Arcadia Discussion Zone

Hi,

I've just received 'The Priory of Sion' by Chaumeil. From p93 he lists the Articles of the Priory of Sion. I notice that he names Andre Bonhomme as 'Pierre Bonhomme'; Jean Deleaval as 'Jean Delaval'; and Armand Defago as 'Pierre Defagot'. I've also noticed this discrepancy before in the work of de Sède. De Sède declares that all four are real people, and Chaumeil even lists their supposed addresses. However, it is usually stated that only Bonhomme and Plantard are 'real' people. Has anyone any comments?

Regards,

Spartacus

I don't have the book but



Jean as in John and Pierre as in Peter/Rock/Stone.

Hi,

What puzzles me is why both de Sède and Chaumeil (as late as 2010 for the latter) list names that are different from those found on the original registration documents filed in May 1956? Is it simply poor research? Or did they have excess to other documents? Or perhaps they 'heard' these names, rather than 'read' them? Does Chaumeil still think his version is the correct version, or did he (and/or his editors/translators) simply not bother to correct his previous errors? If the latter, what does this suggest about the rest of his work?

Regards,

Spartacus

Sorry but I don't think you understood me. It means St. Peter-Pierre as in the Roman Catholic Church and St. John as in the heretical everyone else - powerful enough - those baptised or initiates in opposition to the church basically government or power enough industrial interests (oligarchy/cryptocracy). They're chasing a "King of the world philosophy" which is why Pierre Plantard uses the name Chyren from the Notradamus quatrains.
It's not a mistake - it's just a different vernacular.
They play with names to make a point.

Yes. Well reasoned!

And similarly, everyone assumes that an interest in the restoration of the monarchy means an interest in something political. Why should it?

Because the Monarchy is a form of political system. You can be more idealistic in your reign and delegate political machinations downwards but unless you're a King or Queen or one on a eutopian planet without no external or internal threats then it doesn't work. Monarchies don't reign in ideal worlds or in vacuums - they reign in chaos and by negotiating a political landscape.

If they don't show interest or ability in political diplomacy/strategy they become subsumed, alienated and fail or become puppets/slaves of more aggressive interests. History is replete with all manner of examples and there are no lucky draws in inheriting a perfect society.

You misunderstand.
I was straying into territory entered into by Seeker1 recently. You assume a monarchy comes with political attachments of its own. Does this have to be the case? It will naturally attract them and thereby look political. Does this mean it is political?
Remember which section of the forum we are in.

Remember also the symbolism of the mon-arch.

Hi Rain,

Rain wrote:


Unfortunately, I’m still confused by your answer. I grok (I think!) the possible St Peter/St John dichotomy that you refer to, but I don’t think that answers any of the specific questions that I posed originally…

Are you saying that Chaumeil changed the names of two of the Priory ‘founders’ to ‘Pierre’ to associate them with Catholicism/orthodoxy? Or are you saying that Chaumeil was ‘fed’ two extra ‘Pierre’s’ to reinforce an association with Catholicism/orthodoxy?

The extra ‘Pierre’s’ don’t exist in the originally Articles (?). They appear in the later work of de Sède and Chaumeil…

All of which leads me to another point… I think I read somewhere that the original Articles deposited in May 1956 are different than the Articles currently doing the rounds on the Internet. For example, in the original Articles there was only seven grades (not nine) listed. Did I read somewhere that the Articles produced by Chaumeil in the 70s are a little different from the Articles doing the rounds now? Have the Articles been ‘back dated’ or are they the same as those that were deposited in 1956?


Regards,

Spartacus

Yes, Yes, and Yes. I know which part of the forum we're in but it's a balancing act - I was catering to Spartacus' abilities.

Good catch on the Mon-Arch totally missed it.

I haven't got the book, I don't know and haven't seen the page you are referring to. I'm only pointing out when you normally come across these discrepencies the mindset you should be in.

You have not published the articles you only refer to them. So I can't tell the difference and just to prove how hard you're making this - the two articles that show the discrepancy.

I can't comment anymore on hearsay testimony.

*Sorry if that seemed sharp but if you provide scans and present a visual case - it would be easier for people to understand what you are talking about.

It doesn't serve you if I help you blind.

Hi,

Rain wrote:



Wow. Thanks for being so patient with me…

Rain wrote:



Ok. I’ll try to keep that in ‘mindset’.

Rain wrote:



Is English your first language?

