My research led me to accept St Joan of Arc as the Saint who did battle with Freemassonry. In her book, the freemason Diana Vaughan tells us
Joan of Arc, by means of a spiritual manifestation, did battle with three of Lucifer’s angelic demons troubling her because of her promise to a Catholic priest not to blaspheme the Blessed Virgin in any way ever again. This intervention, after much soul-searching, led her to convert to Catholicism.
For four years Diana Vaughan revealed the origin of modern Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and gave details of Lucifer’s activity within Palladism as well as the goings-on of named ‘Illuminati.’ Her disclosures were hailed in Rome as a great victory over Hell. St Therese of Lisieux hailed her conversion. The Pope’s Cardinal Vicar wrote to her saying her conversion was ‘one of the most magnificent triumphs of grace that he had ever witnessed,’ and sent, on behalf of the Pope himself, a ‘most special blessing.’ Another Catholic journal wrote: ‘Here we witness a struggle of epic proportions unknown in this world, “hand to hand” spiritual combat between the organised forces of Hell and a humble woman of God, raised up by Him for the task.’
The masons did not challenge the details of Miss Vaughan’s facts, but tried only to distort them and to diminish or ruin the extent of their significance. Soon however they changed tactics and with diabolical intelligence put together an ingenious plan of attack. They decided to put out the successful rumour that the Diana Vaughan all had read about did not exist in reality. This story prompted Miss Vaughan to announce that she would show herself in public with Leo Taxil in Paris on April 19, 1897. By that fateful day however, Miss Vaughan had disappeared, and Taxil, obviously knowing she would not show, announced that Diana Vaughan was only a figment of his imagination. In one stroke of pure genius, for 99.9% believed him, all the revelations and papal encyclicals on Satan’s direct role in masonry became the object of doubt and even ridicule thereby losing their credibility. Thereafter Taxil’s ruse as Diana Vaughan is written up as one of greatest hoaxes in history, even in Catholic books. For the vast majority, whether inside or outside the Church, the matter had ended; the role of Satan in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ was then seen as pure fiction. Never again did a pope condemn freemasonic Luciferianism and today it is as though Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ no longer poses an anti-Christian threat at all.
The propaganda that Diana Vaughan and her revelations are fiction can be found today in Wikipedia, numerous websites, some Catholic Encyclopaedias and in many books such as Jasper Ridly’s The Freemasons; Robinson, London, 2000, p.225; Laurence Gardner’s The Shadow of Solomon; Harper Element, 2005, pp.245-6 and Lynn Picknett’s Lucifer, Robinson, 2005, p.239.
Then came evidence that Diana Vaughan did exist and was found in the lists of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. But there was one pieve of evidence that was more interesting:Evidence of her existence was found in a church in Loigny in Northern France that Diana Vaughan had visited in secret in March 1897, one month before her set date for a public appearance. To make a long story short, the parish priest of Loigny confirmed Diana Vaughan’s visit by means of a visual reproduction and also the signature she had left in his church’s log. It was not the name Diana Vaughan that she had signed, for anybody could have forged that signature, but Juvana Petroff, a mysterious name known only to her and the priest to whom it made sense. It was later revealed as her baptismal name that she took when taking her confession of faith in the Catholic Church.But more, as only God can arrange from eternity, this fateful day at Loigny happened to coincide with the five hundredth anniversary of the death of Joan of Arc, sworn enemy of the Devil and made a saint in 1933.
Hi ca246, I got in touch with my scholarly friend who sent me this below:The most notable insight here is the importance of Joan of Arc. Solange Hertz drew a similar comparison in her book Utopia Nowhere which contrasted the monastic mission of Joan of Arc with The Anglo-Masonic conspiracy, meaning that he mission persists so long as the errors of England persist. Indeed, it was England which nutured the osicrucian and masonic conspiracy which soon swallowed France in the Revolution, which would explain the special antipathy of the masons towards St. Joan, and why they would go so far to discredit her supernatural campaign.
