A French researcher going by the name of Philemon recently unearthed some new information about Ernest CROS, a close friend of Sauniere - who was there at critical times in Rennes-le-Chateau during Sauniere's tenure as priest there.
Philemon says: Imagine that I tracked down Ernest Cros, the real Ernest CROS undoubtedly & he continuesd "The CROS report is what separates the shadow of light, before and after the mystery begins. Before the CROS report, there was Noel Corbu that makes the tape for his hotel; after the CROS report, there is Gerard de Sede who wrote a bestseller, "The Gold of Rennes"! What happened in between? In other words, Cros is an important link in to how the story of RLC became 'a story'! He was close to Sauniere, saw things on the ground as it happened and wrote his Report! He was in a great position to know answers!
I have already translated a fascinating article by Mensior - who suggested that it was Mazieres who may have written the Cros Report as we know it now. Others feel it was Yves Maraval d'Aniort. But whoever it was, did they used information from Cros? Has Philemon found something that is completely different from the real Ernest CROS we are aware of? And is it about to set alight the Rennes-le-Chateau research community????
Follow it all as it unfolds HERE
The mystery of the pierced skull of Rennes-Le-Château - which was allegedly discovered by Sauniere under the dalle des chevaliers stone in his church of Sainte-Marie-Madeleine - might finally be solved!
Although Sauniere is said to have replaced the skull back where he found it - 5 researchers from the Société d'études scientifiques de l'Aude re-discovered the skull. Under the auspices of Dr André Malacan, they excavated the subsoil of the church at a depth of approximately one metre, & discovered some bones that included a skull bearing an incision. Dr Malacan died in 1997 and the skull remained in the possession of his family. The grandson of Malacan eventually returned the skull to Rennes-le-Chäteau – following legal wranglings since April 2013 – & the story was covered in L'Indépendant (31 May 2010) and in La Dépêche du Midi (19 May 2010, 4 June 2010, 30 June 2014). The aim was to have the skull Radio-Carbon dated.
The case of this pierced skull was unearthed by the son of the former mayor of Rennes-Le-Chateau, Germain Blanc-Delmas, in his latest book: "The skull with a hole of Sainte-Madeleine of Rennes -le - Chateau". After research worthy of a police investigation itself, Delmas finally had in his hands the very same skull, and he was finally able to send it for carbon 14 dating. The investigation had turned into a crusade. Appeals to readers of his book and the local papers were made, saying that the skull should be returned to the community of Rennes because it was indeed an historical element of Rennes-Le-Château.
Delmas said: "I've received dozens of letters of support, from the Ariege, the Tarn-et-Garonne ... People write me to tell me that it is anomalous that such a relic is in the hands of others ...'. In this crusade Blanc-Delmas received the support of Alexander Painco, mayor of Rennes-Le-Château.
Painco said: "I contacted the person who had the skull last week ..." "I was not able to have a direct conversation [with the grandson] and I left him two messages. I told him that the town of Rennes-Le-Chateau wants to retrieve the skull that has a historical interest in our village. It has to find its place in the museum or to be subject of study," said Alexandre Painco, who was optimistic about the outcome of the story.
Finally in 2014, the mayor received a hat box in which was placed the skull.
Carbon 14 Testing ...
The new challenge was now to date the skull and especially to try to identify who it might be. For that the skull was required to be radiocarbon dated. But since the return of the skull - at the town hall - voices rose up to say that this is nothing short of a hoax - that the skull is a fake, & there was even talk of a new Piltdown forgery (the famous skull of the missing link that was in fact a sham) in the city council.
A second expert - an anthropologist at Toulouse then conducted tests. "He gave the same conclusions as that achieved in 2009," Germain Blamc-Delmas smiled. "It is said that this is a male aged about 50 years ..." says the enlightened historian. "It is the skull of a young white man & the mayor proposes to expose the skull in a showcase."
Carbon 14 dates the skull between 1281 to 1396.
