mardi 31 mai 2016

Cardinal Lavigerie Fought Slavery

1) Did Catholic Church Ever Teach any Curse of Cham? · 2) Cardinal Lavigerie Fought Slavery · 3) Why Curse of Ham Became Negroes among Muslims

Here is a quote after the information on his trying to convert Algerians:

This action, however, did not meet with the approval of Marshal MacMahon, governor-general of Algeria, who feared that the maghrebian would resent it as an infraction of the religious peace, and thought that the Muslim faith, being a state institution in Algeria, ought to be protected from proselytism; so it was intimated to the prelate that his sole duty was to minister to the colonists. Lavigerie made it clear that he had come to serve the whole population of Algeria.

Contact with the natives during the famine caused Lavigerie to entertain exaggerated hopes for their general conversion, and his enthusiasm was such that he offered to resign his archbishopric in order to devote himself entirely to the missions. Pope Pius IX refused this, but granted him a coadjutor, and placed the whole of equatorial Africa under his charge. In 1870 Lavigerie warmly supported papal infallibility.


From 1881 to 1884, his activity in Tunisia so raised the prestige of France that it drew from Gambetta the celebrated declaration, L'Anticléricalisme n'est pas un article d'exportation, and led to the exemption of Algeria from the application of the decrees concerning the religious orders. On 27 March 1882, the dignity of cardinal was conferred upon Lavigerie, given the titulus of Sant'Agnese fuori le mura, but the great object of his ambition was to restore the see of St Cyprian; and in that also he was successful, for by a bull of 10 November 1884 the metropolitan see of Carthage was re-erected, and Lavigerie received the pallium on 25 January 1885.

The later years of his life were spent in ardent anti-slavery propaganda, and his eloquence moved large audiences in London, as well as in Paris, Brussels and other parts of the continent. He hoped, by organizing a fraternity of armed laymen as pioneers, to restore fertility to the Sahara; but this community did not succeed, and was dissolved before his death. In 1890, Lavigerie appeared in the new character of a politician, and arranged with Pope Leo XIII to make an attempt to reconcile the church with the republic.

He invited the officers of the Mediterranean squadron to lunch at Algiers, and, practically renouncing his monarchical sympathies, to which he clung as long as the comte de Chambord was alive, expressed his support of the republic, and emphasized it by having the Marseillaise played by a band of his Pères Blancs. The further steps in this evolution emanated from the pope, and Lavigerie, whose health now began to fail, receded comparatively into the background. He died at Algiers on the 26th of November 1892.

Cardinal Charles Martial Allemand Lavigerie (31 October 1825–26 November 1892)
on The Wickipeejuh

Obviously, the same Pope who had written and indulgenced the prayer about God taking away the curse of Cham from the hearts of men (unless it was written by Lavigerie and indulgenced by the Pope) was also one of the Popes who supported Lavigerie and therefore also the efforts of ending slavery in Africa.

Other note, Lavigerie only joined the support of the Republic (il s'est rallié seulement) after the Comte de Chambord, the Legitimist pretender to the French throne, who should have been Henri V, had died without direct heirs.

Also, his opponent about mission to Algerians, Patrice de MacMahon, Duke of Magenta, has been at least considered a Freemason.

In this "dictionary of Freemasons of commune of Paris", I find the entry:

Patrice de <Mac-Mahon, comte de Mac –Mahon, duc de Magenta (1808-1893) :

But I find nothing after the colon, unlike other entries where I do find:

Bernard Pierre Magnan (1791-1865) : Franc-maçon. Maréchal de France. Il est un des principaux organisateurs du coup d’Etat du 2 décembre 1851. En 1862, alors qu’il n’est pas franc-maçon, Napoléon III le nomme Grand Maître du Grand Orient de France, pour écarter le Prince Lucien Murat. Il fut initié et reçut le 33 degrés en 48heures.

So, if there was more specific information about MacMahon being a Mason of such and such a lodge, as for certain others, this was deleted for some reason.

