Testamenty

Kas iga paberitükk mis jääb minust maha saab olla legaalne testment?

2020.11.24 01:13 Dasmithsta Kas iga paberitükk mis jääb minust maha saab olla legaalne testment?

Imelik küsimus, aga kuidas testamenti ikka teha? Kui ma lihtsalt kirjutan paberile umbes, et “Mina Dasmithsta... bla bla bla, palun tuhastage minu surnukeha”, millele järgneb siis allkiri ja teibin selle kuhugile v jätan oma aega ootama. Kas sellisel dokumendil oleks siis seaduslik alus ja minu surnukeha tuhastatakse ja minu soove võetakse arvesse või mitte? Alati võib ka võimalus olla, et keegi lihtsalt peidab mu testamendi kui tegu on ainueksemplariga vist?
submitted by Dasmithsta to Eesti [link] [comments]


2020.11.01 04:45 mecenas1111 Testament

Testament
https://vimeo.com/459932524



https://preview.redd.it/jdmwsfvgwjw51.jpg?width=1053&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3a19f7eb8c3fa998208acc2b94b3ef514d824d81
Testamenty szczególne dzielą się na:

  1. Ustny – oświadczenie ostatniej woli spadkodawcy dokonuje się w formie ustnej w obecności minimum 3 świadków. Ten szczególny testament ma zastosowanie w przypadku, gdy istnieją uzasadnione obawy co do nadchodzącej śmierci spadkodawcy.
  2. Podróżny – sporządzany trakcie podróży polskim statkiem morskim lub powietrznym. W obecności dowódcy statku lub jego zastępcy oraz dwóch świadków, spadkodawca oświadcza swoją ostatnią wolę.
  3. Wojskowy:
a) dokonywany ustnie przed sędzią wojskowym, ostatnia wola spadkodawcy jest zapisana w protokole.
b) spadkodawca przekazuje swoją wolę dwóm świadkom a jeden z nich sporządza testament, który podpisują razem ze spadkodawcą.
c) przewidziany w sytuacji, gdy spadkodawca nie może złożyć własnoręcznego podpisu, dokonuje się w obecności minimum 3 świadków, którzy podpisują spisany testament.
submitted by mecenas1111 to u/mecenas1111 [link] [comments]


2020.10.29 12:53 invazijaleptira Sudski prevodilac Jasna Filipovic Bojic - usluge

Sudski prevodilac Jasna Filipovic Bojic - usluge
https://preview.redd.it/00grh9pwv0w51.jpg?width=338&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ddaffdb3c0770fff463bdac9cac5ca392e4196fb

Pismeni prevodi

  • Pismeno prevodjenje dokumenata za vize: viza za Kanadu, viza za Veliku Britaniju, viza za Ameriku, viza za Australiju
  • Pismeno prevođenje ličnih dokumenta sa overom sudskog tumača – sudskog prevodioca
  • Pismeno prevođenje pravne i sudske dokumentacije sa overom sudskog tumača – sudskog prevodioca
  • Pismeno prevođenje tehničkih, stručnih i naučnih tekstova sa overom sudskog tumača ili bez overe sudskog tumača – sudskog prevodioca
  • Pismeno prevođenje tehničke dokumentacije sa overom sudskog tumača – sudskog prevodioca
  • Pismeno prevođenje dokumentacije pravnih lica sa overom sudskog tumača – sudskog prevodioca
  • Pismeno prevođenje medicinske i farmaceutske dokumentacije sa overom ovlašćenog sudskog tumača – sudskog prevodioca
  • Hitni prevodi dokumenata

Prevodi

Pružamo usluge overenih i neoverenih prevoda sa engleskog na srpski jezik i sa srpskog na engleski: prevodi i overe svih vrsta opštih tekstova i dokumenata;
Prevodi za fizička lica: Prevodi diploma, svedočanstva, prepisi ocena, pisma preporuke, planovi i programi studija, potvrde o nekažnjavanju, prebivalištu, izvodi iz matične knjige rođenih, umrlih i venčanih, rešenja o nasleđivanju i razvodu, testamenti...
Prevodi za pravna lica: Rešenja o registraciji društava, rešenje Agencije za privredne registre, tenderska dokumentacija, bilansi, finansijski izveštaji, OP obrasci, statuti, ugovori, web stranice, zakoni EU.
Usmeno prevođenje: Prisustvo sudskog tumača na venčanjima sa stranim državljanima koji ne govore srpski jezik, overa potpisa stranih državljana u sudu i opštini...
Mogućnost plaćanja prevoda u gotovini i preko računa.
Prevodi dokumenata su gotovi istog dana.
Direktnim dolaskom kod nas uštedećete novac.
S obzirom da smo kancelarija sudskog tumača/sudskog prevodioca naše cene su povoljnije nego cene koje nude posrednici. Kod nas ostvarujete direktan kontakt sa prevodiocima sa kojim možete da se konsultujete u vezi sa prevodom. Sudski tumač – sudski prevodilac overava svojim pečatom prevod dokumenta i garantuje da je taj prevod istovetan sa originalom. Za overen prevod nekog dokumenta potrebno je dostaviti ili original ili overenu kopiju originalnog dokumenta. Usluga sudskog tumača podrazumeva prevođenje dokumenta i overu prevedenog dokumenta pečatom stalnog sudskog tumača – sudskog prevodioca.


http://www.sudski-prevodilac.net/usluge.php
submitted by invazijaleptira to u/invazijaleptira [link] [comments]


2020.10.29 02:05 ClericalAbnormal DeRossi

Die Variantensammlungen des Johann Bernhard DeRossi. Bis heute in Gebrauch:
[Vol. I] J.B. DeRossi, Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti; Parmae 1784
Quelle1 (books.google.de)
Quelle2 (babel.hathitrust.org)
Genesis Exodus Leviticus
[Vol. II] J.B. DeRossi, Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti; Parmae 1785
Quelle1 (books.google.de)
Quelle2 (babel.hathitrust.org)
Numeri Deuteronomium Josua Richter 1.Samuel 2.Samuel 1.Könige 2.Könige
[Vol. III] J.B. DeRossi, Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti; Parmae 1786
Quelle1 (books.google.de)
Quelle2 (babel.hathitrust.org)
Jesaja Jeremia Hesekiel Hosea Joel Amos Obadja Jona Micha Nahum Habakuk Zefanja Haggai Sacharja Maleachi Hohelied Rut Klagelieder Kohelet Ester
[Vol. IV] J.B. DeRossi, Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti; Parmae 1788
Quelle1 (books.google.de)
Quelle2 (babel.hathitrust.org)
Psalmen Sprichwörter Hiob Daniel Esra Nehemia 1.Chronik 2.Chronik
[Vol. V] J.B. DeRossi, Supplementa ad Varias Sacri Textus Lectiones; Parmae 1798
Quelle1 (books.google.de)
Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numeri Deuteronomium Josua Richter 1.Samuel 2.Samuel 1.Könige 2.Könige Jesaja Jeremia Hesekiel Hosea Joel Amos Obadja Jona Micha Nahum Habakuk Zefanja Haggai Sacharja Maleachi Psalmen Sprichwörter Hiob Hohelied Rut Klagelieder Kohelet Ester Daniel Esra Nehemia 1.Chronik 2.Chronik
submitted by ClericalAbnormal to BibliaHebraica [link] [comments]


2020.10.22 16:15 Cavalierimmortal2 Qual'è l'edizione migliore della Bibbia cattolica?

Mi chiarisco subito per cosa intendo per migliore: buona qualità della carta, traduzione accurata, preferibilmente copertina rigida, entrambi i Testamenti. Nel cercarne una trovo sempre edizioni o obsolete o mal tradotte.
submitted by Cavalierimmortal2 to Libri [link] [comments]


