All that stuff is about as authentic as the Da Vinci Code, Rennes-le-Chateau, David Icke's reptilians, or the Nephilim, which is to say, not very.

The whole way these theories insult the royal bloodlines shows that they're not to be trusted.  Pray tell, what was so anti-Christ about the royal bloodlines of Europe, which produced predominantly Catholics?  

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/09/you-report-mass-for-and-talk-on-blessed.html

Inspiring talk by His Royal Highness Archduke Carl Christian of Austria, one of Blessed Karl's grandsons, was offered downstairs after a votive Mass at Old St. Mary's.

We couldn't stay for the entire evening because our kids were exhausted from school - - BUT we are pretty sure our kids won't fall for the commie brainwashing against the European royal bloodlines/nobility!!

There was a Catholic King of an African country at the reception, also.

Too bad the Habsburgs are so big into Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ...

Yes, it really is a shame.  The Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg's (also known today as the House of "Windsor"), as well as the House of Orléans, are also deep into Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.

Quote from: Raoul76

The whole way these theories insult the royal bloodlines shows that they're not to be trusted.  Pray tell, what was so anti-Christ about the royal bloodlines of Europe, which produced predominantly Catholics?  

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/09/you-report-mass-for-and-talk-on-blessed.html

Inspiring talk by His Royal Highness Archduke Carl Christian of Austria, one of Blessed Karl's grandsons, was offered downstairs after a votive Mass at Old St. Mary's.

We couldn't stay for the entire evening because our kids were exhausted from school - - BUT we are pretty sure our kids won't fall for the commie brainwashing against the European royal bloodlines/nobility!!

There was a Catholic King of an African country at the reception, also.

Elizabeth,

Is the talk online?  I went to your link but couldn't find it.  Thanks.

In the Bible mankind (humans) are referred to as "Son's of man" (being born from adam)
Son's of God refers to angels. In this case it is speaking about the fallen angels (the devil and his evil co-hort).

Huh?  How can the fallen angels who are pure spirit beings have conjugal relations with humans and beget offspring?


THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE
1 [1-4] This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology. The sacred author incorporates it here, not only in order to account for the prehistoric giants of Palestine, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation--the constantly increasing wickedness of mankind.

2 [2] The sons of heaven: literally "the sons of the gods" or "the sons of God," i.e., the celestial beings of mythology.

3 [3] My spirit: the breath of life referred to in Genesis 2:7. His days . . . years: probably the time God would still let men live on earth before destroying them with the flood, rather than the maximum span of life God would allot to individual men in the future.

4 [4] As well as later: According to Numbers 13:33, when the Israelites invaded Palestine and found there the tall aboriginal Anakim, they likened them to the Nephilim; cf Deut 2:10-11. Perhaps the huge megalithic structures in Palestine were thought to have been built by a race of giants, whose superhuman strength was attributed to semi-divine origin. The heroes of old: the legendary worthies of ancient mythology.

JERUSALEM BIBLE

An obscure passage (from the 'Yahwistic' tradition). The author uses a popular story of a race of giants, in Hebrew Nephillim, the Titans of eastern legend, born of the union between gods and mortals. The author does not present this episode as a myth nor, on the other hand, does he deliver judgement on its actual occurrence; he records the anecdote of a race of supermen simply to serve as an example of the increasing human malice that is to provoke the Deluge. Later Judaism and almost all the earliest ecclesiastical writers identify the 'sons of God' with the fallen angels; but from the 4th century onwards, as the idea of angelic natures becomes less material, the Fathers commonly take the 'sons of God' to be Seth's descendants and the 'daughters of men' those of Cain.

The Lesson is taken from the book concerning Noah and the Ark by St. Ambrose the Bishop

We read that the Lord was angry. However, God did bear in mind (that is, he knew) that man was hard put to remain sinless, placed, as he was, in flesh on earth ; for earth is the home of temptations, and the flesh is the enticement of corruption. Yet man had a reasonable soul, and his soul had power to control his body ; and, being so made, he nevertheless struggled but little to keep himself from falling into that from whence he would not desire to return. God's thoughts are not as man's thoughts ; in him there is no such thing as change of mind, no such thing as to be angry and then cool down again. Therefore, anything said concerning God's anger is to be understood as setting forth the grievous nature of our sins, whereby we have (so to speak) merited the divine wrath. For iniquity had grown to such a degree that God, who by his nature cannot be moved by anger, or hatred, or any passion whatsoever, is represented as provoked to anger.

