Bonum Festum Immaculatae Conceptionis BVM

Et vale, o hic blogge, novum incoepere* volo, quia hoc est iam positum CCCCesimum. Sicut ante alium bloggum relinqui post positum DCesimum XXXesimum IXonum**, ne nimis difficile sit in bloggo invenire posita praeterita./HGL

* New blog on the kid : Bonum Festum Immaculatae Conceptionis BMV
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2013/12/bonum-festum-immaculatae-conceptionis.html

** deretour : US and Cyber Freedom
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/us-and-cyber-freedom.html

Male calculavi prius de nomine Jorge Mario Bergoglio

Novus calculus de eadem nomine:

BERGOGLIO
B=65 *
ERGOGLIO
E=69 *
RGOGLIO
G, G = 71 , 71 *
ROLIO
I=73 *
ROLO
L=76 *
ROO
O, O = 79, 79 *
R = 82 *

LXV
LXIX
LXXI
LXXI
LXXIII
LXXVI
LXXIX
LXXIX
LXXXII

IX * L = CDL
XX * X = CC
II * V = X
III detrahenda, VIII addenda = V
CDL et CC faciunt DCL, et X faciunt DCLX et V faciunt DCLXV

BERGOGLIO = 665 ! Ubinam prior error ?

B ergo glio = B ERGO GLIO et VIIIies (quia octo minuscula) XXXII (quae est differentia inter capitalia et minuscula earundem literarum latinarum et anglicarum in codice ASCII), id est CCLVI

DCLXV et CCLVI
D
C et CC faciunt CCC
L et L faciunt C faciunt CCCC
XV et V faciunt XX
I manet I
faciunt DCCCCXXI - 921

J orge M ario

Addenda per minusculas litteras in utrumque nomine IV-ter XXXII, sive CXXVIII

JORGE
E=69 *
JORG
G=71 *
JOR
J=73 *
OR
O=79 *
R=83 *

LXIX
LXXI
LXXIII
LXXIX
LXXXIII

Vies L faciunt CCL
XII-ies X faciunt CXX
II detrahenda, VII addenda, faciunt V

CCCLV

Adde CXXVIII

CCCC
L
XXVV = XXX
III
CCCCLXXXIII (483)

MARIO

A=65 *
MRIO
I=73 *
MRO
M=77 *
O=79 *
R=82 *

LXV
LXXIII
LXXVII
LXXIX
LXXXII

Vies L = CCL
XI-ies X faciunt CX
bis V faciunt X
I detrahendum, VII addenda, VI
CCCLXXVI
Adde CXXVIII
CCCC C D (500 ...)
L L
XXXX X
VV
IIII (et ...4 = 504)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio

483 et 504 et 921

DCCCCXXI
DIIII
CDLXXXIII

IIIr D faciunt MD
C detrahenda et CCCC addenda faciunt CCC C
L L
XX XXX
I IIII VIII
MDCCCCVIII (1908)

Ubi prior error ?

Iterum videamus.

BERGOGLIO	A 65 K 75 B 66 L 76 C 67 M 77 D 68 N 78 E 69 O 79 F 70 P 80 G 71 Q 81 H 72 R 82 I 73 et c. J 74
LXVI B LXIX E LXXI G LXXI G LXXIII I LXVI L LXXIX O LXXIX O LXXXII R
LXVI LX I X LXXI LXXI LXXIII LXXVI LXX I X LXX I X LXXXII
__ __ __ __ __ III __	__ __ __ __ __ __
L XVI L X X L XXI L XXI L XXIII L XXVI L XX X L XX X L XXXII
__ __ __ __ __ III __	__ CCCC __ LLLLLLLL L __ __ __ __
X VI X X XX I XX I XX III XX VI XX X XX X XXX II
__ __ __ __ __ III __	D __ CCCC C __ L __ X XX XX XX XX XX XXX XXX XXX __ __ __
V I I I III V I II
__ __ __ __ __ III __	D __ C __ L __ XX XX XX XX XX X __ VV __ __
I I I III I II
__ __ __ __ __ III __	D __ C __ L __ X __ __ I I I III I II __
__ __ __ __ __ __	D __ C __ L __ X __ V __ III I I I __
JORGE MARIO
LX I X LXX I LXX I V LXX I X LXXX II	LXV LXXIII LXXVII LXX I X LXXXI I
L X X L XX L XX V L XX X L XXX	L XV L XXIII L XXVII L XX X L XXXI
D _ _ _ _ _ _
X X X X X X V X X X X XX	X V X XIII X XVII X X X X XXI
D _ C _ _ _ _ _
X X X V X X X X	V X III X VII X X XX I
D _ C C _ _ _ _ _
V X X	V III V II X I
D _ C C _ _ XX X _ V VV _ _
	III II I
D _ C C _ _ XX X X _ V V V V _ III II I _	D _ C C _ L _ XX X X X _ V V _ I _
BERGOGLIO	DCLXVI
JORGE MARIO	DCCLI (nisi rursus fefelli)
D CLXVI	D CCLI
M
C LXVI	CC LI
M CCC
L XVI	L I
M CCC C
XVI	I
M CCC C XVII
Ut fit:	Adde:
J-orge M-ario	bis quater XXXII
B-ergo-glio	octies XXXII
Adde LXX propter F majuscula sicut in Francisco Fit MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII sive MCMXCIX sive MIM. Peius esset si factum esset MIIM quia hoc est ter DCLXVI. Sed iam semel est DCLXVI in BERGOGLIO majusculis scripto. Si non est ipse, videat in familia.

