Notes in my polemic against John Sanidopoulos

1) Own notes only under first post :

[Note that the short links I made have been disabled.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl a dit…

This post has been saved on webcite:

It has a short url in original format:

21 octobre 2009 01:12

First reference given by John is now compressed as

21 octobre 2009 01:18 

Second reference is now compressed as

Clicking them will get you to the misquotes from Bellarmine. Scrolling up will get you to covers, it is a question of antiquated Proetstant books. Even without scrolling, you will find authors on these works, and these authors are NOT St Robert Bellarmine.

21 octobre 2009 01:20 = Bellarmino, Il catechismo.

21 octobre 2009 01:28

When trying to find De Romano Pontifice, I stumbled on (kay, eff, zero) = Lumen Gentium, which cites that work somewhere.

21 octobre 2009 01:32

Here we find, in French, a reference to De Romano Pontifice, book five chapter six, where St Robert Bellarmine says that, as the soul commandeth the body, the Roman Pontiff has a right to intervene if the “prince” (i e secular power) should legislate against the good of souls. THAT allegation from first reference offered by John is therefore correct.

21 octobre 2009 01:36

Oh, forgot the link, short url

21 octobre 2009 01:37 

Catalogues de toutes les bibliothèques municipales de :

Résultats de la recherche
Votre recherche: Mots recherchés=”De Romano Pontifice” et Titre=”De Romano Pontifice”

Il n’y a pas de document correspondant à votre recherche.

21 octobre 2009 05:13 

Résultats de la recherche
Votre recherche: Auteur=”Robert Bellarmin”

Il n’y a pas de document correspondant à votre recherche.

21 octobre 2009 05:16 

In case you did not realise that you should click title to get to the blog post on MYSTAGOGY, I have a short url to it:

21 octobre 2009 06:50
[Since this short link is disabled, I linked to it on top portion of my first response.]

And HERE I link to real quote: Pseudoquote identified. What De Romano Pontifice, book IV, chapter V really says (quote)

22 octobre 2009 06:41

Here is a google search on the surname of that exfranciscan bishop and Barcelona, a city where he claims to have been and have been obliged to leave. Funnily enough ALL links are to reprints of this article. Even the one named “Bishop Barcelona” only links to it in English and in Greek.

Did the man exist before writing this piece? Did the piece exist before recent “republishing” on internet?

23 octobre 2009 05:04

Further faults of fact in the mystagogy post

24 octobre 2009 01:19 – Roman Catholic martyrs in Mexico (where that bishop Paul is said to have been killed, by people trying to make it appear it were by a Catholic fanatic)

24 octobre 2009 02:23
2) Short dialogue :
maryvictrix a dit…


Thank you for your work. May God continue to bless you with the Spirit of Lepanto.

29 octobre 2009 18:38
Hans-Georg Lundahl a dit…

Thank You, Father Angelo!

Do you read French?

Non, Noël ne coincide pas “plus ou moins” avec les Saturnalies (et Toussaints n’est pas Samhain, voir les commentaires)

30 octobre 2009 06:14
3) Continuing link list : and (zero, not owe, on both)include my posted comments in debate with Orthodox. Continued on

31 octobre 2009 09:00
[Omitting list to the two series]

New link to John Sandinopoulos’ blogpost:

21 mars 2010 06:36

New links:

21 décembre 2010 05:35
4) Two more dialogues :
mwoerl a dit…

Who cares what a Roman Catholic “saint” said, or did not say? Papism is error based on error … Period.

4 juin 2014 04:36
Hans Georg Lundahl a dit…

Rather, No-Popery is.

And as a Catholic and as a devout venerator of St Robert, I do of course care what is said about him.

5 juin 2014 08:05
Unknown a dit…

I can see why John was irritated, Mr. Lundahl, you made micro-post after micro-post, which is very bad (ne)ettiquette, and difficult to process in any event.

Even if you expose one single quote as inaccurate, you would still have many, many more issues and historical facts to contend with regarding the fallibility of the Popes (Papal infallibility is a more recent dogma, as you surely must know), and the insanity of several ex-Cathedra, Magisterium-authored Bulls. I’m an ex-Roman Catholic…after visiting the Vatican in 1991, I was disgusted and heart-broken by the paganism I saw on the grounds; in the library and in the Vatican Gardens. I began looking more carefully at the Roman Catholic church’s claims, and sadly, discovered just how WRONG She could be, and not just Her Popes.

I wish no ill to Roman Catholics, I know many are wonderfully pious people, and that Jesus is in the SAVING business, not the condemnation business (you get the opposite impression from all but the last two Popes; the Roman Catholic god is just angry and vengeful, not like Jesus at all). The RC church was seriously comprimised after being essentially taken over by the Franks. The German Barbarians hijacked the crumbling OLD Roman empire (if St. Peter’s “throne” could move from Antioch to Old Rome, it could certainly move from Old Rome to New Rome – Constantinople – as Canon 28 seems to imply; a Canon signed by the Roman legates, by the way), and destroyed the Mediterranean family structure upon which the Church was built, a loving, embracing structure still common to Greeks, Eastern Mediterranean Semites, and Southern Italians.

Seriously, coming back to post one-sentence posts every couple of minutes looks neurotic, and is hardly conducive to making a persuasive argument, Herr Lundahl!

Peace in Christ to you,

16 janvier 2015 23:42
Hans Georg Lundahl a dit…

Even if you expose one single quote as inaccurate

It was the one chosen by Paul Ballaster. Or one of his two, to prove St Robert Bellarmine was “papolatrous”.

It is very different to state “if a Pope WERE to solemnly define truth as falsehood or falsehood as truth, the Church WOULD be obliged to believe so” like St Robert really wrote, and to state “if the Pope DOES … the Church IS OBLIGED …” as Paul Ballaster misquoted him.

See next post for real quote.

And note that Paul Ballaster claimed to have read St Robert in original, in the library of the Franciscans. He can’t have, unless he had a lousy memory, so he was probably lying.

That is why he should NOT be canonised by the Greeks.

Which was the whole point I was trying to make.

You state you have seen lots of otehr examples where solemn definitions of Popes were erroneous. But you give no examples. If you mean Gaudium et Spes by Vatican II signed by Paul VI, I consider Vatican II was no valid Council, Paul VI was no valid Pope and even if they had been Gaudium et Spes is not formulated as a valid Church document.

23 avril 2015 03:49 
Hans Georg Lundahl a dit…

The RC church was seriously comprimised after being essentially taken over by the Franks. The German Barbarians hijacked the crumbling OLD Roman empire (if St. Peter’s “throne” could move from Antioch to Old Rome, it could certainly move from Old Rome to New Rome – Constantinople – as Canon 28 seems to imply; a Canon signed by the Roman legates, by the way), and destroyed the Mediterranean family structure upon which the Church was built, a loving, embracing structure still common to Greeks, Eastern Mediterranean Semites, and Southern Italians.

I think this is totally erroneous. If you get it from Romanides, consider that Romanides was a fraud, intellectually, since he misspent his time at Harvard (a bad choice of university anyway, ecclesiastically speaking, very Puritan and Anticatholic) in digging up accusations very probably originating in some 19th C. Anglican who was flirting with Orthodoxy and grasping at straws to find accusations against Rome so as to motivate the Reformation, which some of them were anyway not very proud of due to Protestant influence disgusting them.

(if St. Peter’s “throne” could move from Antioch to Old Rome, it could certainly move from Old Rome to New Rome – Constantinople – as Canon 28 seems to imply; a Canon signed by the Roman legates, by the way)

St Peter had two thrones, as personal bishop.

