"Course of Abiah" — I am referring to a Defense of Christmas, Defending the Sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin

I

Me to Edward Bromfield

12/21/2023 at 1:48 AM

Course of Abiah

I prefer Kurt Simmons' take over yours:

Answering Tovia Singer on December 25 · Sharing on December 25, Kurt Simmons

However, I find it interesting that you said this on a related topic:

The first greeting was given to Gideon, whom God called to be a deliverer of Israel, while the second was used by Boaz who was to act as a kinsman redeemer for Naomi and Ruth, and such was to be the case of Jesus especially for Israel, but also for the world.

There is another "Gideon" connexion.

There are exacly 3 women in a full Bible (or 2 in a 66 book one) who are called in some sense "blessed among women" ...

1) Jael (Judges 5)
2) Judith (Judith 13, lacking in 66-book Bibles)
3) The Blessed Virgin Mary (twice in Luke 1, by Gabriel and by Elisabeth).

Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.

I take that as referring to the words, not to hearing a voice without seeing anyone.

If your mother had been ever greeted with words like "congratulations for killing Sisera" ... how would she have reacted.

I bet she might have been a bit ... puzzled.

So, when the cousin tells Her the same again, but this time involves Jesus, the Genesis 3:15 reference is very much more apparent.

Note, Mary had "killed Sisera" even before being pregnant, and as per Luke 1:42 -- Genesis 3:15, the only "Sisera" that would qualify was Satan.

So, how could She, even without yet having been with child with God inside Her, have already "killed" Satan?

Well, the one possibility that comes to mind is, She must have been sinless. Reversed already in Her person the agency of Eve and Adam.

Remark the difference in mood between being told She is Mother of God and being told She is sinless (second time, and getting it this time). She was obviously happier at always having done the will of the Father, than at Her breasts were going to suckle God in the Flesh. On a famous occasion, Her Son echoed that sense of priorities.

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Edward Bromfield to me

12/21/2023 at 6:42 AM

Re: Course of Abiah

Greetings Hans-Georg Lundal, and thank you for reading my studies and for your email/comment. Lord bless you.

You said: “I prefer Kurt Simmons' take over yours:” with the link, Answering Tovia Singer on December 25 · Sharing on December 25, Kurt Simmons

That’s fine; we don’t have to agree on everything. Then you thought it interesting that the greeting that Mary received from Gabriel may also be found in Judges 6:12 and Ruth 2:4, which you used to point to another ‘connection’ in Judges. In a similar form the phrase: “blessed among women” can be found in Judges 5:24, but since I do use the accepted 66 books, I didn’t find the ‘Judith’ connection.

Then you said: “Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.” – “I take that as referring to the words, not to hearing a voice without seeing anyone.

I agree with you that Mary was troubled by the angel’s words, and I believe what I said later in the study shows that. My point here was to differentiate between what troubled Mary and Zechariah. He was troubled over the “appearance” of an angel, which according to Daniel was a fearful thing to behold. Mary, however, wasn’t troubled with an “appearance” according to the text but with what she heard. Words, yes, but my point here was to show Mary did not have a vision. She had to deal only with what the angel said, and his saying did trouble her.

You lose me with the mention of “Mary had "killed Sisera" even before being pregnant, and as per Luke 1:42 -- Genesis 3:15, the only "Sisera" that would qualify was Satan.”

At first, I found you hard to follow at this point and was about to send for clarification, but before I sent the email, I had a thought. You seem to be replacing Jael with Mary and making this point to Genesis 3:15. How you can say that Mary slew Satan prior to her pregnancy is troubling. I don’t see that. However, I have two points to make here. Genesis 3:15 doesn’t point to “Mary” Jesus’ mother. Instead, it points to the “Woman” in Revelation 12 who brought forth the child. The “Woman” is a **sign** or a constellation in the heavens, Virgo. The mother of Christ was the Jews, believing Jews, and as Paul said to the Roman church: “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly” (Romans 16:20).

Genesis 3:15 has more to do with the Church than it does with Mary. Both are considered to be Jesus’ “mother,” according to the scriptures.

III

Me to Edward Bromfield

12/21/2023 at 7:01 AM

Re: Course of Abiah

"You seem to be replacing Jael with Mary"

The angel and Elisabeth seem to be doing that!

Blessed among women be Jahel the wife of Haber the Cinite, and blessed be she in her tent.
And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

"Genesis 3:15 has more to do with the Church than it does with Mary. Both are considered to be Jesus’ “mother,” according to the scriptures"

Can you give an example?

And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.

Note the future tense.

The "blessed among women" is a title up to then belonging to one or two heroines who had already killed an enemy of Israel.

Hans Georg Lundahl

IV

Edward Bromfield to me

12/21/2023 at 3:53 PM

Re: Course of Abiah

Good morning Hans-Georg,

Concerning replacing Jael with Mary, you said: “The angel and Elisabeth seem to be doing that!”

I don’t think so. This is how you interpret the two events, which, by the way, are not similar events.

I said: “Genesis 3:15 has more to do with the Church than it does with Mary. Both are considered to be Jesus’ “mother,” according to the scriptures.”

You said: “Can you give an example?”

I did give an example from scripture, but you don’t accept it. Nevertheless, you don’t seem to play by the rules you set for me. What is your example that Mary’s name should be applied to Judges 5:24, 26? Where is the evidence in scripture that she had “already killed an enemy of Israel?”

V

Me to Edward Bromfield

12/21/2023 at 8:26 PM

Re: Course of Abiah

In Judges 5:24
a) the phrase (very rare in the Bible, only parallels in Judith and in Luke 1) "blessed among women" is used
b) in Judges 5, as well as in Judith, this highly rare phrase was only applied to a woman who had already killed an enemy of Israel, not to someone who was going to

"I did give an example from scripture"

You didn't explicitate that you meant the occasion of Mark 3.

And in Mark 3:35, I hold, with the Church that Christ founded, that "my mother" actually does refer to the Blessed Virgin.

If you meant Romans 16:20, the glaring difference is tense.

"shall bruise ... briefly" is not the same as "has already killed" implicit in the parallels (the only ones) for the title twice given the Blessed Virgin, namely blessed among women.

Good evening, by the way, from my pov!

VI

Edward Bromfield to me

12/21/2023 at 11:12 PM

Re: Course of Abiah

Good evening Hans-Georg; you said: “the phrase (very rare in the Bible, only parallels in Judith and in Luke 1) "blessed among women" is used…”

We agree that the phrase occurs only three times, if we include the extrabiblical, Judith.

“in Judges 5, as well as in Judith, this highly rare phrase was only applied to a woman who had already killed an enemy of Israel, not to someone who was going to…”

I’ll take your word for the ‘Judith’ occurrence, the phrase in the Old Covenant text concerns a woman who had already slain a man.

“You didn't explicitate that you meant the occasion of Mark 3. And in Mark 3:35, I hold, with the Church that Christ founded, that "my mother" actually does refer to the Blessed Virgin.”

I’m getting the impression that you are Roman Catholic. If this is correct, I don’t mean to attack what you believe. I was born Roman Catholic, but I’m not now. Most of my family is Catholic, so I don’t make a point to put Catholicism down, nor would I seek to embarrass anyone who holds to the beliefs of Catholicism. That said, I disagree with your interpretation of Mark 3:35. However, as I mentioned in the beginning, we don’t have to agree on everything to be brethren.

“If you meant Romans 16:20, the glaring difference is tense. "shall bruise ... briefly" is not the same as "has already killed" implicit in the parallels (the only ones) for the title twice given the Blessed Virgin, namely blessed among women.”

We agree that the tense is future in Romans 16:20, but why would you think otherwise for Mary, if, indeed, she were to crush the head of Satan? Moreover, if your interpretation is true, what does Paul mean in Romans 16:20: “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly,” if Satan’s head was already crushed by Mary?

Lord bless you, Hans-Georg, as you think upon these things.

VII

Me to Edward Bromfield

12/22/2023 at 9:50 AM

Re: Course of Abiah

Satan is not a mortal.

He was / will be crushed three times:

1) By the sinlessness of Mary prior to the pregnancy
2) By the sinlessness of Jesus and Mary up to the Cross and to Jesus descending into Hades
3) By the triumph of the Church after Harmageddon, which seems to be what St. Paul is referring to.

Satan as said is not mortal, and does not disappear from existence just because he's crushed, but he can be defeated even if already damned, and these three crushings are beyond how St. Michael threw him into Hell.

I think that answers your question.

Hans Georg Lundahl

VIII

Edward Bromfield to me

12/22/2023 at 1:11 PM

Re: Course of Abiah

Thank your Hans-Georg, and may the Lord bless and protect you always.

Your brother in Christ,

Eddie

IX

Me to Edward Bromfield

12/22/2023 at 3:54 PM

Re: Course of Abiah

Thank you.

May I feature our correspondence on a blog of mine, each mail marked out separately for the correct limits?

And, best wishes for the day that actually is the real day when Christ was born!

Hans Georg Lundahl

X

Edward Bromfield to me

12/22/2023 at 4:45 PM

Re: Course of Abiah

Merry Christmas, Hans-Georg, and Lord bless you. I have no problem with what you wish to do with our discussion. You may do whatever you please with it.

XI

Me to Edward Bromfield

12/22/2023 at 7:03 PM

Re: Course of Abiah

Thank you very much!

Richest possible blessings, and Merry Christmas, whenever you celebrate it!

Hans Georg Lundahl

QQ to Those Accepting Pope Francis, so called, as being that

I

Me to

Where Peter Is, Reason and Theology, Mercedarian Friars

11/3/2023 at 11:57 AM

QQ to three full accepters of "Pope Francis" (not directly on his supposed papacy)

The first I have already posted on snail mail to FSSPX, more precisely St. Nicolas du Chardonnet.

It's this.

Given that Pope St. Pius X was a Pope and a good Pope, and enjoyed papal authority even when not speaking infallibly, and given that he endorsed the Pontifical Biblical Commission,

can I, without disrespect to the papacy, hold that

30 June 1909, Q 8, stating that "days" could mean periods of time and interpreting this as longer ones consider:

1) this was not the fullness of orthodoxy
2) it was even than somewhat heterodox
3) it has since then accumulated heterodoxies in the light of more recent scientific data to the point of now amounting to an implication of heresy or even apostasy.

