Babylon and prior cities like Ur and Uruk, like Nippur and Lagash could only take off after 1851, by then they had far less to go on than Valla had had.

This is the reason why this hasn't been known earlier. Not that someone has been keeping it secret to control the narrative.

As a side note, the carbon date 2800 BC would in my Biblical recalibration calibrate to 1700 BC, around the time when Joseph's pharao Djoser died. Except that for Djoser's burial ship, the date 2800 BC or so is a raw date and is calibrated to 2600 sth, by Uniformitarians, conventional archaeologists, so, this 2800 BC would be a calibrated 2800 BC, earlier than 1700 BC.

As a side note within the side note, I examplify the distance between raw date and calibration in an essay from last year:

As 1950 is 75 years ago, the carbon date BP wouldn't be 500, but 425. However, the raw carbon age for 420 BP seems to correspond to 1460 rather than to 1525, according to the fine calibration.

Raw date is the mathematically accurate deduction from remaining carbon 14, assuming the original content was 100 pmC and that the halflife was 5730 years. Calibration involves taking other age indicators into account, which give a slightly (or in my case, when we go back far enough, radically) different age, and which theoretically can be explained by assuming the original carbon 14 content was slightly (or in my case, when we go back far enough, radically) different.

So, in Joseph's time, presuming he's the one recalled as Imhotep and his pharao was Djoser, or a little earlier, this would be the real time period for this expansion of Uruk, which spoke mainly Sumerian, and the Classic city Babylon, which spoke mainly Akkadian, was founded later. There is no direct continuity of settlement between Nimrod's and Nebuchadnezzar's cities. They are not historically, even if they are theologically, one city. And before you use this as an alibi for saying Hislop was correct about the theology of Göbekli Tepe, which is also geographically distant from Nebuchadnezzar's city, that was not even discovered in his time, it was discovered in 1963 and excavated from 1995.

Anyway, the people who want to control the narrative are less good at keeping secrets than often presumed, and better at insisting on one interpretation (like excluding my Biblical recalibration). Algaze did not rescue facts from dungeons where someone was shutting them up.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Septuagesima LD
1.II.2026

Resources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Algaze

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behistun_Inscription

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decipherment_of_cuneiform

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Schmidt_(archaeologist)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe

Creation vs. Evolution: So, You Think Another Biblical Chronology is Right than Mine? Here is What You Can Do ... for Carbon Dates
dimanche 16 mars 2025 | Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 07:17
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2025/03/so-you-think-another-biblical.html

Non, l'Austrofascisme n'a pas stérilisé des gens de force

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Non, l'Austrofascisme n'a pas stérilisé des gens de force · New blog on the kid : "La loi reflète l'évolution des mentalités"

Pour des Austrofascistes, en des coins reculés, je ne suis pas sûr, des crimes sont des crimes. Mais pour le régime austrofasciste, la réponse est non :

Legalised non-consensual sterilisation - Eugenics put into practice before 1945, and the aftermath. Part 2: Europe.
Jean-Jacques Amy and Sam Rowlands
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/30595/3/Forced%20sterilisation-EJCRHC-MS-Part%202%20SR%20comments%20addressed%20JJA.pdf

3. Switzerland 1928
4. Denmark 1929
5. Germany 1933
6. Norway 1934
7. Sweden 1934 and 1941
8. Finland 1935
9. Estonia 1937
10. Iceland 1938
11. Austria 1940

The Nazi ‘Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring’ was enforced in Austria in 1940, two years after the country’s annexation (‘Anschluss’) by Germany. The first coerced sterilisations were done in the spring of 1940. ... After annexation by Germany, deaf people in Austria faced forced sterilisation, internment, deportation and euthanasia; pregnant deaf women were coerced to obtain an abortion.

En d'autres mots, le régime Austrofasciste a respecté les droits humains (sur ce compte au moins) et respecté Casti Connubii.

En Suisse, le canton historiquement francophone protestant Vaud franche le premier pas.

Depuis la Guerre du Sonderbund, les cantons catholiques sont plutôt dominés par les cantons protestants.

Danemark, Norvège, Suède, Finlande, Estonie, Islande, tous des pays luthériens. Protestants. Aujourd'hui, d'ailleurs, tous assez sécularistes.

L'Allemagne, un pays à l'époque majoritairement protestant (environ 1/3 étaient Catholiques).