2020.09.27 20:09 lutetiensis De certitudinum fine

This article was published in the Belgian periodical Melissa in 2001 and was written by Gaius Licoppe. More information on their website: http://www.fundatiomelissa.org/.
I took the liberty to digitalize and share it with you, as I thought it would be a good idea to share a serious text in modern Latin that doesn't talk about classics.
I hope you will enjoy it!
Hic articulus Gaii Licoppe in Melissa anno MMXI editus est, et a me ipso hodie curatus.
Melissa est periodicum totum Latinum, sexies in anno editum. http://www.fundatiomelissa.org/
De certitudinum fine
Non desunt inter homines intelligentes doctosque qui videantur nondum plane mensuravisse quan- tum decursu vicesimi saeculi visio mundi mutata sit. Mirum in modum Veteris Testamenti Genesis usque ad finem undevicesimi saeculi est firmum fun- damentum notitiae originum. In proemio, exempli gra- tia, libri scholaris Historiae Antiquae anno 1901 editi[1], quo pater meus circa annum 1905 usus est, leguntur haec verba significantia : « Hebraeorum historiae locum damus, quem iure meretur, primum scilicet. Difficile videtur mundi historiam incohare aliter quam narratio- ne Creationis vitaeque primorum hominum. Creationis autem narratio modo probabili adhuc sola Genesi praebetur. »
Medio undevicesimo saeculo fiunt prima eventa, quae hanc certitudinem labefacere incipiunt. In Mesopotamia in vestigiis regnorum multo antiquiorum quam Hebraeorum invenitur magna copia textuum signis cuneiformibus scriptorum. Ei, qui ex his signis secreta eliciunt textusque intellegere valent, valde mirantur quod Veteris Testamenti narrationes iam apparent apud populos multo antiquiores quam Hebraei.
In eodem patris libro legitur hoc : « Veteres histori- ci, Herodotus, Xenophon, Diodorus Siculus, nimis saepe mirum in modum narrationes maxime incredi- biles indulgenter acceperunt. » Ecce idem dici potest de Genesi !
Medio undevicesimo saeculo in Germanica valle Neanderthal fortuito inveniuntur ossia singularia. Manifesto non sunt hominis ossa communia, sed qua- lia sunt ? Compluribus in locis eiusdem generis ossa inveniuntur, sed perdifficile erit agnoscere ea pertinere ad aliud hominum genus vetustius exstinctumque, cum hoc cum Genesi non congruat.
In eodem patris libro legitur etiam :« Supra dixi- mus temerarium esse tempus etiam plus minusve exac- tum statuere de mundi creatione. Idem non est de hominis creatione ; licet eam statuere circa annum 8.000 a.Ch.n. »
Usque ad medium vicesimum saeculum latet vitae mechanismus. Anno 1948, cum ipse medicinae studia incohem, meus zoologiae professor, ceterum optimus, adhuc profitetur vitam esse « proprietatem suspensio- num colloidalium », quod re vera nihil significat, nisi meram ignorantiam[2].
Ab anno 1877, quo Walther Fleming primus in nucleo monstrat cellulae bacula, quae chromosomata vocat (i.e. Graece corpora colorata, quia certae colorantis substantiae colorem capiunt) ad annum 1953, quo Rosalind Elsie Franklin, James Watson et Francis Crick monstrant chromosomatum innumerabiles proteino- rum moleculas in duplici helice disponi, ingentes pro- gressus facti sunt in intellegentia vitae processuum ; et hoc tantum est initium inventorum magis magisque mirabilium, inter quae codex geneticus (1966) et muta- tiones geneticae artificiose inductae (ab anno 1970).
A tempore Galilei et Newtoni physicae « leges Naturae » detectae sunt formulisque mathematicis expressae ; etiam mechanica quantica et relativitate vicesimo saeculo additis, hae formulae valent ad praeteri- tum et futurum aeque describendum ; ex eis trahitur notio determinismi. Theologia et scientia septimo deci- mo saeculo inter se bene consentiunt ; Deus in orbe christiano habetur ut omnipotens Naturae legumlator. Leibniz, verbi gratia, scribit oculos aeque acutos ac eos Dei in Universo legere posse sequentiam rerum « quae sint, quae fuerint, quae mox futura trahantur »[3]. « Sagitta temporis »[4], i.e. tempus semper in eandem directionem manans, quae sensui communi patet, nega- tur his formulis. Tunc conceptio Naturae inertis, solum legibus deterministis submissae, propria est Occidentis et risui est Sinensibus mandarinis, quos Iesuitae docent[5].
A longinquo tempore, quo homines cogitare coepe- runt caelum spectando, iidem constitutos immutabi- lesque siderum motus valde admirati sunt. Harmonia caelestis diu laudata est : anno 1660, ut exemplum affe- ram, Andreas Cellarius magnum pulchrumque librum edidit c.t. Atlas caelestis seu Harmonia macrocosmica.
Undevicesimo saeculo Simon Laplace, maximus mathematicus, in libro c.t. De mechanica caelesti[6] for- mam mathematicam dat motibus corporum caelestium. Ille fautor est determinismi : cum nullus effectus fiat sine causa, ait, praesens Universi status simul est effec- tus eius prioris status et causa posterioris. Quod illus- tratur allegoria « daemonis Laplacii » : si certo temporis momento omnes Naturae vires omniumque eius parti- cularum positionem noscere posset, ei nihil esset incertum ; et futurum et praeteritum ei aeque paterent. Ab eo tempore Scientia putat se omnia secreta elicere posse ac magis magisque fit superba. Cum Simo Laplace opus suum Napoleoni praesentaret, is interro- gavit cur in hoc opere ne nomen quidem Dei appare- ret. Respondit se diva hypothesi non egere ; qui enim Deo uteretur, omnia arbitrario explicare posse, nihil vero praedicere.
Caelum nunc novis oculis spectamus. Sidera haeren- tia Antiquorum fiunt Universus incommensurabilis, ubi sidera maxima vehementia nascuntur et pereunt et ubi nostrum systema solare minus apparet quam pul- veris granum. Etiam motus corporum caelestium a Terra proximorum acutioribus instrumentis observati non sunt tam regulares quam antea putabatur. At, res inexspectata : medio vicesimo saeculo demonstratur Universum historiam habere ! Ortum est ante 13,7 cir- citer miliarda annorum a puncto (nemo scit quid sit, ne physici quidem) maximae temperaturae unde expandi, fingi et frigidius fieri non desinit ; hoc est maximum exemplum sagittae temporis.
Scrutando materiae particulas magis magisque tenuas (mundum atomicum et subatomicum), nonnulli physici Europaei et Americani ineunte vicesimo saeculo novam theoriam « quanticam » vocatam creant phaeno- menis subatomicis aptam, sed a physica tradita omnino differentem et a sensu communi vere alienam. Tunc primum physici occurrunt alicui insuperabili incertitu- dini, cum anno 1927 Varnerius Heisenberg suum « principium incertitudinis » divulgat ; ad quod simpli- cissime exponendum dicamus etiam Laplacium daemo- nem non posse simul noscere et positionem et velocita- tem alicuius minimae particulae.
Occidentalis autem mens « dilemmate determi- nismi »[7] perturbatur : estne futurum iam constitutum an in perpetua creatione ? Quomodo coniungere possu- mus futurum constitutum secundum determinismum cum nostra facultate eligendi inter complures vias ? Illudimurne cum credimus de libertate nostra ? Einstein saepe dixit « tempus esse animi errorem » et scripsit haec : « Si ens homine superius et perfectiore intelligentia praeditum hominem eiusque opera specta- ret, subrideret quod ille homo putat se agere secun- dum propriam liberamque voluntatem. Haec est persua- sio mea, quamquam scio eam plane demonstrari non posse »[8]. Multi physici adhuc profitentur nullam esse temporis sagittam in fundamentali Naturae descriptio- ne. Stephen Hawking, Anglus physicus et cosmologis- ta, in opere, c.t. Brevis temporis historia[9], pergit deter- minismum universalem profiteri ; in eius cosmologia tantum geometrica tamen eget sagitta temporis ad includendam vitam intellegentem ; quod vir doctus explicat principio « anthropico » aeque arbitrario ac est Epicuri clinamen.
Notandum est scientiam usque medium vicesimum saeculum solum systemata in aequilibrio descripsisse, consulto autem systemata non in aequilibrio neglexisse His novissimis decenniis nova physicae provincia orta est, quae spectat ad systemata non in aequilibrio ut structuras dissipativas,[10] ubi tempus necessario unam tantum directionem habet. Homo verbi gratia est struc- tura dissipativa ; eius structura fingi et crescere non potest absque externae energiae consumptione ; eius aequilibrium est instabile : ortum et finem habet modo irreversibili ; sequitur ergo sagittam temporis.
Necessaria facta est nova formulatio fundamenta- lium physicae legum, quae nitebantur analogia futuri et praeteriti et per plenam notitiam ducebant ad certitudi- nem. Si in leges inducitur instabilitas, tunc eaedem ad certitudinem iam non ducunt, sed ad probabilitates ; nihil praedici potest, nihil certi est in futuro ; creatio non est uno temporis momento facta, sed fieri non desinit. Hoc dilucide simpliciterque explicat Ilya Prigogine, Belga physicus et chemista, qui anno 1977 Praemio Nobeliano chemiae honestatus est, in libro c.t. Finis certitudinum[11].
Gaius LICOPPE
[1] Abbé Gagnol, Cours d'histoire. Histoire Ancienne, Paris, Ch. Poussielgue, 1901.
[2] « Suspensio colloidalis » in scientiis naturalibus est systema in quo parti- culae duorum ad ducentorum nanometrorum manent suspensae et regulariter dispersae in aliquo liquore. Exemplum ab omnibus notum praebetur embam- mate magonico (Fr. mayonnaise), ubi minimae olei guttulae dispersae et sus- pensae manent in aqua. Alterum exemplum est lac, ubi minimi globuli adipis in aqua manent dispersi.
[3] G.F. Leibniz, Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain, Paris, Garnier Flammarion, 1966, p. 39.
[4]. Locutio Time's arrow, i.e. « sagitta temporis », inducta est anno 1929 ab Arthuro Eddington, Anglo astrophysico.
[5] J. Needham, La science chinoise et l'Occident, Le grand titrag, Paris, Seuil, coll. « Point », 1977.
[6] Simonis Laplace opera maiora : La mécanique céleste (1799-1825) et Exposition du système du monde (1824).
[7] William James, The Dilemma of Determinism in The Will to Believe, New York, 1956.
[8] Citatum in opere K. Dutta et A. Robinson, Rabindranath Tagore, London, Bloomsbury, 1995
[9] A brief history of time, Bantam Books, 1988.
[10] Structura dissipativa est locutio, quam creavit Ilya Prigogine.
[11] Ilya Prigogine, La fin des certitudes, Paris, Ed. Odile Jacob, 1996.
submitted by lutetiensis to latin [link] [comments]