In one of them he was during his lifetime succeeded by Bishop St Eleutherius, who on his death was succeded by St Ignatius. If Peter remained Pope, this means he took Papacy with himself to Rome.

As to his throne there, dying he established St Linus as his successor.

So, St Linus and not St Eleutherius is successor to his Papacy.

Now, the throne of Peter has temporarily moved from Rome and back to Rome. I have been in Avignon, which was “Rome in exile” so to speak.

But when Popes moved to Avignon, they did not claim that from now on Papacy would be bishops of Avignon, rather that they were even IN Avignon bishops OF Rome, while bishops of Avignon remained distinct from them.

Therefore, Papacy cannot shift from one line of bishops, that in Rome, to another line in Constantinople, if it is constitutive of the Church.

Seriously, coming back to post one-sentence posts every couple of minutes looks neurotic, …

I was very probably making them in an internet café where connexion could suffer once every while and therefore posting what I had written as soon as possible, so as not to write a long answer and get it lost. That is a neuroticising experience.

… and is hardly conducive to making a persuasive argument, Herr Lundahl!

Now, an argument in oral communication when one has little time to rethink things, stands very much on rhetoric means of the one argumenting.

But when one is writing, one has time to read and to reread, and therefore to examine the thought.

It is therefore unworthy to make a point about unpersuasiveness of any behaviour (especially one which can have an explanation you don’t know) rather than looking at the actual arguments.

23 avril 2015 04:05

Oh, forgot before posting : it is true that I have both Swedish background by descent and by where I stayed most of my life, and German-Austrian by where I stayed large parts of my childhood.

It is also true that “Herr Lundahl” is correct in both languages.

However, to persons not knowing Swedish, it sounds as if stampingt me as primarily German or Austrian. To anyone knowing Swedish, it sounds unfamiliar.

In Sweden I was adressed mostly as “Hans-Georg” or as “HG” or as “du”, since titulation (even “ni”) was abolished by Social Democrats, and that abolishment has entered into the general mores of Sweden, unlike the spelling reforms earlier (which alas also have done so), it is not sth I actively try to reverse, even for my own part.

You see, I don’t think Swedish as spoken now sounds ugly. I only think it looks ugly to write it as written by the revolutionary minds who initiated spelling reforms.

Which is why, whenever I am adressed as “Herr Lundahl!” I feel a sense of suspicion as if someone was trying to exploit anti-German sentiments by stamping me as German. Even in Austria, I hope I could still get away with saying “oh, i’ bin nit so alt doß du ‘Herr’ sogen muß”.

23 avril 2015 04:12

I looked up the passage where things on thread get a few minutes apart:

October 20, 2009 3:17 PM I adressed his « first reference », October 20, 2009 3:25 PM (eight minutes later), I adressed his second reference and promised to look for sth, October 20, 2009 3:33 PM (another eight minutes later) I admitted not having found it.

How is that “neurotic”? I was simply looking up things between posting answers.

23 avril 2015 04:23
5) Notes under second post of Pseudoquote identified :
Anonyme a dit…

I DO begin to have doubts about the existence of the alleged author ofthis text which occasioned this controverse.

(yup, still me, but I cannot bother to log in right now)

22 octobre 2009 07:50
Hans-Georg Lundahl a dit…

Above wuz me, all right

Here is what I said on comment field of a post where I posted above:

I see no difference from what Orthodox say after schism, except that he says of Roman Bishop what u of each bishop or all collectively, but not of the Roman.

22 octobre 2009 08:13

His Catechism was also criticised for containing things like above pseudoquote for which I gave correction. Its Italian translation begins:

O sempre giudicato, ottimi uditori, essere sommamente necessario perseverare nella Chiesa, nella quale si trova la fede vera ed ortodossa, il vero culto di Dio, la vera remissione dei peccati …

22 octobre 2009 09:05

Misquote as given in some bad sources:

“If the Pope some day imposed sins and forbade virtues, the Church isobliged to believe that these sins are good and these virtues are bad”

23 octobre 2009 02:33

My translation of passage:

but if the Pope erred giving precepts for vices or forbidding virtues, the Church would be obliged to believe vices good & virtues bad, unless she wanted to sin against her conscience.

23 octobre 2009 02:33 

The Latin of St Robert Bellarmine:

si autem Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia, vel prohibendo virtutes,teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona, & virtutes malas, nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare.

teneretur=would be obliged

even the context

erraret praecipiendo=erred by giving a precept, were to err by giving a precept

cannot possibly be identified as

“gives a precept”

23 octobre 2009 02:37

Bellarmine clearly says that imposing a sin and forbidding a virtue is error, he is not at all declaring that the Church can be bound by such error, he thought God would never allow a Pope to commit such an error.

23 octobre 2009 02:38

Oops! St Caecilia seems to be a month later, when I look it up.

Well, there was some time since I owned a Roman Missal.

24 octobre 2009 06:34
[Omitting links to the series, French and English]
6) Dialogue with a presumable Anglican :
F.G.S.A a dit…

The examples of the England language found on this site are full of grammatical mistakes and unidiomatic phrases. “Highest Pontiff” simply does not exist in English to denote the Bishop of Rome: Supreme Pontiff is the appropriate expression. I would humbly beg the author of this blog to consult Fowler’s English Usage and King’s English, and to read the diverse works of Dr Johnson to get an idea of what correct English not only “looks” like but also “sounds”. I wish you had less latinity and more clearness in your expressions. Thanking you.

3 janvier 2010 04:38

“Highest Pontiff” corrected to “Supreme Pontiff” (supreme happens to be Latin for highest). The translation ON THIS MESSAGE closely follows the Latin, and does not sound like English but like Latin too closely translated into English. It is mine, made for sole purpose of defending St Robert Bellarmine against a calumny related to this locus of his work De Romano Pontifice. It does not nor should not either claim any literary quality of mine, only a mere serveice to any reader unable to read St Robert’s Latin for himself.

3 janvier 2010 08:56
F.G.S.A a dit…

I personally have no problem with the latin language. Though i’m confined to a classical and not to a scholastic and mediaeval vocabulary. The only work of Bellarmine which i know and as a consequence of which i like, is the De Arte Bene Moriendi- which in my humble opinion many people should read. There are also the works of Jeremy Taylor, an Anglican divine on the same subject: Holy Living and Holy Dying which influenced much the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

3 janvier 2010 09:53
Hans-Georg Lundahl a dit…

I think that more books by St Robert Bellarmine should be read. And thus translated.

I do not think the translation should be strikingly Johnsonese, however.

3 janvier 2010 11:25

I note that some Divines in Protestant Communities such as Anglicans and Lutherans have:

1 approached Catholicism in Liturgy and view of Sacraments (Oxford Movement of 1830’s, more recently in Sweden);

2 even before that tried to salvage Catholic piety, like the books you refer to and which I have not read, like Giertz and Schartau in Sweden, not to mention their successor the recently deceased Bertil Gärtner (R.I.P.).

Unfortunately they do not constitute the mainstream of Protestantism or even of their own particular communities.

3 janvier 2010 11:35 
F.G.S.A a dit…

Yes, indeed, there was at a time a wave of “High-Churchianism” in the Scandinavian Lutheran Churches- but with the admission of women to their “orders” and like aberrations, it has been mostly likely sidelined, persecuted or even destroyed.

What do you think of Bossuet and his Gallicanism? Extraordinary and in my opinion, praiseworthy that a Bishop should at the same time live at the court, advise the King, without ceasing to administer his diocese, instructing the faithful under him and strengthening them in the Catholic faith and confuting the Protestants.