Everyone now agrees. The outer bone depression at the top of the skull was caused by a blow firmly & forcefully with the help of a halberd [a two-handed pole weapon that came to prominent use during the 14th and 15th centuries]. Several hypotheses about the identity of someone between 1281 and 1396 has been commenced by Germain Blanc-Delmas, and he has launched a new investigation to determine to whom the skull could well belong.
"Without scientific calculations the line of the seigneurs de Voisins is indisputable. Pierre 1st de Voisins, Lord Marshal of Montfort & head of the crusade against the Albigensian received the Razes and other places in bequests from the crown of France. Jean de Voisins, who died in 1291, enters first in the context of dates, it is the youngest son of Peter. Gilles, lord of Arques and nephew of Peter III succeeded him. The first died in 1320, Peter III in 1340. Then Peter IV and Jeanne de Voisins took care the destiny of Rhedae (Rennes Le Chateau) for the desired period of the calibrated age. But he does not draw any hasty conclusions; "Because at the time of Reddis Caput (the name given to the skull:) Rhedae the citadel had experienced the onslaught of Aragonese and Catalans that destroyed the castle of the former counts, plus it is certain that the Templars were established in Rennes-Le-Château, the Order of Mas Deu,'
In 1974, Philippe de Chérisey wrote in a postscript in a letter to French author, “Pierre Jarnac” (Michel Vallet):
29 January 1974
P.S. Do you know that the famous manuscripts supposedly discovered by the Abbé Saunière were composed in 1965? And that I took responsibility for being the author?
Philippe de Chérisey
Cherisey took responsibility for being the author? Hmmmmmm? We know Cherisey is not stupid. He is in fact very intelligent, very astute and very good with words. He knows exactly what he writes. Therefore what is the general difference between "taking" and "taking on" responsibility? Is there a significance in the word Cherisey used here - 'took'?
when you take responsibility for something, it generally means that you accept responsibility for an act in an appropriate way.
However, when you take on responsibility for something, it generally means that you assume new responsibility for something you aren't or weren't expected to be responsible for.
I know elsewhere Cherisey is quite clear that he says he is the originator of the 'parchments' which makes his reply to Jarnac all the more mischievous!
UPDATE - Interview with Jean-Luc Chaumeil - on the website of Johan Netchacovitch, the Gazette de Rennes-le-Château. I have bold typed the relevant sentence.
Gazette de Rennes-le-Château: - One problem with de Chérisey's sources was raised by the discovery of the original text of the "Small Parchment", the famous Codex Bezae. Why doesn't he mention this unique source?
Jean-Luc Chaumeil: - Ah, that takes us to the very heart of the Plantard-Chérisey system! I'm not going to go over again what I've already written on your (internet) forums, but certain people obviously just don't want to understand... It gets annoying in the end. Pierre Plantard knew about the book by Fulcran Vigouroux and decided to "arrange" for the paternity of the parchments as it were to be attributed to Philippe. Citing Dom Cabrol was a red herring, a blind. It was the same with the magazine "CIRCUIT", another blind that appeared in several different versions. I'll give you another example... In an interview that Philippe granted me in 1973 he explained the origin of the Codex: "..I took the ancient uncial text at the Bibliothèque Nationale from the work of Dom Cabrol, Christian Archaeology, Shelf C25". I went there in person and what did I find in the shelf next to the one you mentioned? On shelf B was the Fulcran Vigouroux. That's a good example of the sort of traps and red herrings that those two specialised in. They would give a vague indication of something, but only the really curious inquirer would ever get onto the right track!!! In the light of that example I can state that Pierre Plantard was aware of the Fulcran Vigouroux manuscript! And anyone who’s not prepared to admit that are leading themselves astray..."
Paul SAUSSEZ - way back in July 2004 gave an interview to www.renneslechateau.com. I wanted to take [translated] excerpts from that interview to remind us of some very interesting facts that he drew attention to [i am certain Paul would not object]. I have highlighted the sentences which resonate with me ....
The traffic in masses does not seem to have worried Mgr Billard. What do you think?
