Detail above the door of the Church of Rennes-le-Chateau as ordered by Sauniere - from Franck MARIE - Rennes-le-Chateau - Etude critique
This inscription appears just above the doorway to the church and is presented as a continuous line of text set within its own recessed stone box [Note1].
Regnum mundi et omnem ornatum soeculi contempsi propter anorem
domini mei Jesu Christi quem vidi quen amavi in quem cremini quem dilexi.
These letters are unfortunately much faded nowadays and even on the best of photographs can only be made out with some difficulty. The nearest correct interpretation of the Latin text reads as follows with appropriate punctuation marks also inserted:-
regnum mundi et omnem ornatum saeculi contempsi, propter amorem domini
mei Jesu Christi: quem vidi, quem amavi, in quem credidi, quem dilexi.
And its translation is:-
I have had contempt for the kingdom of this world, and all temporal dornments,
because of the love of my Lord Jesus Christ, whom I saw, whom I loved,
whom I believed, and whom I worshipped.
The text of this inscription certainly has a religious flavour to it but one cannot help but wonder what was so significant about it that the Abbé Saunière felt the need to have it added above the doorway to the church. Also the presence of significant errors is somewhat startling. Despite the fact that I am not a Latin scholar it is still plain to see that the words Soeculi, Anorem, Quen and Cremini are all misspelled. It is worth noting that the restoration of the doorway cost Saunière some 180.00 Francs. Not an enormous sum, but nevertheless equivalent to a little over two months salary. Also the entire triangular section just above the arch of the door was made as a single piece of masonry which was presumably manufactured in the premises of the company undertaking the work and later installed above the door. To me, it seems a little surprising that Saunière would have allowed such errors to go uncorrected. Indeed the correction would not have been difficult since the text appears to have been painted directly onto the stone rather than having been chiselled into it. This would mean that the workmen would only need to erase the text and then re-write it. The
fact that this was never done would seem to lead to the inescapable conclusion that this is the way he wanted the inscription to read. Note also that all the other text is flawless.[1]
The text of the inscription does not appear in the bible but can be found elsewhere in religious literature and its origin is fascinating. It turns out to be a Responsory in the 3rd nocturn of the Commune non originum as written down by John Tauler (1300-June 16 1361). A few words of clarification might help those of you who are unfamiliar with this terminology.
In the old Roman breviary (book of hours) the hour of Matins was divided into three sections called Nocturnes. Each nocturn consisted of three psalms with antiphons followed by three readings. Between each reading there were "Responsories" that is to say short prayers or poetry.
A responsory in the 3rd nocturn would be one of these brief prayers.
The actual text from Tauler's book of sermons is as follows:-
Regnum mundi, et omnem ornatum saecus contempsi, propteramorem Domini mei, Jesu Christi.
And this text unfortunately adds yet another anomaly because there is no Latin word Saecus. This may simply be a typographical error and I am researching this possibility at the moment. Tauler gives this particular sermon the number 8 and it is entitled "On the Feast of St Agatha, or the Holy Virgins". St Agatha is incidentally, celebrated on the 5th February.
The specific title used here "A Responsory in the 3rd nocturn of the Commune non originum" is that which was given as a footnote to this particular sermon. I feel it is unlikely that Tauler added this comment himself but more like it was inserted at a later date as a footnote by the Dominican nuns who compiled his works. Unfortunately the Commune non originum as such does not exist. The "Commune" was a set of prayers in the breviary appropriate for a specific category of saint, examples being:-
Commune Apostolorum, Evangelistarum, Unius Martyris, Plurimorum Martyrum, Confessoris Pontificis (bishop), Confessoris non Pontificis et alia huiusmodi, etc.
For the purposes of deciphering our mysterious inscription therefore, the only "Commune" that looks even vaguely like "non originum" is the "Commune non Virginum" and this does not appear within Tauler's sermons.
