Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: ca246 on March 08, 2020, 07:53:25 PM

Title: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: ca246 on March 08, 2020, 07:53:25 PM
I read that she launched an assault on Paris on the very Nativity of Mary (8 Sep), resisted during her arrest, and was only burnt after she continued to cross-dress in public. Could someone explain how Joan of Arc is a canonized saint if it is true that she was convicted of heresy under a legitimate, valid bishop and was guilty of cross dressing?
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: poche on March 08, 2020, 11:00:32 PM
During the trial, St Joan of Arc said that she felt that the fact that she wore men's clothes in someway protected her. 
Also, it should be noted that her trial was declared by the Pope's legate to have been invalid. The English had already decided to put her to death. Her trial was just a formality.    
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: jvk on March 09, 2020, 11:05:58 AM
Sounds like your reading material is questionable, at best.
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: poche on March 09, 2020, 10:50:11 PM
Sounds like your reading material is questionable, at best.
St Joan of Arc is a special case involving a special holiness. She is not the norm. God sometimes calls the small and the unlikely to counfound the wicked and proud.   
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: Shrewd Operator on March 09, 2020, 11:12:45 PM
As for launching an attack on a Holy Day, there are quite a few on the calendar. You would have a hard time avoiding them while trying to campaign.

Jesus did not violate the Sabbath by doing a good work; even though it scandalized the Pharisees.  

St. Joan was acting on a Divine commission to liberate Paris and France; also a good work, although it required military force since the English would not go quietly.

If she was trying to give battle, why would she not resist capture and arrest by her national and personal enemies?

She was burnt primarily for the alleged crime of heresy. When she refused to deny her mystical experiences and Divine mission, she also returned to her militant male fashion choices.

Since she was on a Divine mission to accomplish things usually done by men, she had to dress accordingly.

She wore armor to protect herself in battle, and she wore male clothes to protect herself from the soldiers guarding her in the English prison, as well as other things like riding into battle. She did not "cross dress" for any perverse, or unseemly reasons.

She was put through four, unjust show trials before she began to falter under the abuse and deception of her enemies. She finally agreed to demands to recant that she did not fully understand; but when she realized her mistake, she renewed her claims and male attire. In the years that followed, her family and the Church cleared her name and later canonized her.
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: CatholicInAmerica on March 09, 2020, 11:23:23 PM
I read that she launched an assault on Paris on the very Nativity of Mary (8 Sep), resisted during her arrest, and was only burnt after she continued to cross-dress in public. Could someone explain how Joan of Arc is a canonized saint if it is true that she was convicted of heresy under a legitimate, valid bishop and was guilty of cross dressing?
Because the Catholic Church says so. 
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: roscoe on March 10, 2020, 12:01:42 AM
Thank you--how ever: IF I am correct, her canonisation may not be legal. There are several highly suspicious( questionable) events during the 1914 conclave that could mean the alleged election of the Modernist Della Chiesa is a fraud. That being the case, her status would be  stalled at the Beatification level...  :confused:
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: poche on March 10, 2020, 01:09:36 AM
Because the Catholic Church says so.
According to the Vatican legate, those declarations were at a proceeding determined to be canonically invalid. Therefore that declaration is invalid.  
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: Parasitic Eww on March 10, 2020, 01:21:46 AM
St. Joan of Arc was a nationalist.

Intercede for us, St. Joan of Arc.
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: King Wenceslas on March 10, 2020, 06:20:00 PM
Thank you--how ever: IF I am correct, her canonisation may not be legal. There are several highly suspicious( questionable) events during the 1914 conclave that could mean the alleged election of the Modernist Della Chiesa is a fraud. That being the case, her status would be  stalled at the Beatification level...  :confused:

So now it is sedevacantism all the way back to 1914. When does this garbage pit of sedevacantism end?
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: CatholicInAmerica on March 10, 2020, 11:06:03 PM
Thank you--how ever: IF I am correct, her canonisation may not be legal. There are several highly suspicious( questionable) events during the 1914 conclave that could mean the alleged election of the Modernist Della Chiesa is a fraud. That being the case, her status would be  stalled at the Beatification level...  :confused:
You have no authority to make that claim. She is a canonized saint By a valid pope. 60 years ago you would never be able to make such a claim as laymen weren’t permitted to speak with authority on church matters. 
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: roscoe on March 12, 2020, 12:34:17 AM
Thanks for reply but have not made a claim to speak w/ authority :confused:
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: cassini on March 12, 2020, 07:57:31 AM

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. 

Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: roscoe on March 12, 2020, 11:48:29 AM
Unless i am mistaken, St Joan was Canonised under Benedict XV(15?)-- not Pius XI... :pray:
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: cassini on March 12, 2020, 12:31:09 PM
Unless i am mistaken, St Joan was Canonised under Benedict XV(15?)-- not Pius XI... :pray:

Yes, just checked up, it was Benedict XV in 1920.
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: ralgul on March 12, 2020, 01:04:51 PM
St. Joan of Arc's execution was for political reasons, not for heresy. She was a threat to the English monarchy. Heresy had been creeping into England for quite some time before St. Joan of Arc was even born. The real heretics and savages were the warmongering English who were intent on ruling over France. The clerics that oversaw her trial and execution were not guided by the Holy Ghost, rather, they were working for mammon and temporal interests, under the guidance of the King of England (a material heretic, at the very least). The Roman Church soon realized this ulterior motive of the English clerics, and that's why they revoked St. Joan of Arc's "guilt" and canonized her as a Saint, because she was truly a holy woman and great warrior for the Church and France. Let's not forget, also, that not too long after this persecution of St. Joan of Arc by the English, these very English broke away from the Catholic Church to form their "Church of England". It is evident that moral corrosion, hubris and corruption had seeped into England for quite awhile, hence, the treatment of St. Joan of Arc and the adulterous King's break from the Roman Church.
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: cassini on March 12, 2020, 04:47:19 PM
Well said raigul. Here is an example to show how right you are:

From our own studies we believe Shakespeare himself gives the game away (that he was francis Bacon) when he acts totally out of character by his vicious attack on the integrity of (St) Joan of Arc in his play Henry VI, treating the English as having ‘God as our fortress’ and the French as being one with the ‘witches and the help of hell’ (Act.II, Sc.1) and ‘Devil, or devil's dam’ (1:5). 

‘In 1576 Queen Elizabeth packed the young Bacon up and personally shipped him off to France. She wanted him to spy on foreign governments and officials in the same capacity as John Dee.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn1)The likes of Bacon would be very well aware that Joan la Puchelle was used by God in this war of Principalities and Powers. Consequently, whereas he was a man able to engage and parry as equal with anyone from King to the most lowly wretch, all of whom are manifested in the writings of Shakespeare, he could not contain himself when making reference to a superior on the Melchisedech field of combat, the soldier of Christ, Joan of Arc, now a saint, whom Diana Vaughan was pleased to invoke in her conflict against her former colleagues in proto-Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
 
‘In the first part of [Shakespeare’s] Henry the Sixth, Jeanne d’Arc addresses the Duke of Burgundy in a speech of thirty-three lines. This speech is an absolutely faithful version of a letter in France written by the Maid of Orleans to the then Duke of Burgundy and dated July 17th, 1429. There is no historical authority for this letter which never saw the light of print till discovered by the Historian of the house of Burgundy in 1780. Bacon in his travels might easily have seen this letter: in fact the author of this play must have done so. [Shaksper] was never within miles of it.’[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn2)


[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref1)Richard Allan Wagner: The Truth about Freemasons, 2015.
[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref2)Walter Ellis’s The Shakespeare Myth, Bacon Society, 1937.
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: roscoe on March 12, 2020, 04:51:58 PM
I am not quite sure what you are trying to say but Bacon was NOT Shakespeare :popcorn:
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: cassini on March 20, 2020, 11:31:37 AM

This appeared in the Daily Mail yesterday;

The story of how a simple peasant girl rallied the French during the Hundred Years War is fascinating.
By 1429, the English had captured most of northern France including Paris. They had laid siege to Orleans, the only remaining loyal French city north of the Loire. Into a defeated French court at Chinon came 17-year-old Joan. She claimed that visions of St Michael, St Catherine and St Margaret had told her to drive out the English and deliver the French Dauphin to Reims for his coronation. 

That is exactly what she did. [leading her army to victory after victory]

Charles VII was crowned on July 17, 1429. On May 23, 1430, Joan was captured by Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, who ransomed her to the English. She was brought to trial at Rouen, which was under the control of Earl of Warwick.