Anyway, it seems Lavigerie was not a Mason.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Feast of Blessed Virgin Mary as Queen

PS, H/T to Dymphna for the article:

Blessed Mary Theresa--- someone you should know
from Friday, July 12, 2013, on Dymphna's Road

If Mary Teresa Ledochowska fought slavery, it was because of Lavigerie, which is why I found him./HGL

lundi 30 mai 2016

And Not Adam and Steve ...

1) Neither Eve Nor Christ Transgender · 2) And Not Adam and Steve ...

Believe me: Steve Tempier* of Paris would heartily agree on this one.

Another one from Suzanne DeWitt Hall**:

So let’s put the whole thing together. If Adam and Eve are THE model for marriage, any Christian who demands a literal interpretation of scripture must conclude the following:

Marriage should be between genetic twins, should not involve choice of partner, should not require civil or ecclesiastic involvement, and should result in dysfunctional dynamics.

  • "Marriage should be between genetic twins" - Adam and Eve differed by a Y, and as to other aspects of genetical closeness, mutations that are deleterious had certainly not set in, so avoiding genetical closeness in order to avoid double copies of mutations that are bad was not an issue.

    Marriage should be between people having variations of the genome of Adam and Eve.

  • "should not involve choice of partner," - make that need not involve own choice of partner, can simply be involving the consent to a choice already made for one.

    By God or by someone representing God.

  • "should not require civil or ecclesiastic involvement," - In this case, the ecclesiastic involvement was by God, whom the priest represents in marriage.

  • "and should result in dysfunctional dynamics." Their marriage was not dysfunctional per se, it became so when they listened to the serpent.

    So, lesson is rather that whatever good man has in himself can be destroyed if you open a door to the devil. Or at least set aside for a very important moment.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Felix I, Pope, Martyr

* If you know Latin, you don't need to take my word for it:

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Index in stephani tempier condempnationes

Stephen Tempier organised his condemnation of "a certain tendency" as a list of propositions which he condemned. The chapters 1-5 in this, missing here and where I found it, as I recall, are how the subject is introduced. The chapters 6 - 22 are reorganised by a copyist, and error number such and such within chapter such and such corresponds to an error number other in the original, less systematic list. Example, chapter 6:error9 = error 34 on original list.

Quod causa prima non posset plures mundos facere.

I call this "the Narnia clause".

That Stephen Tempier wore pink liturgic colours when publishing the syllabus from the chancel does not make him transvestite, in France at least the South, men will wear pink because they like the rosé wine.

** From: H : THE BLOG : A Note to Kim Davis About Adam and Steve
09/08/2015 09:24 am ET | Updated Sep 08, 2015
by Suzanne DeWitt Hall

Neither Eve Nor Christ Transgender

1) Neither Eve Nor Christ Transgender · 2) And Not Adam and Steve ...

A somewhat befuddled woman considers Eve had exact same genome as Adam and Christ exact same genome as the Blessed Virgin.

I'd suggest something different.

The teaching of the church from ancient days through today is that Jesus received his fleshly self from Mary. The church also teaches that Jesus is the new Adam, born of the new Eve.

Now Eve is a fascinating creature for many reasons. The Bible tells us she is the first example of human cloning, which I touched on in this post. But the fun doesn’t stop there. If we take the Genesis account in it’s literal meaning, as conservative Christians demand that we do, she is also the first case of a transgender woman. God reached into Adam, pulled out a bit of rib bone, and grew Eve from that XY DNA into Adam’s companion. She was created genetically male, and yet trans-formed into woman.

Then along comes Jesus and the whole pattern is both repeated and reversed. The first couple’s refusal to cooperate is turned around by Mary’s yes, and the second act of cloning occurs. The Holy Spirit comes upon the second Eve, and the child takes flesh from her and is born. Born of her flesh. Born with XX chromosome pairing. Born genetically female, and yet trans-formed into man.

