A Sedisvacantist linked to Limbaugh to refute Bergoglio

Here is the accusation of Limbaugh that Pope Francis - if such he be - has apostasised to Marxism.

Rush Limbaugh: It's Sad How Wrong Pope Francis Is (Unless It's a Deliberate Mistranslation By Leftists) November 27, 2013

Let's quote some from it:

But this that I came across last night totally befuddled me. If it weren't for capitalism, I don't know where the Catholic Church would be.

Limbaugh is equivocating. Capitalism does neither mean money nor riches. It means a state of society where people already rich can arrange to get richer and people already poor can only arrange to get a little less poor. Or in other words, a state where employers are so few that hopes of chosing one's employer or getting self employed are slim, and where service providers are so few that consumers cannot hope to favour only the honest ones. I e where some are so rich in a certain capacity they can afford to abuse it.

So defining Capitalism, Communism is of course the ultimate Capitalism - as indeed it is.

The State on earth with most unbridled Capitalism is not US, it is Red China after its restructuring.

"Pope Francis attacked unfettered capitalism as 'a new tyranny' and beseeched global leaders to fight poverty and growing inequality, in a document on Tuesday setting out a platform for his papacy and calling for a renewal of the Catholic Church. ... In it, Francis went further than previous comments criticizing the global economic system, attacking the 'idolatry of money.'"

I gotta be very careful. I have been numerous times to the Vatican. It wouldn't exist without tons of money. But regardless, what this is, somebody has either written this for him or gotten to him. This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope. Unfettered capitalism? That doesn't exist anywhere. Unfettered capitalism is a liberal socialist phrase to describe the United States. Unfettered, unregulated.

Having tons of money or having had it is not the same thing as idolising it.

Folks, in recent weeks I have endeavored to try to make you understand how it is that people like modern-age Democrats look at small business and business at large. They do not, in the terms of small business, understand how fragile it is. Their view of business is that people who own them or run them cheat their customers, abuse their employees, hoard all the money, and have tons of it. They take it and keep it for themselves. They deny their employees a livable wage. They deny them health care. They deny them benefits. They produce products that kill and maim and sicken, or they produce products that destroy the planet, destroy the environment, or what have you.

I mean, it's a litany. This is their view and it is why they claim that they must take it over and control it, because it's inherently unfair that a select few capitalists rip everybody off. ...

I agree that small business is fragile. But the Pope (if such he be) was not attacking small business, as far as I saw, but unfettered Capitalism.

The kind of society where neither state regulations nor a balance between very many pretty small and pretty equal businessmen check the businessmen of that society from doing such things.

And the quote says nothing about taking over, it says something about rich needing to give up.

Ancient Roman Empire had pretty unfettered Slavery. This was gradually ended, not suddenly. It was ended whereever it remained Christian and did not go Muslim.

An Abraham Lincoln would perhaps have ended it suddenly. Or not, as he would not have needed to do so to save the Union.

A Makhnov would probably have failed to end it suddenly as much as Spartacus. A Trotski would not have ended it, he would have taken over the slaves and treated them worse, as the real Trotski did in Russia, under Lenin.

An Abraham Lincoln solution would have meant the State took over all slaves and then turned them free. A Makhnov solution would have been slaves themselves taking things over collectively.

The real solution was different and it DID involve rich people giving up what they had. Catholic priests persuaded slave owners that one way of getting right with God was to give your slaves freedom - as Christians are all of us the freedmen of Christ. Far from "fear of Hell keeping people in slavery" (except in the sense it kept slaves from dangerous ventures of the Makhnov and Spartacus type) it was fear of Hell and eagerness to get quicker out of Purgatory that made Slave owners give slaves freedom and land. Often enough as serfs, as enjoying the rights and duties of "coloni glebae adscripti". But that was certainly better than being a slave, even if Christianity - meaning a Church able and willing to excommunicate culprits - stopped slave owners (those still keeping their slaves) from actually separating family members from each other (unlike the worst parts of legislation in old Slave States just before Secession, which were Protestant meaning there was no real and commonly accepted Church authority).

Now, if you see the parallel between Slavery as Unbridled among Pagans and Slavery as regulated by the Church, you will perhaps see the point of Capitalism as unbridled or regulated too.

Manchester in XIX C and Red China today had and have unbridled Capitalism. US was once starting to get it, then you got Antitrust legislation. Then it is trying to come back and so on.

A real and open Monopoly for any business is dangerous to public freedoms, and especially those of the poorer people. A trust or certain kinds of combination where companies own each other as stockholders can in effect amount to a monopoly in practise. A socialist takeover would make the monopoly even more real and stifling.

Rip off their employees, rip off their customers, and that's how you have unequal incomes, and this vast gap between wealth and poverty. It's all because of capitalism. They claim that as socialists or reformers or progressives, that they are fair and compassionate, and they will make that gap between the wealthy and the poor narrower, and they will make life more equitable, and they will engage in equality of outcomes and so forth, and wherever they've tried, they've failed.

I agree Socialists have failed to remedy things. That does not mean their immediate diagnosis of the problem has always been wrong. It means their theory about ultimate causes and therefore about radical remedies was and is wrong. Karl Marx when diagnosing "basic problem" (as opposed to obvious symptoms) of Capitalism neglected to make any fuss about Usury. Perhaps he would have felt like throwing stones while sitting in a greenhouse.

Now, one form of Capitalism is Usury.

In the Middle Ages Usury was both more and less bridled than in our time.

As only Jews could engage in it without being excommunicated, it was more limited. Moses had allowed Jews to take interest from Canaanean neighbours. He had also said on behalf of God Deuteronomy 23 [19] Thou shalt not lend to thy brother money to usury, nor corn, nor any other thing: [20] But to the stranger. To thy brother thou shalt lend that which he wanteth, without usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all thy works in the land, which thou shalt go in to possess.

Comment from site: [20] To the stranger: This was a dispensation granted by God to his people, who being the Lord of all things, can give a right and title to one upon the goods of another. Otherwise the scripture everywhere condemns usury, as contrary to the law of God, and a crying sin. See Ex. 22. 25; Lev. 25. 36, 37; 2 Esd. 5. 7; Ps. 14. 5; Ezech. 18. 8, 13, etc.

Own comment: note that Edomites and Egyptians had already been enumerated as the brothers of Israelites. Further comment in Haydock Commentary for same verse states the same thing. And some more.

Christians could and usually did not take interest any more than become slave traders. In the Ninth Century you have Slave Traders despite bans on that evil business. In the 14th Century you have some Christians taking up the example of money Jews - for instance Lombards (what a fall from the time or at least example of Paul the Deacon, historian of his people, Peter the Lombard, theologian of the Sentences, his reputed brothers writing one of them Historia Scholastica and the other of them Decretum Gratiani - Biblical History and Canon Law).

But it was in another way less restricted. A man who had 100 coins of any money could if he was Jewish (or Lombard) lend them out at a rate of 60% per annum and next year have 160 coins in his pocket.

Today he cannot. He can only charge six percent.

He can have 100 gold dollars in his bank vault, but have a right to lend out one thousand dollars in loans. So, charging six percent means charging six dollars from each person to which he lends one hundred. And if he took them back in gold coins, at the end of the year he too would have 160 where a year before he had only had 100.

So, basically, the banker enjoys the same unfair advantage, but each of those bearing the unfair loss bears proportionally less of it. The banker is in that way more bearable than his Medieval ancestor or counterpart.*

Note that the Council of Vienne banned not only the Knights Templar as a sect apostate from CHristianity in their secret rites, but also the taking of usury and the defense of such as being licit.

The council of Lateran in 1515 decided for an exception. If a municipality wants to give loans for next to no interest to poor, so they need not pay 60% per annum to a usurer, the borrowers could be chargest a very moderate interest, intended to pay the modest salaries of the municipal loan granters. But the Council - or Pope Leo X presiding it, but being contradicted by noone - added "but how much more holy and righteous if half of their salary is paid by a municipal revenue like taxes or properties".

In the same paragraph the general ban was otherwise confirmed.

Later, certain lax Catholics tried a way to get around this ban by stating: "here is a contract of a loan without interest, it is licit, here is another contract of a loan where the paying back is dependent on the fortunes of the borrower, it is also licit, here is a third contract, in which we stipulate that the second contract will probably lead to eight percent increase and entitle to eight percent positive interest, but that this is not certain, while the no interest is certain, and this third contract cuts the difference in half meaning in practise four percent interest irrespective of the fortunes of the borrower, and since it is the middle between two licit contracts, it is itself also licit".

And a Pope answered basically that "no, it is not licit to make three or even two separate contracts about the same sum of money and each contract made must be licit in its own right".

