It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


My theory on the secret behind Rennes-le-Chateau

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 08:21 AM
Want to say thank you to the admin for this new forum. I'm now going to dip my toe in the land of speculation.


For those who study the mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau I would like to proffer my theory on the "secret" connected with this strange little church.

I believe Saunier found a secret that has been both intentionally hidden, but intentionally had an alluring mystery built around it. My belief is that this is a false secret (i.e. false knowledge, false evidence, etc.). My contention is that if you have something that you intend to use in a manner that would destroy long held beliefs, in order to get that earth-shattering evidence accepted as a truth your best bet would not be to present it to the audience you hope to "convert", but instead deliberately hide it as if it is something you are trying to prevent them from learning. Then if you build an alluring mystery around this hidden secret, and show the patience of the saints, you can garantee that it will eventually be "found" and revealed to the masses.

This is what I believe has happened concerning the "secret" that Saunier found.

I have studied eschatology since I was a very young girl. In particular, I have spent a great deal of time with the Revelation. One thing that confused me for a great deal of my life is how the great apostasy foretold by John would take place. The definition of apostasy being to renunciate your faith. John's prediction is not of people rejecting the Gospel of Christ, but of a great mass of believers who will abandon it. They will fall OUT of faith.

My question for most of my life was: What could cause such a sudden abandonment of long held religious beliefs? It seems it would have to be something that appeared almost irrefutable. It would have to be evidence. And it would have to be evidence presented in a manner that would make it acceptable to an audience it was at the same time "proving wrong".

I believe the secret attached to Rennes is this evidence. I believe it is attached with the Cult of the Black Madonna. I believe it is connected with the Merovingian dynasty. I believe it will come in the form of evidence that possibly can be DNA tested.

My theory is that there has been a society starting in the 12th century with the Knights Templars that has passed on a commitment to both hide this secret and promote its finding.

For those who have never studied the mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau. The following link has a very good list of books written about this subject. I have read the majority of them. I believe the mystery surrounding this church may turn out to be one of the most significant factors in the fulfillment of the biblical prophecies as told by John the Seer.

[edit on 10-28-2005 by Valhall]

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 08:31 AM
Do you have a thumbnail sketch of what this is all about? I think folks would benefit from a brief description of what this is, what the claims are, and how your theory fits the ideas.

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 08:40 AM
I love the DaVinci Code theories.
Yours is an interesting take on it though.
Can you delve a bit more on how you are basing your connection with the "ancient parchments" and the apostasy and how it relates to the Merovingians?

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 08:45 AM
Well, mine has nothing to do with the Da Vinci code. I've never read the book and most likely never will because it sounds to me like all the guy did was do the same research I've done on the subject and then muddy the waters by fictionalizing the whole thing.

Thanks a lot mister! LOL


This subject is massive. The link I provided in my first post is a very good place to start learning about the subject and all the peripheral subjects that seem to be interconnected. The book list on that site is wonderful. Holy Blood, Holy Grail is a prerequisite in getting into this.

As far as the "theory" surrounding Rennes-le-Chateau - which one? There are MULTIPLE theories. None of which can be readily dismissed, none of which should be accepted in whole.

I guess I submitted this theory for an audience who has already spent significant time on this subject. I'm hoping that my theory can be analyzed by those who have spent time in this and I can learn something from the feedback.

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 08:50 AM
I hope Valhall doesn’t mind, but I though I would add a bit more to her post as I know something about Rennes-le-Chateau.

Rennes-le-Chateau, is a medieval castle village and a commune in the Aude département, in the Languedoc area in southern France. It is best known for its beauty, with towering mountains, deep gorges, forests, caves, wild remote plateaus and access to the Mediterranean. It is also likely one way that crusaders would have travelled to the Holy Land in times gone by.

In recent years, Rennes-le-Chateau, began to become increasingly famous primarily after Bérenger Saunière began to amass a large wealth yet only having control of a small Church in a remote village. there are three main areas of speculation on how he amassed his wealth.
  • Money trafficking in Spain.
  • Spying for Germany.
  • The Catholic Church buying his silence.
Now, before you can judge each of the three theories you have to look at the logicality of them all. He is rumoured to have amassed nearly one million Francs and was described by Prefet de l'Aude as a "Militant Reactionary" and was highly involved in the separation between Church and State in France in the later part of the 1800’s.

He was an active Anti-Republican and due to this, it is highly unlikely he would have been involved with Germany as they also had a limited Church involvement in the period. However, the last one is highly problematic also - Pierre Plantard, an author along with Philippe de Cherisey, created many manuscripts to help prove his own points about the Priory of Sion. The real task is to figure out which of the manuscripts are real and which are fakes. An interesting site on the issue is this one: here.