Here, it is perhaps worth stopping to ask another question. How on earth did Saunière alight on this particular author (Tauler[2]) and select this portion of text from one of his sermons? Well, Tauler was actually a very well known religious person in his day and he ranks high amongst the greats of religious literature and ideology such as Luther and Thomas Aquinas although perhaps not quite as famous as the latter two. This means therefore that his sermons in one form or another would certainly have been available in the times of Saunière, either from a specialist religious bookshop of from within one of the great monastic libraries which were to be found in and around the area. Although superficially it might appear that Saunière obtained this text directly from Tauler, it does also appear in a number of Breviaries. For example it can be found in the Breviarium Monasticum for the Benedictines, 1940, where there are 12 Lessons in "Commune non Virginum". Here it appears as a responsory after Lectio X ad Matutinam. It also appears in another breviary, Breviarium Romano-Seraphicum (Franciscan) 1883, where it is a responsory after Lesson 8 and in the Breviarium Romanum from 1961. The point being made is that it is obviously quite likely to have been a part of one breviary or another as used by Saunière in his day.
This seems to be a clear indication that Saunière through his deliberate errors was leading the reader to the inevitable conclusion that we should be contemplating the Commune non Virginum and since this is what he has implied there is obviously a strong reason for doing so. To begin to understand what this reason might be it is necessary to return to the inscription per se:-
regnum mundi et omnem ornatum saeculi contempsi, propter amorem domini mei jesu christi: quem vidi, quem amavi, in quem credidi, quem dilexi.
The Latin verb contempsi as used here, is very specific. It says "I have had contempt for the kingdom of this world, and all temporal adornments". The implication is that whoever this person might be, he has given up all material wealth to follow Christ. It is tempting to think that he may be one of Jesus' disciples and to pursue this line of reasoning further we can ask some more questions which may give us a further clue.
In the text he uses the verbs "quem AMAVI" and "quem DILEXI" both of which state that he loved Jesus although the verb Diligo probably means more to worship than to love (although it can mean to love also). Here the original text of the inscription is error free. But when he continues to express that he "believed in him" he writes "In quem cremini". The word which should have been written as Credidi has actually been written as Cremini. He makes a deliberate error. Instead of saying "In whom Credidi (I believed), he says "In whom Cremini(???)" and the implication is actually quite clear, namely that he did not believe in him. Now it is possible
to make a conclusion as to whom we might be referring. The only disciple who loved and saw Jesus but did not believe in him was Thomas (q.v. John 20:24). This inscription seems therefore to have been very carefully thought out and very carefully constructed so that anyone wishing to unravel its inner meaning would be obliged to follow this trail. The full extent of the revealed message is not quite over. Thomas in the bible is also referred to as the "Twin" or Didymos (δίδυμος ) which is the Greek word for twin. Thomas in Aramaic also means twin. This therefore is the ultimate conclusion of the text. Saunière is forcing us to look at the word "Twin" in connection with his church. Inside the message becomes clear. Just behind the altar are two statues, one of Mary and one of Joseph. Both statues hold the infant Jesus and this then is possibly the revelation intended, namely that Jesus had a brother, possibly a twin. This idea is not as far fetched as it might sound and there is actual biblical evidence to provide some support to this theory. The bible refers to a person called James and although popular church opinion regards him as merely a relative there is evidence to suggest he was a brother. For example Matthew 13:55 states:-
This is the carpenter's son surely? Is not his mother the woman called Mary and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Jude?
And Mark 6:3
This is the carpenter surely, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joseph and Jude and Simon
And Galatians 1:19
I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord.
Yet another interesting fact is that the Gospel of Thomas[3] is now fairly widely regarded as the closest thing to the actual words of Jesus as it is possible to get. This fact certainly would not have been known during Saunière's times and yet he highlights Thomas in this emphatic way. Did he know something which we do not? It certainly seems likely. Although it is tempting to believe that Saunière may have been trying to draw our attention to the question of twins, there also exists another possibility which may be that he is trying to draw our attention to Thomas and to his works which have remained undiscovered up to modern times. At present we
only know of a small fraction of Thomas' works. But let us suppose for an instance that Saunière discovered perhaps all of his works or at least a large portion of them. This may in part explain some of the very profound and confusing images to be seen in the church. If Saunière did have access to these rare and precious works it is not inconceivable that he may have modelled many or perhaps even all of the images within the church on information obtained from them.
