Tuesday, April 13, 2010

DIVINE MERCY SUNDAY




MERCY SUNDAY - GRACES BEYOND ANY MERE DEVOTION
There are the extraordinary PROMISES (per the revelation to St. Faustina) that Jesus directly grants for Mercy Sunday.
In Addition to these heavenly promises,
the Catholic Church has granted that a *Plenary Indulgence can ALSO be obtained on Mercy Sunday.
The Promises of extraordinary graces made by Jesus go beyond the conditional graces of a plenary Indulgence. The Church gave a plenary indulgence in addition to what St. Faustina said that Jesus would grant for Mercy Sunday. This is the Church’s highest mark of approval and endorsement of the practice of this message and devotion. The Church has all authority of indulgences on earth and this is the highest indulgence that the earthly Church can grant. When the Church granted this highest indulgence, it added credibility to THE PROMISES, which the Church cannot, in itself, grant as a private revelation. The PROMISES come directly from Jesus.
Theological Analysis of the Extraordinary Graces Promised for Mercy Sunday
The most in-depth analysis ever written of the graces of Divine Mercy Sunday was
provided for the Vatican in the 1970's by Rev. Ignacy Rozycki, STD, a leading expert in Poland
on the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, who also served as a member of the International
Theological Commission for the Holy See.
III. The Extraordinary Graces of Divine Mercy Sunday
According to St. Faustina’s Diary, Jesus Christ made a special promise, which she was to communicate to the whole world (Diary, 699):
My daughter, tell the whole world about My inconceivable mercy. I desire that the Feast of Mercy be a refuge and shelter for all souls, and especially for poor sinners. I pour out a whole ocean of graces upon those souls who approach the fount of My mercy.
In three places in her diary, St. Faustina records a promise from our Lord of specific, extraordinary graces He will make available through the devout reception of Holy Communion on this Feast Day; truly a “whole ocean of graces” is contained in these promises:
I want to grant a complete pardon to the souls that will go to Confession and receive Holy Communion on the Feast of My mercy (1109). Whoever approaches the Fount of Life on this day will be granted complete forgiveness of sins and punishment (300).
The soul that will go to Confession and receive Holy Communion will obtain complete forgiveness of sins and punishment (699).
1. The Promise and the Liturgical Tradition
Why would our Lord promise to pour out such extraordinary graces on this particular Feast Day? On the one hand, we should note the liturgical appropriateness of this promise. If the 17 Octave Day of Easter is truly meant to be, as Pope John Paul II once said, a day of “thanksgiving for the goodness God has shown to man in the whole Easter mystery” (see Chapter I above), then we should not be surprised that He promised the most extraordinary spiritual benefits to those who come to Holy Communion on that day in a state of grace, and with the disposition of trust in His merciful love. After all, what better day could there be in the liturgical calendar for such a generous outpouring of divine grace than the day that recapitulates and completes the greatest annual celebration of the Paschal mystery? As Jesus said to St. Faustina, on this special day of the Church’s liturgical year “the very depths of my tender mercy are open. I pour out a whole ocean of graces upon these souls who approach the fount of My Mercy” (Diary, 699). This would also be the reason why Christ asked the Church, through St. Faustina, publicly to venerate the Image of The Divine Mercy on this Feast Day. The Image of Jesus, The Divine Mercy, is to have a special place of honor on the Feast of Mercy because it is a visual reminder of all that Jesus did for us through His Passion, Death, and Resurrection, and a reminder, too, of what He asks of us in return – to trust in Him and be merciful to others:
I want the Image to be solemnly blessed on the first Sunday after Easter, and
I want it to be venerated publicly so that every soul may know about it
(Diary, 341).
In short, just as the Feast Day itself is a summary-celebration of the Paschal mystery, so the Image is the visual, iconic summary of the Paschal message. Pope John Paul II pointed this out in his homily for the canonization of St. Faustina:
From that Heart [of Christ], Sr. Faustina Kowalska, the blessed whom from now on we will call a saint, will see two rays of light shining from that heart and illuminating the world. “The two rays”, Jesus Himself explained to her one day, “represent blood and water” (Diary, entry 299).
Blood and water! We immediately think of the testimony given by the Evangelist John, who, when a soldier on Calvary pierced Christ’s side with his spear, sees blood and water flowing from it (see Jn 19:34). Moreover, if the blood recalls the sacrifice of the Cross and the gift of the Eucharist, the water, in Johannine 18 symbolism, represents not only Baptism but also the gift of the Holy Spirit (see Jn 3:5; 4:14; 7:37-39).
Clearly, the promise from our Lord of extraordinary graces for Divine Mercy Sunday, as well as this request to venerate the Image of Mercy on that day spring from the same source: His desire to make that day the summarizing celebration, proclamation, and application of the graces of His merciful love that flow to us from the Paschal mystery.
2. The Promise Draws us to the Sacraments
Rev. Seraphim Michalenko, MIC, explains to us clearly in his booklet The Divine Mercy:
Message and Devotion another, pastoral intention that the Lord seems to have had in promising extraordinary graces on this Feast day:
Our Lord is also emphasizing, through this promise, the infinite value of Confession and Communion as miracles of mercy. He wants us to realize that since the Eucharist is His own Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, it is the “Fountain of Life” (Diary, 300). The Eucharist is Jesus, Himself, the Living God, longing to pour Himself as Mercy into our hearts.
Why would Our Lord feel the need to emphasize this? Because so many people do not really understand it. They either see no need to receive Holy Communion, or they receive it simply out of habit. As St. Paul explains in his letter to the Corinthians, they eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, “without recognizing the body of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27-29). In His revelations to St. Faustina Our Lord makes it very clear what He is offering us in Holy Communion and how much it hurts Him when we treat His presence with indifference:
My great delight is to unite Myself with souls. … When I come to a
human heart in Holy Communion, My hands are full of all kinds of graces
which I want to give to the soul. But souls do not even pay any attention to
Me; they leave Me to Myself and busy themselves with other things. Oh, how
sad I am that souls do not recognize Love! They treat Me as a dead object
(1385; also see 1288 and 1447).
So, Our Lord’s promise of complete forgiveness is both a reminder and a call. It is a reminder that He is truly present and truly alive in the Eucharist, filled with love for us and waiting for us to turn to Him with trust. And it is a call for us all to be washed clean in His Love through Confession and Holy Communion – no matter how terrible our sins – and begin our lives again. He is offering us a new start.
3. Theological Analysis of the Extraordinary Graces
Promised for Mercy Sunday
The most in-depth analysis ever written of the graces of Divine Mercy Sunday was provided for the Vatican in the 1970’s by Rev. Ignacy Rozycki, STD, a leading expert in Poland on the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, who also served as a member of the International Theological Commission for the Holy See. Fr. Rozycki devoted nearly ten years of his life to the task of making a thorough and systematic study of Sr. Faustina’s writings. The results of his research were written in French: a massive tome of 500 pages which was presented to the Vatican as part of the official investigation into Sr. Faustina’s life and virtues by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. We have provided below a translation of the entire section of Fr. Rozycki’s work relating directly to the extraordinary graces of Divine Mercy Sunday (pp. 428-432):
In this matter four points are beyond all doubt: (a) The “special grace” was promised in the context of the Feast of Mercy. (b) It was directly attached to receiving Holy Communion on this day. © It consists in the total remission of sins and punishment. (d) It is theologically possible.
In the first place, Jesus promised the “special grace” because the purpose of the Feast is realized by this grace in an especially clear and striking manner.
Immediately preceding the promulgation of this promise, Jesus declared:
I desire that the Feast of Mercy be a refuge and shelter for all souls, and especially for poor sinners. On that day the very depths of My tender mercy are open. I pour out a whole ocean of graces upon those souls who approach the fount of My mercy ... On that day are open all the divine floodgates through which graces flow.
His intention seems clear from the words cited above: in order that the Feast truly be a refuge for all souls, the depths of the generosity of Jesus are entirely open on this day to pour out — without any reserve — graces of every kind and every degree, even the most extraordinary. Now, the promise of this extraordinary grace is a promise for all souls that the generosity of Jesus is really without any limit on this day. At the same time, it is for all souls a motivation for them to ask on this day of The Divine Mercy, with great and limitless trust, for all the graces that the Lord wants to lavish on this Sunday.
Secondly, the obtaining of the “special grace” is, according to the 13th revelation, dependent upon the reception of Holy Communion on the first Sunday after Easter: “to approach the Fount of Life” in this context can only mean “to receive Communion.” Of course, the 33rd revelation enumerates two conditions:
Confession and Holy Communion as the proper norm, the stipulation for acquiring the full pardon. But Jesus surely desired that the greatest possible number of the faithful benefit from this grace and consequently, did not require that Communion as well as Confession be made on that same Sunday, since in the case of a large crowd it would be impossible, for example, in parishes with only one priest. It is permitted then to infer that He allows confession to be made several days before the Feast of Mercy; He insists, however, that one receive Holy Communion on the day of the Feast itself. By this requirement, He incorporates the Devotion into the sacramental life of the Church, because the end of the ordinary period for making Easter Communion falls on that Sunday!
Thirdly, the nature of this special grace was defined in the 13th and 33rd revelations in terms which do not leave any ambiguity: the complete remission of sins and punishment, as said before: it is a total remission of all sins — which have not yet been remitted — and of all punishment due for sins. As for the remission of sins, this grace is therefore equal to that of baptism.
Fourthly, the grace of the total remission of sins and punishment is
theologically possible because neither this grace nor the conditions for obtaining
it contradict revealed doctrine. If God wants to bestow this grace by the sacrament
of baptism, why would He not be able to bestow it — if He wants to — by the
Eucharist which is the greatest sacrament? And the requirement of trust, taught by the 13th as well as the 33rd revelation, and absolutely necessary to every act of the Devotion, is only a reminder of the exhortations of Holy Scripture. Even more, the immensity of this [promise of] grace is precisely the most natural way to revive in us the boundless trust that Jesus so much desires that we have on this day of the Feast of Mercy.
For Jesus does not limit His generosity this day only to the one special grace.
On the contrary, He declares in the 33rd revelation that He desires
that the Feast of Mercy be a refuge and shelter for all souls, and especially for poor sinners.
He does not want this Feast to be one of many similar feasts, alongside others.
Rather, to be truly the refuge and shelter for all souls will be its own property
which distinguishes it from all other feasts. Thus, it is in this way that
on that day the very depths of My tender mercy are open. I pour out a whole ocean of graces on souls who approach the Fount of My mercy.
And Jesus piles up expressions which describe the intensity of His desire to lavish graces on this day:
On that day are open all the divine floodgates through which graces flow.
These words end by a call to trust:
Let no soul fear to draw near to me.
This saying consists of a correlation between mercy and trust: for the only reasonable response to the generosity of Mercy is unlimited trust. The declarations of Jesus above: what practical direction do they have? It is necessary to interpret them in the context of the totality of the Devotion. We will notice first that Jesus did not say that the Feast is the only refuge and the only shelter. As we read in the 43rd revelation:
I am giving mankind the last hope of salvation; that is, recourse to My mercy.
There are, therefore, alongside the Feast, other ways of finding refuge in
Mercy; these are the other forms of the Devotion, and above all, unwavering trust,
which is the only means of drawing graces from the Fount of Mercy. [see Diary
entry 1578: The graces of My Mercy are drawn by means of one vessel only,
and that is — trust. The more a souls trusts, the more it will receive.] So, if the
different forms of the Devotion are a recourse to Mercy, the declarations [of Jesus] above are able to have only one meaning: Jesus ardently desires that the Feast of Mercy be for all men without exception — and especially for sinners — the refuge “par excellence,” incomparably more efficacious than all the other forms of the Devotion.