Nunc recalculo anno Domini MMXIX ...

B		LXVI		LD = CDL
E		LXIX		CC + DCL
R		LXXXII		IIIX = VII
G		LXXI		IX + VII = XVI
O		LXXIX		DCLXVI
G		LXXI
L		LXXVI
I		LXXIII
O		LXXIX
P		LXXX		CDL
A		LXV		CXC + CDL = DCXL
P		LXXX		XXIIIV = XXII
A		LXV		IV + XXII = XXVI
B		LXVI		DCLXVI
E		LXIX
N		LXXVIII
T		LXXXIV
O		LXXIX

Bonam Memoriam Animarum

Dona eis Dñe requiem æternam,
Lux perpetua luceat eis:
Requiescant in pace.

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)

Bonum Festum Exaltationis Sanctissimae Crucis DNIC

Bonne fête de l'Exaltation de la Sainte Croix!

Välsignad Korsmess!

Blessed Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross!

In festo Corporis Christi

Fr. Bryan Houghton: The Priests who disliked Mass
http://www.sspx.org/news/the_priests_who_disliked_mass.htm

I am not a priest, I do not dislike Holy Mass, if I absent today it is due to personal differences with those celebrating it that I know of, and also my impurity up to this evening due to sth that occurred this night./HGL

Bonam Festam Pentecostes

Bonne Fête de Pentecôte · A Blessed Feast of Pentecost
Välsignad Pingstfest

Il existe une hargne contre les fêtes chrétiennes. Ce Noël, à Nanterre, j'ai été assez bien accuilli, mais j'ai entendu dans le cyber - geré par un Musulman - qu'on ne fête pas ça. Eux non, nous oui.

Cette Ascension, dans le boutique où j'ai acheté de quoi vivre, j'ai souhaité Bonne Fête, le gerant m'a demandé "quelle fête", j'ai dit "l'Ascension" et il m'a dit "je ne fête pas ça, je travaille".

Et cette Veille de Pentecôte, j'entre dans la Bibliothèque de Beaubourg, je souhaite Bonne Fête au gardien de sécurité qui me laisse passer, et il m'a dit "c'est quoi, bonne fête? Il n'y a pas de fête."

Oui, il y a. Il y a une fête chrétienne.* On est dans un pays chrétien. On doit les respecter.

Pour ceux qui le font, je vous souhaite Bonne Fête de Pentécôte.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
samedi 18 mai 2013
Pentécôte

*Notons, ce n'est pas juste la veille en général, c'est déjà passé les Premières Vêpres!

Sumne uitandus an non?

nunc autem scripsi vobis non commisceri si is qui frater nominatur est fornicator aut avarus aut idolis serviens aut maledicus aut ebriosus aut rapax cum eiusmodi nec cibum sumere 1a ad Corinthos 5:11

"nunc autem scripsi vobis non commisceri si is qui frater nominatur est ... cum eiusmodi nec cibum sumere" - non scriptum est hic "aliquis nomine Iohannes Georgius Lundahl", set dat apostolus desciptiones qui meo iudicio mihi non competunt:

• "fornicator" - sum quasi virgo, contra vitium solitarium mihi meius liceret combattere cum uxore (quam catholicam habere difficilius est si catholici mihi non communicant),
• "aut avarus" - quod ambitor est quod sim scribens et musicam componens a patronibus independens, et independentiam per media honesta querere non est avaritia,
• "aut idolis serviens" - non falsos cultus adeo, nec defendo: quoad mythi historici uel quasi historici non modo sunt cultus set eciam nationis, ideo credo eis inesse ueritates (exempli gratia Herculem iter fecisse cum Argonautibus uel Romulum natum ex conceptione non naturali et Romam condidisse),
• "aut maledicus" - psychiatri, doctores scholarum obligatarum, astronomi qui considerant impossibile stellas esse motas a Deo ipse aut ab angelis eius nisi materiali causa adsit, secretarii et assistentes sociales qui hunc ad psychiatriam uel illius liberos ab illo ipso disponent, usurarii, iudei, protestantes et massoni necnon quidam mahometani possunt me talem considerare, ego rursus et eos tales, set qui maledicus reuera est dependet a ueritate in quadam questione, non a consideratione mea uel alterius,
• "aut ebriosus" - breuibus et paucis vicibus ebrius fui, non pertinet hoc ad reprehensionem, set a quibusdam consideratus sum false multo sepius ebrius fuisse,
• "aut rapax" - si uolo dependere de beneficiis monetariis uoluntarie factis ab eis qui a beneficio licencie mee lucrum faciunt quoddam, non est rapacitas, nec unquam tali dixi, cuius mala facta a me denunciata sint, me esse deleturus que scripsi si quid det.

Hoc autem possum reprehendi quod hanc monitionem non ipse secutus sum plene. Set hoc de me non facit excommunicatum uitandum.

Why do Some Christian People Find my Geocentric View of the Universe Heterodox?

Some may suppose or pretend to suppose that it is a sham stance, a provocation, a way to ironise over Christianity. And no doubt some people have attacked Christianity on account of isolated phrases from my defense of Geocentrism. That does not mean that I render Christianity attackable. If it is attackable not to be able to prove Totally Heliocentric views of the Solar System (or Totally Endoheliocentric or Periheliocentric views of it) involving the Earth as one of the bodies moving according to its laws of gravity masses and inertia, as of Newton-Laplace, and to to prove Acentric or Agnostocentric ones of the Universe, then Christianity is more attackable than Atheism, and would remain so even if I renounced Geocentrism. Because when Parallax was discovered, Heliocentric literature was simply allowed from the side of the Vatican, but Geocentrism was not in anyway banned. In Providentissimus Deus, Pope Leo XIII probably was referring to Biblical support of what is traditionally seen as Geocentrism, vs. Scientific support of negation of same Geocentrism. But he certainly did not mention this particular case any more than any other similar (though he gave an indication that phrases merely generally descriptive may refer to what is seen by the eye), and he did not either take a direct stance on whether in such or such a particular case one should prefer the scientific support and deny the exegesis as necessarily following from a Bible passage or several, or accept the exegesis and deny that the scientific theory really follows logically from the evidence. John Paul II did in the third and reversing trial of Galileo say he was innocent because he was right: but there is a doubt on part of at least some Catholics whether he was Pope, and even so, if he could declare a dogma in the process of a person, so could of course Urban VIII, and if Urban VIII did that, then he was a heretic for opposing a definied dogma. If however Urban VIII did not define dogma by condemning two theses of Galileo (the fixed sun, the moving earth), then even less did John Paul II do so by saying "Galileo was right". So, whether it is scandalous or not that Christianity cannot dogmatise Modern Science (as Heliocentrism/Acentrism is dubbed), Christianity cannot.

The Christian faith is not tied to lack of logic, but it is tied to propositions opposed to some of those really used in informal debates by scientific atheists defending Heliocentrism/Acentrism. With propositions A, B, C, you can conceivably end up with conclusion H. But with propositions non-A, B, C, the proposition H may not be a valid conclusion, those propositions (with non-A instead of A) may leave H and G in an equal balance. Or even prefer conclusion G to H.