Certainly a great deal more work needs to be done here to get a clearer idea of what might be going on. Based on the implications of this message it is clear that Saunière may have had information which provided him with factual evidence surrounding the life of Christ. Possibly this was in the form of ancient documents detailing the life and teachings of Christ. Historically there are certain instances of women taking part in the recording of the teachings of religious visionaries. So for example the sermons of Tauler were not actually written by him personally but were collected together by Dominican nuns and saved for posterity.
Saunière has gone to some trouble to draw our attention to Mary Magdalene by the use "Commune non Virginum", which I believe is also a somewhat little used Introit to a Mass for Mary Magdalene. In this way he may be telling us that she had possibly collected together all of Jesus' words. This idea is not quite so implausible because there is some fairly good evidence to show that Mary Magdalene may have been none other than Jesus' wife. As such she would have had access to virtually everything he did and recording his words may indeed have been one of her regular duties.
If Saunière did have access to such information it is clear that he would have gained an absolutely revolutionary insight into religion. His views of the established church would have changed in an instant and even if he was not already aware of the failings of the church as a whole he would certainly have realized them at that moment. This now helps to put into perspective some of the other inscriptions above the door. For example:-
TERRIBILIS EST LOCUS ISTE
This has perplexed people almost from the day it was written. But if Saunière was given access to this new wealth of genuine religious material it would not be surprising that he found the church of his day a corrupt and dissolute organization. The phrase is therefore aimed at the church itself, "This place (church) is terrible". His feelings against the church do not end here and this
next revelation is truly amazing. By taking the incorrect words from this inscription "Soeculi, Anorem, Quen and Cremini" and anagramming them you can obtain:-
NORMA SIC INIRE LUCEM NEQUEO
Please Note: there are numerous alternate anagrammed phrases that can also be produced from these words although those found so far do not seem to have a great deal of bearing of the topic at hand it is possible that an as yet undiscovered one may. This is an ongoing area of study.
Which translates as:-
Normally I cannot enter the light this way
Again the inference is that by entering the "Church", that is to say the religious establishment you will not find truth. It is a striking message which seems to reflect Saunière's true feelings towards his superiors. These feelings were also put to the test later in his life when his Bishop, Msgr. De Beausejour, challenged Saunière to reveal the source of his seemingly endless wealth. Although there is an element of curiosity attached to Beausejour's request, I am sure few people would not believe that his true intentions were to get his or rather the church's hands on this great wealth. Saunière ignored all the approaches made to him by the Bishop. In the end the Bishop launched a legal process against Saunière accusing him of accepting money for delivering the Mass. Throughout the entire legal process Saunière displayed nothing but contempt for his superiors. He never told them anything about his wealth and even more dramatically did not leave them a penny after his death.
The incorrect words can also be anagrammed to form:-
E LUMINE ES NORMA CIRCINOQUE
and this translates as:-
You suit the light by means of the square and the compasses
Or - You are comformable to the light by means of the square and the compasses
This may at first glance seem an odd possible message but when you consider that the Square and Compasses are very much the trademark of Freemasonry it begins to make a little more sense. Also there are numerous threads within this mystery which clearly point to Masonic origins. Saunière for example was involved with many societies most of which were either directly or indirectly connected to Freemasonry or at least owed their origins to Freemasonry.
Although we have reached this point as a result of considerable thought and though it may be tempting to believe that these clues might be placing us on the right track, it is important not to let our emotions run away with us. There is much work that still needs to be done here if only to verify that one or other of these messages is indeed what Saunière meant to pass on. If a clue does exist, then I feel sure it will be found within the church itself. This was Saunière's tapestry upon which he wove his secret and it holds all the clues we need.