4 janvier 2010 09:21
Hans-Georg Lundahl a dit…

Have you seen the biography of St François de Sales? It was one of my dearest readings when converting some twenty years ago.

Both “pietism” and “high-churchianism” are sidelined or diluted. Problem is they never were the mainstream of Protestantism.

The Calvinism that St François fought (free-will as illusory or at least not changing eternal predestination either to glory or to shame) was in many countries THE Protestant confession.

5 janvier 2010 01:40

Catholic Herald about Anglo-Catholic continuity claim (link, click)

25 janvier 2010 01:29

Read also, about Anglo-Catholics, one of the chief concerned, the Tractarian and later convert Henry Cardinal Newman, as speaking (so to speak) in Apologia Pro Vita Sua.

25 janvier 2010 01:31
7) Own comment :

The mistranslation reminds me of this Protestant one of St Athanasius:

(link to article cited as saying:)

Perhaps our Protestant apologist is a bit disappointed that I have not yet engaged him in any quibbling about Greek. Well, he’s offered me a beauty of an instance; in fact, it’s his very favorite quotation from Athanasius, the one in which he pretends that Athanasius professes the doctrine of sola scriptura over and against Church councils. Speaking of the Arians, St. Athanasius says:

“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a council is needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in the divine Scriptures” (On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, 6).

Does St. Athanasius’ original Greek really say that Scripture is“sufficient above all things”? No. In a very simple sentence which a first-year Greek student should be able to translate correctly, St. Athanasius declares “For divine Scripture is more sufficient than all [other writings, councils, etc.].” The sentence in transliterated Greek reads Esti men gar hikanotera panton he theia graphe. Here we do not have an absolute statement, but a comparative one. To say that Scripture is the primary source of doctrine is not to say that it is the sole source of doctrine. I do not know of any Catholic theologian, doctor, or council of prelates of any period in the Church’s history who would not view arguments from Sacred Scripture as the more authoritative among various sources of doctrine. This quotation gives absolutely no support to the Protestant error of sola scriptura. The issue here in the Greek is subtle, yes, but seemingly too subtle for the Protestant apologist to have caught.

16 juin 2010 02:26

Same article also states (if truthfully I leave to scholars who have studied the Council of 680):

There is some question as to whether the emperor acted on his own, or in concert with Pope Sylvester. While the accounts contemporary to the event mention only Constantine, a statement made in the Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680) indicates Nicea was called by both the emperor and the Pope. It is interesting to note this statement was made during the general session, and was received as true without question or objection. Surely they would have known better, were it not true.

16 juin 2010 02:29
[Omitting new links of short link type which were also deleted. It is bothersome not to have short links to posts that interest you, to have to go back to the post where you linked to them … but some people want to make internet use bothersome for me.]
8) Short dialogue :
Nicholas a dit…

“but if the Pope erred giving precepts for vices or forbidding virtues, the Church would be obliged to believe vices good & virtues bad, unless she wanted to sin against her conscience.”

What is St Robert saying here? If the Pope is in ‘error’ then why are Catholic bound by conscience?

21 juin 2011 11:09
Hans-Georg Lundahl a dit…

If the Pope WERE in error Catholics WOULD BE obliged if it was IN A MATTER in which HE INTENDED TO BIND THE CHURCH.

And as that is absurd he cannot be in error on such an occasion.

Note that when it comes to SSPX vs Sedisvacantism, the latter are closer to St Robert Bellarmine and the former to Cajetan.

21 juin 2011 11:42 

Fr. Paul Natterer of Zaitzkofen (SSPX Seminary in Germany) stated in the sermon series Wie müssen wir zum Pabst stehen, he considered the position of Cajetan more balanced than that of St Robert Bellarmine.

21 juin 2011 11:45

Paul Natterer

21 juin 2011 11:47

It cannot happen that the Pontiff err precepting some vice, like usury; or forbidding some virtue, like restitution: since these are good, or bad by themselves.

Noting examples: look up Canon law of 1917, juridic work directed by Pacelli, look up its interpretation in 1943 (AAS=Acta Apostolicae Sedis), by same Pacelli become Pope Pius XII – if Pope he was. He ordered a monastery to pay interest to another monastery that year.

25 juin 2011 08:48

To F.G.S.A. forwarded from the newsletter Eleison Comments by Bishop Williamson:


A reader asks a vital question : « If a good Protestant has lived a good life but still firmly believes that the Catholic Faith is wrong, so that he does not even consider entering the Catholic Church, can he still be saved ?” The question is vital (from “vita” in latin, meaning “life”), because it is a question of eternal life or death for countless souls.

By way of answer, the first thing to be said is that every soul appearing at death instantaneously before God’s judgment seat will be judged by him with a perfect justice and with a perfect mercy. God alone knows the depths of a man’s heart which a man can hide from himself, let alone from other men. Men may misjudge, but God never. Therefore the “good Protestant” will be damned by himself or saved by God, exactly as God knows that he has deserved.

Nevertheless it stands to reason that if God wants all of us to be saved (I Tim.II,4), and requires of us to believe on pain of damnation (Mk.XVI,16), he will have let us men know what we must believe and what we must do to save our souls. What then must the “good Protestant” believe ?

At the very least any soul to be saved must believe that God exists and that he rewards the good and punishes the wicked (Heb.XI,6). If a “good Protestant” who has led “a good life” does not believe that, he cannot be saved. But many Catholic theologians go further and say that to be saved one must also believe in the Holy Trinity and in Christ as Redeemer. If these theologians are right, then there may be many more “good Protestants” who cannot save their souls.

And God may require of them to believe in more than just these absolute basics, depending upon how much opportunity they have had in life to learn of the Truth that comes from him. If they are ignorant of all the rest of the Catholic Faith, have they never come across it ? Possibly not. But possibly they have. I can remember my mother telling with admiration how a Catholic priest once answered all the serious questions of her “good Protestant” father, but there was no follow-up that I know of. If then “good Protestants” have even only once come across Catholic truth, why exactly did they not follow up ? Unless it was badly presented, they were in effect rejecting truth. Can they have rejected it without some fault? Then did they reject it innocently or wilfully ? “Good Protestants” easily consider themselves to be innocent, as do we all, but God is deceived by none of us.

However, there is also what a “good Protestant” must do to be saved. He may not know all that the Catholic Church infallibly requires of us in morals, but he does have at least the natural light of his in-born conscience. Now it may be truly difficult with original sin and with no help from the Catholic sacraments to follow that natural light of one’s conscience, but if one does seriously violate it or twist it out of true, it is easy to live and to die in mortal sin, a state in which no soul can be saved. Again, the “good Protestant” may plead ignorance of the fullness of God’s law as Catholics can know it, but is his ignorance truly “invincible”, i.e. innocent ? For instance, did he really not know, or did he actually want not to know, that artificial means of birth control are seriously displeasing to God ?

God knows. God judges. May he have mercy upon all “good Protestants”, and upon all of us.

Kyrie eleison.

16 août 2011 01:35 
Hans-Georg Lundahl a dit…

New short link to this post:

31 juillet 2013 04:32
[still works]
9) Comments under my third post, omitting first reference to his post, since using a disabled shortlink there, and also the series about my return to Catholicism.

On FB someone wrote:

“Roman Catholics believe we Protestants departed from that church in the sixteenth century. Protestant Catholics believe they departed earlier.”