One of the most important but highly overlooked actions of this man, is his ordering of statues. In recent years, it is claimed that he ordered a statue of Asmodeus the chief of all demons, to be built to over-look the entrance to his Church. Something, which I have yet to be able to explain in my own studies on the subject.

Anotehr further imporant piece of information is the cipher that appears in Shugborough Hall's Shepherd Monument, with the letters "D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M" which has yet to be translated. Although most likely it would be written in latin like many of his works were. More information on that can be found here

An interesting book on the topic is "Bloodline of the Holy Grail" by Laurence Gardner, which makes the Da Vinci Code look like the mis-informed piece of tripe that it is. In fact, the Da Vinci Code is pretty much a rip off of that book, with less resarch done on the area.

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 08:55 AM
Thanks, Odium.

I would add to your list of theories though as follows:

Let "paid off by the Catholic church" stand as one and then add the next

"paid off by "the group" (Priori de Sion possibly?) - and this pay off could have come through the Catholic church - but it could also have come through the King of England"

I also want to include here another theory I have shared previously on the board concerning the path to finding the secret.

I believe that a clue has been missed (as outlined in the thread linked).

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 09:02 AM
I would be careful going down the Priory de Sion, route as their are two different organisations which have used that name. One prior to 1950 and one after, which is where the Da Vinci Code makes its largest error and many other people do.

That group itself, is wisely best left out of any theory until we can gain some hard evidence on their actions, members and so on and so fourth and just looking at it as part of the Catholic Church because although it is known to have existed prior to 1956 [Pierre Plantard and Andre Bonhomme] any of their actions are nearly impossible to find information on and it is something I have spent years reading up on although as soon as I do, I will make sure to let you know.

Edit: In fact, Pierre Plantard used Father Bérenger Saunière as a way to make his claims long after the man had died and many of these claims have been shown to be false.

[edit on 28/10/2005 by Odium]

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 09:07 AM
Thanks you, Odium! I look forward to reading more of what your research has revealed. This is exactly why I shared my theory here.

I spent five years studying this subject (from 1995 to 2000). When I found the "clue" that I believe is important and has been overlooked, I abandoned my studies because of some conflicts I have in discussing this issue. I so firmly believe that the secret attached to this subject will be used in a spiritually nefarious way that for a long time I could not resolve the conflict between my personal spiritual beliefs, and what I could be part of if I shared my finding.

I've decided to go on faith and let God take care of the rest.

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 09:25 AM
I'm going to go ahead and state what I believe the secret will be...but I'm not necessarily married to this...this is just what I believe to be at the top of my list.


And those bones will either be presented as the bones of Christ or the bones of his child....and there will be some one who can prove their descendancy from those bones.

[edit on 10-28-2005 by Valhall]

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 09:26 AM
Anything to do with King Arthur and the Holy Grail?

I've been more or less researching this as a hobby...if you call visiting Web sites researching. I'm of the "Merovingian" line myself, on my mother's side. I'm descended from Henry III, through two of his daughters, Mary Plantagenet and Eleanor Plantagenet. One of my maternal grandparents is descended from one of the two, the other grandparent from the other. My genealogical research led me to read up on this kind of thing.

People try to say that Merovingians are descended from a union between Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, and they claim that He didn't die as a result of crucifixion (which I do NOT believe--I believe the Biblical accounts). Supposedly that's the basis of the royal families' "divine" right to rule. When I think Merovingian, I think people descended from Merovee, an ancient French king. The Merovingians were supplanted by the Carolingians; yet Charlemagne married a Merovingian princess.

Here are some links I've come across:

The Merovingian Dynasty--Satanic Bloodline of the Antichrist and False Prophet

The True King Arthur Found

The Royals and the Antichrist--Why Diana was chosen to marry Prince Charles

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 09:33 AM

And therein lies the rest of my theory. I believe the Catholic church and the protestant churchs have long been infiltrated by false teachers. Teachers who have led believers to accept things that weren't stated in the scriptures.

For instance, it doesn't say Christ didn't get married, does it? Therefore, we cannot hold a teaching that says Christ was never married as scripturally sound. But this teaching has been so embedded in christian doctrine that to even propose that a child may have been fostered from a union is taken as blasphemy.

What difference does it make to the sacrifice of Christ if he was married or had a child?

Not one stinking bit of difference. It does not change his sacrifice in the least. It does not change the Gospels in the least.

