Rennes-le-Château

Ha Ha, Smith can't answer my questions so he pretends they aren't there. I hereby declare myself victorious over the forces of ignorance, ie; Le Popol!

Which stated that nothing was found. How exciting. I moved on to the most interesting part of Cholet's report where he declared that he found nothing at all in the most important part of the church except the "outlines of "tombs" (meaning that they had disintigrated) - it is obvious why Tull is not interested in this part of Cholet's report.



Good. It shows that the document of Dominique de Mirepoix was an outright fake based upon the romantic chit-chat of Noel Corbu! Blanche de Castille had no connections with Rennes-le-Chateau except in the imagination of Noel Corbu!


.

Typical Mazet meandering nonsense based upon his confused state of mind --- but Eric Tull would not know that. The breakdown of Sauniere's Trial is contained in a book published in 1983 by Jacques Riviere where all the correspondence and Documents are reproduced. Mazet does not cite any of this properly or not at all in anything that he has written to date.




Here again is the relevant quote from the Sentence of 5 November 1910:

"CONSIDERING that Abbé Bérenger Saunière admits to having requested and obtained a considerable number of Masses, without contesting the figures given by the Official Prosecutor;"

Sauniere himself admitted to the Court Case that he was engaging in the selling of masses.





A ridiculous ignorant statment from Eric Tull. Sauniere was selling masses up to the point of his death.

One example out of many more relating to the period 1910-1917 when Sauniere continued making money from the selling of masses, which was the sole source of his income(books have been published about this):

July 1914
http://bsmotta.planetaclix.pt/imgd/missas5.jpg





.

See what I mean?

Le Popol has been soundly defeated by his intellectual superior, Brian Ettinger. To recap, he can't answer the following;

Why are there absolutely no notes showing how de Cherisey developed the shepherdess /tombstone anagram?

How did de Cherisey suddenly become an expert cryptologist and produce a single very advanced crytogram, then why did he never use his great abilities again?

Why did Plantard create a "trademark" saying PS praecum and why did none of his gang ever explain the meaning of the word used in that "trademark"?

sure looks like they may have been all written at the same time. Wonder what Sauniere would have cared about most or used as a defence to hide the real source of his income. Why would anybody be asking him where he received his wealth if he was so proverty stricken......interesting to say the least.

It's also interesting how he originally gave June 31 days and the realized his error and crossed out the 3 and started July. I guess he must not have been looking at post marks when he was "supplying " the evidence, was he?

Do you agree that Sauniere was charged with the following offences on July 7th, 1910:

1.Mass Trafficking,
2.Disobedience of his Bishop,
3.and to have spent lavishly without records of monies thought to have come from masses acquired.

Sauniere was only found guilty of charge number two. He probably was guilty of that.

As for charge three, he was told to meet with his Bishop, or a representative, and forward all financial records within ten days of the said sentence and present them by way of his lawyer. The previous One-Month suspension was revoked. (Pierre Jarnac, Histoire, p. 211)

Sauniere had however officially resigned at this point. Sauniere chose to resign rather than reveal the source of his wealth. He therefore was no longer bound to go through any Ecclesiastical court. Whatever sentence they imposed on him was purely academic.

Sauniere wrote to Rome to make a formal complaint citing his right not to be made to reveal the names of his benefactors. Priest's do indeed have this right.

He could not comply with the tribunal's demands because he did not have any records to produce. The issue regarding the third Charge brought against him surfaced as the Tribunal stated that the Charge had been changed and therefore Sauniere could be charged again. They wanted to know who had given money to Sauniere, not just his sources of revenue or the amounts of such revenues.

Sauniere continued to refuse to comply with this, he actually had a right to refuse.



That would be significant accept for the fact that this is NOT illegal. Priest's were allowed to sell masses up to a certain amount. Any money would go to church funds. In Sauniere's case they did.

Sauniere was seen to be different by his superiors because of the sheer amount of money he was spending and assumed he was exceeding his limit.



Yes but it wasn't illegal. the only problem Sauniere had was the sheer volume of expenditure he was making.

Have you studied this document? The amounts are peanuts. The guy spent 12500 francs on furniture alone.

That's three times the estimate he initially received to rebuild the entire church.

His bread bill alone from 24/01/1904 to the 04/01/1905 was 575 Francs that list of masses would barely cover this.

_________________
"In the Aude, the peasants rather believe in the malignant spirit, the fairies and the underground geniuses than with the Virgin and the Angels”

Eric Tull doesn't know anything about Berenger Sauniere.

>>1.Mass Trafficking,
>>2.Disobedience of his Bishop,
>>3.and to have spent lavishly without records of monies thought to
>>have come from masses acquired.

The actual indictments were:

*Trafficking in Masses
*Disobedience to the Bishop
*Exaggerated and unjustified expenses


>>Sauniere was only found guilty of charge number two. He probably
>>was guilty of that.

Sauniere was found guilty of all three indictments.
This is fact and not "opinion" - Eric Tull has not read the indictments against Sauniere by the Carcassonne Bishopric and is only guessing.



>>Sauniere had however officially resigned at this point. Sauniere chose
>>to resign rather than reveal the source of his wealth.

Sauniere resigned on 1 February 1909 so he would not have to be transferred to Coustouges and wanted to remain in Rennes-le-Chateau.


>>He therefore was no longer bound to go through any Ecclesiastical
>>court. Whatever sentence they imposed on him was purely academic.

Sauniere faced Trial with the ecclesiastical Court of Carcassonne in 1910-1911 and was interdicted as priest on 5 December 1911.

>>Sauniere wrote to Rome to make a formal complaint citing his right not
>> to be made to reveal the names of his benefactors.

Sauniere commissioned a lawyer (first Luis Mis, then Canon Huguet) to appeal against his interdiction to the Vatican.