From what? From same “Protestant Catholics”? Or from earlier Catholics in agreement with “Protestant Catholics” across a gap of some centuries?

You know the first is not true, and that the second gives you the choice between Orthodox (or Copts or Syrians) or a gap theory. And if a gap theory is uncomfortable in Genesis, it is _impossible_ in the exegesis of end of Matthew…. Afficher davantage

Now the cant goes: the Church was always there, but invisible. Sorry, will not wash. Unscriptural too. Here is why:

a) because the end of St Matthew is adressed to public messengers of the Gospel, so the promises were made to magisterium, not just to particular Christians;

b) because a city built on a mountain (and who or whatever is the Rock the Church is built on it) cannot be hidden.

If I recently left the Orthodox to go back to Rome/Écône, it is because Orthodox tend to copy Anglican smudges on Rome. Anglican, not Protestant. High Church, not Puritan. But calumnies about Spain or St Robert Bellarmine will not get me out of damnation, even if some believing them may be innocent, and also have valid Sacraments and themselves be on the way to heaven. And apart from agreeing with “Protestant Catholics” on their pet historical complaints, and disguising some beliefs (like those close to Purgatory and Indulgences) by other terminology, there is little more for “Protestant Catholics” there than in Rome. I did not go out of my way to look for it, either.

9 décembre 2009 04:05

… oh, I forgot about differences in detail. Not just terminology.

Many questions that for Rome are dogmatic are so for the Orthodox too, like licitness of holy images (VII-th Ecumenical Council).

Others are doctrinal. Like what happens after death to someone who has not effaced all sins by penance but is still going to get to Heaven?

a) tollhouse theory in Russia: soul after leaving body has to give up earthly things in a “tollhouse” in order to get to Heaven

b) nightmare theory – basically unless there are exceptions for saints some say all sleep until day of judgement – saying basically that Purgatory is no physical place, only a bad dream, anguishing enough, of those fallen asleep.

They agree with Rome that this could have been avoided by becoming real saints on earth, and that these souls need prayers, and that good deeds can take place of prayers and be offered up as prayers. Purgatory and Indulgences in a nutshell.

Or when was Mary the Virgin and Mother of God free from Original sin/full of Grace?

Depending on whichever you focus on, Orthodox agree with Catholics that she never had any sin personnally. And that she did grow in grace and eventually had enough of it for not to have fallen even if tempted as Adam and Eve. Different writers differ on when.

Catholics would just say “correct that to from the beginning.

9 décembre 2009 04:19

FB again:

“Moses declared to all Israel: “Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day, so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this law. They are not just idle words for you, they are your life,” Deuteronomy 32:46, 47.

“Notice the clear elements in these passages:

“1. The Word of which Moses spoke was written.
“2. The people can and must listen to it and learn it.
“3. In this Word they can find life.

“The people do not need any additional institution to interpret the Word.”

Really? Does that follow from the three points? Why then is the Mosaic legislation so full of references to obeying priests? Why do kohanim still speak like binding and losing over Jews?

But this is forgetting that it was about the law. It has been replaced by a New Law written in the hearts of men. One that can really be learned by heart, like the double command of charity or the ten commandments. But in both laws, there were and are unclear cases, where interpretation was and is needed.

9 décembre 2009 04:44 

“But almost all Roman apologists, for over three hundred years after the Council of Trent, argued that tradition does add to the Scriptures. Some Roman apologists believe that all binding tradition was taught by the apostles, while others believe that tradition evolves and develops through the centuries of the church so that there are traditions necessary for salvation that were never known to the apostles. It is impossible to know what the real Roman position is on this matter.”

a) Tradition does add to explicit content of Writ:

– the sign of the Cross
– fasting on wednesdays and fridays (now lightened in the West to friday abstinence – on the other hand lenten fast has been added to compensate)
– fasting the night before communion
– the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary
– the number of Bible books!
– the interpretation of OT prophecy as fulfilled in NT (many things about St Mary are written as OT types, rather than directly in NT)

“How did Paul react? Did he say that the Scriptures were not clear, and that only he as an apostle or the rabbis or the Sanhedrin could tell them what the Scriptures really meant? Or did he say that they should not expect to find the truth in the Scriptures because they were incomplete and needed to be supplemented by tradition? Or did he say that they were insulting his apostolic authority, and that they should simply submit to him as the infallible interpreter of the Bible? Or did Paul say that they should defer to Peter as the only one who could interpret the Bible? No! He did not say any of these things. The practice of the Bereans is praised in the Bible. They are called noble because they evaluated everything on the basis of the written Word of God”

– how Sermon on the Mount is and is not obliging, how it obliges some more than others (“if thou wilt be perfect”)

b) all doctrinally and morally binding Tradition is from the Apostles: signing with the cross, fasting on wednesdays and fridays, fasting before communion all started, the Dormition of our Lady happened, and all Bible books were written before the last Apostle, St John, left the earthly life. Which does not mean that later traditions (about miracles of St Martin) do not belontg to the tradition. They do, just as under OT purim and hanukkah as well as Septuagint day (abolished by anti-christian Jews at Jamnia) were added to the Mosaic feast days.

9 décembre 2009 04:47
10) Final comments anonymously made :

“All Scripture is inspired by God …”

As opposed to “Torah alone” or “Heptateuch alone” (Torah+Joshua+Judges = Samaritan canon).

This supports the reverence we have for writings by and about the saints after the Bible books were written.

9 décembre 2009 08:51
Unworthy as I am – I have had good teachers …

Answers to pretended divergence between Scripture and Tradition: 

“(1) The Bible teaches that the office of bishop and presbyter are the same office (Titus 1:5-7), but tradition says they are different offices.”

Really? Or maybe the office referred to as “bishop” (distinct from “presbyter”) was sometimes known by other names when NT was written. Anyway it is clear from Titus 1:5-7 that presbyters are ordained by Titus, also from Tradition that presbyters are ordained by what we traditionnally call bishops. The Bible shows Titus to have been one bishop himself ordained by St Paul, who also was ordained (Acts 13, if I recall correctly). 

“(2) The Bible teaches that all have sinned except Jesus (Romans 3:10-12, Hebrews 4:15), but tradition says that Mary was sinless.”

The Bible teaches that there is war between the snake and the woman, between its seed and her seed (Genesis ch. 3), and Mary is the woman referred to by God. But the war means there is no friendship between them. Thus Mary never made herself a friend of the serpent. 

The fleece of Gideon (somewhere in Judges) was wet when all was dry, thus Mary had grace when OT was still without the fulness of grace, and paganism had nearly none of it. It was dry when all around was wet, thus she was free from sin when everyone else sinned. 

“(3) The Bible teaches that Christ offered His sacrifice once for all (Hebrews 7:27, 9:28, 10:10), but tradition says that the priest sacrifices Christ on the altar at mass.” 

Is there any contradiction? Not if the sacrifice they offer is the same as the one he offered. Which is precisely the traditional doctrine. 


“Who needeth not daily (as the other priests) to offer sacrifices first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, in offering himself.” 

We do acknowledge that the One High Priest needs no offering for his own sins. Not just, as already known, because he has none, but because, as is fitting for someone symbolised by Aaronitic priests and continued by bishops and presbyters, he has once and for all fulfilled the rite. The same chapter ALSO calls him a priest after the order of Melchisedec. He “offered up bread and wine” (Genesis). 

“9:28 So also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; the second time he shall appear without sin to them that expect him unto salvation.” 