Rain wrote:



No worries…



No worries… I’m sure ‘I will survive’. I didn’t realise that what I’d asked was so complex…

Feel free not to comment anymore or help me… because unfortunately I won’t be supplying any scans…


I'll try and be 'clearer'...

The PoS Registration Documents supposedly deposited in May 1956 list the PoS founders as André Bonhomme; ‘Armand Defago’; ‘Jean Deleaval’; and Pierre Plantard.

However in the ‘last 1973 quarterly periodical of La Charivari’ Chaumeil lists the PoS founders as ‘Pierre Bonhomme’, ‘Pierre Desfagots’, ‘Jean Delaval’, and Pierre Plantard. Chaumeil repeats this in his new The Priory of Sion book (p93 & 99). De Sède also lists the PoS founders as ‘Pierre Bonhomme’, ‘Pierre Desfagots’, ‘Jean Delaval’, and Pierre Plantard in his 1988 book Rennes-le-Chateau (p107-108).

Since both de Sède and Chaumeil had fallen out with Plantard I doubt that either was doing anything to ‘further the cause’, in the later years at least. For that reason, I not sure that the point about the supposed St Peter / St John dichotomy makes any real sense when associated with the discrepancies noted above. Perhaps there is a more mundane answer.


Regards,

Spartacus

sorry for being off topic ...


Well put!

I think the only alternative to democracy would be a "spiritual monarchy" where the head of any nation consists of 3 buddhist monks.

Nuut, it's strine ya wka



Yep



kool.

Here, Here.

Hi,

In continuance of the Priory founders theme, I’ve read in a few places that André Bonhomme was interviewed for the 1996 BBC Timewatch programme ‘The History of a Mystery’. However no reference is made to Bonhomme during any version of that show that I have seen at least. A very minor reference is made to a founding member who claimed that the Priory was named for the nearby Mount Sion. The only source for the Bonhomme interview that I can find is HWMNBN. Does anyone know of another source or should it be assumed that HWMNBN learnt of this interview through personal correspondence with the Timewatch team?

Thanks in advance (if anyone bothers!)

Regards,

Spartacus

I'm interested in the American Priory
of which Plantard says he was in opposition with
but then resigned later as Grandmaster

"American Priory" is a misnomer; the Americans with whom Plantard quarreled never called themselves the Priory of Sion.

TCP

We know because if one knows what to look for, one can actually find the requisite names in published sources. Try The Messianic Legacy for starters. Don't let the fact that Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh couldn't decipher code dissuade you from believing that others can.

TCP

Wow some guy that Plantard you mean he actually quarelled with the population of the US of A? Did he win? By the way how many Americans have actually heard of the late, unlamented old hoaxer?

I definitely see your point TCP
what did they call themselves?
How could they argue with the Grandmaster? ....or was Plantard stirring the pot...exposing the myth ...was that his job
Was the real power here in America?...it looks like it ...he resigned

Roisicrucians? Scottish Rite Masonry? Order of St Lazarus? Freemasons?
or the Illuminati...and add the Jesuits in there too


its like they were a lil bit of this and a lil bit of that
but there is an American contingency

To continue on about Chaumeil…His recent book The Priory of Sion is divided into two parts. The first part is a collection of his early articles relating to the Priory of Sion and Rennes-le-Château. During at least some of this period Chaumeil was essentially a Sion propagandist similar to Brétigny, Deloux, and de Sède. This, of course, makes what he writes of interest because it could be said to be ‘straight from the horse’s mouth’, so to speak. It is also worth noting that the early articles are reproduced as originally written. That is, earlier inaccuracies have not been corrected.

The second part of The Priory of Sion is a collection of Chaumeil’s later articles where he attempts to discredit Pierre Plantard and his Sion mythos. Included are a number of important Sion source documents, such as the infamous Stone and Paper.

It is also worth noting that some of Chaumeil’s writings are somewhat incoherent, and unfortunately, this has not been helped by the translation into English.

Regards,

Spartacus

A chapter in The Priory of Sion that may be of interest to some is a chapter entitled ‘In the Shadow of Reda: An Amazing Tale’. Chaumeil relates ‘an astonishing dialogue’ that supposedly took place ‘at the end of 1972…in Rennes-le-Château’ between Mr. Buthion and Mr. Arrache. The ‘dialogue’ supposedly involved Jesus, Mary Magdalene, the Holy Grail, Rennes-le-Château and Saunière!