2020.09.27 20:04 lutetiensis De certitudinum fine

Hic articulus Gaii Licoppe in Melissa anno MMXI editus est, et a me ipso hodie curatus.
Melissa est periodicum totum Latinum, sexies in anno editum. http://www.fundatiomelissa.org/
De certitudinum fine
Non desunt inter homines intelligentes doctosque qui videantur nondum plane mensuravisse quan- tum decursu vicesimi saeculi visio mundi mutata sit. Mirum in modum Veteris Testamenti Genesis usque ad finem undevicesimi saeculi est firmum fun- damentum notitiae originum. In proemio, exempli gra- tia, libri scholaris Historiae Antiquae anno 1901 editi[1], quo pater meus circa annum 1905 usus est, leguntur haec verba significantia : « Hebraeorum historiae locum damus, quem iure meretur, primum scilicet. Difficile videtur mundi historiam incohare aliter quam narratio- ne Creationis vitaeque primorum hominum. Creationis autem narratio modo probabili adhuc sola Genesi praebetur. »
Medio undevicesimo saeculo fiunt prima eventa, quae hanc certitudinem labefacere incipiunt. In Mesopotamia in vestigiis regnorum multo antiquiorum quam Hebraeorum invenitur magna copia textuum signis cuneiformibus scriptorum. Ei, qui ex his signis secreta eliciunt textusque intellegere valent, valde mirantur quod Veteris Testamenti narrationes iam apparent apud populos multo antiquiores quam Hebraei.
In eodem patris libro legitur hoc : « Veteres histori- ci, Herodotus, Xenophon, Diodorus Siculus, nimis saepe mirum in modum narrationes maxime incredi- biles indulgenter acceperunt. » Ecce idem dici potest de Genesi !
Medio undevicesimo saeculo in Germanica valle Neanderthal fortuito inveniuntur ossia singularia. Manifesto non sunt hominis ossa communia, sed qua- lia sunt ? Compluribus in locis eiusdem generis ossa inveniuntur, sed perdifficile erit agnoscere ea pertinere ad aliud hominum genus vetustius exstinctumque, cum hoc cum Genesi non congruat.
In eodem patris libro legitur etiam :« Supra dixi- mus temerarium esse tempus etiam plus minusve exac- tum statuere de mundi creatione. Idem non est de hominis creatione ; licet eam statuere circa annum 8.000 a.Ch.n. »
Usque ad medium vicesimum saeculum latet vitae mechanismus. Anno 1948, cum ipse medicinae studia incohem, meus zoologiae professor, ceterum optimus, adhuc profitetur vitam esse « proprietatem suspensio- num colloidalium », quod re vera nihil significat, nisi meram ignorantiam[2].
Ab anno 1877, quo Walther Fleming primus in nucleo monstrat cellulae bacula, quae chromosomata vocat (i.e. Graece corpora colorata, quia certae colorantis substantiae colorem capiunt) ad annum 1953, quo Rosalind Elsie Franklin, James Watson et Francis Crick monstrant chromosomatum innumerabiles proteino- rum moleculas in duplici helice disponi, ingentes pro- gressus facti sunt in intellegentia vitae processuum ; et hoc tantum est initium inventorum magis magisque mirabilium, inter quae codex geneticus (1966) et muta- tiones geneticae artificiose inductae (ab anno 1970).
A tempore Galilei et Newtoni physicae « leges Naturae » detectae sunt formulisque mathematicis expressae ; etiam mechanica quantica et relativitate vicesimo saeculo additis, hae formulae valent ad praeteri- tum et futurum aeque describendum ; ex eis trahitur notio determinismi. Theologia et scientia septimo deci- mo saeculo inter se bene consentiunt ; Deus in orbe christiano habetur ut omnipotens Naturae legumlator. Leibniz, verbi gratia, scribit oculos aeque acutos ac eos Dei in Universo legere posse sequentiam rerum « quae sint, quae fuerint, quae mox futura trahantur »[3]. « Sagitta temporis »[4], i.e. tempus semper in eandem directionem manans, quae sensui communi patet, nega- tur his formulis. Tunc conceptio Naturae inertis, solum legibus deterministis submissae, propria est Occidentis et risui est Sinensibus mandarinis, quos Iesuitae docent[5].
A longinquo tempore, quo homines cogitare coepe- runt caelum spectando, iidem constitutos immutabi- lesque siderum motus valde admirati sunt. Harmonia caelestis diu laudata est : anno 1660, ut exemplum affe- ram, Andreas Cellarius magnum pulchrumque librum edidit c.t. Atlas caelestis seu Harmonia macrocosmica.
Undevicesimo saeculo Simon Laplace, maximus mathematicus, in libro c.t. De mechanica caelesti[6] for- mam mathematicam dat motibus corporum caelestium. Ille fautor est determinismi : cum nullus effectus fiat sine causa, ait, praesens Universi status simul est effec- tus eius prioris status et causa posterioris. Quod illus- tratur allegoria « daemonis Laplacii » : si certo temporis momento omnes Naturae vires omniumque eius parti- cularum positionem noscere posset, ei nihil esset incertum ; et futurum et praeteritum ei aeque paterent. Ab eo tempore Scientia putat se omnia secreta elicere posse ac magis magisque fit superba. Cum Simo Laplace opus suum Napoleoni praesentaret, is interro- gavit cur in hoc opere ne nomen quidem Dei appare- ret. Respondit se diva hypothesi non egere ; qui enim Deo uteretur, omnia arbitrario explicare posse, nihil vero praedicere.
Caelum nunc novis oculis spectamus. Sidera haeren- tia Antiquorum fiunt Universus incommensurabilis, ubi sidera maxima vehementia nascuntur et pereunt et ubi nostrum systema solare minus apparet quam pul- veris granum. Etiam motus corporum caelestium a Terra proximorum acutioribus instrumentis observati non sunt tam regulares quam antea putabatur. At, res inexspectata : medio vicesimo saeculo demonstratur Universum historiam habere ! Ortum est ante 13,7 cir- citer miliarda annorum a puncto (nemo scit quid sit, ne physici quidem) maximae temperaturae unde expandi, fingi et frigidius fieri non desinit ; hoc est maximum exemplum sagittae temporis.
Scrutando materiae particulas magis magisque tenuas (mundum atomicum et subatomicum), nonnulli physici Europaei et Americani ineunte vicesimo saeculo novam theoriam « quanticam » vocatam creant phaeno- menis subatomicis aptam, sed a physica tradita omnino differentem et a sensu communi vere alienam. Tunc primum physici occurrunt alicui insuperabili incertitu- dini, cum anno 1927 Varnerius Heisenberg suum « principium incertitudinis » divulgat ; ad quod simpli- cissime exponendum dicamus etiam Laplacium daemo- nem non posse simul noscere et positionem et velocita- tem alicuius minimae particulae.
Occidentalis autem mens « dilemmate determi- nismi »[7] perturbatur : estne futurum iam constitutum an in perpetua creatione ? Quomodo coniungere possu- mus futurum constitutum secundum determinismum cum nostra facultate eligendi inter complures vias ? Illudimurne cum credimus de libertate nostra ? Einstein saepe dixit « tempus esse animi errorem » et scripsit haec : « Si ens homine superius et perfectiore intelligentia praeditum hominem eiusque opera specta- ret, subrideret quod ille homo putat se agere secun- dum propriam liberamque voluntatem. Haec est persua- sio mea, quamquam scio eam plane demonstrari non posse »[8]. Multi physici adhuc profitentur nullam esse temporis sagittam in fundamentali Naturae descriptio- ne. Stephen Hawking, Anglus physicus et cosmologis- ta, in opere, c.t. Brevis temporis historia[9], pergit deter- minismum universalem profiteri ; in eius cosmologia tantum geometrica tamen eget sagitta temporis ad includendam vitam intellegentem ; quod vir doctus explicat principio « anthropico » aeque arbitrario ac est Epicuri clinamen.
Notandum est scientiam usque medium vicesimum saeculum solum systemata in aequilibrio descripsisse, consulto autem systemata non in aequilibrio neglexisse His novissimis decenniis nova physicae provincia orta est, quae spectat ad systemata non in aequilibrio ut structuras dissipativas,[10] ubi tempus necessario unam tantum directionem habet. Homo verbi gratia est struc- tura dissipativa ; eius structura fingi et crescere non potest absque externae energiae consumptione ; eius aequilibrium est instabile : ortum et finem habet modo irreversibili ; sequitur ergo sagittam temporis.
Necessaria facta est nova formulatio fundamenta- lium physicae legum, quae nitebantur analogia futuri et praeteriti et per plenam notitiam ducebant ad certitudi- nem. Si in leges inducitur instabilitas, tunc eaedem ad certitudinem iam non ducunt, sed ad probabilitates ; nihil praedici potest, nihil certi est in futuro ; creatio non est uno temporis momento facta, sed fieri non desinit. Hoc dilucide simpliciterque explicat Ilya Prigogine, Belga physicus et chemista, qui anno 1977 Praemio Nobeliano chemiae honestatus est, in libro c.t. Finis certitudinum[11].
Gaius LICOPPE
[1] Abbé Gagnol, Cours d'histoire. Histoire Ancienne, Paris, Ch. Poussielgue, 1901.
[2] « Suspensio colloidalis » in scientiis naturalibus est systema in quo parti- culae duorum ad ducentorum nanometrorum manent suspensae et regulariter dispersae in aliquo liquore. Exemplum ab omnibus notum praebetur embam- mate magonico (Fr. mayonnaise), ubi minimae olei guttulae dispersae et sus- pensae manent in aqua. Alterum exemplum est lac, ubi minimi globuli adipis in aqua manent dispersi.
[3] G.F. Leibniz, Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain, Paris, Garnier Flammarion, 1966, p. 39.
[4]. Locutio Time's arrow, i.e. « sagitta temporis », inducta est anno 1929 ab Arthuro Eddington, Anglo astrophysico.
[5] J. Needham, La science chinoise et l'Occident, Le grand titrag, Paris, Seuil, coll. « Point », 1977.
[6] Simonis Laplace opera maiora : La mécanique céleste (1799-1825) et Exposition du système du monde (1824).
[7] William James, The Dilemma of Determinism in The Will to Believe, New York, 1956.
[8] Citatum in opere K. Dutta et A. Robinson, Rabindranath Tagore, London, Bloomsbury, 1995
[9] A brief history of time, Bantam Books, 1988.
[10] Structura dissipativa est locutio, quam creavit Ilya Prigogine.
[11] Ilya Prigogine, La fin des certitudes, Paris, Ed. Odile Jacob, 1996.
submitted by lutetiensis to Locutorium [link] [comments]


2020.03.21 19:50 piparmynditee Filosoofiline küsimus

Isa jätab Mardile testamendis suure varanduse. Mart aga teab, et isa kaalub testamendi muutmist, et jätta talle väiksem osa (Mardil on ka õed-vennad, kes praegusega saaksid temast väiksema osa). Mart tapab isa seega enne ära, kui ta jõuab testamenti muuta. Valige palun teie arvates õiglane lahendus.
submitted by piparmynditee to Eesti [link] [comments]


2020.03.12 21:23 BorracciaBlu Info su successioni e testamento?

In breve, mio padre non sta andando benissimo con la salute e ci stiamo, a malincuore, preparando al peggio. Volevo chiedervi cosa succede (o deve succedere) in merito al testamento e alla successione.
TL;dr: vedere titolo.
Ho cominciato a googlare come funzionano testamenti e successioni, così da avere chiare le opzioni disponibili. Il problema è che trovo molte parafrasi del codice civile, ma nessuna indicazione "pratica" su cosa bisogna fare, materialmente, per assicurarsi che tutto vada come da volontà. Ho fatto l'esame di diritto privato troppo tempo fa per potermi ricordare come funziona. Sono a conoscenza dell'opzione di default, cioè la successione legittima, che si applica qualora non ci sia un testamento (o qualora il testamento presenti qualche difetto giuridico). Ma poi?
Le domande: - Come si dispone, in un testamento, il trasferimento di beni mobiliari? In particolare, basta indicare l'erede e la quota, o bisogna integrare qualche documento particolare (ad esempio, relativamente a conti correnti, fondi pensione, automobili)? - Come si dispone, in un testamento, il trasferimento di beni immobiliari? Bisogna allegare documenti particolari, come planimetrie o altri documenti catastali di casa/terreni? - Le cosiddette "quote legittime" (da non confondersi con la successione legittima, cioè il caso di default) sono vincolanti? Il testamento può disporre diversamente rispetto alla "legittima"? - A chi ci si rivolge per aprire la successione? Chi la esegue, in termini pratici? Come funziona? So solo che si ha un anno di tempo dalla scomparsa per sistemare le cose. - Come funziona il pagamento delle imposte relative alla successione?
Chiarimenti: - Mio padre è ancora in piena facoltà di intendere e volere, ed è perfettamente in grado di scrivere di proprio pugno (relevant qualora il testamento sia olografo, e quasi sicuramente sarà olografo). - Mio padre vorrebbe scrivere un testamento, proprio perché la successione legittima non rispecchia i suoi desideri. - Non mi aspetto una consulenza legale, mi bastano anche delle fonti affidabili da potermi leggere per conto mio. L'ideale sarebbe un vademecum con tutti i passaggi indicati, come una "mappa" per sapere come muoversi. - Non posso saperlo con certezza, ma non penso che mio padre voglia nominare esplicitamente un esecutore testamentario. - Non abbiamo intenzione di rivolgerci a notai, a meno che non sia fondamentalmente necessario. - Non ci aspettiamo alcun tipo di contestazione tra eredi: siamo cresciuti in un ambiente dove litigi causati da testamenti sono il male della società, e conosciamo bene La Roba, di Giovanni Verga.
submitted by BorracciaBlu to italy [link] [comments]


2020.03.12 12:57 WhiteTiger8598 Theory about the Makyrs

So, I'm kind of scared of posting this theory, as if it's right then it might come off as a leak. I also just wanted to say that if I'm just flat out wrong due to the leaks and someone knows for certain, please don't state what they truly are or if I'm wrong. I just want to say it's speculation, and I have nothing other than recent trailers to really back up the thought on it.
I was thinking about how the Makyrs symbolize Heaven, but what if they weren't really truly "Heaven". What if it was similar to Gnostic beliefs, where the Demiurge believed he was God, so he created a flawed world and was a flawed entity. I think the Seraphim is unrelated to the Makyr faction, as the Makyrs view Hell as a tool and ultimately a punishment against those who defy and trespass against them. The Seraphim gave his blessing to the Slayer due to his resolve against Hell, which means it's already a conflict on interests. The Seraphim would be closer to the ideal figure we use for angels, whereas the Makyrs look like them, but are a little bit more old testamenty. The Father (or God) probably created the Makyrs to safeguard and help different civilizations develop, but they became prideful in their age and power. I remember seeing someone breaking up the name of their planet or realm, Urdak, and Ur could be taken as first or primal, which would make that world to be the first world or realm created.
Hopefully Doom Eternal clears up things a lot and clears up things involving the Seraphim. The Seraphim and the Father are ultimately the biggest puzzle pieces that we don't have yet.
submitted by WhiteTiger8598 to Doom [link] [comments]


2019.11.15 00:40 slightlytoomoldy What if God were a total metalhead? Would singing hymns be enough to keep someone out of heaven? Would punishments get real old-testamenty? What would be the important things in life?