It is curious, at first glance, that Sauniere was never worried by his superiors when Mgr Billard occupied the archbishopric. His troubles began with Bishop Paul-Felix Beuvain Beauséjour. I happen to think that the trial against Saunière was only [one] episode in a much larger cleaning operation, about which the church authorities have remained very discreet until today. Indeed, Monsignor Billard was [also a mysterious] money handler. The origin of his fortune, which was not insignificant, remains murky. He was himself suspended "a divinis" for his management of funds - and had to undergo several trials for simony and property grabbing. In particular, the questionable circumstances surrounding the purchase by Monsignor Billard, privately, of the domain of Our Lady of Marceille near Limoux, which did not escape investigation by Bishop Beausejour.
In your opinion, was Sauniere informed in advance of the existence of the tomb?
The discovery of the tomb in 1891 does not seem coincidental. Mgr Billard, who held the information [from] his mentor Bishop Bonnechose, probably told the abbe of an "interesting" tomb when he appointed [Sauniere] to Rennes in 1885. In any case, Sauniere obtains confirmation [of the tomb] in 1887 , when he finds a scroll written around 1790 by his distant predecessor, Father Bigou, revealing the secret of his church. This is the starting point for the adventure. He finds, in the process, the former parish register hidden by Father Bigou at the start of the Revolution, which confirms the existence of the tomb. From the beginning of 1891, Sauniere began a series of actions that betray a premeditated plan to search his church and around the grounds without arousing suspicion. A few months later he "discovered" the tomb.
The parish register that speaks of the burial of the lords of Rennes - is it authentic?
Yes, the parish register is genuine. It is a book whose sheets are stamped with the arms of the Archdiocese of Alet. The entries are handwritten, from the hand of the priests who have succeeded in the parish of Rennes between 1694 and 1726. This exceptional document, as I could see, was found in the papers of Saunière by Claire Corbu and Antoine Captier, [who are] its current owners. I recall that Claire Corbu is the daughter of Noel Corbu, who was the sole heir of Mary Dénarnaud, who died in 1953, and who was the heir of Berenger Sauniere.
If the famous "scrolls" were forgeries made by Plantard and Cherisey, what about the stele of Marie de Negre?
It is necessary to distinguish the stele of the slab. The horizontal slab, bearing the inscriptions "ET IN ARCADIA EGO", "Reddis REGIS CELLIS ARCIS" and "PS - PRAECUM" does not seem entirely genuine. Its existence is not attested to in the time of Sauniere, & not before. The vertical stele bearing the epitaph "CIT GIT NOBLE M ..." is, however, genuine. The original is gone, but there is one statement made in 1905 by Elie Tisseyre during a tour of the Scientific Society of Studies of the Aude. Reproductions given in most books is incomplete. The original design for information and additions - we see engraved on the edge of the stele, the words "PS-PRAECUM". Thus, the 128 letters necessary for decryption of the epitaph to give the anagram "BERGERE NO TEMPTATION ..." has always been found [on] a single stone. This little discovery strengthens my conviction that only the horizontal slab is inauthentic.
According to Corbu-Captier, Saunière found something under the "Dalle des Chevaliers" in 1887. Sauniere also notes the discovery of a tomb in his notebook diary in 1891.
Claire Corbu and Antoine Captier and many others report that it was the "Dalle des Chevaliers" that covered the underground entrance to the tomb, which Sauniere discovered & mentions in his diary-book on September 21, 1891. For me personally, I do not think so. Indeed, the most reliable testimonies talk of a slab that had been raised and that it "[was] the entire width of the altar." Now, the "Dalle des Chevaliers" measures just 134cm wide. It is very little for an altar which was supported by two pillars, each measuring 45cm. You should know that there is in the church a second altar, dedicated to the Virgin. It's under this altar erected on a slab, that Sauniere discovered the entrance to the tomb. As for the "Dalle des Chevaliers" I think it is a sarcophagus panel, probably recovered from the tomb.
How does Mgr Billard have knowledge of the existence of a tomb under the church?