We do acknowledge that his sacrifice given once exhausts the sins. We do absolutely NOT pretend that it was offered for some sins, and mass is offered for others having occurred after it. Verse 25 has a comment in, which I will here quote: 


25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holies, every year with the blood of others: 


25 “Offer himself often”… Christ shall never more offer himself in sacrifice, in that violent, painful, and bloody manner, nor can there be any occasion for it: since by that one sacrifice upon the cross, he has furnished the full ransom, redemption, and remedy for all the sins of the world. But this hinders not that he may offer himself daily in the sacred mysteries in an unbloody manner, for the daily application of that one sacrifice of redemption to our souls. 

“10:10 In the which will, we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once.” 

Humanity was saved once by the cross, and yet human persons need baptism for salvation? Even so Christ offered his body and blood once, but we need it to be applied to our souls. Which happens when the priest offers this same oblation for us, and we communicate either by partaking of the sacrament or by desire of doing so when possible.

9 décembre 2009 08:54 

“(4) The Bible says that we are not to bow down to statues (Exodus 20:4, 5), but tradition says that we should bow down to statues.”

That is applying OT legislation. OT also says we shall not bow down to men (man is after all a statue of God, made by God, see also Mordochai answering Haman, book of Esther), and yet we see Apostles falling down on their faces before Christ. Why?

“He who hath seen me hath seen the Father.”

THAT has changed between Old and New.

“(5) The Bible says that all Christians are saints and priests (Ephesians 1:1; 1 Peter 2:9), but tradition says that saints and priests are special castes within the Christian community.”

Tradition says there are two kinds of priesthood: one which you have by baptism and confirmation, enabling you to take communion, one which you have by cheirotonia / ordination enabling you to makecommunion.

Saints are NOT a special cast among Christians, just a special case among departed Christians (such as you can demand intercession from rather than apply your intercession to). Every Christian life is in a way an exegesis of the love of God and neighbour, but when it comes to going beyond family and still closer than Bible times (like Jews, differring from Samaritans, accepted writings after Torah, Joshua, Judges), there is a difference between sth like ordinary wikipedia articles and protected quality wikipedia articles in the lives of the deceased. God provides the start by miracles in connection with them (remember Elisha who raised a dead when being buried?), Church goes on to recognise these miracles happened, were from God, and proves saintity in noteworthy degree of this or that one. Otherwise the Church would not even have inherited the powers of the Jewish Church, which canonised the prophets and their writings, which canonised miracles like the Hanukkah or the Translation of the Seventy.

9 décembre 2009 09:46

“(6) The Bible says that Jesus is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), but tradition says Mary is co-mediator with Christ.”

Not really. You are confounding the two titles “mediatrix omnium gratiarum” with “co-redemptrix”.

The first means she intercedes at least since taken up into heaven (Apostolic Tradition about Dormition), and that her intercession with the King of Heaven is powerful as was the intercession of Esther before the King of Persia. So, no grace she asks for is not given. No grace given was not asked by her.

“Christ is the omnipotence of divinity, Mary is the omnipotence of prayer”.

The second means she kept Christ company in a supreme way by her co-suffering when he redeemed us, also maybe that her education helped him do the right thing when fasting or praying for us.

“(7) The Bible says that all Christians should know that they have eternal life (1 John 5:13), but tradition says that all Christians cannot and should not know that they have eternal life.”

From 1 John 5:

“11 And this is the testimony, that God hath given to us eternal life. And this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son, hath life. He that hath not the Son, hath not life. 13 These things I write to you, that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God. 14 And this is the confidence which we have towards him: That, whatsoever we shall ask according to his will, he heareth us. 15 And we know that he heareth us whatsoever we ask: we know that we have the petitions which we request of him.

“16 He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask.”

One may individually know, reasonably speaking, that one is in the state of grace, that one has life, and yet not know that absolutely (“nobody knows if he is worthy of love or hatred”) or that one will never commit a sin that is to death. Also, “you” refers to the Church. Not to every individual, how could otherwise St John say that some have brothers who “sin to death”?

9 décembre 2009 09:46

latter posts are commenting on

What Do We Mean By Sola Scriptura?
By Dr. W. Robert Godfrey

9 décembre 2009 09:50


Please use the URL to access the cached copy of this page


Please use the URL to access the cached copy of this page


Please use the URL to access the cached copy of this page

“Moontruth”? Why?

Back when I was writing at Antimodernism, an MSN Group that was closed along with the others in February 2009, I posted a video called Moontruth, which showed how the pictures of Armstrong on Moon could have been faked, if fake.

Why, precisely, should specifically Geocentrics be interested in that, may one ask?

Well, let us put it like this: Geocentrism or static Earth means Universe is revolving at a very high speed every 24 h. around us. “Distant stars” – distant as measured by parallax, which is contestable with a Geocentric view, see previous posts – would be revolving at speeds higher than “the speed of light” as given by the experts.

I calculated that the limit for astronomical objects to be below that speed if rotating daily would be surpassed by Neptune – each and every day. And for Planets, it is not parallax, but angle of reflections of sunlight on planet, which makes the angles triangulation depends on:

First step: triangulate Moon distance by two points of Earth; on Equator: angles of sighting moon.

Second step: triangulate Sun distance by this reflection method, distance of Earth-Moon at that moment being known.

Third step: calculate planetary distances, including up to Neptune, by this method, distance Earth-Sun at that moment being an already known length. So, a method of mathematics called triangulation (which I have never questioned as such), and accepting that angle of light can be measured by light/shade configuration of planetary roundness, accepting also daily orbit of Neptune would on Geocentric terms be faster than given speeds of light, assumed in Einsteinian theory to be the fastest speed possible for all Universe. If a Geocentric – as I do – does not accept Einstein, that is no problem.

But even Moon would be moving very much faster around Earth than usually assumed by Astronomers, if Armstrong really landed there, and Earth is static, how did he survive? Hence the spontaneous interest of the video called “Moontruth”.


Other day I was thinking: yes, assuming Moon revolves, with Universe, around us daily, does add one speed to Moon. But in other respects Geocentrism takes away some speeds. On Moon too, since its supposed share in orbital speed of Earth is not existent if Geocentrism is true. Notably, heliocentrism adds to speeds we supposedly have to survive down here on Earth each day.

Wikipedia gives the speed references on article Earth as follows:

  • Average orbital speed: 29.78 km/s or 107,200 km/h
  • Equatorial rotation velocity: 1,674.4 km/h

Adding them up for a place on Equator at a time when the speeds add up rather than cancel gives 108,874.4 km/h and when they cancel out leaves us with supposedly 105,525.6 km/h to support.

But if I was right about Geocentrism, and wrong about posting Moontruth video – but was I? – what does that make Armstrong supporting when there?

Wikipedia gives Moon as distant diversely between:

  • 363,104 km
  • 405,696 km

which would make the mean diametre of Moon’s daily circle around Earth 768.800 km and the periphery, hence orbit, that times pi, I get 2,413,032 km mean orbit of Moon per day. Since a day or rather night and day has 24 h. it is easily seen that we have to divide by 24 in order to get the speed – about same as the one Heliocentrics suppose we endure every day.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Universitaire
de Paris X – Nanterre
Octava Nativitatis S.
Iohannis Baptistae
et Festum Pretiossissimi
Sanguinis Dni Ni Iesu Christi

Bonus question for astronomically interested readers: according to Heliocentrism, at mornings and evenings the orbital speed and equatorial rotation speed neither add up nor cancel, since at right angles. The highest and lowest speeds would be either midnight and noon or noon and midnight. Which one is it? Right now I am too tired to figure that one out, it is after all hot here!