The things I ponder while trying to fall asleep.
submitted by slightlytoomoldy to whatif [link] [comments]


2019.11.07 17:51 MarleyEngvall veteris testamenti has been created

By Nathaniel Hawthorne FANCY'S SHOW-BOX. A MORALITY. What is guilt? A stain upon the soul. And it is a point of vast interest whether the soul may con- tract such stains in all their depth and flagrancy from deeds which may have been plotted and resolved upon, but which physically have never had existence. Must the fleshly hand and visible frame of man set its seal to the evil designs of the soul, in order to give them their entire validity against the sinner? Or, while none but crimes perpetrated are cogniza- ble before an earthly tribunal, will guilty thought,—— of which guilty deeds are no more than shadows,—— will these draw down the full weight of a condemn- ing sentence in the supreme court of eternity? In the solitude of a midnight chamber or in a desert afar from men or in a church while the body is kneeling the soul may pollute itself even with those crimes which we are accustomed to deem altogether carnal. If this be true, it is a fearful truth. Let us illustrate the subject by an imaginary exam- ple. A venerable gentleman——one Mr. Smith——who had long been regarded as a pattern of moral excel- lence was warming his aged blood with a glass or two of generous wine. His children being gone forth about their worldly business and his grandchildren at school, he sat alone in a deep luxurious arm-chair, with his feet beneath a richly-carved mahogany table. Some old people have a dread of solitude, and when better company may not be had rejoice even to hear the quiet breathing of a babe asleep upon the carpet. But Mr. Smith, whose silver hair was the bright ymbol of a life unstained except by such spots as are inseparable from human nature—— he had no need of a babe to protect him by its purity, nor of a grown person to stand between him and his own soul. Nevertheless, either manhood must converse with age, or womanhood must soothe him with gentle cares, or infancy must sport around his chair, or his thoughts will stray into the misty region of the past and the old man be chill and sad. Wine will not always cheer him. Such might have been the case with Mr. Smith, when, through the brilliant medium of his glass of old Madeira, he beheld three figures entering the room. These were Fancy, who had assumed the garhb and aspect of an itinerant showman, with a box of pictures on her back ; and Memory, in the like- ness of a clerk, with a pen behind her ear, an ink- horn at her buttonhole and a huge manuscript vol- ume beneath her arm ; and lastly, behind the other two, a person shrouded in a dusky mantle which concealed both face and form. But Mr. Smith had a shrewd idea that it was Conscience. How kind of Fancy, Memory and Conscience to visit the old gentleman just as he was beginning to imagine that the wine had neither so bright a sparkle nor so ex- cellent a flavor as when himself and the liquor were less aged ! Through the dim length of the apartment, where crimson curtains muffled the glare of sunshine and created a rich obscurity, the three guests drew near the silver-haired old man. Mem- ory, with a finger between the leaves of her huge vol- ume, placed herself at his right hand ; Conscience, with her face still hidden in the dusky mantle, took her station on the left, so as to be next his heart ; while Fancy set down her picture-box upon the table with the magnifying-glass convenient to his eye. We can sketch mere the outlines of two or three out of the many pictures which at the pull- ing of a string successively peopled the box with the semblance of living scenes. One was a moon- light picture, in the background a lowly dwelling, and in front, partly shadowed by a tree, yet besprinkled with flakes of radiance, two youthful figures, male and female. The young man stood with folded arms, a haughty smile upon his lip and a gleam of triumph in his eye as he glanced down- ward at the kneeling girl. She was almost pros- trate at his feet, evidently sinking under a weight of shame and anguish which hardly allowed her to lift her clasped hands in supplication. Her eyes she could not lift. But neither her agony, nor the lovely features on which it was depicted, nor the slender grace of the form which it convulsed, ap- peared to soften the obduracy of the young man. He was the personification of triumphant scorn. Now, strange to say, as old Mr. Smith peeped through the magnifying-glass, which made the objects start out from the canvas with magical deception, he began to recognize the farmhouse, the tree and both the figures of the picture. The young man in times long past had often met his gaze within the looking-glass ; the girl was the very image of his first love——his cottage-love, his Martha Bur- roughs. Mr. Smith was scandalized. "Oh, vile and slanderous picture ! " he exclaims. " When have I triumphed over ruined innocence? Was not Martha wedded in her teens to David Tomkins, who won her girlish love and long enjoyed her affection as a wife? And ever since his death she has lived a reputable widow !" Meantime Memory was turning over the leaves of her volume, rustling them to and fro with un- certain fingers, until among the earlier pages she found one which had reference to this picture. She reads it close to her old gentleman's ear ; it is a record merely of sinful thought which never was embodied in an act, but, while Memory is reading, Conscience unveils her face and strikes a dagger to the heart of Mr. Smith. Though not a death blow, the torture was extreme. The exhibition proceeded. One after another Fancy displayed her pictures, all of which appeared to have been painted by some malicious artist on purpose to vex Mr. Smith. Not a shadow of proof could have been adduced in any earthly court that he was guilty of the slightest of those sins which were thus made to stare him in the face. In one scene there was a table set out, with several bottles and glasses half filled with wine, which threw back the dull ray of an expiring lamp. There had been mirth and revelry until the hand of the clock stood just at midnight, when Murder stepped between the boon-companions. A young man had fallen on the floor, and lay stone dead with a ghastlly wound crushed into his temple, while over him, with a delirium of mingled rage and horror in his coun- tenance, stood the youthful likeness of Mr. Smith. The murdered youth wore the features of Edward Spencer. " What does this rascal of a painter mean?" cries Mr. Smith, provoked beyond all patience. " Edward Spencer was my earliest and dearest friend, true to me as I to him through more than half a century. Neither I nor any other ever mur- dered him. Was he not alive within five years, and did he not, in token of our long friendship, bequeath me his gold-headed cane and a mourning-ring?" Again had Memory been turning over her vol- ume, and fixed at length upon so confused a page that she surely must have scribbled it when she was tipsy. The purport was, however, that while Mr. Smith and Edward Spencer were heating their young blood with wine a quarrel had flashed up between them, and Mr. Smith, in deadly wrath, had flung a bottle at Spencer's head. True, it missed its aim and merely smashed a looking-glass; and the next morning, when the incident was imperfectly remem- bered, they had shaken hands with a hearty laugh. Yet, again, while Memory was reading, Conscience unveiled her face, struck a dagger to the heart of Mr. Smith and quelled his remonstrance with her iron frown. The pain was quite excruciating. Some of the pictures had been painted with so doubtful a touch and in colors so faint and pale, that the subjects could barely be conjectured. A dull, semi-transparent mist had been thrown over the surface of the canvas, into which the figures seemed to vanish while the eye sought most earnestly to fix them. But in every scene, however dubiously por- trayed, Mr. Smith was invariably haunted by his own lineaments at various ages as in a dusty mirror. After poring several minutes over one of these blurred and almost indistinguishable pictures, he began to see that the painter had intended to repre- sent him, now in the decline of life, as stripping the clothes from the backs of three half-starved children. " Really, this puzzles me !" quoth Mr. Smith, with the irony of conscious rectitude. " Asking pardon of the painter, I pronounce him a fool as well as a scandalous knave. A man of my standing in the world to be robbing little children of their clothes ! Ridiculous !" But while he spoke Memory had searched her fatal volume and found a page which with her sad calm voice she poured into his ear. It was not altogether inapplicable to the misty scene. It told how Mr. Smith had been griev- ously tempted by many devilish sophistries on the ground of a legal quibble, to commence a lawsuit against three orphan-children, joint-heirs to a con- siderable estate. Fortunately, before he was quite decided, his claims had turned out nearly as de- void of law as justice. As Memory ceased to read, Conscience again thrust aside her mantle, and would have struck her victim with the envenomed dagger only that he struggled and clasped his hands before his heart. Even then, however, he sustained an ugly gash. Why should we follow Fancy through the whole series of those awful pictures? Painted by an artist of wondrous power and terrible acquaintance with the secret soul, they embodied the ghosts of all the never-perpetrated sins that had glided through the life-time of Mr. Smith. And could such beings of cloudy fantasy, so near akin to noth- ingness, give valid evidence against him at the day of judgment? Be that the case or not, there is reason to believe that one truly penitential tear would have washed away each hateful picture and left the canvas white as snow. But Mr. Smith, at a prick of Conscience too keen to be endured, bel- lowed aloud with impatient agony, and suddenly discovered that his three guests were gone. There he sat alone, a silver-haired and highly-venerated old man, in the rich gloom of the crimson-cur- tained room, with no box of pictures on the table, but only a decanter of most excellent Madeira. Yet his heart still seemed to fester with the venom of the dagger. Nevertheless, the unfortunate old gentleman might have argued the matter with Conscience and alleged many reasons wherefore she should not smite him so pitilessly. Were we to take up his cause, it should be somewhat in the following fashion. A scheme of guilt, till it be put in exe- cution, greatly resembles a train of incidents in a projected tale. The latter, in order to produce a sense of reality in the reader's mind, must be con- ceived with such proportionate strength by the author as to seem in the glow of fancy more like truth, past, present or to come, than purely fiction. The prospective sinner, on the other hand, weaves his plot of crime, but seldom or never feels a per- fect certainty that it will be executed. There is a dreaminess diffused about his thoughts ; in a dream, as it were, he strikes the death-blow into his vic- tim's heart, and starts to find an indelible blood- stain on his hand. Thus a novel-writer, or a dram- atist, in creating a villain of romance and fitting him with evil deeds, and the villain of actual life in projecting crimes that will be perpetrated, may almost meet each other halfway between reality and fancy. It is not until the crime is accom- plished that Guilt clenches its gripe upon the guilty heart and claims it for his own. Then, and not before, sin is actually felt and acknowledged. and, if unaccompanied by repentance, grows a thousand-fold more virulent by its self-conscious- ness. Be it considered, also, that men often over- estimate their capacity for evil. At a distance while its attendant circumstances do not press upon their notice and its results are dimly seen, they can bear to contemplate it. They may take the steps which lead to crime, impelled by the same sort of mental action as in working out a mathematical problem, yet be powerless with com- punction at the final moment. They knew not what deed it was that they deemed themselves resolved to do. In truth, there is no such thing in man's nature as a settled and full resolve either for good or evil, except at the very moment of execution. Let us hope, therefore, that all the dreadful conse- quences of sin will not be incurred unless the act have set its seal upon the thought. Yet, with the slight fancy-work which we have framed, some sad and awful truths are interwoven. Man must not disclaim his brotherhood even with the guiltiest, since, though his hand be clean, his heart has surely been polluted by the flitting phantoms of iniquity. He must feel that when he shall knock at the gate of heaven no semblance of an unspotted life can entitle him to entrance there. Penitence must kneel and Mercy come from the footstool of the throne, or the golden gate will never open. 
From Twice-Told Tales, Vol. I, by Nathaniel Hawthorne. Ten Cent Classics Edition; Educational Publishing Co., 50 Bromfield St, Boston; pp. 225—233.
submitted by MarleyEngvall to veteristestamenti [link] [comments]


