Dancing Around a Conundrum - OR Defecting from the Faith?

Which of the two have I been doing the years from 2001 to present? It might be for me to ask but not for me to answer. But it might still be for those who answer to know the facts as I present them.

...perpetuos successores ...

The Council convened by Pope Pius IX in the Vatican, outside the city walls and across the Tiber of Ancient Rome defined as solemnly as it could that:

1) St Peter was supreme head of the Church;

2) He has perpetual successors.

Neither of these propositions is very doubtful, neither of them is for instance contested by the Orthodox - as if that would automatically make a thing very doubtful. Of course, in and of itself it would not. What they do contest is that:

3) These perpetual successors are the successive Popes.

Gregory Palamas, the doctrinal victor of Fifth council of Constantinople version the third and last, was after that council and with that council corrected by Ancient Rome condemning a few doctrines of Constantinople V^ter - one of them being that the Blessed not even in Heaven see God in His Nature, but even there only in His Uncreated Energies. That was condemned by Ancient Rome as opposed to "we shall see him as he really is".

Apart from exactly that point Gregory Palamas was not condemned in any doctrine by the Popes in Rome (he had been condemned in doctrine and person, I think, by first and second convenings of Constantinople V) until - Vatican I. The same guy who condemned one part of his Petrology - he concurred in first two theses but differed from Innocent III or Vatican I by thesis:

3 b) Each local bishop with ordinary jurisdiction is successor of St Peter.

- the same guy who directly condemned with Vatican I what may seem identical to this, namely at least:

3 c) The college of bishops are collectively successors of St Peter

OR, at most also and identical to 3b this:

3 d) The college of bishops are individually successors of St Peter

SINCE the words "collectively" and "individually" are missing from that condemnation; well the very same guy, Pope Pius IX, who possibly condemned Palamas' Petrology there, had just a few years earlier CONFIRMED the Mariology of Gregory Palamas, against if not the intended faith at least the extant formulations of Sts Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventura. The Staroveri who, under a charismatic leader called Avvakum who was burned on the stake by the Russian Orthodox Church, affirmed not only certain previous Russian particularities in ritual enumerations (five or seven pieces when cutting the host before consecration, which two fingers and which three fingers represent the two natures and the three persons), but also, as inheritors of Gregory Palamas, the Immaculate Conception. Such Orthodox as today attack the doctrine are often falling back on ... St Thomas Aquinas. It would seem that doctrines have crossed paths between Papal West and non-Papal East.

Now, if Vatican I was not only a valid but also a fully ecumenical council, then we must indeed conclude that Gregory Palamas was wrong - at least if intended condemnation was that of 3 d, since that is identical to 3 b=Palamas' Petrology.

May it have been anything else?

If Palamas was right about Petrology, Vatican I would not have full Ecumenicity due to only Pope Pius IX's convening and approving it. For if so Bishops who were not in communion with the Pope due to his claim of being Supreme bishop and who did not approve Vatican I may have had formal apostolicity. Vatican I would either have been what it was according to them - a Conciliabulum of Heretic Filioquists - or at best, what Constantinople V^ter was (or seems to my knowledge to have been) in the eyes of Rome back then: a Council which was local and not fully confirmed.

But if Palamas was wrong, it would seem that we must have the perpetual successors of St Peter even if looking at the Papacy alone and at no other bishop's see. And that poses the problem what "perpetual successors" mean.

John Lane cited Cardinal Billot who said there would often be interregna. I did not hear him cite precisely Billot as saying they could even be of significant length.

Gaps in Temporal Succession of Popes are to Papal Claims what Gaps in Series of Intermediate Forms are to Evolution: it is not their number, but their width as gaps that problematises the theory. The more often the See of Rome is occupied between St Peter and Peter the Roman the more often will it be vacant. If the number of Popes is 300, the number of vacancies is 299. If the number of Popes is 250, the number of vacancies is 249. If for any given period of forty years there was one vacancy prolonged all that time, then that is an occurrence of 1 per those forty years of sedisvacancy. But if the Popes elected during that period are all valid and there were Popes lected during that era, then 1 Pope reigning most of that time would imply two sedisvacancies, two Popes would imply three sedisvacancies, and so on and so forth.

The less long the See is vacant in any given interregnum, the more often interregna occur.

I am not at all sure who wrote an interregnum could theoretically last twenty or thirty years "though we must pray for this not to happen." As I heard it was not Billot, but some later guy, whose name John Lane did not pronounce loud and clear enough. I have a half-memory in the back of my head of having read this before, and it being from Ludwig Ott. A man who, as I recall, was neither Geocentric nor even Young Earth Creationist.

Was John Paul II one of the perpetual successors?

Assisi I and II, 1986, 1992. Excommunication of Archbishop Lefèbvre. Affirming evolution and Galileo being right.

Was Pius XII one of them?