Please use the URL to access the cached copy of this page

Further faults of fact in the Mystagogy post

This was checked by my friend Stephan Borgehammar, author of How the Holy Cross Was Found, I am, with his permission, reprinting what he found out:

The “horrible findings” seem to be partly errors of fact, partly misunderstandings.

The article of the Inquisition from 1647 is not quoted, so it can’t be assessed.

The papal statements from 1331 and 1920 cannot be identified on basis of the information given (Clemens VI was not yet pope in 1331 so in that particular case either the year or the name of the pope is wrong).

The papal statements of 1327 and 1907 would seem to be the following:

Medieval Sourcebook (internet resource): The following sentences taken from Marsilius of Padua and John of Jandun were condemned by John XXII, 1327[…]
(2) That St. Peter had no more authority than the other apostles, and was not the head over the other apostles; and that Christ left behind no head of the church, and did not appoint anyone as his vicar. (Latin original, quoted from Denzinger Enchiridion no. 942: “Quod beatus Petrus Apostolus non plus auctoritatis habuit quam alii Apostoli habuerunt [non fuit plus caput Ecclesiae quam quilibet aliorum Apostolorum], nec aliorum apostolorum fuit caput. Item quod Christus nullum caput dimisit Ecclesiae, nec aliquem suum vicarium fecit.” [] = variant reading from the concluding section of the bull.)

Pius X, 1907, Decr. “Lamentabili” – list of teachings of the modernists that the pope condemned:

55. Simon Peter never even supposed that Christ required him to exercize primacy in the church. (My* translation from Denzinger no. 3455: “Simon Petrus ne suspicatus quidem umquam est, sibi a Christo demandatum esse primatum in ecclesia.”)
There is a good, simple exposition by Jeff Ziegler of Catholic doctrine on the subordination of Paul here:

No honest Christian can object to what is said by Ziegler here.

Here ends the quote from Borgehammar.
*My=Stephan Borgehammars, not mine.




Please use the URL to access the cached copy of this page

Pseudoquote identified. What De Romano Pontifice, book IV, chapter V really says (quote)

Introductory note:

From my handwritten copy collationed with numeric photograph of page columns 968/969 in Second Edition 1588 of De Controversiis.

Trying to identify source of pseudoquote

“If the Pope some day imposed sins and forbade virtues, the Church is obliged to believe that these sins are good and these virtues are bad”

I debate with someone who goes to antiquated Protestant scholarship mistaking it for Catholic, and get close to a source in that antiquated Protestant scholarship, though it misquotes its source.

I identified the quote first as book one, chapter 4, c.=something else 5. That gave no clue whatsoever. Then I said, well, it is maybe volume or tome one, book four and chapter (=c.) five. Here we go. It does talk about Popes legislating on morals, and it does talk about legislating wrongly, and it does insist on obedience. But it does not say that if a Pope legislates wrongly in an important matter, we are still bound to obey the Pope. It says only that God who demanded of us to obey the Pope cannot permit him to legislate wrongly in such an important matter.

English translation by myself.

Source: Bibliothèque de Salchoire

De decretis morum On decrees on morals
Tertia propositio haec esse potest.Non solùm in decretis fidei errare non potest summus Pontifex, sed neque in praeceptis morum, quae toti Ecclesiae praescribuntur; & quae in rebus necessariis ad salutem, vel in iis quae per se bona, vel mala sunt, versantur.
The third proposition can be this one. Not only in decrees of the faith the Supreme Pontiff [=Highest Bishop]* cannot err, but neither in precepts of moral matters, which are prescribed to all of the Church; & which have their scope in things necessary for salvation, or in them that are good, or bad, by themselves.
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. Addimus SECVNDO, quae in rebus necessariis ad salutem, vel per se bonis, aut malis versantur; quia non est erroneum dicere, Pontificem in aliis legibus posse errare, nimirum superfluam legem condendo, vel minus discretam, & c.
FIRSTLY we say, that the Pontiff cannot err in precepts, which are prescribed for all the Church; since, as we said above, it is not absurd that a Pontiff err in precepts or judgements on particular matters. SECONDLY we add, which have their scope in things necessary for salvation, or in what is good, or bad by itself; since it is not erroneous to say that the Pontiff can err in other legislations, that is by making a superfluous law, or a not so well thought through, & c.
Ac vt rem totam exemplis declaremus; Non potest fieri vt Pontifex erret, praecipiendo aliquid vitium, vt vsuram; vel prohibendo virtutem, vt restitutionem: quia haec sunt per se bona, vel mala. nec potest fieri vt erret praecipiendo aliquid contra salutem, vt Circumcisionem, vel Sabbathum; vel prohibendo aliquid necessarium ad salutem, vt Baptismum, aut Eucharistiam; licet haec non sint per se bona, vel mala: vt autem iubeat aliquid quod non est bonum, neque malum ex se, neque contra salutem, sed tamen est inutile, vel sub poena nimis graui illud praecipiat, non est absurdum dicere posse fieri; quamquam non est subditorum de hac re dubitare, sed simpliciter obedire.
And in order to clarify all the matter with examples; It cannot happen that the Pontiff err precepting some vice, like usury; or forbidding some virtue, like restitution: since these are good, or bad by themselves. nor can it happen that he err precepting something against salvation, as Circumcision or Sabbath; or forbidding something necessary for salvation, as Baptism or Eucharist; even though these be not good or bad by themselves: but that he order something which is not good, nor bad out of itself, nor against salvation, but is only useless, or that he give that precept under too grave a sanction, is not abusrd to say it can happen; still, it is not for the ones under him to doubt about this thing, but simply to obey.
Probatur iam propositio; & PRIMO, quòd non possit Papa errare in praeceptis morum ad salutem necessariorum: quia tunc tota Ecclesia grauiter laederetur, et erraret in rebus necessariis, quod est contra promissionem Domini. Ioannis 16. Cùm venerit ille spiritus veritatis, docebit vos omnem veritatem. Quod intelligitur (vt minimum) de veritate necessaria ad salutem. SECVNDO, quia Deus tunc deesset Ecclesiae suae in necessariis; quandoquidem praecepit illi, vt sequatur Pontificem, & Pontificem permittit errare in necessariis. At certè si Deus nulli rei deest in necessariis, quantò minus Ecclesiae suae?
Now the proposition is proven; & FIRSTLY, that a Pope cannot err in precepts of usages necessary to salvation: since then all Church would suffer grieveous damage, and err in necessary things, which is against the promise of the Lord. John 16. But when that Spirit of Truth shall come, he will teach you all the truth. Which is understood (at the very least) about Truth necessary for salvation. SECONDLY, since God then would let down his Church in necessities; since he gave her the precept to follow the Pontiff, & let the Pontiff err in necessities. But surely, if God lets not one thing down in necessities, how much less his Church?
Quod autem non possit Pontifex errare in moribus per se bonis, vel malis, probatur. NAM tunc Ecclesia non posset verè dici sancta, vt in Symbolo Apostolorum vocatur. Nam sancta dicitur potissimùm ob sanctam professionem, vt alibi ostendimus; quia nimirum legem, & professionem sanctam profitetur, quae nil docet falsum, nihil praecipit malum. SECVNDO, quia tunc necessariò erraret etiam circa fidem. Nam fides Catholica docet, omnem virtutem esse bonam, omne vitium esse malum: si autem Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia, vel prohibendo virtutes, teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona, & virtutes malas, nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare.
But that the Pontiff cannot err in moral matters that are goo, or bad, by themselves, is proven. FOR then the Church could not be truly called holy, as she is called in the Apostles’ Creed. For holy she is most of all called because of her holy profession, as we have shown elsewhere; since indeed she professes a holy law and profession, which teaches nothing false, and gives no evil precept. THEN AGAIN, since then she would by necessity err also about the faith. For the Catholic faith teaches that all virtue is good, all vice is evil: but if the Pope erred giving precepts for vices or forbidding virtues, the Church would be obliged to believe vices good & virtues bad, unless she wanted to sin against her conscience.
I wonder what St Robert Bellarmine would have said about Benedict XV who in 1917 ceased to forbid the taking of interest as usury. Or about the canonist who counselled him so – Eugene Pacelli was the one responsible for preparing the then new code of canon law – becoming later Pope under name of Pius XII. To St Robert Bellarmine – as indeed to me too – taking interest on a loan of goods in themselves not productive, as is necessarily the case with the goods of exchange, “productive money” being as useless for exchange of values as yardsticks still growing as branches are for measuring, is in of and by itself wrong or evil. Yet, Pacelli counselled Benedict XV otherwise, and when Pope ordered one monastery to pay interest to another cleric (AAS for one of years 1943, 1947 or 1950). He has been much accused for being Hitler’s Pope – wrongly – but that is no cause to canonise him. HE and HIS modernisms are what made me doubt first that he was truly Pope, then that Papacy was the true succession of St Peter. What is amply clear is that St Robert Bellarmine did not know that and that a man who claims to have read him and cites this chapter as “if a Pope decrees vices or forbids virtues, the Church is obliged to obey him” is not very scholarly or even honest.

