Fourth Empire?

I was just reading Mackey again.

Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Herod ‘the Great’
Part Two:‘The King’ of Daniel 11
https://www.academia.edu/36262347/Antiochus_Epiphanes_and_Herod_the_Great._Part_Two_The_King_of_Daniel_11

He there cites at length an account by Philip Mauro and then inserts a few comments on his own.

From Philip Mauro's account:

According to one view (that presented by Smith's Bible Dictionary and other reputable authorities such as Taylor) this portion of the prophecy (Dan 11:36 to end) has still to do with Antiochus Epiphanes, and that tyrant is "the king" of verse 36. That view of the passage is necessitated by the general scheme of interpretation adopted in the work referred to, which makes the first coming of Christ and the Kingdom He then established, to be the "stone," which strikes the great image of Gentile dominion upon its feet (Dan 2:34,35). Now, inasmuch as it is a matter of Bible fact, as well as of familiar history, that Christ did not come into destructive collision with the Roman empire, but rather strengthened it, this scheme of interpretation is compelled to ignore the Roman empire, and to make up the four world-powers by counting Media as one and Persia as another. This makes Greece the fourth, instead of the third, and compels the idea that the entire 11th chapter has to do with the Greek era.

Mackey’s comment:

Which might actually be the correct scenario after all.

Now, my own view is, Fourth Beast is actually Rome, but as a Republic (republics being different, if not from Carthage or Athens or Corinth, at least from the other empires, Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece / Macedon / Hellenism).

Why so? Antiochus Epiphanes was acting under restraints imposable by Roman Senate.

But, on the other hand,

it is a matter of Bible fact, as well as of familiar history, that Christ did not come into destructive collision with the Roman empire, but rather strengthened it,

and I won't disagree. However, this was after Rome was already what is now called an Empire. It was after an Empire directed politically by the Senate had become an Empire directed by the commander in chief of its Imperium or military command.

This tended to sanitise Rome somewhat. We still have Nero and Domitian, but we also have nearly loveable people like Augustus* or Nerva.

Historically, parliaments have in recent centuries often committed heavy errors of judgement, absent from kings of previous ones. I think the personal power of the Emperor was a restraining force, keeping the mystery of iniquity at bay.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St John of Damascus
27.III.2018

* Before you call Augustus loveable full scale use of the word, consider he forced his stepson Tiberius to a divorce and remarriage.

Bon, M. Reeves, je sais que vous parlez le français ...

Et en l'écrivant l'année dernière, vous avez fait une bêtise sur l'histoire des sciences, comme pas mal d'autres scientifiques.

Sciences et Avenir, Spécial Anniversaire, p. ... ça pourrait être d'un livre de Douglas Adams ... 42.

Voici la phrase incriminée:

Pendant des millénaires, l'Univers était en effet considéré comme infini et immuable, tel que le philosophe grec Aristote l'avait décrit au IV^e siècle avant Jésus-Christ.

Aristote, en effet, a bel et bien décrit l'Univers comme immuable, puisqu'il dépend en simultané de Dieu, et Aristote n'arrivait pas à comprendre pourquoi Dieu infiniment bienheureux prendrait une quelle-conque décision, donc, l'univers serait un effet secondaire du Dieu éternel, donc, lui-même aussi éternel et immuable.

Sur cette erreur théologique, il a été corrigé en avance par Platon et après les faits par St Thomas d'Aquin.

Par contre, il n'a nullement décrit l'univers comme infini, c'est de Bruno, Newton et de Kant que ça remonte.

D'abord, l'univers dépend de Dieu en simultané comment, exactement? Il bouge autour de la terre un cercle les 24 heures ou presque autant (pour le Soleil, c'est 24 h par définition, mais il est en retard par rapport aux étoiles fixes).

Or, un univers infini aurait donc pour conséquence une vitesse infinie des choses qui bougent autour de la Terre, mais une vitesse infinie est invisible (surtout en cercle!) et donc, l'Univers a une limite extérieure à ce mouvement.

Ensuite, comment est-ce que Bruno, Newton et Kant ont bouleversé l'idée pour que pendant quelques siècles l'univers soit considéré par certains comme infini?

Bruno, il se posait la question, "si on peut marcher et marcher et toujours trouvers des nouveux horizons infiniment, alors pourquoi l'univers ne serait-il pas infini aussi?" Le problème, sur un globe ce n'est pas le cas. On marche (et navigue) suffisamment longtemps, on se retrouve avec le même horizon, comme Philéas Fogg et Passepartout à Londres. Son analogie n'était pas une, à moins d'imaginer la Terre comme plate (et les soleils comme une série).