When Padre Ruffino Niccacci hid Jews in the Cathedral of Assisi, he dressed them up as Franciscans. When German Soldiers (this was under the Salò Republic = German Occupation except for liberated zone outside Mussolini's domain altogether), when German Soldiers entered the Cathedral, they sang the Gregorian Plain Chant in Latin, according to the Office of the Church. As soon as the German Soldiers left they sang the Jewish office in Hebrew.

He had the blessing of his bishop. Who had, though that was not said by Alessandro Ramati, the blessing of Pope Pius XII. Was the Church exorcised after these Jew savings had given them the opportunity for desecration of a Catholic Church with the practise of a non-Catholic religion? Maybe so, but I have not heard of it.

Father Feeney was excommunicated by Pius XII. It was Paul VI who reconciled him, and allowed him to recite as creed testifying his orthodoxy the Athanasian one.

And if Pius XII did not himself say evolution was right, at least he allowed it to be discussed in Humani Generis. Exactly as in 1820's the books teaching Copernican doctrine were no longer on the index.

And precisely as Paul VI, Pius XII allowed explicitly, though as in other case "only for grave reasons" the practise of Natural Family Limitation, known as Natural Family Planning.

I did not find that one in St Thomas Aquinas except as a venial sin.

He also advised, as Cardinal Pacelli, the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici, in which taking usury is no longer automatically sinful.

I did not find that in St Thomas Aquinas except as a mortal sin to do and an error to defend. FSSPX men defended the position of 1917 Code by referring to Inflation and thereby identifying the taking of interest to taking a refund for damnum emergens - the damnum emergens from the loan being that the money nominally same sum was worth less in buying power when loan was repaid.

Of course, there is the dictum, which I forgot when angry at Pius XII, that where there are sufficient reasons, venial sins are not sinful at all in certian occurrences, or that that may even be the case for things that are usually mortal sins.

That is the conundrum, now for what I did about it:

Up to St Bartholomew's day 2001, I accepted that evolution was licit though not preferred teaching, NFP licit though not preferred behaviour. I accepted the theology of non-obedience to man for obedience to God, or of non-obedience to unclear papal teaching for obedience to earlier clearer one, as formulated by Mgr Lefèbvre. And so on.

I was not happy, but that was due to external circumstances, I had no access to SSPX chapels in Malmoe, Sweden.

The eve of that day, I read in an astronomy handbook from 1980 or so that the largest observed parallax, that of proxima Centauri, was 0.76 arch-seconds back and forth per year. And that the largest proper motion was 10 seconds one direction per year, year after year. Less than 1 second per half year is less than 10 seconds per year, by a ratio of 1:20. And the largest parallax was less than 1 second.

In St Thomas Aquinas, I had read that stars are moved by angels.

That night I had a moment of blackness - not blackness as menace or as evil, but simply absense of visible light. In that moment shone forth one idea, about as clearly visualised or audialised as an "aha" or less. After it I immediately started piecing the strings together in words about that idea. I counted it as a revelation of God. But I have defended the idea in the words of men and with the arguments of men.

Briefly: since angels could be causing what is falsely classified as parallax by astronomers and it could be a proper movement, parallax does not, unlike what I had thought since my teens, prove heliocentrism. Since angels act as wills, not as mere vectors, they could be causing all the Tychonian System quite independently of the masses of any heavenly body. All the Tychonian System corrected by orbits being (for sun and moon each year and month) elliptical or as ellipsis on ellipsis rather than circle on circle.

This means that Bible and Scholastic philosophy were right. And that Pius XII was wrong and should be opposed for not defending them, insofar as he did not.

I had already seen a discrepancy between the story of the Dormition and part of the text of ... a discrepancy which I retracted ...

If Pius XII was no Pope or ceased to be Pope before he died there had to be another Pope during his lifetime. Fr Brian Houghton had already enumerated someone condemned by Pius XII in the same breath as Palmar de Troya, and therefore I sought that providential branching out to avoid Pius XII in Palmar de Troya.

It took me some days to get hold of their site on the internet. When I did I found that Popes from Pius IX up to and including Paul VI were prisoners in the Vatican and that Paul VI had had falsified acts, like the promulgation of Novus Ordo Missae.

OK, acts by Pius XII being falsified was as good as Pius XII not having lasted to hsi death as Pope to me.

I tried to notify Palmar de Troya of my submission to Gregorio XVII, but failed - at least I failed in getting an answer.

Only fourteen months later, in October 2002, did I find out that Palmarian Catechism included sayings attributed to the Blessed Virgin which contradict St Augustine on there being three dimensions to symbolise the Three Persons of God. I left Palmar de Troya, provisorically, and stopped defending it, but did not attack it. I felt I could not quite trust my conclusions about who was Pope and who was not in the latter part of the XX^th and early part of XXI^st centuries.