The supreme excellence of this refuge is shown in three ways: first, by the universality of the divine offer. All men — even those who up until now have not practiced the Devotion, even sinners who convert on the day of the Feast — are called to participate in all the graces, in all their extent, that Jesus “prepared” for this feast. Secondly, it is manifest in the fact that all kinds of graces are offered this day to men; spiritual as well as temporal blessings, as much to individuals as to communities and to all humanity which “will not find peace until it turns to the fount of my Mercy.” Third, all degrees of graces are this day within the reach of 23 all, provided that with great trust they ask for great graces. Such an extraordinary abundance of graces are not attached to any other form of the Devotion. And since Mercy rejoices when it is able to give much, the heart of Jesus also delights in this feast. The extraordinary generosity that the Savior wants to show is also the reason why the practice of mercy is not necessarily required on this day itself in order to receive the special grace and the other promises. The Feast of Mercy will become for everyone truly the refuge “par excellence,” if we fulfill three conditions.
1. If we will bear in mind the extraordinary fervor with which Jesus wants to fill us with an abundance of graces on this day.
2. If we have the courage to bring to the Mercy of Jesus all our needs —known and unknown, temporal and spiritual, individual and communal — in all their real extent (which often lies beyond our knowledge).
3. If we will present [our needs] with a trust that is not only unwavering, but also boundless, because it is trust that opens up to us the treasures of Mercy. In 1981, at a symposium in Cracow celebrating the 50th anniversary of the revelations given to Sr. Faustina, Fr. Rozycki delivered a lecture entitled The Essential Features of the Devotion to The Divine Mercy in which he summarized his analysis of the extraordinary graces of Divine Mercy Sunday. As the phrasing of this passage has given rise to misunderstanding on occasion, we will quote the passage below, and then provide clarification:
The most exceptional grace promised by Jesus for the Feast of the Divine Mercy is something considerably greater than a plenary indulgence. The latter consists only of the remission of temporal punishments for committed sins, but is never the remission of sins itself. The exceptional grace of [the Communion on] Divine Mercy Sunday is also greater than the graces of the other sacraments, with the exception of the Sacrament of Baptism, for the remission of all sins and punishment is found only in the sacramental grace of Baptism. In the promises 24 cited, Christ tied the remission of all sins and punishment to the reception of Holy Communion on the Feast of Divine Mercy. In other words, in this regard, He raised it to the rank of a “second Baptism.” It is obvious that in order to effect a complete forgiveness of sins and punishment the Holy Communion received on the Feast of Divine Mercy must not only be partaken of worthily, but it must also fulfill the basic requirements of the Divine Mercy devotion. ... However, received unworthily, without trust in Divine Mercy and devoid of some deed of mercy toward neighbor, it would be a contradiction of Devotion to the Divine Mercy. Instead of the exceptional grace, it would bring down upon the recipient the Divine Wrath. The spiritual good of the faithful demands that they know what graces they can obtain, and under what conditions through the reception of Holy Communion on the Feast of Divine Mercy.
We should note several things about Fr. Rozycki’s summary statement here:
1. By “second Baptism” Fr. Rozycki did not mean a repetition of baptism, or some kind of additional baptism (as though an eighth sacrament) but a renewal of grace in the soul akin to that enjoyed as a result of the reception of the sacrament of Baptism. That this was Fr. Rozycki’s meaning is clear from the longer text (quoted above) which he had prepared for the Vatican.
2. According to Jesus’ promise the extraordinary grace of the complete remission of sins and punishment is received from the worthy reception of Holy Communion on Mercy Sunday. It is not an extra-sacramental grace! This is clear from the longer text (quoted above) and from the shorter summary, (also quoted above) where Fr. Rozycki states this explicitly several times. Thus, when Fr. Rozycki writes in his shorter text that the exceptional grace of Divine Mercy Sunday “is also greater than the graces of the other sacraments, with the exception of the Sacrament of Baptism,” he does not mean to imply that this exceptional grace comes to us other than through the reception of Holy Communion on that day — rather, he is simply telling us that, ordinarily, only the sacrament of Baptism effects in the soul the “complete forgiveness of sins and punishment.” Reception of the Eucharist in a state of grace ordinarily remits only venial sin, while strengthening the soul against both venial and mortal sin (Catechism, 1394-1395). But on Mercy Sunday, according to Fr. Rozycki (based on our Lord’s words, to St. Faustina), reception 25 of Holy Communion pours out upon the soul a complete renewal of baptismal grace. Of course, this immediately raises the question of whether it is proper to the nature of the Eucharist to be the source of such an extraordinary measure of grace. The answer is clear from the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and of the magisterium itself. St. Thomas declares very clearly:
“Moreover, not only are all the other sacraments ordered toward the Eucharist, but they produce their proper grace only in virtue of their relationship to the Eucharist.
Finally, we should bear in mind that theological analysis of Divine Mercy Sunday, and the extraordinary graces available on that day, has only just begun. In the future, no doubt, new perspectives will arise, both to extend the insights of Fr. Michalenko and Fr. Rozycki, and to supplement their work. For example, there is a theological tradition in the Church which states that a complete renewal of baptismal grace is available to the soul at every sacramental confession, if the soul comes to the Lord with perfect contrition, i.e., perfect love of God. St. Catherine of Siena, for example, writes in The Dialogue (no. 75) of how martyrdom, baptism by desire, and sacramental confession undertaken with a pure heart, all wash the soul as clean as baptism itself. Our Lord said to her:
By shedding both blood and water I showed you the holy baptism of water that you receive through the power of my blood. But I was also showing you the baptism of blood, and this in two ways. The first touches those who are baptized in their own blood poured out for me. Though they could not have the other baptism, their own blood has power because of mine. Others are baptized in fire when they lovingly desire baptism but cannot have it. ...
There is a second way the soul receives this baptism of blood, figuratively speaking. This my divine charity provided because I know how people sin 27 because of their weakness. Not that weakness or anything else can force them to sin if they do not want to, but being weak they do fall into deadly sin and lose the grace they had drawn from the power of the blood in holy baptism. So my divine charity had to leave them an ongoing baptism of blood accessible by heartfelt contrition and a holy confession as soon as they can confess to my ministers who hold the key to the blood. This blood the priest pours over the soul in absolution. But if they cannot confess, heartfelt contrition is enough for the hand of my mercy to give them the fruit of this precious blood. ...
So you see, this baptism is ongoing, and the soul ought to be baptized in it right up to the end, in the way I have told you. In this baptism you experience that though my act of suffering on the cross was finite, the fruit of that suffering which you have received through me is infinite. This is because of the infinite divine nature joined with finite human nature [in Christ].
According to St. Catherine of Siena, therefore, the complete renewal of baptismal grace is available to the soul from the Mercy of God in a variety of ways, and a renewal of these graces should be a constant feature of the life of the soul journeying toward perfection. If so, then what is so “extraordinary” about the grace of baptismal renewal offered to souls on Divine Mercy Sunday? Is not such an extraordinary grace always available to us? First, let us examine the nature of the extraordinary grace itself. One can, theoretically, receive the complete remission of sins and punishment any time from the sacrament of Confession followed by Holy Communion, all undertaken with the perfect love of God. But how many of the faithful ordinarily receive these sacraments with such a pure disposition? Usually, the intentions of the penitent-communicant are more mixed, including fear of God as well as love, and, to some extent, with continuing attachment to their sins. As a result, while their sins are forgiven, there remains the temporal punishment due to sin (see Catechism 1472-1473). Of course, this temporal punishment can be completely taken away through a plenary indulgence, granted by the Church, for the devout performance of certain designated good works (such as the recitation of prayers, giving of alms, visiting of a shrine, etc.) – but, 28 again, if these works are not undertaken with pure love of God, then the indulgence is only partial, not plenary. The complete remission of sins and punishment, ex opere operato, is ordinary only available to the soul at baptism. What Jesus Christ has promised to the world, through St. Faustina, is that this complete renewal of this same baptismal grace – the complete remission of sins and punishment – is also available to the faithful through the reception in a state of grace of Holy Communion on Divine Mercy Sunday. In other words, one could argue that what makes Mercy Sunday so extraordinary is not just the eminence of the graces offered, but also, uniquely, the lesser requirement for receiving them: the reception of Holy Communion by a heart filled only with trust in Divine Mercy. This “trust,” it might be said, is not yet an act of perfect love of God, not yet perfect contrition. For trust in God involves merely a cleaving to God because of His promised benefits. As such, it is, merely, a precondition for the formation, by divine grace, of perfect love in the soul: the pure, selfless love of God for His own sake. Trust is the opening of the soul by faith, hope, humility, and repentance, to receive all the most eminent graces — and especially the gift of perfect charity — from the Heart of the Savior. Fr. Rozycki describes trust in this way:
This same attitude of life is described by St. Paul and by the whole of Christian theology as hope, the divine virtue of hope which springs from a living faith in the infinity of God’s love and goodness towards us. It is indissolubly tied to humility, that is the sincere and deep conviction that all good within us and which we do is the work and gift of God; that we possess nothing except that which we have from God. This trust-hope constitutes the opening of a soul’s receiving Divine grace, and the requesting of it is an attitude of continuous and most effective prayer.
Truly, this very disposition — trust, and nothing more — is what the Lord asks us to bring to Divine Mercy Sunday, in order to receive the whole ocean of His mercy (diary entries 1520, and 1578):
I have opened My Heart as a living fountain of mercy. Let all souls draw life from it. Let them approach this sea of mercy with great trust. ...
The more a soul trusts, the more it will receive.
Still, one might well ask: why are the “floodgates” of Divine Mercy said to be fully open, on this basis, only on one particular Feast Day, rather than at every Holy Communion? This objection seems much like the objection of some of the radical Protestant reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries to the claim that Holy Communion imparts special graces to souls, in a unique and more intimate manner than is normally available to souls from the practice of communal prayer. Why do we limit God’s Mercy in this way? The answer is that we do not intend to limit God’s Mercy – He is always free to pour out His Mercy in any way, at any time – but we do intend to believe His promises. From Holy Scripture we know that the Father promised that a unique and intimate communion with His Son can be obtained through the Holy Eucharist, and from Christ’s prophetic revelations to St. Faustina, we know (that is, we know by “prophetic” rather than “theological faith”) that He has promised an exceptional abundance of graces – a complete renewal of Baptism – to those who receive Holy Communion in a state of grace, with great trust in His Mercy, on Divine Mercy Sunday. This is not because Christ is “stingy,” or withholds such plenary grace at other times, but because His own divine way is to bestow His graces in a manner and time which best enables us to receive them. For example, to creatures made up of soul and body, He willed to impart spiritual graces in a bodily manner: through consecrated, transubstantiated bread and wine. The manner of the gift was thereby suited to the nature and needs of its intended recipients. Similarly, to souls struggling to accept the Love of Christ, and to love Him in return (that is, to all of us) our Lord promised that the most extraordinary graces of His Mercy could be obtained merely through reception of Holy Communion, with trust in The Divine Mercy, at the very time – indeed on the very day – in the liturgical cycle best suited to maximize and predispose souls to trust in Him: the culmination and summary of the celebration of the Paschal Mystery, the very Octave Day of Easter.
A PRIMER ON INDULGENCES

