Due to health issues and not being able to work for last 5 months - there has been some delays. Hopefully magazine will now be out in next month or so -- finally! Thank you all for your patience.
Paul Smith, changing your website to add about the 'blurb' being found at the link i originally posted means you need to re-write your piece by removing my name and inserting into it's place Julian Doyle, for it was Doyle's blurb for his new book. Dont forget to read the whole of the link that Mr Doyle wrote - you might learn something, because there is much more to read! Thats why i supplied the links in the first place!
Paul Smith - in your haste to continue your stalking behaviour of posting everything i post, and then passing judgement on it - make sure you know what you are talking about. For if you had followed the supplied links, and been in less haste trying to troll something - you would see these are not my words. So quickly run to your web site and doctor what you have put up ... no, hang on, heres the link to the page to save you the trouble;
Once again HERE IS THE LINK, CLICK ON THIS LINK, HERE IS DOYLE'S WEBSITE - IS THIS LARGE ENOUGH FOR YOU TO SEE?
and HERE IS THE LINK TO THE BOOK ON AMAZON, PLEASE BE SURE NOT TO MISS THIS
Throughout the history of Christianity there have been those claiming to know a monumental secret. Often these people have been associated with French esoteric organizations, Rosecrutions, Freemasons and centered around the Church of St. Sulpice in Paris. Here for example is a letter sent by Louis Fouquet to his brother after a meeting in Rome with the mysterious painter Poussin.
‘He and I discussed certain things, which I shall with ease be able to explain to you in detail; things which will give you advantages which even kings would have great pains to draw from him, and which, according to him, it is possible that nobody else will ever rediscover in the centuries to come.’
Clearly in the Church of St. Sulpice there must have been some documentation in the past that contained the monumental secret, but now this real life detective story searching links between the history of Rome and the latest Biblical research, finally reveals the extraordinary and truly monumental secret that Fouquet thought ‘nobody would ever rediscover in the centuries to come.’
As ‘WHO KILLED JESUS?’ appears to be an open and shut case, since everybody knows it was the Roman Governor, Pilate, who had Jesus crucified; the starting point for the book has to be, to prove that Pontius Pilate was not the guilty party. This already is such an outrageous idea that we are forced to confront your natural skepticism by presenting four pages from the book’s Introduction, that proves, without doubt, that Pontius Pilate was not, and could not have been involved in any way in the killing of Jesus Christ. Read and contemplate the full, astonishing implications of the irrefutable evidence that…
Il y a 1 600 ans, Toulouse a été la capitale du royaume des Wisigoths, un territoire gigantesque par sa superficie puisqu'il s'étendait du sud la Loire au nord de l'Espagne
2018 hopeful celebrations for the Visigothic history of Toulouse next year ...on an important anniversary!
Interesting book HERE called "Les courtisanes de l'antiquité: Marie- Madeleine" [The Courtesans of Antiquity: Mary Magdalen]. Written by “Marc” de Montifaud - the pseudonym chosen by the controversial editor and writer of history and fiction Marie-Amélie Chartroule de Montifaud.
The Gospels Without God - relevant section re: Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene - as referred to in the works by Doumergue...
THE GOSPELS WITHOUT GOD
Love and Removal
At Saint-Pilon, with his face turned towards the sea, the traveler need only take a few steps to meet a hidden course among all these projecting rocks that are piled at his feet, a narrow opening into which a man’s body can quickly disappear; it is, in its current state, the entrance to a wide and extraordinarily deep underground passage that opens immediately underfoot. We descend there using a strongly knotted rope ladder; then at this depth we fall into another, and we follow the meanders that intersect to infinity, and if we do lose our way we end up going from abyss to abyss until we break through out of the cave that opens full wide before the forest.
Local traditions, which always have their basis in some probability, say that the Angels every day removed the Magdalene and deposited her on top of this rock. She then, by this mysterious method, enjoyed this wonderful view, which is a delight; having at her feet to one side the dark forest, extending away like a huge green carpet; all around, the scorching nature of the perfumed breath of the distant country, and facing the blue sea and clear sky.
Then, when she had imbibed deeply of life, she returned to fall into contemplation of Him who was the life of her heart and always alive for her, and she held the cold remains in her hands, pressing them to the burning lips of the woman.
Love is so made that once illuminated, it never goes out. Its flame passes from the torch of marriage to the most peaceful glow of the domestic hearth without ceasing to shine in all its brilliance. Once close to the heart of man, the heart of the woman continues to beat in the unity of two hearts: first burning with the husband, then warming with the son; serving as a bridge between these two beings who are joined within it. By consequence, the result is always a happy one because she is always loving, always loved and whether wife or mother she is always sovereign. This second kingdom soon came to divert Mary Magdalene from the dark drama she had hitherto seen play out constantly beneath her eyes. The moment, for her, had come to bring His fruit into the world.
Of that event there remains nary a trace, almost nothing, nothing but a name. But this name, wonderfully intentional, coupled with that of the lover of Christ, suffices to dispel all darkness that has accumulated as a thick curtain between these lives and our legitimate curiosity. It is the name of this selfsame child.
Choosing a name for the first fruit of their love is the first challenge for mothers in the delightful time following a birth. How does one name this frail life, which the whole life of two people, the treasure that alone is worth all the wealth of the earth, this joy that intoxicates them, and this pride that gratifies them so much?
Each detaches from the sky a star, the brightest, to adorn the forehead of the newborn; others in the light of day find some marvel they compare him to, or they delight in a spring flower that his parents place on his crib as a graceful emblem, one that has the most crimson, great freshness, and that stands valiantly on its stem, unrivaled because he has a name that is unrivaled, completely unique!
So certainly thought Mary Magdalene, contemplating the beloved hanging from her breast, who was babbling before he could speak, and so adorably demanding in return that she love him as much as she had loved his father. Like all who are similarly happy, she was worried about the loving name of this son, but like those who previously cried but henceforth will smile, she found herself comforted by a dazzling new vision. She saw the one she loved transfigured into the one she was now to love; the greatness of the soul of her “Lord” now living took the place of the memory of His wounds; the blood, the torture, and his death—this bleak vision vanished before the dazzling beauty and grandeur, the manliness of his proud existence; and in an outburst of maternal satisfaction, she wrapped her son in the glorious halo of his father with one of the only Latin words of which she knew the meaning, naming him “Maximin.”
Maximin, from “Maximinus,” means: “descended from that which is the greatest in the world;” it means the son of a man great beyond all expression; in a word, the little one of the great one.
The last and precious token of the love of the Magdalene for Christ has become for us a provident one and, certainly, the most unexpected of testimony. A name, from a less intimate relationship, would have been nothing.
After that, nothing is known, except that Mary Magdalene lived for another twenty-five years, and that her son, whom she had the satisfaction of seeing grow into a man, survived her for thirty years. After having deposited the body of his mother in an alabaster tomb, in commemoration of the memorable actions of his life, Maximin was in turn placed beside her in a marble tomb in the mausoleum which had been built by him and which bore his name.