Hans-Georg Lundahl,
22 october 2009, St Caecilia,
in Musical Médiatèque of Paris

*Supreme Pontiff, I have also seen Sovereign Pontiff=usual title, Highest Bishop=what St Robert Bellarmine is talking about, the Bishop of rome being higher than others. Both are in Latin “Summus Pontifex”.



Please use the URL to access the cached copy of this page

Παιδόφιλος; Ἐγώ;

Πολυπαιδόφιλος εἰμί ὧσπερ Ἰάκωβ. Ἐςέργασα δε καλὰς παίδας: Ροῦβέντε, Σιμεώντε, Ληυίτε καἰ Ιουδα. Άλλ’ οὐχὶ πωποτε τουτους ἤρησα – ὧσπερ ουτ’ἐγώ.


Cornelius Krissilas a dit…

That is in ancient Greek.It says:
Am I a lover,friend of children?
I love children very much like Patriarch Jacob loved his children Ruvim,Symeon,Levi,juda.He raised them good.But he never loved them in an erotic way!
Me also, like Jacob.
(That’s a free translation.

25 février 2011 18:17

Hans-Georg Lundahl a dit…

Thank God that someone understands ancient Greek, and that I was not completely off the track: with “polypaedophilos” I meant I would like to have many children (and that is why the girls that interest me for marriage are not old maidens)!

26 février 2011 01:06

Hans-Georg Lundahl a dit…

OK, a ovoµa ending in φιλoc does not make the difference between “likes” or “would like” to “have already” or “have in the future” ….

27 février 2011 03:17

Hans-Georg Lundahl a dit…

Do you know a thing that is funny?

This message cannot be searched on google. Other messages on this blog can.

This other whole blog against atheism cannot be found by searches on google either:

At least that is the situation in France. How about Greece?

17 mars 2011 13:18

Hans-Georg Lundahl a dit…

Happy St Patrick’s day, by the way!

17 mars 2011 13:18

Hans-Georg Lundahl a dit…

One thousand views.

Any second thoughts about how to translate stergein? Has it changed meaning since Classic times?

Ἐςέργασα should of course be Ἐςέργεσα, I think.

12 août 2011 11:11

Hans Georg Lundahl a dit…

I have a lexicon in Greek French here:

ςέργω (omitting conjugation and examples)
1) aimer tendrement, chérir
(partic. en parlant de l’amour des parents pour les enfants) … en parlant de l’amour des enfants pour leurs parents … en parlant de l’amour conjugal … en parlant de l’amour fraternel … en parlant de l’affection entre amis … entre compatriotes … de l’amour des citoyens pour le roi, des soldats pour le chef ou prince qui commande … avec un n. de choses pour rég. ; 2) se contenter de, se résigner à, supporter [etc, was not exactly what I had in mind].

23 mars 2015 11:27

Hans Georg Lundahl a dit…

The dictionary is A. Bailly, Hachette, 1950.



Please use the URL to access the cached copy of this page


Some Experimental Challenges


Sir George Darwin corrected Galileo on Tides
F = GMm / R2
The Plot Thickens …
“‘The high tide,’ King Alfred said…
… ‘The High Tide and the Turn.’ “
Correction to Previous
For Math Freaks: I take it the gravitational constant is below zero …
Some Experimental Challenges

1) between Aristotelic/Modified Aristotelic and Newtonian-Gravitational view of the falling objects:

Remember Galileo’s experiment by which he tried to prove Earth rotating around its axis?

He dropped some weight from a pretty high tower, and the weight deviated to the West. His explanation was as Aristotelic as mine insofar as it took no account at all of Solar or Lunar Gravitation. If on the other hand you have Gravity, you are dealing with either Newton’s Heliocentric or Sungenis’ Geocentric explanation. And there is a way to find out which is the case.

If I as a Geocentric or Galileo as a Heliocentric was right in taking no account of Solar and Lunar gravitation, then the same height of tower will always result in the same displacement West of a falling weight, also true of whatever its own weight. It does not decide whether Galileo was right to think the weight fell in a void while the Earth rotated or whether I was right in thinking aether displaced by the primum mobile displaced the way the weight had to fall.

If on the other hand the gravitational theory is correct, then Sun and Moon passing over the tower at zenith would make a difference. As with tides, there would perhaps also here be an upward and a westward component of the resulting interfering force.

That difference would even decide between the two different gravitational tidal theories, insofar:

  • If there is a counterforce involved in anything touching the ground, such as water, it will not affect an object while still falling. Therefore the Sun will make a greater difference than the Moon. We are dealing purely with the force of gravitation, which is about ten times stronger of Sun than of Moon, since gravitation is proportional to mass and inversely proportional to distance taken into a square. Sun is greater than Moon in either, but when we take it into a square, then Sun retains the superiority of influence.
  • If there is just unequal displacement due to Solar or Lunar gravitation, then the Moon will make the greater distance. When distances to earth are cubed and the force is more or less inversely proportional to that (and 2Ma/r3 is a fair approximation of M/(r-a)2 – M/r2 ), the Moon takes advantage in influence. And yes, displacing the falling stone more inversely to its fall than it displaces Earth, is like displacing the tidal water mass on its side more than Earth.
  • Either way the greatest displacement West would happen at Noon or afterwards at Newmoon, when Moon and Sun exercise gravitational influence conjunctly with each other.

Note that each of the theories differentiated by this experiment is compatible with Geocentrism (no daily rotation of Earth, but of the Heavens) quite as well as with Heliocentrism/Geocentrism with daily rotation of Earth.

Note also that if the gravitational theory is univocally vindicated, then this is indirectly a vindication for a pre-Newtonian view of mass, which Galileo fostered by saying that “lightness” far from being a quality opposed to “heaviness” or “weight” is an absense of it. And that would through a light on the fact that the Church, despite an Aristotelian inheritance, did not condemn that position in the Galileo process. Coming from St Thomas Aquinas to this issue some ten years ago, that was the position that I thought least worthy of a Christian thinker in Galileo, and I thought the Church should have condemned that too.