Taken from:
http://www.st-tel.net/~sacredheart/front_page_000088.htm

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Testimonies to Fatima's Miracle of the Sun







Massively Witnessed Vision Proves God’s
Existence & Jesus’ Divinity


70,000 saw the miraculous apparitions in Portugal.


“The Most Obvious
and Colossal Miracle in History
”


ON OCTOBER 13, 1917 God gave humankind the most spectacular, miraculous and persuasive sign of His existence, since biblical times. With this single even He proved his existence and affirmed the divine truths of the New Testament.

In a rain-soaked pasture near Fátima, Portugal, an estimated 70,000 people had gathered to see this event; God had drawn them there by granting a prior succession of apparitions for several months that summer; and in July His heavenly messenger had made a promise--widely published by the media--that, at the noon hour on October 13, all the world might observe undeniable proof of God.

~

Cited below are many witness accounts from that momentous day; elsewhere on this website are photos, newspaper accounts and personal memoirs.

As you read them, please acknowledge in your honest heart the reality of God's loving concern and mercy towards us. In God's New Testament Gospels we learn that we are lost sinners deceived and oppressed by God's enemy Satan; and thus God calls us to change our allegiances away from earthliness and upward, toward Heaven. Please commit your life to obeying God's word spoken through His Son Jesus in the Bible.

Witness Testimonials

WRITTEN DEPOSITION by Portuguese aristocrat Baron of Alvaiazere, to Church investigators:

“. . . An indescribable impression overtook me. I only know that I cried out: I believe! I believe! And tears ran from my eyes. I was amazed, in ecstasy before the demonstration of Divine power . . . converted in that moment.”

Testimony of a Dr. Formigao, Professor at Santarem seminary

“As if like a bolt from the blue, the clouds were wrenched apart, and the sun at its zenith appeared in all its splendour. It began to revolve vertiginously on its axis, like the most magnificent fire-wheel that could be imagined, taking on all the colours of the rainbow and sending forth multi-coloured flashes of light, producing the most astounding effect. This sublime and incomparable spectacle, which was repeated three distinct times, lasted for about ten minutes.

“The immense multitude, overcome by the evidence of such a tremendous prodigy, threw themselves on their knees. The Creed, the Hail Mary, acts of contrition, burst from all lips, and tears, tears of thanksgiving and repentance sprang from all eyes.”