Autriche, le seul pays à majorité catholique de faire ceci, et il ne l'a pas fait qu'après l'occupation par un pays ... protestant. Notons, l'Italie, l'Espagne et le Portugal absentent.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
IIIe dim. après l'Épiphanie
25.I.2026

What Words did Job Repent Of?

And the Lord answering Job out of the whirlwind, said Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and do thou tell me Wilt thou make void my judgment: and condemn me, that thou mayst be justified
[Job 40:1-3]

Then Job answered the Lord, and said I know that thou canst do all things, and no thought is hid from thee Who is this that hideth counsel without knowledge? Therefore I have spoken unwisely, and things that above measure exceeded my knowledge Hear, and I will speak: I will ask thee, and do thou tell me With the hearing of the ear, I have heard thee, but now my eye seeth thee Therefore I reprehend myself, and do penance in dust and ashes
[Job 42:1-6]

I find only two possibilities.

a) The words Job regrets are things he said that aren't in the book of Job even if he said them. Because, as writer, he censored out his bad words. However, if so, this must be after this exchange:

And he said to her: Thou hast spoken like one of the foolish women: if we have received good things at the hand of God, why should we not receive evil? In all these things Job did not sin with his lips.
[Job 2:10]

or b) The words Job regrets were indeed spoken, but only in his heart, not across his lips. He said "no thought is hid from thee" and Job 2 kind of underlines he did not sin "with his lips".

Also, he calls his words basically foolish. However, Psalm 13 doesn't say the fool is an outspoken atheist, it says he has said in his heart "there is no God." God saw something in Job's heart that did not match his words. If God hadn't showed up in a whirlwind, Eliphaz and the rest would have never known that. Even if they may have guessed right, they had no right to guess.

I am the Lord who search the heart and prove the reins: who give to every one according to his way, and according to the fruit of his devices
[Jeremias (Jeremiah) 17:10]

Sounds like an echo of sth in Deuteronomy 32 which St. Paul cites:

Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord
[Romans 12:19]

It would seem, then, the same applies to analysis. But how do we know that Job didn't mean any of the actual words said to those around him?

Take unto you therefore seven oxen, and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer for yourselves a holocaust: and my servant Job shall pray for you: his face I will accept, that folly be not imputed to you: for you have not spoken right things before me, as my servant Job hath
[Job 42:8]

Dear St. Job, pray for us!

Can One be Austro-Fascist and Bona Fide Catholic?

New blog on the kid: Can One Be a National Socialist and a Bona Fide Catholic? · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Can One be Austro-Fascist and Bona Fide Catholic?

Some things are to modern sympathisers off the table, simply because the situation was different. In both cases.

Like, liking Austro-Fascism now doesn't imply shooting on Social Democrats, because Social Democrats aren't trying to make an insurrection and succeeding in killing innocent bystanders, as the case was in February 1934.

Or, given that Czechs residing in Austria aren't uniformy factory workers (celibate men or men away from wives) taking Austrian jobs and promoting Communism, or that both Czechia and Austria are EU members, one need not support the idea of arresting Czechs, let them wait till a busload is full and then get them to the frontier, for instance to Gmünd (one of the border crossings).

I think most Neo-Nazis with German sympathies (overlapping but not identic categories) would not like to open hostilities with Poland, either.

But let's take what's applicable and see if it's acceptable.

In the NSDAP governed German Reich, you had forced sterilisations, and you had people being shut into disciplinary facilities (not so facile or easy-going on them, but on their captors) for being beggars. In Austria, prior to 1938 and Anschluss, you did not have forced sterilisations, and you did not shut up people in most of Austria (only in Upper Austria) for begging, and when you did, the facility was not meant to force them to change their lifestyle, but to give them an opportunity to work themselves up from the situation. Wages were lower than normal, but that has been the case with some Swedish social measures as well, that I've tasted. Those refusing to work were not punished.

I think a very major difference is the attitude to Jews.

Magnus Hirschfeld was, for the nature of his research, much safer in the Weimar Republic than in Austria under Dollfuss or Schuschnigg. When von Papen made a coup, within Prussia, Berlin became less safe for Hirschfeld. He ended up in Paris and in Nice.

However, 1933, another Jew from Germany (Hamburg this time) who didn't feel safe in Germany, had no problem when moving to Austria, except in 1938, when Austro-Fascism fell, Henry Winterfeld had to move again.

Austro-Fascism didn't make Jews pay for the Magnus Hirschfelds.