That Pope was I think Sixtus V. But his ban was ignored largely. Meaning Capitalism became among Christian Catholics more ubridled than it had been. For of course Usury is a form of Capitalism.

I wrote this before checking. I did check and found some interesting stuff:

Actually not all advocates of Contractus Trinus were lax, cf: Catholic Encyclopedia on: Gregory of Valencia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07021b.htm

He sought to have the practice of taking interest declared lawful on the basis of the so called contractus trinus and of a rental-purchase agreement which either party was free to terminate. (The latter arrangement had been devised and quite generally resorted to during the Middle Ages as a method of lending money without contravening the laws in regard to interest. It grew out of the earlier practice whereby the creditor acquired both possession and use of the property which secured the loan. By a later modification, the borrower retained possession and use, but ceded to the lender a real right in the property. Finally, the system here referred to was introduced, the creditor was entitled to an income from the property which, however, still belonged to the borrower; the lender purchased the rental. Originally such agreements were binding in perpetuity; but in course of time they were so framed that the parties might withdraw under mutually accepted conditions). He argued that contracts surrounded by such provisions were not contrary to natural law and were therefore permissible in all cases where no positive law forbade them. He also advocated these views as collaborator in the opinion which a theological commission, by order of Gregory XIII, elaborated in 1581. It was in connection with this matter that Gregory's superiors sent him to Rome, where his personal acquaintance with conditions in Germany would enable him to state all the more accurately the question at issue and its significance.

Funnily enough one Muslim has written about "contractum trinius" as behind the idea of Islamic Banking. He is probably not wrong on the basics, but he miswrote "contractus trinus" as "contractum trinius". And now the wikipedia article is found under the heading of Contractum trinius. Which is not the correct Latin form.

Islamic Banking isn't Islamic
by Tarek El Diwany
Original Summer 2000; updated June 2003
http://www.islamic-finance.com/item100_f.htm

I did not remove the link from wikipedia, the comparison between contractus trinus (condemned by a Pope) and Islamic banking (condemned by pious Muslims) is indeed a good one. But I added:

Note: he miswrote contractus trinus (threefold contract) as contractum trinius (which does not mean anything), but that is no reason why wikipedia should follow him, rather than say Catholic Encyclopedia on the proper linguistic form.

Problem is that it was in a previous article correctly named contractus trinus that I had earlier found the reference to what Pope condemned it. It has been removed. I google again. Ah, here we have Thomas Storck:

Although a bull of Sixtus V in 1586 could be interpreted as condemning the contractus trinus, it was largely without effect.

Is Usury Still a Sin by Thomas Storck.

Yes, it was Sixtus V.

Back to Limbaugh.

He would presumably stamp Popes Sixtus V and even Leo X as Socialists, if anyone wanting to regulate Capitalism deserves that label from him.

Now, obviously the Church followed its own ban on Usury.

The beautiful Churches were built and are being kept in order, not by lending money and charging more, but partly by Agrarian incomes dedicated to the purpose, partly by taxation money, as Peter's Penny. Partly also by alms for pruposes.

These alms are indeed very well known. Popes Julius II and Leo X gave indulgences for alms to the building or rebuilding of St Peter's Basilica. From all over Europe, including Tetzel's Germany. The attachment of indulgences to alms of money was however abolished by the Council of Trent, not because it was an actual act of selling pardons, which is a simonitic sin and heresy, but because it had been misuderstood so (notably by Luther). Since then, alms are still given but usually just for the upkeep. Sweeping the floor is often done by volunteers. Repairing is done by alms. So is probably paying poor women who volunteer but whom the priest wants to pay anyway.

So, no, Limbaugh has no cause to call the Vatican hypocrite for denouncing unbridled Capitalism. It has for most of this time not allowed itself any direct part of the unbridled Capitalism known as Usury. Or taking Interest.

But has Limbaugh even got a moral compass? On the site where I got his reply to "Pope Francis" on this, a sidebar was showing his FB updates and one was an eulogy about Nelson Mandela. I will not polemise against all concerning mainly his virtues, but rather about a lopsided comparison made by Rush:

Most people who had been through what Mandela went through would have spent the rest of their life enraged and bitter and angry and would have tried to get even.

Limbaugh, what do you consider ANC was about? The problem with such a comparison should be obvious. These "most people" who would try to get even are people who are not succeeding in getting back what they lost even. Nelson Mandela while forgiving did so from a position of success. He did so from a position of power, of having defeated the system he hated. The Apartheid system. Another question is if he only destroyed unjust white supremacies or even just white securities for the white, for instance the Boers. In the latter case one can even doubt if he was all that forgiving.

I suspect some few people at least among those sharing Limbaugh's admiration for Nelson Mandela are in the know about me. They are keeping me back - or were till recently - for being the kind of "loser" who is spending his life in a futile quest or revenge. They may include people having listened to Mandela's words "if people can learn to hate, they can learn to love", and who have then thought I am one of the ones who needs to learn to love. Before they allow me any kind of rewards for my efforts. Well, such are the people who are teaching me to hate.

And they are not showing me a free market. If the market were free to me, someone would have the freedom to play the nicer ones of my compositions. Someone would have the freedom to print my essays - unless they consider these hateful. And someone would not be thinking that my hatred of usury is simply trying to get even with old school mates of which some might have become rich. I mean, the Spendrups were nice friends (what little I saw of them) and they are to the best of my knowledge still in the beer brewing business, not in the banking one. And unlike Carlsberg not buying up compteters's breweries and closing them. Even pretty nasty schoolmates (as I remember them) may well have gone into business that then as now I consider honest. And if someone went into taking interest, he might have been someone I was not trying to get even with. I have very much not been following up on my old schoolmates' carreers. And I would very much object to usury as much as to underpaying your workers in money or overcharging them in hours or fastness of work, or overcharging customers in prices or underpaying customers in quality or quantity of merchandise. And someone would see it, so if noone does or dares up to now, presumably the market is not free. It is not regulated against small writers either officially. It is rigged by some lousy intrigue. It may very well involve Jewish rabbis being friends with CHrsitian priests who hearing these Jewish rabbis accusing me of antisemitism and vengefulness (I suspected "Pope Francis" or Bergoglio for being one of the crew, since he is known for his friendships with Jews, I still suspect him of having been in that crew up to recently, like when he spoke up against resentment).

You see, I am not a believer in unlimited Capitalism, but in small business.

I think Limbaugh has a point. A free and open society will not be tricked into letting bad capitalists get away with underpaying or overcharging either employees or customers. The problem is that the fewer and bigger the companies are, the less open is the society.

I loved George W. Bush Jr. for the proposal of abolishing inheritance duty. Then I hated him when an association called Responsible Rich persuaded him not to. Inheritance duty is peanuts to inheritors in Coca Cola Company of Pennsylvania or Pepsi Cola Company or Apple, or Microsoft (do the Gates even have children of their own?), but it can make the difference between a small company surviving gallantly after death of owner or having to get a loan to keep business in family. It can make the difference between a small company survining within family thanks to getting in debt or getting out of family (and maybe even out of business) because a loan is refused. George W. Bush adored riches and listened to Responsible Rich who hypocritically protested it was no good being born with a silver spoon in ones mouth.

And that brings us to trickle down economy. The riches can trickle down better to the poorer if the rich have a habit of spending. A banker may own as much as Louis XVI. But if he is not in the habit of spending like Louis XVI, his riches are not trickling down. Those of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were. The Revolution was made because of people who hated too much riches trickling down ultimately - and due to a mob that was manipulated by them.

This does not exonerate Bergoglio from all of my suspicions, but from some. I just recalculated the ascii code worth of gematria for BERGOGLIO, I found it was not 666 but 665 (in other words "not guilty" as far as that is concerned, but perhaps someone better at calculating should look it over: A - Z are 65 - 90, a - z are 97 - 122, or just add 32 to each capital letter's worth to get the lower case letter's worth, works as long as letters are without accents and for a few more, like Å=197 and å=229=197+32).** But it does charge Limbaugh with the clearly bad charge of being a bad thinker and a bad writer. A Protestant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Ambrose of Milan
and Vigil of Immaculate Conception
7-XII-2013

* But lending out more than you have in liquid assets only works as long as the bank's creditors and those enjoying its credits are not asking too many at a time to get their part in liquid assets, hence the lots of financial bubbles that make economy less safe today.

** I did update the link since it was actually 666 in my recalculation.

PS: Quoting one relevant paragraph from document (fancy Limbaugh did not think of it):

54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

Evidently this is not what I meant by the trickle down economy of Louis XVI. From Marie Antoinette money was trickling down two ways: to a jeweller before each party, but also, once she sold her necklace after the party, and that usually to some Aristocratic lady (or her husband) eager for the honour, the money from the necklace went to the poor. Because that was her style.