The second I did not pose them, since they don't accept CCC. It's this:

given YOU consider "John Paul II" as having been in full exercise of papal authority in the early 90's, do you find it compatible with the respect for papacy to be opposed to §283?

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Me to

Decrevi, Dominican Friars

11/3/2023 at 11:57 AM

Fw: QQ to three full accepters of "Pope Francis" (not directly on his supposed papacy)

Forwarding to two more.

[+ identical to previous]

Tomasello Not Answering

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Tomasello Not Answering · New blog on the kid: How did human language "evolve from non-human"? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Adam Reisman's Response, Mr. Flibble's Debate · Andrew Winkler's Response and Debate · Creation vs. Evolution: Odd Perfect Numbers? Less Impossible than Abiogenesis or Evolutionary Origin of Human Language!

I

From: Hans-Georg Lundahl (hgl@dr.com)

To: scholars@duke.edu

Monday, September 18, 2023 at 8:14 PM

Subject: For Tomasello, please ...

// Tomasello also resorts to an evolutionary two-step scenario (see below), and to philosophical concepts borrowed from Paul Grice, John Searle, Margaret Gilbert, Michael Bratman, and anthropologist Dan Sperber.
At one point in time, after the emergence of the genus Homo two millions years ago, Homo Heidelbergensis[9] or other close candidate became obligate foragers and scavengers under ecological pressures of desertification that led to scarcity of resources. Individuals able to avoid free-riders and to divide the spoils with collaborative partners would have gained an adaptive advantage over non cooperators. The heightened dependence on joint effort to gain food and the social selection of partners are supposed to account for an evolution toward better skills at coordinating individual's roles and perspectives under a common attentional frame (that of the hunt or scavenging) and under a common goal, giving rise to joint, interpersonal intention. Later, around 200,000 years ago,[10] new ecological pressures presumably posed by competition within groups put those in "loose pools" of collaborators at a disadvantage against groups of coherently collaborative individuals working for a common territorial defense. "Individuals ... began to understand themselves as members of particular social group with a particular identity".[11] //

So ... in apes, we find phoneme = morpheme = phrase.

In man we find phonomeS => morpheme, morphemeS => phrase.

Human speech is subdivided not just once but twice in relation to ape communications, so, which subdivision came first and how does it correspond to your two steps of human evolution ?

Do you admit there is such a thing as notionality and that it is lacking in apes, but present in man?

That man can and apes can't say "I ate riz-au-lait instead of yoghurt today at noon"?

That this makes for making the double subdivision (or double articulation to use the standard term) interesting, but also needs it ?

If you first subdivide phrase into morphemes, as each morpheme is still just one phoneme, you can't get enough notions to have an interesting playfield for phrases.
If you first subdivide phrase/morpheme into phonemes, the increase in phrases will be negligible, since there is no true notionality without a judgement structure, predicating X of Y, and you can't have that without phrase subdivided into morphemes.

Hans Georg Lundahl

[When this is published, he'll have had 10 days.]

With Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon Dating and its Calibration

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Radiocarbon and Tree Rings with Ken Wolgemuth · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: With Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon Dating and its Calibration

wed 13.IX.2023 22:30

Ken Wolgemuth

Hello Hans-Georg,
Here is our paper about Lake Suigetsu.

thu 14.IX.2023

Holy Cross

12:07

HGL

ok, where

14:29

Ken

Oops. Sorry about that.

[attached, but can apparently not be shared by a url accessible to the public here?]

Were you able to download it? Please note that this describes the foundations of radiocarbon dating, and hiccups of understanding by young earth creationists. This does not have the calibration curve used by the radiocarbon research community.

20:59

HGL

ok, I just found it

21:16

Ken Wolgemuth

Good. I understand from your profile that you live in Paris, and are from Switzerland. Is that correct? What is your viewpoint about how these American young-earth creationists handle this geochemistry data?

I see a reference to a paper that gives "A Complete Terrestrial Radiocarbon Record for 11.2 to 52.8 kya B.P. Are you the type of person who wants to pursue these questions about creation to find the truth?

21:42

HGL

I don't know where you get Switzerland from, unless Sweden and Switzerland are synonyms to you.

Or Austria and Switzerland. I am a Swedish national, and I was born in Austria.

Now, I have started my refutation of your article, it's a bit long for an answer here, I'll make it several answers instead.

HGL

The primary requirements for determining age are (1) a constant radioactive decay rate, (2) knowledge of the original carbon-14 content, and (3) quantification of any old carbon that may have been incorporated into the specimen. The last requirement applies mostly to marine samples, in which oceandwelling organisms, even today, extract carbon from seawater that has been “pre-aged” by long isolation from the atmosphere.4 Terrestrial samples, such as tree rings and lake sediments, are less susceptible to this complicating factor, limiting the primary requirements to the first two.

The reservoir effect can also apply to men, who have eaten lots of marine food, or drunk water with lots of old calcium (which isn't the pure element, but involves carbon).

In fact, when it comes to Mladec cave people dating back too close to the flood for it to be believable so many so big people had died, I rely on the reservoir effect, there is chalk in those caves.

As you mentioned "(2) knowledge of the original carbon-14 content," this is where I differ from both you and CMI, or most of them, I think that barring reservoir effect and contamination, the C14 content can be known very well year by year between Flood and Fall of Troy, and was radically rising (1.625 to 100 pmC in 1772 years).

To turn a measured carbon-14 value into an age, independent methods are employed to first provide realistic assessments of past atmospheric production rates.

Mine is Biblical chronology.

The conventional geologic model gives us specific expected outcomes for how much carbon-14 should be present in tree rings or varves of particular ages. This is a natural outgrowth of assuming constant radioactive decay rates, and annual production of tree rings and varves. The young-earth model (also known as flood geology), in contrast, does not have any inherent expectations, for purported fluctuations in natural processes during and after the flood could produce virtually any outcome.

Mine are:

• bigger atmosphere with lower percentage of nitrogen before the Flood (part of the oxygen was reacting with high layer atmosphere hydrogen to form Flood water), and probably also lower incoming cosmic radiation, even than now;
• possibly also more carbon dioxyde in the pre-flood world, as pmC is a value in relation to the overall (atmospheric, especially) carbon content
• just after the Flood, when the atmosphere had been reduced, a much higher production rate, than now, through higher incoming radiation, producing:
  • 1) 10 times faster production of C14
  • 2) lowered lifespans
  • 3) cooler weather, resulting in the ice age.

For the conventional model, the plot will assume (1) carbon-14 decay rates have been constant, (2) sampled trees grew one ring per year, (3) cross-dating of tree rings was done correctly, (4) sampled sediment layers are varves (one per year), (5) terrestrial tree rings and varves are free of “pre-aged” carbon, and (6) variation in atmospheric production of carbon-14 over the period of interest was limited within a discernable range.

We generally presume, the further back you go, the likelier it its, that cross-dating was done incorrectly and enters into a de facto circular proof along with C14.

Also, varves are usually laminations. How fast supersaturated water flows will determine if these form.

One way to establish these limits is using beryllium-10 concentrations in sediments that contain carbon-14 above background levels.

My model does not presume carbon-14 was present ABOVE background levels, but BELOW them.

Beryllium-10 is also produced in the atmosphere by cosmic rays, but unlike carbon, it readily falls to the ground, potentially preserving a record of variations in cosmic flux. From this record of flux, we can calculate proportional carbon-14 production.

Exactly how is unclear. Recall my model.

• 1) starts out with radically LOWER carbon-14
• 2) presumably the higher production of carbon-14 would involve a higher production of beryllium-10
• 3) BUT this would be interpreted over a stretched out chronology, since the higher production of carbon-14 results in a drawn out carbon chronology.

E. g. if between 2607 BC (death of Noah) and 2556 BC (birth of Peleg) carbon 14 rose from 43 to 49 pmC, this means that the 51 real years are interpreted as a stretch of 1000 years, since the extra years diminish as carbon-14 goes up, from 7000 extra years to 6000 extra years.

This means, if ten times more beryllium-10 is produced during the actual stretch of 51 years, it is to "the observer" spread out over a 20 times longer period, namely 1000 years.

In general, however, the lower concentrations (lower flux) tend to be found in layers containing higher current carbon-14 (deposited in the recent past), and the highest concentrations (higher flux) tend to be in layers containing lower current carbon-14 (deposited in the more distant past).

I'd expect exactly the same things from my model.

40 000 - 10 000 BP, a higher concentration, supposing beryllium-10 produces more in proportion to cosmic rays than carbon-14.

10 000 - 5 500 BP, a medium high concentration.

5 500 BP to 3 500 BP, lowering down to today's concentration.

Given conventional expectations, even if atmospheric carbon-14 was double today’s level, the low carbon-14 samples should be on the order of 50,000 years.14

But the problem with this reasoning is, my model presupposes exactly NO higher concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. It only goes up from 1.625 to 100 pmC, not higher or significantly.

For the lower boundary, we will start at 95 pMC to accommodate lower rates in the recent past, and allow it to increase linearly to 120 pMC.15

95 pmC was reached and slightly bypassed in the year 1610 BC, which is therefore dated as 2020 BC.

It's in my table V-VI, which starts out with 87.575 pmC in 1700, and ends in 97.0681 pmC in 1588.

1700 - 1588 = 112 years, normal decay 98.654 % and normal replacement 100-98.654 pmC, i e 1.346 pmC.

98.654 * 87.575 = 86.3962405 pmC remaining
97.0681 - 86.3962405 = 10.6718595 pmC actual replacement
10.6718595 / 1.346 = 7.9285731797919762 times FASTER production

We are then ready to apply the radioactive decay equation (2) to each point along the upper and lower boundary to determine how much carbon-14 should still be present today for a sample of a particular age, up to 50,000 years.