According to this tradition. Mary Magdalene was dead at the time of the dispute at Antioch between Peter and Paul; and Maximin was dead at the time when St. Paul, having become free, founded the Church of Rome; both died before Christianity came out of its swaddling clothes.
Source: Louis Martin, Les Évangiles sans Dieu (Paris: Dentu & Cie,1887), 268-273.
Followed by some contemporary reviews of the book;
G. Meunier, Review of The Gospels without GodThe Gospels without God. In regard to the title of this book, which is something of a paradox, the author has taken care to explain it from the very first pages of its very interesting philosophical preface: It is a work of atheism.
“Atheism is the only system that can lead man to freedom,” said Diderot; Martin develops this aphorism and concludes that, since disbelief in religion and understanding of science have actually begun to penetrate the minds of the masses, it would not be long until men attain freedom. Theism, he said in substance, remains on earth and seems to hold power because of certain residual habits and some hypocrisy that prevent admission of what everyone thinks quietly. Similarly, for believers, it is evident that God does not exist, and often those we take for such are not, but innovators who defer to the idea of a cosmic god and abandon the god of revelation, in a spirit of harmony or the pure reason of moral utility. — Seeing there, and rightly, that substitution of principles, this change in prejudice, Mr. Louis Martin began to wrest from the domain of thought all illusions, conceptions that are related to this always-pernicious belief in the same.
This task seems to him much easier because theocratic institutions have successively sunk into indifference or contempt. From these same metaphysical declines, soon and finally nothing will remain of what is called Providence, without which we can no longer determine the key attributes of the supreme intelligence, which the concept of a universal mind tried to clarify. On all of the sequentially accumulated ruins of religion Mr. Martin succeeds in building up by the principle of negation, thereby rebuilding a Gospel where Jesus, stripped of divinity which was decked in the fanaticism and superstition of ancient times, is made into a thinking human as an incarnation of a latent genius that produced through the ages a mysterious work of revolution, and therefore returns him to his rightful place as claimant and martyr. — Here, first of all, Mr. Martin may wish to allow us to make this remark, which is not as important as you might think: If God is to be placed at the door of this semi-religious monument which is called the Gospel, it loses nor gains in having a God or lacking one, since in any case, as Mr. Martin notes, its influence is negative because of the increasingly positive state today of the human mind: hence, by such rigor, one might conclude that the exegetical controversy is useless, completely useless.
The life of Jesus has already been well disputed; it was furiously dissected in the old days, his very existence is disputed, along with supporting documents and texts. Here precisely to resolve the debate, our author comes brandishing a new thesis sharpened well, thoroughly drenched in the pure sources of truth according to St. Matthew and St. Luke, who themselves are not in agreement as early on as establishing the genealogy of Christ. Fiction against fiction, I do not distinguish what need there may be to battle with the dead to destroy an enemy that we conclude does not exist, that is to say to remove a myth from a legend in order to purify that whose inspiration was a myth. But this assessment is very personal and is not, of course, relevant to a work, already weakened by the secondary role awarded to women, whose social perspective, aside from that, retains some philosophical and literary value; and is luxuriously edited.
Some chapters are very remarkable, yet not as scholarly as the poetic spirit and talent they reveal. Some pages are suffused with a warm lyricism that is nothing less than orthodox, and would have delightfully surprised Alemann, the father of the genre; and those related to Jesus’ love affair with Mary Magdalene would undoubtedly be envied by Anacreon of Theos if these two poets had not already been dead for a long time. For example, it could not be that Mr. Martin hoped for the praises of two thousand Catholic theologians, were his work to fall under their eyes, which cannot fail to happen. It is probable that, on the contrary, this exegesis, too modern for them, they cannot accept and that two centuries earlier it would have earned its author the honor of an apotheosis, and a beautiful auto-da-fe.
All the interpreters who serve the church, which is to say all of those who claim the power to interpret the Holy Scriptures, would comment in vain on the Gospels according to Mr. Martin in order to extract something sacred and mystical. But where their embarrassment fast grows to stupefaction occurs at the end of the volume, in the chapter concerning the removal of the body of the Crucified, in which they would learn that it was not abandoned in the tomb in Jerusalem but with the complicity of Mary Magdalene and some of his Disciples, it came to rest in the land of cicadas, of poets, and especially of hyperbole: in our own Provence! If this discovery is not refuted, it would shine a bright light on a few of the miracles attributed to Jesus during his lifetime, such as the wedding at Cana, the multiplication of bread, etc.; then the resurrection, too. There would be no place, then, for surprise that these facts have acquired a kind of posthumous and piquant splash, a very southern flavor that is religiously preserved and transmitted in all the texts, whose inadequacy Mr. Martin demonstrates with a rare talent.
Source: G. Meunier, “Revue des Livres,” La revue socialiste 6 (1887): 667-669.
Maurice Vernes, Review of The Gospels without GodLouis Martin’s thesis is certainly strange. […] At the root of this pretentious and bombastic essay, there is no specific knowledge of the texts or questions related to the beginnings of Christianity. It reads, in fact, as an exegetical discussion of assertions such as the following: “It is known that God does not exist,” and there is detailed information on the relationship of Christ with Mary Magdalene.
Mr. Martin, who presents himself as a free thinker and a man of science and progress, cannot distinguish between facts acquired from history to a greater or lesser extent and legends drawn straight out of the air. Much of this volume is intended to establish that, through the efforts of Mary Magdalene, Jesus’ body was taken to Provence, Mary Magdalene and the family of Lazarus went to stay with these holy relics, and that the former gave birth to a son named Maximin, the fruit of her love for Christ.
Source: Maurice Vernes, “Histoire et Philosophie Religieuses,” Revue philosophique 25 (1888), 653
Review of The Gospels without GodThe Gospels without God, by Martin (Dentu): The title is quite banal, but the work is most certainly not, because what Mr. Martin has the ambition to prove is that Christ was an atheist; but to make even more piquant his demonstration, the author does not wish to seek his evidence and arguments anywhere else than in the Gospels. Let us add that Mr. Martin is absolutely sincere and acting in good faith, and that he often puts a real eloquence in the service of his strange assertions.
Source: La Nouvelle Revue 50 (1888), 937.
Hippolyte Barnout, The World without GodBut that is not all; because, if by his family, especially his brothers, Jesus enters the human order, he returned there also by the offspring attributed to him, a certain Saint Maximin, the fruit of his love affair with the Magdalene, a version accepted by Lacordaire himself in his beautiful book on Mary Magdalene and recalled recently by Mr. Louis Martin in the Gospels without God, a rigorous historical study, based on real facts, that he just released.
Source: Hippolyte Barnout, Le monde sans dieu et le dernier mot de tout (Paris: C. Marpon et E. Flammarion, 1890), 389.
Re-posted from HERE.
A text, published in a French occult magazine called The Initiation, a journal of “hypnotism, Theosophy, Kabbala, and occult science,” and which drew on earlier French literature on Jesus conspiracies.