I had encountered and debated, defending Palmar de Troya, Michael I. He was at least a Geocentric. But he had not my take on perpetuos successores and he did not think white flour could be valid matter ingredient for the Blessed Sacrament. One take was saying that "totus ex grano tritici" meant what it does not mean, namely "ex toto grano tritici". Another was saying that the bleaching agent added to take away yellow tinge of colour and which might be residual in parts per million or so was an addition making the matter invalid. It seemed obvious to me that he had wanted a fool proof excuse for classifying the Eucharist in Novus Ordo as invalid and therefore all the masses said in communion with Paul VI and successors as invalid excepting possibly parts of Eastern Europe (where, as we know, the Church had had other fish to fry, with Commies and all, than the question whether Popes in Vatican were valid Popes: he also took that into account). He was living the years in which the Beast forbade the Continual Sacrifice. If he was right, he ended that era last Gaudete Sunday, when he had been ordained priest on the day before and when he was ordained bishop. I think and I thought he was wrong. I thought and I think that "totus ex grano tritici" forbids adding or replacing with other grains as well as of course using adulterated merchandise with gypsum replacing some quantities of the flour. I have indications capitalism back in the Twenties and Thirties was that bad that such fraud was an issue. Unless it was only so insofar as it still is, always someone trying to make a good deal out of unfair prestations.

I gave up on perpetuos successores being necessarily the Popes of Rome. But accepting Orthodox ecclesiology does not automatically mean become Eastern Orthodox.

I did not until in 2005 I had another revelation if you like to call it that (I took it so at the time), meaning that "from the Father and the Son" and "from the Father alone" both meant "essentially from the Father, but then as each person is to the other two, so are the other two to each other: Holy Ghost from Son (proceeding), and Son from Holy Ghost (born), because they are to each other as the Father is to them from Whom is born the Son and from Whom proceeds the Holy Ghost".

When I accepted it, I thought Photius might have had the better terminology. When I did something about it and was already in there, I saw I was wrong: St Athanasius had clearly written that the Son is from the Father ALONE, BORN but the Holy Ghost is from BOTH, PROCEEDING.

It seemed to me the Orthodox were praying for me because I had been too talkative, so I didn't openly say this when getting first a Communion then a Confession Chrismation and Communion from an Orthodox priest, Christmas day 2006 and January 2 2007. When I returned to the parish where I had been preparing my Orthodox conversion, I found myself trapped, spiritually: I felt guilt for not having stated my position to the priest. I talked to the deacon. I left the mass. One man went out, saw me sitting divided a piece of bread - a blessed bread, from same loaf as the host to be consecrated - and threw it on the road. I took it as a sign of excommunication.

I tried to confess again 2009. By then I had a lot of bitterness in my heart for letting myself get trapped into an excommunication and against them who abused that position to pray for my continued poverty and celibate. I left the confession and the Church without absolution. Next confession was in St Nicolas de Chardonnet: Benedict XVI lifting the excommunications had temporarily given me back some hope for himself. And made it seem less erroneous than otherwise of FSSPX to accept him.

It has seemed to me preferrable seeking marriage even before I get perfect doctrinal and pastoral clarity on these issues, but at same time it has seemed to me others wanted me to be a monk and a penitent lifelong for such totally imaginary sins - imagined by them - as making myself the Pope or anything. Seeking the Pope and being even prepared to seek him in the guise of a Roumanian Orthodox bishop is not at all the same thing as making oneself the Pope.

And not hastening to submit to a superior's implicit demands did not seem to me the same thing as braving explicit ones, which he would have had to put in words and defend. With the possibility for me, if I thought his defense unorthodox, to withdraw obedience. Or, if I found his defense erroneous, with the possibility to defend my position, because I was told where I was being attacked. Or if I found his defense correct to submit.

When it comes to Geocentrism, I do not think I will find it correct to submit to Heliocentrism or to withdrawing my arguments. When it comes to Pope Pius XII, I hold it as certain that he was more than duly impressed by the "competence" of modern scientists. When it comes to Eastern Orthodox, I am certain they are not the Church alone, I am certain they often submitted even worse than Pius XII to modern expertise, due to Communist pressure, I am certain the ones I have had ecclesiastical communion with wanted me to submit so too and that some are very bitter against Catholicism, about World War II, especially in Serbia.

I was once shown martyrs who had been in diplomatic conflict with Austria and then martyred by the Turks, the Brancoveanu family. It seems to me it seemed to the ones showing me that that they wanted me to repent of Austrian guilt in their martyrdom. But only guilt in Austria for the Brancoveanus would have been not making a crusade against the Turks to rescue them who had ot asked for rescue. And Orthodox are so often blaming Latins for joining the Crusades that Alexios Komnenos DID ask of them ... can we ever get it right with them? Should we bother to try?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Georges Pompidou
Sunday and St Charles Borromeo
4-XI-2012

With myself, I am not sure FSSPX or is any better. But I have not found doctrinal surety among the parishes in communion with Rome either.