I think these blogposts of mine (the one linked to and the ones it links to) are doing the corresponding type of work for YEC:

New blog on the kid : Raffiner et finir ma table de Fibonacci?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/02/raffiner-et-finir-ma-table-de-fibonacci.html

[1.) 50% du "carbone récent", quel âge? Si on divisait une demi-vie en "demi-notes" ....? · 2.) 25% du "carbone récent"? Divisons la distance en 48 parties? · 3.) Trêve de Maths pour l'instant : a-t-on des restes antédiluviennes d'Européens ou non? · 4.) 12,5% du carbone présent : au paléolithique tardif · 5.) Encore "plus bas" dans le paléolithique : 6,25 % restent · 6.) Paléolithique inférieur, alors? · 7.) Raffiner et finir ma table de Fibonacci? · 8.) Table modifiée, analysée par convergence avec l'a priori]

As you are now going on to step 2, I propose a pause so you can have time to defend your step one, against my alternative reading, is that OK?

Ken Wolgemuth

It was obviously my mistake about your nationality.

When you are going into this detail, I would prefer email for east of printing to read. My email is [omitted]

I have identified a paper with this title: "A Complete Terrestrial Radiocarbon Record for 11.2 to 52.8 kya B.P." Do you read this type of geochemistry papers?
Ken

HGL

Mistakes happen, I'll be back on your mail.

But as it is your turn to respond in defense of previous, you get my email first, it's hgl@dr.com* ...

"Do you read this type of geochemistry papers?"

I haven't read that one, and am not sure yet whether it's the kind of thing I can read or not. We'll see.

* note:

it is my official public correspondence email.

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl — If you wish to correspond with me
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/p/if-you-wish-to-correspond-with-me.html

HGL

one more thing, as I am sharing this debate with the public, I'd like to share the pdf with them, is that possible?

22:20

Ken Wolgemuth

Yes, of course.

23:36

HGL

the problem is, I don't have a functioning url for sharing it?

Malentendus ou pire ?

I

De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Sébastien Antoni et Jacques Arnould

Jeudi, 17 août 2023 à 12:27

Je me souviens un jour que Sébastien Antoni me qualifia de terre-platiste

Est-ce que j'ai réussi à éliminer ce malentendu ou non ?

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

De Jacques Arnould à Hans-Georg Lundahl et Sébastien Antoni

Jeudi, 17 août 2023 à 12:42

Re: Je me souviens un jour que Sébastien Antoni me qualifia de terre-platiste

Bonjour.
De quel malentendu parlez-vous?
Avec mes sincères salutations,
Jacques Arnould

III

De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Jacques Arnould et Sébastien Antoni

Jeudi, 17 août 2023 à 13:36

Re: Je me souviens un jour que Sébastien Antoni me qualifia de terre-platiste

Celui évoqué dans le titre.

Ses mots exacts :

"Bonne balade sur la terre plate à vous"

Et le prendre pour malentendu est charitable de ma part.

Hans Georg Lundahl

IV

De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Sébastien Antoni et Jacques Arnould

Vendredi, 18 août 2023 à 20:28

Re: Je me souviens un jour que Sébastien Antoni me qualifia de terre-platiste

En me concentrant sur qui j'avais devant moi en France, j'ai peut-être oublié mon propre pays.

Hier, quelqu'un alléguait avoir lu mon blog il y a environ un an · Ces jours, j'ai été un peu plus que prévu sur Quora en suédois

Est-ce que vous auriez, les deux, peut-être cultivé le contact avec des Suédois me concernant ?

Mauvaise idée, au moins pour mes intérêts, sinon pour les vôtres.

Ici Sébastien :

Sébastien Antoni à moi

devant Anne le Pape et Abbé VB

Tuesday, May 04, 2021 at 3:57 PM

Réfutation de l'hérésie prononcée par Sébastien Antoni (envoyé devant deux témoins)

Merci de cette information très utile.

Bonne balade sur la terre plate à vous

Cordialement

S

Autour de Sébastien Antoni qui a nié l'individualité d'Adam et d'Ève

Est-ce que vous aviez l'idée que je sois platiste de quelque Suédois ?

Parlant d'où on a des idées, la mienne que vous niez l'individualité d'Adam et Ève semble venir de vous, de votre propre colonne en "Croire + 7222" - mais si vous avez reconsidéré cette position, n'hésitez pas à vous innocenter. Je ne suis pas juge, mais je dois faire des jugements prudentiels pour moi-même si par exemple je peux vous considérer comme prêtre parfaitement catholique, et mon jugement prudentiel exprimé dans le blog pourrait influencer celui d'autres. Donc, si vous avez reconsidéré, n'hésitez pas ...

Entretemps, pourquoi c'est important et pas juste une question d'obéissance nue ou quasi aveugle devant le Concile de Trente, regardez ceci :

L'humanité ne commence pas avec des singeries

et en anglais ceci :

"Adam was not an individual, the fall was collective" - Evil or Just Wrong? · What About The Jimmy Akin Solution?

Hans Georg Lundahl

V

Hans-Georg Lundahl à Sébastien Antoni et Jacques Arnould

8/21/2023 at 11:46 AM

Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?

Il semble qu'un homme que vous considérez comme ayant été pape dit ceci :

A vous aussi, qui représentez l'Eglise qui est en Amérique latine, j'ai la joie de remettre aujourd'hui idéalement mon Encyclique Deus caritas est, par laquelle j'ai voulu indiquer à tous ce qui est essentiel dans le message chrétien. L'Eglise se sent disciple et missionnaire de cet Amour: missionnaire uniquement en tant que disciple, c'est-à-dire capable de se laisser toujours attirer avec un émerveillement renouvelé par Dieu qui nous a aimés et nous aime le premier (cf. 1 Jn 4, 10). L'Eglise ne fait pas de prosélytisme. Elle se développe plutôt par "attraction": comme le Christ "attire chacun à lui" par la force de son amour, qui a culminé dans le sacrifice de la Croix, de même, l'Eglise accomplit sa mission dans la mesure où, associée au Christ, elle accomplit chacune de ses œuvres en conformité spirituelle et concrète avec la charité de son Seigneur.

https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/fr/homilies/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20070513_conference-brazil.html

Dans cette perspective, pas beaucoup d'espace pour l'apologétique, n'est-ce pas ?

Ce qui pourrait expliquer un manque assez évident d'intérêt pour mon projet, médiatique et apologétique, et ce que ça coûte à celui-ci si par example on me donne la réputation de platiste.

Je pense que dans la caricature populaire d'un platiste chrétien, il y a trois éléments "croire que la terre est jeune, stationnaire et plate" - et je pense aussi que, par raisonnement ou intuition, il y a une de ces trois qui semble plus absurde que les autres - plate, puisque ça contredit ce que nous avons vu par les voyages.

Me tamponner comme platiste serait donc un élément clef pour quiconque voudrait m'empêcher de faire une apologétique pour une terre jeune et stationnaire, comme étant des donnés bibliques pour les deux, ou d'expérience directe pour le second.

Ça me prive de lecteurs, donc d'intérêt d'éditeurs, donc d'une source de revenu possible - chose à laquelle autrement vous devriez avoir quelque sensibilité. Je ne suis pas en train de me dire "oh, il me prend pour platiste, qu'il est méchant avec moi" - je calcule simplement que ceci est loin de prôner mes chances de réussite.

Autre chose, quelle que soit la raison pourquoi il semble que vous soyez capables de prier pour que quelqu'un d'autre m'explique les choses en anglais, ce n'est pas exactement d'une grande honnêteté d'espérer qu'on m'explique les choses sans de vérifier quelles explications je fournis à mon tour. Quand je prenais "Benoît XVI" pour le pape, j'aurais dit "puisque vous êtes des prêtres catholiques, et même si vous maltraitez la foi, vous avez d'autorité et de sacrements valides à votre disposition" mais que ceci soit erroné ou vrai, l'explication ne justifie pas l'usage.

C'est moins compliqué psychologiquement de se décider de republier un bloggueur dans le même pays, dans la même ville, qu'on peut consulter, que de le faire avec un tel à la distance de l'Atlantique et encore quelques km à chaque côté, une réussite dépendrait donc moins probablement des États-Unis que de la France, de Paris avec alentours, et puisque les deux vous avez un intérêt pour garder vos lecteurs que je n'en ai pas trop, et au moins un de vous (Sébastien) a été sinon la source au minimum au courant de la rumeur que je sois platiste, j'aimerais vos informations là-dessus et si vous faites quelque chose pour l'éliminer.

Hans Georg Lundahl

VI

De Jacques Arnould à Hans Georg Lundahl et Sébastien Antoni

8/22/2023 at 1:46 PM

Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?

Monsieur,
Merci pour votre long message...
Je ne vois pas très bien en quoi il me concerne directement.
Je vous souhaite une belle fin d'été,
Avec mes sincères salutations,
Jacques Arnould

VII

Hans-Georg Lundahl à Jacques Arnould

Cc: Sebastien Antoni

8/22/2023 at 2:52 PM

Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?

"long message"

2 mins 23 secs selon
https://thereadtime.com/#google_vignette
(à moins que vous lisiez à vive voix)

"Je ne vois pas très bien en quoi il me concerne directement."

Puisque je considère vous comme Sébastien Antoni comme collègues en tant que publicistes et comme possible compétition.

Je vous posais une question sur ce que vous auriez pu machiner ou savoir sur mon renommé dedans, notamment en ce qui concerne des rumeurs de platisme.

Je vous posais aussi la question si c'était moins telle ou telle position que la démarche d'apologète en général qui pourrait vous gêner.

C'est clair comme résumé? C'est clair pourquoi je vise vous deux?

Hans Georg Lundahl

PS, "belle fin d'été," est une chose, mais c'est plutôt une chose à souhaiter à une cigale qu'à une fourmi, si vous suivez ce que je veux dire ...

VIII

De Jacques Arnould à Hans Georg Lundahl (seul)

8/22/2023 at 10:11 PM

Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?

Bonsoir, Monsieur.
Je ne "machine" absolument rien. Je vous rappelle que c'est vous qui avez pris contact avec moi.
Je vous souhaite une bonne soirée.
Avec mes sincères salutations,
Jacques Arnould

IX

De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Jacques Arnould et Cc Sébastien Antoni

8/23/2023 at 2:10 PM

Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?