Robespierre was not that style. Had he had their kind of wealth, he would have been a banker. As he was not a banker, and not a spender like the Royalty he usurped the powers of, he did not have their kind of wealth either.

56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.

We must not forget in this context that some taxes actually promote poverty insofar as they are taking away opportunities from people to become their own men. I mentioned inheritance duty, which cannot ruin Carlsberg or Tuborg or even Faxe, but which might on occasion have put or might be putting Spendrups in a necessity to borrow to pay it and thereby indebt themselves. And which might be ruining a brewery even smaller than theirs. Money taken in taxes is not only distributed for genuine causes of the Common Good, but can go to finance Psychiatry, Compulsory Education, Child Welfare Services where one task is deciding what children and youngsters to take away from parents, and since all these three factors can decourage people from making families, tax money also goes to pay contraceptions and abortions. Which in turn make those in productive ages fewer in comparison to the old. And which case therefore impoverishes the old. Not mentioning this but putting tax evasion down to always just selfishness, is a bit one-sided. A bit one-eyed./HGL

Were the German Voters in the Thirties Guilty of the Holocaust by Voting in Favour of it?

Dr Kreeft* seemed to suggest it some year ago, when giving a parallel he thought might be shocking to the vote where one party was pro-abortion:

If you were a German in the thirties and someone thought "well Hitler has improved the economy a lot and unemployment is down and he invented Autobahns and Volkswagens and he's a good man, but of course there is this little thing about the Holocaust, but you know, you can't be a one issue voter."

Let us check dates:

Reichstagswahlen in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus

März 1933 | November 1933 | 1936 | 1938

That means there was as yet no Holocaust on Jews going on or being collectively planned when the Germans last voted for Parliament before 1945. And up to 1940 the solution was not yet the Final Solution, it was first "let's give them a few lessons so they learn they cannot be parasites" (that includes the Kristallnacht) and then (but that was after the last vote for parliament) "let's send them to some other country".

German voters as such were pretty innocent about the Holocaust. Unlike US voters for the Abortion party.

Unlike French voters for the abortion parties (all except Front National and Alliance Royale and Nouvelle Solidarité which is the French branch of Lyndon LaRouche movement), and especially this last presidential election in 2012, those voting the Parti Socialiste and a few others promising to bring on Gay Marriage.

They were even innocent about Euthanasia except possibly that of genetically diseased children in 1939, namely if Nazis had made that a promise in 1938, but they were not innocent about ABORTION in case of percisely hereditary disease. Since 1935 it was legalised.

They were not innocent about the sterilisation law of 1933 against hereditary diseases - any more than Canada was innocent about sterilisation laws against Amerindians and Esquimaux in certain states.

And of course such as opposed themselves to these policies were innocent as well. When Euthanasia of adults set in it was opposed by some Catholic clergy:

• Joannes Baptista Sproll, Bishop of the diocese Rottenburg
• Clemens August Count von Galen, Bishop of the diocese Münster
• Konrad Count von Preysing, Bishop of Berlin
• Bernhard Lichtenberg, Provost of Berlin
• Augustinus Philipp Baumann (no English article), Auxiliary Bishop and Vicarius Capitularis of Paderborn
• Antonius Hilfrich, Bishop of Limburg

It can be added that Clemens August von Galen had written a work called The Plague of Laicism/Secularism (Die Pest des Laizismus) and Baumann included in his letter an appeal first to the Fifth Commandment and only then to Humanity.

The Evangelische Kirche (not to be confused with Evangelicals, please, they are an Ecumenic and Modernist body from former Calvinists and Lutherans joining hands) was less opposed, but some were so:

• Paul Gerhard Braune (no English article)
• Theophil Wurm
• Friedrich von Bodelschwingh

Judges** opposed to Euthanasia:

Lothar Kreyssig

Now, to set our eyes a bit outside Germany, but not outside the Germanies, there was also Austria.

In Austria, the régime from 1933 to 1938 had two opponents, both opposition parties illegal (as Communists had been since a political assassination). This régime was Catholic. It was opposed to Hitler for things like Sterilisation and such.

One prominent Nazi opponent against them was from the Protestant part of Austria. In or after 1938 he became the expert on the Gipsy question.***

So, guess why I prefer Austria to Germany and Catholics to Protestants and Austrofascists to Nazis.

But some people in some places are not even aware of these distinctions.

And some think I ought to prefer Jews. Now, Ashkenazi rabbis in the Zionist State seem to have been approving of Eugenic Abortion in the case of Tay Sachs disease. This is the degree of guilt German voters had. But more important, they are still rejecting - since 2000 years - the real Messiah. And Catholics are accepting him. At least insofar as they are Catholic ... something that Modernism is threatening. Along with the Pestilence of Secularism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Vigil of St Andrew Apostle
29-XI-2013

*This video at 0:54:31, at the Q & A session. He was not quite prepared and had no time to check facts about this one. Otherwise it is an excellent video about his conversion.

**Judges? Only one.

***Tobias Portschy, no English article on wiki. Hier der deutsche Artikel.

I am very happy the Martyrologium is functioning again!

Earlier I complained about it being sabotaged./HGL

PS, here it is: Martyrologium Romanum.

Good sense from Jobbik!

Obviously, in countries such as Austria or France that are suffering from the problem of immigration, are very difficult to consider the Islamic world as an ally in the struggle against globalism. I can understand their anger. But they also need to understand that based on the behavior of refugees the entire Islamic community of half a billion can't be judged. My position concerning the Islamic world shouldn't be understood that I advocate the conversion of Europe into the Muslim faith, neither that I support immigration. I personally, appreciate all peoples and cultures and I would be happy to learn more about them in their natural environments.

Jobbik President Gábor Vona: The real division in the world today is not among religions and cultures...
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
http://www.hungarianambiance.com/2013/11/jobbik-president-gabor-vona-real.html

If this was more said in France and Austria it would also alleviate relations (already strained) with Muslim immigrants who are already here. Some think they are defending France from the Moors by attacking not only Harun Yahya but even Christians who support him as far as Creationism is concerned. They are not. They are rather accepting Averroist Muslims as a Trojan Horse, thinking that only Salafists can be expansionist (which some maybe or probably are) and terrorists (which some certainly are).

This is what I said in Sweden, but alas, Swedish nationalism is as a social phenomenon not very rooted in even Lutheran orthodoxy and still less in the Catholic Truth. Which, de jure, includes Young Earth Creationism as well as Geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Obadiah
19-XI-2013

Géza Jeszenszky's remarks maybe show psychiatry is racialist and prejudiced

Here is the remark report as per wikipedia:

In November 2012, Jeszenszky came under fire for using controversial remarks on Roma in a university course book he wrote while lecturing as a professor at Budapest's Corvinus University. Jeszenszky wrote in 2004: “The reason why many Roma are mentally ill is because in Roma culture it is permitted for sisters and brothers or cousins to marry each other or just to have sexual intercourse with each other.”[1] When the news about the offensive article emerged the ambassador was asked by organizers of a Holocaust symposium in Oslo commemorating the Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg, who saved thousands of Hungarian Jews during the Second World War, not to attend.[2] University scholars and politicians in Hungary called on Jeszenszky to resign as ambassador.

Hungary's Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that Jeszenszky had made his remarks as a university teacher, not as diplomat: “Although the lines in question are open to misinterpretation, Géza Jeszenszky’s lifelong work and most recent publications prove that he stands on the side of minority rights and cannot be accused of prejudice.”[3] Foreign Minister János Martonyi publicly expressed full confidence in Jeszenszky.[4]

Jeszenszky told the news agency MTI that the chapter in question was supported by a wealth of academic research (a contention disputed by the authors of the protest letter). “Looking at this interpretation with a sober mind will reveal nothing offensive, and leveling accusations of racism is an outrageous slander,” he reportedly declared. “Even a committed Roma rights activist would be unable to take exception to the way the theme is presented. Hundreds of Hungarian and foreign students have found my book useful,” Jeszenszky was quoted as saying.[5]*

As to first cousins being able to marry in Roma culture, I am sure it is correct. At least among Pentecostals.

In Sweden (and probably Norway too) it is legally allowed for first cousins to marry. The reason - as with Pentecostals - is that Old Testament allows first cousin marriages and that Pentecostals as well as Lutheran rulers of Sweden have considered Decretum Gratianum as not binding. In fact most Swedes and Norwegians as well as Pentecostals (and Jews during Old Testament) marry further away.

Saying marriages between first cousins lead to a people being "mentally ill" is however prejudiced and it is furthermore prejudiced against the people in which such a thing is common or thought to be common.