Looking for the Pope ... (bis)

One mission of my former MSN Group Antimodernism was seeking out the true Pope - debating with all the claimants. Here* and here* you find a debate between one sedisvacantist rejecting all of them and a certain Prakash Mascarenhas, spokesman for David Bawden / Michael I (actually at least materially bishop since Gaudete Sunday 2011 - after an election considered valid by himself and Praksh among a few others that took place in 1990 after a sedisvacancy purportedly since 1958). It is the latter who added his opponent to the debate as "Pope Kookius I 2003 to present", that is his debating style./HGL

*2012-11-04. URL:http://www.geocities.ws/prakashjm45/popekookius1.html. Accessed: 2012-11-04. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6BvBiz9mg)

Sola Scriptura or Tota Scriptura?

Series:
	Sola Scriptura or Tota Scriptura? Did Benedict XV call Geocentrism in Question? other look on same: On : Benedict XV, To/From : mhfm1, Dates: 29-VII - 4-VIII-2013 Are "Talking Stars" Ramandus or Oyerasu acc. to Baruch? A Christian Also Could Say: there is no religion higher than truth ...

"Moreover I also assert that these problems are themselves caused on the Christian side by the inerrantist, literalist, ‘sola scriptura’ assumptions of conservative Protestantism."

source

Inerrantism means: all of the Scripture is God's word and therefore inerrant. Tota Scriptura. Obviously what a bad or stupid guy says is not inerrant per se, but the statement that he says it is inerrant. "The fool has said in his heart: there is no God". What the fool has said in his heart is not inerrant, but that he has said so in his heart is.

Sola Scriptura means: only Scripture is God's word and therefore a religious authority. Again, the application does not go immediately to each and every absurdity, like denying the Trinity because that word does not figure in Scripture. Arians (the Homoean school) and Jehovah's witnesses have taken it to that extreme, however.

Literalism again subdivides: must all of Scripture be believed in literal sense or must Scripture be believed only in literal sense? Once again: any application important enough to be an agenda does not go to absurdities. Not every phrase belongs to the literal sense of the text in its own literal sense. And sometimes parables are used - not for truth of their literal sense, but for what can be understood by them.

Now: Sola Scriptura is Protestantism. It was the principle of Reformation. Inerrantism as to Tota Scriptura is "fundamentalism" as the word is understood today.

A Protestant who believes the 66 books are totally inerrant, a Roman Catholic who believes the 72 books are inerrant, a Russian Orthodox who belives the even more books of his canon are inerrant are equally "fundamentalist". But they are not equally Protestant. Because the Russian Orthodox admits, beside Scripture, also iconographic and liturgic tradition, and Seven Councils; the Roman Catholic furthermore 20 or 21 Councils and Popes up to present or Pius XI (or almost any limit in between) as religious authorities.

Then again there is literalism. If you are against non-literal senses, you are an extreme of the Antiochean tradition, maybe a Nestorian. Even they did not believe that the lady making a feast for retrieval of a coin belonged as such to Christian dogma. Or that God had hands or eyes before the Incarnation. If you are against literal sense of some historic passages, you are an Alexandrian extremist, like Origen. But if you believe all Bible history must be believed literally, but not for its own sake, therefore not only nor even mainly literally, you are the Patristic mainstream, like St Augustine or St John Cassian.*

Hans Lundahl
on Sunday 9 March 2008 19:44
this was posted on Antimodernism

PS:

At least: the exegesis of St John Cassian and St Augustine seem to be the mainstream of the West. If pure literalism and pure allegorism have remained accepted in the Orthodox Calchedonian East, I do not know that, but I do not know the opposite either. HGL

*The link did not open, so I cannot repost it. However, it went to some kind of explanation of either St Augustine taking task with both pure literalists denying the allegoric sense or pure allegoricists who deny the literal sense: he said we must believe about the Ark of Noah, both that it was the only haven of safety where one could be saved from the waters of the flood and that it was an allegory for the Church which is now the only haven from Sin and Damnation. The Quadriga Cassiani means that each passage has (up to?) four senses: the literal and three different spiritual ones, namely allegoric by which OT signs represent Jesus Christ and the Church, the moral by which OT and NT good persons are examples to follow in our lives, the anagogic by which even especially NT points forward to the Eternal Heavenly Glory yet to come, as to us who still live here on earth.

A Thread Where First Message was by Quarefremuntgentes

Identic start on both: 1) A Thread Where First Message was by Quarefremuntgentes, 2) One group member promoted Hutchinson


He posted, Sunday, 2 November 2008 08:27 (European time, it might still have been Saturday 1 November where he was):

Robert J. Hutchinson: Atheists take credit for science when they had nothing to
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Bible-Guides/dp/1596985208/ref=pd_sim_b_6
9:10 PM PDT, October 17, 2007, updated at 10:48 AM PDT, October 19, 2007

For the past 400 years, the partisans of irreligion-from the Marquis de Sade to Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins-have deliberately misrepresented the way science actually developed in the West as part of their ideological crusade against Judaism and Christianity.