Now, in my world-view, the one I prefer so long as no new proof refutes it, God is every day turning the outmost starry heaven by more than 360° degrees each 24 h., and the sun, lagging behind that, makes 360° in exactly 24 h. And the sun is an angel plus a light held by that angel. What we see is the light. What decides whether it moves around or stood still over Gabaon or danced over Fatima is its angel, as it is also its angel who deprived earth of light during three hours after crucifixion up to the Death of God at the hands of ungrateful man. The Sun shineth over good and evil - but not those hours. And that angel is not a lord independent, but a servant of God, as proven by the fact that the two men he honoured before Our Lord, the first bore Our Lord's name (Joshua and Jesus is the same name in Hebrew), the other was one of Our Lord's Ancestors, when to stepped back "two lines" on some kind of sun watch in Judea, probably in Jerusalem. So, when I say that the sun is held in its place by an angel, I am not introducing polytheism. St Thomas Aquinas and St Francis of Assisi also thought of the sun as a servant of God. And noone is calling them polytheists. St Thomas somewhere says that the heathens in taking the heavenly bodies for gods are like people seeking for the king and taking first servant they meet around the palace for king, because he is well dressed. So St Thomas calls the heavenly bodies servants of God, and only persons can properly speaking serve. As for St Francis, he praises God "for/through our Brother, Mister Sun" and a few more of them, down to our sister corporeal death.

Then again, some say I am subjectivist - because I prefer a world-view. But a subjectivist properly speaking would be someone who did not give two straws about proof and believed anything he preferred to believe, even if totally disproven. I wonder if some of my critics are not the real subjectivists. I for my part have a preference, but I also have arguments.

Others would remark that I am denying secondary causes and a certain autonomy of them. But the autonomy of secondary causes is not such as to preclude direct actions of the first cause, that is of God. And that God can do all he wants is all I need for it to be possible that he is each day turning the outer stars more than a full circle around us. And - here comes my argument, besides scripture: if it is possible it is preferrable, since it makes the evidence we see more directly true.

Now, these same would also remark (at least in oral debates) that in that case God would be preferring miracles breaking the order he made to the order he made at creation. Not at all. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but if I am right, I am not right in saying God created an Acentric Universe only to break its laws to make it Geocentric, but rather that God made it Geocentric from the start and keeps it that way. This argument against me actually depends on conflating two definitions of the word miracle. In one sense a miracle is such a thing as only God can do, as restoring the dead to life. In an other sense it is something which shows his power by doing something only He can do on occasions where natural causation usually makes for another result, as in restoring dead to life on occasions outside the origin of Resurrection, which is Christ's resurrection today, and outside the accomplishment of resurrection on the last day, i e like when Christ called Lazarus back to life or when Elisaeus' and Martin's relics and the Holy Cross restored corpses to earthly life, and afterwards they died again: this second kind of miracle is not what God would be doing if keeping the Universe Geocentric. But it is because this is a miracle according to the first and looser definition that Geocentrism and daily motions within it figure as the most obvious elaboration of via prima of proving God.

Primo autem ponemus rationes quibus Aristoteles procedit ad probandum Deum esse. Qui hoc probare intendit ex parte motus duabus viis.

Contra Gentiles, lib. 1 cap. 13 n. 3 Quarum prima talis est: omne quod movetur, ab alio movetur. Patet autem sensu aliquid moveri, utputa solem. Ergo alio movente movetur. Aut ergo illud movens movetur, aut non. Si non movetur, ergo habemus propositum, quod necesse est ponere aliquod movens immobile. Et hoc dicimus Deum. Si autem movetur, ergo ab alio movente movetur. Aut ergo est procedere in infinitum: aut est devenire ad aliquod movens immobile. Sed non est procedere in infinitum. Ergo necesse est ponere aliquod primum movens immobile.

...

Quarum prima talis est. Si in motoribus et motis proceditur in infinitum, oportet omnia huiusmodi infinita corpora esse: quia omne quod movetur est divisibile et corpus, ut probatur in VI Physic. Omne autem corpus quod movet motum, simul dum movet movetur. Ergo omnia ista infinita simul moventur dum unum eorum movetur. Sed unum eorum, cum sit finitum, movetur tempore finito. Ergo omnia illa infinita moventur tempore finito. Hoc autem est impossibile. Ergo impossibile est quod in motoribus et motis procedatur in infinitum.

[23593] Contra Gentiles, lib. 1 cap. 13 n. 13 Quod autem sit impossibile quod infinita praedicta moveantur tempore finito, sic probat. Movens et motum oportet simul esse: ut probat inducendo in singulis speciebus motus. Sed corpora non possunt simul esse nisi per continuitatem vel contiguationem. Cum ergo omnia praedicta moventia et mota sint corpora, ut probatum est, oportet quod sint quasi unum mobile per continuationem vel contiguationem. Et sic unum infinitum movetur tempore finito. Quod est impossibile, ut probatur in VI physicorum.