2019.10.29 18:40 MarleyEngvall merovingian has been created

By John Lord, LL. D. CHARLEMAGNE. A. D. 742-814. REVIVAL OF WESTERN EMPIRE. (iii. of iii.) But I will not pursue this gradual development of constitutional government from the anarchies which arose out of the fall of the Roman Empire,——just the reverse of what happened in the history of Rome; I say no more of the imperialism which Charlemagne sought to restore, but was not permitted by Providence, and which after all, was the dream of his latter days, when, like Napoleon, he was intoxicated by power and brilliant conquests; and I turn to consider briefly his direct effects in civilization, which showed his great and enlightened mind, and on which his fame in no small degree rests. Charlemagne was no insignificant legislator. His Capitularies may not be equal to the laws of Justinian in natural justice, but were adapted to his times and circumstances. He collected the scattered codes, so far as laws were codified, of the various Germanic nations, and modified them. He introduced a great Christian element into his jurisprudence. He made use of the canons of the Church. His code is more ecclesiastical than that of Theodosius even, the last great Christian emperor. But in his day the clergy wielded great power, and their ordinances and decisions were directed to society as it was. The clergy were the great jurists of their day. The spiritual courts decided matters of great importance, and took cognizance of cases which were out of the jurisdiction of temporal courts. Charlemagne recognized the value of these spiritual courts, and aided them. He had no quarrels with ecclesiastics, nor was he jealous of their power. He allied himself with it. He was a friend of the clergy. One of the peculiarities of all the Germanic laws, seen especially in those of Ina and Alfred, was pecuniary compensation for crime: fifty shillings, in England, would pay for the loss of a foot, and twenty for a nose and four for a tooth; thus recognizing a principle seen in our times in railroad accidents, though not recognized in our civil laws in reference to crimes. This system of compensation Charlemagne retained, which perhaps answered for his day. He was also a great administrator. Nothing escaped his vigilance. I do not read that he made many roads, or effected important internal improvements. The age was too barbarous for the development of national in- dustries,——one of the main things which occupy modern statesmen and governments. But whatever he did was wise and enlightened. He rewarded merit; he made an alliance with learned men; he sought out the right men for important posts; he made the learned Alcuin his teacher and counsellor; he established libraries and schools; he built convents and monasteries; he gave encouragement to men of great attainments; he loved to surround himself with learned men; the scholars of all countries sought his protection and patronage, and found him a friend. Alcuin became one of the richest men in his dominions, and Englebert received one of his daughters in marriage. Napoleon professed a great admiration for Charlemagne, although Frederic II. was his model sovereign. But how differently Napoleon acted in this respect! Napoleon was jealous of lite- rary genius. He hated literary men. He rarely in- vited them to his table, and was constrained in their presence. He drove them out of the kingdom even. He wanted nothing but homage,——and literary genius has no sympathy with brute force, or machinery, or military exploits. But Charlemagne, like Peter the Great, delighted in the society of all who could teach him anything. He was a tolerably learned man him- self, considering his life of activity. He spoke Latin as fluently as his native German, and it is said that he understood Greek. He liked to visit schools, and witness the performances of the boys; and, provided they made proficiency in their studies, he cared little for their noble birth. He was no respecter of persons. With wrath he reproved the idle. He promised re- wards to merit and industry. The most marked feature of his reign, outside his wars, was his sympathy with the clergy. Here, too, he differed from Napoleon and Frederic II. Mr. Hallam considers his alliance with the Church the great error of his reign; but I believe it built up his throne. In his time the clergy were the most influential people of the Empire and the most enlightened; but at that time the great contest of the Middle Ages between spiritual and temporal authority had not begun. Ambrose, indeed, had rebuked Theodosius, and set in defiance the empress when she interfered with his spiritual functions; and Leo had firmly established the Papacy by emphasizing a divine right to his decrees. But a Hildebrand and a Becket had not arisen to usurp the prerogatives of their monarchs. Least of all did popes then dream of subjecting the temporal powers and raising the spiritual over them, so as to lead to issues with kings. That was a later development in the his- tory of the papacy. The popes of the eighth and ninth centuries sought to heal disorder, to punish turbulent chieftains, to sustain law and order, to establish a tri- bunal of justice to which the discontented might appeal. They sought to conserve the peace of the world. They sought to rule the Church, rather than the world. They aimed at a theocratic ministry,——to be the ambassadors of God Almighty,——to allay strife and division. The clergy were the friends of order and law, and they were the natural guardians of learning. They were kindness itself to the slaves,——for slavery still prevailed. That was an evil with which the clergy did not grapple; they would ameliorate it, but did not seek to remove it. Yet they shielded the unfortunate and the persecuted and the poor; they gave the only consolation which an iron age afforded. The Church was gloomy, ascetic, aus- tere, like the cathedrals of that time. Monks buried themselves in crypts; they sang mournful songs; they saw nothing but poverty and misery, and they came to the relief in a funereal way. But they were not cold and hard ad cruel, like baronial lord. Secular lords were rapacious, and ground down the people, and mocked and trampled upon them; but the clergy were hospi- table, gentle, and affectionate. They sympathized with the people, from whom they chiefly sprang. They had their vices, but those vices were not half so revolting as those of barons and knights. Intellectually, the clergy were at all times the superiors of these secular lords. They loved the peaceful virtues which were generated in the consecrated convent. The passions of nobles urged them on to perpetual pillage, injustice, and cru- elty. The clergy quarrelled only among themselves. They were human, and not wholly free from human frail- ties, but they were not public robbers. They were the best farmers of their times; they cultivated lands, and made them attractive by fruits and flowers. They were generally industrious; every convent was a bee- hive, in which various kind of manufactures were produced. The monks aspired even to be artists. They illuminated manuscripts, as well as copied them; they made tapestries and beautiful vestments. They were a peaceful and useful set of men, at this period, outside their spiritual functions; they built grand churches; they had fruitful gardens; they were ex- ceedingly hospitable. Every monastery was an inn, as well as a beehive, to which all travelers resorted, and where no pay was exacted. It was a retreat for the unfortunate, which no one dared assail. And it was vocal with songs and anthems. The clergy were not only thus general benefactors in an age of turbulence and crime, in spite of all their nar- rowness and spiritual pride and their natural ambition for power, but they lent a helping hand to the peasantry. The Church was democratic, and enabled the poor to rise according to their merits, while nobles combined to crush them or keep them in an ignoble sphere. In the Church, the son of a murdered peasant could rise ac- cording to his deserts; but if he followed a warrior to the battle-field, no virtues, no talents, no bravery could elevate him,——he was still a peasant, a low-born menial. If he entered a monastery, he might pass from office to office until as a mitred abbot he would become the mas- ter of ten thousand acres, the counsellor of kings, the equal of that proud baron in whose service his father spent his abject life. The great Hildebrand was the son of a carpenter. The Church ever recognized, what feudality did not,——the claims of man as man; and en- abled peasants' sons, if they had abilities and virtues, to rise to proud positions,——to be the patrons of the learned, the companions of princes, the ministers of kings. And that is the reason why Charlemagne befriended the Church and elevated it, because its influence was civilizing. He sought to establish among the clergy a counterbalancing power to that of nobles. Who can doubt that the influence of the Church was better than that of the nobles of the Middle Ages? If it ground down society by a spiritual yoke, that yoke was necessary, for the rude Middle Ages could be ruled only by fear. What fear more potent than the destruction of the soul in a future life! It was by this weapon——excommu- nication——that Europe was governed. We may abhor it, but it was the great idea of Mediæval Europe, which no one could resist, and which kept society from disso- lution. Charlemagne may have erred in thus giving power and consideration to the clergy, in view of the subsequent encroachments of the popes. But he never anticipated the future quarrels between his successors and the popes, for the popes were not then formidable as the antagonists of kings. I believe his policy was the best for Europe, on the whole. The infancy of the Gothic races was long, dark, dreary, and unfortu- nate, but it prepared them for the civilization which they scorned. Such were the services which this great sovereign rendered to his times and to Europe. He probably saved it from renewed barbarism. He was the great legislator of the Middle Ages, and the greatest friend—— after Constantine and Theodosius——of which the Church can boast. With him dawned the new civilization. He brought back souvenirs of Rome and the Empire. Not for himself did he live, but for the welfare of the na- tions he governed. It was his example which Alfred sought to imitate. Though a warrior, he saw something greater than the warrior's excellence. It is said he was eloquent, like Julius Cæsar. He loved music and all the arts. In his palace at Aix-la-Chapelle were sung the songs of the earliest poets of Germany. He took great pains to introduce the Gregorian chant. He was simple in dress, and only on rare occasions did he in- dulge in parade. He was temperate in eating and drinking, as all the famous warriors have been. He absolutely abhorred drunkenness, the great vice of the Northern nations. During meals he listened to the lays of minstrels or the readings of his secretaries. He took unwearied pains with the education of his daughters, and he was so fond of them that they even accompanied him in his military expeditions. He was not one of those men that Gibbon appreciated; but his fame is steadily growing, after a lapse of a thousand years. His whole appearance was manly, cheerful, and dignified. His countenance reflected a child-like serenity. He was one of the few men, like David, who was not spoiled by war and flatteries. Though gentle, he was subject to fits of anger, like Theodosius; but he did not affect anger, like Napoleon, for theatrical effect. His greatness and his simplicity, his humanity and his re- ligious faith, are typical of the Germanic race. He died A. D. 814, after a reign of half a century, lamented by his own subjects and to be admired by succeeding generations. Hallam, though not eloquent generally, has pronounced his most beautiful eulogy, "written in the disgraces and miseries of succeeding times. He stands alone like a rock in the ocean, like a beacon on a waste. His sceptre was the bow of Ulysses, not to be bent by a weaker hand. In the dark ages of European history, his reign affords a solitary resting-place between two dark periods of turbulence and ignominy, deriving the advantage of contrast both from that of the preceding dynasty and of a posterity for whom he had founded an empire which they were unworthy and unequal to maintain." To such a tribute I can add nothing. His greatness consists in this, that, born amidst barbarism, he was yet the friend of civilization, and understood its ele- mental principles, and struggled forty-seven years to establish them,——failing only because his successors and subjects were not prepared for them, and could not learn them until the severe experience of ten centuries, amidst disasters and storms, should prove the value of the "old basal walls and pillars" which remained un- buried amid the despised ruins of antiquity, and show that no structure could adequately shelter the European nations which was not established by the beautiful union of German vigor with Christian art,——by the combined richness of native genius with those immor- tal treasures which had escaped the wreck of the classic world. AUTHORITIES. Eginhard's Vita Caroli Magni; Le Clerc's De la Bruyère, Histoire du Règne de Charlemagne; Haureau's Charlemagne et son Cour; Gaillard's Histoire de Charlemagne; Lorenz's Karls des Grossen. There is a tolerably popular history of Charlemagne by James Bulfinch, entitled "Legends of Charlemagne;" also a Life buy James the novelist. Henri Martin, Sismondi, and Michelet may be consulted; also Hallam's Middle Ages, Milman's Latin Christianity, Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Bio- graphie Universelle, and the Encyclopædias. 
from Beacon Lights of History, by John Lord, LL. D., Volume III, Part I: The Middle Ages, pp. 82—91. Copyright, 1883, by John Lord. Copyright, 1921, By Wm. H. Wise & Co., New York.
submitted by MarleyEngvall to merovingian [link] [comments]


2019.10.05 15:32 jj-07312 Psalm 12

Text comparison ...