2) to know if there is such a thing as an orbital velocity:

I have raised doubts on whether there is one ideal velocity which would neither allow an orbiting celestial body to orbit one heavier than itself. I have said that if this explanation were true, then it would immediately lead to quite another result than what Heliocentrics claim we see, namely with either too fast a velocity a planet close to a star would have reached escape velocity as it is called or with too slow a velocity it would have fallen into the star.

I have claimed that there is no such thing as an ideal orbital velocity between the two, or rather if there is that it cannot be very stable: artificial satellites are either held in place by spirits or will soon get below orbital velocity and fall down on Earth.

Now, if there is such a thing as orbital velocity, and all depending on forces acting according to laws of nature quite as applicable on Earth as in the Heavens, then one could have simulated such a balance between two forces one of which is velocity on Earth too.

I am not buying a string that holds a stone or a tub in which you motorbike or any solid obstacle to “escape velocity” as such a balancing force. I am asking for a force of attraction, not for a solid. Gravity is out of the question since any gravity between objects on Earth is far lesser than the Gravity Earth exercises on them. So, what about magnetism?

One piece of iron stands up in a skating rink. Another, smaller one, is shot at diverce velocities and diverse angles to that one, and either one could be the magnet, depending on what is practical, but it will be better to scale if it is the larger and fixed object which attracts smaller ones. Ice will get rid of as much friction as one can at all for the moving iron object.

If escape velocity and fall-in-slowness have between them naturally such a thing as an orbital velocity, even if it will not be maintained due to the fact that there is (according to modern science) at least some friction even on ice, an approach to it will be maintained for at least half an orbit of the moving iron piece around the fixed one, supposing you have managed to find the proper angle and velocity. Maybe even more.

3) to know in general whether Geocentrism can function:

Since Geocentrism can function with or without the Newtonian Gravitation as opposed to the Aristotelic view of falling objects and of opposition to light and heavy, but cannot function without say a God moving the Universe daily around Earth or somewhat lesser spirits than that conducting orbits that are not (or at least not only) explained by Gravitational Laws, find out whether there is the supernatural.

That does not involve Psychic research, it involves going to documentation about Miracles and seeing how well or ill they are documented.

To my satisfaction they are very well documented. Here is another page that I dedicate to documentation of Jesus Christ, his Resurrection, other persons involved with the Miracles of the Christian tradition, like my second latest article on Moses, as well as some philosophical arguments against misconceptions of what is the nature of God and what difference God makes in explaning the Universe. Not just explaining “for what purpose” as I explained in the very latest article, but as explaining “how come”. Enjoy:
somewhere else

I also dedicate one blog entirely to arguments about anything ranging from creation of plants and animals “each after its kind” to the Tower of Babel:
Creation vs Evolution

On it I have polemised against AronRa, Dawkins and P Z Myers. Enjoy the reading, folks!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou
St Martin I, Pope and Martyr

PS, since I might be writing further on the blog “somewhere else” I here link to the two so far last messages, but first to the directly Resurrection related one:

somewhere else : What a blooper, Dan Barker from Atheist League!

To Moses:

somewhere else : So, Dionysus was a Copy of Moses, may One Presume?

And against Atheistic Cosmology in General:

somewhere else : Atheism Very Shortly Stated – and Refuted




Please use the URL to access the cached copy of this page

For Math Freaks: I take it the gravitational constant is below zero …

…point zero zero one and a few zeros more before we get to numbers? Recall this?

Sir George Darwin coorected Galileo on Tides
F = GMm / R2
The Plot Thickens …
“‘The high tide,’ King Alfred said…
… ‘The High Tide and the Turn.’ “
Correction to Previous
For Math Freaks: I take it the gravitational constant is below zero …
Some Experimental Challenges)

73,470,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg (M)
147,761,591,201 km2 (square of r)


73,470,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg (M)
152,706,741,884.41 km2 (square of r+a)

Should give the same value as:

937,198,014,000,000,000,000,000,000 kgkm (2Ma)
56,799,407,896,273,199 km3 (r3)

Recall how I got it pretty wrong using the calculator function on the computer? Well, now I did it on paper, dividing upper and lower parts of each division with a million first:

73,470,000,000,000,000 kg (M)
147,762 km2 (square of r)


73,470,000,000,000,000 kg (M)
152,707 km2 (square of r+a)

Should give the same value as (but here I divided up and down by a milliard, which some US folks call a billion):

937,198,014,000,000,000 kgkm (2Ma)
56,799,408 (r3)

What I got was, for first difference between two ratios, each of which is an inversed square rule:

16,101,065,993 g/m2 = 16,101,066 kg/m2 = 16,101 tons/m2

… and for second try, the ratio that is an inversed cube rule:

16,502,191,642 g/m2 =16,502,192 kg/m2 = 16,502 tons/m2.

Now, remember, this is not the actual tidal generation force. You must multply that by mass of earth and by gravitational constant.

Guess you see now that gravitational constant must be a very low decimal, so that multiplying by it equals dividing by a very large number.

Because when we are only dealing with this formula, without multiplying by f, we get a pressure upwards and westwards which in combination would far outweigh the one atmosphere pressure downwards which we get at sea level.

Of course, multiplying by mass of earth, which is in kg, would involve multiplying kg by kg. Is there any kind of scientific unit that goes with kg2/m2 rather than with kg/m2? Would gravitational constant have an implied …/kg so as to avoid the kg2? I quite frankly do not know, only that if this works out, the gravitational constant must be very many magnitudes below the proportion “*1”.

I also know that the very exact nature of the gravitational constant is one of the things that, on any Newtonian view, makes the Universe function, and is therefore one of the arguments given for an intelligent creator.

Now, I am not sure whether this works out with modern science in general, or not. Some scientist is bound to know.

However, assuming it works, we still have the conundrum how the physics work. Especially neap tide physics with heavenly body in nadir. Lalande’s explanation that earth withdraws from waters opposite star (in case of spring tides) implies (at a first glance, which may be corrected) that in neap tides earth withdraws in two different directions at once. Sir George Darwin’s explanation of Earth having a centrifugal force equal to the Lunar Gravitational Pull (M/r2) because the common centre of Earth and Moon is within the Earth poses the problem that there is no symmetry with the explanation for Solar Tides, since the common centre of Earth and Sun is – on Newtonian and Heliocentric views – not in the Earth but in the Sun.

And if we assume spiritual and therefore intelligent and voluntary explanations, we may assume that they are able to do something which looks like the math we have been dealing with, without those conundra in the explanation.

The best I can get without directly involving the supernatural would be to say that Lunar and Solar gravity differences towards the heavenly bodies provoke the principal waves as such, but that they are occurring one octave above the source of the oscillation, i e with twice as many wave tops. Mechanism for which is not known. But final purpose of which (assuming there to be minds or a mind behind it) is: not to disrupt Earth by fewer and more profound tidewaves than we actually get.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
La Clairière
St Martin I, Pope and Martyr

Update, Gaudete Sunday, 16-XII-2012:

The gravitational constant is indeed below zero …. point zero, zero, zero one. I looked it up, and if the sudokuable numeral at its start is followed by decimals, you need to “multiply by 10– 11” or more properly speaking divide by 1011. It also includes multiplications and divisions by certain basic units (If anyone wonders, no: I still do not think that decimal fractions are numbers, the gravitational constant, if there is such a thing, is obviously not a number but a proportion, those too are written with numerals)./HGL



Please use the URL to access the cached copy of this page