Regarding that other brilliant psyop perpetrated on the masses by Taxil it takes the likes of Monsigneur Jouin's 1930 Spectator article to show that the great hoax perpetrated on the masses was the fiction that Diana Vaughan did not exist before her disappearance in 1897.It was Monsigneur Jouin that informed Franz Joseph about Rampolla's OTO membership though as in the case of the Diana Vaughan the public are equally shielded from these truths of the reality of Diana Vaughan and the OTO leadership of Rampolla.
For english readers needing an introduction to Diana Vaughan in general perhaps a place to start might be a
chapter called :-
"Enter Diana Vaughan"
that begins on page 167 of the book that is titled:-
"Satanism: A Social History"
the pdf of which can be downloaded from this web-address:-
https://pdfcoffee.com/download/satanism-a-social-historypdf-pdf-free.html
For those wishing to read Diana Vaughan's own words in english translation perhaps a source might be the 1904-published
Rev. Eugene Rickard's "Miss Diana Vaughan - Priestess of Lucifer by herself now a nun" the title page of which is here
enclosed as an attachment.
Here is the catalogue for Rev. Rickard's book in the National Library of Ireland (ie Dublin)
https://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000102432
Hi,
If anybody knows any other resources or information that can be used to dispute the hoax narrative, or would like to discuss it, please post in here.
For those of you who understand AFrench here's another good link including a video lecture. Translated subtitles shouls work on Youtube.
https://profidecatholica.com/2019/06/14/de-la-salette-a-diana-vaughan-de-paul-etienne-pierrecourt/
If anybody knows any other resources or information that can be used to dispute the hoax narrative, or would like to discuss it, please post in here.
If anybody knows any other resources or information that can be used to dispute the hoax narrative, or would like to discuss it, please post in here.
If anybody knows any other resources or information that can be used to dispute the hoax narrative, or would like to discuss it, please post in here.Thank you.
I wish to share a part of a book that I have translated in english. Since the editor has not give me the right to publish it yet, I give only a small part of it.
So this lady really existed and they disappeared her just like Sister Lucia of Fatima? How do these people get away with these crimes? Nobody cares to investigate, they’re that embarrassed to be called names like conspiracy theorist? Piltdown Man hoax should have made the scientific community hide their heads in shame but they double down and charge ahead. We shrink into a corner the minute anyone says, “conspiracy theory.” I hope Catholics are at least supporting Dr. Chojnowski in his investigations, a man who is not a shrinking violet.History is more interesting than fiction. Especially when the Church is involved.
I had never heard of this story before, and it took me a while to get my head around this bizarre and complicated sequence of events.
But I don't understand the angle being put forward here. So Cassini says Diana Vaughan did actually exist and her revelations were actually true? Then why didn't she show up at that meeting? Wouldn't she know that by not showing up, she was discrediting everything she had said? And if she had been murdered beforehand, as it seems is suggested, why wouldn't Taxil say that at the meeting?
But mainly I don't understand why Taxil's writings can be considered true when he himself said publicly that he made all that stuff up?!
In other words, if you don't accept the main events of this story as true, then what exactly do you think happened?
Thank you for this explanation, but the difficulty here is that Taxil called a press conference at which he would show Diana Vaughan to the world. At this press conference, instead of showing Diana Vaughan, what happened is that Taxil himself showed up and said he had made her existence up completely, and had pranked and trolled the Catholic Church for years with her story, and that his conversion to Catholicism had never been sincere, but that he had only pretended conversion in order to embarrass the Church by writing false revelations of the supposed Diana Vaughan in order to make a mockery of Catholics.
And Taxil appears to be the only source for Diana's existence.
Thus, I have a hard time understanding how one can say Diana did actually exist, when the only person through whom we know of her existence, himself publicly stated he had made her up.
Melanie claimed a lot of visions that are pretty dubious. She was expelled from a convent for spending all day telling the townsfolk about her supposed visions instead of doing her duties as a nun. And the text she wrote claiming it was what Our Lady told her in the apparition at La Salette was put on the Index of Forbidden Books, and the Holy Office said it was not authentic and not doctrinally sound (https://www.truerestoration.org/the-holy-see-and-the-secret-of-la-salette/). Basically, the Holy Office compared the published text of Melanie with the private one she wrote down as a child and sent to Rome, and put the former on the Index and said it was not the same text as the original secret and not even doctrinally sound.