Tied to this is the false doctrine of the pretribulation rapture. You have a mass of phat, dumb and happy christians sitting out there convinced they will not be here when the false teachers arrive or when the tribulation takes place. This leaves them in a vulnerable state that when the tribulation starts, and the false secrets are revealed - they will fulfill the scripture that predicts the believers saying "He said he would come and He has not - it was all a lie!" And hence the great apostasy.

There are so many things coming together that can fulfill John's dire prediction.

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Valhall
I'm going to go ahead and state what I believe the secret will be...but I'm not necessarily married to this...this is just what I believe to be at the top of my list.


And those bones will either be presented as the bones of Christ or the bones of his child....and there will be some one who can prove their descendancy to those bones.

I agree. No doubt that would shake a LOT of people's faith in Christ. End-time deception.

I saw some show on the Sci Fi channel where this Catholic priest apparently found some parchment "proving" that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child--I think that's what I saw. It drove the priest to embrace Satanism or something like that. It's been a while since I saw it.

Then you have the Da Vinci Code coming out, and networks picking up on this and more or less promoting the idea. And there was that movie The Last Temptation of Christ, which I never saw and have no desire to see.

You see something like this all of a sudden popping up, you can bet that we're being more or less conditioned.

I'd also like to add--nowhere in the Bible does it indicate Jesus ever married. The Bible warns about adding to the Scriptures. I highly doubt He ever married, because His sole purpose in coming here was to offer Himself as a perfect sacrifice. Given that, a marriage doesn't really make sense. He made provision for His mother to be cared for--if He were married, wouldn't He have made provision for His wife? What's the sense in marrying when you know you're going to die? He knew the exact day He was to die.

People who believe Jesus was married point to Mary referring to him as "my lord." Sarah called her husband Abraham "lord." So now to these guys "lord" means "husband."

Simon Peter's mother-in-law is mentioned, indicating that he was married. I'm sure that if Jesus were married the Bible would have mentioned it, and it doesn't.

[edit on 10/28/2005 by Amethyst]

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 10:04 AM
I have read of this and find it an interesting theory, unlike you, I am inclined to believe it. Why, you may ask-I would be happy to tell you.
First, how could a simple French priest-with a vow of poverty- have the money to build such a grand home and remodel the church. It must have taken millions of dollars-which would be 10 or 100's of millions of dollars by todays standards.

Lets look at some of the changes he made.
There is a horned devil looking down at all who enter the church. There is a statue of Jesus holding a child as a parent might do.

If we go back, I seem to remember something about Jesus bring in a rein of 1000 years. Well, it seems that after about that amount of time, the Catholics church started sending out it's private army to take control. Heretics were killed.

How does this tie together?
This is how, if Jesus had a daughter or son for that matter, the "holy" bloodline would have continued. If it ever became know that a "holy" bloodline existed, all the money and power of the church would be transfered to the rightful owners-the bloodline.
To prevent this from happening, the church sent out it's private army to kill off all who were anyway related or even thought to be.
That way they could hold on to the power and great wealth of the church.

In on our moder times, the Catholics church is recognized as the richest entity on the planet, in terms of money, land and possessions. We all know mankind is flawed and very greedy with money and power. Just how far would they go to keep it?

This would clearly explain how the priest go so much money-bought off by the church. Why there is a devil in front of the church-killing off all of the Jesus bloodline is more than act of the devil, than God. It would explain why the figure of Jesus inside has a child.

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 10:05 AM
I am very familiar with what Val is putting forth here.
There have been rumors theories put forth that Jesus did not die on the cross as is depicted in the Bible.
The theory goes that the "wine / vinegar" that was given to Jesus while he was on the cross was actually a mild poison that shortly after Jesus drank it, he appeared to have died. Once he "died, he was then taken down from the cross.
This would go to explain why he was on the cross for 6 - 9 hours instead of the standard 3 days.
About 40 days after his death, Jesus and Mary made their trip to the South of France where they lived for many years. It is purported that Jesus actually lived to be about 70 years old. There are also accounts that say that there were anywhere from 1 to 4 children born of Mary. One of the children was a girl who later became known as the "black Madonna" who married into the Merovingian family.

I remember in the late 60's this theory being put forth and that there had been some evidence to back it up that was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as the parchments that were found in the hallow pillar. There were also some rumors that a Roman census account had been found that claimed this.

Am I right on this Val?

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 10:22 AM
That's one of them, ken. Then there is the theory of the double on the cross. And then there is the theory that maintains the crucifixion, but says that Peter (I believe it was Peter) ferried Mary and the child off to the south of France (the Languedoc) and that Mary was idolized resulting in the Cult of the Black Madonna.