Again, Austro-Fascism didn't ban Jews from exercising intellectual work (provided it wasn't of the Hirschfeld school). Heinrich Schenker was piano teacher, possibly composer, certainly music theorician, and died in 1935 under Schuschnigg. He had no legal problems teaching music theory to for instance Felix Salzer (a nephew of the Wittgenstein). His widow was less lucky, she died in Theresienstadt. Since Felix Salzer (through the grandfather Karl Wittgenstein, at least) had Jewish ancestry, he is listed among "Jewish emigrants from Austria after the Anschluss to the United States" on wikipedia.

Again, Jewish capitalism. National Socialism deprived William Meinhardt (deutscher Artikel) of his ownership in OSRAM because Meinhardt was Jewish. But the National Socialists did not reverse the policy of the Phoebus cartell, the real moral trouble with OSRAM, whether Meinhardt was or wasn't involved in that deal. NS also deprived Julius Fromm of his ownership, but allowed the immoral production to continue (desiring to keep this blog child friendly, I'm not entering into the details, it's possible to look up wiki). Julius Fromm's house, after his exile, became a Judenhaus, meaning a kind of ghetto, to which Jews were forced to move. This, I think, resumes the NSDAP attitude pretty well.

Austria had a different take. The fear was Jewish monopolies or oligopolies, the solution was a) to treat Jews as an ethnic minority (like Slovenes and Croatians) and b) to make a numerus clausus or percentage number on how much of a sector could be owned by an ethnic minority. If a Jew (or Croatian or Slovene) wanted to start a business in Vienna, in a sector which already had more than proportionally Jewish (or Croatian or Slovene) owners, he was not allowed to open it. That's the extent of laws targetting Jews. Ghettos (so to speak) existed, from old habit. Not from state force. Leopoldsstadt, II city district of Vienna, is known for the Prater and for having the top percentage of Jewish inhabitants of any city district (there were 21 such before the Anschluss).

In Leopoldsstadt, you had Israelitische Kulturgemeinde Wien. In 1933, the president of that association was one (quoting their list) not unknown:

Dr. DESIDER FRIEDMANN (in Auschwitz ermordet) 1933 –

On the day of the Anschluss, he was in London as a Minister in Austria and an emissary to British wealth (which had backed Nazi Germany more than Austria). On his return, he was arrested, because his gesture was disloyal to the German Reich.

But the most striking difference may be the mutual relations with the Catholic Church.

In NS ruled Germany, a Catholic bishop of Dresden Meissen lost his driving licence over speeding when trying to bring the sacraments to a dying man. Der Stürmer was, famously, toxic against Jews, but not much less against Catholics. The German bishops had excommunicated any person joining the NSDAP, at the Konkordat, this was limited to high ranking members (so, one reason Pius XII didn't excommunicate Hitler was, he was already excommunicated). In Vienna, a nun made a lampoon in verse against Hitler ... she was offered to be released if she renounced her religious vocation, as she refused, Sister Maria Restituta Kafka was executed (all the career of the White Rose existance from start to execution of the Scholl siblings was while she waited for her own death).

In Austria, the régime supported Catholicism (sometimes over the top, like an interview with a psychiatrist if you wanted to leave the Catholic Church, which was however not totally illegal either). And the régime based their actions, notably about workers' unions, employer's unions and independents' unions or farmers' unions, on the Church Domcument QUADRAGESIMO ANNO and on the writings of the Reverend Ignaz Seipel whose (in the taste of some) probably woke and social justice warrior like work Ethical Teachings on Economics of the Church Fathers (Wirtschaftsethische Lehre der Kirchenväter) from 1907 remains on my list of to-read books. Dito for his obviously Christian Nationalist work Nation und Staat from 1916.

A certain Jew feared Ignaz Seipel and warned for his antisemitism in "Die Stadt ohne Juden" (the city without Jews). But Bettauer (Protestant, formerly Jew) didn't die by an Austrofascist. His killer Otto Rothstock was a National Socialist. Just like Dollfuss' killer Otto Planetta.