Her trial was overseen by Pierre Cauchon, the pro-English Bishop of Beauvais, because she had been captured in his diocese. After prolonged, intensive questioning, she failed to provide any answers that could be seen to constitute heresy. However she was caught out on a technicality. Joan had agreed to wear only women’s clothing, but towards the end of the trial, she resumed wearing male clothing, perhaps as a defence against rape.  She was charged as a relapsed heretic and excommunicated by Cauchon. On May 30, 1431, she was burned at the stake in the marketplace in Rouen.

By 1450 Charles VII was finally secure on the French throne. He ordered Guillaurne Bouiille, a theologian at the University of Paris to inquire into the ‘faults and abuses’ committed by Joan’s accusers, whom King Charles accused of having ‘brought about her death iniquitously and against right reason very cruelly.’ A posthumous retrial was then opened in 1452.

Pope Callixtus III authorised this nullification trial at the request of the Inquisition-general jean Brehal and Joan’s mother Isabelle Romee. A panel of theologians was brought together and they analysed the testimony from some 115 witnesses. Brehal drew up his final summary in June 1456, which described Joan of Arc as a martyr and implicated the late Bishop Cauchon with heresy for having convicted an innocent woman in pursuit of a vendetta.
The court declared Joan innocent. Pope Callixtus III  excommunicated Cauchon posthumously in 1457 for his role in her persecution and condemnation. Joan was canonised as a saint of the Catholic Church on May 16, 1920, by Pope Benedict XV. (Marianne Kelly, Belfast)
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: poche on March 22, 2020, 10:54:09 PM
This appeared in the Daily Mail yesterday;

The story of how a simple peasant girl rallied the French during the Hundred Years War is fascinating.
By 1429, the English had captured most of northern France including Paris. They had laid siege to Orleans, the only remaining loyal French city north of the Loire. Into a defeated French court at Chinon came 17-year-old Joan. She claimed that visions of St Michael, St Catherine and St Margaret had told her to drive out the English and deliver the French Dauphin to Reims for his coronation.

That is exactly what she did. [leading her army to victory after victory]

Charles VII was crowned on July 17, 1429. On May 23, 1430, Joan was captured by Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, who ransomed her to the English. She was brought to trial at Rouen, which was under the control of Earl of Warwick.

Her trial was overseen by Pierre Cauchon, the pro-English Bishop of Beauvais, because she had been captured in his diocese. After prolonged, intensive questioning, she failed to provide any answers that could be seen to constitute heresy. However she was caught out on a technicality. Joan had agreed to wear only women’s clothing, but towards the end of the trial, she resumed wearing male clothing, perhaps as a defence against rape.  She was charged as a relapsed heretic and excommunicated by Cauchon. On May 30, 1431, she was burned at the stake in the marketplace in Rouen.

By 1450 Charles VII was finally secure on the French throne. He ordered Guillaurne Bouiille, a theologian at the University of Paris to inquire into the ‘faults and abuses’ committed by Joan’s accusers, whom King Charles accused of having ‘brought about her death iniquitously and against right reason very cruelly.’ A posthumous retrial was then opened in 1452.

Pope Callixtus III authorised this nullification trial at the request of the Inquisition-general jean Brehal and Joan’s mother Isabelle Romee. A panel of theologians was brought together and they analysed the testimony from some 115 witnesses. Brehal drew up his final summary in June 1456, which described Joan of Arc as a martyr and implicated the late Bishop Cauchon with heresy for having convicted an innocent woman in pursuit of a vendetta.
The court declared Joan innocent. Pope Callixtus III  excommunicated Cauchon posthumously in 1457 for his role in her persecution and condemnation. Joan was canonised as a saint of the Catholic Church on May 16, 1920, by Pope Benedict XV. (Marianne Kelly, Belfast)
I think it is interesting that the bishop who condemned her had the surname "Cauchon" which sounds like "cochon" which means "pig." 
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: Lavinsko on March 16, 2022, 02:37:21 AM
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. 
Hello, sorry to bump such an old thread but I was wondering if you could point me in the direction of any resources that expose the "Taxil Hoax" narrative.  I first heard about Diana Vaughan after reading Solange Hertz, and the posts on here were the only resources I could find in English which dispute the claim that Taxil just made the whole thing up.
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: ca246 on March 16, 2022, 02:56:06 AM
I too have doubts about the "Taxil Hoax" really being a hoax.

I do not know what is wrong about bumping "old" threads. It is a shame when someone asks a question or makes a thoughtful post and it is forgotten and buried under more recent, popular stuff.
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: cassini on March 16, 2022, 11:06:05 AM
I too have doubts about the "Taxil Hoax" really being a hoax.