The article is vague and not very easily understood but, given the subject matter, may for some be worthy of examination. I'd be interested in others opinions anyway.

Regards,

Spartacus

Another The Priory of Sion chapter that may be of interest to some is the chapter entitled ‘Godfrey de Bouillon and the Order of Sion’. This particular article would seem to lay out the Sion narrative as it was arguably meant to be ‘revealed’ by the original Sion hoaxers, prior to being ‘sexed up’ by various other authors (i.e. the ‘bloodline’ blowback by Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln; the ‘matriarchal Magdalene’ blowback by Begg, Starbird, and Brown; and the ‘John the Baptist’ blowback by Picknett and Prince).

Regards,

Spartacus

They didn't form an organization in and of themselves, although they commonly belonged to a small number of neo-chivalric organizations. Most notably ex-King Peter of Yugoslavia's Order of St. John and the Order of St. Lazarus. Some were also episcopi vagantes.



They didn't belong to Plantard's "Priory" nor was Plantard their Grand Master. And by incorporating elements of their myth into his own, Plantard was indeed exposing it to a degree of public scrutiny they were not comfortable with at all. He sought publicity; they sought limited exposure in certain circles to avoid the glare of public scrutiny. The damage could have been contained to the French-speaking world had Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh not gotten involved. They saw Plantard as nothing but a light-seeking pest who had attached himself to Philippe de Chérisey, who was part of the inner circle. Which put Chérisey in a very uncomfortable position as the one who had brought Plantard to their periphery in the first place.

TCP

TCP

Very Interesting TCP
Episcopi vagantes are persons who have been consecrated as Christian bishops outside the structures and canon law of the established churches, and who are not in communion with any generally recognized diocese. Also included are those who have in communion with them small groups that appear to exist solely for the bishop's sake.[1] Those described as wandering bishops often see the term as pejorative.Many episcopi vagantes claim succession from the Old Catholic See of Utrecht, or from Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Eastern Catholic Churches. A few others derive their orders from Roman Catholic bishops who have consecrated their own bishops after disputes with the Holy See.(

I know most of my connections here in America goes in line with the Lazarists and the Vincentians and a bit with the Jesuits
Dubourg and associates are involved in all the sites I see...
They seem to know the myth and legend
It is like they knew a prophecy and it was embedded until that time it was to be revealed


TCP this is interesting
The Old Catholic Church is a Christian denomination originating with groups that split from the Holy See because they disagreed with essential doctrines. The church is not in communion with the Holy See, though the Union of Utrecht of Old Catholic Churches is in full communion with the Anglican Communion[1] and a member of the World Council of Churches
The term "Old Catholic" was first used in 1853 to describe the members of the See of Utrecht who did not recognise any claimed 'infallible' papal authority. As the groups that split from the Holy See in the 1870s had no bishop, they joined Utrecht to form the Union of Utrecht.Four disputes set the stage for an independent Bishopric of Utrecht: the Concordat of Worms, the First Lateran Council and Fourth Lateran Council, and the concession of Pope Leo X. In the 12th century, there was a great Investiture Controversy where the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope fought over who could appoint Bishops. In 1122, the Concordat of Worms[5] was signed making peace. The Emperor renounced the right to invest ecclesiastics with ring and crosier, the symbols of their spiritual power, and guaranteed election by the canons of cathedral or abbey and free consecration. The Emperor Henry V and Pope Calixtus II ended the feud by granting one another peace.The Concordat was confirmed by the First Council of the Lateran[6] in 1123.

two big points were the infallibility of the Pope and celibacy of priests
thing is they reject the Jesuits

Plantard said he was for revealing it...where the American contingent disagreed
Unfortunately the power has shifted here in America ...to leaning to Rome
heavily....America was the cash cow for the Vatican but that cash cow has diminished tremendously

TCP


The French myth was known here in the US by the inner groups here
brought over
Like you said Baigent Lincoln and Leigh just exposed it more...but one has to wonder with the Dead Sea Scrolls found
and other archeological finds coming through ....was it better to expose it that way than officially

Pope Benedict has changed his view on condoms ...making their use allowable to prevent the spread of aids
His position on Limbo has changed

I commend the Pope for being brave here and changing his position
Like Brown says in his Angels and Demons final scene
the cardinal said it The Pope is a man therefore he makes mistakes

Think about it TCP ...this point was brought up a long time ago