LUIGI OLIVIERO
[Note 1] The text for this inscription can be found in:- Le Fabuleux Trésor de Rennes-le-Château By Jacques Rivière (Page 87), and Rennes-le-Chateau - Etude critique by Franck Marie (Page 150).
Regnum mundi et omnem ornatum soeculi contempsi propter anorem
domini mei Jesu Christi quem vidi quen amavi in quem cremini quem dilexi.
These letters are unfortunately much faded nowadays and even on the best of photographs can only be made out with some difficulty. The nearest correct interpretation of the Latin text reads as follows with appropriate punctuation marks also inserted:-
regnum mundi et omnem ornatum saeculi contempsi, propter amorem domini
mei Jesu Christi: quem vidi, quem amavi, in quem credidi, quem dilexi.
And its translation is:-
I have had contempt for the kingdom of this world, and all temporal dornments,
because of the love of my Lord Jesus Christ, whom I saw, whom I loved,
whom I believed, and whom I worshipped.
The text of this inscription certainly has a religious flavour to it but one cannot help but wonder what was so significant about it that the Abbé Saunière felt the need to have it added above the doorway to the church. Also the presence of significant errors is somewhat startling. Despite the fact that I am not a Latin scholar it is still plain to see that the words Soeculi, Anorem, Quen and Cremini are all misspelled. It is worth noting that the restoration of the doorway cost Saunière some 180.00 Francs. Not an enormous sum, but nevertheless equivalent to a little over two months salary. Also the entire triangular section just above the arch of the door was made as a single piece of masonry which was presumably manufactured in the premises of the company undertaking the work and later installed above the door. To me, it seems a little surprising that Saunière would have allowed such errors to go uncorrected. Indeed the correction would not have been difficult since the text appears to have been painted directly onto the stone rather than having been chiselled into it. This would mean that the workmen would only need to erase the text and then re-write it. The
fact that this was never done would seem to lead to the inescapable conclusion that this is the way he wanted the inscription to read. Note also that all the other text is flawless.[1]
The text of the inscription does not appear in the bible but can be found elsewhere in religious literature and its origin is fascinating. It turns out to be a Responsory in the 3rd nocturn of the Commune non originum as written down by John Tauler (1300-June 16 1361). A few words of clarification might help those of you who are unfamiliar with this terminology.
In the old Roman breviary (book of hours) the hour of Matins was divided into three sections called Nocturnes. Each nocturn consisted of three psalms with antiphons followed by three readings. Between each reading there were "Responsories" that is to say short prayers or poetry.
A responsory in the 3rd nocturn would be one of these brief prayers.
The actual text from Tauler's book of sermons is as follows:-
Regnum mundi, et omnem ornatum saecus contempsi, propteramorem Domini mei, Jesu Christi.
And this text unfortunately adds yet another anomaly because there is no Latin word Saecus. This may simply be a typographical error and I am researching this possibility at the moment. Tauler gives this particular sermon the number 8 and it is entitled "On the Feast of St Agatha, or the Holy Virgins". St Agatha is incidentally, celebrated on the 5th February.
The specific title used here "A Responsory in the 3rd nocturn of the Commune non originum" is that which was given as a footnote to this particular sermon. I feel it is unlikely that Tauler added this comment himself but more like it was inserted at a later date as a footnote by the Dominican nuns who compiled his works. Unfortunately the Commune non originum as such does not exist. The "Commune" was a set of prayers in the breviary appropriate for a specific category of saint, examples being:-
Commune Apostolorum, Evangelistarum, Unius Martyris, Plurimorum Martyrum, Confessoris Pontificis (bishop), Confessoris non Pontificis et alia huiusmodi, etc.
For the purposes of deciphering our mysterious inscription therefore, the only "Commune" that looks even vaguely like "non originum" is the "Commune non Virginum" and this does not appear within Tauler's sermons.