Melanie is not a credible source.
If you Yeti, the Pope, cardinals and bishops, in 1846, were told by Melanie ''Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist,’ I think you too would not believe her. If you were told that today you would say its already happened, she was right.Amen. But is that all they found that was "not doctrinally sound"?
Amen. But is that all they found that was "not doctrinally sound"?
If you Yeti, the Pope, cardinals and bishops, in 1846, were told by Melanie ''Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist,’ I think you too would not believe her. If you were told that today you would say its already happened, she was right..
Heaven’s awareness of the freemasonic revolution against Christ and His Church was made known first to a French nun Sister Marie de St Pierre (1816-1848) and then by her request at La Salette in France on Sept. 19, 1846, where a crowned Mother of God appeared to two children. Among the most poignant predictions was that: ‘Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.’ Three popes, Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X, approved this apparition, but the message was met with furious opposition from many bishops. It seems the Masons and some Masonic-controlled clergy already ensconced in the Church, must not have wanted any such revelations to be taken seriously.
Thirty-three years after the apparition, on 20th August 1879, a basilica at La Salette was consecrated, and the following day, August 21st, the Archbishop of Paris in France (representing the Melchisedech Priesthood and Melchisedech Kingship) crowned the statue of the Virgin of La Salette according to the prescription of the sacred Congregation of Rites. Heaven’s awareness, it seems, was given new impetus.
On the very same day as this coronation, 21st August 1879, as only heaven can co-ordinate, there occurred an active but silent apparition at Knock, a small town in west Connaught, Ireland, a place ‘ruggedly inhospitable and not conducive for agriculture.’
(https://i.imgur.com/CVOoLjH.png)
The above is the first attachment I was ever able to post. Delighted with myself.
I have written an essay on Knock.
.
The statement that Rome will lose the Faith, etc. is a quote from the text that the Church placed on the Index of Forbidden Books.
Yes, the apparition itself was approved by the Church, that is true. This is a little confusing, but the apparition was approved, while a text that Melanie published which she claims was told to her by Our Lady in that apparition was condemned. And it wasn't condemned by "many bishops", but by the Holy Office, which operates directly under papal authority, and the decrees of which bind all Catholics.
It's a strange story, for sure. Apparently what happened is that Our Lady truly did appear to Melanie and Maximin, and gave both of them secrets, which they wrote down and sent to the pope at the time. What they wrote has never been revealed. But nearly 30 years later, Melanie wrote and published the text of what is called today the "Secret of La Salette", which the quote about Rome losing the Faith comes from. The Holy Office compared this text with the original unpublished one that Melanie had mailed in 30 years before, and said that the second one was "not authentic" (i.e. not the same as the original), and not doctrinally sound, and placed it on the Index of Forbidden Books.
Most people today naturally assume that, since the apparition is approved by the Church, that the text that Melanie published is a true message from Our Lady. This is a perfectly reasonable assumption, but if you study the facts of this apparition, it is not true. The real story is a bit of a saga, but if you read the article I posted earlier (https://www.truerestoration.org/the-holy-see-and-the-secret-of-la-salette/) that quotes all the relevant communications from the Holy Office about Melanie, you start to get a better mental picture of what really happened.
The true message of La Salette was the original one that people had to stop swearing and violating the Sunday.
.This is an embarrassing episode, for the Church to approve an apparition and then have to go on and place the seer on the index. Perhaps the Church should wait until the visionary is dead before approving an apparition. I have always been confused by this myself and it seems like it would be sinful to spread this message that was later published by Melanie and it has been widely spread. What on earth did the Blessed Virgin tell in secret that did not appear to help the Church to avoid a devastating crisis anyway? So weird. I also read a bunch of that book Satanism a Social Hx and it does seem to me that Diana Vaughan was completely made up for a troll and that they trolled St. Therese of Lisieux, which is absolutely horrible.
The statement that Rome will lose the Faith, etc. is a quote from the text that the Church placed on the Index of Forbidden Books.
Yes, the apparition itself was approved by the Church, that is true. This is a little confusing, but the apparition was approved, while a text that Melanie published which she claims was told to her by Our Lady in that apparition was condemned. And it wasn't condemned by "many bishops", but by the Holy Office, which operates directly under papal authority, and the decrees of which bind all Catholics.