Quoted via : NowTheEndBegins : Huffington Post Blasphemously Declares That Jesus Christ Is The ‘First Transgender Man’

The solution is pretty simple, neither Eve nor Christ were genetically identic clones, but both differed by a Y chromosome.

Possibly angels were guarding the Y chromosome of Adam which was not kept in Eve's genome (or one item, presumably several genomes there in that rib) and giving it to God so He could give the exact same Y chromosome to Jesus Christ, as new Adam. Anyway, Eve differed by being XX instead of XY, and that means the Y was taken away and X doubled to XX.

And in Christ's case, one may suppose the Blessed Virgin had two identical X chromosomes, and one item of them was kept, the other replaced by a Y.

So, Eve was not genetically male, Christ was not genetically female.

Neither of them was transgender. Neither of them was any kind of counterexample to the words of Christ in Mark 10:6.

But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.

Not male and semifemale/semimale.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Felix I, Pope and Martyr

PS, the site I am quoting is not linking to original post. As far as I can see. It is however describing the author as "if saved at all, a Laodicea type" or words of that effect. As coming from part time Lutheran state Church, I'd say she is simply a modernist. Which of course equates with apostate./HGL

PPS, I am sorry I did not look very sharply. They did link:

H : THE BLOG Jesus: The First Transgender Man
05/18/2016 02:45 pm ET | Updated May 18, 2016
by Suzanne DeWitt Hall

samedi 28 mai 2016

History or Myth ... how do YOU describe a "story which really happened" but has "mythical" coherence and greatness?

1) Was St. Jerome Calling Genesis a Myth, and if so in what sense?, 2) And Mark Shea bungled Mythical with Allegorical ... *sigh* ... 3) History or Myth ... how do YOU describe a "story which really happened" but has "mythical" coherence and greatness?

Link to CMI
Is the Torah historical?
Published: 28 May 2016

Timothy M, United States
MODERN distinctions like “history” and “myth” didn’t seem to exist 3500 years ago. So why make the distinction NOW?

Lita Cosner
Of course ancient people did not define historiography the way we do today. That doesn’t mean, however, that they didn’t have categories for “things that happened” versus “things that didn’t really happen”.

Hans Georg Lundahl
But the stories we call myths were back then usually put in the category of things that did happen.

A Baal worshipper was as convinced (usually, until late sophistication crept in) that Baal had fought a monster and created the world and men from its carcasse as a Hebrew then or a Christian now that God had created Heaven and Earth in an instant and their embellishments in six days, reposing on seventh from creating new kinds of things, and as convinced as Oparin that molecules had come together and formed early life, while more complex life had developed from it.

The three stories contradict (or the mid one contradicts the others) but nevertheless each is putting his story (rather than those of the others) in the category of things which did in fact happen.

Later Greeks became ashamed of the behaviour of certain gods and explained THOSE myths away by saying they were only meant symbolically. But that starts with Plato. It is about as irrelevant to Homer as Anglican "Bishop of Woolwich" John A.T. Robinson, is to the Gospels.

Lita Cosner
I agree, the modern distinction of religion vs myth did not exist in the past the way it does today, perhaps partially because they didn’t have the distinction between religious vs secular.

Hans Georg Lundahl
The distinction exists since Plato.

Now, there is another reason.

Some things which moderns consider "mythical" in the sense of "did not happen and does not happen" are not really so and the ancients were not so ideological as to take them as such.

Baal creating world after killing a monster, using a carcasse? Sure, that is a "myth", that is, it is a fake Genesis account. Oparin is also a fake Genesis account, would you call his theory "a myth"?

But Greeks starting a war against Troy over Helen? No, I think the account of Homer is basically true.

It leaves out the reference to Hittite Empire which contemporaries to it could not have missed. It is perhaps the prequel to that Hittite Civil war which ends in a siege of Hattusha and both parties finally agreeing to dissolve the Empire.

Homer is a sequel of both events, including a deal probably made among Hittites to later identify as whatever else but not Hittites.