Newton, avec la gravitation qui pousse les choses lointains vers l'ensemble, pour que les étoiles ne se rencontrent pas dans un "big crunch" il est nécessaire que en dehors de chaque étoiles de celles qui tirent le soleil entre elles, il y ait encore et encore et encore d'étailes qui les tirent vers l'extérieur aussi, en toute direction (ou, au moins dans un cylindre assez plat, avec une finitude dans une des dimensions possible). Je ne suis pas sûr qu'il en ait tiré cette conséquence lui-même, il était au moins créationniste jeune terre, mais en revanche, des newtoniens en ont tiré cette conséquence.

Kant n'était pas capable d'imaginer qu'un quelconque objet soit entouré de même un seul côté du néant, donc, pour lui c'était chose sûre : l'univers était rationellement parlé infini. Notons, il a considéré aussi impossible d'imaginer un univers infini, donc, il a mis cette observation parmi les "apories", là où la raison n'arrive pas à se faire un chemin. Il semble qu'au moins certains des kantiens auraient penché vers un univers infini.

Mais Bruno, Newton et Kant sont tous du dernier demi-millénaire. Bruno fut brûlé (car il défigurait la théologie, pas juste la cosmologie) en 1600. Les autres deux sont encore postérieurs à lui. Donc, ce n'est pas pendant des millénaires, ni d'Aristote, que vient l'idée d'un univers infini.

Si vous doutez que j'ai raison dessus, pourquoi pas consulter Michaël Fœssel, votre co-équipier pour ce numéro spécial?

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St Castule et
Lundi de la Semaine Sainte
26.III.2018

Heliocentrism and Sci-Fi

Here is how Damien Mackey introduces a quote from Dr. Gavin Ardley:

Dr. Gavin Ardley tells of it, with Galileo being the cut-off point (Aquinas and Kant, 1950):

Post-Galilean physical science is cut off from the rest of the world and is the creation of man himself. Consequently the science, in itself, has no immediate metaphysical foundations, and no metaphysical implications, in spite of popular beliefs to the contrary. These beliefs arise from the failure to realise the science’s ‘otherness’, that it belongs to the categorial order and not to the real order.

Only that which belongs to the real order is directly linked with metaphysics. The ancient and medieval science of physics belongs to this real order, and is, in principle, an integral part of philosophy in general. It has metaphysical foundations and metaphysical implications. [Footnote: This is not to say that all the particular Aristotelean doctrines of the Earth, the Skies, the Heavens and so on, are essential to Aristotelean metaphysics. They are integrated with metaphysics only in their general intention, and not in particular formulation. They could be modified without necessitating any change in metaphysical principles since the principles of metaphysics are founded on more general grounds. Many of the particular Aristotelean opinions about phenomena were abandoned in the 17th century with the increasingly detailed knowledge of Nature. Galileo’s Dialogues on the Two Great Systems of the World is a classic account of this revision of detailed theories of phenomena. Galileo himself, unlike many of his more extravagant followers, generally pursued this revision with considerable moderation. (See Ch. XVII). He is careful to distinguish what is true an abiding in Aristotle from what is erroneous and non-essential.]….

Here is his comment:

It is not surprising that Immanuel Kant (d. 1804), considered by some to have been the most influential thinker of the Enlightenment era, who was able to identify the artificial nature of the new sciences, whilst however adapting this methodology to his idiosyncratic new philosophy, is considered to have buried metaphysics once and for all.

Academia : Stephen Hawking - a ‘Lord of Creation’?
Part Three: Creating new universes
https://www.academia.edu/36223512/Stephen_Hawking_-_a_Lord_of_Creation_Part_Three_Creating_new_universes

And here is mine: Heliocentrism would on my view be a point belonging to change of general intention, rather than of particular formulation. One confirmation of this is, the great promoters of Heliocentrism involve Euler and Kant, both of whom were willing to consider the point of view of Hypothetic Extraterrestrials on other planets in the Solar System and on Hypothetic Exoplanets all over Cosmos, perhaps and ideally even an infinite one, who clinched popular acceptance of Heliocentrism (popular relatively speaking, meaning outside the restricted area of astronomers).

A theme very dear to the sci-fi that Damien Mackey shall explore in the following, namely extraterrestrials, is at the core of the Heliocentric revolution in general culture.