[23594] Contra Gentiles, lib. 1 cap. 13 n. 14 Secunda ratio ad idem probandum talis est. In moventibus et motis ordinatis, quorum scilicet unum per ordinem ab alio movetur, hoc necesse est inveniri, quod, remoto primo movente vel cessante a motione, nullum aliorum movebit neque movebitur: quia primum est causa movendi omnibus aliis. Sed si sint moventia et mota per ordinem in infinitum, non erit aliquod primum movens, sed omnia erunt quasi media moventia. Ergo nullum aliorum poterit moveri. Et sic nihil movebitur in mundo.

Contra Gentiles, lib. 1 cap. 13,
n. 2, 3 et 12-14
http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/scg1010.html#23581

In these passages (for those of you who do not read Latin) St Thomas basically is saying that Water like Equatorial Streams are moved by Air like Winds of Passage, are moved by sphere of moon and so on to the first moved thing which is the starry heaven, which must be moved by something unmoved which is God. But if there were a regress to infinity, that would imply all universe turning each day in an infinite movement - which is impossible. Since movement has to be finite, so does universe, since universe has to be finite, its order of moved movers must have and end, like the starry heavens being the outermost and most primary moved mover having no moved mover outside itself and therefore depending on an unmoved mover, God.

What has been refuted therein is pretty little, excepting a solid contiguity between all spheres. Since the basic scenario of Earth being ruffled in mobile edges but not moved from its place in the middle and everything above it moving the faster the further you get outward is one which has, as far as I can see, not been subverted except possibly very recently. I asked a person from NASA having a FB account of the trajectory of Voyager 10 can have disproven Geocentrism: I have gotten no answer. I have asked and got negative answer about parallax observed from Mars disproving Geocentrism. Back in 2006 instruments of astronomic observation as present on Mars were not presented by the official channels as having measured parallax or even as having the capacity to do so. I was trying to find some on stellar aberration as observed from Mars, have not been able to check up. In my book, the obvious stays obvious till disproven, and is not disproven before the disproof is at hand. It does not suffice to disprove our eyes and middle ears about solar, lunar, stellar movements and earth being still, that there might be a disproof around the corner, as long as that disproof is not there.

What astronomers do to disprove the scenario given by St Thomas, the very few times that they are caught in any kind of discussion with me, is to suppose it as a given fact that the only causes are physical. That is not obvious, and that is not only not obvious, but to a Christian (or any other supernaturalist), it is even obviously false. If masses and gravitation and inertia (and uniform movement being a form of inertia), were all that was involved, Geocentrism might not be possible, but then again, if these were all involved in movements between football field and socker ball, and no players existed, the movements the socker ball does in a game of socker would not be possible either.

But some people are not swayed by argument at all, and classing this idea into the associations of esotericism, because basically not as much atheistic as hylotheistic and dynamiotheistic scientists would think so, or because that is not what their teacher in catechism said (probably a decent man or nun, who was just not interested in polemising against modern science), may not be assured about me. Sorry.

But to worthier things, since Resurrection is not just a Miracle but the New Creation in its fulness: Happy Easter, Christ is Risen!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Georges Pompidou Library
Easter Sunday 2012

735 ans

Dimanche de laetare 1277 (on disait encore 1276 jusqu'au 25 mars) au dimanche de laetare 2012.

Qu'est-ce que c'est passé le dimanche de laetare au début de l'année 1277 (ou, comme on disait: à la fin de 1276)?

L'évêque de Paris condamna 219 thèses. Il s'appella Étienne Tempier cette fois là.

Les thèses condamnées et le fait qu'elles ont été condamnées ne sont pas perdues.

Quand un philosophe et historien de la philosophie les a republiés en latin avec sa propre traduction en français, il pouvait se reposer sur une édition déjà libre de droits. Sans doute pour ça il n'a pas fait une quelconque proteste quand je lui ai notifié que j'avais utilisé son livre pour y puiser le texte latin (notemment de l'appendix I) et le fournir avec des notes en latin.

Il s'agit d'une condamnation du nécessitisme. De l'Averroïsme en général, mais très très souvent de ses conclusions nécessitistes.