Here, it is perhaps worth stopping to ask another question. How on earth did Saunière alight on this particular author (Tauler[2]) and select this portion of text from one of his sermons? Well, Tauler was actually a very well known religious person in his day and he ranks high amongst the greats of religious literature and ideology such as Luther and Thomas Aquinas although perhaps not quite as famous as the latter two. This means therefore that his sermons in one form or another would certainly have been available in the times of Saunière, either from a specialist religious bookshop of from within one of the great monastic libraries which were to be found in and around the area. Although superficially it might appear that Saunière obtained this text directly from Tauler, it does also appear in a number of Breviaries. For example it can be found in the Breviarium Monasticum for the Benedictines, 1940, where there are 12 Lessons in "Commune non Virginum". Here it appears as a responsory after Lectio X ad Matutinam. It also appears in another breviary, Breviarium Romano-Seraphicum (Franciscan) 1883, where it is a responsory after Lesson 8 and in the Breviarium Romanum from 1961. The point being made is that it is obviously quite likely to have been a part of one breviary or another as used by Saunière in his day.
This seems to be a clear indication that Saunière through his deliberate errors was leading the reader to the inevitable conclusion that we should be contemplating the Commune non Virginum and since this is what he has implied there is obviously a strong reason for doing so. To begin to understand what this reason might be it is necessary to return to the inscription per se:-
regnum mundi et omnem ornatum saeculi contempsi, propter amorem domini mei jesu christi: quem vidi, quem amavi, in quem credidi, quem dilexi.
The Latin verb contempsi as used here, is very specific. It says "I have had contempt for the kingdom of this world, and all temporal adornments". The implication is that whoever this person might be, he has given up all material wealth to follow Christ. It is tempting to think that he may be one of Jesus' disciples and to pursue this line of reasoning further we can ask some more questions which may give us a further clue.
In the text he uses the verbs "quem AMAVI" and "quem DILEXI" both of which state that he loved Jesus although the verb Diligo probably means more to worship than to love (although it can mean to love also). Here the original text of the inscription is error free. But when he continues to express that he "believed in him" he writes "In quem cremini". The word which should have been written as Credidi has actually been written as Cremini. He makes a deliberate error. Instead of saying "In whom Credidi (I believed), he says "In whom Cremini(???)" and the implication is actually quite clear, namely that he did not believe in him. Now it is possible
to make a conclusion as to whom we might be referring. The only disciple who loved and saw Jesus but did not believe in him was Thomas (q.v. John 20:24). This inscription seems therefore to have been very carefully thought out and very carefully constructed so that anyone wishing to unravel its inner meaning would be obliged to follow this trail. The full extent of the revealed message is not quite over. Thomas in the bible is also referred to as the "Twin" or Didymos (δίδυμος ) which is the Greek word for twin. Thomas in Aramaic also means twin. This therefore is the ultimate conclusion of the text. Saunière is forcing us to look at the word "Twin" in connection with his church. Inside the message becomes clear. Just behind the altar are two statues, one of Mary and one of Joseph. Both statues hold the infant Jesus and this then is possibly the revelation intended, namely that Jesus had a brother, possibly a twin. This idea is not as far fetched as it might sound and there is actual biblical evidence to provide some support to this theory. The bible refers to a person called James and although popular church opinion regards him as merely a relative there is evidence to suggest he was a brother. For example Matthew 13:55 states:-
This is the carpenter's son surely? Is not his mother the woman called Mary and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Jude?
And Mark 6:3
This is the carpenter surely, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joseph and Jude and Simon
And Galatians 1:19
I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord.
Yet another interesting fact is that the Gospel of Thomas[3] is now fairly widely regarded as the closest thing to the actual words of Jesus as it is possible to get. This fact certainly would not have been known during Saunière's times and yet he highlights Thomas in this emphatic way. Did he know something which we do not? It certainly seems likely. Although it is tempting to believe that Saunière may have been trying to draw our attention to the question of twins, there also exists another possibility which may be that he is trying to draw our attention to Thomas and to his works which have remained undiscovered up to modern times. At present we
only know of a small fraction of Thomas' works. But let us suppose for an instance that Saunière discovered perhaps all of his works or at least a large portion of them. This may in part explain some of the very profound and confusing images to be seen in the church. If Saunière did have access to these rare and precious works it is not inconceivable that he may have modelled many or perhaps even all of the images within the church on information obtained from them.