When Kant and Euler said in effect "if you consider your senses as proving that Earth is the centre of the universe, consider that someone living on Jupiter or a planet going around Sirius could say the exact same thing," they were busy building the outlines of Isaac Asimov's Foundation, Christin and Mézières' Valerian and Laureline, George Lucas' Star Wars, and, of course, Star Trek.

They were also busy setting up a weird alternative for theology:

• a) several mankinds never fallen and only ours fallen;
• b) Christ dying on planet after planet, in world after world.

And the response "perhaps original sin is bogus, perhaps redemption is bogus" was preparing the decision of Roddenberry not to include a chaplain on the starship Enterprise.

It may be mentioned that Fr Joseph Pohle, who considered that Modern Cosmology (which he embraced) involved no challenge to Christian eschatology, was from Prussia, a land with great benevolence, but also heir of Kant and Euler and in Pohle's time swallowing an amateur theology in the later writings of Karl May which prefigure the prayer meetings of Assisi.

More on Pohle in the dialogue between me and Introibo blogger, back here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Introibo Blogger Misrepresents Galileo Case Inter Alia
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/03/introibo-blogger-misrepresents-galileo.html

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Victorian and Companions
Martyrs
23.III.2018

In Africa sanctorum Martyrum Victoriani, Proconsulis Carthaginis, et duorum germanorum, Aquisregensium; item Frumentii et alterius Frumentii, mercatorum. Hi omnes, in persecutione Wandalica (ut scribit Victor, Africanus Episcopus), sub Ariano Rege Hunnerico, pro constantia catholicae confessionis, immanissimis suppliciis cruciati, egregie coronati sunt.

Earliest trace of Balkanic Fusion of Dative and Genitive?

Today Greek is a Balkan language. Latin in the form of Romanian is also a Balkan language. Greek, Romanian and, in Bulgarian, the pronouns fuse Dative and Genitive.

My idea of how this originated is through Latin having double function Dative/Genitive forms like "puellae" or "diei".

"Do librum puellae" - I give the girl a book.
"Liber puellae impressus est, non manu scriptus" - The girl's book is printed, not a manuscript / not handwritten.

"Inceptio diei mane appellatur" - The day's beginning is called morning.
"Diei dominicae maxima debetur reverentia, tota hebdomade" - The greatest reverence is owed to Sunday, in all the week.

Greek and Bulgarian caught on to this and Latin going to Romanian then generalised this fusion of the two cases, by bilingualism.

Now, today the bilingualism between "Latin" (as in Romanian) and Greek is very restricted even on the Balkan and restricted to the Balkan.

However, this was not always so. In Palestine, during the British mandate, Megiddo prison was built over a Christian house. I just learnt this from Jonathan Sarfati today.*

I totally agree with the theological implications of this very ancient Christian house, Jesus Christ is called God, this is in a mosaic which has so far been dated to AD 230 - well near a century before the Council of Nicea.

However, I will also concentrate a bit on the grammatical side.

Quorting Sarfati's article:*

Notice at the end of the second-last line, there are words with a line over them. These are an ancient space-saving convention called nomina sacra (singular nomen sacrum), ‘sacred names’.8 That is, names for God would be abbreviated to the first and last letter, and a line drawn over them to indicate the shortening. These are found in many early papyri of the New Testament, and in a number of icons. In this mosaic the nomina sacra are clear. They are ΘΩ, ΙΥ, and ΧΩ. They are, respectively, the first and last letters of ΘΕΩ/Θεῷ (Theō, dative of Theos, God), ἸΗΣΟΥ/Ἰησοῦ (Iēsou, genitive of Iēsous, Jesus), and ΧΡΙΣΤΩ/Χριστῷ (Christō, dative of Christos, Christ).

So, genitive and dative are mixed here, about same referent?

Wait a little minute ... in Greek, if I recall it correctly, Ἰησοῦς has a rather special declinsion.

Ἰησοῦς, Ἰησοῦ, Ἰησοῦ, Ἰησοῦν, Ἰησοῦ.

Genitive, Dative and Vocative coincide. Nominative sticks out by having an s and Accusative by having an n.

So, in the inscription, we could actually instead of dealing with an early case of Genitive and Dative fusion, simply be dealing with one of the Greek confluents to this fusion. In the feminine, I think Dido has a similar reduced scale of cases, as Greek was previously also enjoying or suffering in the Dual number.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Passion of St Longinus
15.III.2018

Caesareae, in Cappadocia, passio sancti Longini militis, qui Domini latus lancea perforasse perhibetur.