Bonjour, Monsieur le Chercheur!
Merci pour la réponse, je vous ai contacté cette fois pour le demander. J'en suis très bien conscient.

Une semblable réponse par Sébastien ne serait pas de trop, s'il le peut honnêtement.

Je ne suis pas un grand ami d'accusations ou de soupçons exprimés, mais avouez que :

• nous sommes trois écrivains qui prétendent tous être catholiques
• moi je suis en conflit avec vous sur le plan de l'évolution
• donc, si je raisonne bien, vous avez un intérêt, soit de me refuter, soit de me marginaliser.

Si vous voudrez, prenez pour une vanité de ma part de penser que je raisonne bien. Donc, de mon point de vue,

• soit vous avez un intérêt de me réfuter
• soit de me marginaliser.

Ensuite, de fait je me trouve marginalisé, de fait je ne vois pas une grande énergie de votre part de me refuter en débats, donc, je me suis permis à ajouter 2 à 1 et possiblement encore 1 et de conclure possiblement 4.

Salutations,
Hans Georg Lundahl

X

De Jacques Arnould à Hans Georg Lundahl

Cc Sébastien Antoni

8/24/2023 at 5:17 PM

Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?

Monsieur,
Je ne tiens pas absolument pas à vous marginaliser ; quand d'ailleurs aurais-je (eu) l'occasion de le faire?
Je n'ai par ailleurs jamais refusé de débattre sur la question de l'évolution, dans des ouvrages ou dans des échanges publics.
C'est pour cette raison que j'accepte cet échange de courriers.
Je vous souhaite une excellente fin de journée ; je suis actuellement en déplacement professionnel et n'ai guère de temps libre.
Avec mes sincères salutations,
Jacques Arnould

XI

De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Jacques Arnould

8/24/2023 at 7:17 PM

Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?

Ah, excellente nouvelle !

Désolé pour les soupçons dans ce cas !

Auriez vous de temps libre avant la Sainte Croix ?

Le thème : comment Adam aurait pu avoir une langue humaine s'il était né de non-humains, directement ou à travers n'importe quel nombre d'intermédiaires.

Pour rappel :

• chaque langue humaine a trois niveaux, phrase, morphème et phonème (notons, "mot" veut pour le linguiste dire un morphème ou groupe de morphème ininterrompu qui ne peut pas changer des places entre eux dedans, mais dont le tout peut changer de place dans la phrase) ;
• la phrase est une description complète de la situation qu'on veut décrire ;
• le morphème a un sens ou méta-sens qui aide à composer le sens de la phrase (sujet et prédicat ont normalement du sens, copula du méta-sens) mais ne suffit pas pour décrire la situation concrète à lui seul (sauf des sous-entendus évidents) ;
• le phonème, le son, n'a pas du sens de dout, mais aide dans sa combinaison avec d'autres pareilles à distinguer les morphèmes et ceci dans un ordre inchangeable par morphème ;
• la phrase peut être pas seulement une demande ou un reconfort, mais bel et bien une description (le cas le plus typique)
• et peut porter sur des choses niées, conditionnelles, passées, futures, éloignées dans l'espace.

Aucun singe ou grand singe a un seul de ces charactéristiques dans son système de communication, sonore ou autre.

La correspondence sera publié sur un blog de moi, et vous êtes libre à en faire un publication parallèle.

Vous êtes bien d'accord ?

Hans Georg Lundahl

XII

De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Sébastien Antoni

8/24/2023 at 7:18 PM

Fw: Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?

Pardon, j'avais oublié à vous faire une Cc !

[+ identique à XI]

XIII

De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Jacques Arnould et Sébastien Antoni

8/25/2023 at 3:49 AM

Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?

Je n'ai par ailleurs jamais refusé de débattre sur la question de l'évolution, dans des ouvrages ou dans des échanges publics.
C'est pour cette raison que j'accepte cet échange de courriers.

Pour rendre notre échange encore plus publique - est-ce que Sébastien serait volontaire de le republier en Pèlerin ? /HGL

XIV

De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Jacques Arnould et Sébastien Antoni

8/26/2023 at 6:40 PM

juste une très brève clarification

1) quand je parle de marginalisation, je ne parle pas d'un refus de me parler, je parle d'un refus de faire parler de moi
2) quand je cherche le débat, ce n'est pas pour avoir l'occasion de mentalement digérer des questions qui me rendraient confus ou désorienté et dans lesquelles j'aurais besoin d'aide, c'est pour montrer, idéalement à des gens dans la France où je me trouve, dans le quartier où j'ai mon bagage, que je maîtrise les sujets et que "mon" point de vue tient ET
3) qu'on peut donc commencer une édition imprimée ...

Je suis en train d'avoir encore un débat sur quora anglophone, le premier volet se trouve ici : James Ussher in Catholic Apologetics.

Mais je n'ai pas encore entendu mot de Sébastien ici, ni confirmation que vous (Jacques) comprendriez les échanges entre nous comme quelque chose à montrer le public ...

Hans Georg Lundahl

XV

De:Hans-Georg Lundahl

À: Jacques Arnould et Sebastien Antoni

9/1/2023 at 12:24 AM

...

La cancel culture existe ... y compris de la part de néo-catholiques vis-à-vis des créationnistes jeune terre.

Mr. Fessenden fait semblant de savoir en se laissant guider par les documents les plus modernes, sans de se soucier du critère de Trente (sess. IV) quam ecclesiam tenuit atque tenet, et cet informaticiens sans formation classique imagine que je ne pourrais ni avoir une meilleure compréhension des Pères de l'Église, ni des procédés par lesquels les théorèmes modernistes sont soutenues ...

Voici comment il fait de la cancel culture ...

Theo Fessenden Debate ... un peu comme je commence d'avoir peur que vous le fassiez, chaque fois que vous n'avez pas une réponse .../HGL

XVI

De:Hans-Georg Lundahl

À: Jacques Arnould et Sebastien Antoni

Cc. Forum Jésus Messie

9/4/2023 at 4:26 AM

Jacques Arnould et Sébastien Antoni - peu avides à me débattre ...

Entretemps, j'ai eu des débats en anglais, dans lesquels, les gens qui voudraient prétendre que les âges en Genèse 5 et 11 auraient des significations symboliques ont autant de mal à les trouver, que Farid à trouver un verset du Coran qui affirme que Mahomet fit un quel-conque miracle.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Ussher III · Φιλολoγικά / Philologica: Numeric Symbolism in Genesis 5 Patriarchs? · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Number Symbolism in Genesis 5? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Ages or Names Symbolic?

Did Muhammad Perform Miracles?
Apologetics Roadshow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ5Vd4-5SVg

XVII

De:Hans-Georg Lundahl

À: Jacques Arnould et Sebastien Antoni

9/14/2023 at 2:36 PM

la correspondance est publiée

[lien à ce post]

XVIII

De Jacques Arnould à Hans Georg Lundahl

Cc Sébastien Antoni

Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 3:45 PM

Re: la correspondance est publiée

Bonjour. Je ne comprends pas. Belle fin de semaine, beau dimanche. Bien sincèrement. Jacques Arnould

XIX

De:Hans-Georg Lundahl

À: Jacques Arnould

9/14/2023 at 4:38 PM

Re: la correspondance est publiée

Si vous aviez cliqué le lien, vous auriez compris.

Merci bcp./HGL

XX

De:Hans-Georg Lundahl

À: Jacques Arnould et Sebastien Antoni

Cc. Forum Jésus Messie

9/16/2023 at 12:00 AM

J'avais oublié

J'ai un autre qui prend le débat :

• premier hic - c'est aux États-Unis que se trouve mon co-débatteur, c'est facile à ignorer ici en France
• deuxième hic - il n'est pas plus préparé pour ce débat qu vous, Jacques Arnould :

Pas avec des singeries, débat avec Laurent Dupont
https://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/2023/09/pas-avec-des-singeries-debat-avec.html

Je commence d'avoir le sentiment qu'il pourrait être un lycéen, ou tout juste sorti d'un lycée où il avait été très indoctriné dans l'évolutionnisme .../HGL

Will This Be Answered? (B)

New blog on the kid: Documented by a Psychiatrist? · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Will This Be Answered? (B)

I

From: Hans-Georg Lundahl
To: Mark Greenwald

6/2/2023 at 7:34 PM

It seems my name is mentioned by you?

Academia tells me:
__________________

Dear Hans-georg,
“H. Lundahl” mentioned by “Mark Greenwald”.
__________________

I do not write on psychiatry, except the evils of the superstition?

II

From: Hans-Georg Lundahl
To: Mark Greenwald

7/9/2023 at 2:36 PM

Wait, did you write with one "Leslie H. Lundahl"?

Without Academia plus, I could not directly view the mentions. When I found "H. Lundahl" mentioned in a paper by you again, I figured out, I could so indirectly.

I logged in to Academia (base package) normal, looked for you, looked for your latest pdf, and F searched "H. Lundahl" ... first hit was "Leslie H. Lundahl" who obviously is not myself.

I think we risk overestimating the "intelligence" of AI. Just because I went onto Academia when I was Orthodox and had "Hans" as sole name in the Orthodox confirmation, and thence signed on as Hans Lundahl rather than more usually Hans Georg Lundahl, I have a profile with the former name and still user URL of "H. Lundahl" / HLundahl ... which so happened to coincide with a part of your colleague Leslie's name.

Sorry for the angry letter I sent last time.

Even after seeing C S L's dog Jacksie run over a car in the google translate from his wikipedia article in Ukrainean, rather than the car running over the dog, I could so rely on AI that I thought you had mentioned me, when you hadn't. My bad.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Will This be Answered?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Yes, Homosexual People Already Had the Right to Marry · New blog on the kid: Has Introibo Discredited the Orthodoxy of Fr De Pauw? · Is Trent 24, canon 10 a warrant for arranging someone else's celibacy? · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Will This be Answered?

I

Marriage as Vocation - pre-modern

From: Hans-Georg Lundahl

To: info@stjosemaria.org

5/19/2023 at 6:31 PM

On the one hand, for the position it is a vocation, one can cite the Greek commenter on Genesis who considered Noah had children so late as at age 500 because:

• he had prematurely tried monasticism
• he had very late been talked into the marriage which was his vocation for saving mankind on the Ark.