Three opinions have been expressed on the person of Jesus Christ. Some (Ebionites) denied his divinity; others (Marcionites) denied his humanity; finally others affirmed both his humanity and his divinity.
You could see by my first letter that I rally around the last opinion; but I must point out to you that the adopter can still remain docetist, that is to say, to admit that the body of Christ had a semblance of reality. This expression is wrong, it is true, as the body of Christ was real; but when he was ethereal, it was only a phantom (aérosome) and not an organized body, a sarcosome.
I placed into evidence that the psycholone (soul) leader of heavenly spirits, the one that is most united to the divine Word, descended to earth to join forces with an earthly psycholone (precursor psycholone) and took by this means the human form. But I have not explained if being thus constituted, God and man all together, he took a sarcosome or if he was content to condense an aérosome in human form, which is the docetist theory.
I have long hesitated between the docetist and the Catholic theory and, finally, I have made a determination.
If, indeed, the body of Jesus had been an aérosome condensed, it might have appeared immediately on the ground with its adult form, which would not have failed to produce a great sensation. What need would there have been to pass it through the body of a virgin and make it look like a child? The docetists have no good reason to give for this need, and as for me, I do not see one either. Similarly, when he was on the cross and the people shouted, “If you are the son of God, now save yourself,” why did he not? Was it not the way to confound forever all his enemies? He could, since his body was an aérosome. He could vanish from everyone’s eyes like smoke and then re-form is in the middle of the crowd. None of this occurred. So for these reasons and many others, I am unable to accept docetism. Moreover, history shows us Jesus as a man like others, and like them made of flesh and bone. Therefore, it is certain that Jesus Christ had a sarcosome, and his body was more than an aérosome more or less made material.
This being admitted, we have to consider two important questions that follow:
1. How was the sarcosome of Jesus formed?
2. What happened to Jesus after the death of his sarcosome?
When for the first time, two celestial psycholones of the lower order came to earth to unite two precursor psycholones to form the first human couple, this unprecedented incarnation took place and by diploid polyspermy, that is, that two sperm fertilized the same egg. The result was a monstrous double-birth, an ectopagus, i.e. a monster composed of two equal individuals welded laterally on a small area of the chest, so that an accident could easily separate them.
When the highest heavenly psycholones incarnated to form the person of Jesus, the incarnation must have taken place also in a special way; I am referring to parthenogenesis.
Is this mode of generation, which exists in invertebrates, also present in vertebrates and in particular in humans? In other words, is an exceptional parthenogenesis possible in humans? If so, did it not produce at least one case of parthenogenesis since the emergence of humanity?
It is now demonstrated by observation that parthenogenesis exists in vertebrates; only, it never gives well-formed products but cysts offering an “unrecognizable outline of an almost entire embryo, although crude and monstrous in all its parts”; this embryonic product, adds Mathias Duval, it is impossible to assign an origin other than an egg and invoke for the abortive development of this egg a hypothesis other than parthenogenesis (i). And further: “we can say that the parthenogenetic segmentation is almost a normal and regular process. What is more unusual is when this segmentation leads to the formation of a blastoderm, which is extremely rare, and it continues to the production of embryonic rudiments affecting the form of fetal organs more or less recognizable.” So we would add, it is possible that once by exception a complete individual formed through parthenogenesis in the womb of a woman.
Who could help us with this in the absence of direct observation? History, tradition?—Well, it is exactly tradition that tells us that Jesus was begotten by parthenogenesis. —It is up to each of us whether it to believe that tradition. What is certain, in any case, is that it is nothing improbable.
The first of the two questions being resolved, we move on to the second, namely what happened to Jesus’ sarcosome after his death.
First of all, we must ask if Jesus really died on the cross.
I answer boldly: No. And I base my denial on 1.) the circumstances of Jesus’ crucifixion, and 2.) the Gospel accounts themselves.
When Jesus was arrested he had many supporters gathered in Jerusalem. How was it that not one of his supporters had the courage to stand up before Pilate? This is extraordinary, incredible even, and cannot be explained to me by a watchword that Jesus’ followers had received. If an argument occurred between enemies and friends of Jesus, they would soon come to blows, and Pilate would have massacred them mercilessly. Friends of Jesus, Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, influential men and members of the Sanhedrin had to give a watchword and take charge to save Jesus.
They went, in fact, to Pilate’s wife and asked that she intercede with her husband in favor of Jesus. This was done. Jesus found Pilate prepossessed in his favor, and the Roman procurator would certainly have released him if the Jews had not intimidated him by accusing him of being an enemy of Caesar. Therefore, Jesus was lost. There was only one chance to save him by preventing them from breaking his limbs on the night of his execution when he was not quite dead. Fortunately, the friends of Jesus took this opportunity.
The peculiar atrocity of crucifixion was that one could live three or four days standing in pain. The bleeding hands quickly stopped and were not fatal. The crucified of strong constitution died of starvation.
We know what happened to Jesus. After a few hours of torture he shrieked, his head bowed on his chest, and he did not move. Does this great cry not mark the beginning of a nervous breakdown followed by lethargy? There can be no doubt, if we reflect that Jesus was neurotic, as evidenced by his bloody sweat in the Garden of Olives.
Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were not lost for long. They saw the alleged death of Jesus by the duty officer. On the orders of the latter, a soldier with a spear pricked the side of the crucified, and blood and serum came out. Joseph made clear to the officer that this mixture was due to the decomposition of the blood and that Jesus was dead. It was not so, however; the blood came from the wound affecting only the skin, and the serous fluid that accumulated under the skin had no other cause than the flogging previously suffered.
Immediately the two friends of Jesus went to beg Pilate to hand over the body of Jesus without breaking his limbs; and the procurator gave them what they asked for. With great care they detached Jesus from the cross and, having dressed his wounds with salves, they laid him near the place of execution in a new tomb belonging to Joseph, which was immediately closed.
Two days later, before dawn, Mary Magdalene ran to the tomb and saw that it was open. Two young people who were in it told her, “Woman, why are you crying?”—“Because they have taken away my master and I know not where they have laid him.” Turning around she saw the gardener (because the sepulcher was in a garden) coming. “If it’s you who took him,” she said, “tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him.” He was about to answer when she departed, uttering piercing cries.
Other women came soon after, and they were surprised: Why, said the two young men, do you look among the dead for one who is alive? They said to his disciples that he returned to Galilee, and there they would meet again ... When the apostles came, nobody was in the grave, but the linens that had been used to bury Jesus were folded in a corner.
What had happened, then?
During the night Joseph of Arimathea came to the tomb with aid and, having found Jesus still breathing, took him. Where? Probably to a property of Joseph’s located on the road from Jerusalem to Jaffa in the land where Jesus had not preached and where he was unknown.
Now notice the following facts:
Mary Magdalene disappeared forever, for we never see her again. They spread the rumor that she had withdrawn to the desert. Was it possible? No, Mary Magdalene was and remained where her beloved Jesus was, dead or alive.