PS, it seems my Greek was rusty ... I was right about Jesus' Holy Name, I suppose, but wrong about Dido. Διδω, Διδους is at least the most common Greek declinsion of that name./HGL

* CMI : Early mosaic calls Jesus ‘God’
by Jonathan Sarfati, Published: 15 March 2018 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/early-mosaic-calls-jesus-god

Réflexions sur la svastikophobie, diagnose inexistante ...

L’hexakosioihexekontahexaphobie (littéralement, « peur du nombre 666 » : en grec ancien, « six cent soixante six » s'écrit « ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ », soit « hexakosioï hexekonta hex ») est une peur qui tire son origine du verset 13:18 de l'Apocalypse, l'un des livres de la Bible. Ce verset indique que le nombre 666 est le nombre de la Bête, bête associée à Satan ou à l'Antéchrist1. En dehors de la foi chrétienne, cette peur a été popularisée, le nombre 666 étant utilisé comme un symbole dans de nombreux films d'épouvante.

Les hexakosioihexekontahexaphobes évitent au maximum toute chose reliée au nombre 666. Certains évitent même les références indirectes à ce nombre. À titre d'exemple, la fraction 2/3 a un développement décimal illimité qui répète le chiffre 6, et qu'on peut lire comme 0, 666 666 666 666. Certains hexakosioihexekontahexaphobes éviteront d'avoir à utiliser des fractions incluant cette répétition de décimales.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobie

http://www.phobie.wikibis.com/hexakosioihexekontahexaphobie.php

Le deuxième lien a un peu le même texte, est un peu source du premier, mais a aussi une liste en guise de menu de gauche:

• Trouble anxieux
• Nombre entier
• Superstition
  
  
  • Hexakosioihexe- kontahexaphobie
  • Vendredi treize / Paraskevidékatriaphobie
  • Triskaidékaphobie
  
  
  
• Phobies
• Psychothérapie cognitivo-comportementale

Il y a une liste des phobies.

Sidérodromophobie - Peur de voyager en train.
Taijin kyofusho - Peur d'offenser autrui par l'odeur ou le regard (terme japonais).

Hmmm ... il me semble que le terme suasticophobie devrait se trouver entre ces deux, alphabétiquement.

Je cherche sur la wikipédie ...



Il n'y a aucun résultat correspondant à la requête.

Bon, pourquoi ne suis-je pas surpris?

On peut dire, on peut prédire qui serait svastikophobe. Juifs, et en Amérique du Nord au moins les Noirs pourraient être à la fois svastikophobes et "KKK-phobes".

Mais on ne parle pas de phobie dans ce cas.

Même si d'autres partis que les National-Socialistes ont porté la svastika, tout en ne pas ciblant les Juifs d'une manière NS, je pense notamment au Parti fasciste russe (en Mandchourie, exilés après la victoire des rouges en Russie), même si ça paraît que l'antisémitisme d'un "Konstantin Wladimirowitsch Rodsajewski" (je cite la wikipédie allemande, celle de la francophonie manque son article) était modéré et consistait surtout (si je me souviens bien) de vouloir remettre les Juifs dans les pays où ils vont bien (il cite notamment Danemark, donc aussi la Suède, qui est moins commode l'un comme l'autre pour un Catholique d'origine juive), il y a des Juifs qui n'aiment pas la svastika russe plus que celle d'Allemagne.

Peut-on le comprendre? Oui. Serait-ce donc une phobie à gentiment guérir par la psychothérapie cognitivo-comportementale? Non. C'est une aversion à respecter, on a très raison d'interdire les svastikas tant que les interdits restent sur la svastika.

Mais vu l'histoire future, révélé par Dieu à St. Jean, n'aurait-on pas quelque chose de pareil à dire sur la "phobie" contre le nombre six-cent-soixante-six?

Par contre, on ne respecte pas cette aversion. On semble vouloir remettre les "phobiques" dans les situations ridicules et pénibles.

Les codes barres ont des zones de garde normales (aux extrémités) et centrale (au milieu) qui ressemblent à des six.

Leur inventeur prétend que ceci serait un hasard - comme c'est un hasar qu'il porte lui-même trois noms à six lettres. George Joseph Laurer disait à propos:

Answer- Yes, they do RESEMBLE the code for a six. An even parity 6 is:

1 module wide black bar 1 module wide white space 1 module wide black bar 4 module wide white space

There is nothing sinister about this nor does it have anything to do with the Bible's "mark of the beast" (The New Testament, The Revelation, Chapter 13, paragraph 18). It is simply a coincidence like the fact that my first, middle, and last name all have 6 letters. There is no connection with an international money code either.