Certainly a great deal more work needs to be done here to get a clearer idea of what might be going on. Based on the implications of this message it is clear that Saunière may have had information which provided him with factual evidence surrounding the life of Christ. Possibly this was in the form of ancient documents detailing the life and teachings of Christ. Historically there are certain instances of women taking part in the recording of the teachings of religious visionaries. So for example the sermons of Tauler were not actually written by him personally but were collected together by Dominican nuns and saved for posterity.
Saunière has gone to some trouble to draw our attention to Mary Magdalene by the use "Commune non Virginum", which I believe is also a somewhat little used Introit to a Mass for Mary Magdalene. In this way he may be telling us that she had possibly collected together all of Jesus' words. This idea is not quite so implausible because there is some fairly good evidence to show that Mary Magdalene may have been none other than Jesus' wife. As such she would have had access to virtually everything he did and recording his words may indeed have been one of her regular duties.
If Saunière did have access to such information it is clear that he would have gained an absolutely revolutionary insight into religion. His views of the established church would have changed in an instant and even if he was not already aware of the failings of the church as a whole he would certainly have realized them at that moment. This now helps to put into perspective some of the other inscriptions above the door. For example:-
TERRIBILIS EST LOCUS ISTE
This has perplexed people almost from the day it was written. But if Saunière was given access to this new wealth of genuine religious material it would not be surprising that he found the church of his day a corrupt and dissolute organization. The phrase is therefore aimed at the church itself, "This place (church) is terrible". His feelings against the church do not end here and this
next revelation is truly amazing. By taking the incorrect words from this inscription "Soeculi, Anorem, Quen and Cremini" and anagramming them you can obtain:-
NORMA SIC INIRE LUCEM NEQUEO
Please Note: there are numerous alternate anagrammed phrases that can also be produced from these words although those found so far do not seem to have a great deal of bearing of the topic at hand it is possible that an as yet undiscovered one may. This is an ongoing area of study.
Which translates as:-
Normally I cannot enter the light this way
Again the inference is that by entering the "Church", that is to say the religious establishment you will not find truth. It is a striking message which seems to reflect Saunière's true feelings towards his superiors. These feelings were also put to the test later in his life when his Bishop, Msgr. De Beausejour, challenged Saunière to reveal the source of his seemingly endless wealth. Although there is an element of curiosity attached to Beausejour's request, I am sure few people would not believe that his true intentions were to get his or rather the church's hands on this great wealth. Saunière ignored all the approaches made to him by the Bishop. In the end the Bishop launched a legal process against Saunière accusing him of accepting money for delivering the Mass. Throughout the entire legal process Saunière displayed nothing but contempt for his superiors. He never told them anything about his wealth and even more dramatically did not leave them a penny after his death.
The incorrect words can also be anagrammed to form:-
E LUMINE ES NORMA CIRCINOQUE
and this translates as:-
You suit the light by means of the square and the compasses
Or - You are comformable to the light by means of the square and the compasses
This may at first glance seem an odd possible message but when you consider that the Square and Compasses are very much the trademark of Freemasonry it begins to make a little more sense. Also there are numerous threads within this mystery which clearly point to Masonic origins. Saunière for example was involved with many societies most of which were either directly or indirectly connected to Freemasonry or at least owed their origins to Freemasonry.
Although we have reached this point as a result of considerable thought and though it may be tempting to believe that these clues might be placing us on the right track, it is important not to let our emotions run away with us. There is much work that still needs to be done here if only to verify that one or other of these messages is indeed what Saunière meant to pass on. If a clue does exist, then I feel sure it will be found within the church itself. This was Saunière's tapestry upon which he wove his secret and it holds all the clues we need.
LUIGI OLIVIERO
[Note 1] The text for this inscription can be found in:- Le Fabuleux Trésor de Rennes-le-Château By Jacques Rivière (Page 87), and Rennes-le-Chateau - Etude critique by Franck Marie (Page 150).