What's worse, the partisans of atheism have been intellectually dishonest in the extreme: They have tried to take credit for the development of science when, in fact, they had little if anything to do with it.

Many of the most ideological and dogmatic of atheist crusaders, although continually referring to science, and seeking to use science to justify their own philosophical assumptions and declarations, were not scientists themselves.

In dramatic contrast, most of the true giants of empirical science-the people who founded entire scientific disciplines or who made landmark scientific discoveries-were primarily devout Christians who believed that their scientific studies, far from being in conflict with their religious faith, ultimately was dependent upon it.

My response (Monday, 3 November 2008 10:55):

Ah, a book link with an extract!

I was just wondering where this came from and why!

"most of the true giants of empirical science-the people who founded entire scientific disciplines or who made landmark scientific discoveries-were primarily devout Christians who believed that their scientific studies, far from being in conflict with their religious faith, ultimately was dependent upon it."

I was reflecting on the quote yesterday, and forgot "most". Here is what I thought upon that misunderstanding:*

Hippocrates reputedly founded western tradition of medicine and reputedly was a pre-Christian pagan. Freud reputedly founded psychoanalysis and reputedly was an atheist apostate from the synagogue. Are these reputations wrong, are these disciplines no sciences or are they exceptions? Or do you distinguish between them? On which side do you then put things like Darwinism, Heliocentrics, microphysics (sizes below what is seen in optical microscopes)?

Let us say medicine were actually founded by a devout Christian - how come it was attributed to a pre-Christian pagan? It would be a cock-and-bull story like that on Christianity founded by St Constantine and then retrospectively attributed to Christ. The answer in both cases is that Christians were around, even lots of them, in St Constantine's day, and so were doctors in the days of Christ. St Luke, remember. He was a disciple of Hippocrates before becoming one of Christ. The doctors who had failed to cure the bleeding woman cured by Christ's garment may have been hippocratic or Jewish or both in combination. I do not claim to know.

I happen to believe that most true and complete sciences - as distinct from both secondary applications and pseudo-sciences - came from before the time of Christ. Euclid is as pre-Christian as Hippocrates, and so is Aristotle. In technological discoveries the really useful ones were made before Christ. Adam, Tubal-Cain, Noah. A penitent, a tyrant and a just prophet: agriculture, metallurgy, viticulture. Grammar was made by God - Adam adding only the names for each animal species. C S Lewis cites anaesthetics as the one discovery that is really useful and really late. But wine can be used for that.**

Hans Lundahl

*No need for him to answer what I thought, since it was based on a misunderstanding of what had been stated, as said.

**One of the times when moral theologians considered it licit to get drunk was getting so soak drunk that a leg or arm with gangrene could be amputated without patient fighting too much.

"Antigone's flaw"

In the following linked text ...
http://www.nhinet.org/lines.htm

...Patricia Lines recharacterises Antigone's moral character to flawed. We learn that she is "self centred" - according to modern psychological analysis. We have first of all no indication that the Pagan Greeks regarded that as hubris, and second of all, the charge makes anyone "self centred" if centred on a difficult situation one-self is facing.

I am not very subtly reminded of the reading of Hippolytos, in which he commits the "hamartia" of insulting his stepmother and therefore his father. I had the displeasure to be examined on precisely that play, admiring Hippolytos myself and by an examinor who at every cost had to find a tragic flaw in Hippolytos - i e in the main character.

I wonder, what is the tragic flaw of Oedipous in Oedipus in Colonis? What it was back in Oedipus Rex, there is no doubt, at least not to Aristotle's mind. But in the follow up?

Actually, there is a story about a tragic flaw in Antigone: it is Creon's, just as Creon committed another tragic flaw in Oedipus in Colonis, when trying in vain to secure the sacred relics of Oedipus for Thebes. And just as Theseus commits a tragic flaw in Hippolytos, when asking his father to kill his son.

Let us face it: Greek Tragedy is - at least in these extracts, left intact by Christians - anti-totalitarian. It says there are things a ruler must not command or forbid. It says there is a limit on the ruler's claims on the citizen, as well as on the wisdom of the ruler.

A certain modern communist school of intellect finds this disgusting. The tragic figure with the tragic flaw cannot be Creon, Creon and Theseus: it must be Antigone executed by Creon, Oedipus persecuted by Creon to return from the exile which left Creon in power, Hippolytos put to death by the wish of Theseus innocently accused of an incestuous adultery he never did commit. Because, if so, the tragic flaw is in an individual who had the hubris to face the state when the state was unjust.