In this case, marriage would have been his vocation against his inclination.

I do not find many different patristic commenters saying this, but then, I haven't had the time to read Migne. St. Augustine, to the best of my memory, doesn't say so in City of God.

For the opposite position on Noah, I have nothing directly patristic, I don't think the Fathers looked often into it.

However, I have Biblical about the last days:

• Jesus said : "as in the days of Noah"
• St. Paul said "heeding doctrines of demons ... forbidding to marry"

So, if so, some in the days of Noah were forbidden to marry. Some people in Sweden for instance seem to think, from my experience, a man who has not slept with a woman cannot really know if he wants to marry her. Plus waiting with sex up to marriage to avoid mortal sin would be to them works salvation. I say seem, I am not intimately familiar with those persecuting me in Sweden. Ergo, the prophecy in 1 Tim 4:3 can refer to, among other things, blocking the righteous from marrying. If this happened in Noah's days, and Noah was righteous, this could also very well explain why he had his three sons at age 500.

On the other hand, Our Lord told St. Bridget about those damned, that they were ungrateful to Him, among other benefits, that of being able to "enjoy sex moderately" = in marriage, not before or beside, not unfruitful, probably not on nights to Sundays or Holidays of Obligation, as per the Church law back then, perhaps even divine law, even if Pius XII didn't seem to bother.

Hence, I would like sth going back further than Josemaria or Fr DePauw or anything after Vatican II.

Since, IF marriage were only licit as per vocation, that would argue the position I already have stamped as heretical elsewhere, that "homosexuals are called to chastity" (i e perfect chastity or celibacy), and also positions enumerated by the Introibo blogger, here:

Introibo Ad Altare Dei: Choosing A Marriage Partner In Today's World
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/05/choosing-marriage-partner-in-todays.html

Specifically, "Be honest with yourself-- if any of these reasons are your motivation for marriage, it is not your vocation: ... You want to experience sex without sinning" - which directly contradicts what Our Lord told St. Bridget.

Also specifically, "Do not seek marriage if: ... You have an unresolved serious vice, such as porn addiction, drinking too much, using recreational drugs, or gambling." This contradicts my dictum, for what it is worth, that homosexual people can marry (someone of the opposite sex, obviously).

Both of them also seems to involve a Lutheran idea or Calvinist idea, anyway Protestant idea, of marriage as vocation, making marriage available - not just as per the other party involved and his or her relatives, but as to the parish or congregation overall, even before getting started - only as the reward for virtuous living. This contradicts the Catholic doctrine of the three goods of marriage, one of which is "in remedium concupiscentiae" ...

Both of them also open up to what is already since long ongoing in the Protestant world, namely intrigues blocking certain people from marrying, this by exaggerating their faults and by painting "addictions" which don't* exist, at least not as abuse, and therefore fulfilling the prophecy of 1 Tim 4:3.

So, for the idea that marriage is only licit as vocation, and not at least also as the 30-fold fruit that St. Thomas mentioned (minimal level of virtue, below which one is damned), do you have a pre-modern source?

Hans Georg Lundahl

* The idea homosexuals cannot marry is obviously also open to this kind of abuse by calumny or by hysterically "seeing things as they are" when they aren't like that.

About the Late Craig Lampe, His Son, His Book

Great Bishop of Geneva! Good News about Protestants · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : About the Late Craig Lampe, His Son, His Book

I

Me to GreatSite

3/8/2023 at 6:40 PM

three questions

1) Is Craig Lampe still alive?
2) If so, why is The Forbidden Book still available?

Good News about Protestants

3) Are you all Young Earth Creationists?

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

John Lawton Jeffcoat III

for GreatSite to me

3/8/2023 at 8:16 PM

Hans: three questions

Hans,

Regarding your three questions...

1.) Craig Lampe died on August 5, 2021. I had a great business partnership with Craig for over 25 years, selling all of The Bible Museum’s materials on my website at GREATSITE.COM from 1996 until January of 2023.

2.) His son, Joel, took over their end of the business and very recently made it impossible for me to continue to work with him.
For this reason, their materials (The Forbidden Book, leaves, facsimiles) are no longer available on my website at GREATSITE.COM

3.) Why do you care whether we believe in a literal 7 astronomical day creation, versus a 7 figurative “day of the Lord” creation… as long as we believe God created everything as described in Genesis… what does it matter which side if that argument we fall upon? That discussion does not enter into our dealing in antique Biblical materials in any way, nor is it a topic of discussion in “The Forbidden Book”.

John L. Jeffcoat
director@greatsite.com
1-800-422-6243 or 407-704-5776
GREATSITE.COM
World's Largest Rare Bible Dealer

III

Me to John Lawton Jeffcoat III

3/9/2023 at 2:20 PM

Re: Hans: three questions

2) I am happy that Joel is no longer providing you that erroneous book;
3) I am fairly glad to have proven, contrary to the expectations of Trent Horn, that to have your view of Church history is not an exclusive prerogative of Fundamentalists.

Thank you!

Hans Georg Lundahl

IV

John Lawton Jeffcoat III to me

3/9/2023 at 2:47 PM

Hans: questions

Hans,

I really do not understand what you are saying.

You have stated that the book our organization published for 25 years, “The Forbidden Book” is erroneous? How is it erroneous?

You have stated that our “view of church history” is apparently bad and you are pleased that it is not exclusive to “Fundamentalists”? What does that mean?

What are all these negative comments about?

Who are you… what do you want… why are you emailing me to tell me that we are wrong about everything… but not explaining specifically what you are talking about?

V

Me to John Lawton Jeffcoat III

3/9/2023 at 3:01 PM

Re: Hans: questions

OK. Some explanations are in order.

I came across The Forbidden Book in the format of a video, a film documentary.

I then wrote a refutation:

Answers about "The Forbidden Book" (my arguments why The Forbidden Book is erroneous).

I then had the idea to get in touch with Craig Lampe.

I did, and got an email from him, as you would have seen if you had clicked the previous link.

Good News about Protestants (it now also links to our correspondence).

And, as I am a Roman Catholic with a Fundamentalist view of exegesis, I am happy to show fellow Roman Catholics that your view of the Middle Ages is not coupled with Fundamentalist views about Genesis 1 to 11.

Does this explain things a bit better?

Hans Georg Lundahl

VI

John Lawton Jeffcoat III to me

3/9/2023 at 3:11 PM

Re: Hans: questions

Hans,

What you have written in response to The Forbidden Book is a rambling bunch of nonsense.

John

VII

Me to John Lawton Jeffcoat III

3/9/2023 at 4:36 PM

Re: Hans: questions

Hope Joel had the good sense not to agree.

What's your main problem ...?

VIII

Me to John Lawton Jeffcoat III

3/9/2023 at 4:57 PM

Re: Hans: questions

Was perhaps your main problem taking only ten minutes* to read it?

* note

I sent the link at 3:01 PM, he replied at 3:11 PM, same day. His opportunity to read a fairly long piece - 8431 words - was thus at the most 10 minutes.

While the Debate May be Over, It is Yet to be Reviewed

Paris time

sam

= Samedi / Saturday 25.II.2023

dim

= Dimanche / Lord's Day 26.II.2023, Quadragesima

sam 15:37

from Hans Georg Lundahl

to James Bogle

You recall how you argued using the withholding or royal assent was in your view a kind of rebellion?

What Happened The Last Time The Monarch Vetoed A Law?
J. Draper, 23 Jan. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy36g9ocE7s

It was done in 1937 and 2001. Canada and Oz ...

Like the presidential assent under Art. 13.3 of the Irish Constitution, it does not present any kind of real assent (or dissent) but is a mere certification that the Bill has passed through the Houses of Parliament. That is all.*

The example of 1937 seems to say the opposite.

I looked up 13.3.

1° Every Bill passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas shall require the signature of the President for its enactment into law.

2° The President shall promulgate every law made by the Oireachtas.

The second very explicitly makes the first a formality.

The one thing a president could do would be to abdicate in order to avoid assenting. But that, even in Ireland, he could.

* Note

cited from his wall.

dim 10:44, 10:59, 11:15

from James Bogle

to Hans Georg Lundahl

I am not sure what you are trying to argue, Hans-Georg, but you need to get your facts straight.

First, the Irish president has no more right to refuse legislation than the British King does. That is precisely why I drew the parallel. All you have done is reinforce my point. If you read my articles you would see that I quoted the relevant article of the Irish Constitution verbatim. You are not the only person who "looked it up". I did so before you.

The President can resign if he wishes but that will make no difference at all. Another President will simply be elected and he will certify. Just as the British Monarch certifies that a Bill has passed both Houses, so does the Irish President. He has NO discretion to withhold his "assent" because it is not an assent in the sense of a free discretion but no more than a certification that the Bill has passed both Houses, i.e. the exact same mere duty to certify that the British monarch has. There is no difference between them save that the Irish president does have the power to refer a bill to the Irish Supreme Court to decide its constiutionality a power that the British monarch does not have because we have no written constitution and no constitutional court.

Get your facts straight, sir.

As to 1937 and 2001, perhaps because you are Germanic, you do not understand the relationship between the Crown and other member states of the Commonwealth.

Australia and Canada are not part of the United Kingdom. They are separate, free and independent countries and they both have written constitutions.

My comments relate only to the United Kingdom.

In Australia and Canada, the Monarch has even less power than in the UK i.e. none at all. All the powers of the head of State are exercised by the Governors and Governors-General and in accordance with a written constitution which, in turn, is subject to a constitutional court in both countries.

In the case of australia, in 200, all that the Governor-General was doing was withdrawing a certification that the bill had passed both Houses for the simple reason that it had NOT so passed. That is not exercising a free assent or anything like it. It is preu certification, exactly as I adumbrated it.

In Canada, the Lieutenant-Governor was exercising a power given to him by the Constitution of Canada and thus DOES entail some free exercise of discretion.

But that is a power of the lieutenants-governor of Canada, not the British monarch. The British monarch has ZERO power to veto Canadian legislation.

If you think she has, then you need to read the actual sources of constitutional law, rather than relying upon an amateur Youtube production.