Réponse : oui, ils RESSEMBLENT au code pour une six. La six à parité paire est: barre noire large d'une module, espace blanche large d'une module, barre noire large d'une module, espace blanche large de quatre modules. Il n'y a dedans rien de sinistre, ni aucune pertinence pour la "marque de la bête" biblique (Nouveau Testament, Apocalypse, chapitre 13, verset 18). C'est simplement une coïncidence, comme le fait que mon prénom, mon deuxième prénom et mon nom de famille tous ont six lettres. Il n'y a pas de connection avec un quelconque code monétaire international non plus.

Sérieusement, on est censés de se faire prendre pour une truffe? Son père savait qu'il avait un nom à six lettres, il a ensuite choisi deux prénoms avec, chacun, six lettres, il est sûr et certains qu'il n'avait jamais pensé au fait de les prendre avec justement six lettres? Et ensuite, le fils invente une code barre où une ressemblance de la six est annoncée trois fois.

Même à supposer qu'il ait entendu de ses parents que c'était pure coïncidence, son choix de prénoms, même si c'était vrai, ensuite inventer le code UPC d'une manière qui ressemble à trois six, ne serait-ce pas un peu comme de mettre un peu partout une svastika, mais bien-sûr sur jaune, comme celle du Parti fasciste russe? Ce n'est pas ce que Rodzaëvski aurait voulu pour les Juifs dans un pays comme le Danemark.

Posons qu'on aurait fait ça ... ne serait-ce pas une tentative on ne peut plus évidente de mettre à mal des Juifs, à qui on aurait pu dire "oui, ça ressemble à la svastika NS, mais c'est une pure coïncidence"? Bien-sûr.

Mais pour les codes UPC ou EAN, qui réagit?

On peut prédire qui serait svastikophobe. Un Juif un peu partout (sauf pour éventuels membres du Parti fasciste russe). Un Noir en Amérique du Nord, surtout en combinaison avec trois K.

On peut également prédire qui serait normalement hexakosioihexakontahexaphobe : un Chrétien, ou de culture grosso modo chrétienn (comme c'est le cas pour la culture populaire). Donc, pourquoi davantage de soucis pour ne pas mettre des Juifs au mal que pour les Chrétiens? Parce que le "Calvaire" (selon certain théologiens un vrai rencontre avec le vrai) des Juifs est dans le passé, et celui des Chrétiens dans le futur?

La mise à mal des hexakos-etc-phobes semble aussi s'intensifier, comme de quoi la puce éléctronique RFID pour usage humain, a comme marque déposée NTAG216 - et 216 ressemble à 666, en ceci que: 666 = 6*100+6*10+6 ET 216 = 6*6*6.

En plus, certains cartes Sims et certains nombre téléphoniques de portables, qui contiennent les trois six d'affilée depuis encore quelque temps.

La diagnose phobie sert à décrédibiliser certaines positions comme "irrationnelles". On fait ça avec des positions chrétiennes, mais pour des raisons pas trop obscures à deviner, on ne fait pas ça avec des positions juives assez parallèles.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Chaîre de St. Pierre à Antioche
22.II.2018

Is Catholic Material Being Suppressed?

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Is Catholic Material Being Suppressed? · New blog on the kid: Not the Only Catholic Targetted

Update: The Catholic or Vatican II Hierarchy seem to be innocent, insofar as Haydock comment is still available on another site. e-Catholic 2000 : HAYDOCK CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/title.shtml Short link: http://ppt.li/3xt It is less handy, insofar that I need another page for the Bible text, and the sigla are not dissolved into the full names, as was the case on the seemingly now defunct site./HGL

I was going to check, as usual, the Haydock comment on Zacharia 12:3.

Does the comment indicate it is about earthly Jerusalem? Or does the comment indicate it is about the earthly representative of Heavenly Jerusalem, that is, about the Catholic Church?

Here is the normal url of Haydock comment:

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
haydock1859.tripod.com/

Here is what I see when trying to click:



There is a link to 1 Corinthians as well:

1 CORINTHIANS - Chapter 15
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id176.html

And I find this:



I find another link with added letters "id2" - I take that could be "identity 2"?