Report of John Carreira, a boy at the time of the miracle, who eventually became a sacristan at the Fátima shrine, serving for 50 years. On 13 October 1917, onlookers in the crowd pressed him against the three visionary children, so that
“my knees jammed between Lucia's and Francisco's feet,” he later wrote.

“…I saw the sun spinning round and it seemed about to come down on us. It revolved like a bicycle wheel. Afterwards, it returned to its place . . . I wasn't afraid, but I heard people cry out: 'Oh, we are going to die! We are going to die!'”

Lawyer Carlos Mendes declared:

“I saw the sun as if it were a ball of fire, begin to move in the clouds. It had been raining all morning and the sky was full of clouds, but the rain had stopped. It lasted for several seconds, crushingly pressing down on us. Wan faces, standing here, from every side great ejaculations, acts of contrition, of the love of God. An indescribable moment! We feel it. We remain dominated by it. But it is not possible to describe it.”

Antonio de Oliveiro, farmer, said:

“I looked at the sun and saw it spinning like a disc, rolling on itself. I saw people changing colour. They were stained with the colours of the rainbow. The sun seemed to fall down from the sky… The people said that the world was going to end . . . They were afraid and screaming.”

Maria dos Prazeres, widow:

“I saw the sun turn upon itself; it seemed to fall from the sky The people around me were crying that the world was going to end.”

Dominic Reis (in TV interview in the U.S. in l960)

“The sun started to roll from one place to another and changed to blue, yellow -- all colours. Then we see the sun coming towards the children. Everyone was crying out. Some started to confess their sins because there was no priest around there . . . My mother grabbed me to her and started to cry, saying: 'It is the end of the world!' And then we see the sun come right into the trees.”

Maria Candida da Silva

“Suddenly the rain stopped and a great splendour appeared and the children cried: 'Look at the sun!' I saw the sun coming down, feeling that it was falling to the ground. At that moment, I collapsed.”

Rev. Joao Menitra

“I looked and saw that the people were in various colours -- yellow, white, blue. At the same time, I beheld the sun spinning at great speed and very near me. I at once thought: I am going to die.”.

Joaquim Lourenco, a schoolboy, was in the village of Alburitel, a few miles from Fátima.. He later became canon lawyer of the diocese of Leiria.

“… I looked fixedly at the sun, which seemed pale and did not hurt my eyes.

“Looking like a ball of snow, revolving on itself, it suddenly seemed to come down in a zigzag, menacing the earth.

“Terrified, I ran and hid myself among the people, who were weeping and expecting the end of the world at any moment. It was a crowd which had gathered outside our local village school, and we had all left classes and run into the streets because of the cries and surprised shouts of men and women who were in the street in front of the school when the miracle began.

“There was an unbeliever there who had spent the morning mocking the 'simpletons' who had gone off to Fátima just to see an ordinary girl. He now seemed paralyzed, his eyes fixed on the sun. He began to tremble from head to foot, and lifting up his arms, fell on his knees in the mud, crying out to God.

“But meanwhile the people continued to cry out and to weep, asking God to pardon their sins. We all ran to the two chapels in the village, which were soon filled to overflowing. During those long moments of the solar prodigy, objects around us turned all colours of the rainbow.

Abano Barros (a building contractor, who later became a U.S. citizen) witnessed the apparition from the village of Minde, eight miles away…

“I was watching sheep, as was my daily task, and suddenly, there in the direction of Fátima, I saw the sun fall from the sky. I thought it was the end of the world.”

Poet Alfonso Lopes Viera saw the miracle from a distance of 30 miles at the ocean-side town of San Pedro der Muel.

The miracle was also seen in Pombal, 32 miles north of Fátima.

The total land-area of visibility, based on witness interviews, was approximately 32 by 20 miles.

No records of the solar phenomena were recorded by any of the world's observatories

Summation by a Scientist...

Fr. Pio Sciatizzi, professor of algebra and trigonometry at the Gregorian University, Rome, author of Fátima in the Light of Faith and Science in the 1940s wrote this:

“Of the historic reality of this event there can be no doubt whatsoever. That it was outside and against known laws can be proved by certain simple scientific considerations… Given the indubitable reference to God and the general context of the event, it seems that we must attribute to Him alone the most obvious and colossal miracle of history.”

NOTE: The above reports and others were published in 1961 in Meet the Witnesses, by John Haffert, International Lay Delegate of the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fátima. (A.M.I. Press, Washington, N.J., U.S.A.).

What the Apparitions May Mean...

GOD'S EXTRAORDINARY GRACE at Fátima quite intentionally evokes to our minds the first Advent of Christ, 2000 years ago. This connection can be seen by carefully comparing the events at Fátima with several remarkably parallel events recounted in the New Testament. Surely, this affirmation was a part of God's deeper purpose at Fátima; He wished to counter-act modernism, and the inundation of inculcated doubts and arrogant denials of the New Testament. Fátima should be thought of, above all else, as a powerful sign of Christ's divinity, in perfect harmony with the witness of the New Testament.

Parallels between Fátima and Christ's first Advent are numerous;

  • For instance, the solar miracle on 13 October 1917 was foretold by an angel, just as Christ's birth was proclaimed by the angel Gabriel.

  • In Christ's life and ministry, many wonders and miracles occurred in the sight of great crowds of witnesses. They then spread the news of Him far and wide -- just as occurred following the Fátima miracles (which took place during six months in succession on the 13th of each month, May to October 1917).

  • The celestial or skyward nature of the final Fátima apparition is perfectly consistent with biblical-style heavenly signs, both in Old Testament times and in New Testament prophecies of the Endtimes.

  • Regarding the public apparitions, their visual appearance, characteristics and "sound effects" strongly evoke several similar divine appearances recorded in the New Testament, such as Mark 9.2-9 (Christ's Transfiguration) and John 12.28-30 (God's voice is heard as thunder).

  • Finally, on October 13, 1917 the many successive months of recurring apparitions ended most spectacularly and publicly. On this date came the so-called 'Sun Dance Miracle' of 14 minutes duration; and this, too, occurred high in the sky and near the earth, as a radiant, dazzling Sign -- just as Christ's Resurrection and skyward Ascension brought to a close his earthly mission
    (Acts 1.9-11).

  • Surely, the Fátima 'Sun Dance' is a portent that Christ shall return from the heavens, just as the two angels on Pentecost Sunday declared He would (Acts 1.9-11).

~

THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE of Fátima for the Christian faith is monumental. Fátima powerfully affirms the divine truth embodied in Christ -- whom the Bible proclaims is God's Son; God is thereby manifested in flesh and bequeathed to his followers as a risen, spiritual Feast.

For if God could cause the sun to gyrate wonderfully at Fátima -- to descend and to rise up again (as thousands of testimonials affirm) -- then God could surely have raised Jesus from the grave; and, after some weeks on earth, Jesus was lifted up into Heaven before witnesses -- just as the New Testament states (Acts 1.9-11).

In a modern-day miracle, God in Heaven has shattered the crazed pretensions and materialistic delusions besetting modernitys.

All that remains for you, is to acknowledge the historical truth and then abide by the implications. Surely, the only honorable response is to accede to the divine reality: We should all bow in obeisance to Heaven’s true Messenger, God's Son Jesus Christ.

Friday, December 4, 2009

Locations for Five First Saturdays Book


The five first Saturdays / Damien F. Mackey

Author
Mackey, Damien F. (Damien Francis)

Subjects
Mary Blessed Virgin, Saint; Bible. - Criticism, interpretation, etc; Fatima, Our Lady of.