And God threatened that he would destroy man. He said : I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth ; both man and beast, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air. Wherein had the brute beasts offended? They had been created for man's use ; and, when man was destroyed it followed that they must share the same fate because they were no longer of any use. And there is a higher reason : Man is a living soul, capable of reason. For man may be described as an animal, alive whilst subject to death, and endowed with reason. When therefore the highest is gone, why should the lower branches remain? How can the worth of any creature remain if virtue itself (the basis of well-being) be lost?

But in condemnation of the rest of men, and to manifest the goodness of God, it is written that Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. From these words we learn that the sin of others doth not cast its shadow on the righteous man, since Noah himself is preserved, to be the ancestor of the whole human race. He is praised, not because he was of a noble race, but because he was a just man and perfect. For the lineage of the upright man is to be traced in the pedigree of virtue which doth come forth from him. Even as blood maketh the lineage of man, so doth virtue form the lineage of souls. As the kindreds of men are made great by the grandeur of their lineage, so is the honour of souls made manifest by the grandeur of their virtues.

DOUAY-RHEIMS

The descendants of Seth, and Enos are here called the "The sons of God" from their religion and piety: whereas the ungodly race of Cain, who by their carnal affections lay groveling upon the earth, are called the children of men. The unhappy consequence of the former marrying with the latter, ought to be a warning to Christians to be very circuмspect in their marriages: and not to suffer themselves to be determined in their choice by their carnal passion, to the prejudice of virtue or religion.

Giants. It is likely the generality of men before the flood were of a gigantic stature in comparison with what men are now. But these here spoken of are called giants, as being not only tall in stature, but violent and savage in their dispositions, and mere monsters of cruelty and lust.

I think there is an order to the illuminati, or the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr order.  From what I hear from the more consistent and reliable sources (Eustace Mullins, Bob Chapman) people like the Bushes would be third tier, while someone like George Soros would be 2nd tier (controlling a vast amount of wealth but all his wealth would go back to the illuminati after his death) the first tier would be the Harrimans, the Rothchilds, the Astors.

I do have a small booklet called the black nobility, the author Dr. John Coleman said the most powerful of them are in Italy and originate from Venice and go back as far as the Roman empire. One family by the name of Orsini can trace themselves back to a famous Roman senator. they are still there in italy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orsini_family Then you have the Hapsburgs from Germany, the Savoys the Gelphs (queen Elizabeth).

Coleman seems to think they still have enormous power. There is the Princess Pallavicini in Rome who gets very important people at her events. Archbishop lefebvre had been there, more recently George Bush and Dick Cheney went there when they were worried the Pope was going to try to stop the Iraq war. It seems to me that these families lost a lot of their power to international socialism/communism.  

I suppose this is a close as will get to this subject, but the suggestion that Venice created Henry VIII's break with Rome quite fascinating. I'd love to know if these old families are still pulling strings.

How Venice took over England and created Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/venfreem.htm

an except
Did the Venetian Nobility create the protestant reformation?

Venice Invades England
It is not an accident that Venice focused much of its attention on England.

The Venetians said it themselves. In the Venetian ambassadors' reports to the Venetian Senate, which are now public, England was the key to the destruction of Spain. One report outlines that Flanders and the Netherlands were the workshop of the Spanish Empire. If you could control the English Channel, then you could break the Spanish sea route to the Netherlands and weaken Spain irrevocably. It is uncanny how accurate the Venetian report on this is. It is in fact exactly what happens during the Thirty Years' War.

I believe this story begins with the break of Henry VIII from continental Europe with his setting up of the Anglican Church. This cataclysm in English history set up the basis for religious warfare that was to rip England apart for centuries.