Monsignor Félix-Arsène Billard was protected by Cardinal Henri de Bonnechose, since 1860, at the time when he was archbishop of Rouen (Normandy). But from 1848 to 1865 Bishop Bonnechose himself had been archbishop of Carcassonne. This is certainly the occasion of one or other of his many and, apparently, meticulous, pastoral visits to churches in his diocese, and it is here he has learned of the tomb of the Lords and the crypt of Rennes. He naturally transmitted this information to Billard & he will support the nomination to Carcassonne in 1881 of Billard.
What were the relations between Sauniere and Bishop Billard?
Monsignor Billard was the superior of Saunière. It was he who in 1879 named him vicar in Alet, and then in 1882 priest in Le Clat, a small parish in the Sault. It is interesting that Le Clat is located in the former stronghold of Marie de Negre of d'Ables. Had he been tasked to learn about the Negre family? It is quite plausible because Sauniere spent much time with the Abbot Cros, pastor of Roquefeuil, home of the Negre family. Cros later became vicar general, that is, the right arm of Mgr Billard. Cros is one of the people Sauniere informs first when he makes his discovery of the tomb. The hypothesis that I believe the most likely, given the background of Billiard and his predispositions to Sauniere, is that both agreed on the looting of the tomb, the first driving the second in a sinister affair of trafficking and receiving stolen goods.
And Father Gelis?
Abbe Gelis was among one of those as well as the vicar general Cros, that Sauniere informed of the discovery of the tomb. He is also one of the "four brothers" who visited him [Sauniere] at Rennes on 6 October. Sauniere, with the acquiescence of Billiard, probably bought the silence of the "four brothers" who condoned looting of the tomb. October 31, 1897, Gelis was found murdered in his presbytery. A fortune in coins and bank notes was found at his home, while his salary did not exceed 900 francs annually. Money was not the motive, but the mystery remains unsolved as to the origin of this fortune. The inquest will conclude that there was a theft of documents, but which ones? The case is to date unclear.
So there exists a cemetery under the church?
Indeed, the parish register tells us that. It mentions the burial, in 1705 and in 1724, of two people "in the church of the place, the tomb of the Lords, which is near the baluster." This makes us think, like Corbu-Captier, that the tomb is quite large, and was still receiving in the eighteenth century, the burials of characters who are not the lords of the place, but relatives, friends or allies. The will of Henry Hautpoul of 24 April 1695 also referred to the grave: "... wishing that after my death my body be buried in the parish church of that Rennes, tomb of my predecessors ..." Besides the tomb, I am convinced that the church of Rennes also contains within it a crypt. This is what makes it different. The crypt is a place where there is veneration by the faithful, of the relics of one or several saints. Knowing that the church dates from the late eighth century, it is very likely that it was built on a site of an old devotional pilgrimage. This is the case of many churches in the Languedoc-Roussillon. So you could be in the presence of one of the oldest crypts in France. This reason alone is sufficient to warrant the interest of archaeological excavations.
To conclude, what is your view on this whole affair?
To me, Rennes-le-Chateau is the seat of a historical and / or real religious enigma.
The veil might have been lifted long ago if not for wild mythography which seized researchers and began to pollute any scientific debate and in turn scared away serious historians and archaeologists.
There are two currents.
The first is that of a hoard of treasure [?], pursued relentlessly by researchers on the ground since the revelations of Noel Corbu in the '50s. I would characterize this current as Franco-French.
The second trend emerged in the late 60s with the book by Gerard de Sede "L'Or de Rennes" and has grown globally in the 80's with the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" of Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, followed by "The Tomb of God" from Andrews and Schellenberger. It is the pseudo-historical trend favored by Anglo-Saxons, whose foundations are based entirely on what I consider to be an elaborate hoax fabricated by Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Chérisey. It still continues to be revived by the novel "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown, which has sold over 4 million copies. Note, however, in this fable, that the epilogue is not located in Rennes-le-Château as might have been expected, but Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland, then, improbably, in the Louvre Pyramid in Paris.
The times may be changing. Rennes is now beginning to interest amateurs who are a little more enlightened and young scholars who are casting an entirely new light on the case. This is promising for the future. At the local and regional level, in the context of a society which favours the development of its historical and cultural heritage, Rennes-le-Château deserves better to be enhanced with cultural and tourism plans. Only archaeological excavations will once and for all complete the sterile debates, and focus especially on other more rewarding areas.