Both the NS régime and the Austro-Fascist régime prosecuted abortion. Neither of them allowed the girl of 14 to be in the kind of pickle she would be now. But the NS solution was Lebensborn. In Austria, 14 remained a legal age for a girl to marry, if her parents agreed (and if she was pregnant, why wouldn't they, usually?). When I was a teen, of 13 / 14, I admired the idea of Lebensborn. Today I understand the Catholic critique, it promoted immorality, and promote the Catholic alternative: allowing teens to actually get married. Unlike Lebensborn, Austrian legislation was neither racist nor eugenicist, so Austro-Fascism didn't commit the same crimes, while also keeping abortion illegal (it was illegal in Germany too, but NS strengthened the prosecution and prevention efforts, one bonus point for them, but that it was needed is a minus point for the Weimar Republic).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
II L.D. after Epiphany
18.I.2026

Est-ce que Gaudium et Spes 22, 2, enseigne que la grâce n'ait pas été perdue ?

Voici Maître Adrien Abauzit* :

Gaudium et Spes(22, al.2) enseigne que le péché originel n’a pas fait perdre la grâce sanctifiante à l’homme, mais qu’il l’a simplement « altérée » (ou « déformée » selon d’autres traductions), étant rappelé que la notion de « ressemblance divine » est un signifiant de l’état de grâce :

« “ Image du Dieu invisible ” (Col 1, 15), il est l’Homme parfait qui a restauré dans la descendance d’Adam la ressemblance divine, altérée dès le premier péché. »

Si la grâce sanctifiante est simplement « altérée » ou « déformée », alors, elle est toujours possédée par l’homme.

L'idée clef est que la phrase biblique « ressemblance divine » est automatiquement à prendre comme l'état de grâce.

Voici St. Thomas (ou "Auteur inconnu" mais je compte Postilla in Libros Geneseos comme un ouvrage de jeunesse du Docteur angélique).