Available from
NSW
TAS
VIC
Catholic Institute of Sydney. Veech Library.
University of Tasmania. University of Tasmania Library.
Call Number(s)
777893; held
State Library of Victoria.
Call Number(s)
slv
sbdp.iniGettingTab("8389138", "8389138");
Versions / Editions
versions:
2 (out of 2)Expand all / Collapse all
Title / Author, Edition
Date
Language
Format
Locations

The five first Saturdays / Damien F. Mackey.
Drysdale, Vic. : Call for Mary Publications, 138 pages
1994
English
Book
2
Title
The five first Saturdays /​ Damien F. Mackey.
Author
Mackey, Damien F. (Damien Francis)
Published
Drysdale, Vic. : Call for Mary Publications, 1994.
Physical Description
138 p. ; 21 cm.
Subjects
Mary Blessed Virgin, Saint -- Apparitions and miracles -- Portugal -- Fatima.
Fatima, Our Lady of.
Fátima (Portugal) -- Church history.
Notes
Includes index.
Language
English
Dewey Number
232.9170946945
Libraries Australia ID
13904686
Record ID
NBD13904686
Contributed by
Libraries Australia
Available from
TAS
VIC
Buy a copy
University of Tasmania. University of Tasmania Library.
Call Number(s)
777893; held
State Library of Victoria.
Call Number(s)
slv
Bookshops
We were unable to find this edition in any bookshop we are able to search.
Of the bookshops we are able to search, your item was found at the following :
You also may like to try some of these bookshops.
sbdp.iniGettingTab("8389138", "9675419");

No Tags for this version

Add a tag Public Private login Add tag
Separate multiple tags with a semicolon test cricket; Perth (WA)
No Comments or reviews for this version
Add a comment Public Private login Your comments Rate this version no rating 0 1 2 3 4 5Add comment
$("#accordion9675419") .accordion({
active: false,
autoHeight: false,
collapsible: true
});

Separate this version?
Does this belong here? If this is not really the same "thing" as the other versions in this work, click here to move it (or read more about how to make this decision.)
sbdp.iniVersionMore("#DLw8389138i9675419");

The five first Saturdays / by Damien F. Mackey.
Sydney : "Call for Mary" publications, 138 pages

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

The Drama of Queen Esther, Type of Our Lady of Fatima, Re-invented as a Templar Conspiracy




WERE THE TEMPLARS, OR THE ENEMIES OF THE JEWS, ARRESTED ON THE 13TH DAY OF THE MONTH?

by
Damien F. Mackey


Introduction

For some, the origin of the 13th as being an unlucky day has arisen from a famous conspiracy in the Old Testament’s Book of Esther; for others it may have come about due to an incident in modern European history about which very much has been written in recent times. In the first case, in the Book of Esther, it is the plot of the evil Haman and his co-conspirators to annihilate all the Jews in the 13th day of the month Adar (Esther 3:6-13). This is perhaps the first famous 13th day incident in history, that is if you believe that the story of Queen Esther is in fact history, rather than just a pious and edifying fiction.* But some historians regard the arrest of the leaders of the Knights Templar on the 13th day of October, 1307, as the reason why the 13th day is considered to be unlucky. Sharan Newman has considered the thirteenth in the context of the Templars in her brand new book, The Real History Behind the Templars (Penguin 2009, p. 249):



I have often heard that our superstition about Friday the thirteenth being an unlucky day stems from the arrest of the Templars. It’s very difficult to trace the origin of a folk belief. It does seem that the thirteenth was an unlucky number long before the Templars, and there are traditions that Friday is an unlucky day, perhaps stemming from Friday being the day of Jesus’ crucifixion. I haven’t been able to discover when the two beliefs were joined. It was certainly unlucky for Jacques [de Molay] and the rest of the Templars. In fact, Jacques’ world was shattered in the predawn hours of the next morning, Friday, October 13, when the Temple in Paris was invaded by agents of the king. “All the Templars that could be found in the kingdom of France were, all at once, in the same moment, seized and locked up in different prisons, after an order and decree of the king”.



So which of these views, if either, is the correct one? I would say both. But how, both?

When reading Newman’s critical account of the famous Templar incident I was struck for the first time (even though I had read about this many times before) by the host of likenesses in the overall account of this gripping story with the details of the biblical Book of Esther.







* We in the AMAIC do believe that the Book of Esther is a true history, and have written what we consider to be the historical reconstruction of it during the ancient Median empire. See our article, “Esther: A Proposed History” (http://bookofesther.blog.com/2008/05/15/esther-a-proposed-history/). We have also written in The Five First Saturdays book (http://amaic2.blogspot.com/2008/04/five-first-saturdays-of-our-lady-of.html) of a modern parallel to the story of Esther in the miraculous apparitions of Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima, from May 13 to October 13, 1917. The comparisons are amazing. The idea is that God sees all history at a glance and uses Old Testament types, such as Queen Esther, for the more important New Testament realities, such as the Virgin Mary (here in her victorious guise of Our Lady of the Rosary, a “new Queen Esther”). Fatima is our version of why the 13th day is most significant, having its most ancient Old Testament forerunner in the victory in the Book of Esther.



Just to take as a starting-point the brief account given above by Newman, we have here all the basic elements that we find also in the plot of the Book of Esther, namely: The leader of a group of supposed conspirators arrested without warning at the behest of the king (not mentioned in the above account), by “agents of the king”, on the thirteenth day of a month, with his fellow conspirators also seized “all at once”.

This action was followed by the execution of the leader and of all of his followers.

Both accounts are fascinating. The Book of Esther is considered by some to be a well worked out piece of literature, with not too much in it by way of historical reality. And, there is again so much intrigue surrounding the Knights Templar - as nearly anyone living today would probably know, thanks to authors such as Dan Brown - that it is often hard to separate what is fact about them from what is fiction. Books continue to be churned out on this fascinating subject. The logistics of the arrest of these most formidable knights, on the 13th day, “in the same moment”, for instance, can almost beggar belief. And for what reason? There is no unanimity at all about the why’s and the wherefore’s of it. It is all a bit bizarre, something like the cruel execution of the old and amiable Socrates.

In a recent “Alpha and Omega” series of historical reconstructions (some might call them historical deconstructions), dedicated to Jesus Christ, the Alpha and Omega and Lord of all history, we have argued that some key Old Testament personages and events have, strangely, been sucked into the Black Hole of so-called ‘Dark Ages’ history (600-900 AD), where they have been re-cast - given a modern colouring (names, geography). The supposed incident of king Philip the IV’s capture of the chief Templars, on that fateful 13th day of October 1307, is outside that timescale. However, thanks to Newman’s critical account of it, I have been suddenly struck by the host of likenesses in the overall account of it with the Book of Esther, with which I am well familiar.

Though this event, as just said, falls a bit outside the ‘Dark Ages’ period, it, too, seems to be largely fictional. I am not going to go so far as to deny the historical existence of the main players in the drama, but I am going to make bold as to insist that many of the dramatic events in this terrible tale are completely fictitious as to AD time, though they did actually occur (with different names and geography, of course) back in about the C6th BC, in an equally terrifying conspiracy of biblical proportions: the story of Queen Esther. It will be the purpose of this article to unravel the modern tale by showing how it, in its basic elements, finds its real place in the Book of Esther.



An Important Note About the Characters Involved




As was the case in my article, “Beware of Greeks Bearing Myths” (http://bookofjob-amaic.blogspot.com/search/label/Beware%20of%20Greeks%20Bearing%20Gifts) - in which I had argued that the biblical books of Tobit and Job underlie much of Homer’s Odyssey - I had noted that what certain characters might have done or said in the original (biblical) versions, can be, in the case of the copycat version, transferred to another character: “I need to point out that it sometimes happens that incidents attributed to the son, in the Book of Tobit, might, in The Odyssey, be attributed to the son's father, or vice versa (or even be attributed to some less important character). The same sort of mix occurs with the female characters” (see also: http://www.specialtyinterests.net/lost_and_found_cultural_foundations.html#io), so now do I say the same thing again in the case of the Book of Esther as absorbed into the presumed C14th AD scenario.

So who are the main players in the supposed C14th incident involving the Knights Templar, who I believe find their basis in the Book of Esther?

Most obviously, to begin with, there is the king.



The King




King Ahasuerus in the Book of Esther and King Philip IV le Bel (“the Fair”) in the C14th. Both can be competent, but they are also flawed. Both are keen on money. Both have a tendency towards gullibility - being “duped and taken advantage of by his entourage” is a description of King Philip that we shall encounter below - he being prepared to leave important affairs in the hands of his trusted officials. Philip IV’s supposed contemporary, Bernard Saisset, certainly thought that Philip le Bel was all show and no substance. Thus Newman (p. 241):



One comment that Saisset made became famous throughout Europe. “Our king resembles an owl, the fairest of birds but worthless. He is the handsomest man in the world, but he only knows how to look at people unblinkingly, without speaking”.



And similarly, p. 244:



Historians have disagreed as to how much Philip was the instigator of the deeds attributed to him. ….



Another contemporary said, “Our king is an apathetic man, a falcon. While the Flemings acted, he passed his time in hunting …. He is a child; he does not see that he is being duped and taken advantage of by his entourage” ….



This aspect of the king’s make up is certainly apparent at least in his counterpart in the Book of Esther, king Ahasuerus (of whom we do not have a physical description). This king Ahasuerus, after he had been duped by Haman and his fellow conspirators, seems then to have come to his senses, to have matured. Thus he decrees with the wisdom of hindsight (Esther 16:8-9): “In the future we will take care to render our kingdom quiet and peaceable for all, by changing our methods and always judging what comes before our eyes with more equitable consideration”.