How is it that the apostles didn’t go to Joseph of Arimathea for information about Jesus or to Lazarus to ask about the Magdalene? They went there most likely; but everywhere they found the doors closed. All those people were gone. Where were they? Where Jesus was.
Here two assumptions can be made. Either Jesus died soon after arriving at the country house of Joseph, or he was ill and experienced several attacks of lethargy. In the first case, Jesus’ disembodied travels occurred post mortem; in the second case, they took place while he was in lethargy. These include psychic travel, as we know, in an appearance to two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and two or three appearances to his apostles.
If Jesus died at Joseph’s place, it is very likely that the apostles would have seen the Magdalene and her family, while in fact the family disappeared forever. We must therefore think that Jesus was not dead, but being very ill, the Magdalene and her family gathered all their belongings and fled with their beloved to a country where he was safe from persecution by his enemies and where one could calmly treat him. What country was this?
Legend makes us find the Magdalene and her family in Provence, in our own dear country. Some, like Lacordaire, believe in this legend, others do not. I refer for details to the work of Louis Martin, The Gospels without God, and that of Marc Montifaud entitled Mary Magdalene.
For us, it is sweet to believe that it is in Provence that stopped the footsteps of those who loved so passionately, and that this is where she deposited the remains of one who truly loved men and who first taught them the word for fraternity. “He’s here,” says Mr. L. Martin, “in some deep hidden place, protected for eternity from the foolish desecration of men. Thus the most generous of men sleeps his great sleep in the midst of the most chivalrous of people and the best made in the image of his Gospel.”
It follows from all the foregoing, that the sacrosome of Jesus Christ is not risen. That of any man does not resurrect to ascend to heaven. There is no place in heaven, that is to say, in the ether, for a carnal body; for “flesh and blood,” says Saint Paul, “cannot possess the kingdom of God.” Here docetism happens to be the truth. What resurrects is the consciousness, with memory, it is also the purified aérosome, as I have already stated in the May 1895 Initiation. It is with this etheric body and light that Jesus ascended to heaven, where he resides. It is through this body that we are united, and it is with this body that he will appear at the end of humanity.
13 May 1897.
(i) Traité de pathologie générale, by Bouchard, vol. I, p. 101.
Re-posted from HERE.
I'm not really into the Magdalene stuff, although i have to say, it looks really quite good. I shall go watch it on the big screen :)
During the Revolution, to save Our Lady of Marceille, 4 owners of Limoux bought this sanctuary and its outbuildings. It became private property by inheritance or gift of the Bishop of Carcassonne, Father Lasserre parish priest of Alet, Louis Andrieux owner in Limoux and Achille Bourrel, banker of Laroque d'Olmes. When Bishop Billard arrived in his diocese of Carcassonne in 1881, he inherited a quarter of Notre-Dame de Marceille. Given the nature of this property, it was indivision[?]. In June 1890, the court of Limoux orders, following the request of Achille Bourrel, its sale by licitation[?]. It is nevertheless decided that the church will keep its religious assignment. Against all odds, Mr. Bourrel, who wanted to make a lucrative financial investment by the acquisition of the basilica (the rental income and revenue from the pilgrimage) appealed the decision which was favourable to him. The Montpellier Court of Appeal, which tried the case in the second instance on February 2, 1892, confirmed the sale by auction but canceled the religious assignment of Notre Dame.
Posted by léa rosi Re: Réflexions sur l'énigme de Rennes le Chateau on 28 Nov 2017, 21:39. See more HERE on the 'latest French research' page...
1]Why would one expect Boudet to refer to a cave he discussed with other priests in 1912, in a book he wrote in 1886, a gap of some 26 years? Perhaps Boudet learned of this votive cave later? Stop using tunnel vision i say!
2] As Boudet never mentioned a cave of immense significance in his publications this new piece of information must be fake? And that is despite Boudet being an amateur archaeologist to boot? And yet, on that note Boudet never wrote about any of the artefacts he found as an amateur archaeologist - but we know he did because others at the time discuss being given the artefacts and in one case provided a photograph. Therefore there are things that Boudet knew about which he never mentioned - ditto maybe a cave he was aware of?
3] I am trying to locate the source for this article. In the meantime it would seem the priest Destram - perhaps - the abbé Destrem - was linked to the church of St. Martin de Limoux and later with Notre Dame de Marceille. Around the same time Vannier, was then superior of the Vincentians of ND Marceille. This would explain why Boudet knew these priests as i believe Boudet did have associations with Marceille.
Interesting interview with Jean Fourié - on the history of research at Rennes-le-Chateau. Interesting observations regarding Abbe Riviere, and other early researchers who came to Rennes ... very early on. See HERE.
I am pleased to announce the publication of the book "Le Journal De L ' Abbé Saunière" (404 pages - éditions and rlcdoc editions). You can order it HERE. Patrick Mensior, believes Saunière discovered valuable items hidden by various priests before the French Revolution – that this was the source of Saunière’s wealth – and that one of the key locations was an underground cache covered-up by a landslide on 4 and 5 March 1905. Patrick analyses Sauniere's diary entries between 1901 and 1905. My copy is ordered!
Latest French research!
Interesting on the ground remarks regarding Abbe Boudet and a local votive cave that he considered 'sacred' and 'famous'. See HERE.
I came across an article by Robert Richardson regarding how Plantard managed to do all that he did when very young. The article [and others cited] are several years old but i had not been fully aware of the work of Richardson. Richardson wrote:
"In 1938, Plantard published and distributed for free "French Renewal" a pamphlet with a circulation a 10,000. It was printed by Poirer Murat, who later would print another publication ostensibly for Plantard. Now 18, Plantard was also active with Groupement Catholique de la Jeunesse, a Catholic youth group. Supposedly he was involved in its formation. By 1939 he was speaking to small gatherings sponsored by this group, which arranged free holidays for young people. In 1940 Plantard was writing directly to Marshall Pétain, leader of the Nazi Collaborationist government at Vichy, warning of a Masonic-Jewish plot. In 1941, French authorities denied Plantard his application to found an organization called "French National Renewal". According to a 1941 police report, (7) Plantard was unemployed and supported by his mother. They had lived together for fourteen years in two sublet rooms, which were former maids' quarters. But in 1942, Alpha Galates, an organization headed in name by Plantard and alleging a substantial membership, made its appearance, with its first issue of Vaincre, an ardently pro-Vichy periodical featuring articles by a number of prominent rightists on superficial esoteric, and extreme right-wing political themes. Illustrated and produced on good quality stock, it, too, was printed by Poirer Murat.Where did the money come from to fund all these activities?