Or Hercules and Ulysses defeating giants? I think there too the accounts at least could be true. Though both men were prone to swagger of one kind of another.

So, if not true, at least a lie which could have been true.

People disagree on whether the account of Anne Frank's diary is true or a forgery. But no one is calling it a myth in the sense of what one does with the fake Genesis of Baal worshippers.

And that, controversial but possibly true autobiography is where I would place Ulysses telling his story to princess and king and queen of the Phaeacians or Hercules telling in Greece how he had fought Gerion between Gibraltar and A Coruña.

So, the "distinction" is in these days exaggerated, because moderns tend to throw in the wrong items into the category (ill defined on top of that) of "myth".

And, not seeing ancients make same exaggeration, moderns think ancients were unaware of it. In a sense they were, insofar as the imprecise categories used by Robinson are such that there is very little to be aware of, and the ancients were not too prone to strain gnats (before the Pharisees at least).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Augustine of Canterbury

jeudi 26 mai 2016

And Speaking of Inconsistent Exegesis ...

1) I was going to make next post on Plato, but today's article in CMI posed a simple question to my mind · 2) And Speaking of Inconsistent Exegesis ...

Why will some who do, correctly, believe that God the Son made Adam and Eve fruitful on Day six by speaking and it was so, and also that, having taken Manhood, He told a leper "I will, be thou clean" and it was so, nevertheless not believe Christ also spoke about bread and wine, calling them His Body and His Blood, and it was so?

That is why I am Catholic, not a Protestant.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Corpus Christi

jeudi 19 mai 2016

Did Catholic Church Ever Teach any Curse of Cham?

1) Did Catholic Church Ever Teach any Curse of Cham? · 2) Cardinal Lavigerie Fought Slavery · 3) Why Curse of Ham Became Negroes among Muslims

Peter Roman [I am currently adhering to his non-Feeneyite rival Pope Michael] miscited one word, replacing "Central Africa" with "Central Asia" in his translation, I cite it after him.

Prayer to Implore the Conversion of the Descendants of Cham in Central Africa

Oremus et pro miseririmis Africae Centralis populis Aethiopum, ut Deus omnipotens tandem aliquando auferat maledictionem Chami a cordibus eorum, detque illis benedictionem, unice in Jesu Christo, Det et Domino nostro consequendam.

Let us pray for the most wretched Ethiopians in Central Africa, that Almighty God may at length move THE CURSE OF CHAM from their hearts, and grant them the blessing to be found only in Jesus Christ, our God and Lord.


Domine Jesu Christi, unicus salvator universi generis humani, qui jam dominaris a mari usque ad mare, et a flumine usque ad terminos orbis terrarum: aperi propitius sacratissimum cor tuum etian mesierrimis Africae interioris animabus, quae adhuc in tenebris et umbra mortis sedent; ut intercedente piissima virgine Maria matre tua immaculata, ejusque sponso gloriosissimo beato Joseph, relictis idolis, coram te procidant Aethiopes, et Ecclesiae tuae sanctae aggregentus. Qui visi [=qui vivis], etc.

Lord Jesus Christ, the only Saviour of the entire human race, who ready rulest from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the each, open propitiously thy most sacred heart also to the most wretched souls of Central Asia [=Africa], who are still seated in the darkness and the shadow of death, that, through the intercession of the most pious Virgin Mary, thy immaculate mother, and of her most glorious spouse, S. Joseph, the Ethiopians, having abandoned their idols, may prostrate themselves before thee, and be joined to thy holy Church. Who livest, etc.

Our Father, Hail Mary, and Glory be to the Father.

His Holiness, Pius IX., by a decree of the S. Cong. of Rites, Oct. 2, 1873, granted to all the faithful, every time that, with at least contrite heart and devotion, they shall say these prayers, with the Our Father, the Hail Mary, and the Glory be to the Father:
An indulgence of three hundred days.
A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who, having said them with the above dispositions, at least once a day, for a month, shall, on any day, being truly penitent, after confession and communion, visit a church or public oratory, and pray there, for some time, for the intention of his Holiness.