>>He could not comply with the tribunal's demands because he did not
>>have any records to produce.

Laughable rubbish! Sauniere denied to the Tribunal that he kept records, but his records for selling masses are in the possession of Antoine Captier, who inherited Sauniere's archives that Marie Denarnaud retained.



>>That would be significant accept for the fact that this is NOT illegal.

What is HIGHLY ILLEGAL is selling too many masses in one day - and Sauniere did this to a monumental degree and this is what led to his interdiction.


>>Yes but it wasn't illegal. the only problem Sauniere had was the sheer
>>volume of expenditure he was making.

Therefore IT WAS ILLEGAL and that is why he was summoned to appear before the Carcassonne Bishopric and why he was eventually interdicted.


>>The guy spent 12500 francs on furniture alone.

And he couldn't honour his financial debts.
Which was why he had to mortgage his estate in 1915 in order to find money to buy food because he was starving.


.

Here are the facts relating to Berenger Sauniere's wealth coming from the selling of masses, as summarised by Jean-Jacques Bedu in 1990:


"We will never cease to reiterate that Bérenger Saunière had set up a genuine 'industry', the results of which, in our opinion, he was eventually unable to control.

Once the 'mechanism' was in place, he had no need to keep pestering people - everything was done automatically: when someone wanted to send mass requests it was always to Bérenger Saunière, the curé of Rennes-le-Château...

All this is very clear, but did Saunière actually have the means to say all these masses? The answer is obviously 'No', and here's the proof:

Priests, when they received masses, had the right to say an absolute maximum of three a day (this figure is contested by some people, who reduce it to 1 for weekdays and 2 for Sundays or feast days). Starting from this assumption it's a simple matter to calculate that, even if he had spent his whole life saying masses, it would have been impossible for him to meet the conditions referred to above. On this point we are in agreement with Gérard de Sède; he would certainly have to have performed a real 'liturgical marathon'. In the absence of such a liturgical marathon we are obviously dealing with trafficking in masses on an unprecedented scale.

The proof is to be found in his notebooks for the month of January 1894, the 9th January to be precise. He notes 'Stopped there' and draws a line that will prove to be final. Never again will he fill in the fifth column, where he regrouped the masses in threes, showing that they had been said. It should be noted that, at this date, he was in the process of saying masses that dated back to September 1893, or five months in arrears. At the beginning of the same notebook we find him up to ten months in arrears. That means that in July 1893 he was saying masses requested in May 1892!

Starting on 9 January 1894 he draws a line through his notebook - but also through his honesty and integrity as a priest. He chose the easy way out - that of trafficking in masses."



.

Show me?





He was told to move out of the presbytery on 1st Feb 1909. The villagers wanted him to remain.




Except he wasn't a Priest at this point. Sauniere had resigned however there is some doubt as to whether this was accepted or not.



That is true. He wanted to save his name.



Yes and they are here As you can see they're peanuts.





Nope; See here




They wanted to know where he was getting his money from that's all and the only thing they could come up with was that he must be selling masses. But as you can see here he wasn't.

Somebody was giving the money to him and Sauniere had a right and a duty to preserve their anonimity.

They got upset with him because he wasn't giving them anything as to .



He had some very understanding people around him then.

He was actually penniless you're right. that's entirely because he had given everything to Marie Denarnaud. She didn't have an income of course when he died even though she owned the entire estate. The Corbu family looked after her in return for her estate when she died.


This is becoming a 'oh yes it is' - 'Oh no it isn't' pantomime.

I'm right and the details are on this website.

What's your comment on Boudet's own accounts which actually says he gave away precisely 3,679,431 francs?

The Eifel Tower cost about 8,000,000 francs to build, so Boudet GAVE AWAY nearly half the value of the Eifel Tower.

Was he doing masses too?

_________________
"In the Aude, the peasants rather believe in the malignant spirit, the fairies and the underground geniuses than with the Virgin and the Angels”

Read the book by Rene Descadeillas.
Read the book by Jean-Jacques Bedu.
Read the book by Jacques Riviere.




So Sauniere resigned as parish priest of Rennes-le-Chateau and became a Free Priest: Priest without a parish and remained unofficially as a priest at Rennes-le-Chateau.




Fantasy invention created by Pierre Plantard.
This rubbish was exposed decades ago.



.

All of these authors disagree with you Smith in some aspect of this story.




He already was a free priest from 1905 shortly after his brother died actually.




We agree, must lie down. However YOU'VE got the date wrong.




Erm no!

He denied to the court that he had kept ADEQUATE records. Sufficient to explain all his expenditure. Which is of course correct as he was getting money from donations which he wasn't prepared to divulge.



I love the way you simply dismiss evidence that doesn't fit your agenda.

You're a fake Smith and very very transparent.








But they didn't do him for fraud did they? Why Not?

The whole case revolves around the fact that the church wanted to know from where he was getting his money and he wasn't going to tell them. The masses thing is their best shot at an explantion which has been proven to be nonsense.




It was all fantasy on their part. These were trumped up charges, they were trying to put pressure on him to divulge his sources and he simply wasn't going to tell them. He'd probably seen what had happened to Gellis.





Oh right. The old 'Plantard dunnit' gambit again. Zero evidence to support the proposition forthcoming.

_________________
"In the Aude, the peasants rather believe in the malignant spirit, the fairies and the underground geniuses than with the Virgin and the Angels”

Sauniere became a Free Priest when he resigned his position at Rennes-le-Chateau in 1909. Up to that point he was still a parish priest.




Pathetic rubbish -- the evidence still exist, the letters and correspondence and Sauniere's Notebooks.





Eric Tull doesn't know that the Boudet connection involving Sauniere with millions of Francs was a Plantard fantasy that is now universally agreed upon.



.