I do not know what is wrong about bumping "old" threads. It is a shame when someone asks a question or makes a thoughtful post and it is forgotten and buried under more recent, popular stuff.

Hi ca246,  I got in touch with my scholarly friend who sent me this below:

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
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: cassini on March 16, 2022, 12:25:54 PM
PAGE 167

Enter Diana Vaughan

Enter Diana Vaughan Bataille’s material was not always as new as it was when he described Brother Sandeman’s crocodile or the undergrounds of Gibraltar. To fill in thousands of pages, he had to make extensive use of ancient and modern demonological literature. He returned to the old writings about Loudun, Louviers, and other episodes, which had been collected by demonologists such as Mirville and Bizouard. He used the same authors for a prolonged attack on magnetism, hypnotism, and Spiritualism, where he denounced their demonic origins. It would be, however, wrong to forget the part of the Diable relative to possessions and obsessions, because this is where the central character came into play. It was a lucifériens, la Cabale fin-de-siècle, magie de la Rose-Croix, les possessions à l’état latent, les précurseurs de l’Ante-Christ. Récit d’un témoin, cit., vol. i, pp. 481–500. 23 Ibid., vol. i, pp. 618–619. 168 chapter 8 lady whose stories would continue intriguing French Catholics and anticlericals for the following five years. Her name was Diana Vaughan. “Half French and half American”, Diana was born in Paris. Her father was from Louisville, Kentucky, and her Protestant mother from the Cévennes. Her father, shortly after the foundation of Palladism, joined the new cult, in which he initiated his daughter in 1883. In 1884, when she turned twenty, Diana was already a “master” in a Palladist “triangle” (i.e. a lodge), but what followed was even more extraordinary. On February 28, 1884, while her Palladist “triangle” met “in a theurgic cabalistic session”, suddenly “the vault of the temple opened and released a genie of fire, who was none other than the devil Asmodeus”. The famous demon brought a trophy as a gift to his devotees in Louisville, “the tail of the lion of Saint Mark”, which he cut off with a sword in a battle between angelic and demonic spirits. Bataille was not gullible, and observed judiciously that “there is no lion of Saint Mark, as this is a purely symbolic lion, an iconographic attribute of the Evangelist”. Thus, “Asmodeus fooled the triangle, bringing a tail of a random lion to those who believe in the lies, in most cases stupid, of the infernal spirits”. The Luciferians “demonstrated a proud dose of superstitious credulity”:24 not so Bataille, who knew better. The French doctor credited his readers with being less credulous than the Palladists, and busy with “more serious things”. They knew that “the tail of the lion kept in Louisville had nothing supernatural in itself. However, a Devil could easily have elected it as its home, and thus it could produce infernal manifestations, and these effectively occurred frequently, at the command of Sister Diana Vaughan, the protégé of Asmodeus”. Notwithstanding her diabolical relations, Diana Vaughan was introduced from the start as a pleasant character, just as Sophie Walder was hateful. The two prima donnas of Palladism were thus destined to clash. This occurred in Paris in 1885, in a triangle presided by a man called Bordone, to whom Diana was sent to “receive the perfect Palladian light, which meant the degree of Master Knight Templar”. On the order of Pike in person, in recognition of the Palladist merits of her father, Diana was dispensed of a preliminary trial of an obscene nature, the “Rite of Pastos”. Sophie Walder was also present in Paris, and she had with her a consecrated holy wafer. She asked that Diana at least submit to the second trial, which was necessary to become a “Master Knight Templar”: “to spit on the divine Eucharist”. Diana, however, although she claimed to be “happy to dedicate herself to Lucifer”, refused the profanation. The session was suspended and a committee gathered the following day to judge the rebel. 24 Ibid., vol. i, pp. 711–712. SATAN THE FREEMASON 169 Diana, Bataille reported, seriously risked being expelled from Palladism, but luckily, the famous “supposed tail of the lion of Saint Mark” was also brought to Paris. While the committee was about to vote the measures against Sister Vaughan, the tail “leaped from the chest that contained it and, although light as a feather, vigorously stroked all those who had spoken against Diana”. After such a manifestation, Diana not only was not expelled but was immediately proclaimed a “Master Knight Templar”, without any further need for the sacrilege. More extraordinary prodigies followed. The tip of the lion tail “transformed in a small Devil’s head”, which opened its mouth and declared: “I, Asmodeus, commander of fourteen legions of fire spirits, declare that I protect and always will guard my beloved Diana against everyone and everything (…). Diana, I will