Close kin marriages can trigger genetical diseases, and some of them might be predispositions for mental failures like madness or more often weaknesses like bipolarity. But very many genetical diseases are simply somatic (like the Bleeders Disease or Haemophilia in the Russian Czar family branch of the Romanovs). Even where the predisposition touches the mental one can never foreknow whether it will be a weakness, an asset of geniality or a madness.

I am very sure that Géza Jeszenszky's personal feelings towards minorities like the Roma are not those of hatred or illwill identified as such subjectively.

I am however sure his view of psychiatry relies on a kind of pseudo-science that tries to foreknow what cannot be foreknown, to foresee what cannot be foreseen. And that this is also the case in people who really condemn Roma more often than others to mental hospitals or supervision, but who will not state - therein being less honest than Géza Jeszenszky - that Roma or any other group are more apt to mental illness than others. It is in many ways a case of taking characteristics of a usually lower class people as sham diagnostic criteria.

Often enough psychiatrists were Jews, their Talmudic prejudices tend to stamp on the one hand Christian devotion and orthodoxy, but on the other hand also certain lower class ethnic behaviours, as madness, as something potentially to be treated by forceful retention in mental hospitals. Or by offering counselling and therapies and medication. Which is of course good for the cash flow of ... Jewish and also non-Jewish but approved by Jews ... mental health specialists.

It may be that madness is more common in certain peoples. I am not sure that defiance of Decretum Gratiani is all that is in it. It is also that societies (Jewish, Moslem, Confucian, Buddhist, African and Roma, as well as Puritan - Protestant, and since a bit more recently and a bit more lightly French-Algerians, since exposed to subtle** Orientalisation for so long) where mental health issues are very much under observance also tend to make people go mad by that social pressure - if they have any susceptibility.

I hope Géza Jeszenszky does not take this as a Politically Correct attack, it is an answer to him as a Professor.

Some Roma habits are more military and aristocratic (but these tend to cherish observing mental health vigilance to extremes, since carrying guns and knives and thus more dangerous than usual if going or gone mad) than really connected to any kind of illness. They descend from a military caste in Northern India and when later probably adopted by some stranded Coptic noble in Byzantine Greece they became again militaries, helping to defend Byzantium against the Moslem conquest for a while. Others are rooted in the castes - like there is probably a thief caste and probably a beggar caste, as well as a metal worker caste and horse handlers and musicians. Others again are rooted in how they were treated as slaves for centuries.

There are however people who not sharing these habits will not accept that other people have other habits, they will stamp habits unlike their own as madness or perversion (a trait not totally absent from Roma, as I have found out). And that is what I am getting at.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Sts Severine, Exupery and Felician***
19-XI-2013

*Article cited:

Wikipedia : Géza Jeszenszky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9za_Jeszenszky

Footnotes cited therein:

• 1) Diplomat offensive - Ambassador rebuffed amid racism claim - Budapest Times, 3 November 2012
• 2) Hungarian Ambassador to Oslo Géza Jeszenszky can't attend the Holocaust and Religious Minorities Symposium - Hungarian Ambiance Blog, October 2012
• 3) [again:] Diplomat offensive - Ambassador rebuffed amid racism claim - Budapest Times, 3 November 2012
• 4) Jeszenszky-jegyzet: "szó sincs rasszista utalásról" - Mno.hu
• 5) [again:] Diplomat offensive - Ambassador rebuffed amid racism claim - Budapest Times, 3 November 2012

** Note: subtle. Overt orientalisation above the innocuous levels of saying "ouaich" or eating couscous and merguez they have of course avoided. If they are responsible for levelling the oral A to only one quality, always different from nasal A (tendency completed after mother's French grammars were written) and if they are responsible for mixing nasal U into nasal I/EI (ongoing tendency), I am not sure whether this is due to Orientals living aside them any more than to Provençals and Spaniards and Italians mixing into the French stock.

***A habit of my own that some prejudiced pseudo-scientists think of as a mental symptom: dating with the Sanctoral at hand. Originally a Mediæval one, but Newman would of course write Christmas or All Saints for 25-XII or 1-XI and a few more. Someone has sabotaged the site where I usually get the Roman Martyrology. Maybe Talmudists or Zionists (or Communists) who totally trust all that comes from Wiesenthal Centre and Yad Vashem but consider me gullible for trusting the Roman Martyrology ... or something ...

Linking to 7 things "no one told you" about being homeless

• Cracked : 7 Things No One Tells You About Being Homeless
• Cracked : 7 Things No One Tells You About Being Homeless pt 2
• The Barefoot Bum : 7 Things No One Tells You About Being Homeless (linking to Cracked)

The last of these contains my comments. I am basically checking with Barefoot Bum whether he considers me paranoid for thinking I might have real enemies.

Unlike the writer linked to from Barefoot Bum, probably more like Barefoot Bum himself, I spend my free time writing.

Always wanted to be a writer, taking the chance.

Just would like an editor so the articles I write could pay me a better life, and musicians so the music I write could do so./HGL

Link to the conditions:

For texts	For music
deretour : De retour + conditions d'utilisations ultérieures + régistre français : A note on further use conditions	musicalia : What's the deal? C'est quoi ce truc?

Job and Leviathan, according to St Gregory

First of all, did you know that Leviathan however much he may be a zoological entity, is also a diabolical one?

God had asked basically what Job would do about the Leviathan. And Job gives a correct answer, as we can read in Moralia in Hiob, beginning of last book:

Because this is the last book of this work, and since, the more difficult places having been treated, those which remain are less obscure, it seems good to run through it with less attention and care. For as if we had traversed a mighty ocean, we now gain sight of the shore, and lowering the sails of our intention, are not borne along with the same force as before, but yet we still hold our way from the impulse of the former blast. The storm of our anxiety has, so to speak, abated, but its violence, through now moderated, yet still wafts us on to our station on the shore. After then the Lord had shewn to His faithful servant how strong and crafty is Leviathan His enemy, while He carefully disclosed his strength and craft, blessed Job replied to both, saying,

Chap. xlii. ver. 2. I know that Thou canst do all things, and that no thought is hid from Thee.

[i]

2. For against his huge strength he observed; I know that Thou canst do all things; but against his hidden machinations he subjoined; And no thought is hid from Thee. Whence he immediately upbraids the same Leviathan, saying;

Ver. 3. Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge?

For Leviathan hides counsel without knowledge, because, though he is concealed from our infirmity by many frauds, he is yet disclosed to us by the holy inspiration of our Protector. He hides counsel without knowledge, because though he escapes the notice of those who are tempted, yet he cannot escape the notice of the Protector of the tempted. Having heard therefore the power and craft of the devil, having heard also the power of our Creator, which both mightly represses him, and mercifully protects us, we entreat thee, O blessed Job, not to conceal from us that which thou thinkest of thyself. It follows;

Therefore I have spoken foolishly, and things that above measure exceeded my knowledge.

[ii]

3. All human wisdom, however powerful in acuteness, is foolishness, when compared with Divine wisdom. For all human deeds which are just and beautiful are, when compared with the justice and beauty of God, neither just nor beautiful, nor have any existence at all. Blessed Job therefore would believe that he had said wisely what he had said, if he did not hear the words of superior wisdom. In comparison with which all our wisdom is folly. And he who had spoken wisely to men, on hearing the Divine sayings, discourses more wisely that he is not wise. ...

I am subtly reminded of the Beowulf poet, to whom the dragon of Beowulf is also an image of the Devil.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Georges Pompidou Library
of Beaubourg
All Hallows' Octave
8-XI-2013

Is the Catholic Faith Bible Interpretation?

I received this in a mail:

The Catholic Faith is not Bible interpretation ... it is the Catholic infallible Sources of Dogma (of the Pope in union with the Bishops of the world). The Catholic Church didn't define the Bible's New Testament Canon until 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage.

The Catholic Church did not define Papal Infallibility until 1870. And even then She put the Holy Bible before the Pope.

In fact, dogma is rarely extrabiblical, never totally so, always connected to the Bible even if not sufficiently mentioned in it to be clear to a causal reader.

Dogma is Bible interpretation at its most solemn, at its most obliging for every Catholic.

When a Truth is in the Bible it is therefore also De Fide. When a Truth is Dogma it is De Fide Definita.

It is dogma that the Bible is true in all its parts.

Council of Contantinople I (II Ecumenical) describes the Holy Ghost as "qui loquutus est per prophetas" which is usually understood to mean all the authors of any Biblical book. Not excluding people mentioned in them.

The Church was in fact defining dogmas by Papal decree before it defined what Papal decrees are. It was also defining what Bible texts meant before it defined which texts were the Bible.

It was also canonising before it came around to define procedures for canonisation and that the Saints receive Doulia but never Latria.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Georges Pompidou Library
Sts Zenobius, Bishop
and his sister Zenobia, Martyrs
under Diocletian
30-X-2013

Fatima or Francis?