Although the production is accurate in parts, it is quite inaccurate to say that the British monarch retains a power to refuse assent. He does not. It is no longer part of his constitutional power and all constitutional authorities agree on that.

The only exception - and most authorities agree on this - is that he may veto a bill that attempts to abolish democracy. That is a vitally important power. If there had been a German King in 1933 with that power alone, he could have vetoed Hitler's seizure of power and abolition of democracy and forced him to an election. World history might then have been very different.

You would have done better to cite the example of Australia in 1975. In that year the Governor-General sacked the Prime Minister, not for attempting to abolish democracy, but merely for attempting govern without supply (i.e. money voted in), it having been blocked by the Upper House.

But the Australian Governor-General has MUCH more power than the British monarch does.

Indeed, the Australian Constitution gives the GG real power to refuse assent and veto legislation.

Indeed, the Constitution gives the British monarch power to veto legislation (ss.58-60). However, it is now a matter of constitutional convention that such power no longer exists and in the Common Law system, constitutional conventions have the full force of constitutional law.

What the true position is as regards the GG will be a matter for the constitutional court to decide, ultimately, i.e. the High Court of Australia.

What we DO know is that the GG has power to sack the PM and government under ss.57 because he did so in 1975, the decision went unchallenged in the High Court and the Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Garfield Barwick, had already given his view that it was constitutional, in an Opinion commissioned by the Governor General before he acted.

The sacked PM tried to consult the Queen but her private secretary wrote back saying that it was entirely a matter for Australia and the Queen had no power to intervene.

Accordingly, as I argued, the British monarch has no power anywhere to veto legislation, save in the vital exceptional case I mentioned.

Ergo.

dim 13:24

from Hans Georg Lundahl

to James Bogle

"First, the Irish president has no more right to refuse legislation than the British King does."

He explicitly as per the second part of 13.3 has no such right. So, if he would want to refuse, his one constitutional option would be to step down and say "look, I am no longer president, signing that is not my job" ...

On top of that, I find "no more ... than" misleading. It's more proper to speak of "a lot less than" ... I have seen no British legislation amounting to that second part of 13.3.

"That is precisely why I drew the parallel. All you have done is reinforce my point."

Except that the parallel doesn't hold in the absence of a similar text in the English law. 1967 there was a new royal assent act, what it definitely didn't change was the nature of royal assent by adding a "13.3 part 2" clause. It only changed how the monarch was able to express his assent.

"If you read my articles"

I read only one of them. "James Bogle: was Queen Elizabeth to blame for the Abortion Act?" on Rorate Caeli. That one didn't quote 13.3, since an F search on "13." gave nothing.

"The President can resign if he wishes but that will make no difference at all. Another President will simply be elected and he will certify."

First, the one who has resigned will have cleared his conscience.
Second, the election campaign could involve debates that might end up nullifying the proposal.

"Just as the British Monarch certifies that a Bill has passed both Houses, so does the Irish President. He has NO discretion to withhold his "assent" because it is not an assent in the sense of a free discretion but no more than a certification that the Bill has passed both Houses, i.e. the exact same mere duty to certify that the British monarch has."

That is no doubt your opinion, but I don't think there is a law to that effect.

On parliament . UK I found an informal text stating that the assent "is considered" a formality, i e backing your view, but weakly, as this may simply be a bad habit.

"save that the Irish president does have the power to refer a bill to the Irish Supreme Court to decide its constiutionality a power that the British monarch does not have because we have no written constitution and no constitutional court."

If you have no written constitution, and no constitutional court, that makes the proposition that "royal assent is a formality" very moot. In 2001 in Australia, it was used on that precise point, to recapitulate skipped formalities, but in 1937, in Canada, there were three laws that were blocked by the refusal of royal assent, because the royal assent was used in lieu of a constitutional court - the Lieutenant General deemed it unconstitutional to legislate:

• for banks to be controlled by local government;
• for papers to be obliged to print rebuttals required by the government against stories they didn't like.

Two withheld royal assents for the first type of proposal and one for the latter.

"As to 1937 and 2001, perhaps because you are Germanic,"

Are you Welsh or Gaelic? Otherwise you are as Germanic as I. Norse and Anglo-Saxons are very close culturally when starting out in history.

"Australia and Canada are not part of the United Kingdom. They are separate, free and independent countries and they both have written constitutions."

And their written constitutions, while putting royal assent in other hands than that of the actual monarch, give it a content, in at least Canada other than as formality?

A UK constitutional lawyer might argue in favour of the Canadian model rather than the Australian one, should it be a simple formality "down under". I perfectly got the memo that the Australian case would fall within your view of "royal assent" = "vetting of formalities" ...

"But that is a power of the lieutenants-governor of Canada, not the British monarch."

Was this already the case in 1890 or so? The year when Ottawa voted that infamous duty for Amerindians and Esquimeaux to send children to residential schools? Back in 2013, I debated against Annett, that he'd be wiser to sue Ottawa than the Crown. Back then I just assumed that the Monarch really had no power whatsoever, was not even aware of royal assent. I'd be happy if I didn't make a fool of myself in saying "Ottawa is more to blame than Balmoral, and Methodists more than Catholics" (while Catholics administered Residential schools, at one point they tried to save a girl from TB, and were stopped by Canadian authorities, and Catholics did not administer forced sterilisations, unlike Methodists, Calvinists, United Church of Canada) ..

"then you need to read the actual sources of constitutional law,"

Which are available where?

"and all constitutional authorities agree on that."

Including texts that do not exist?

"If there had been a German King in 1933 with that power alone,"

Jews in the Germanies have suffered in two circumstances. a) Alemannic area (mostly very pro-Jewish these days); b) periods of unrest - First Crusade, and two periods without a German King. Rex Rintfleisch and Hitler had that in common.

However, the problem in 1933 was not abolishing democracy. I e multipartisan parliamentarianism. They did that in Austria too with much better results, initially backed against "Rintfleisch II" by Il Duce, who later, unfortunately, in 1938, greenlighted Hitler's second attempt against the "second but better German country" ...

"However, it is now a matter of constitutional convention that such power no longer exists and in the Common Law system, constitutional conventions have the full force of constitutional law."

Well, the problem is - do such conventions actually oblige? I recall a statement in a novel by GKC - "keep the commandments, break the conventions" ...

dim 18:21

from James Bogle

to Hans Georg Lundahl

You are merely repeating yourself and your arguments do not improve with repetition. Certifying that a Bill has passed both Houses IS precisely the job of the Irish President and he should not shirk it. What is NOT his job is to claim the right to veto a Bill. He has no such power.

I frankly don’t really care what YOU “find” since you are not an expert on the British or Irish Constitutions. The fact you think the British Constitution is a creature of legislation shows how little you understand it. The fact that you think the British Constitution is to be found in “a similar text in the English law” shows that you have no understanding of the British Constitution.

The British Constitution is governed chiefly by conventions, not statute. And you can stop kidding yourself that you have read the entire statute book of British legislation – it would take half a lifetime to do so. So, stop pretending.

It is a very long-standing convention of the British Constitution that, like Article 13.3 of the Irish Constitution, every Bill passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Parliament shall require the Royal Assent for its enactment into law and the Monarch shall promulgate every law made by both Houses of Parliament (or of the lower House alone, where the Parliament Acts are properly invoked).

Where do you think the framers of the Irish Constitution got the idea for Art 13.3 from, for goodness sake? From their former Anglo-Irish monarchical Constitution, of course. Where else?

So, I was entirely right, and remain right, to say, as I did, the Irish President has no more right to refuse legislation than the British King does. Fact. Get used to it.

Your ramble about the 1967 Act again shows that you simply do not understand the nature of the British Constitution. I repeat: it is chiefly a creature of convention, not statute. If you don’t understand this then further discussion is pointless because you simply do not know what you are talking about – literally. There is no need to “add a 13.3 part 2 clause” by statute because it is already established by convention.

If you have only read one of my articles then read the others. You might then begin to have some idea what you are talking about.

Possibly the most stupid form of argument is to say “well, I read one of your articles and X did not appear in that one”. The obvious retort is “well, then, read the other ones, you great clot!”.

Surely you can do better than that? And, in any case, you’ve heard the arguments now.

You then repeat your original failed argument and, as I said, your argument does not improve with repetition. No, an Irish President who resigns will NOT “have cleared his conscience” since his conscience is not engaged when he certifies that a Bill has passed both Houses. There is nothing immoral in certifying such passage. It is a morally neutral act and thus does not engage his conscience. It would only engage his conscience if he had the discretion to veto a Bill but, for the third time, he does NOT have such a power.

On the other hand, he would have created a wholly unnecessary, damaging and pointless constitutional crisis by resigning and would have failed in his duty, something that no responsible president should do. And, no, the election of a new president will not make any difference to the Bill which, having passed both Houses, would, by the Constitution, HAVE to be certified by the incoming President.

And, no, this is not merely MY opinion but the opinion of the British and Irish constitutional authorities as you would know if you knew anything about them which you so obviously don’t. Indeed, I cited some of them in footnote 7 to my Rorate Caeli article which you obviously failed to see.

Instead, you merely again publish your total ignorance of the nature of the British Constitution by ignorantly saying “I don't think there is a law to that effect” when, if you had any idea what you are talking about, you’d know that the Constitution is not chiefly a matter of law but of binding convention.

You have found that the Parliament website backs my view but, as if you were some kind of expert (which manifestly you are very far from being), you pretend that you are in a position to call this “weak”. If you had read the constitutional authorities, you would know that it is simply fact and not “weak”.

With even more profound ignorance of the British Constitution, you next claim that because Britain has “no written constitution, and no constitutional court” that this “makes the proposition that ‘royal assent is a formality’ very moot”. No, it does not. That is the very ill-informed and ignorant opinion of someone who knows very little about the British Constitution. Constitutional conventions are recognised as binding by the British Crown, the British government, the British Parliament, the British courts and the British people - and that is enough.

You then repeat your failed arguments as regards Australia and Canada in 1937 and 2001 both of which I have rebutted and you have not even addressed. Merely repeating your failed arguments does not improve them and so I merely refer you back to my rebuttal of them.