obey you in everything, but on one explicit condition: you must never marry. Besides, should you decide not to conform to this wish of mine, the only law that I impose on you, I will strangle whomever will dare to become your spouse”. This was not all: some time later, the adversaries of Diana, while she was going back to America, gathered under the presidency of Bordone and with the participation of the perfidious Sophie, in order to plot against her again. But at a certain point Bordone “let out a horrifying scream and his head suddenly turned around, with his face now on the side of his back”. Sophie Walder summoned her “familiar spirit” to understand the cause of the mishap, and the spirit replied that it was the doing of Asmodeus, who came as an avenger of his fiancé Diana. Only the latter would be able to put the head of Bordone back in its place. “Since she was a good girl, who did not hold grudges”, when she was informed of the event, Diana set out and twenty days later arrived in Paris, where she turned the head of the misfortunate Palladist back to normal. Bordone was so “disgusted” by the episode that he abandoned the cult forever. Finally, notwithstanding the further protests of Sophie, Diana was formally consecrated as a “Master Knight Templar” on September 15, 1885, again on Pike’s personal orders. She returned to Louisville, where she reigned “on local Palladists until 1891, when she moved to New York, always accompanied by the famous ‘tail of the lion of Saint Mark’”.25 The successive career of Diana Vaughan happened outside of the Diable, which we now want to follow in its systematic extensive exposition of all kinds of Satanism. The second volume dedicated many hundreds of pages to palmistry, tarot reading, astrology, interpretation of dreams, apparitions of spirits, 25 Ibid., vol. i, pp. 714–721. 170 chapter 8 magical mirrors, spells, filters, talismans, amulets: all clearly exposed as works of the Devil. Then politics and culture were discussed: the French Revolution, anarchy, socialism, communism; the rehabilitation of the Devil in French literature; Martinism, the esoteric Christianity of priests such as Roca, the foundation of a Gnostic Church. Bataille, again, denounced all as direct activities of the Satanists, sometimes personally organized by Pike. From Charleston, the American Freemason maneuvered hundreds of different organizations in order to substitute the cult of Lucifer to that of the Christian God, Adonai, whom he considered, in a gnostic manner, an evil god, and the Luciferian Liber Apadno, from which Bataille offered precious quotes, to the Bible. The physician however admitted that there were also “non-organized Satanists”, among which he mentioned Bois, and “dissident Luciferians” such as Lady Caithness. He insisted, however, that as long as Pike was alive, the great majority of the world Satanists could not subtract themselves from his direction. It is impossible to analyze all the hundreds of episodes and characters in the Diable. In the second volume, Bataille quoted liberally from Léo Taxil and Domenico Margiotta, whom I will discuss shortly. Here, I will limit myself to referring to some curious objects, rituals and episodes, which concern the main plot, the one relative to Pike, Diana Vaughan, and Sophie Walder. Pike was described as a collector of peculiar objects, among which the “Arcula Mystica” was not the least prodigious. This was a “diabolical telephone”, constituted by a double horn similar to that of normal telephones of the 19th century, situated in a small chest. Inside the chest, there were also a silver toad and seven small statues, which corresponded to Charleston, Rome, Berlin, Washington, Montevideo, Naples and Calcutta. When Pike wanted, for example, to call Lemmi in Italy, he placed two fingers on the statues that represented Charleston and Rome respectively. As an effect of this act, “in the same instant in Rome, where Lemmi had his own Arcula Mystica, he heard a strong hiss. Lemmi opened his small chest and saw the statue of Ignis [i.e. the statue that represented Charleston] raised, while small inoffensive flames escaped from the throat of the toad. He thus knew that the Sovereign Pontiff of Charleston wanted to talk to him. He lifted the statue of Ratio [which represented Rome] from the chest” and began to talk. Everything, naturally, worked thanks to the arts of Lucifer, who clearly in the era of telephones did not intend to be overcome by mere human technology. But what if, “when there was a call, Lemmi was not in his office”? Lucifer did not yet invent the cell phone, but found a solution nonetheless. Lemmi “would feel the sensation of seven warm breaths blown on his face; he would know exactly what it means. If, for example, he would need an hour to be available, he should say in a low voice, ‘I will only be ready in an hour’. And the toad in SATAN THE FREEMASON 171 the chest in Charleston [from which the call came] would speak in a loud and understandable voice to Pike: ‘In an hour! In an hour! In an hour!’”