Karaite Manuscript(s):
[10th century ~920 CE] Aleppo Codex → source
[11th century ~1010 CE] Leningrad Codex B19A → source
Jewish Manuscript:
[12th century ~1100 CE] Ms. or. fol. 1213 = Erfurt IV → source

Jewish important Editions:
G. Soncino, Torah & Neviim & Ketuvim; Brescia 1494 → source
J. Hayyim, Mikraot Gedolot, vol. IV; Venice 1524/25 → source

Jewish special Editions:
J. Norzi, Minhat Shai; Mantua 1742 → source
S. Baer, Liber Psalmorum; Leipzig 1880 → source

Jewish Editions:
J. Athias, Torah & Neviim & Ketuvim, vol. III; Amsterdam 1661 → source
M. Letteris, Torah & Neviim & Ketuvim; New York 1910 → source

Christian Editions with critical Apparatus:
R. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica, vol. II; Leipzig 1909² → source
R. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica, Stuttgart 1937³ → source
A. Schenker, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia; Stuttgart 1997⁵ → source
Christian Edition with Rafe:
Westminster Leningrad Codex; London 2005 → PDF page 569

Variant Collections:
B. Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum, vol. II; Oxford 1780 → source
J.B. DeRossi, Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti, vol. IV; Parma 1788 → source
C.D. Ginsburg, Liber Psalmorum; London 1913 → source

Qumran & Nahal Hever Fragments → summary
11Q7source
5/6HevPssource


Special Guest of the current Weekly Reading:
A review of editions printed in 16th and 17th century [mentioned by name: the polyglots "Complutensis", "Bombergiana" & "Londoninesis" and the editions by "Athias", "Leusden" & "Clodius"] and a newly composed text from these:
D.E. Jablonski, Biblia Hebraica; Berlin 1699 → a.k.a. "Berolinensis"

Not the first and not the last attempt to offer the science a "correct" Hebrew text, which could be used as a basis for further work ... and as such adopted (completely?) by J.H. Michaelis [Biblia Hebraica, 1720]
The edition of J.H. Michaelis is still used today – not because of Jablonski's fantastic text – but because of the valuable Jewish manuscripts from the former synagogue in Erfurt, for example ...
[13th century] Ms. or. fol. 1212 = Erfurt III → source
[14th century ~1340 CE] Ms. or. fol. 1211 = Erfurt II → source
... and, of course, Ms. or. fol. 1210 = Erfurt I → destroyed in 1945
[ Like all fantasy Bibles – Kennicott, Ginsburg etc. – words & variants in passages have to be converted to the current used versions of the Hebrew text ]
submitted by jj-07312 to HebrewBible [link] [comments]


2019.09.30 22:52 jj-07312 Psalm 71

Text comparison ...

Karaite Manuscript(s):
[10th century ~920 CE] Aleppo Codex → source
[11th century ~1010 CE] Leningrad Codex B19A → source [Psalm 71 without numbering]
Jewish Manuscript:
[12th century ~1100 CE] Ms. or. fol. 1213 = Erfurt IV → source

Jewish important Editions:
G. Soncino, Torah & Neviim & Ketuvim; Brescia 1494 → source
J. Hayyim, Mikraot Gedolot, vol. IV; Venice 1524/25 → source

Jewish special Editions:
J. Norzi, Minhat Shai; Mantua 1742 → source
S. Baer, Liber Psalmorum; Leipzig 1880 → source

Jewish Editions:
J. Athias, Torah & Neviim & Ketuvim, vol. III; Amsterdam 1661 → source
M. Letteris, Torah & Neviim & Ketuvim; New York 1910 → source

Christian Editions with critical Apparatus:
R. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica, vol. II; Leipzig 1909² → source
R. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica, Stuttgart 1937³ → source
A. Schenker, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia; Stuttgart 1997⁵ → source
Christian Edition with Rafe:
Westminster Leningrad Codex; London 2005 → PDF page 618

Variant Collections:
B. Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum, vol. II; Oxford 1780 → source
J.B. DeRossi, Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti, vol. IV; Parma 1788 → source
J.B. DeRossi, Supplementa; Parma 1798 → source
C.D. Ginsburg, Liber Psalmorum; London 1913 → source

Fragments with Babylonian vocalization:
Ms. 508A [JTS - Jewish Theological Seminary, New York] → source

Qumran Fragments → summary
4Q83source


Special Guest of the current Weekly Reading:
A review of J. Athias' edition by the (Christian) publisher J. Leusden – including its ingenious ongoing numbering of the verses with Arabic numerals – for the business with European Christians:
J. Leusden, Biblia Hebraica; Amsterdam 1667 → source
Many later (Christian) authors followed J. Leusden's edition among other sources, each for their own versions, as D. Clodius [1677], H. Opitz [1709], J.H. May [1716] etc. but also all these had no future.

The greatest success with the respected names "Athias" & "Leusden" as a figurehead had the (Christian) writer E. van der Hooght [first edition 1705] with his own version of the Tanakh, compiled from several editions:
Hebrew & (free) Latin with Hebrew variantsPsalm 71 [ed. 1740]
Due to the choice of this text (without vowels and accents) as the basis of B. Kennicott's Collection [1780] E. van der Hooght's text was handed down relatively unchanged until beginning of the 20th century, for example:
# in USA by I. Leeser [ed. 1850]
# in England by J.C. Reichardt [ed. 1839]
# in German Empire by A. Hahn [ed. 1838] and later by K.G.W. Theile [ed. 1895]

M. Letteris mostly followed E. van der Hooght's text but he changed it according to his Jewish views. This new Hebrew text by M. Letteris was the basis for the translation into German by H. Torczyner – first edition known as "The Berlin Bible" [1934–1937] – second edition Jerusalem 1954–1958


... but this time without the Masorah
submitted by jj-07312 to HebrewBible [link] [comments]


2019.09.23 09:19 jj-07312 Psalm 65

Text comparison ...

Karaite Manuscript(s):
[10th century ~920 CE] Aleppo Codex → source
[11th century ~1010 CE] Leningrad Codex B19A → source
Jewish Manuscript:
[12th century ~1100 CE] Ms. or. fol. 1213 = Erfurt IV → source

Jewish important Editions:
G. Soncino, Torah & Neviim & Ketuvim; Brescia 1494 → source
J. Hayyim, Mikraot Gedolot, vol. IV; Venice 1524/25 → source

Jewish special Editions:
J. Norzi, Minhat Shai; Mantua 1742 → source
S. Baer, Liber Psalmorum; Leipzig 1880 → source

Jewish Editions:
J. Athias, Torah & Neviim & Ketuvim, vol. III; Amsterdam 1661 → source
M. Letteris, Torah & Neviim & Ketuvim; New York 1910 → source

Christian Editions with critical Apparatus:
R. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica, vol. II; Leipzig 1909² → source
R. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica, Stuttgart 1937³ → source
A. Schenker, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia; Stuttgart 1997⁵ → source
Christian Edition with Rafe:
Westminster Leningrad Codex; London 2005 → PDF page 612

Variant Collections:
B. Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum, vol. II; Oxford 1780 → source
J.B. DeRossi, Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti, vol. IV; Parma 1788 → source
J.B. DeRossi, Supplementa; Parma 1798 → source
C.D. Ginsburg, Liber Psalmorum; London 1913 → source

Fragments with Babylonian vocalization:
Ms. 508A [JTS - Jewish Theological Seminary, New York] → source


Special Guest of the current Weekly Reading:
B. Walton, London Polyglot Bible, vol. III; London 1656 → source
B. Walton, London Polyglot Bible, vol. VI; London 1657 → source [Hebrew variants, PDF page 64–73]
submitted by jj-07312 to HebrewBible [link] [comments]


2019.09.17 13:49 jj-07312 Psalm 81

Text comparison ...

Karaite Manuscript(s):
[10th century ~920 CE] Aleppo Codex → source [without blank line between Psalm 80/81]
[11th century ~1010 CE] Leningrad Codex B19A → source [Psalm 81 without numbering]
Jewish Manuscript:
[12th century ~1100 CE] Ms. or. fol. 1213 = Erfurt IV → source

Jewish important Editions:
G. Soncino, Torah & Neviim & Ketuvim; Brescia 1494 → source
J. Hayyim, Mikraot Gedolot, vol. IV; Venice 1524/25 → source

Jewish special Editions:
J. Norzi, Minhat Shai; Mantua 1742 → source
S. Baer, Liber Psalmorum; Leipzig 1880 → source

Jewish Editions:
J. Athias, Torah & Neviim & Ketuvim, vol. IV; Amsterdam 1661 → source
M. Letteris, Torah & Neviim & Ketuvim; New York 1910 → source

Christian Editions with critical Apparatus:
R. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica, vol. II; Leipzig 1909² → source
R. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica, Stuttgart 1937³ → source
A. Schenker, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia; Stuttgart 1997⁵ → source
Christian Edition with Rafe:
Westminster Leningrad Codex; London 2005 → PDF page 631

Variant Collections:
B. Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum, vol. II; Oxford 1780 → source
J.B. DeRossi, Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti, vol. IV; Parma 1788 → source
C.D. Ginsburg, Liber Psalmorum; London 1913 → source

Qumran & Masada Fragments → summary
4Q87source
11Q8source
Mas 1Esource


Special Guest of the current Weekly Reading:
C. Plantin, Torah & Neviim & Ketuvim, vol. IV; Antwerp 1566 → source
This edition from 1566 was the first Hebrew Tanakh with numbering of verses: Dt 28:69 = 29:1 according to the (Christian) French Bible from 1553 by R. Estienne Dt 28:69 = 29:1 or the (Christian) English Bible from 1560 by R. Hall Dt 28:69 = 29:1 [both the first copies with current numbering of verses]

The (Christian) publisher C. Plantin based his Hebrew books not only optical on Jewish models, unfortunately unknown which editions:
J. Hayyim's Tanakh from Venice [1524/25] or J.S. Soncino's Tanakhs from Soncino [1488] or Naples [1492] or ...
Later (Christian) publishers followed C. Plantin's text among other sources.
submitted by jj-07312 to HebrewBible [link] [comments]


2019.09.15 20:19 MatteoJean I Testamenti di Margaret Atwood - Recensione

I Testamenti di Margaret Atwood - Recensione submitted by MatteoJean to Libri [link] [comments]


2019.09.11 03:50 jj-07312 Psalm 51

Text comparison ...