Still, Ahasuerus must have been basically a most competent king to have been able to rule over so massive an empire (127 provinces, Esther 1:1). It is only to be expected that he would have had to delegate responsibilities to his ministers. He had an active and close-knit bureaucracy (Esther 12:10: 1:13, 14; 2:14; 3:12; 4:6; 7:9) and he kept close about him “sages who knew the laws (for this was the king’s procedure toward all who were versed in law and custom” (1:13). He had also a most efficient courier and postal service (3:13; 8:1; 12:22). Newman has made some favourable comments on King Philip as an administrator (p. 245): “From looking at the records, I’m inclined to think he was smarter than people thought and not just a puppet …”.



Another of the significant changes in King Philip’s reign is his reliance on lawyers to maintain the workings of the state. Unlike his ancestors’, Philip’s advisers were not relatives or knights who owed him military service, but legal administrators. “The strongest, most highly developed … branch of the government was the judicial system” …. Philip was a master at using this system to give legal justification for all his actions, including annexing the land of other countries, bringing down a pope, expelling the Jews, and, of course, destroying the Templars.

His legacy is still being disputed. In many ways he strengthened the French government …. He established a weblike bureaucracy that, as far as I can tell, still survives.



Essentially this is all perfectly apt for king Ahasuerus as well. Did he not, for instance, employ his legal team to determine the case of his first wife, Queen Vashti, whom he subsequently dismissed on their advice (Esther 12:12-21)? – thereby paving the way for the young Esther. He also greatly strengthened his kingdom, adding further tribute to his treasuries (Esther 10:1-2):



King Ahasuerus laid tribute on the land and on the islands of the sea [presumably Greece]. All the acts of his power and might, and the full account of the high honor of Mordecai, to which the king advanced him, are they not written in the annals of the kings of Media and Persia?



The Wicked Conspirator




In the Book of Esther the chief conspirator is of course Haman himself, who, as we have read, conspires to massacre all the Jews. Haman is the archetypal secret Masonic or Illuminati type of conspirator, bent on world domination. Now Jacques de Molay, because of the ambiguity (good and bad) associated with him, also partly fills the role of Haman, as the wicked conspirator, but partly, too, he emerges as the righteous persecuted party. Newman tells as follows of this most enigmatic Jacques de Molay (p. 227):



Jacques de Molay, the final Grand Master of the Templars, has become a figure of legend. To some he was a martyr, to others a heretic. He was either the victim of a plot or justly punished for the crimes of the order. Plays have been written about him. A Masonic youth group is named after him. Was he the last master of a secret society? Was he a heretic who denied the divinity of Christ? Or was he just a devout soldier caught up in the snares of the king of France, a relic of a dying world?



Who was this man who presided over the Templars in their last days?



Similarly Guillaume de Nogaret, the king’s adviser, can on the one hand represent the wicked Haman in the C14th saga, whilst, on the other hand, he can appear to be the hero, or righteous adviser, like Mordecai, who got rid of a most pernicious influence (Haman/fallen Templars). It is de Nogaret who apparently organises the 13th day capture of the Templars. For some, though de Nogaret definitely had an evil (Haman-like) reputation. Thus Newman (pp. 244-245):



[King Philip’s] close adviser Guillaume de Nogaret has been blamed for every evil thing Philip did, especially regarding Pope Boniface and the Temple. It’s possible that Philip was easily duped. It’s also possible that Philip, like many people, preferred to make a good impression on the public and let underlings take the heat. He might have been a Teflon king.

…. I’m sure the matter will continue to be debated for years.



“[Nogaret] also earned the enmity of a much better writer than he”, Newman goes on to tell (p. 274). “In the Divine Comedy Dante compared Nogaret to Pontius Pilate …”.

This particular Guillaume may very well merge in the story of the Templars with Guillaume de Paris, the Inquisitor General of Paris, whose directions King Philip was, as we shall read below, inclined to follow.



The Persecuted Jews




Persecuted Jews are a common factor in both ‘histories’, the biblical and the C14th. Newman considers the Jews in our context in a section, “Philip and the Jews”, pp. 243-244:



Money still being a problem, Philip’s next target was the Jewish population … they were already set apart from the rest of the population and could be more easily targeted. They were not numerous and concentrated mostly in the major cities. Jews were also considered a separate society ….

By 1306 … Philip began looking for a new source of cash. In the Jews he suddenly noticed a section of the population that had a good deal of disposable income and who wouldn’t be missed at all.

…. Philip made a plan to expel the Jews and take their property. His excuse was that they were known usurers who gouged honest Christians with exorbitant interest ….



Actually it was Haman who had prompted the king about the Jews in the kingdom, owing to the fact that the Jew, Mordecai, had refused to do obeisance to Haman, despite the king’s directives. In the following account, Haman, after having cast lots and having determined on the 13th as the most propitious day, then tells king Ahasuerus about these unco-operative Jews in his kingdom. It is Haman, too, who adds the money element to it. The singularity of the Jews is again here, as in the case of Philip IV, a major issue (Esther 3:8-9):



‘There is a certain people scattered and separated among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom; their laws are different from those of every other people, and they do not keep the king’s laws, so that it is not appropriate for the king to tolerate them. If it pleases the king, let a decree be issued for their destruction, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who have charge of the king’s business, so that they may put it into the king’s treasuries’.



Apparently the Templars were also amongst the beneficiaries of the Jewish purge (Newman, p. 244):



Evidence that the Templars weren’t expecting to be put among the outsiders was the fact they bought the synagogue complex in Belvèze either from the fleeing Jews or from the king. The complex was walled and had a moat, perfect to the needs of the Templars ….



That King Philip IV was interested in money and pomp is apparent from any written account of him. And these identical factors also seem to be well to the fore in the Book of Esther in regard to king Ahasuerus. Thus he, in a great banquet, “displayed the great wealth of his kingdom and the splendor and pomp of his majesty for many days, one hundred eighty days in all” (Esther 1:4). Just as Haman had provided big money for the king’s treasury, “so that the king would not suffer any loss”, so presumably had “the treasurer of the Templars [given] Philip a loan of 200,000 florins … enormous loan …” (Newman, p. 231). Around 1297, the king had collected another sum from the Templars (p. 230): “…King Philip had borrowed 2,500 livres from the Temple”.

Haman seems to know the empire better than does the king, as he has to tell the king of the geography of the Jews. The Jews were largely at this time in the ‘Babylonian Captivity’, due to the destruction of their city and Temple some decades before by king Nebuchednezzar II. And indeed we read that there was also a ‘Babylonian Captivity’ of Temple Knights as late as 1302, but by the Saracens, supposedly, not by the Chaldeans (Newman p. 230): “… the brethren of the Temple were dishonourably conducted to Babylon…”.

Likewise, Jacques de Molay well knew the kingdom of his king and beyond it, due to his vast travels (ibid.): “The next two years [1294-1295] were spent in a tireless crisscross of the countries in which the Templars were most invested: France, Provence, Burgundy, Spain, Italy, and England”.



The Band of Conspirators and/or the Persecuted



The enigmatic Knights Templar are at once - because of the mystery surrounding them - the dark conspirators, Haman’s allies, of the Book of Esther, but they are also the ones who, like the persecuted in the Book of Esther, are marked out for a 13th day annihilation. The “rival operation” (as discussed in our Five First Saturdays book), the complete bouleversement in the plot of the Book of Esther, with the persecuted suddenly becoming the persecutors, is what has apparently caused so much of the confusion.

The tension between the two warring sides, symbolised in “Mordecai’s Dream” by the “two great dragons” (Esther 11:2-12), is picked up in the Templar story, as we shall see, in the frequent rivalry and competition between the Knights Templar and the Hospitallers, who outlast them. “The Templars and Hospitallers are often seen as rivals, even enemies”, writes Newman (p. 157). And (p. 159): “The main issues that divided the two orders were political. Although in theory they were supposed to be outside of local squabbles, in reality it was impossible not to get pulled into them”. On one occasion, in a dispute over property, “the Hospitallers supported the Genoese and the Templars the Venetians. This more than once led to blows between the knights”. Does this all symbolically recall the great political division between the Persians and the ‘Macedonians’ in the Book of Esther?