Notice: Not sure if I am under a curse or it was a prayer of mercy, but when I first wrote the following sentence I wrote it the wrong way - here is the right way: I was thinking that Papacy on the one hand and Photian opposition to Filioque on the other hand were religious errors but neither of them grave enough to exclude from the Church. But what I wrote wrong was "Filioque" instead of "Photian opposition to Filioque" as I should have done.* Unless you consider that by that fact (considering Photius wrong on that matter, in favour of Athanasian Creed being genuine) my communion with the Orthodox was already broken. As a Photian would do.

I see the beginning of this video: Hetman Wojtek : Will Pope Francis Consecrate Russia? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCZE22_EhO8 And I just saw this one, note that it foretells evils that have not been committed yet - correctly or not according to if it is from God or not: angel4jesusmary : Pope Francis Wicked Future Plans EXPOSED (Please pray hard for him) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miEWik4SCEA

Note it said to pray the Rosary, not to offer Holy Mass for Francis. I am not sure whether Padre Pio said the no priest must say Mass for the Antichrist or whether it was no one must say it for his intentions. Check the text if you have it, I read it years ago. Note also that if this message is from God, Benedict XVI was Pope and his abdication is not valid. He still is, if this is from God.

Here are some thoughts of mine own, for whatever they may be worth:

What Popes could have consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart? According to the Request at Fatima.

If he had had the courage to act while being prisoner in the Vatican, Benedict XV might have done so. Or he might have been misled by the bishop of ... was it Leiría?

But supposing he had done so, perhaps Denykin would have made some alliance with Petliura and even Makhnov. Perhaps he would have been victorious against Trotski and Lenin. As it was, Makhnov helped Trotski beat Denykin and was then himself slaughtered by Trotski.

Abortion and compulsory schools swept away much (not all) of the Christian faith and life in Russia.

After Benedict XV, we get PIus XI. Formally he is not any longer prisoner in the Vatican since 1929. He is a sovereign. Italy would be breaking international law by invading the Vatican. As Savoy-Italy was breaking the Ius Gentium by invading the Papal States in 1870. As Indian Union under Nehru was breaking Ius Gentium and international law by invading Goa. As Hitler broke international law by invading Austria.

He might have made the agreement about the Vatican in order to pull up courage to from a safe and sovereign status consecrate Russia. But if so, once he had the Vatican his courage failed him. What we do know is he did not consecrate Russia according to the warnings of Our Lady at Fatima.

Pius XII did not publically consecrate Russia according to the message of Fatima either. Two. (One named "peoples of Russia" but that was not the exact words of Our Lady).

John XXIII did not do so either. Three.

Paul VI did not do so either. Four.

John Paul I was too short in office. May not count and I am not counting him.

John Paul II did a consecration of the world. Not of Russia, but of the world. Five.

Benedict XVI asked permission of Alexis II and was denied it. Six.

Bergoglio did another consecration of the world, I have heard. Seven.

Or shall Benedict XV count as First? Then Bergoglio is the eighth. And by acting like John Paul II in this respect he is also "one of the seven"? Is he the one going to perdition?

If we count instead "Kings of the Vatican" (since 1929) Bergoglio is clearly eighth.

But if we count as I started, Bergoglio is seventh. And we do not know the second appearance of "one of the seven" yet.

Have these done other evils? I think yes. In Catholic Tradition the marital ages are for the husband 14th birthday of older, for the wife 12th birthday or older. In practise, not only has Canon Law (if such it be) raised the age two years for either sex, but also have governments not been opposed at all when exacting even higher ages than that. And when Alessandro Serenelli was young, this was not very much the Church's fault, since the Church in Italy was persecuted (and remained so until 1929 in certain ways) by a King who was excommunicated. And it did not ruin very many souls, perhaps, since if it pushed Alessandro Serenelli's passions to a point where he committed a sin, he was nevertheless pardoned. Through the intercession of his victim, St Maria Goretti. And since popular culture for the young was not so sexualised as now.

But perhaps I am wrong even here. Our Lady at Fatima said that the sins of the flesh or against the VI and IX commandments are those that bring - were already then bringing - more souls than any others to Hell.

But at the death of Alessandro Serenelli, a few weeks after my birth, popular culture had very much sexualised the activities (like dances and music) beyond what they were in his youth and it was getting very much worse in the decade or two following. At the same time many states had raised (and since certain others have raised) marital ages.

Sin had been made easier. Virtue had been made harder. Church had not opposed the process on either level, except on an individual or otherwise pastoral level. Not on a political one. Or not much.

Pius XII had as Cardinal Pacelli recommended a system of Canon Law which Benedict XV promulgated. It was not just an evening out of previous irregularities, but in a way incorporated "new insights". One of them was making it easier to take interest on money loans. Another of them was making it easier for people to stamp someone as mentally deficient.

Both of these "developments" were worsened in 1983. Under John Paul II. Reserves against interest were lowered. And it was made easier to stop someone from marrying, by saying he was not mentally capable of consent. In code of 1917 one had to be compos sui, of course. But in 1983 code one could also be considered as having not been psychologically capable of consent.

In the last days people will heed wicked doctrines of evil spirits and prohibit men from marrying, said St Paul. And if we look at psychiatry now, it is doing that and Catholics are not opposing it as they should. Especially among Catholics where - since code of 1983 - psychiatric diagnoses may block you from marriage in Church even if they would not in themselves block you from Civil Marriage in clearly calm and clear moments. Even if shrinks would call other moments darker than they really were.

I was for a few years in Communion with the Orthodox rather than with the Catholics. First of all, I wish to state that I was not thinking and will not think that all religions are the same. I was thinking that Papacy on the one hand and Photian opposition to Filioque on the other hand were religious errors but neither of them grave enough to exclude from the Church. But I thought also and still think now that Protestant errors are in themselves grave enough to exclude from the Church of Christ, both souls wilfully clinging to them and all Church structures affected by its lack of Apostolic Succession. And even back those days I was for Fatima and for the Consecration of Russia. Here is why - according to wikipedia - some Orthodox are against:

Members of the Russian Orthodox Church object to the concept of the Consecration of Russia for two reasons: (1) Russia has already been Christian for over one thousand years, and has a great devotion to the Theotokos, and (2) the concept contains what appears to be an implicit proselytism of Russian Orthodox Christians to the Catholic Faith. Orthodox apologists point out that Russia was still an Orthodox nation at the time, and was not yet under the control of the atheist Bolsheviks. Thus the phrase "Russia will be converted" can imply conversion from Russian Orthodoxy to Catholicism. Yet, another possibility is that it means a conversion of the heart, which conforms to the theological commentary written by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) on the Fatima secret. The atemporal nature of divine revelation, which has made interpretation of the visions by the Catholic Church difficult, also works against the temporal argumentation of the Orthodox apologists.

However, the conception of Theotokos Derzhavnaya Orthodox icon points out that Virgin Mary is considered actual Tsarina of Russia by the religious appeal of Nicholas II thus Consecration of Russia may refer to return of Russian monarchy.

Wiki cited these sources:

The Message of Fatima.

(Russian) — Alexander Prokhanov's "Zavtra" newspaper, 13.09.2013 (reprint at 3rm.info)

I was for. Fatima, final appearance, was the eve of a feast celebrated according to Julian Calendar on 1st of October which in 20th and 21st C. falls on October 14 in the Gregorian Calendar. It was the memory of Our Lady appearing to the Russian or other Slavonic Pagans who laid siege on Constantinople. They fled, and so did not sack the Town. And later, when they became Christian, they celebrated this feast with fervor. Last time that Czar Nicolas II celebrated it was October 1 or 14 1917. The day after the Sun miracle of Fatima.

Does Russia need conversion? Obviously Atheism and New Age or Blavatskyism are two things to convert from. So is neo-paganism which some have reverted to. So is anti-Latinism (and anti-Austrianism) of some and Modernism of other Orthodox. Even if one could hope (as I did hope) that Orthodox were still in the Catholic Church, therein unlike Protestants or Jews, or Moslems or Modernists or Freemasons.

Back to the men in Rome. Is the one from Argentina in good faith? I suppose he endorses Evolution, if not as compulsory at least as thinking it personally true. But being Argentinian he drinks Maté, presume. And drinking Yerba Maté he should reflect that Xanthines - caffeine/teine, theophylline and theobromine - are present in plants that have no common ancestor in evolutionary thinking. Like Yerba Maté and Coffee and Tea. So, common traits do not show common ancestry. Similarily with the radar systems of dolphins and bats - an example I found on creation.com.

I also asked what he had meant when saying about the Maccabees that they became worldly. When? Which ones of them? How? Does he accept that I and II Maccabees are Sacred Scripture? They are so. And they do not condemn - as I remember - the Maccabees up to the time of their writing as having become worldly.