The Raccolta: Or, Collection of Prayers and Good Works, to which sovereign pontiffs have attached holy indulgences. Published by order of His Holiness, Pope Pius IX. Maryland: Woodstock College, 1878, pp. 413-415.

Applied to Central Africa, the expression "curse of Cham" is probably an euphemism for "curse of Nimrod", that is, the curse of slave hunting (along with Paganism).

Obviously, like the curse of "may his blood come upon our heads" this is not a curse which makes each and every member of an ethnic or slightly biological race cursed, it is a curse from which anyone can free himself by conversion and by leading a better life.

In the case of 1873 slave hunters in Central Africa, by becoming Christians and hunting slaves no more.

It very much does NOT mean European Catholics should hunt slaves in Central Africa - especially not in 1873, a few decades after King Charles X (a Rex Christianissimus) had taken Algiers and hanged pirates precisely for hunting slaves./HGL

Faking History:

From where, then, did the black race come? From Ham’s other sons, Cush and probably also Put, whose descendants settled in Africa. But, as we have seen, the Bible says absolutely nothing about the black descendants of these men being cursed! Yet it was incorrectly assumed that they were. When did church commentators begin applying the curse to Ham?

A churchman of about 1,500 years ago, Ambrosiaster, applied it thus, saying: “Due to folly Ham, who foolishly ridiculed the nakedness of his father, was declared a slave.” And John F. Maxwell observes in his recent book Slavery and the Catholic Church: “This disastrous example of fundamentalist exegesis [explanation] continued to be used for 1,400 years and led to the widely held view that African Negroes were cursed by God.”

Even up to a hundred years ago the Catholic Church held the view that blacks were cursed by God. Maxwell explains that this view “apparently survived until 1873 when Pope Pius IX attached an indulgence to a prayer for the ‘wretched Ethiopians in Central Africa that almighty God may at length remove the curse of Cham [Ham] from their hearts.’”

From : What Is the Bible's View? Are Blacks Cursed by God?
Religion of Sunday, 29 April 2007
Source: kwabena Frimpong Amankwah

  • 1) St. Ambrosius or according to others Ambrosiaster (the expression means "fake Ambrosius" or a writing falsely attributed to St Ambrose, so it is not a precise alternative authorship from antiquity) says absolutely nothing in the quote of this implying any curse damning blacks to slavery.

    Church fathers had a lot to say about setting an example of crimes meriting slavery. It's a precedent for prison punishment, not for black slavery.

  • 2) The prayer was about Pagan blacks in Central Africa.

    Even if "curse of Cham" were curse of Chanaan, the idea is not that one could treat blacks as such worse, because of the curse. It was that blacks were sometimes behaving so as to merit it and this was due to bad education and that was a misfortune due to the curse (citing from memory a dialogue between two Jesuits, either of Brazil or of Moçambique, back in 1500's or perhaps around 1600). Also, I have not found this precise reasoning in earlier texts than this, and certainly not in above quote from St Ambrose.

  • 3) Maxwell is thus wrong in implying that "This disastrous example of fundamentalist exegesis" was disastrous for the blacks.

    Trying to free someone from a curse by praying for him is not exactly disastrous - unless you pray for very specific things in very clumsy ways, which the above Catholic prayer did not. However, he is perfectly right that the blacks come from Kush, perhaps also Put./HGL

A Non-Catholic Non-Fundie exegesis which was perhaps more disastrous:

By Japhet, Gomer and Magog Africa is meant, and by Tiros Persia.

Magog is a Biblical baddy, but more usual traditional condidates are Russia and Turkey. Here they say Africa?