Karaite Manuscript(s):
[10th century ~920 CE] Aleppo Codex → source
[11th century ~1010 CE] Leningrad Codex B19A → source
Jewish Manuscript:
[12th century ~1100 CE] Ms. or. fol. 1213 = Erfurt IV → source

Jewish important Editions:
G. Soncino, Torah & Neviim & Ketuvim; Brescia 1494 → source
J. Hayyim, Mikraot Gedolot, vol. IV; Venice 1524/25 → source

Jewish special Editions:
J. Norzi, Minhat Shai; Mantua 1742 → source
S. Baer, Liber Psalmorum; Leipzig 1880 → source

Jewish Editions:
J. Athias, Torah & Neviim & Ketuvim, vol. IV; Amsterdam 1661 → source
M. Letteris, Torah & Neviim & Ketuvim; Vienna 1901 → source

Christian Editions with critical Apparatus:
R. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica, vol. II; Leipzig 1909² → source
R. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica, Stuttgart 1937³ → source
A. Schenker, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia; Stuttgart 1997⁵ → source
Christian Edition with Rafe:
Westminster Leningrad Codex; London 2005 → PDF page 603

Variant Collections:
B. Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum, vol. II; Oxford 1780 → source
J.B. DeRossi, Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti, vol. IV; Parma 1788 → source
C.D. Ginsburg, Liber Psalmorum; London 1913 → source

Qumran Fragments → summary
4Q85source
4Q91source


Special Guest of the current Weekly Reading:
F. J. de Cisneros, Complutensian Polyglot Bible, vol. II; Alcala de Henares ~1520 CE → source

A heavy mistake had been made by the American transmission of this Introduction
It would be basically correct that also the Babylonian texts of the Tanakh are "Masoretic texts" [the Babylonian Masorah has other counts and other kinds of presentation as the Tiberian] but almost nobody knows that!
In general, a Tiberian text according to Ben Asher is understood as the MT = "Masoretic Text" [its Masorah also contains a labeling of the deviations from the old Babylonian text ... but the (old) Babylonian Masorah knows no labeling of deviations from the (young) Tiberian text]
It is correct that the Hebrew text of the Complutensian Polyglot is most likely an early form of the Tiberian Masoretic Tanakh, with simple vowels and simple accents (unknown to Babylonian traditions), and according to P. Kahle only the variants noted on the margin are similar to the older Babylonian vocalization.
submitted by jj-07312 to HebrewBible [link] [comments]


2019.06.26 01:31 OZYMNDX 1581 LATIN BIBLE Testamenti Veteris Biblia Sacra BLIND STAMPED VELLUM RARE

1581 LATIN BIBLE Testamenti Veteris Biblia Sacra BLIND STAMPED VELLUM RARE submitted by OZYMNDX to wickedgoodbooks [link] [comments]


2019.06.03 01:07 Ibrey Profession of faith prescribed by Pope Urban VIII for the Oriental Churches