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id2.html

What I found looked like previous.

Of course, I would say, tripod is a paid site. I have never seen ads, that can be had for 5.95 or 11.95 $ a month, butr not for free, and one difference between the two prices is 1 GB vs 5 GB. A whole Bible commentary, could that be 5 GB or at least past 1? Possible.

It is possible that whoever was keeping the Haydock comment online was fed up with paying the bills.

But as it is arguable that the one formerly paying the bills is a Catholic institution, that would mean some such entity has decided to no longer keep Haydock comment available.

Could this be a sign of apostasy in it? It could. Good comments are no longer available, which formerly were so.

What would Estius have said? What would Calmet have said? What would Haydock himself have said? What did Cornelius a Lapide say (that can be checked elsewhere, since there is one complete by him, alas one which was meddled with in 19th C, online)?

Or Tirinus. Or Menochius.

Here is a little list of who was behind Haydock comment, apart from its compiler Haydock and including him too:

Whose Work - Humanly Speaking - is the Haydock Commentary?
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/12/whose-work-humanly-speaking-is-haydock.html

There is another possibility than the Catholic institution being tired of paying the bills. It is, someone on tripod wanted to refuse them the use of their platform - or someone higher up pushed tripod to it. A Masonic or generally Anti-Catholic person in charge on tripod - or a Masonic or generally Anti-Catholic person in charge who could put pressure on tripod.

Who is Tripod?

Tripod is a global team of based in Boston, Massachusetts and Hyderabad, India composed of a truly diverse group of engineers and designers who all love web publishing.

Hmmm ... in the case of tripod, the pressure could come as much from Hyderabad as from Boston ... unless it is just a Catholic Institution which is tired of paying the bills, for some reason.

For the moment, there is an alternative. Here:

BIBLIA CLERUS
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerus/index_eng.html

It involves, for English, another translation : "Zechariah - Revised Standard Version (1966)." Haydock was, obviously, for Douay Rheims, the Challoner revision.

When you search in it, the book and chapter are not shown in the adress bar, so you cannot link to the thing, as I used to link to Haydock comment, to appropriate pages.

On the good side, I can search Church Fathers in it. On the bad side with that, I get the whole context, not just the comment or use of the passage, meaning that it is more appropriate for a clergyman preparing the sermon for Sunday than for a lay apologist preparing an online essay, which often takes about one hour.

Haydock has often been cited by me. It is very invaluable as a Catholic resource for Biblical Apologetics - and exegesis.

Atheists, perhaps also Jews and others hating Christianity (and some might do that in Hyderabad, just wondering?) have through some years been irritated as I got throw one pinch after another by simply citing Haydock.*

I hope it gets back up, but if not, this could be one sign of a beast which can be described as "and his mouth as the mouth of a lion" - since it seems capable of roaring down any one trying to voice any opposition to it.

I linked to another site also having Douay Rheims, but it only has the notes by Challoner, which are fewer than all the Haydock comment which also included some of Challoner and also Witham. Both of these men were holy people who served the Catholics of England, and this in times of persecution. Bishops, whose consecration went back to the Twelve Apostles.

You know, being a Catholic Bible reader is not a contest of originality. Rather, it is a merit to agree with those who went before us.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Cyril of Alexandria**
9.II.2018

Update, 13.II:



* Come to think of it, even some Protestants may have felt some disgust with Haydock comment, since it doesn't support their agenda. ** So far, the Roman Martyrology remains online, thank God!

The Romulan Year

Some people like imagining "December 25" has for a whole millennium or more before Christ been birthday of some Pagan god. The brief answer is : there was no such thing as "December 25" around the Mediterranean up to when Rome became a superpower some 200 BC, and then, up to Caesar calendar remained Luni-Solar, so "December 25" was not fixed astronomically, some years having an extra month, Mercedonius, and there were no known feasts tied to the calendar date of December 25 until AD times.

In this context I mentioned that the original Roman year of Romulus was "ten months + winter". Here is how that worked out:

In a Romulan year

Ten months we have here

When winter is past, next moon signals March

The April, May, June, when the Sun starts to parch

Then Quintil and Sextil, September, October,

November, December, and then it is over.

And winter is here

until the next year.

Not sure I have never read sth similar, but I did some effort to make the verse, so coincidence with other verses of mnemonic nature are coincidental.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Cergy, Astrolabe
St Romuald, Abbot
7.II.2018

PS, sorry for first seconds, have to fix the url, so the verses come properly./HGL