And the head of a province in Canada is called a “Lieutenant Governor” not a “Lieutenant General”. Get your facts straight, sir.

And whether you regard yourself as Germanic, or not, you have as little understanding of the British Constitution as do most persons of non-British origin. The Norse are equally, for the most part, unfamiliar with the British Constitution. You are no exception.

If you knew anything about the British Constitution, you would have read the relevant authorities and would know that no UK constitutional lawyer would be stupid enough to argue that the British Constitution is the same as the Canadian Constitution on the issue of the royal assent. That is the sort of non-argument that a Norseman ignorant of British constitutional convention might try to argue. Whatever “memo” you might think you “got”, it was clearly not a memo that had anything to do with the British Constitution, given your woeful ignorance of that same Constitution. And, as a result, you have very successfully “made a fool of” yourself. And, in case you have overlooked the fact, we are living in 2023 – not 1890.

You then ask some questions which underscore, if there were still any scintilla of doubt, that you have not the faintest clue what you are talking about and have no idea whatever about the nature of the British Constitution and constitutional conventions.

Your response to my pointing out the simple fact that a German King, even with no more than the power of the British monarch, could have stopped Hitler from abolishing democracy (which he certainly did) is so ramblingly incoherent that it does not merit a response.

Finally, that you need to ask whether constitutional conventions “actually oblige” proves even further how little you know about the British Constitution.

If, however, you think that a novel by G K Chesterton is the final arbiter to interpret the British Constitution then your reliance on an amateur Youtube presentation by a lady in a fake Greek helmet holding a broom, in place of a trident, seems entirely apposite tothe kind of material that you seem to prefer as your sources rather than the real constitutional authorities. It perhaps explains your serious inability to understand even the basic elements of the British Constitution.

dim 19:20

from Hans Georg Lundahl

to James Bogle

"What is NOT his job is to claim the right to veto a Bill. He has no such power."

I did not claim he did. That's where 13.3 is explicitly different from what is explicitly stated in English laws, as many as I have been given access to.

"I frankly don’t really care what YOU “find” since you are not an expert on the British or Irish Constitutions."

No, I am on the subject an amateur moderately knowledgeable. It was actually only through your essay (which I found last year) that I even found out there was such a thing as royal assent.

"The fact you think the British Constitution is a creature of legislation shows how little you understand it."

I think the entire legal system of all of the Commonwealth is based on both written laws and precedent.

1708 and 1937 certainly do give precedent for withholding royal assent at discretion.

But 1937 was another country? Yes, but in for instance trust law, you can invoke with some discretion, precedent in other countries, obviously as long as they don't contradict either written law or precedent in your own.

"And you can stop kidding yourself that you have read the entire statute book of British legislation – it would take half a lifetime to do so."

Never claimed that. Only claimed to have one specific knowledge of two statutes that relate to royal assent. 1541 and 1967.

If you know of another statute that absolutely nullifies what I observed, fine, produce it.

"Where do you think the framers of the Irish Constitution got the idea for Art 13.3 from, for goodness sake? From their former Anglo-Irish monarchical Constitution, of course. Where else?"

Or, from one specific understanding of it. An anti-monarchic one.

"So, I was entirely right, and remain right, to say, as I did, the Irish President has no more right to refuse legislation than the British King does."

I still think "no more" should be vastly improved to "lots less" - that's still some, as he could abdicate.

"If you have only read one of my articles then read the others. You might then begin to have some idea what you are talking about."

Which one should I start with?

"The obvious retort is “well, then, read the other ones, you great clot!”."

I am fortunately a foreigner who doesn't know the exact nuance of "clot" ... and again, the obvious retort to that is, which one should I start with?

Where do I find them? Do you have a blog of your own, or do you exist in the blogosphere only as contributor to Rorate Caeli?

"No, an Irish President who resigns will NOT “have cleared his conscience” since his conscience is not engaged when he certifies that a Bill has passed both Houses."

I thought you were a lawyer, not a moralist ...?

You pretend to have some monarchist loyalties, are you aware there was a bill where a king of Belgium or a Prince of Luxemburg (forget which) actually did abdicate for a day to avoid signing it?

"On the other hand, he would have created a wholly unnecessary, damaging and pointless constitutional crisis by resigning"

Stability of régime is a higher obligation than all content in laws and what the régime actually does? Doesn't sound Catholic to me. I think Carlists and Falangists both rejected that in 1936, for instance.

"And, no, the election of a new president will not make any difference to the Bill which, having passed both Houses, would, by the Constitution, HAVE to be certified by the incoming President."

W a i t ... even if he were elected on the promise of not doing that? Sounds like you have very little grasp on the concept of epikeia.

"Indeed, I cited some of them in footnote 7 to my Rorate Caeli article which you obviously failed to see."

It so happens, as I recall it, the article was cluttered with footnotes. Each of them prone to contain quotes. Made reading the footnotes somewhat of a chore. But perhaps being readable (to other than a specific corps d'expertise) is not a top priority to you as a writer ...

"you’d know that the Constitution is not chiefly a matter of law but of binding convention."

A very good question for moral theology is "when is a convention binding" ... I think I'll try to seek answers in Escobar or Aquinas before consulting you. Just as a matter of my Catholic taste.

"You have found that the Parliament website backs my view"

Not entirely:

Royal Assent is the Monarch's agreement that is required to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament. While the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, nowadays this does not happen; the last such occasion was in 1708, and Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality.

UK Parliament Site information Glossary Royal Assent
https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/royal-assent/

The sentence "nowadays this doesn't happen" is clearly weaker than "has the right to refuse" ...

I think I'll finish this round here. Where an actual source proved you wrong.

added

22:23

Went after footnote 7, as you mentioned it.

Ah, there is after all an exception:

The exercise of the Royal Assent is not purely formulaic in the sense that the Crown, acting on the advice of ministers, might, in very rare circumstances (e.g. a minority government, or a colonial or devolved government), theoretically be advised to withhold assent but such a situation is highly unlikely. What we are considering here is not such a scenario but rather the Crown refusing assent against the advice of ministers or acting alone. That, it is agreed by the relevant constitutional authorities, would only be lawful in the situation where the whole Constitution were about to be vitiated e.g. by extending the life of Parliament indefinitely or gerrymandering the electorate so that the government could never be ousted – that is to say, permanently destroying democracy. Otherwise, the Monarch, acting alone, no more has such veto power than do any of his subjects.

Erskine May, Thomas, - a Whig
Bagehot, Walter, - a Liberal

The remainder would be moderns who presume that the Whig and the Liberal got it right.

dim 23:40

from James Bogle

to Hans Georg Lundahl

Given that you are not a lawyer, let alone a British lawyer, let alone a British constitutional lawyer (as I am), you again simply succeed in making a fool of yourself. I am not interested in debating with someone who can only argue by repeating his nonsense again and again in the vain hope that it will somehow improve with repetition.

So this is the last time I shall be responding to your pointless repetition. It seems clear that you have some kind of autism because you seem incapable of even hearing arguments that you do not like or do not agree with and so you just ignore them, repeating your errors again and again.

I have told you before, and do so now for the last time, that the British Constitution is governed chiefly by convention rather than statutes. But for you to claim that it is not “explicitly stated in English laws, as many as I have been given access to” is simply ridiculous. You think that an understanding of the British Constitution is limited to what you “have access to”? That is sheer nonsense.

And, no, you are not “an amateur moderately knowledgeable” on the subject nor anything close to it. You have revealed this by your basic and elementary errors. The fact that you only found out about Royal Assent through my essay also proves this. Een British school children know about Royal Assent.

If you think that the British Constitution is “based on both written laws and precedent” then you further advertise your ignorance.

The Constitution is not primarily based upon law or legal precedent but upon convention which develops over time and is very different from what it is was in1708 as even a 4th form constitutional law student could tell you.

For the very last time, what happened in Canada in1937 has nothing whatever to do with the exercise of Royal Assent in Britain. Canada is a separate country and has a written constitution. The British monarch has no power over it and it is the Lieutenant Governors and Governor-General who exercise such reserve powers under the Canadian Constitution, not the British monarch.

Have you finally got that?

You keep ignoring this like some sort of autistic child.

To compare constitutional convention with trust law (and I am also a Chancery lawyer dealing with trusts) is, once again, to advertise your extensive ignorance of the British Constitution. There is no comparison. You are simply talking complete nonsense.

You said “I have seen no British legislation amounting to that second part of 13.3” which is quite clearly your inferring that you have read the entire corpus of British statute law since otherwise you could not possibly know that there was nothing like Art 13.3 in it. You could not possibly have read the whole corpus, so your response was ridiculous. Sheer nonsense.

Neither did you claim to be limiting yourself to two statutes that relate to royal assent, 1541 and 1967. You are now making things up to cover the sheer nonsense of your earlier claim.

For the very last time, the British Constitution is governed by convention, not statute law. Asking for “another statute that absolutely nullifies what I observed” shows conclusively that you have simply not yet understood this but are, instead, simply ignoring what is being said to you, like some autistic child. Convention is not statute law and you will not find all the conventions comprehensively contained in any statute law.

Have you finally got this?

You keep ignoring this like some sort of autistic child.

The fact that you still have not got it proves conclusively that you have completely failed to understand the British Constitution.

It matters not whether the framers of the Irish Constitution were anti-monarchic since the issue at stake here is the same for a republic as it is for a monarchy. It is a matter of historical fact (and anyway obvious from the Article) that the framers got the idea of presidential assent from the Anglo-Irish Constitution that preceded the Free State and later republican constitutions. You again advertise your ignorance in not knowing this.

You next seem to be claiming that there is a difference between the Irish President resigning and the British monarch abdicating. This has but to be stated for its obvious absurdity as an argument to be fully demonstrated.

You also totally fail to address the argument.

For the last time, there is no issue of conscience either for the Irish President or the British monarch in certifying that a Bill has passed both Houses. It is not immoral to do so. The action is morally neutral. Neither of them has a power of discretion to exercise a veto and so there is no moral issue at stake.

Have you finally got this?

You keep ignoring this like some sort of autistic child.