Obviously it did not come from Plantard or his mother. By 1942, he was 22 and still unemployed. He had a minimum of formal education. Most of the police reports about his activities from this wartime period when political activity was investigated dismiss him as an eccentric. But a 1945 police report on Alpha Galates, provides an insight in its list of the officers theoretically serving with Plantard on its leadership committee. They were Jacques Theureau, Alpha Galates vice president, an actor living with his parents and one year younger than Plantard; Suzanne Libre, its secretary, two years younger than Plantard, and living with her parents while studying acting; and Jules Tisser, the Treasurer of Alpha Galates. He was 24 years older than Plantard, a childless WWI veteran employed as the chief accountant at a manufacturing firm." (8)
You can read the rest of the article from the website HERE for the rest of his musings on Plantard.
We English are missing out on so much good research - because of the language barrier and it is such a shame. So i have begun a page detailing any interesting research being discussed on the French forums. Full links and credits are given. You can access the first page HERE.
I must say that i learnt more here in a day working through this translation - than i have learnt from any English researchers in the last 6 months!!!! Why is that? Why are the Brits missing out :( I'm pretty sure that the French would be over-joyed that we look at the business of RLC as seriously as they do, and not the chaff that was Holy Blood Holy Grail!!! Hopefully they will forgive us for we know not what we do!
But we can learn - and i hope this up to date and relevant info. filters it's way back to us here.
On January 22, 1917, Bérenger Saunière died, and he was buried in the cemetery of Rennes, in a tomb in perpetuity. Marie Denarnaud remained in charge of the domain and was sole heir of the priest's estate. The years pass in silence. Marie Denarnaud continued living at Rennes-le-Château, condemned to be the guardian of domains that were impossible to maintain and as far as we know, she had already made some unsuccessful attempt to sell the lands that were impossible to maintain. Some letters were exchanged with abbé Grassaud in 1933, an intimate friend of Saunière, who encouraged her to sell the domains and even recommends a possible buyer. Meanwhile time is passing and the silence of these years is almost absolute. We only have some letters from Marie, such as the intention to sell the domains and some receipt of expenses and little else.
Then in 1936, out of nowhere, came Jean Girou. His book called " L'itenéraire en terre d'Aude," published in 1936, has a brief statement that for the first time introduces a certain mystery to this story:
"A la sortie de Couiza, un route monte vivement à gauche, c'est le chemin de Rennes-le-Château, sur l'arête du plateau, découpe a décor singulier: des maisons en ruine, a château féodal délabré, surplombent et confondent avec la falaise calcaire, puis des villas, des tours à véranda, neuves et modernes contrastent étrangement avec ces ruines: c'est la maison d'un curé qui aurait bâti cette demeure somptueuse avec l'argent d'un trésor trouvé , disent les paysans! "
"At the exit of Couiza, a road climbs sharply to the left, it is the road of Rennes-le-Chateau, on the edge of the plateau, a unique scenery is cut out: the houses in ruins, a ruinous feudal castle, merged with the limestone cliffs and villas, towers with viewpoints, the new and modern contrasts strangely with the ruins: this is the house of a priest who had built this sumptuous house with money from a found treasure , say the countrymen! [or the locals]".
This text raises several obvious questions, who were those countrymen who informed Jean Girou? Or had Denarnaud begun herself, to spread a different story, to cover up the traffic in masses? Who knows?
However, the 'countrymen' who may have told Girou might be closer to the story than we think.
French researcher léa rose posted on a French forum on 28 Oct 2017, 11:34 the following:
"I think that the mythology of Rennes started in the corridors of the Society of Arts and Sciences of Carcassonne under the presidency of R. Descadeillas in 1957. The beginnings of the history of RIC are in fact of local impregnation. René Nelli summarizes the state of mind of the learned Society of Arts when he said during a session of 1952: "The local history, the history of our city, is I think, our reason for being ". Before 1957, therefore, there is no reference on RIC, no study is attached to it within this society. From this date, several works referring to it will appear, in particular between 1957 and 1959. First of all with the article of René Descadeillas - "The seigniory of Roquefeuil in the XVIIIth century" which speaks of the family Nègre / Hautpoul. Note also the publication of the works of Mr. J. Courtejaire, a resident member elected in 1958, entitled "Mgr. Charles de la Cropte Chanterac, last bishop of Alet" and "Echoes of the ceremonies of Sabadell". And finally, the arrival of Abbé Mazières in the ranks of the Society of the Arts, with the publication of his study "The coming and the stay of the Templars of Roussillon, at the end of the XIIIth century in the valley of Bézu".
We have an idea of the direction taken during the meeting of June 1, 1959 which is chaired by Father Mazières:
"Mr. President (Mr. Boyer) addresses his welcoming compliments to the Abbe Maurice-René Mazières, elected as a corresponding member: Mr. Abbe, I have the pleasure to welcome you as a correspondent member of the Company who is pleased .... you are a high-class researcher (sic) ... Fifteen years ago, dear friend, you are immersed in your attempt to reconstitute history, more precisely on this theme: Why did the Templars of Roussillon come, at the end of the 13th century, to Bézu, Val-Dieu, Coumesourde, Campagne? I also heard that, on their route, you made, in their company, a detour through Rennes-le-Château, so rich in stories and legends ... "
In 1964, the "company" lost control over the local history with the intervention of Mr. Razouls on the genealogy of the Merovingian kings during the session of October 12".
So from this Mazieres was interested in the Rennes Affair since at least 1946!
There is a further option. One of the researchers of the "first wave", Yves Maraval, was none other than the grandson of Marcien Fondi de Niort ... the friend of Monseigneur Paul Félix Beuvain of Beauséjour. Yves Marvel claimed to have a very important tenth century document which talked of a 'treasure' in the area .... his family got this from the papers of the de Negre family through marriage. His father, Joseph Maraval, was a member of SESA in 1924.
We know a little bit about Jean Girou. He was was a doctor of medicine, a writer, a local historian, a playwright. He practiced in Carcassonne as an Oto-Rhyno-laryngologist doctor. The passion that he discovered for the Aude, he cemented by a series of books and articles in which he sang the glory of the beautiful region. He was also a member of the Académie des Jeux Floraux, a member of the Toulouse Academy of Arts, and for our purposes here he was a member of the Society for Arts and Sciences of Carcassonne as well as the Society for Scientific Studies of the Aude; finally, laureate of the Institute.
We know the priests and their wider families held important places in the church and also as landowners in the area - and they all seemed to be associated with each other, or knew one another during critical events .. - all this was identified by Descadeillas. Along with this many of the excursionists of June 25 to Rennes-le-Château were from these same neighbouring villages. In addition to Auguste Fons of Rennes-le-Château, there was also Mr Deville, Mayor of Alet, Antoine Fages (who will return in 1908) and Elie Tisseyre d'Espéraza! And for these people the story of Rennes-le-Château, after Fédié's book on the Razès, may have a particular historical resonance.
So something which was possibly mysterious and importantly guarded closely by the priests and their families extended out to these local people who were all members of local archaeological societies. The main Society would be SESA - with the Maravel's being members [with their knowledge in the 1920's if not earlier], along with the local society members on the ground for local knowledge.