Dicit igitur, faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram.		Il dit donc, faison l'homme en notre image et ressemblance.
Habent ista duo distinctionem: nam imago attenditur secundum potentiam cognoscendi, similitudo quantum ad potentiam diligendi, secundum auctorem libri de spiritu et anima.		Ces deux ont une distinction : car l'image on fait attention selon la puissance de connaître, ressemblance quant au pouvoir d'aimer, selon l'auteur du livre De Spiritu et Anima.
Vel imago dicitur, quantum ad naturalia, et dispositionem partium naturalium; sicut videmus, quod imago habet consimilem dispositionem in partibus quantitatis cum re imaginata.		Ou image est dite quant aux choses naturelles, et la disposition des parties naturelles; comme nous voyons que l'image a une disposition ressemblante dans les parties de sa quantité avec la chose imagée.
Similitudo autem attenditur quantum ad gratuita, sicut dicit Magister in historia.		Mais ressemblance on fait attention quant aux choses gratuites, comme dit la Maître dans l'histoire.**
Et subdit postea dispositionem suae praelationis vel sublimationis, cum dicitur, et praesit piscibus maris: ubi tangitur ejus presidentia respectu aquatilium et volatilium, et respectu terrestris duplicis, scilicet gressibilis et reptilis, quae omnia patent in litera: et respectu creaturae omnis corporalis universaeque terrae.		Et il ajoute après la disposition de sa préférence ou sublimité, quand il dit et qu'il ait préséance sur les poissons de la mer : où est touchée sa préséance vis-à-vis les choses aquatiques et capables à voler, et vis-à-vis le deux types de chose terrestres, c'est à dire qui marche ou qui rampe, ce qui tout se comprend dans le texte : et vis-à-vis toute créature corporelle et l'universalité de la terre.
Quod alicui videbitur contrarium esse veritati et sensui. Nam videmus multa sibi resistere et contrariari etiam pro illo statu innocentiae; nam tunc corpora caelestia non fuissent illi subjecta, nec sol, nec stellae, neque etiam hic mineralia.		Ce qui à quelqu'un va sembler contraire à la vérité et à l'expérience sensorielle. Car nous voyons que beaucoup lui résistent et lui font contrariété même pour cet état d'innocence ; car alors les corps célestes ne lui furent pas soumis, ni soleil, ni étoiles, ni les minéraux même ici.
Ad hoc dicitur, quod pro illo statu habuit duplicem praesidentiam super omnem creaturam irrationalem: primo scilicet praesidentiam naturalis dignitatis; secundo praesidentiam finis bonitatis; quia sicut omnibus fuit natura superior, sic ad ejus servitium et utilitatem omnia sunt producta, et propter ipsum. Respectu autem naturalium, vel rerum, quae possunt nutus humanos aliqualiter recipere, habuit tertiam praesidentiam imperii: quandiu enim expediret, ejus nutibus obtemperassent.		À ceci est dit, que pour cet état l'homme avait une préséance double sur toute créature irrationnelle : à savoir d'abord la préséance de dignité naturelle ; ensuite la préséance de la bonté de la fin ; car comme il devint supérieur à tous par nature, ainsi tout est produit à son service et à son utilité, et pour lui. Mais vis-à-vis les choses naturelles, ou chose qui peuvent quelque part recevoir des commandes humaines, il eut une troisième préséance de l'empire : pour autant que c'était utile, elles auraient obéi à ses commandes.
Si autem quaeritur, an tunc esset aliqua impressio in animalibus, quae non modo non, propter quam nutui hominis paruissent, an forte sic se habent modo, etiam quod si homo non esset infectus, adhuc sibi obtemperassent?		Mais si on demande, si alors il y avait quelque impression sur les animaux, qui pas seulement pas, à raison d'obéir à la commande de l'homme, ou peut-être sont ainsi que même si l'homme n'était pas infecte, ils lui obéiraient encore ?***
Incertum est, quid horum duorum sit verius: verisimile est tamen, quod ex utraque parte modo sit defectus.		C'est incertain lequel des deux soit plus vrai : mais le vraisemblable est, que depuis le dédecte soit des deux parties.
Et quod tunc ex parte virtutis hominis, scilicet justitiae originalis, et ex parte dispositionis animalium obedientia illa caussaretur, quorum utrumque nunc deest.		Et qu'alors de la part de la vertu de l'homme, c'est à dire de la justice originelle, et de la part de la disposition des animaux cette obéissance était causée, desquelles les deux font désormais défaut.
In quibusdam tamen, Deo sic ordinante, dispositio ista remansit propter hominum maximam necessitatem, sicut in pecoribus et jumentis.		Mais en vertains, Dieu l'a disposé ainsi, cette disposition est resté pour la plus grande nécessité des hommes, comme dans le bétail et les animaux de trait.
Pisces dicuntur a pascendo, quia ex illis pascimur, vel quia unus alterius est cibus.		Les poissons sont dit de "paître" parce que nous nous paissons d'eux, ou pare que l'un est le repas de l'autre.°
Dicit autem Papias, quod piscibus nomina sunt instituta post animalia; unde vocantur aut ex similitudine animalium terrestrium, ut vituli, aut ex colore, aut ex moribus ut canes, quia mordent.		Mais Papias dit, que les noms des poissons sont fait à partir des animaux; donc ils sont appelés pour ressemblances d'animaux de la terre, comme les phoques veaux-marins, soit de la couleur, soit des mœurs, comme les "chiens"°° parce qu'ils mordent.
Alia vero nomina sunt prius exposita, ut volatile, etc. sequitur.		Mais les autres noms sont déjà exposés, comme volaille, etc.
Et creavit Deus et cetera. Ubi post dispositionem factionis tangit ipsam factionem hominis, et tangit ipsius esse, secundum quod fuit in fieri, et secundum factum esse, et secundum sexuum distinctionem: unde dicit per ordinem, creavit, id est, de materia produxit.		Et Dieu créa etc. Où après la disposition du façonnage il touche aussi au façonnage même de l'homme et touche son être, selon ce qu'il fut dans le devenir et dans le être fait et selon la distinction des sexes : d'où il dit dans l'ordre, "il créa" c'est à dire fait d'une matière.
Accipitur enim hic creatio pro factione, et non pro productione ex nihilo.		Car ici création est pris pour façonnage, et non pour production ex nihilo.
Quamvis autem productio hominis fuerit de materia, dicitur creatio, quia fuit factus subito homo: unde et si fuerit factus propter subjectum, quod ibi fuit materia: tamen dicitur creatus propter istam causam.		Mais malgré que la production fût d'une matière préexistante, elle est dit création, parce que l'homme est fait soudainement : d'où, même s'il fût "fait" parce qu'il y avait un sujet, parce que là il y avait matière, néanmoins il est dit "créé" pour cette cause.
Sicut etiam Scriptura vocat eum hominem ab humo vel limo, de quo fuit factus cum aliis animalibus communiter: et denominatur sic a viliori ut ex suo nomine discat homo subjici et humiliari Deo, quando cognoverit se esse de materia ista vili, et non possit eum latere, quando nomen ejus ad materiam tam vilem tantam habet vicinitatem.		Comme aussi l'Écriture le nomme "homme" à partir de terre ("humus")°°° ou limon ("limus")~, de laquelle il fut fait de même que les autres animaux : et il est ainsi nommé à partir du moins noble pour que l'homme sache de son nom se soumettre et s'humilier devant Dieu, quand il apprend qu'il est de cette matière vile, et il ne peut pas lui être caché quand son nom a une tellement grande vicinité à cette matière tellement vile.
Et ne forte aestimari posset, quod ipsum fecisset quantum ad corpus solum, et quod non esset in eo aliquid nisi corporale et eductum de materia corporali, addit, ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram.		Et pour qu'il ne soit pas possible d'estimer qu'il le fît seulement quant au corps, et qu'en lui il ne serait rien sauf du corporel et tiré de matière corporelle, Il ajoute en notre image et ressemblance.
Quia secundum quod dictum est, imago attenditur in homine secundum animam.		Car selon le déjà dit, l'image on fait attention dans l'homme selon l'âme.
At vero ne etiam ab aliquibus putaretur, quod Deus solum produxit hominem secundum animam, eo quod toties ponitur imago et similitudo, quae sequitur animam, sicut etiam dixerunt Manichaei, quod corporalia essent a Deo malo; subdit, masculum et feminam creavit eos.		Mais encore pour ne soit pas supposé par certains que Dieu produisit l'homme selon l'âme seulement, aussitôt qu'est posé image et ressemblance, ce qui fait suite à l'âme, comme dirent aussi les Manichéens, que les choses corporelles seraient d'un mauvais Dieu, il ajoute "il les fit homme et femme".
Distinctio enim sexuum ad corpus pertinet, et ex illo pendet.		Car la distinction des sexes appartient au corps et dépend de lui.
Provide Manichaeorum error ex hoc manifeste eliditur.		Avec prévoyance, l'erreur des Manichéens est par ceci manifestement brisée.