Comparing the Book of Esther with


the Fall of the Knights Templar




127 Reasons to Compare the Book of Esther and the Downfall of the Templars




King Ahasuerus is introduced into the Book of Esther as the ruler of a vast empire (1:1): “This happened in the days of Ahasuerus, the same Ahasueurus who ruled over one hundred twenty-seven provinces from India to Ethiopia”. Whilst the extent of the territory ruled by the king of France could by no means compare with that, what we have here in the Book of Esther is a second figure (apart from the number 13) that re-occurs in the Templar saga. I refer to the number 127. It is the number of provinces in the king’s empire. It is also, as Newman has noted, the number of charges issued against the Templars (p. 265): “In the next few months [after the first questioning of de Molay on October 24, 1307], the list of accusations grew to 127”.


The Mysterious Haman




Haman has been a person most difficult to identify historically, but even to understand properly within the context of the Book of Esther. Who was he, and from whence did he arise? Even his nationality seems to vary from text to text: ‘Bougaean’, ‘Agagite’, ‘Macedonian’.** We have seen above similar questions asked about de Molay’s origins, whose birthplace too, apparently, is by no means certain. Thus Newman (p. 228):



The place of [de Molay’s] birth is not certain, either. He seems to have been from a village in Burgundy, but there are several there named Molay. His biographer, Alain Demurger, has narrowed it down to two towns …. But one can’t be certain about even that.

…. Jacques’ family and early life are a complete mystery. We don’t know why he decided to join the Templars. There isn’t a mention of him in any surviving Templar documents that might tell us what he did before he was elected Grand Master. It seems ironic that the most famous of the Templar Grand Masters is also the one we have the least information on.



Ironic indeed!

Newman has dedicated her Chapter Thirty-Two to a character whom she says has been “considered the most sinister”, Guillaume de Nogaret. She begins (p. 272):



Of all the people involved in the arrest and trials of the Templars, Guillaume de Nogaret has been considered the most sinister, the man who was the mastermind behind everything that happened. This servant of the king had cut his teeth on the stage with Pope Boniface VIII in 1303 and was ready once again to prove himself to his master, King Philip IV, by destroying the Templars as well. Many have considered him the evil genius behind the trial of the Templars as well as the campaign against Boniface.

Who was this man? Was he pulling the strings to make King Philip dance to his tune or was it Guillaume who was the puppet, taking the fall for the king?



What a marvellous description this could also be of the rise and fall of Haman!



The name “Nogaret” is, according to Newman (ibid.), “not the name of a place but is a variation on the Occitan word nogarède, or “walnut grower” …. Interestingly, the Jews, on the Feast of Purim – the feast that grew from the Jewish victory over Haman (Esther 10:13; 11:1) – eat what they call “Haman’s ears” (Oznei Haman); a special triangular pastry whose ingredients include chopped up walnuts.













** The AMAIC had identified Haman as a Chaldean king, but second to king Darius the Mede (= king Ahasuerus) in the Median kingdom.



Nogaret’s rise to power had been rapid, just as Haman’s was (Esther 3:1-2):



… King Ahasuerus promoted Haman son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him and set his seat above all the officials who were with him. And all the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate bowed down and did obeisance to Haman; for the king had so commanded concerning him ….



Newman (pp. 273-274):



Sometime around 1296, Nogaret received a call from Paris. He’d made the big time, legal counsel to the king! …. Over the next few years he successfully handled several negotiations for Philip. In 1299, he was rewarded by being promoted to the nobility. After that, he was entitled to call himself “knight” …

Nogaret seems to have been Philip’s main counselor during the king’s battle with Pope Boniface. ….

In Philip’s confrontation with the pope, Nogaret was apparently the guiding hand and also the one who physically led the attack on the pope in his retreat at Anagni in 1303. ….

In [his use of the media], Nogaret was a master. According to Nogaret’s defense of the king’s actions, Boniface was a heretic, idolater, murderer, and sodomite. He also practised usury, bribed his way into his position, and made trouble wherever he went. …. These charges were never proved but they convinced many. They also gave Guillaume de Nogaret good material for his diatribe against the Templars four years later.



Similarly, Haman had earlier dubious ‘form’. He had actually been secretly plotting, via the agency of “two eunuchs of the king”, against king Ahasuerus himself (Esther 12:1-6). Haman had obviously covetted the first place in the empire right from the start. The plot was foiled by Mordecai, who then became the object of Haman’s wrath. But Haman was proud. “… he thought it beneath him to lay hands on Mordecai alone. So, having been told who Mordecai’s people were, Haman plotted to destroy all the Jews, the people of Mordecai, throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus” (Esther 3:6).

As noted earlier, Guillaume de Nogaret may also be merged with Guillaume of Paris, at whose instigation King Philip claimed to have sent out his secret orders for the arrest of the Templars on that fateful 13th day. Newman (p. 249):



Philip winds up by telling his officials that he is only taking this drastic step at the request of the Inquisitor General in Paris, and with the permission of the pope, because the Templars pose a clear and present danger to all the people of Christendom.

…. Guillaume de Paris, the Inquisitor, was also Philip’s private confessor.



This is exactly the same scenario as in the case of Haman’s plot. The king is, in this instance at least, passive. And, for Ahasuerus, it is owing to the advice of the “counselors”, as he said, with “Haman … in charge of affairs”, that the king had proposed to annihilate the Jews (Esther 13:3-7):



When I asked my counselors how this might be accomplished, Haman - who excels among us in sound judgment, and is distinguished for his unchanging goodwill and steadfast fidelity, and has attained the second place in the kingdom - pointed out to us that among all the nations in the world there is scattered a certain hostile people, who have laws contrary to those of every nation and continually disregard the ordinances of kings, so that the unifying of the kingdom that we honourably intend cannot be brought about. We understand that this people, and it alone, stands constantly in opposition to every nation, perversely following a strange manner of life and laws, and is ill-disposed to our government, doing all the harm they can so that our kingdom may not attain stability.

Therefore we have decreed that those indicated to you in the letters written by Haman, who is in charge of affairs and is our second father, shall all – wives and children included – be utterly destroyed by the swords of their enemies, without pity or restraint, on the fourteenth day of the twelfth month, Adar, of this present year, so that those who have long been hostile and remain so may in a single day go down in violence to Hades, and leave our government completely secure and untroubled hereafter.



The Counter Plots




In the Book of Esther the original plot is the secret covenant of Haman and his allies to annihilate the Jews. The conspirators then cleverly, through deceit, manage to gain the king’s co-operation in their evil plan. Eventually, of course, all that is turned around, thanks to Queen Esther, prompted by Mordecai, leading to the exposure of the conspiracy to the king and the death of the conspirators. In the Templar tale, the Templars are both the secret schemers, supposedly (thus reflecting one aspect of the Esther story), but they are also the victims of the king’s wrath (thus reflecting another aspect of it).

The motivation for the destruction of the Jews in the story of Esther is basically Haman’s pride and ambition, hurt by the refusal of Mordecai to bow down before him as the king had commanded all the officials to do (Esther 3:2). Lots (“Pur”) were cast before Haman to determine the most propitious day for the destruction of the Jews (3:7). According to Queen Esther, in her prayer to God: “…[the conspirators] have covenanted with their idols to abolish what [God’s] mouth has ordained … to open the mouths of nations for the praise of vain idols, and to magnify forever a mortal king”. In this, including also Haman’s accusation above that “this people, and it alone, stands constantly in opposition to every nation, perversely following a strange manner of life and laws, and is ill-disposed to our government”, I think we have the very foundation of the charges against the secretive Templars for idolatry, singularity and their bowing down.

The secretive Haman and his fellow conspirators were certainly practising idolatry - they were up to no good. But the charge of secrecy against the Templars may be a bit odd, as this was typical of religious orders. Newman explains it (p. 269):



On the accusation that the Templars met at night, and in secret, that’s one of those no-win situations. They sometimes met at night after reciting the predawn prayers called matins. According to the rule, they were first to check up on their horses and gear and then could go to bed. But this was also a convenient time for holding chapter meetings. The meetings were held in secret in the sense that what happened in them was not to be discussed with outsiders.

The odd thing about the charge is that most religious orders had closed meetings. The purpose of the chapter was to discuss faults and problems. These weren’t things they wanted the public at large to know about. I don’t know why no Templars bothered to mention this ….



What is most sinister and Mason-like in the case of Haman and company, turns out to be perfectly normal, however, in the context of a religious order such as the Templars.