The sexes of both man and the lower animals were meant [changing to p. 59] to be separated in the ark during the deluge. This is clear from the way in which they entered the ark: first Noah and his three sons went in, and then their wives separately (Gen. vii. 7). But when they came out of the ark after the flood, God commanded Noah, "Go out of the ark, thou and thy wife, thy sons and their wives" (Gen. viii. 16), thus putting the sexes together again. Ham among the human beings, and the dog among the lower animals, disregarded this injunction and did not separate from the opposite sex in the ark. The dog received a certain punishment, and Ham became a black man; just as when a man has the audacity to coin the king's currency in the king's own palace his face is blackened as a punishment and his issue is declared counterfeit.

So, Cham was cursed, and that precisely to blackness of face, before he was sinning against his father?

Or this:

Slaves do not, as a rule, bring blessings on their master's house, but Joseph's master's house was blessed because of Joseph. Slaves are not remarkable for being scrupulous, but Joseph gathered in the silver in Egypt for his king. Slaves are not distinguished for their chastity and modesty, but Joseph would not listen to a sinful suggestion.

Potiphar showed the subtlety for which the Egyptians were famous where their own interest was concerned. He boasted to his friends that as a rule a white man has a Cushite, a colored man, for his slave, whilst he, a Cushite, contrived to obtain a youth of the white race for a slave. Hence it became [p. 67] a saying in Egypt, "The slaves sold (i.e., the Ishmaelites who sold Joseph); the slave bought (alluding to Potiphar, Pharaoh's servant); and the freeman has become the slave of both."

It is a cultural and historical fact that Egyptians from time to time held Kushites - that is black people - as slaves.

It is possible, but not necessary that Potiphar was one.

However, including this here can have had repercussions by setting an example.

We are not allowed to say any portion of Holy Writ by heart, but must always read it from the Scroll. Thus when Rabbi Meier was once in Asia on Purim, and was unable to find a copy of the book of Esther, he wrote the book out from memory (as he knew it by heart), and then made another copy from which he read to the congregation.

This is against the practise of the Catholic Church. And as you may see by now, the exegetes I am citing are Jewish.

Sleepiness and laziness in a man are the beginning of his misfortune.

Man in celibacy is in sublime ignorance of what is meant by the words "good," "help," "joy," "blessing," "peace," and "expiation of sin." He is, in fact, not entitled to the dignified name of man.

The Catholic Church honours celibacy while not dishonouring marriage and considers sleeping with gentleness : who sleepeth does not sin.

So, the exegesis is clearly non-Catholic.

But what about non-Fundie?

The deluge in the time of Noah was by no means the only flood with which this earth was visited. The first flood did its work of destruction as far as Jaffé, and the one of Noah's days extended to Barbary.

A Fundie - and Catholic - exegesis is of course it extended all over the world.

Job was born when the Jews went down to Egypt; he married Dinah, Jacob's daughter, and he died when the Israelites left Egypt.

Job probably never existed, and if he did exist, the events recorded concerning him never took place. The whole narrative is intended as a moral lesson.

So, one rabbi was a Fundie and another wasn't. Hence all of the source is Non-Fundie. Church Fathers are all fundies, and Moralia in Job by St Gregory takes for granted that Job actually existed.

This is not the Church Fathers, not the Patrologia by Migne. It is called the Genesis Rabba or Bereshit Rabba and is the Judaising Midrash on Genesis.

You can find it here:

I am not linking directly./HGL

mercredi 11 mai 2016

I was going to make next post on Plato, but today's article in CMI posed a simple question to my mind

1) I was going to make next post on Plato, but today's article in CMI posed a simple question to my mind · 2) And Speaking of Inconsistent Exegesis ...

Here is article:

CMI : Creation—how did God do it?
by Russell M. Grigg

Here is the simple question: if people say that though God spoke and it was could refer to "it was"/"became" over the millions of years it took, with the means it took according to what they consider a naturalistic scenario, does that mean they believe that, when Jesus said "I will, be thou made clean," and when the result is reported as "And forthwith his leprosy was cleansed," it really was a six month cure of antibiotics, a now known leprosy cure, which took place?/HGL