L'appendix I - les condamnations regroupées en groupes thématiques - donne les condamnations en chapîtres VI-XXII et tout le chapître XIV est dédié aux erreurs sur la nécessité. 7. Mais elles proviennent des endroits de la thèse originellement 21 jusqu'à la thèse originellement 207. Et en plus, il comprend seulement des indications directes sur la nécessité ou scibilité comme scibilité des choses nécessaires. Dans les chapîtres sur Dieu il y a des thèses dont découlerait la non-liberté de Dieu. Dans les chapîtres sur l'ange et sur l'homme on peut également lire - à travers la condamnation des erreurs opposées - que l'ange et l'homme ne sont point assignés à la nécessité des étoiles, et que les individuels anges n'ont pas non plus subi la nécessité de leur espèce mais que chaque ange et chaque âme humaine a son haecceité. Notons, par là notre cher évêque n'entend nullement nier que nous avons également une nature humaine réelle et commune. L'Occamisme, que certains ont voulu attacher au Scotisme, est dans sa conséquence sur l'universel qu'est la nature humaine, condamné en avance, par cette source commune à Occam et à Jean Duns Scot, auquel revient l'honneur d'avoir, le premier en occident depuis St Augustin, soutenu l'Immaculé Conception.

Voici le chapître XIV, sur la nécessité et sur les erreurs làdessus. La civilisation moderne est malade - elle était déjà malade pendant la colonisation d'Algérie quoiqu'en disent ou ressentent certains vétérans de cette époque ou des souffrances ou luttes de sa fin - de nécessitisme.

Capitulum XIV
Errores de necessitate euentus rerum
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2012/01/capitulum-xiv.html

Le tout: petitlien.fr/tempier

Que celui qui sache lire le latin médiéval (ça arrive aux gens, dans les pays du Nord c'est obligatoire en latin dès le lycée, pour ceux qui choisissent le latin) en profite.

Il y a encore d'autres variantes que le nécessitisme pouvait revêtir. Par exemple la prétense pastorale de savoir mieux que la personne concernée ce qui se passe dans son cœur. C'est d'ailleurs condamné même au niveau du Pape.

Ceci n'est pas de Tempier mais de St Robert Bellarmin:

Dicimus PRIMVM, non posse errare Pontificem in iis praeceptis, quae toti Ecclesiae praescribuntur; quia, vt suprà diximus, in praeceptis, & iudiciis particularibus, non est absurdum Pontificem errare.

Pseudoquote identified. What De Romano Pontifice, book IV, chapter V really says (quote)
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.fr/2009/10/pseudoquote-identified-what-de-romano.html

Si Benoît XVI dirait demain que toute l'église doive prendre la discipline de jeûne des Orthodoxes et des Uniates, et que les dispenses dans l'église latine sont supprimées, sur requête de Notre Dame à Fatima, alors on pourrait dire que c'est un précepte qui touche toute l'église. Dedans le Pape ne peut pas se tromper. S'il est Pape biensûr.

Mais si le Pape dit que telle personne a une vocation de la perfection, telle personne s'est lié à cette vocation ou telle personne est folle, alors, puisqu'il s'agit de telle personne, d'une chose particulière, la pape peut errer. Surtout biensûr quand il ne parle pas ex officio de tout puisqu'on n'ait pas fait appel à lui. Mais même ex officio, si on le trompe sur les faits. Jean Madiran vient de résumer assez bien les raisons pourquoi Pie XI a condamné Action Française - et d'ajouter que ces raisons n'étaient pas valables car elles n'étaient pas ce que faisait l'Action Française. Il me semble que vouloir réintroduire le paganisme et rétablir l'esclavage seraient beaucoup plus applicables comme descriptions de la psychiatrie.

Que les Orthodoxes cessent donc de nous accuser malicieusement de papolatrie, car nous n'accordons pas au pape le genre d'infaillibilité absurde pour un pur homme que s'accorde en pratique un psychiatre./HGL

Gaudium et Spes pas si Orthodoxe que ça, quand même ...

"30

. Quod ultra individualisticam ethicam progrediendum sit."

Profunda et velox rerum immutatio urgentius postulat ut nemo sit qui, ad rerum cursum non attendens vel inertia torpens, ethicae mere individualisticae indulgeat.