For my part, I will quote in conclusion the words of Fontenelle (1657-1757): "It is true that one cannot find the philosopher's stone, but it is good to look for it. For in that search, there are beautiful secrets to discover...."
You can see the whole interview HERE
RENNES-LE-CHÂTEAU En quête de vérité André Galaup 15, rue Descartes - 11300 Limoux firstname.lastname@example.org Format 14,5 X 21,5, 238 pages, 19,50 € Ouvrage consultable à la bibliothèque de l'Académie des arts et des sciences de Carcassonne.
Cette note a été publiée le 02/07/2015
Pour lire la note entièrement, veuillez cliquer ici
Les sociétaires de l'Académie des arts et des sciences de Carcassonne, écrivent et publient : La Septimanie, au regard de l'histoire, par André Bonnery
LA SEPTIMANIE AU REGARD DE L'HISTOIRE André Bonnery Editions Loubatières Format 16 X 24, 208 pages Ouvrage consultable à la bibliothèque de l'Académie des arts et des sciences de Carcassonne.
Cette note a été publiée le 02/07/2015
Pour lire la note entièrement, veuillez cliquer ici
You will find HERE recent discussions about the mysterious Canon Alfred Lilley, (1860-1948), who during the 1890's allegedly traveled to St Sulpice in Paris to decipher a “strange document” (or “documents”). These documents were supposed to be the same documents found by Sauniere [in his church at Rennes-le-Chateau] as reported by Lincoln et al in Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
Paul Smith HERE jumps all over these assertions in an absolute panic with a bid to stop anyone even discussing the theories. And what is his explanation for the Reverend Bartlett talking about Canon Lilley and the 'incontrovertible proof' that Jesus survived the Crucifixion? He writes:
"Reverend Bartlett did not write his letter just after the showing of the documentary “The Lost Treasure of Jerusalem...?” in February 1972, but just after the publication of [an] Irving Wallace novel ..... It's significant that Reverend Bartlett's letter is dated 29 March 1972 – because several days previously on 27 March Irving Wallace's novel “The Word” was published – its central theme being the discovery of a parchment proving that Jesus Christ had survived the Crucifixion and died 19 years later."
For Smith "Reverend Bartlett's actions can be explained as a prank that backfired when it was all taken deadly seriously. Reverend Bartlett was simply engaging in a bit of fun".
That is to say that one month after the Lincoln documentary was aired Bartlett decided to do and say nothing. Two days after the book by Wallace had been published however Bartlett thought to play a joke on Lincoln by stealing the scenario in the Wallace book and saying to Lincoln that this is what the mysterious Sauniere documents were all about! Quite apart from the fact that several people had claimed the same assertions as the Wallace book through the years [i.e. that Jesus had survived the Crucifixion - so why wait for the Wallace book to appear?] - Bartlett after obtaining a copy of 'The Word' - read it & then came up with the idea of a school boy prank, sending a letter to Lincoln pretending Canon Lilley had told him about a document referring to Jesus surviving the Crucifixion. All this was accomplished in two days - and that two days would also have included the postage and delivery of said letter to Lincoln!!
Bartlett then met Lincoln et al face to face and added even more fuel to the fire by saying Lilley had told him he thought the document in question had originally been in the hands of the Cathars!
I must admit i had to laugh. Those great minds of Lilley and Bartlett & other ecclesiastics in the 19th century with their erudition and intellectual standing - contrast that with the mind of Paul Smith - who can only come up with such a theory to explain Bartlett's actions! I'm sure priests aren't averse to pranks - but really? In this instance? I mean, for a start, we don't even know if Bartlett read the book by Wallace! And have you noticed Smith - for every person said to have any involvement in the 'affair', his conclusions as to why they are involved are always because they are fraudsters with prison sentences [e.g. Plantard. Should we dismiss other people and what they say because they have had prison sentences?], or people playing hoaxes and pranks [Cherisey, and now Bartlett], or only out to make money [Corbu etc], or persons only interested in fame and glory [most researchers] - the list is endless.