Jean Girou as a member of SESA being privy to the gossip and therefore able to refer to it in a book he wrote in the 1930's, followed by Mazieres [who knew Cros] writing about the area as early as the 1940's, then Descedeillas and even Henri Montfried [from the research of Philemon, and detailed elsewhere on this site - Montfried was President of the Club of Researchers who came to RLC, and had links with Cherisey] - it would thus appear that Corbu [on the scene in the 40's] and journalist Salamon [the 50's] and then Plantard [the late 50's, early 60's] were relatively latecomers to the whole party!
Let me state right now that I am not 'religious'. I may be spiritual but i certainly don't believe that the Bible or any other religious text is the 'gospel' truth. I accept the texts for what they are, tribal traditions from ancient times, written down by our ancestors as they made their way through life trying to make sense of the world around them and to understand it. I happen to think that there is some value in learning from their striving in this respect. Very often these texts are revised to suit the 21st century anyway.
Being brought up in England means that my religious teaching and any interest i had revolved around Christianity. I realised that i could not believe that the protagonist of that religion was resurrected after three days of being clinically dead. Feeding me this fodder when i was a child was insulting and, like Dickens wrote, teaching this religious mumbo-jumbo to children was equal to Herod's 'massacre of the innocents'. That said, i still feel today that getting at the truth about events that happened 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, reading the texts and ascertaining what really happened is important for our modern times, mainly because atrocities are being committed in the name of this religion, and i may add, other religions also.
To that end i have always wondered what the big cover up was regarding the paternity of the historical Jesus in the Bible. What a farce it all was. Obviously thats what it was, a huge cover up and Jesus was definitely not 'born of a Virgin'! If, like me, you don't believe in the Resurrection you certainly aren't going to believe the 'virgin birth'. This cover-up made me wonder if there really was something suspicious about who his real father was. As you dig further, and learn for yourself there is another question to be asked. "Why did Jesus use the 'Son of God' title, during the time of the Romans, when the Roman Emperor used this exact same title alone?" Jesus was reported to have used other titles which were reserved for Augustus only, so it was tantamount to treason for Jesus to lay claim to them! I had also wondered about the Hasmonean Jews .... Romanised & Greek - powerful and in place due to the Roman Emperors at the time of Jesus. Why did Herod the Great go all out to kill this Jesus when he was born? Why was Herod a King of the Jews as well as Jesus?
I wasn't quite sure why these ideas continually bugged me ...
I was thinking like the famous Einstein quote of " the important thing is to not stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing". I was curious about Jesus. I did keep questioning. Who were these people two thousand years ago that still have such an impact on our society today? I took further metaphorical advice from Einstein and his quotes. He said "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world". Keep questioning, use imagination, think outside of the box. Await that inspired leap in thought - the one's scientists make when they are trying to solve a problem and the 'answer just comes to them'. Like Newtons proverbial apple defining moment which gave him the inspired leap about gravity! We've all heard the story. A young Isaac Newton is sitting beneath an apple tree contemplating the mysterious universe. ."boink! - then an apple hits him on the head. Why should that apple always descend perpendicularly to the ground, thought he to himself..." "Aha!" he shouts, or perhaps, "Eureka!" In a flash he understands that the very same force that brought the apple crashing towards the ground also keeps the moon falling towards the Earth and the Earth fallings toward the sun: gravity.
I have not yet had a eureka moment regarding Jesus. An insight regarding his family, parents, his purpose in life. But it seems others may already have done! I discovered that the poet Robert Graves had written a book called King Jesus. Graves' book was one of many in that genre supposedly looking fictionally at the life of Jesus. The shocking idea in King Jesus was that '... Jesus [was] not ... the Son of God, but rather ... a philosopher with a legitimate claim to the Judaean throne through Herod the Great. It [the story] begins with the reign of Herod before Jesus is born and explains the dynastical, quasi-secular roots of Jesus both from his mother's and his father's side, establishing a temporal and historical right to the throne of Israel. The second part starts with the Nativity and Jesus's youth. Finally, the third part chronicles Jesus's work in adulthood as a prophet, his death on the cross, and his resurrection.
In a "Historical Commentary" published at the end of the book Robert Graves remarks, concerning the book's historical basis, "A detailed commentary written to justify the unorthodox views contained in this book would be two or three times as long as the book itself, and would take years to complete; I beg to be excused the task ...[but]...I undertake to my readers that every important element in my story is based on some tradition, however tenuous, and that I have taken more than ordinary pains to verify my historical background".
I wondered if his narrative story had been, for Graves, the best way to get a shocking idea across to a lazy public? Somehow that if you presented said ideas in a novel - the thought would be planted out there - in peoples' consciousness - without offending a whole religion and its acolytes. Did this make the ideas any less possible, because it wasn't written by a Professor in an academic Journal [i will add here though that i have great respect for learned Professors]. But what of Grave's Historical Commentary? Wasn't he really saying in that commentary that he considered most of what he had written to be true? How could you test his ideas in the way that Newton could test his inspired leap about gravity? No written archives, no Roman documents, no book written by Jesus, nothing.
Anything circumstantial? We know many characters from the court of Herod were part of Jesus' campaign. The family of Herod allowed the forerunner of Jesus - his cousin, John the Baptist to be executed. Followers of John then joined the Jesus Party. Doesn't it read like a conflict between two families?
Although Graves took ordinary pains to verify some history - it was left for someone else to pick up that mantle. That person was Joseph Raymond and what is more he had published his work. This book is called "Herodian Messiah: Case For Jesus As Grandson of Herod". The blurb is as follows:
"This work details the author's painstakingly collected evidence supporting a shocking theory, that Jesus was the grandson of both Herod the Great and the last Hasmonean king (Antigonus). The analysis begins with one loose thread in the official biography of Jesus Christ, the claim by the Sanhedrin that it lacked authority to execute him. Why didn't the Sanhedrin execute Jesus after convicting him of blasphemy? The same legal body executed Stephen and James the brother of Jesus for the same crime. During Roman times, the Sanhedrin lacked authority to execute only one class of Jew--Roman citizens. All descendants of Herod were Roman citizens. Two elements of proof for the theory are the ancestor list found in Luke, Ch. 3 (it appears to contain the names of Hasmonean kings) and Jesus' denial that he is a son of David. See Matthew 22:41-45, Mark 12:35-37 and Luke 20:41-44".
The length and depth of analysis Raymond went to is admirable.
Jesus somehow related to the Romans? I had only heard of the Jewish assertion about the mother of Jesus having an adulterous affair with a Roman soldier. This claim is based on the work of the ancient Greek philosopher Celsus, who, according to the Christian writer Origen in his Contra Celsum ("Against Celsus"), was the author of a work titled 'The True Word'. Celsus' work is lost, but in Origen's account of it Jesus was depicted as the result of an affair between his mother Mary and a Roman soldier. He said she was "convicted of adultery and had a child by a certain soldier named Pantera". Tiberius Pantera could have been serving in the region at the time of Jesus's conception. Both the ancient Talmud and medieval Jewish writings and sayings reinforced this notion, referring to Jesus as "Yeshu ben Pantera" (Jesus, son of Pantera).