I do not think bishup Wulff in Germany was a worldly man. And if the man whom most "accept as Pope" wants priests and religious to save up money and give it to the poor, I wonder how this fits with the ideal of clerical hospitality.

I do not trust that man. I do trust the message of Our Lady of Fatima.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Audoux
Sts Zenobius, Bishop
and his sister Zenobia, Martyrs
30-X-2013

*I was woken up too early this morning, twice. And excuses for not correcting earlier, but there was a queue before Georges Pompidou library which took a lot of time.

Can Nephelim be saved?

Lita Cosner made a good point about human - animal hybrids. If ever there were any hybrid with 75% - 25% or even 50% - 50% of the distinctive genes (as opposed to common ones, hallmark of a common creator) between man and any animal,* it would still be either 100% human or 100% non-human, since man is endowed with the image of God.

This brings up a point about another kind of hybrid. Angelic - human, if that is what the Nephelim were.

I say "if that is what the Nephelim were" since I am reserving in favour of two other possibilities. "Sons of God" being believing Setites and "daughters of men" being impious Cainites is one of them. Angels - fallen ones, not the good ones - acting as cattle breeders (taking semen from one and inseminating in other human without contributing anything except perhaps genetic manipulation) is a view which St Thomas Aquinas seems to have reserved not for the Nephelim in Genesis 6 indeed, but perhaps for what could be considered "neo-nephelim" in legendary men such as Hercules, Romulus, Merlin Emrys (or perhaps rather Martin Ambrose). Being legendary is of course not synonym to not having lived, it is synonym to having evoked sufficient curiosity as to make men tell stories about one.

But assuming either of these views is wrong and Book of Henoch as preserved by Ethiopians gives us the true account, angels do have or are able to assume bodies with real biological functions (St Thomas thinks that whenever angels appear in bodies, these are arranged ad hoc and never really alive, though the angel using them for showing up is). And this includes then the ability to impregnate women. And this was then done by 200 who fell later than other angels through this decision. And their offspring was, in that case, angelic-human hybrid.

I have heard and read about both nephelim on this view and about human clones that they cannot be saved or even have no souls. This seems to be false.

Book of Baruch says that the giants of old did not find wisdom "not one of them" - suggesting they could have found wisdom if they had looked better. But being able from the start to get what you want by domination over humans of lesser stature and powers is not a good starting point.

In fact, if Goliath was nephelim brood (through one of Noah's daughters in law), so was St Christopher. And when I call Christopher a "Saint" I mean it is known he is saved and in eternal glory, it has been shown the Church by sufficient miracles.

As I brought up clones, a clone would probably be the person of the emptied human embryo, but with the wrong genes for this person. This kind of mismatch might make for difficulties of harmonisation as with - if such be possible - angelic-human hybrids, but if difficulties were bravely faced with a sense of decency overriding monstruous temptations and with a hope in Christ, yes, such a person could be saved.

That does not mean the 200 angels had any right to such an "adventure" (if that is what happened), or that anyone making a clone today has such a right. For that matter, nobody has a right to make a child through rape either. But in these cases salvation is at least theoretically possible. If, as is suggested in book of Henoch, none of the children of the 200 were saved, this is not because God did not gave any possibilities, but because God arranged that the ones refusing those would coincide with among others all of the original Nephelim. To punish their fathers.

If there were ever Nephelim totally uncapable of salvation, as opposed to merely rejecting it, this is because they had no souls, because they were biological machines. But in that case one may say the fallen angelic fathers had no real biological equipment for making them either.

Such a thing should not lightly be assumed of anything resembling a human. In cases where a woman gives birth to what one does not quite recognise as human, there is the possibility of conditional baptism: "If thou art human I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit". Precisely as there is conditional baptism for people when one is not sure whether they were previously baptised or not.

No creature ever was predestined without a test to damnation. No angel was damned without sinning or before sinning. No man was damned before Adam's sin. And no man who reached the use of reason was damned without any sin of his own.

What is sure is that giants seem to have some capacity for honest if not sophisticated basic wisdom like the one showed by St Christopher after he converted. And thus for salvation too. And one hermit getting to visit another, in the Egyptian desert saw a faun crying over the idolatry Egyptians make of fauns, as if sure he was meriting damnation merely for being its object, even if not willingly. More stupid than rotten if you ask me (but then I am a Narnia fan). In fact, not even all that stupid if he realised idolatry was a damning offense. And that it is at least not good to be cause of such in others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Raphaël the Archangel
(how appropriate!)
24-X-2013

*But there is not just the genes, there is the chromosomes they are packaged in too. Between man and chimp, just for "human chromosome two" it is not just that it corresponds in general to two chimp chromosomes (which evolutionists love to explain as its being the result of a fusion of them), it is also a question of in total 13 chromosomal changes (cross overs of arms, relocations, inversions of certain stretches etc) on top of the 100.000 differences for the loci of the genome. And apes have 48 while we have 46 chromosomes, which means there is not such a very great difference on the chromsome level as between man and goat or man and horse.

Human and Machine Logic

Quoting Good via J. R. Lucas:

We can imagine a human operator playing a game of one-upmanship against a programmed computer. If the program is Fn, the human operator can print the theorem Gn, which the programmed computer, or, if you prefer, the program, would never print, if it is consistent. This is true for each whole number n, but the victory is a hollow one since a second computer, loaded with program C, could put the human operator out of a job.... It is useless for the `mentalist' to argue that any given program can always be improves since the process for improving programs can presumably be programmed also; certainly this can be done if the mentalist describes how the improvement is to be made. If he does give such a description, then he has not made a case.

Here is J. R. Lucas' summary:

Good, together with Turing and Benacerraf, argues against `mentalism' by denying that there could be any peculiarly mental powers, since if there were, they could be described, and if they could be described, a computer could be programmed to simulate them.

Here is my reply (not J. R. Lucas's):

An abacus can be used so as to simulate our grasp on arithmetical truth. This does not mean an abacus knows arithmetic as well as I do. It knows nothing. And we all know that. The capacity of doing arithmetic is not a proof that arithmetic knowledge belongs to each and every object having that capacity. The capacity of an abacus to do or facilitate the doing of arithmetic is dependent not on its but on its maker's knowledge of arithmetic.

Arithmetic for abacus and man, logic for game-playing machines and men, language for google translate or man are not at all predicated in the same way, and we all know that.

Just as "healthy" or "medical" is not said in the same way about a prescription and the material means it applies. Only the doctor making the prescription has the knowledge. Only the material substance will do (without "bothering to" think) the cure. The doctor is only indirectly healthy by prescribing what is healthy. The cure is only indirectly medical by being prescribed by someone having that knowledge.

A man like Turing (or his disciple Good) would reply "you say you know, but you cannot verify it".

I do not need to "verify" an orange is not a baby, as soon as I know it is an orange I know it is no baby.

And I do not need to "verify" an abacus has no arithmetic knowledge or understanding, though it has arithmetic functioning, since I know an abacus is an object put together out of inanimate parts.

But as to google translate, it is even easy to verify it for any man knowing two languages. Put in a short phrase of two words - it will give one correct translation. But what if the two words are ambiguous? Google translate will not be able to tell the two meanings apart, it will give one. Use a longer text, any words not programmed into google translate will be left untranslated (and that includes spelling varieties, by spelling my Swedish an oldfashioned way, I make google translate inapplicable to some more of it). And if the sentences are long, google translate will not be able to separate the phrases the right way every time.

You can say this applies to learners too. But a learner will by told what he did wrong and he will say "aha".

A computer programme could of course simulate the sounds "aha" or its spelling, but there would be no meaning to it.

And a learner of any language will certainly progress to a better understanding of it than google translate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St John Capistran
23-X-2013

When a Criminal is Dead, Enmity Ceases

General situation:

Priebke is being denied burial.

Holy Writ:

Tobias 1:[16] And when he was come to Rages a city of the Medes, and had ten talents of silver of that with which he had been honoured by the king: [17] And when amongst a great multitude of his kindred, he saw Gabelus in want, who was one of his tribe, taking a note of his hand he gave him the aforesaid sum of money. [18] But after a long time, Salmanasar the king being dead, when Sennacherib his son, who reigned in his place, had a hatred for the children of Israel: [19] Tobias daily went among all his kindred, and comforted them, and distributed to every one as he was able, out of his goods: [20] He fed the hungry, and gave clothes to the naked, and was careful to bury the dead, and they that were slain.