Bon, il y a des opinions diverses, une notée est que l'image est la faculté intellective, la ressemblance la faculté affective, encore que la ressemblance est la prédominance sur les animaux, pas totalement perdue dans la chute, mais il y a encore de diversité, car Historia scholastica se range peut-être avec Maître Adrien Abauzit :

Sed imago Dei est anima in essentia, et ratione ejus, quia spiritus factus est et rationalis ut Deus. Similitudo in virtutibus, quia bona, justa, sapiens. Cum imagine pertransit homo (Psal. XXXVIII), quia illam habet etiam homo peccans, similitudine vero saepe privatur.

Mais l'image de Dieu est l'âme en son essence et sa raison, parce qu'il est fait un esprit, et rationnelle comme Dieu. Ressemblance dans les vertus, car bonne, juste, sage. L'homme s'évanouit comme une image (Psaume 38), parce que celle aussi l'homme qui pêche possède, mais de la ressemblance il est souvent privé.

Notons le "saepe" = "souvent" ... Pierre le Mangeur dit donc que l'homme dans l'état de péché manque souvent la ressemblance de Dieu. Donc, pas tout le temps qu'il est en péché, donc pas par le péché lui-même.

Le Catéchisme de St. Pie X prend "image et ressemblance" comme un hendiadys.

Pourquoi dit-on que l’homme a été créé à l’image et à la ressemblance de Dieu ?

On dit que l’homme a été créé à l’image et à la ressemblance de Dieu, parce que l’âme humaine est spirituelle et raisonnable, libre dans ses actes, capable de connaître et d’aimer Dieu et de jouir de lui éternellement ; et ces perfections sont en nous un reflet de l’infinie grandeur du Seigneur.

Voici le Catéchisme du Concile de Trente :

Enfin Il forma le corps de l’homme du limon de la terre et, par un pur effet de sa bonté, Il lui accorda le don de l’immortalité et de l’impassibilité, qui n’était pas essentiellement attaché à sa nature. Quant à l’âme, Il la fit à son image et à sa ressemblance, la doua du libre arbitre, et régla si bien tous les mouvements et tous les désirs du cœur, qu’ils devaient toujours être soumis à l’autorité de la raison. A cela i voulut joindre le don admirable de la justice originelle, et enfin Il lui soumit tous les animaux.