 

Personne devait s'indulger dans une éthique purement individualiste par le fait de ne pas faire attention à la suite des événéments? C'est un insulte à la fuite du monde, vertu chrétienne s'il y en a. Ça serait en plus exigé par le profonde et rapide changement des choses? Je suis prône à rigoler comme sur la pseudopiété du roman d'Éliette d'Abécassis! C'est blasphème ça! Ça se pose comme quelque chose de pieux, et c'est blasphème, et en plus inepte comme blasphémie, prône à prôner la rigolade, sauf en considérant de temps en temps les pauvres qui se laissent tromper par ces blasphèmes. C'est blasphème, parce que les changements ne sont pas quand même la fin de la terre et du ciel encore, et c'est blasphème de même considérer un changement comme ça suffisent pour changer le contenu de l'éthique chrétienne.

 

Iustitiae ac caritatis officium magis ac magis adimpletur per hoc quod unusquisque, ad bonum commune iuxta proprias capacitates et aliorum necessitates conferens, etiam institutiones sive publicas sive privatas promovet et adiuvat quae hominum vitae condicionibus in melius mutandis inserviunt.

 

Boooooon? Nooon? Le devoir de justice et de charité - comme le devoir de la restitution des choses volées ou des choses gagnées par usure ou par tromperie, comme le devoir de l'aumône - serait alors de plus en plus desservi par le fait que chacun, contribuant pour le bien commun, selon sa capacité et les besoins des autres (ça s'entend un peu comme le manifeste communiste: "de chacun selon sa capacité, à chacun selon ses besoins," donc l'individu privé donne selon toute sa capacité, reçoit selon ses seuls besoins et la société prend la différence à être gerée par les gerants de la société: ici au moins chacun estime les besoins des autres autant que sa capacité, c'est un peu mieux, un peu plus thomiste, mais normalement c'est l'aumône individuelle qui est visée) aussi promeuve et aide des institutions, publiques ou privées, qui rendent service pour améliorer les conditions de la vie humaine. Bon, il y a quelque chose de vrai, on peut aider les hôpitaux (en enlevant les soins qui n'en sont pas, par exemple psychiatriques ou d'avortement on les aide à mieux profiter des aides publiques ou donatives: c'est un point à observer avant de parler de les aider), on peut aider les associations qui donnent café aux pauvres de la rue quand les autres ont trop de travail entre neuf et l'ouverture des bibliothèques pour le faire, et en plus trop peu de numéraire (billets de cinq voir pièces) pour aider un pauvre même à travers les cafés commerciaux, ou il pourra être anonyme quelques minutes, ou à Starbucks même une heure, on peut faire tout ça, mais c'est une vue parfaitement trop socialiste du prochain de le vouloir aider de plus en plus par les institutions où il sera fiché, engueulé par quelqu'une qui pour son humeur serait impossible dans un café, entouré uniquement par les gens qui partagent les mêmes misères, comme si ça serait mieux que d'oublier les misères. Et en plus, le devoir de justice de restitution reste individuel, quel que sera la forme qu'on préfère un-même donner à ses aumônes.

 

Sunt autem qui, largas generosioresque opiniones profitentes, ita tamen semper reapse vivunt ac si nullam societatis necessitatum curam habeant.

 

De quels égoistes est-ce question? Les gens qui ruinent les entreprises plus petites que leurs propres n'ont pas exactement des opinions larges et généreux? Quand même, ça arrive que c'est juste par oubli qu'ils omettent de penser qu'un produit moins cher aux consommateurs, autrement le même (pain, légumes, et c.) obtenu par machinisme, par emploi des femmes ou d'immigrés des cultures plus acharnément travailleuses que la notre, met davantage de travailleurs mâles en chômage.

 

Immo, plures, in variis regionibus, leges et praescriptiones sociales minimi faciunt. Non pauci, variis fraudibus ac dolis, iusta vectigalia vel alia quae societati debentur effugere non verentur. Alii normas quasdam vitae socialis, e. gr., ad valetudinem tuendam, aut ad vehiculorum ductum moderandum statutas, parvi aestimant, non animadvertentes se tali incuria vitae suae et aliorum periculum inferre.