It was the hope of the Renaissance men such as Erasmus and Colet and emphatically Sir Thomas More that England would become an island of great learning and a benefit to all mankind. Erasmus dedicated his Enchiridion of the Militant Christian to England's Henry VIII, just as he dedicated his Education of a Christian Prince to the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V.

The Venetians were not to allow this. Venice's big concern ever since the League of Cambrai almost wiped them out was to assure that Spain was never to have a league with France and England again. The papacy had some interest in this, because the contest between France and Spain tended to be fought out on Italian soil. I state this because the papacy was among the first to form the League of Cambrai and declare a war on Venice. The league came within an inch of crushing them forever, yet the papacy was the first to break ranks and conclude a peace with Venice. If we look at English diplomacy during the League of Cambrai, when Spain went into the league, so too, did England join. When the alliance broke down, and Spain had a quarrel with France, Henry immediately declared war on France. The obvious point is that, as long as Henry VIII was married to Catherine of Aragon, the daughter of the Spanish king, the ability to manipulate Henry against Spain was greatly diminished. This came to a head after the Sack of Rome. At the Battle of Pavia in 1525, the French troops were so badly defeated by Charles V, that the French king was seized and held for ransom.

Venice panicked. Besides the fact that a victorious Spanish army was on Italian soil, the French, who were critical to the Venetian balance of power against Spain, had just fallen apart. This was the year 1525. From the Venetian standpoint, England had to break with Spain.

There was only one way to do that: Henry had to be induced to divorce Catherine. The pretext for divorce was to be Catherine's failure to produce a male heir. Clearly Henry was driven mad by this adventure if he were not mad already. There were ways that Henry could have resolved this matter peaceably without a divorce or a break with Rome. One way--it was suggested even by Henry--was to legitimize his bastard son so that this offspring could have been his rightful heir. This, by the way, had been sanctioned by the papacy in a previous case. Another way was to marry his lover Anne Boleyn while remaining married to Catherine, in order to produce male offspring for the succession. Such arrangements had been made before for reasons of state with papal sanction.

On the one hand, the papacy under Spanish control could not allow any of this, but more significantly it seems that Henry was induced to take the most violent path possible. His chief adviser for the initial phase was Cardinal Wolsey. Wolsey was perfectly happy to get some kind of dispensation from the papacy for Henry. Wolsey did not want anything too precipitous to happen because he had pretensions to be elected pope with French help.

Then something dramatic happened. Henry dumped Wolsey and the Howard family became Henry's top advisers. In their midst was the top Venetian agent Thomas Cromwell--I mean literally trained in Venice. One can speculate on the exact way this was done, but there can be no doubt of Venetian control of the split.

In the middle of this, in 1529, the Venetian friar and cabalist Francesco Giorgi (Zorzi) comes on the scene. He is sought out by Thomas Cranmer, who is soon to become the first archbishop of Canterbury agreeable to the break with Rome. The pretext for bringing in Giorgi was that he could read the original Hebrew of the Old Testament to discern whether Henry's marriage to Catherine had been valid in the first place. The background is that Catherine had originally been married to Henry's elder brother, the crown Prince Arthur, who then died within a few months. There is one passage in the Old Testament recognizing a man's obligation to marry his deceased brother's wife, and one passage forbidding the same. To cover all possibilities, a papal dispensation had been issued permitting Henry's marriage to Catherine. Giorgi was now brought in to persuade Henry that the biblical passage prohibiting such a marriage was authoritative, and that the opposing passage was not applicable. The dispensation on which Henry's marriage rested, by virtue of having contravened scripture, was null and void. The pope had exceeded his authority by issuing it, according to Giorgi. Catherine's credible testimony that her first marriage had never been consummated was simply ignored.

According to Giorgi, therefore, Henry had never been legally married to Catherine. Giorgi, with the full power of Venice behind him, assured Henry that he would be supported in his break. Henry was by now inflamed with passion for Anne Boleyn, the granddaughter of Thomas Howard, second Duke of Norfolk, and eagerly grasped for Giorgi's conclusions.

Once Cranmer was named archbishop of Canterbury, he officially rendered a new decision using Giorgi's reasoning. Appeals to Rome had now been made high treason.