This state-friendly rereading of state-sceptical tragedies reminds me of Jew-friendly rereadings in which Shylock is the tragic hero of Shakespeare's play. Of course he is that to a modern pro-jewish reader, who sees any sneers at Jews as so much unprovoked persecution on part of prejudiced antisemitic Christians. Even if the sneers are about greed and even if the character in question is greedy. Even if the taunts (sometimes exaggerated perhaps, but understandable after some rumoured acts) of Jews wanting to spill innocent Christian blood is parallelled by Shylock wanting to cut out a pound of a man's flesh, closest to the heart, even if that means that he spills the man's blood and life. For, after Hitler dishonouring Antisemitism, after 1945, no respectable playwright like Shakespear may be read as writing a play with partly Antisemitic content. Shylock must be Christ, even if he is the Devil (if anyone is Christ in the Merchant of Venice, it is Antonio: he is in fact very comparable to Christ in St Irenee's theology, as well as to Aslan in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe), so that Shakespear may not be Hitler.

In the very same manner, tragedies written when Athens had just made Socrates a martyr for his teaching of objective ethics, tragedies full of the sense of futility in certain statesmen's state-wisdom, must be re-read so as to make Antigone and Hippolytus if not villains (that is impossible) at least tragic fools and something very much less than heroic martyrs.

Unfortunately for this reading, Hippolytus was in Athens worshipped as a Hero. So was Theseus. But in Theseus' case, his sacredness comes from being the son of Poseidon, and from doing great deeds in spite of and beside obvious blunders. Hippolytus' one great deed - spurning love and therefore finally the criminal love of his stepmother - would, on this reading, be an obvious blunder. And Antigone's one great deed, a clear parallel to Electra, the difference being that the latter was successful, would be her obvious blunder. This reading serves not clarity of thought or of litterary analysis, it serves only the agenda of denying that Antigone and Hippolytus were paragons. Just as the psychologists who retroactively have diagnosed Socrates as suffering from schizophrenia (as I have heard) serve the agenda of cutting down admiration for a martyr of philosophy. And these agendas serve only the greater agenda of looking at the state as something divine, which no citizen or inhabitant, not even non-rulers of the royal house, may challenge in any way without incurring the guilt and tragic flaw of hubris.

Let us compare how Patricia Lines judge Creon and Antigone:

Creon, by contrast, understands the needs of the polis. Following a civil war, he has placed a premium on order. He will do whatever is necessary, including the stern enforcement of harsh rules. He faces another dilemma in his role as leader: he forbade the burial of Polyneices and decreed this harsh punishment before he was aware of Antigone's guilt. To pardon his future daughter-in-law as his first serious act as ruler of Thebes would compromise all future claims to fairness in his rule. Yet Creon listens to the chorus of old men; he listens to the blind seer. After struggling with the issue, he reconsiders his judgment; he determines to bury the body of Polyneices and to unbury Antigone with his own hands.

So, when Creon commits an injustice and impiety, setting aside personal feelings, he is sensitive to fairness and the needs of the state?

Antigone, on the other hand, recognizes the demands of true justice and champions it. She spurns Ismene, who initially hesitated to assist her but soon after wished to share in her sister's punishment and death. Antigone refuses the offer. When Ismene asks whether her sister has cast her aside, Antigone's answer ignores Ismene's change of heart: "Yes. For you chose to live when I chose death." Antigone seems to speak not to spare Ismene, but to wound her to the quick. Antigone leaves Haemon, her betrothed, in the cold, as she left Ismene. She never seeks him out, nor even mentions his name. Yet Haemon is ready to defy his father for Antigone's sake, and he refuses to live without her. Ironically, this may be what he must do to win her affection, for Antigone reveals no tenderness for anyone except those already dead.

So, when Antigone sets aside personal feelings in order to be pious and ready to suffer death for it, she is self-centred and insensitive? And when she wounds people it has nothing to do with trying to leave them out of her suffering? Which fails with Haemon, but succeeds with Ismene, who survives to guide her blind father in the play Oedipus in Colonis.

Let us remind that Antigone was indeed of the royal race and had therefore at least potentially, a hightened responsibilty for public morality. Its first need is not enforcing harsh rules, even or especially after civil wars, nor being fair and equal in its unfairness and iniquity. If a corpse had been left unburied, the state would have been cursed. If the burier had remained hidden and private, justice and piety would have become then and there a private adventure of cheating the state (as it has since become in some places) rather than remaining the official morality of the state.