Est-ce que les deux, image et ressemblance, se réfèrent aux deux, nature et sainteté ? Ou image à nature et ressemblance à sainteté ? Quand il parle du péché original, il ne tranche pas :

aussitôt il tomba dans cet affreux malheur qui lui fit perdre la sainteté et la justice dans lesquelles il avait été créé, et lui-même devint sujet à une foule d’autres maux que le Saint Concile de Trente a énumérés tout au long.

Je pense qu'il soit possible de prendre les mots cités de Gaudium et Spes comme voulant dire que la nature fut offusqué mais pas perdue. Et surtout par rapport au libre arbitre, parce que des Calvinistes ont prétendu que la liberté fut simplement perdue. L'Église catholique répond ici "offusquée, oui, perdue, non" et ceci bien avant Gaudium et Spes.

Est-ce que St. Irénée a pris "image" comme nature et "ressemblance" comme justice ? Les Orthodoxes le font. Mais le Concile du Trente en Session V ne précise pas le sens des termes bibliques "image" et "ressemblance" de la manière que le fit Johannes Dörmann, que Maître Abauzit cite.

Par contre, c'est possible que cette précision ait été opérative dans la lecture que fit "Jean-Paul II" de ce Document. Et des paroles en de cette homme qui semblent indiquer le salut universel font écho à une phrase un peu plus banal de Gaudium et Spes, aussi en 22, 2.

Car, par son incarnation, le Fils de Dieu s’est en quelque sorte uni lui-même à tout homme.

En quelque sorte ? Par union hypostatique ? Par grâce ? Par sanctification ? Plus banal que ça, dans le contexte qui suit immédiatement :

Il a travaillé avec des mains d’homme, il a pensé avec une intelligence d’homme, il a agi avec une volonté d’homme [30], il a aimé avec un cœur d’homme. Né de la Vierge Marie, il est vraiment devenu l’un de nous, en tout semblable à nous, hormis le péché [31].

C'est Wojtyla, pas le concile, qui précise :

Jésus-Christ s’est uni à chacun, pour toujours

Or, "à chacun" ne devrait s'appliquer qu'en mesure qu'il exemplifie la situation humaine (qui cesse dans une âme damnée~~) et "pour toujour" au fait que l'Incarnation ne cesse pas, ainsi lu, même Redemptor Hominis 13, 2 ne serait pas blasphème. Malheureusement, Assise 1986 semble indiquer qu'il a compris ses mots d'une manière plus stricte, qui va dans le sens de rédemption universelle.

Je ne dis pas ceci pour exonérer le document Gaudium et Spes ou Wojtyla, mais pour demander un peu plus de rigueur dans l'accusation.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
l'Octave de l'Épiphanie
12—13.I.2026

PS, une indication que Wojtyla n'ait pas voulu dire que chacun est sauvé est le début de Redemptor Hominis 14 :

L'Eglise ne peut abandonner l'homme, dont le «destin», c'est-à-dire le choix, l'appel, la naissance et la mort, le salut ou la perdition, sont liés d'une manière si étroite et indissoluble au Christ.

"Ou la perdition" qui, donc, existe, comme possibilité réelle./HGL

* Voir Réfutation des hérésies et du sophisme du père Horovitz | Adrien Abauzit ** Je pense que l'histoire est Historia scholastica, et le Maître donc Pierre le Mangeur. *** J'avoue que la traduction de cette phrase m'était difficile. La suite montre que la question est si le loup obéirait à un homme non déchu (même sans miracle). ° Fausse étymologie, probablement. Nos propres grammariens ne disent pas que "piscis" vienne de "pascere". Mais ceux du Moyen âge, oui. °° Canis marinus = Seehund ? Aussi phoque, alors. J'ai une demi-mémoire sur morue, mais je n'arrive pas à la confirmer en glossaires ou Gaffiot. °°° Ici notre linguistique confirme l'étymologie ! ~Je ne suis pas sûr, mais c'est possible que "limon" marcherait mieux en hébreu. Le lexique hébreu donne une étymologie avec 'adom, rougeâtre ou encore le texte en Genèse 2 et 3 donne 'adamah, sol, parce que le sol est rougeâtre. ~~ C. S. Lewis considère les damnés comme des ex-hommes, pas comme des hommes à proprement parler. Il est certes pas une autorité catholique, mais ce que St. Thomas décrit en Supplem. Q. 98, la volonté et l'intellect des damnés, peut être considéré comme ayant perdu même l'image de Dieu, donc d'avoir cessé d'être humain.