It is also theorized that the legend behind the Merovingian dynasty (that of the woman being impregnated by a creature from the sea, and giving birth to the first child of the dynasty) is symbolical of Mary and the child coming from the sea to the south of France.

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 10:32 AM
"It is also theorized that the legend behind the Merovingian dynasty (that of the woman being impregnated by a creature from the sea, and giving birth to the first child of the dynasty) is symbolical of Mary and the child coming from the sea to the south of France. "

Val, if I remember my christiany correctly, is not Jesus often symbolized as the fish?
I see it on cars all over the place.
Well, if that is the case, could not the impregnating of mary from the sea represent Jesus, without directly saying so?
Saying so, might have branded someone a heritic and got them killed.

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 10:37 AM
Hmm. The DaVinci Code sucks -- as soon as I read Kenshiro's mention of that, I immediately knew Val was gonna be like "UH, NO DAVINCI CODE MENTIONS HERE KTHX"

Anyway, this whole situation is quite fascinating. Ancient European tunnel systems have always interested me. I have an opposing viewpoint on this situation, but I want to support the new forum, so I'll be gentle about it, and just remind everyone who is supposing that Jesus lived to be 70 in the south of France that Jesus Christ as a historical figure may never have existed at all, according to historical evidence and the lack thereof. I'm not saying whether I believe this or not, but I think it's important to look at the evidence against his existence when speculating about his life.

Perhaps further or strong evidence along THESE lines is the real "treasure" here, who knows.


posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 10:42 AM

Originally posted by mrmonsoon

Val, if I remember my christiany correctly, is not Jesus often symbolized as the fish?
I see it on cars all over the place.
Well, if that is the case, could not the impregnating of mary from the sea represent Jesus, without directly saying so?
Saying so, might have branded someone a heritic and got them killed.

Right! Now, the issue here is...there is no issue. Think about it. It makes no difference whatsoever to the scriptural message of Christ's life if he in fact married and had a child. So why have christian believers been taught for centuries that to imply he COULD have been married or had children is something blasphemous or heretical? It is a man-made heresy. What would be the reason for creating a heresy that does not exist scripturally? It's a very interesting thought experiment imho.

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:17 AM

Originally posted by Valhall

It is also theorized that the legend behind the Merovingian dynasty (that of the woman being impregnated by a creature from the sea, and giving birth to the first child of the dynasty) is symbolical of Mary and the child coming from the sea to the south of France.

According to the info I have Merovee died in 458. That's a long time between the time Jesus walked the earth as a man and the birth of Merovee, almost 400 years.

It's interesting to note that the book of Revelation refers to "a beast from the see." "Mer" is French for "sea."

I look at it this way--to me a Merovingian is a descendant of Merovee. I think the royals et al made up the descent-from-Jesus lie to discredit Christianity and (in a seeming moment of doublethink here) "prove" their "divine" right to rule.

If anything, Merovingians come from the tribe of Dan. Samson was a Danite. If you look at paintings/pictures of Merovingian kings--most of them have long hair. Now what was Samson famous for? Long hair. Interesting how people tend to picture Jesus as being long-haired. I doubt He was. He was a Nazarene, not a Nazarite, and furthermore He was from the tribe of Judah.

Supposedly the Jews will accept a Messiah as long as he's descended from the House of David, who in turn was descended from Judah. That's why the people running the show make a claim that they're descended from Jesus and therefore from David. What the Jews deny is the fact that the Messiah has already come.

The claim that the bones of Jesus have been found will no doubt shake a lot of people's faith. Jesus body was not in the tomb after three days--He had gone up to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father. The falsehood that someone took Him away is based on Mary saying that she didn't know where they had taken her Lord. Mary thought that someone had taken His body. It doesn't mean that that's what happened--especially given that Jesus appeared to His disciples after He had risen!

Also note that the Vatican claimed to have Peter's bones. Peter wasn't even in Rome, and furthermore, after they'd made that claim, Peter's real bones were found in Jerusalem! So I would reject any and all claims that Jesus' bones have been found.

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:34 AM
Very good points, Amethyst.

And your statements about the royals fabricating their descendancy from Christ is exactly what I believe. I think you are now hitting on what the impetus is behind the secret. Some one is going to be able to take the title "King of Jerusalem". And they have to have a way to do that. And it has to tie them back either to either Alexander the Great or the tribe of Judah.

One point to clarify. The theory that the legend of Merovee might be symbolical of Mary M. and the child coming across the sea doesn't state that the child of Christ would be Merovee, but that Merovee descended from the child of Christ.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in