 

Merci de ne pas mettre l'incivisme plus banal, comme "le froggy" sautant,* dans la même catégorie. Bon, en tant que régie par le public, la ratp est concernée et concerne les dus au public, mais il y a des situations où la ratp, en ne pas applicant la peine prévue (par exemple à un sdf) ne fait que pallier pour les plus démunis l'effet stressant d'une société où on est censé se déplacer plusieurs kilomètres par jour pour avoir juste le nécessaire (par exemple aller d'une association parisienne pour les pauvres à une autre, ou pour d'autres aller chercher son travail, surtout dans la recherche ou en fin du mois, ou avant le premier salaire). Mais il y a d'occasions où les normes de la société n'aident pas à sauver les vies, même en matière de conduite de voitures ou en matière d'hygiène. On sait que les vaccinations peuvent avoir des effets indésirables, d'où l'interêt de ne surtout au moins pas les imposer, on sait que l'alcool dans la voiture est dangéreuse à certaines promilles par rapport à presque toute situation mais à d'autres promilles seulement à quelques situations, que le chauffeur peut avoir une espérance raisonnable d'éviter, et en plus ça dépend de la vitesse. Un homme conduit une voiture à travers la campagne irlandaise, il prend un pint de la bierre, il conduit sans trop de stress - j'ai fait le stop avec un homme qui l'a fait, en 1986, et je ne regrette pas.

 

Sanctum sit omnibus necessitudines sociales inter praecipua hominis hodierni officia recensere easque observare.

 

Je ne trouve pas. Non, les nécessités modernes des sociétés modernes ne sont pas du tout parmi les premiers devoirs de l'homme contemporain à assimiler et observer. Ils sont parfois les mêmes qui ont toujours été parmi les premiers devoirs des hommes, par exemple restituer des valeurs mal gagnés ou de donner l'aumône, mais une société peut trop aisément se trouver entre les mains des gens qui ajoutent nécessité après nécessité, fictive (comme le contexte du froggy*) ou réelle (comme celui des autres animaux de la campagne "restons civils en toute la ligne") pour pouvoir mieux excuser soit sa domination sur les gens, soit son détournement de la loi de Dieu, soit, biensur, les deux à la fois. Pas seulement ces nécessités ne sont pas parmi les devoirs premiers de tout homme, en plus il ne peut pas être un devoir saint de les mettre au niveau des devoirs saints ou même vraiment premiers après les devoirs saints.

 

Quo magis enim mundus unitur, eo apertius hominum munera particulares coetus superant et ad universum mundum paulatim extenduntur. Quod fieri nequit nisi et singuli homines et ipsorum coetus virtutes morales et sociales in seipsis colant et in societate diffundant, ita ut vere novi homines et artifices novae humanitatis exsistant cum necessario auxilio divinae gratiae.

 

Renouveler les hommes par la grâce serait une nécessité à cause de l'international? Ou à cause du fait ou de la factoïde que les devoirs seraient désormais globaux plutôt que locaux? Renouveler les hommes par la grâce n'a jamais visé l'internationalisme en préférence par rapport aux prochains qui sont proches. Même l'internet ne fait pas un village mondial, uniquement - comme beaucoup peuvent constater à travers leurs réseaux facebook ou linked-in - que la correspondance unit plusieurs "villages" à distance. Mais autant petits que les vrais villages ou hamaux locaux. Et renouveler les hommes autrement que par la grâce divine - ce qui serait une condition pour internationalisme réussi - n'est pas désirable. Les dégâts après la Tour de Babel peuvent se guérir idéellement dans la grâce, par l'Église, mais les modifier en imposant l'internationalisme, c'est idiot. Hier j'avais le bonheur de constater que la désunion des langues n'est pas uniquement un mal. Je pouvais m'émerveiller du fait que le polonais qui pour moi était comme la langue Schtroumpf (on comprend quelques mots en quelques phrases) était pour les gens sur l'autre banc un acquis banal depuis l'enfance.

 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mouffetard/Paris

Fête des Âmes au Purgatoire

L'An du Seigneur 2011

 

*Pourquoi a-t-il des chaussures de femme? Ah, serait-ce parce que "la grenouille" est feminine dans la grammaire française?

Nuntii Latini Finlandiae emittuntur radiophonice

Nuntii Latini - Yle

Why this blog? Pourquoi ce blog? Hvadan denna blogg?

Deretour* a déjà environ 600 messages et devient moins consultable.	Deretour* already had about 600 blogposts and is getting difficult to find its way in.	Deretour* har redan omkring 600 articlar och börjar bli svår att hitta i.
Cur Nomen?
Deretour* handlade i hög grad om både trivium och quadrivium, med connexa dygder och andra fria konster.	Deretour* was in a high degree about both trivium and quadrivium with virtues and liberal arts connex to them.	Deretour* était en haut degré une question de trivium et de quadrivium avec les vertus et les arts libéraux connexes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bellovacis/Beauvais
in vigilia S^ti Michaelis Archangeli,
quarta feria xxviij. septembris AD MMXI

*deretour:
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com