[21] And when king Sennacherib was come back, fleeing from Judea by reason of the slaughter that God had made about him for his blasphemy, and being angry slew many of the children of Israel, Tobias buried their bodies. [22] But when it was told the king, he commanded him to be slain, and took away all his substance. [23] But Tobias fleeing naked away with his son and with his wife, lay concealed, for many loved him. [24] But after forty-five days, the king was killed by his own sons. [25] And Tobias returned to his house, and all his substance was restored to him.

ANTIGONE

What, hath not Creon destined our brothers, the one to honoured burial, the other to unburied shame? Eteocles, they say, with due observance of right and custom, he hath laid in the earth, for his honour among the dead below. But the hapless corpse of Polyneices-as rumour saith, it hath been published to the town that none shall entomb him or mourn, but leave unwept, unsepulchred, a welcome store for the birds, as they espy him, to feast on at will.

Such, 'tis said, is the edict that the good Creon hath set forth for thee and for me,-yes, for me,-and is coming hither to proclaim it clearly to those who know it not; nor counts the matter light, but, whoso disobeys in aught, his doom is death by stoning before all the folk. Thou knowest it now; and thou wilt soon show whether thou art nobly bred, or the base daughter of a noble line.

General reflexion:

The Spandau prisoner was denied burial. He was cremated and his ashes spread into the Baltic. Osama Bin Laden was denied burial, his body was sunk into the Mediterranean. Now Priebke too?

Is modern society trying to rival Sennacherib and Creon in impiety?

If so we may be not very far from the day in which two witnesses will be slain dead in the City that is spiritually called Sodom, where their Master was crucified, and their bodies will lie without burial for three and a half days until God intervenes.

Architects are trying to rival some of the better qualities of Babylon in the cheap blocks like those I walked past this morning, which had real hanging gardens, fine plant pots on each balcony and the plant pots in concrete.

Alas, politicians are rivalling the less pleasant qualities of Assyria.

In Christ is neither Greek nor Jew, but all are one in Christ. And they are also one in burying the dead. One against Assyria. One against Creon.

Even Habsburg is against Assyria, saying that poor sinners can be buried.

Herald

Knock, knock

Capuchin Church

Who is there?

Herald

The Emperor.

Capuchin Church

We do not know him.

Herald

Knock, knock

Capuchin Church

Who is there?

Herald

The King.

Capuchin Church

We do not know him.

Herald

Knock, knock

Capuchin Church

Who is there?

Herald

A poor sinner.

Capuchin Church

Him we know. (And the corpse of the deceased Emperor is allowed in).

And Our Lord promised one named man Paradise:

Hodie eris mecum in Paradiso. St Luke, 23:43

It is relevant. You see ...

St Dismas had also killed civilians.

From Pentecost to St Hedwiga of Poland, 2013 (English Nederlandsch Español)

Index Indicum

Back		On
From Michelmass 2012 to Pentecost 2013 A.D. - Index IV - English		Index ultim9 in Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera

1) Bonam Festam Pentecostes 2) In festo Corporis Christi 3) Bonne fête de la Nativité de la Sainte Vierge Marie 4) Happy Feast of St Michael Archangel 5) Craze for Poverty

1) 42 - the Answer 2) Tim O'Neill, my Favourite Atheist next to God and Autumn Lauber 3) Reza Aslan could have saved his useless trouble, if he had read my essay 4) On Hearing of the Accident of a Train to Santiago through FB Status of a Spanish Friend 5) Second Solar Miracle of OT, confirmed by Egyptians

1) Newman, Thompson, Antichrist 2) From the Web, with my Comment 3) ascii code gematria 4) Bergoglio, you are not my Pope and I am not yours ! 5) Habemusne Papam? Like someone qui sibi nomen imposuit Alexander? 6) Semble que Alexandre IX contredit le catéchisme de Pape St Pie X 7) III, Q 68, AA 1-2 (Latine, English)

1) Marie Talleu : English & français : link/lien 2) I am fond of Jews but oh, it's funny when they loose (their game, not their innocent lives or legitimate property) 3) Who is forcing you, Netanyahu? 4) What Rob Skiba still lacks in understanding of the Scriptures (link) 5) Maybe Jonathan Pollard has a Point 6) I was told Mark Steyn wrote better than me ... 7) Bohemianism and the Seven Arts?

1) Liberty 2) I do not agree with religious liberty in all cases for all religions 3) Sabotage?

1) Praise Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are not Calvinist 2) Some Say I Should Not Listen to Hovind (or read anything from Watchtower Society) 3) Was God Preparing Job for Judgement Day? Was Job proud?

Op Nederlandsch

Voor die traditionele opvatting van wiskunde

En Castellano

Padre Pío y el Milagro de la Madre del Sacerdote Víctor Tudor

Bohemianism and the Seven Arts?

St Thomas Aquinas and St Ignatius of Loyola were of course not Bohemians while studying the Seven Arts. I also find improbable that C S Lewis or J R R Tolkien should have been such. Nevertheless, Bohemianism has a certain devotion to them too:

Journalists were to be regular members; artists and musicians were to be honorary members.[5] The group quickly relaxed its rules for membership to permit some people to join who had little artistic talent, but enjoyed the arts and had greater financial resources. Eventually, the original "bohemian" members were in the minority and the wealthy and powerful controlled the club. Club members who were established and successful, respectable family men, defined for themselves their own form of bohemianism which included men who were bons vivants, sometime outdoorsmen, and appreciators of the arts. Club member and poet George Sterling responded to this redefinition:

Any good mixer of convivial habits considers he has a right to be called a Bohemian. But that is not a valid claim. There are two elements, at least, that are essential to Bohemianism. The first is devotion or addiction to one or more of the Seven Arts; the other is poverty. Other factors suggest themselves: for instance, I like to think of my Bohemians as young, as radical in their outlook on art and life; as unconventional, and, though this is debatable, as dwellers in a city large enough to have the somewhat cruel atmosphere of all great cities.

Despite his purist views, Sterling associated very closely with the Bohemian Club, and caroused with artist and industrialist alike at the Bohemian Grove.

And as CSL and JRRT though well into the Seven Arts were no Bohemians, so GKC, though a Journalist, was no Bohemian.

If any one were to accuse me of Bohemianism because I have named my blog Trivium et Quadrivium, I respond it is like calling CSL or JRRT, or even Sts Thomas Aquinas and Ignatius of Loyola "Bohemians".

If any single person were to consider me a Bohemian because I do a kind of journalism, let them look at Gilbert Keith Chesterton. He was a journalist and most certainly no Bohemian.

And if my liking for Oscar Wilde is supposed to make me suspicious, I can answer that I pity him for having in 1882 visited Bohemian Club. It very arguably ruined his life up to possibly a last moment redemption if he sent for a priest before dying (he died before the priest arrived). I pity him for that bad visit.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Audoux
and Townhall of III:d Arrondissement
Ste Hedwige of Poland
16-X-2013

III, Q 68, AA 1-2 (Latine, English)