Others have discussed various scenarios that involve the Romans in the Christian story.
At a website [see HERE] is the following:
"Robert Eisenman in his paper ‘Paul as Herodian’, which he wrote 11 years ago, and which is available in his book,The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians: Essays and Translations, and also online here, proposes that Paulus aka Saulus is the same person as the Saulus found in Josephus. He supports this with a close reading of the Pauline epistles where there are a surprising number of quick references that Paul knew and was related to members of the Herodian clan, the Jewish royal family who of course were not Judeans but Edomites. Edomites had been incorporated into Judea by the expansions of the Maccabees. Therefore an Edomite clan was as legitimate a ruling dynasty in Judea as the Scottish Stuarts were as rulers of England. Were they Jews? You can argue it both ways. Certainly Herod the so-called Great was insecure about his Jewishness, which explains his rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple, his destruction of the genealogy scrolls of the old Jerusalem families, and his marrying into the Maccabean clan which was by then a decadent dynasty and after Herod had finished marrying and executing them, there were almost none left. There have been proposals from different writers that Herodians were involved in writing the various New Testament books – I will return to these proposals in later postings. However for the purpose of this posting I am provisionally assuming that both Jesus and Paul were historical. Of course the Herodians were client kings reigning at the will of Rome. The Jewish view of their legitimacy and the Roman view of it were quite different. In one way and another the clan managed to stay on one throne or another until the Roman-Jewish war that terminated Nero’s reign in Rome.
Robert Eisenman provides a genealogical chart of the Herodians at the end of his James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Here is the important part that shows the ancestry of Saulus. Salome was the sister of Herod called the ‘Great’. With one of her husbands, Costobarus, she had a son Antipater (there are other Antipaters in the Herodian clan so we must be careful), and the second son to this Antipator was Saulus. So Saulus is a great-nephew to Herod called the ‘Great’. The Herodians were Roman citizens, and Saulus being one of them, the mystery of his Roman citizenship as used in Acts 22:25-29 is cleared up".
So back to the father of Jesus. Here we turn to Robert Graves. In his King Jesus, 1946 and his Nazarene Gospel Restored, 1954, he proposes the following using the Jesus story in John’s gospel (18:29-38): Pilate grants a private audience to Jesus, which he would have done only for a Roman citizen. Pilate decides that Jesus is indeed king of the Jews. For a Roman like Pilate, this must mean that Jesus is king as per Roman law. Now Augustus had recognized Herod’s will nominating his son by Doris, Antipater, as his heir. If Jesus had explained that his father was Antipater secretly married to Mariam, and that his mother had remarried after Herod had changed his mind and put Antipater to death, then Pilate would indeed see Jesus as the rightful king of the Jews.
Here is the genealogical chart for Herod-Antipator-Jesus & Saul.
Herod and Salome are siblings; Antipater and Antipater are cousins; Yeshua/Jesus and Saulus/Paulus are second cousins. If we return to Luke’s Jesus Story (but not Marcion’s ), we are told that Miriamne (Mary) and Elisheba (Elizabeth) are cousins, and therefore Yohanon the Baptist and Yeshua are second cousins. Yohanon the Baptist to Yeshua to Saulus. John the Baptist to Jesus to Paul. Second cousin to second cousin to second cousin. Yohanon is not a descendant of Herod called the Great, but Yeshua and Saulus are. Desposynoi – the family of the lord, the family of the great despot, Herod!! [https://markandmore.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/desposynoi-part-2/]"
Others have said that Jesus, in Roman eyes at the time, when he said i am the 'Son of God', only one person would have been recognised as such [the son of god] and that was the son of Antipater. They say that his mother Mary, according to early church tradition, was raised by the Temple high priest's in Jerusalem. Just as the wife of Antipater was!
Another interesting fact for me is that this family of Herod the Great had a lot of dealings with Pompey, Ceasar and Mark Anthony. [i found this interesting in respect of an article i have just written for the Rhedesium magazine [due December].
So i will read with interest Herodian Messiah - written by Joseph Raymond, who himself was raised in a devout Roman Catholic family in St. Louis, USA and educated in Catholic schools. He received degrees from two Jesuit universities graduating law school in 1986. Thereafter, he served as a Department of Justice lawyer in Washington, DC but later left the practice of law to found an internet company. In 1988, he began a spiritual journey of study and reflection largely focused upon the origins of Christianity.
He sound like an interesting guy himself!
As you know i follow the research of our fellow French researchers ... and why not, we surely can learn such a lot from them... and sure enough there are lots of snippets to pick up on.
A member of this French forum HERE by the name of lea rose posted on 12 Nov 2017, @ 14:56 the following;
"In "The seigniory of Roquefeuil in the eighteenth century", R. Descadeillas tells us:
"As for the farm of Aulis, except for the sale, it was sold two years later (1756) with the land of Niort to François-Dominique Fonds who did not keep it ... However, it is good to know that the titles and papers of the family of Nègri d'Ables - who certainly formed from the end of the 16th century to the death of François de Montroux the most important house of the country of Sault - titles and papers come to the chateau of Rennes with Marie de Nègri d'Ables, [&] returned to the chateau Niort in 1756 and have since been in the hands of the Fondi, who added them to their own archives ". (Memoirs of the Society of Arts and Sciences of Carcassonne, 1960-1961-1962)
I will digress by sharing a crisp anecdote about the Fondi de Niort, not unrelated to Marie de Nègre.
On December 8, 1889 [there] appears in the newspaper "Rappel de l'Aude" a small article reporting the results of elections entitled "beginning of purification" from a correspondent of Belcaire:
"Immediately, Mr. Fondi de Niort sent a letter to the newspaper "Reminder of the Aude" published December 12, 1889, to challenge the history of the false coat of arms of his family. There follows several exchanges in the following days (December 14th and 18th) in the newspaper between the correspondent of Belcaire which challenges the noble titles of the family of Fondi following their purchase of goods to Marie de Nègre in 1756 and Mr Fondi de Niort himself. To close the debate, the newspaper does not hesitate to investigate the issue and makes its conclusions in an article of December 25, 1889:
"In the month of March, 1757, François Dominique Fonds, in possession of the property of the Negre's and the Aniort, thought he could claim the seigniorial privileges formerly enjoyed by these two families in the country of Sault. Moreover, these privileges did not exist for the Negre family, since the Negre's had only exercised the functions of bailiff. As for the Aniort, towards the middle of the XIIIth century, the king of France removed the seigniorial privileges (sic) to them ... From this time , François Dominique Fonds is designated in the public acts under the name of seignior lord of Niort, co-seigneur of Mérial and lord and righter of wrongs to the place of Niort."