.26 Among Pike’s marvels, there was also “the famous talisman-bracelet” that, according to Bataille, was still kept in Charleston after the death of the Luciferian Pontiff. At one stage Pike, who often had to travel away from Charleston, was sorry not to be able to see the weekly apparition of Lucifer there. The Prince of Darkness, complacent, provided him with a bracelet, which allowed him to “make Lucifer appear in any location where Pike was”. It was sufficient for him to kneel, kiss the earth, and call Lucifer three times. The first time he used the bracelet, Pike, in reality, had nothing to ask Lucifer in particular: he only wanted to test the jewel. Lucifer, however, told him: “I can’t have come here for nothing. Ask me something”. Pike then asked him to be transported “to the most beautiful and bright among the stars, Sirius”. “In Satan’s arms” the American Freemason flew “1,373,000 times the distance between the Earth and the Sun”, to Sirius and back.27 Armed with this protection, Pike could fear no opposition. The schism within Palladism would explode only after his death, and would give Bataille the opportunity to produce a different kind of literature. The Diable was, rather, the story of the kingdom of Pike, whose only problems came from the rivalry between Sophie Walder and Diana Vaughan. Sophie, while the issues of the Diable continued to be published, got into all kinds of mischief. She created a talisman with a consecrated holy wafer surrounded by sharp points, as she wanted to hold it in her hands and desecrate the holy bread every time she wished.28 She planned to αssαssιnαtҽ Pope Leo xiii, as she was “furiously enraged” by the anti-Masonic encyclical Humanum genus.29 She imposed her authority on the Freemasons of all of Europe, crossing walls and making bouquets of snakes appear thanks to the protection of the Devil Bitru, no less powerful than his colleague Asmodeus who protected Diana Vaughan.30 The same Bitru was the fiancé of Sophie, just as Asmodeus was of Diana. On October 18, 1883, Bataille reported, a Palladist session was held in Rome. Among the participants was the mysterious Lydia Nemo, an Italian initiate who had received from the Devil the gift of being able to appear in the lodges with the splendid appearance she had when she was thirteen. In Rome, Bitru promised to marry Sophie on December 25, 1895, and that their daughter 26 Ibid., vol. i, pp. 391–395. 27 Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 330–340. 28 Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 349–350. 29 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 816. 30 Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 830–850. 172 chapter 8 would be born on September 29, 1896. When the time would come, Sophie’s daughter would in turn marry another demon, Décarabia, giving birth to a girl who would be the mother of the Antichrist. The reader thus had from Bataille a chronology that permitted the prediction of the advent of the Antichrist in the second half of the 20th century, and indicated in Sophie no less that the greatgrandmother of the Antichrist. The coming of the Antichrist, Bataille added, was solemnly announced in a séance attended by the Italian Prime Minister Francesco Crispi (1819–1901) together with well-known Italian Freemasons, including Lemmi and Ettore Ferrari.31 In the same year, 1893, the Mormon father of Sophie, Phileas Walder, had died. The great-grandmother of the Antichrist did not appear to be too worried, since the corpse of her father had risen eleven times from the grave and even took part in a Palladist banquet, where he ate and drank with great satisfaction.32 The only problems came to Sophie, as usual, from her arch-rival Diana Vaughan, now in a state of “permanent possession”, while previously she was only in “obsession”, by her demon lover Asmodeus. In the final issues of the Diable, it became clear to the readers that the matter went beyond a contest of Luciferian prodigies. When Pike died in 1891, Lemmi was elected as the new Sovereign Pontiff of Palladism, and began to make it slip from a cult of Lucifer, the Devil as the “good God”, to a cult of Satan, the Devil as prince of Evil. Diana, who wanted to keep worshipping the Devil as Lucifer and not as Satan, was about to create a revolt and a schism, in the course of which she would come into conflict again with Sophie. The Diable ended promising a follow up, and referring to a new complementary magazine, signed by the same Doctor Bataille, which would follow month after month the events of Palladism and reveal further sensational episodes.

Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: Lavinsko on March 16, 2022, 12:57:10 PM
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.


Would you happen to have a copy of that article?  I can't find it on the Spectator archives.
Title: Re: Questions about St. Joan of Arc
Post by: Lavinsko on March 16, 2022, 06:41:36 PM
I read the chapter out of "Satanism: A Social History" before I posted and the author seems to follow the usual "hoax" line.  Even Charles Coulombe goes for it, though that may not be a surprise given his gnostic connections.