It's a strange story, for sure. Apparently what happened is that Our Lady truly did appear to Melanie and Maximin, and gave both of them secrets, which they wrote down and sent to the pope at the time. What they wrote has never been revealed. But nearly 30 years later, Melanie wrote and published the text of what is called today the "Secret of La Salette", which the quote about Rome losing the Faith comes from. The Holy Office compared this text with the original unpublished one that Melanie had mailed in 30 years before, and said that the second one was "not authentic" (i.e. not the same as the original), and not doctrinally sound, and placed it on the Index of Forbidden Books.
Most people today naturally assume that, since the apparition is approved by the Church, that the text that Melanie published is a true message from Our Lady. This is a perfectly reasonable assumption, but if you study the facts of this apparition, it is not true. The real story is a bit of a saga, but if you read the article I posted earlier (https://www.truerestoration.org/the-holy-see-and-the-secret-of-la-salette/) that quotes all the relevant communications from the Holy Office about Melanie, you start to get a better mental picture of what really happened.
The true message of La Salette was the original one that people had to stop swearing and violating the Sunday.
This is an embarrassing episode, for the Church to approve an apparition and then have to go on and place the seer on the index. Perhaps the Church should wait until the visionary is dead before approving an apparition. I have always been confused by this myself and it seems like it would be sinful to spread this message that was later published by Melanie and it has been widely spread. What on earth did the Blessed Virgin tell in secret that did not appear to help the Church to avoid a devastating crisis anyway? So weird. I also read a bunch of that book Satanism a Social Hx and it does seem to me that Diana Vaughan was completely made up for a troll and that they trolled St. Therese of Lisieux, which is absolutely horrible..
I also read a bunch of that book Satanism a Social Hx and it does seem to me that Diana Vaughan was completely made up for a troll and that they trolled St. Therese of Lisieux, which is absolutely horrible..
Oh, you said: ' but by the Holy Office, which operates directly under papal authority, and the decrees of which bind all Catholics. Ever study what happened the 1616 decree of the Holy Office that defined biblical heliocentrism formal heresy?.
.
Yes, I read John Daly's long study (http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Daly.pdf) on that saga, in which he attempted to reconcile these discrepancies. If I recall correctly (and the whole story was incredibly complicated, but), he said the condemnation of heliocentrism as heretical was addressed to Galileo only, not to the whole Church, so it would be binding only on him. (If I remember correctly). Or it was later addressed to scientists as a group, but not to the whole Church. So a judgment given to only one person or one group of people does not enjoy the type of protection, nor command the universal obedience, that a decree addressed to the whole Church would have.
The Galileo affair is definitely a strange case, but there are rather fine legal distinctions that can be made that resolve most of the difficulties. At least that's how John Daly felt, and attempted to do in his study (http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Daly.pdf). I don't really know much about the whole thing beyond what I read, but Daly's explanations seem plausible to me.
If anybody knows any other resources or information that can be used to dispute the hoax narrative, or would like to discuss it, please post in here.Hello, I'm looking for a photography of the statue of Diana Vaughan. I know that it is located somewhere in America. Can anyone help me? It is for the cover of a book. Thank you.
If anybody knows any other resources or information that can be used to dispute the hoax narrative, or would like to discuss it, please post in here.Just wondering if there was any update on the translation.
This is a book about the life of Diana Vaughan that is being translated in english:
http://www.chire.fr/A-221627-diana-vaughan-therese-avait-prie-pour-elle.aspx
There were those who knew or suspected Diana Vaughan did exist and was a member of an ‘Androgynous Lodge,’ one that admitted women members. In his investigation for example, Craig Heimbichner questions Leo Taxil’s assertion that he invented Diana Vaughan and all those revelations of the highly guarded inner sanctum of the Scottish Rite of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ..