And finally to conclude: "It is not surprising that the works of D'Hozier, much more serious than Mr. Fondi de Niort wants to admit, does not speak of his family since it was written from 1595 to 1704 and that at that time, the Fondi de Niort did not exist ... "
For the whole article, I put you the link hoping that it works: HERE
This was followed by an intervention of Aronnax »12 Nov 2017, 15:36;
"Léa - However, it is good to know that the titles and papers of the family of Nègri d'Ables, titles and papers come to the castle of Rennes with Marie de Nègri d'Ables, returned to the castle of Niort in 1756 and are since then in the hands of the Fondi, who added them to their own archives ".
Interesting to note, indeed, because one of the researchers of the "first hour", Yves Maraval, was none other than the grandson of Marcien Fondi de Niort ... the friend of Monseigneur Paul Félix Beuvain of Beauséjour .
Yves Maraval seemed to be in possession of a "Templar Manuscript" of the first importance in the context of our affair ... info or intox ???
His father, Joseph Maraval, was a member of SESA in 1924.
Hereinafter, the article of "L'Express du Midi" dated January 6, 1918 relating to the funeral of Marcien Fondi de Niort.
Interesting to note, indeed, because one of the first ever researchers, Yves Maraval, was none other than the grandson of Marcien Fondi de Niort ... the friend also of Monseigneur Paul Félix Beuvain of Beauséjour .
Yves Maraval seemed to be in possession of a "Templar Manuscript" of the first importance in the context of our affair ... info or intox ???
His father, Joseph Maraval, was a member of SESA in 1924.
Hereinafter, the article of "L'Express du Midi" dated January 6, 1918 relating to the funeral of Marcien Fondi de Niort.
Aronnax continued on 13 Nov 2017, 13:30 with the following;
"...the struggle was hard between secular Republicans and ultra-Catholic Royalist supporters. The Count of Chambord had died in 1883, but his followers did not give up. What is interesting to note is that a few years later, while the clash between the two sides were still very strong at the national level, especially with the policy of the "petit père Combes," it was not necessarily the same at the local level. Here is a page from the "Tout Toulouse 1909" - a trade show directory.
This worldly directory, intended for the "beautiful world" and t's listings normally, had personalities rather in sympathy with the royalist and Catholic movement and it does not hesitate to include, in concert:
- Marcien Fondi de Niort ... ultra royalist, close friend of Mgr de Beauséjour and local leader of Action Française.
- Deodat Roché ... Freemason of the Grand Orient and member of the Gnostic Church of Jules Doinel.
- Etienne Dujardin-Beaumetz ... Radical, Freemason of the GODF.
These three men seemed to frequent the same "world". Perhaps, with hindsight, we could consider that Dujardin-Beaumetz's friendship with Father Saunière was not only a matter of "beautiful history". Marcien Fondi de Niort regularly claimed money from Bérenger Saunière and Paul Roché, the notary, knew the abbe inevitably.
You can find this exchange on the Forum HERE.
I have mentioned elsewhere on this site about Yves Marvel and this 10th century document he is reported to have from the de Negre archives [see HERE].
These interesting exchanges on the French forum took place in the context of many other interesting snippets. The reason i picked up on this was because i think we sometimes forget how small the community would have been down at Rennes-le-Chateau, and especially so in the tiny rural villages of the valley of the Sals. It is like English rural villages, everybody knows everybody's business and gossip. It seems obvious, does it not, that persons who held the same views and causes, would seek out each other to exchange ideas?
Not only that, i have recently read that Dr Courrent - better known as the amateur archaeologist who bemoaned the fact that the owner of Maison Chalaleu at Rennes-les-Bains would not let 'them' excavate further under his property, was the doctor that attended Sauniere in the days of his illness which ended with his death.
Dr Courrent seemed obsessed with Maison Chalaleu - this house was at the centre of much mystery and intrigue and was where a statue of Venus was found with abbe Boudet observing. The later owner of the house was allegedly a Boudet relative [keeping it in the Boudet family], and he continued to obstruct the archaeologists - who wanted to excavate the foundations of that house to find the rest of the huge statue!
This illustrates the kind of incestuous small community there was at the time of Sauniere! Everyone knew everyone, and certain vested groups carried the same ideas and strived for the same thing. And in the background were the reports of archaeological treasures being found, dare i say looted, by all these same individuals.
On April 23, in the first round of the presidential election, a woman entered the church of Rennes-le-Château to decapitate the statue of the devil. She was yesterday in the Criminal Court of Carcassonne. The verdict will be on November 24th.
"It seems that my act has awakened the legend of Rennes-le-Château ..."
A renewed interest in the town probably would have gone, like the 772€ costs necessary to restore the two statues and the bas-relief of the altar of the church Sainte-Marie-Madeleine, also vandalised on April 23rd.
After a dismissal on September 8, it is for the "degradation of a building assigned to worship" that a 37-year-old woman, originally from Quillan and now living in Lavelanet, Ariège, appeared yesterday at the bar of the Criminal Court of Carcassonne.
An extraordinary trial, started by a challenging of her lawyer by the defendant, who then began initiating a - long - explanation of her action. Sayings where esotericism, theology and geopolitics mingled, in total confusion and sometimes ... quite disturbing.
"Show the destruction of evil incarnate"
On the day of the first round of presidential elections, the one who imagines today to be perceived by all as "the torturer of the devil" enters the church, deposits a copy of the Koran on the ground and decapitates the statue of the demon Asmodeus as well as that of Mary Magdalene, using an ax. Dressed in white, her face hidden under a Venetian mask, she committed this "premeditated and thoughtful act for a symbolic purpose and to make a publicity stunt for a book I have been working on for 25 years".
A book that will also claim her to be the former companion of "Sabri Essid, the half-brother of Mohamed Merah" presents as "a work of theological correlation between the three holy books".
A "symbolic" act - this beheading was "to show the destruction of evil incarnate", but also following "to see the beheadings abroad, made by the Saudis or people like the father of my son".A long litany and illuminated wanderings that will last throughout the hearing, recounted in a calm and calm way, where one can not share the truth and falsity between these trips to Medina or Mecca.
From the president of the court to the public prosecutor's office, who emphasises these "wacky explanations", the psychiatric report gathered when she was placed in Limoux after the incident is highlighted as "an attack by a paranoid personality". For her part, the council of the municipality, civil party, Me Hichem Laredj, is incredulous: "You are a smart woman ... I do not understand how one passes from the secretariat of a law firm to these facts. In a particular context, a few months after Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, there were other ways to promote your book. Your cause is not good and I think you need care. "
In his submissions, the prosecutor of the Republic, Eric Lapeyre put forward "a dangerous aspect and always present at home, which makes fear a reiteration", before requiring 6 months of imprisonment entirely with the stay and obligation to care. For her own defense, the defendant has stuck to a statement: "Today, I officially wish to reject French nationality to apply for Palestinian nationality". As for the damage caused: "I will not even pay a symbolic euro for this statue". The decision was reserved on November 24.
Article is by Benjamin Seyer - from the Dépêche du Midi of October 28, 2017 - to read the original see HERE
Welcome to the blog of Rhedesium
My name is Sandy Hamblett, inspired and passionate researcher of the mysteries at Rennes-les-Bains.