What we could however ask is why an English man, Canon Lilley, was asked to go and look at the documents? France had its very own learned Catholic/Protestant priests and one wonders why Lilley was fetched from London. However, if we read the biographical details on Lilley from St Andrews University, where the Lilley archives are held, this is what they have to say about the man;
"Alfred Leslie Lilley (1860-1948) was born in the small town of Clare in Co. Armagh, Ireland. In 1860, he proceeded from school in Armagh to Trinity College Dublin where he graduated in 1889. After two years as a curate in Glendermott he moved to London, firstly as curate in Chelsea then as vicar in St Mary's Paddington.
Appointed to a canonry in Hereford Cathedral in 1911, he was promoted to the archdeaconry of Ludlow in 1913, a post he held until his retirement in 1936. Selected preacher at both of the ancient universities, his sermons and theological studies commanded respect amongst his peers, just as his indefatigable attempts to alleviate the lot of the poor and suffering commended him to a much wider communion. His social interests brought him into contact with the emerging Labour Party who counted him a welcome sympathiser. His interests in the demands of the modern world on the traditional theological presentation of the Christian message drew him into the group of Anglican modernisers.
With so much in common with modernists in the Roman Catholic Church it is not surprising to find Lilley to be a close friend of Baron Friedrich von Hügel nor to find him a confidant of many of the leading European Catholic modernists. His support was particularly important to his fellow Irishman, the Jesuit George Tyrrell. A man of great forbearance, of deep spirituality, of human sympathy and practical charity, he represented for many that which was best in the Liberal Anglican religious tradition". [see HERE].
It would be the last paragraph we are interested in.
The Dossiers secrets specifically state that the Paris trip of Sauniere took place in February 1891, immediately after Saunière found the parchments, which were hidden inside the Visigoth pillar that supported the altar. However, according to the villagers and other records, the work to replace the altar was carried out during the first renovations four years earlier. So was the Paris trip 1887? It would be significant because of the names he is supposed to have met in Paris. If Lilley was called over to visit Paris to see the documents it could only have occurred in 1891 or thereafter - any earlier and Lilley was still in Ireland.
If one actually studies the religious currents at the time of Lilley and his associates - it is not at all surprising that they doubted the veracity of the Resurrection. Learned priests all over the place were losing the faith, and said so on record that they could not countenance the literal truth in the Bible, and yes, this included the Resurrection. Now, whether this is related to a document that Sauniere found in his church i suspect we will never know.
But to suggest that " ...the closest thing that links Canon Lilley with St Sulpice was his admiration of John Baptist Hogan" is patently false.
Lilley carried on a huge correspondence with the Modernists, including Alfred Loisy, a French Roman Catholic priest, professor and theologian generally credited as founder of Biblical Modernism in the Roman Catholic Church. Loisy attended the seminary of Issy-les-Moulineaux where he met Ernest Renan [who wrote a book called the Life of Jesus, famous for is scholarship and historical method in analysing the life of Jesus. Renan for example, on the death of Jesus wrote that "It is evident, in fact, that doubts arose as to the reality of the death of Jesus. A few hours of suspension on the cross appeared to persons accustomed to see crucifixions entirely insufficient to lead to such a result. They cited many instances of persons crucified, who, removed in time, had been brought to life again by powerful remedies. Origen afterward thought it needful to invoke a miracle in order to explain so sudden an end. The same astonishment is found in the narrative of Mark."].
Renan also entered the college of St Sulpice in order to take his degree in philology prior to entering the church, and, here, he began the study of Hebrew; also studying at Issy-les-Moulineaux at this time was Alphonse Louis Constant, who after Issy, also went to study at the seminary of Saint-Sulpice [to learn theology]. He was ordained a sub-deacon and tonsured. Louis Constant had already met Grasset d'Orcet at the Collège de Juilly and in fact participated in an archaeological mission to Phoenicia with Ernest Renan in 1859-1861.