Hans Lundahl
Aix en Provence
Tuesday of Great and Holy Week, 2007
(3d April Greg. Cal)

A better link is:
http://www.troynovant.com/Farrell/Essays/Justice-Is-Essay-Question.html

clarifications à propos donativo (Eng/fr)

What's "donativo"? What about the "MSN Group" on the link?	C'est quoi "donativo"? Et encore ce "Groupe MSN" sur le lien?
On the road to St James, certain pilgrimage hostels in Spain were marked "donativo", i e they did not charge a fee per night as such, but asked a gift of those who could.
	Sur le chemin de St Jacques, certain gîtes de pélérins étaient marquées "donativo", c'est à dire on ne payait pas un prix fixe, mais on donnait selon ses possibilités.
There was sometimes marked a recommended gift per night, like three euros or five euros, but poor could get away without paying insofar as that was deemed reasonable to the person in charge and one could also give more if one wanted to.
	Parfois il était aussi marqué un taux de don récommendé par personne et nuit, mais si le responsable trouvait raisonnable, un pauvre pouvait être reçu sans payer, c'était également possible de dépasser la somme récommendé, si on pouvait.
What was offered was something other than street singing, which I had done myself, but the economic principle was the same.
	La chose offerte était autre que le chant dans la rue que j'avais offert avant, mais le principe économique était le même.
When therefore a priest of Roman Catholic confession and of Novus Ordo discipline in 2005 earnestly asked me to take economic responsibility for my livelihood, I made - that or next year - the page "donativo", where I modelled the profit possible for members of my group on the profit of hearing me sing or the profit of taking a night at a pilgrimage hostel.
	Quand donc un prêtre de confession Catholique Romaine et d'obéissance du Vatican m'admonissait sérieusement, c'était en 2005, de prendre mes responsabilités pour mon pain quottidien, la même année ou l'année prochaine j'ai fait la page "donativo", où j'ai assimilé au profit de m'écouter chanter dans la rue ou de profit de rester une nuit dans une gîte les profites possibles pour les membres du groupe.
What was then the profit possible for members of the group? For one thing, they could comment on my writings: here on blogger you do not need to register on "my group" to do that, but as soon as my blog is open and comments on a message are not closed, you can do that anyway if you have an account on blogger or wordpress or livejournal.
	Quel était donc le profit possible pour les membres de mon groupe? On pouvait par exemple, une fois régistré sur le groupe commenter mes écrits et me prendre en débat. Ici à blogger, se régistrer sur un groupe juste à moi n'est pas nécessaire: dès que mon blog est ouvert à tous lecteurs et que les commentaires sur un message ne sont pas fermés, on le peut simplement en ayant un compte blogger ou wordpress ou livejournal.
Of course, someone who thought it worthwhile to send me money would have to be rich or get riches from my group: and he would have to think I was doing a good thing in the first case.
	Si quelqu'un voulait m'envoyer d'argent, biensûr il convenait que soit il soit riche, soit il ait la possibilité de gagner d'argent sur ce que je faisais pour les membres du groupe. Et dans le premier cas, qu'il trouve aussi que je fasse quelque chose de bien en écrivant.
I did not attack the possessions of the rich as such, though I attacked certain ways of gaining them and still do, nor the persons of the rich, except insofar as they sometimes have prejudices about the poor or otherwise socially less well seen that are hard to live under for the concerned. When I say I attack certain ways of earning money, I do include taking interest, but I do not include producing wine or beer or cider or even distilled liquor: I take pride in my grand pa the distiller (state employed, since in Sweden distilling was a state monopoly at the time).
	Je n'ai pas attaqué les propriétés des riches parce que propriétés des riches, bien que j'ai attaqué - j'attaque d'ailleurs toujours - certaines façons de les gagner. Ni n'ais-je attaqué les personnes des riches, sauf pour leurs préjugés vis-à-vis des pauvres ou vis-à-vis d'autres personnes insignifiantes de poids social, et pour cause: certaines de ces préjugés sont difficilement vivables pour les concernés. Quand je dis que j'attaque certaines formes de profit, je n'y inclus pas le profit sur la production de vin, de bière, de cidre ou des boissons destillés, je suis au contraire fier de mon pépé le distillateur - qui fut payé par l'état parce qu'à l'époque la Suède ne permettait pas des interêts privés de produire l'alcool fort. C'est par contre par exemple l'usure que j'attaque.
So, I could theoretically have gotten mecenates, but I did not rely on that.
	J'aurais donc théoriquement pu avoir des mécènes, mais je ne me suis pas contenté de confier toutes mes chances à ça seulement.
I composed as well, and I scanned my sheet music and I published the pictures on my MSN Group. Any member of the group would know when a new composition was scanned and anyone could have played it for money - as a contracted professional or as a street musician. In the former case he could have paid me something worth looking to my bank account for, as for the latter possibility several could have sent me some. And one did not exclude the other. Paid as in voluntarily, and therefore not paying, but giving: as is really the case with those using on street musicianly basis, when ever there are such.