I took this Latin text from this 1840 Greek-Latin edition on account of its more modern typography, but in one case a 1671 edition was helpful in the correction of a typographical error. The part about the First Vatican Council is inserted according to a decree of July 16, 1878.
PROFESSIO ORTHODOXAE FIDEI PROFESSION OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH
Ab Orientalibus facienda. To be made by the Oriental Churches.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
1 Ego N. firma Fide credo, et profiteor omnia, et singula, quae continentur in symbolo fidei, quo Sancta Romana Ecclesia utitur, videlicet. 1 I N. with firm faith believe and profess each and every thing contained in the symbol of faith which the Holy Roman Church useth, to wit:
Credo in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem, factorem coeli, et terrae, visibilium omnium, et invisibilium. Et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum, et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula, Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, genitum non factum, consubstantialem Patri, per quem omnia facta sunt; qui propter nos homines, et propter nostram salutem descendit de coelis, et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto, ex Maria Virgine, et Homo factus est. Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato passus, et sepultus est. Et resurrexit tertia die secundum scripturas. Et ascendit in coelum, sedet ad dexteram Patris. Et iterum venturus est cum gloria judicare vivos, et mortuos, cujus regni non erit finis. Et in Spiritum Sanctum Dominum, et vivificantem, qui ex Patre, Filioque procedit; qui cum Patre, et Filio simul adoratur, et conglorificatur, qui locutus est per Prophetas. Et unam Sanctam Catholicam, et Apostolicam Ecclesiam. Confiteor unum Baptisma in remissionem peccatorum, et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam venturi saeculi. Amen. I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God of God; Light of Light; very God of very God; begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary: and was made man. He was crucified also for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried. The third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father: and He shall come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead: of whose kingdom there shall be no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son: who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the Prophets. And One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the Resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
2 Veneror etiam, et suscipio universales Synodos, prout sequitur, videlicet: 2 I also revere and receive the universal synods, which are as follows, to wit:
Nicaenam primam, et profiteor quod in ea contra Arium damnatae memoriae, definitum est: Dominum Jesum Christum esse Filium Dei, ex Patre natum Unigenitum, idest, ex substantia Patris natum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri; atque impias illas voces, recte in eadem Synodo damnatas esse, quod aliquando non fuerit, aut quod factus sit ex iis, quae non sunt, aut ex alia substantia, vel essentia, aut quod sit mutabilis, vel convertibilis Filius Dei. The First Council of Nicaea, and I profess what was defined in it, against Arius of condemned memory: that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God, born of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, born from the substance of the Father, not made, consubstantial with the Father; and that those impious phrases were rightly condemned in that same Synod, that "there was a time when He was not," or that "He was made out of nothing," or out of another substance, or essence, or that the Son of God is mutable or changeable.
3 Constantinopolitanam primam, secundam in ordine; et profiteor quod in ea contra Macedonium damnatae memoriae, definitum est, Spiritum Sanctum, non esse servum, sed Dominum; non creaturam, sed Deum; ac unam habentem cum Patre, et Filio Deitatem. 3 The First Council of Constantinople, the second in order; and I profess what was defined in it, against Macedonius of condemned memory, that the Holy Ghost is not a slave, but the Lord; not a creature, but God; and that He hath one Godhead with the Father and the Son.
4 Ephesinam primam, tertiam in ordine, et profiteor quod in ea contra Nestorium damnatae memoriae, definitum est: Divinitatem, et humanitatem, ineffabili, et incomprehensibili unione, in una persona Filii Dei, unum nobis Jesum Christum constituisse, eaque de causa Beatissimam Virginem vere esse Dei Genitricem. 4 The First Council of Ephesus, the third in order, and I profess what was defined in it, against Nestorius of condemned memory: that Divinity and humanity, by an ineffable and incomprehensible union, in the one person of the Son of God, have constituted one Jesus Christ for us, and that for this reason the Most Blessed Virgin is truly the Mother of God.
5 Chalcedonensem, quartam in ordine, et profiteor quod in ea contra Eutychem, et Dioscorum, ambos damnatae memoriae, definitum est: Unum, eumdemque Filium Dei Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, perfectum esse in Deitate, et perfectum in humanitate, Deum verum, et hominem verum, ex anima rationali, et corpore, consubstantialem Patri secundum Deitatem, eumdem consubstantialem nobis secundum humanitatem, per omnia nobis similem, absque peccato, ante saecula quidem de Patre genitum secundum Deitatem, in novissimis autem diebus, eumdem propter nos, et propter nostram salutem, ex Maria Virgine Dei Genitrice secundum humanitatem; unum, eumdemque Christum Filium Dominum unigenitum, in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter agnoscendum, nusquam sublata differentia naturarum propter unitionem, magisque salva proprietate utriusque naturae, et in unam personam, atque subsistentiam concurrente, non in duas personas partitum, aut divisum, sed unum, eumdemque Filium, et Unigenitum, Deum Verbum Dominum Jesum Christum. 5 The Council of Chalcedon, the fourth in order, and I profess what was defined in it, against Eutyches and Dioscorus, both of condemned memory: that one and the same Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, is perfect in Deity and perfect in humanity, true God, and true man, composed of a rational soul and a body. The same one is consubstantial with the Father according to Deity, and consubstantial with us according to humanity, like unto us in all things apart from sin; indeed the same one is begotten of the Father before the ages according to Deity, but in these last days begotten of Mary the Virgin Mother of God for us and for our salvation according to humanity; one and the same Lord Christ, the Only-begotten Son, must be recognised in two natures, inconfusedly, immutably, undividedly, inseparably—nothing being taken away from the difference of natures on account of their unition, but rather what is proper to each nature being preserved—concurring in one person and hypostasis, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Only-begotten Son, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ.
6 Item ejusdem Domini nostri Jesu Christi Divinitatem, secundum quam consubstantialis est Patri, et Spiritui Sancto, impassibilem esse, et immortalem; eumdem autem crucifixum, et mortuum tantummodo secundum carnem, ut pariter definitum est in dicta Synodo, et in Epistola Sancti Leonis Romani Pontificis, cujus ore Beatum Petrum loquutum esse, Patres in eadem Synodo acclamaverunt. Per quam definitionem damnatur impia haeresis illorum, qui Trisagio ab Angelis tradito, et in praefata Chalcedonensi Synodo decantato, Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis, addebant: Qui crucifixus es pro nobis: atque adeo Divinam naturam trium personarum passibilem asserebant, et mortalem. 6 Likewise, that the Divinity of the same Jesus Christ our Lord, according to which He is consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Ghost, is impassible and immortal; and that the same Lord was crucified, and died only according to the flesh, as was equally defined in the said Synod, and in the epistle of Saint Leo, the Roman Pontiff, by whose mouth the Fathers in that same Synod acclaimed Blessed Peter to have spoken. Through that definition, the impious heresy was condemned of those who to the Thrice Holy Hymn that was handed down by angels, and sung in the aforesaid Chalcedonian Synod, Holy God, Holy mighty, Holy immortal, have mercy on us, would add: Who wast crucified for us, and to this extent would assert that the Divine nature of the three persons is passible and mortal.
7 Constantinopolitanam secundam, quintam in ordine, in qua praefatae Chalcedonensis Synodi definitio renovata est. 7 The Second Council of Constantinople, the fifth in order, in which the aforesaid definition of the Chalcedonian Synod was renewed.
8 Constantinopolitanam tertiam, sextam in ordine, et profiteor quod in ea contra Monothelitas definitum est: in uno, eodemque Domino nostro Jesu Christo duas esse naturales voluntates, et duas naturales operationes indivise, inconvertibiliter, inseparabiliter, inconfuse: et humanam ejus voluntatem non contrariam, sed subjectam Divinae ejus, atque omnipotenti voluntati. 8 The Third Council of Constantinople, the sixth in order, and I profess what was defined in it, against the Monothelites: that in one and the same Jesus Christ our Lord there are two natural wills, and two natural operations, undividedly, unchangeably, inseparably, inconfusedly: and that His human will is not contrary, but subject to His Divine and omnipotent will.
9 Nicaenam secundam, septimam in ordine, et profiteor quod in ea contra Iconoclastas definitum est: Imagines Christi, ac Deiparae Virginis, necnon aliorum Sanctorum habendas, et retinendas esse, atque eis debitum honorem, ac venerationem impertiendam. 9 The Second Council of Nicaea, the seventh in order, and I profess what was defined in it against the Iconoclasts: that the images of Christ, and of the God-Bearing Virgin, and also of other saints must be held and retained, and that to them honour is owed and veneration must be imparted.
10 Constantinopolitanam quartam, octavam in ordine, et profiteor in ea Photium merito fuisse damnatum et Sanctum Ignatium Patriarcham restitutum. 10 The Fourth Council of Constantinople, the eighth in order, and I profess that deservingly in that council was Photius condemned and Saint Ignatius reinstated as Patriarch.
11 Veneror etiam, et suscipio omnes alias universales Synodos auctoritate Romani Pontificis legitime celebratas, et confirmatas, et praesertim Florentinam Synodum, et profiteor quae in ea definita sunt, videlicet: 11 I also revere and receive all the other universal Synods legitimately celebrated and confirmed by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, and especially the Florentine Synod, and I profess the things that were defined in it, to wit:
12 Quod Spiritus Sanctus ex Patre, et Filio aeternaliter est, et essentiam suam, suumque esse subsistens habet ex Patre simul, et Filio, et ex utroque aeternaliter, tamquam ab uno principio, et unica spiratione procedit. 12 That the Holy Ghost is eternally from the Father and the Son, and eternally hath His essence and His hypostatic being from the Father and the Son together, and proceedeth from each eternally, as from one principle, and by only one spiration.
13 Item dictionem illam (Filioque) veritatis declarandae gratia, et imminente necessitate, licite, et rationabiliter Symbolo fuisse appositam. 13 Likewise, that that expression (Filioque), for the sake of a truth that needed to be declared, and with imminent necessity, was licitly and reasonably added to the Symbol.
14 Item in azymo, sive fermentato pane triticeo, Corpus Christi veraciter confici: Sacerdotesque in alterutro ipsum Domini Corpus conficere debere, unumquemque scilicet juxta suae Ecclesiae, sive occidentalis, sive orientalis consuetudinem. 14 Likewise, that in either unleavened or leavened wheaten bread, the Body of Christ is truly confected: and that priests should confect the very Body of the Lord in either one—each man, of course, according to the custom of his own Church, whether Western or Eastern.
15 Item si vere poenitentes in Dei charitate decesserint, antequam dignis poenitentiae fructibus de commissis satisfecerint, et omissis, eorum animas poenis purgatoriis post mortem purgari, et ut a poenis hujusmodi releventur, prodesse eis fidelium vivorum suffragia, Missarum scilicet sacrificia, orationes, et eleemosynas, et alia pietatis officia, quae a fidelibus pro aliis fidelibus fieri consueverunt, secundum Ecclesiae instituta. Illorumque animas, qui post Baptisma susceptum nullam omnino peccati maculam incurrerunt, illas etiam, quae post contractam peccati maculam, vel in suis corporibus, vel eisdem exutae, sunt purgatae, in coelum mox recipi, et intueri clare ipsum Deum Trinum, et Unum sicuti est, pro meritorum tamen diversitate, alium alio perfectius. Illorum autem animas, qui in actuali mortali peccato, vel solo originali decedunt mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen disparibus puniendas. 15 Likewise, that if truly penitent people die in the love of God before they should have made satisfaction for their deeds and omissions by worthy fruits of penance, their souls are cleansed after death by purgatorial pains, and that in order for pains of this sort to be relieved, the suffrages of the living faithful are of service to them, such as sacrifices of Masses, prayers, alms, and other duties of piety which have been accustomed to be done by the faithful for others of the faithful, according to the ordinances of the Church. And that the souls of those who after having received Baptism have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever, and also those which, after they have contracted the stain of sin, have been cleansed either in their bodies or stripped of them, are promptly received into heaven, and clearly behold as He is the One and Triune God Himself, yet one more perfectly than another, according to the diversity of their merits. But the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin or in original sin alone promptly descend into hell, yet to be punished with unequal pains.
16 Item Sanctam Apostolicam Sedem, et Romanum Pontificem in universum Orbem tenere Primatum, et ipsum Pontificem Romanum successorem esse Beati Petri Principis Apostolorum, et verum Christi Vicarium, totiusque Ecclesiae caput, et omnium Christianorum Patrem, ac Doctorem existere: et ipsi in Beato Petro pascendi, regendi, ac gubernandi universalem Ecclesiam a Domino nostro Jesu Christo plenam potestatem traditam esse; quemadmodum etiam, ut eadem Florentina Synodus asserit, in gestis oecumenicorum Conciliorum, et in sacris canonibus continetur. 16 Likewise, that the Holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff hold the Primacy in the entire world, and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of Blessed Peter the Prince of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church, and Father and Doctor of all Christians: and that the full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church was handed down to him in Blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ; just as is also contained, as the same Florentine Synod asserteth, in the acts of the ecumenical Councils, and in the sacred canons.
17 Item legalia veteris Testamenti, seu Mosaicae Legis Coeremonias, Sacra, Sacrificia, et Sacramenta, Domino nostro Jesu Christo adveniente, cessasse, et post promulgatum Evangelium, sine peccato observari non posse. Ejusdem etiam Legis Veteris ciborum mundorum, et immundorum differentiam ad coeremonialia pertinere, quae surgente Evangelio, transierunt. 17 Likewise, that the legal Ceremonies, Rites, Sacrifices, and Sacraments of the old Testament, or Mosaic law, ceased with the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and cannot be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel. And also that the same Old Law's distinction of clean and unclean foods pertaineth to the ceremonial matters which, when the Gospel arose, passed away.
18 Illam etiam Apostolorum prohibitionem, ab immolatis simulacrorum, et sanguine, et suffocato illi tempori congruisse, ut inter Judaeos, et Gentiles dissensionis materia tolleretur. Cujus Apostolicae prohibitionis causa cessante, etiam cessavit effectus. 18 And also that that prohibition of the Apostles of foods sacrificed to idols, and of blood, and of what hath been strangled was suited to that time, so that matter for dissension between Jews and Gentiles might be taken away. With the cause of that Apostolic prohibition coming to an end, the effect came to an end also.
19 Pariter veneror, et suscipio Tridentinam Synodum, et profiteor quae in ea definita, et declarata sunt, et praesertim offeri Deo in Missa verum, proprium, et propitiatorium Sacrificium pro vivis, et defunctis, atque in Sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento (juxta Fidem, quae semper in Ecclesia Dei fuit) contineri vere, realiter, et substantialiter corpus, et sanguinem, una cum anima, et Divinitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi; ac proinde totum Christum, fierique conversionem totius substantiae panis in corpus, et totius substantiae vini in sanguinem, quam conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissime transubstantionem appellat, et sub unaquaque specie, et singulis cujusque speciei partibus, separatione facta, totum Christum contineri. 19 Equally I revere and receive the Tridentine Synod, and I profess the things which were defined and declared in it, and especially that there is offered to God in the Mass a true, proper, and propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead, and that in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist (according to the Faith, which was ever in the Church of God) the body and blood, together with the soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, is truly, really, and substantially contained; and therefore the whole Christ, and that a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood is made, which conversion the Catholic Church most suitably calleth "transubstantiation," and that under each species, and each of the parts of each species, when separated, the whole Christ is contained.
20 Item septem esse novae legis Sacramenta a Christo Domino nostro instituta ad salutem humani generis, quamvis non omnia singulis necessarias, videlicet: Baptismum, Confirmationem, Eucharistiam, Poenitentiam, Extremam Unctionem, Ordinem, et Matrimonium, illaque gratiam conferre; et ex his Baptismum, Confirmationem, et Ordinem iterari non posse. 20 Likewise, that there are seven Sacraments of the new law instituted by Christ our Lord for the salvation of the human race, although not all are necessary for each person, to wit: Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony, and that they confer grace; and that out of these, Baptism, Confirmation, and Order cannot be repeated.
21 Item Baptismum esse necessarium ad salutem, ac proinde si mortis periculum immineat, mox sine ulla dilatione conferendum esse, et a quocumque, et quandocumque sub debita materia, forma, et intentione collatum, esse validum. 21 Likewise, that Baptism is necessary for salvation, and that therefore if danger of death is imminent, it must be promptly conferred without any delay, and that whenever and by whomever it is conferred with due matter, form, and intention, it is valid.
22 Item Sacramenti Matrimonii vinculum indissolubile esse, et quamvis, propter adulterium, haeresim, aut alias causas, possit inter conjuges thori et cohabitationis separatio fieri, non tamen illis aliud matrimonium contrahere fas esse. 22 Likewise, that the bond of the Sacrament of Matrimony is indissoluble, and although, on account of adultery, heresy, or other causes, a separation can be made between spouses of the common home and marriage bed, yet it is not permitted to them by divine law to contract another marriage.
23 Item Apostolicas, et Ecclesiasticas traditiones suscipiendas esse, et venerandas. 23 Likewise, that Apostolic and Ecclesiastical traditions must be received and revered.
24 Indulgentiarum etiam potestatem a Christo in Ecclesia relictam fuisse, illarumque usum, Christiano populo maxime salutarem esse. 24 And also that the power of indulgences hath been left by Christ in the Church, and that the use of them is most salutary to the Christian people.
25 Pariter quae de peccato Originali, de Justificatione, de Sacrorum librorum tam veteris, quam novi Testamenti Indice, et interpretatione, in praedicta Tridentina Synodo definita sunt, suscipio, et profiteor. 25 Equally I receive and profess what was defined in the aforesaid Tridentine Synod concerning Original sin, Justification, and the list of the sacred books of the Old as well as the New Testament, and the interpretation of them.
Item veneror et suscipio oecumenicam synodum Vaticanam: atque omnia ab eadem tradita, definita et declarata, praesertim de Romani Pontificis, primatu ac de eius infallibili magisterio firmissime amplector et profiteor. Likewise, I revere and receive the ecumenical Vatican synod: and I most firmly embrace and profess all things handed down, defined and declared by that same council, especially concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible magisterium.
26 Caetera item omnia suscipio, et profiteor, quae recipit, et profitetur Sancta Romana Ecclesia, simulque contraria omnia, et schismata, et haereses ab eadem Ecclesia damnatas, rejectas, et anathematizatas ego pariter damno, rejicio, et anathematizo. 26 I likewise receive and profess all the other things which the Holy Roman Church receiveth and professeth, and at the same time all things to the contrary, and schisms and heresies which by that same Church have been condemned, rejected, and anathematised, I equally condemn, reject, and anathematise.
27 Insuper Romano Pontifici Beati Petri Principis Apostolorum successori, ac Jesu Christi Vicario veram obedientiam spondeo, ac juro. 27 Moreover I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.
28 Hanc fidem Catholicae Ecclesiae, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, quam in praesenti sponte profiteor, et veraciter teneo, eamdem integram, et inviolatam usque ad extremum vitae spiritum, constantissime, Deo adjuvante, retinere, et confiteri, atque a meis subditis, vel illis, quorum cura ad me in meo munere spectabit, teneri, doceri, et praedicari, quantum in me erit, me curaturum, 28 And that I am going to take care to retain and confess, whole and inviolate, unto the last breath of life, unshakeably, with the help of God, this faith of the Catholic Church (outside of which nobody can be saved) which I truthfully hold and willingly profess in these presents, and that by those subject to me, or by those whose care should belong to me in my office, it shall be held, taught, and preached, insofar as it shall be in me,
Ego idem N. I, the same N.
spondeo, voveo, et juro. promise, vow, and swear.
Sic me Deus adjuvet, et haec Sancta Dei Evangelia. So help me God, and these Holy Gospels of God.
submitted by Ibrey to Catholicism [link] [comments]


2019.03.15 22:27 Renfield2013 Grammar question about the Benedictus

I’m having some trouble understand all the grammar of the Benedictus. I was hoping someone here could help me understand the use of a participle (“ad faciendam misericordiam”) and a passive infinite (“memorari testamenti sui sancti”) in the following:
“... salutem ex inimicis nostris, et de manu omnium qui oderunt nos: ad faciendam misericordiam cum patribus nostris: et memorari testamenti sui sancti...”
Does “ad faciendam misericordiam” translate literally as “to the mercy to be done”? Can anyone explain why the preposition “ad” would be used here, as there doesn’t seem to be a verb just the participle?
Also, does “memorari testamenti sui sancti” translate literally as “the remembering of his holy testament” or “to be remembered his holy testament”?
Sorry if I’ve confused everything- I am not an advanced student of Latin.
submitted by Renfield2013 to latin [link] [comments]