The fact that you still have not got it proves conclusively that you have completely failed to understand the British Constitution.

What was done by King Baudouin was done in Belgium not the UK, even if you were unaware of it. Your assumption that the Belgian and UK constitutions are identical is yet more evidence of your total ignorance of the British Constitution. They are far from identical. There is no provision in the British Constitution for the Monarch to abdicate for a day, nor is there any need for him to do so.

For the last time, the British King has no discretion to exercise a veto over legislation. Having no such power means that the issue is not a moral one. No-one can be held morally responsible for exercising, or failing to exercise, a power he does not have. One does not need to be a professor or Moral Philosophy to understand that.

Have you finally got this?

You keep ignoring this like some sort of autistic child.

The fact that you still have not got it proves conclusively that you have not only completely failed to understand the British Constitution but you seem incapable of understanding basic morality, either.

And, no, I do not “pretend” to have monarchist loyalties – I openly avow them and always have done.

Furthermore, I do not regard Falangism as the last word in either morality or constitutionalism, even if you do. But you have once again completely failed to understand not only the British Constitution but basic and fundamental morality.

Ends do not justify means – basic morality.

One may not do evil that good may come of it – basic morality.

To breach the Constitution is a grave evil. Since the British Monarch does not have any power to veto legislation, if he were to attempt to do so then he would be breaching the Constitution, staging a coup d’état and would be attempting to rupture and destroy that same Constitution.

That would be a very grave evil since the King, of all people, must obey the Constitution. Even if he thought good would come of it (which it would not since it would not prevent the Bill becoming law and would only rupture the Constitution pointlessly), he may not do evil that good may come of it.

If this doesn’t “sound Catholic” to you then you clearly do not understand Catholicism.

As to ἐπιείκεια or epikeia (equity, fairness or reasonableness, from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics) I have a much better grasp than you do since I do not confuse the principles of equity with those of constitutional convention as you do.

Equity cannot be used by a court (or anyone else) to amend a morally neutral constitutional convention – at least not in England. Even in countries with a written constitution, the latter can only be amended by the rules contained within it.

So, in Ireland a presidential, candidate can promise what he likes at the election, he will not be able to change the Constitution save by a referendum held in accordance with the Constitution itself.

Epikeia will not allow him to change the Constitution on his own authority. Thus, once he becomes President he will be obliged to certify the Bill regardless – unless and until a referendum changes the Constitution (and it is highly unlikely that Art 13.3 would be changed anyway since it works perfectly well).

But thank you for admitting that you were either too dull or too lazy to bother to read the footnotes to my article. Perhaps you will try harder next time?

When a convention is binding is not a matter for moral theologians but for constitutional lawyers and depends upon each country’s own constitution. This seems to be a point you find beyond your ability to grasp.

Finally, you have found no authoritative source at all to contradict what I have told you.

The Parliament web site itself has no expertise to be the last word on constitutional convention and does not claim it. Indeed, it expressly denies it.

But in any case it does not claim what you think it does. First, it expressly states that Royal Assent is a “formality” and secondly when it says “the Monarch's agreement that is required to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament” it means agreement to certify that the Bill has passed both Houses of Parliament, not moral agreement to the content of the Bill as to which the Monarch has no power at all.

When it says that “the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent” this, today, means that he has the right not to certify a Bill as having passed both Houses if, as a matter of fact, it has not passed both Houses, not that the Monarch has a moral right to refuse agreement to the content of the Bill.

Your example from Australia in 2001 is a case in point. The Governor-General withdrew “assent” because it transpired that the Bill had not passed both Houses and thus he could not, and should not, have certified it as having done so. That is what is there meant by refusing “assent”.

The source of constitutional authority is not the Parliament web site but, as is testified to by those authorities I cited in footnote 7, the British Crown, the British government, the British Parliament, the British courts and the British people and the content thereof is set out in the scholarly authorities that I cite.

You have now looked at one of them and found – as if it were a novelty – that there is one exception.

Indeed, there is – the very exception that I told you about. Clearly you were, once again, not listening when I told you but had your head buried in the sand.

Refusal of assent on the advice of ministers (which in our Constitution means “on the orders of” since the Crown is always obliged to follow such “advice”) again means the Monarch has no discretion and is thus merely certifying - a morally neutral act.

As to the Monarch acting on his own discretion, the author states the exception just as I did: “What we are considering here is …the Crown refusing assent against the advice of ministers or acting alone. That, it is agreed by the relevant constitutional authorities, would only be lawful in the situation where the whole Constitution were about to be vitiated e.g. by extending the life of Parliament indefinitely or gerrymandering the electorate so that the government could never be ousted – that is to say, permanently destroying democracy. Otherwise, the Monarch, acting alone, no more has such veto power than do any of his subjects.”

Exactly what I said – a veto over “permanently destroying democracy” otherwise the Monarch has no more veto power than do any of his subjects.

Precisely!

Let me remind you what I said: “the only exception - and most authorities agree on this - is that he may veto a bill that attempts to abolish democracy. That is a vitally important power. If there had been a German King in 1933 with that power alone, he could have vetoed Hitler's seizure of power and abolition of democracy and forced him to an election. World history might then have been very different.”

Did you forget that already?

You must have a memory like a sieve if you had forgotten that I said this.

Now that is all I am prepared to say on this subject. I am not interested in debating with someone who arrogantly refuses to listen or debate properly but instead behaves like a petulant, autistic child.

So – please do not bother to respond any further. The debate is OVER.

So, the review has BEGUN - a first question - do you find Bogle unfittingly obsessed with being dismissive rather than actually arguing in detail why an analysis of mine is wrong? I think he repeated a slur about a mental diagnosis and an age group six times in total.

A second one, does he remind more than just me of The Emperor's New Clothes in H. C. Andersen? (Quibblers may say this is the first point) ...

Third, he misreads the parliament's site as saying "royal assent is a formality" while it actually says "and Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality."

Fourth, will any fourth form student in constitutional right read this?/HGL

PS, let's not forget whom we are talking about:
Legitimist, Cavalier, Jacobite, Carlist, Miguelist, Bourbonist, πρό παντός Ρωμηός... (from James Bogle's FB profile)

A Jacobite stating Royal Assent is a formality because conventions formed by Liberals and Whigs like Erskine and Bagehot have made it so?

A Carlist forgetting who joined the Falangists in 1936?/HGL

PPS - a Catholic forgetting what Pope approved the Falangists and Carlists and the Junta?/HGL

Illustration of previous from wiki:

The speech at Castelgandolfo, 14 September 1936
In the first bloody months of the Civil War some ecclesiastics managed to escape to Marseilles, Genoa, or Rome and these brought news reports with them, with which they sought to apply pressure to the organs of the Vatican Curia with whom they maintained regular relations. (Hilari Raguer, a Benedictine writer on religious history, points out that they necessarily delivered a biased report – bishops and aristocrats carry more weight than peasants and workers – and poor workers had no means of escape to take them from the Francoist zone to Rome). Father Ledóchowski, the superior general of the Jesuits, ordered the Jesuit press all over the world to support the rebels. It became known that Pius XI would grant an audience, at his summer residence at Castelgandolfo, to a large group of Spanish refugees and deliver an address to them. Expectation rose amongst the Spanish clergy in Rome. Though it should have fallen to Cardinal Francisco Vidal y Barraquer to lead the group of Spanish clergy, there was great animosity to him from the majority of Spanish ecclesiastics and the Pope instructed him to say he judged it wiser not to attend. Some 500 Spaniards, mostly priests and religious, as well as some secular supporters of the Uprising, did attend. The content of the speech disappointed the more fanatical among the supporters of the military rising. He read it in Italian and a Spanish translation was distributed as a leaflet. Entitled La vostra presenza (Your Presence Here), it began with lamentation for the fate of the victims and condemned communism. This part of the speech was used from this point on in Francoist propaganda. He quoted from the Book of Revelation, telling the refugees they came out of great tribulation (Rev 7:14). Yet whilst some hoped and expected that the Insurgent cause would be declared a Holy War or Crusade – it had already been so designated by various bishops and generals – Pius XI expressed horror at fratricidal war and exhorted the insurgents to love their enemies. He thanked those who had tried to alleviate the miseries of war, though their effect had been minimal. This too may have displeased the fervent supporters of Franco who were present, for the insurgents had always obstructed intervention of this kind by governments or neutral organisations such as the International Red Cross[11]

PPPS - on epikeia:

Summa Theologiae, II-II, Question 120. "Epikeia" or equity
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3120.htm

PPPPS - on Carlism and 1936:

Dos conmemoraciones de hoy son bien conocidas. Una, la del comienzo de la Cruzada de Liberación 1936-1939, a la que el Requeté y toda la Comunión Tradicionalista fueron por orden dada por el padre de S.A.R. Don Sixto Enrique de Borbón, el entonces Jefe de la Junta Suprema Carlista de Guerra, Don Francisco Javier de Borbón Parma, en nombre de su tío el Rey Don Alfonso Carlos. La otra, la muerte en el exilio en Varese, en 1909, de S.M.C. el Rey Don Carlos VII, hermano mayor de Don Alfonso Carlos y tío abuelo también de Don Sixto Enrique.

S.A.R. Don Sixto Enrique de Borbón
18 juillet 2014
https://www.facebook.com/sixtoenriquedeborbon/posts/10152534759941772/

(Don Sixto Enrique de Borbón is of the Carlist succession)./HGL

PPPPPS - I simply notified Bogle, see what happened:

If one is an academic with no cyber presence, one can certainly have one's presence everywhere on actual social media a purely private one.

But as James Bogle actually wants more readers than he can get on papers and internally circulated pdf's or compact discs, he actually wants people to read what he writes on for instance the referred to blog post on the Rorate Caeli blog, it stands to reason, he is apt to get responses from people less exclusively like his own circles, and to get them by way of internet. If he wants his FB left alone, it is perfectly possible to have a public email for contact on what he publishes, so that when he opens that inbox he can brace himself, and when he goes to Facebook, he needn't worry.

My own public email is hgl@dr.com - if he has a lawyer representing his interests of privacy or copyright issues, he can ask the lawyer to contact me there./HGL