	J'ai aussi déjà à l'époque composé, j'ai scanné mes partitions, j'ai publié sur le site les images scannés, sur ce même groupe MSN. Chaque membre savait quand j'en avais scanné une nouvelle, et quiconque aurait pu les jouer pour d'argent - à tître professionnel ou en musicien de la rue. Dans l'un cas il pouvait me verser quelque chose environ comme il aurait payé par la SACEM, dans l'autre si c'étaient plusieurs, ils plusieurs auraient pu me verser quelque chose vraiement de manière volontaire, de temps en temps. Que je gagne de l'une manière n'exclut pas que je gagne de l'autre aussi, c'est pour ça que les versements des professionnels seront assimilés à des dons: pour garder la liberté des moins célèbres, des très pauvres ou des rélativement pauvres car jeunes étudiants.
The conditions I wrote for the MSN Group in French - in Marseille 2006 - are the same as have been copied - with few supplements - to the bottom of my blog musicalia.
	Les conditions que j'ai écrites pour le groupe MSN en français - c'était en 2006, à Marseille - sont les mêmes que j'ai avec quelques suppléments copiés en bas sur le blog musicalia.
The musicalia blog was created as soon as I found out that MSN Groups were closing in February 2009: I already had the blog "deretour" though I changed the url since.
	Le blog musicalia a été créé dès que je sûs que fermeraient les groupes MSN en février 2009, j'avais déjà le blog "deretour".
My writings on the MSN Group Antimodernism and later on my blogs are usually totally my own without anyone else's copyright involved. Possible exceptions are the debates that have for that reason been assembled on the assorted retorts blog. If "olblucat" (=ol' blue cat, probably a fan of Blacksad) or "dhux" (D. Huxley, something, I presume) or someone wants to claim copyright for his or her part of the comments, I cannot deny they wrote some, and I would even have attributed by name if they had provided it on the forums and if they had stated publically that they wanted attribution by name: my own handle on the message boards was initials plus surname. Similarily the messages for label "debates" on my HGL's FB Writings belong in part to other debaters, of which publically known writers or politicains have been given with full name, but more private persons with initials. Clear exceptions are: fanfiction stories on En Lengua Romance blog - mostly related to CSL estate which I have also contacted, but also co-editions on wikipedia, where what was on each article before I wrote an edit was already creative commons anyway. These are also marked, with the word fanfiction mentioned in label or with translations for "co-edition on wikipedia". The blog Trento Philaret was originally planned only to put side by side each question of the Catechism of Trent with the question of same content in the Longer Catechism of Philaret of Moscow: wherefore I stated that it is no property of mine.
	Mes écrits sur le Groupe MSN Antimodernism et plus tard sur mes blogs sont normalement totalement ma propre propriété intellectuelle sans mettre en cause celle de quiconque d'autre. Des exceptions possibles sont les débats qui pour cette raison ont été assemblés sur le blog assorted retorts. Si "olblucat" (=ol' blu cat=vieux chat bleu ou ayant les blues) ou "dhux" (assez certainement quelque D. Huxley) veulent sortir de l'anonymat pour en prendre parti des droits d'auteur pour leurs commentaires, je ne pourrais pas nier qu'ils ont écrits pas mal - auquel moi j'ai répondu. Je l'aurais même attribué leur partie par les noms réels, s'ils avaient été donnés et si j'avais été sûr qu'ils voulaient être connus en public en personne, comme Dawkins. Mon propre "pseudo" sur ces forums était H G Lundahl - initiaux et nom de famille. Semblablement les messages libellés "debates" sur le blog HGL's FB Writings sont en partie la propriété d'autres débatteurs, dont j'ai donné le nom ou nom d'artiste pour les personnages publics, et les initiaux pour les autres. Les exceptions claires sont: mes écrits en fanfiction sur le blog En Lengua Romance - surtout rélatés aux ayant droits du feu C. S. Lewis, avec lesquels j'ai pris contact, mais aussi mes coéditions sur la wikipédie, où ce qui était sur l'article avant mon édito était de toute manière déjà sur la licence creative commons. Là aussi c'est marqué, soit avec le mot fanfiction dans le libellé, soit avec "coédition sur la wikipédie" ou traductions dans le libellé. Quand au blog Trento Philaret - voir ce que je viens d'écrire en anglais, il est en anglais!
	Plus tard - un peu dedans 2008 ou 2009 - j'ai assimilé le droit partagé à l'usage économiquement profitable de mes textes aux conditions pour ceux déjà valables pour les compositions.
Later - a little further into 2008 or already 2009 - I assimilated the shared rights of use of my texts to the conditions already prevailing for my sheet music.
As for the Thank You message on the page, I wrote it. I do not speak Gaelic or Russian or Arabic, but I know how to say thanks in these languages too. Sorry for misspelling shoukran!
	Quand au message Merci sur la page, c'est moi qui l'ais écrit. Je ne parle pas Irlandais ou Russe ou Arabe, mais je sais comment dire merci dans ces langues. Désolé pour avoir maltraité l'orthographe pour choukrane!
Hans-Georg Lundahl BU-UPJV, Beauvais St Guido's day/Jour de St Guy 12 - VI - 2012/June 12, 2012