Latine	English
Articulus 1	Article 1
Utrum omnes teneantur ad suscipiendum Baptismum.	Whether all are bound to receive Baptism?
Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non teneantur omnes ad susceptionem Baptismi. Per Christum enim non est hominibus arctata via salutis. Sed ante Christi adventum poterant homines salvari sine Baptismo. Ergo etiam post Christi adventum.	Objection 1. It seems that not all are bound to receive Baptism. For Christ did not narrow man's road to salvation. But before Christ's coming men could be saved without Baptism: therefore also after Christ's coming.
Praeterea, Baptismus maxime videtur esse institutus in remedium peccati originalis. Sed ille qui est baptizatus, cum non habeat originale peccatum, non videtur quod possit transfundere in prolem. Ergo filii baptizatorum non videntur esse baptizandi.	Objection 2. Further, Baptism seems to have been instituted principally as a remedy for original sin. Now, since a man who is baptized is without original sin, it seems that he cannot transmit it to his children. Therefore it seems that the children of those who have been baptized, should not themselves be baptized.
Praeterea, Baptismus datur ad hoc quod aliquis per gratiam a peccato mundetur. Sed hoc consequuntur illi qui sunt sanctificati in utero, sine Baptismo. Ergo non tenentur ad suscipiendum Baptismum.	Objection 3. Further, Baptism is given in order that a man may, through grace, be cleansed from sin. But those who are sanctified in the womb, obtain this without Baptism. Therefore they are not bound to receive Baptism.
Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. III, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. Et in libro de ecclesiasticis dogmatibus dicitur, baptizatis tantum iter salutis esse credimus.	On the contrary, It is written (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Again it is stated in De Eccl. Dogm. xli, that "we believe the way of salvation to be open to those only who are baptized."
Respondeo dicendum quod ad illud homines tenentur sine quo salutem consequi non possunt. Manifestum est autem quod nullus salutem potest consequi nisi per Christum, unde et apostolus dicit, Rom. V, sicut per unius delictum in omnes homines in condemnationem, sic et per unius iustitiam in omnes homines in iustificationem vitae. Ad hoc autem datur Baptismus ut aliquis, per ipsum regeneratus, incorporetur Christo, factus membrum ipsius, unde dicitur Gal. III, quicumque in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis. Unde manifestum est quod omnes ad Baptismum tenentur; et sine eo non potest esse salus hominibus.	I answer that, Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain salvation. Now it is manifest that no one can obtain salvation but through Christ; wherefore the Apostle says (Romans 5:18): "As by the offense of one unto all men unto condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men unto justification of life." But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: wherefore it is written (Galatians 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nunquam homines potuerunt salvari, etiam ante Christi adventum, nisi fierent membra Christi, quia, ut dicitur Act. IV, non est aliud nomen datum hominibus in quo oporteat nos salvos fieri. Sed ante adventum Christi, homines Christo incorporabantur per fidem futuri adventus, cuius fidei signaculum erat circumcisio, ut apostolus dicit, Rom. IV. Ante vero quam circumcisio institueretur, sola fide, ut Gregorius dicit, cum sacrificiorum oblatione, quibus suam fidem antiqui patres profitebantur, homines Christo incorporabantur. Post adventum etiam Christi, homines per fidem Christo incorporantur, secundum illud Ephes. III habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus vestris. Sed alio signo manifestatur fides rei iam praesentis quam demonstrabatur quando erat futura, sicut aliis verbis significatur praesens, praeteritum et futurum. Et ideo, licet ipsum sacramentum Baptismi non semper fuerit necessarium ad salutem, fides tamen, cuius Baptismus sacramentum est, semper necessaria fuit.	Reply to Objection 1. At no time, not even before the coming of Christ, could men be saved unless they became members of Christ: because, as it is written (Acts 4:12), "there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." But before Christ's coming, men were incorporated in Christ by faith in His future coming: of which faith circumcision was the "seal," as the Apostle calls it (Romans 4:11): whereas before circumcision was instituted, men were incorporated in Christ by "faith alone," as Gregory says (Moral. iv), together with the offering of sacrifices, by means of which the Fathers of old made profession of their faith. Again, since Christ's coming, men are incorporated in Christ by faith; according to Ephesians 3:17: "That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts." But faith in a thing already present is manifested by a sign different from that by which it was manifested when that thing was yet in the future: just as we use other parts of the verb, to signify the present, the past, and the future. Consequently although the sacrament itself of Baptism was not always necessary for salvation, yet faith, of which Baptism is the sacrament, was always necessary.
Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut in secunda parte dictum est, illi qui baptizantur, renovantur per Baptismum secundum spiritum, corpus tamen remanet subiectum vetustati peccati, secundum illud Rom. VIII, corpus quidem mortuum est propter peccatum, spiritus vero vivit propter iustificationem. Unde Augustinus probat, in libro contra Iulianum, quod non baptizatur in homine quidquid in eo est. Manifestum est autem quod homo non generat generatione carnali secundum spiritum, sed secundum carnem. Et ideo filii baptizatorum cum peccato originali nascuntur. Unde indigent baptizari.	Reply to Objection 2. As we have stated in I-II, 81, 3, ad 2, those who are baptized are renewed in spirit by Baptism, while their body remains subject to the oldness of sin, according to Romans 8:10: "The body, indeed, is dead because of sin, but the spirit liveth because of justification." Wherefore Augustine (Contra Julian. vi) proves that "not everything that is in man is baptized." Now it is manifest that in carnal generation man does not beget in respect of his soul, but in respect of his body. Consequently the children of those who are baptized are born with original sin; wherefore they need to be baptized.
Ad tertium dicendum quod illi qui sunt sanctificati in utero, consequuntur quidem gratiam emundantem a peccato originali, non tamen ex hoc ipso consequuntur characterem, quo Christo configurentur. Et propter hoc, si aliqui nunc sanctificarentur in utero, necesse esset eos baptizari, ut per susceptionem characteris aliis membris Christi conformarentur.	Reply to Objection 3. Those who are sanctified in the womb, receive indeed grace which cleanses them from original sin, but they do not therefore receive the character, by which they are conformed to Christ. Consequently, if any were to be sanctified in the womb now, they would need to be baptized, in order to be conformed to Christ's other members by receiving the character.
Articulus 2	Article 2
Utrum aliquis possit salvari sine Baptismo.	Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sine Baptismo nullus possit salvari. Dicit enim dominus, Ioan. III, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. Sed illi soli salvantur qui regnum Dei intrant. Ergo nullus potest salvari sine Baptismo, quo aliquis regeneratur ex aqua et spiritu sancto.	Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
Praeterea, in libro de ecclesiasticis dogmatibus dicitur, nullum catechumenum, quamvis in bonis operibus defunctum, aeternam vitam habere credimus, excepto martyrio, ubi tota sacramenta Baptismi complentur. Sed si aliquis sine Baptismo possit salvari, maxime hoc haberet locum in catechumenis bona opera habentibus, qui videntur habere fidem per dilectionem operantem. Videtur ergo quod sine Baptismo nullus possit salvari.	Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Galatians 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.
Praeterea, sicut supra dictum est, Baptismi sacramentum est de necessitate salutis. Necessarium autem est sine quo non potest aliquid esse, ut dicitur in V Metaphys. Ergo videtur quod sine Baptismo nullus possit consequi salutem.	Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, super Levit., invisibilem sanctificationem quibusdam affuisse et profuisse sine visibilibus sacramentis, visibilem vero sanctificationem, quae fit sacramento visibili, sine invisibili posse adesse, sed non prodesse. Cum ergo sacramentum Baptismi ad visibilem sanctificationem pertineat, videtur quod sine sacramento Baptismi aliquis possit salutem consequi per invisibilem sanctificationem.	On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.
Respondeo dicendum quod sacramentum Baptismi dupliciter potest alicui deesse. Uno modo, et re et voto, quod contingit in illis qui nec baptizantur nec baptizari volunt. Quod manifeste ad contemptum sacramenti pertinet, quantum ad illos qui habent usum liberi arbitrii. Et ideo hi quibus hoc modo deest Baptismus, salutem consequi non possunt, quia nec sacramentaliter nec mentaliter Christo incorporantur, per quem solum est salus. Alio modo potest sacramentum Baptismi alicui deesse re, sed non voto, sicut cum aliquis baptizari desiderat, sed aliquo casu praevenitur morte antequam Baptismum suscipiat. Talis autem sine Baptismo actuali salutem consequi potest, propter desiderium Baptismi, quod procedit ex fide per dilectionem operante, per quam Deus interius hominem sanctificat, cuius potentia sacramentis visibilibus non alligatur. Unde Ambrosius dicit de Valentiniano, qui catechumenus mortuus fuit, quem regeneraturus eram, amisi, veruntamen ille gratiam quam poposcit, non amisit.	I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained. Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut dicitur I Reg. XVI, homines vident ea quae parent, dominus autem intuetur cor. Ille autem qui desiderat per Baptismum regenerari ex aqua et spiritu sancto, corde quidem regeneratus est, licet non corpore, sicut et apostolus dicit, Rom. II, quod circumcisio cordis est in spiritu, non in littera; cuius laus non ex hominibus, sed ex Deo est.	Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Samuel 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Romans 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."
Ad secundum dicendum quod nullus pervenit ad vitam aeternam nisi absolutus ab omni culpa et reatu poenae. Quae quidem universalis absolutio fit in perceptione Baptismi, et in martyrio, propter quod dicitur quod in martyrio omnia sacramenta Baptismi complentur, scilicet quantum ad plenam liberationem a culpa et poena. Si quis ergo catechumenus sit habens desiderium Baptismi (quia aliter in bonis operibus non moreretur, quae non possunt esse sine fide per dilectionem operante), talis decedens non statim pervenit ad vitam aeternam, sed patietur poenam pro peccatis praeteritis, ipse tamen salvus erit sic quasi per ignem, ut dicitur I Cor. III.	Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.
Ad tertium dicendum quod pro tanto dicitur sacramentum Baptismi esse de necessitate salutis, quia non potest esse hominis salus nisi saltem in voluntate habeatur, quae apud Deum reputatur pro facto.	Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
Fons	Source
CORPUS THOMISTICUM : Sancti Thomae de Aquino Summa Theologiae : tertia pars a quaestione LXVI ad quaestionem LXXI	New Advent : Summa Theologica : Question 68. Those who receive Baptism
Hic locum inveni	Here I found the place
Baptism of Desire and the Council of Trent, An Open Letter to Br. André MICM
See also: No Contradiction Between No Salvation Outside the Church and Baptism of Desire (Revision Date: 12 July AD 2002, St. John Gualbert, Abbot, Ss. Nabor and Felix, Martyrs)