Abbé Constant, had been hired as a coach by the superior who was at that time the abbe Bonnechose (1800-1883), then Bishop of Carcassonne in 1847, then Evreux in 1854 and Rouen . Bonnechose actually taught at the College of Juilly. It should be known that Monseigneur Félix-Arsène Billard was the right arm of Bishop Bonnechose in Rouen as in Rome. It was Bonnechose who himself appointed Archbishop Billard to the Carcassonne diocese when he was forced to leave for Rouen. By studying the biographies of these two prelates, other surprises await us.
Loisy, Constant, Renan, d'Orcet, Bonnechose, Billard! We know that Monsignor Félix-Arsène Billard was protected by Cardinal Henri de Bonnechose, since 1860, at the time when he was archbishop of Rouen (Normandy). But from 1848 to 1865 Bishop Bonnechose himself had been archbishop of Carcassonne. This is certainly the occasion of one or other of his many and, apparently, meticulous, pastoral visits to churches in his diocese. He would naturally have transmitted any information to Billard & he will support the nomination to Carcassonne in 1881 of Billard.
There are suggestions also that Grasset d'Orcet was a friend of Henri Boudet. HERE is a signed copy of La Vrai Langue Celtique given to Orcet.
Going back to Loisy - he studied under Father Vigouroux at Saint Sulpice and in 1890 he became his assistant. By the time he took a course at Saint-Sulpice in scriptural interpretation, Loisy was already disillusioned with the Church's belief in the virgin birth and resurrection. And talking of Father Vigouroux here is a connection. Vigouroux taught in Paris for several years in Scripture at Saint Sulpice and at the Catholic Institute. Many religious dioceses of France who were educated in these places benefited from his teaching. This was the case of the Canon Jean Eugène Huguet to whom Sauniere confided his defense when he was called to trial by his new Bishop. The priest of Rennes-le-Château also talked with him throughout the course of his long trial. In a letter dated 2 May 1911, the canon evokes Huguet studied at St Sulpice and meeting with Fulcran Vigouroux;
"During my seminary at Saint Sulpice, I was fortunate to have as Professor of Hebrew and of Scripture, first Mr. Le Hir, an Orientalist - most distinguished. It was from him that Renan took all his notes which he has so abused in his Life of Jesus. Then I passed into the hands of Mr. Vigouroux. So I notes that these gentlemen [that] have made several trips to the Holy Land"
Besides Fulcran Vigouroux, in this extract the Council of Saunière also mentions Ernest Renan (Tréguier, 28 February 1823 - Paris, October 2, 1892) who held an important role within the Linguistics Society of Paris which will, in 1867, become the Presidency; the same Society which the abbe Henri Boudet would become a member of in December 1897.
In a second letter to the Abbe Sauniere, written Espiens April 25, 1912, the lawyer returns at the time of his studies in Paris
"My time at Montaubau coincides with the burial of a canon, former Superior of the Grand Seminary. While he held this position I dined with him several times in the Bishopric. He was professor at the Catholic University of Lille when he was called to take the leadership of the Major Seminary. This canon was a scholar; he had trained often in his room to entertain me [in] the method of M. Vigouroux, including [when] I was the student for reading and Hebrew construction".
This information is from Patrick Mensior [see HERE].
Lilley carried on an extensive letter correspondence with Loisy and many more. A canon at Holy Trinity, Sloane Street London, he was an intimate with Oscar Wilde and his estranged wife and a very good friend of GK Chesterton. He was friends with Friedrich von Hügel who in 1873 married Lady Mary Catherine Herbert (1849–1935), daughter of the statesman Sidney Herbert, 1st Baron Herbert of Lea, the Herbert family having some link to the mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau.
Many of these new ages/modernist Catholic academic priests mixed with the occult and esoteric circles. It is not difficult to see how Emile Hoffet may have turned up in the mix, of which de Sede has alot to say about and to which i will report tomorrow!
Welcome to the blog of Rhedesium
My name is Sandy Hamblett, inspired and passionate researcher of the mysteries at Rennes-les-Bains.