‘Masons claim that Taxil was simply a disgruntled expelled Entered Apprentice (First Degree) mason who turned on them for base motives. If that is the case, how did Taxil manage to publish accurate details from numerous advanced secret rituals in the higher degrees? This writer can attest to this truth because I possess in my personal archive both Taxil’s original descriptions and the secret rituals themselves. How would a low-level, ex mason have gained these explosive secrets?’ (Craig Heimbichner: Blood on the Altar, Independent History & Research, USA, 2005, p.68.)
Heimbichner then goes on to rebuff Taxil’s other assertion, that only males were freemasons. He quotes the respected masonic historian Robert Macoy, to prove ‘the rules admitted both sexes to membership, the male members were called the “Companions of Ulysses,” and the females the “Sisters of Penelope.” Heimbichner also quotes freemason and Golden Dawn leader A. E. Waite admitting that the Order of the Palladium existed. We are then told of the discovery of the Palladium Temple in May 1895 wherein the owners of rented buildings found a room inscribed with the words Templum Palladicuм. A large tapestry was found in this room upon which was woven a larger-than-life figure of Lucifer. Heimbichner tells of a modern writer, William Schnoebelen (formally OTO IX˚) who said he was inducted into a Palladium Lodge in the late 1970s by a David DePaul. DePaul restarted the Palladium after supposedly invoking the spirit of Diana Vaughan. ‘If Leo Taxil was a hoaxer, then this invocation is difficult to understand since “Diana Vaughan” had been “Priestess of Lucifer” in the freemasonic Palladium rite described by Taxil. If Vaughan was a figment of Taxil’s fevered imagination, why would she be invoked by an OTO (Order of Oriental Templars) faction in the 1970s?’
The idea that Taxil could have been fed fiction by freemasons is not ruled out by Heimbichner, nor that he might have been a double or even a triple agent. He ends his chapter on Diana Vaughan with ‘Is not the OTO the continuation of the Palladium of Diana Vaughan, the “Graduate School” for salivating and serious masons?’ Others however, closer to the woman at the time of her disappearance had their own story. Evidence of her existence was found in a church in Loigny in Northern France that Diana Vaughan had visited in secret in March 1897, one month before her set date for a public appearance.
To make a long story short, the parish priest of Loigny confirmed Diana Vaughan’s visit by means of a visual reproduction and also the signature she had left in his church’s log. It was not the name Diana Vaughan that she had signed, for anybody could have forged her name, but Juvana Petroff, a mysterious signature known only to her and the priest to whom it made sense. It was later revealed as her baptismal nom de plume that she took when taking her confession of faith in the church, a name unknown to all but herself and the priest who baptised her.
I will record some of her writings soon.
Decrees defining formal heresy are not issued to one person, that is nonsense.Let's hear this other story. So heliocentrism is a condemned heresy? So are most modern Catholics condemned for this heretical belief?
My belief is in the official teaching of the Catholic Church, not conjured up by the heliocentric apologists who must try to make the decree of 1616 non-binding, non infallible. God promised He would prevent OFFICIAL corruption in His Church. In 1633 Pope Urban VIII said it was defined as formal heresy and there was no doubt about that. So, when the U-turn of 1820 began, Pius VII did not deny the 1616 decree was irreformable. He went along with Fr Anfossi who said the 1616 decree remains untouched and irreversible. How they got their cake and still left it intact is another story.
Just wondering if there was any update on the translation.Yes, indeed. The book shall be available on Amazon within a couple of months. I will post a link in the thread.
Yes, indeed. The book shall be available on Amazon within a couple of months. I will post a link in the thread.Hello again. Are there any updates on the book?
Let's hear this other story. So heliocentrism is a condemned heresy? So are most modern Catholics condemned for this heretical belief?
Ah, I remember this subject when Lavinsko asked that question yesterday. I see you never got an answer to your question Anthony. Yes, the long held heresy has never been abrogated so is still a heresy. But if someone actually believes heliocentrism is scientifically true, their heresy is material and not held to deny a matter of faith.I posted this audio on my Rumble channel. Dr. Rao gave this talk years ago on the Galileo trial.
But now that you are told the moving-sun of Scripture has never been proven wrong, has never been abrogated, then the heresy is no longer material, and is no different than, as Cardinal Bellarmine said:
'Nor may it be answered that this [geocentrism] is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the prophets and apostles.’ Letter to Foscarini 1615.