“Why did Philip decide that the Templars would be his next target?” Newman asks next (p. 248):



It’s not really clear, even with the mass of material his counsellors wrote to justify his actions. If we take these documents at face value, the pious king had recently been horrified to learn that the Templars were not as they seemed. Instead of being the pillars of Christendom, a bulwark against the heathen, they had really renounced Christ and were working actively against Him and, by extension, against the most Christian king of France and, oh yes, the papacy.

One month before the arrest, on September 14, 1307, Philip sent secret orders to his officials throughout the land. His words leave no doubt of his shock and horror at what he was asking them to do.



Compare this with Haman’s accusations against the Jews. But most especially also, later, king Ahasuerus’ realisation in his decree of what Haman was really all about, which could almost be a manifesto of what the Templars were supposed to have degenerated to (Esther 16:2-7):




‘Many people, the more they are honoured with the most generous kindness of their benefactors, the more proud do they become, and not only seek to injure our subjects, but in their inability to stand prosperity, they even undertake to scheme against their own benefactors. They not only take away thankfulness from others, but, carried away by the boasts of those who know nothing of goodness, they even assume that they will escape the evil-hating justice of God, who always sees everything. And often many of those who are set in places of authority have been made in part responsible for the shedding of innocent blood, and have been involved in irremediable calamities, by the persuasion of friends who have been entrusted with the administration of public affairs, when these persons by the false trickery of their evil natures beguile the sincere goodwill of their sovereigns. What has been wickedly accomplished through the pestilent behavior of those who exercise authority unworthily can be seen, not so much from the more ancient records that we hand on, as from investigation to matters close at hand.



This situation explains the genuine shock of the (less than historically genuine, as according to the Templar story, at least) much less grand and eloquent king of France (Newman (p. 248):




“A bitter thing, a doleful thing, a thing horrible to contemplate, terrible to hear, a detestable crime, an execrable pollution, an abominable act, a shocking infamy, something completely inhuman, even more, outside of all humanity”.!!!

The men who received this must have been quaking in their boots as they read, not knowing what monster was about to be unleashed. Philip’s orders continue in this way for a full page before he lets on that the perpetrators of this evil are, gasp, the Templars! “Wolves in sheep’s clothing, under the habit of their order, they insult the faith. Our Lord Jesus Christ, crucified for the salvation of mankind, is crucified again in our time …”.



Likewise, the more composed king Ahasuerus, does not immediately name he to whom he is referring. For, so far from what has been quoted above of his decree, the public would not have known about whom he was actually talking. But now, after his statement about his intending to be more prudent in the future (v. 8), Ahasuerus does name the chief culprit in this most damning statement (vv. 10-14):



For Haman son of Hammedatha [***], a Macedonian (really an alien to the Persian blood, and quite devoid of our kindliness), having become our guest, enjoyed so fully the goodwill that we have for every nation that he was called our father and was continually bowed down to by all as the person second to the royal throne. But, unable to restrain his arrogance, he undertook to relieve us of our kingdom and our life, and with intricate craft and deceit asked for the destruction of Mordecai, our saviour and personal benefactor, and of Esther, the blameless partner of our kingdom, together with their whole nation. He thought that by these methods he would catch us undefended and would transfer the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians.



Now, this is a reason for a king’s anger!

King Philip’s letter was written on a 14th day, a figure that also appears in Haman’s decree for the slaughter of the Jews, “on the fourteenth day of the twelfth month” (Esther 13: 6). Just as king Ahasuerus had commanded, through Haman’s design, the destruction of all the Jews (vv. 6-7), so King Philip, likewise (Newman, p. 249):



… commands his men to arrest all the Templars in their jurisdiction and hold them. The officials are also to seize all their goods, both buildings and property, and hold them for the king (ad manum nostrum – “for our hand”), without using or destroying anything. Because, of course, if it should turn out that the Templars were innocent, everything ought to be returned to them just as they left it ….



To which Newman adds (in footnote 8): “If you believe this, I have some land in Atlantis I’d like to sell you”.



















*** We have identified Hammedatha with Amel Marduk (= Evil Merodach), son of Nebuchednezzar II.



Greed, the procuring of the victims’ goods and property, was also a motivating factor in Haman’s cruel decree (Esther 3:13): “Letters were sent by couriers to all the king’s provinces, giving orders to destroy, to kill and to annihilate all Jews, young and old, women and children, in one day, the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, and to plunder their goods”. The “king’s provinces” here takes the place of “their jurisdiction” in the case of King Philip’s “men”.

It is noticeable that the Jews who were victorious on the 13th day of the month, killing all their enemies, “laid no hands on the plunder”. Did Ahasuerus also decree in his case the equivalent of Philip’s ad manum nostrum? On the day of Haman’s death, Queen Esther had been given by the king “the house of Haman, the enemy of the Jews”. Then the king took off the signet ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it to Mordecai. So Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman” (8:1-2).

“It was rumoured that Philip even spent the night of October 13, 1307, at the Temple so that he could be the first to start counting the loot after the arrests. It’s a nice image”, writes Newman (p. 208), “but there is no evidence”. She is more definite that: “After the fall of the Templars, the Templar enclosure was taken over by the crown for a time before it was finally turned over to the Hospitallers”. Again it is the same parallel scenario. The king (Ahasuerus) has a sleepless night (the night before Haman’s arrest). (Esther 6:1). After the arrest, he takes over Haman’s possessions, holds them for a while, but then hands them over to Queen Esther (whose vindicated party “the Hospitallers” sometimes, as we have found, seem to represent).



Queen Esther




Does the regal person after whom the Book of Esther is named figure anywhere, in any shape or form, in our reconstructed history?

Not obviously. There is no queen of King Philip who seems to be able to match the status of Queen Esther by any stretch of the imagination. His wife, we are told, was “Jeanne, heiress of Navarre and Champagne” (Newman (p. 239).

A far more significant queen is Queen Melisande, from about a century earlier, presumably, who might be a faint reflection of Queen Esther. Newman has considered her important enough to have dedicated an entire chapter (Ten) to her, as “Melisande, Queen of Jerusalem”. There is perhaps an incident in the Book of Esther, known as “Esther’s banquet” (5:1-14; 7:1-10), where there may be something of a partly parallel situation with Queen Esther. Queen Esther is preparing to lure Haman into a snare for his destruction at a dinner attended by the king. According to the story, Queen Esther, previously, had bravely gone before the king to request that he and Haman attend a banquet that she had prepared for them (Esther 15). She had won over the king, who had then promised that he would fulfil whatever she might request, “even to the half of my kingdom” (5:1). Her only request at the first banquet would be for a repeat of it on the second day, “let the king and Haman come tomorrow to the banquet that I will prepare for them and then I will do as the king has said” (v. 8). A crucial section now follows that just may have some resonances in the Templar story, but not yet with Queen Melisande (vv. 9-14):



Haman went out that day happy and in good spirits. But when Haman saw Mordecai in the king’s gate, and observed that he neither rose nor trembled before him, he was infuriated with Mordecai; nevertheless Haman restrained himself and went home. Then he sent and called for his friends and his wife Zeresh, and Haman recounted to them the splendor of his riches, the number of his sons, all the promotions with which the king had honoured him, and how he had advanced Haman over the officials and the ministers of the king. Haman added, “Even Queen Esther let no one but myself come with the king to the banquet that she prepared. Tomorrow also I am invited by her, together with the king. Yet all this does me no good so long as I see the Jew Mordecai sitting at the king’s gate”.



In the Templar story, it is Jacques de Molay who is supposedly feeling secure, blissfully unaware of the trap into which he is about to plunge headlong. Of course he did not have a wife and many sons, as in the case of Haman. That part of the story may pertain to de Molay’s sometime ‘double’, de Nogaret who “had a wife Beatrix, and three children, Raymond, Guillaume and Guillemette …” (Newman p. 235). Nor was it a banquet that de Molay had attended on his last day, supposedly, but a funeral. Newman tells of it (p. 249):



On Thursday, October 12, 1307, Jacques de Molay attended the funeral of Catherine de Courtenay, the wife of Charles de Valois …. He was given a place of honor and even held one of the cords of the pall …. That night, he must have gone to bed feeling sure of his place in court society .



The “funeral” aspect of this story may have arisen from how it all develops, with the sleepless king finally recalling what Mordecai had done for him, and deciding to honour him. This all happens just prior to the second banquet (Esther 6:1-11). Certainly Haman is suddenly reduced from his high pitch of arrogance to a flat state of mourning: “… but Haman hurried to his house, mourning and with his head covered”. It sounds like a funeral alright! His wife then predicts her husband’s complete fall before Mordecai the Jew (v. 13).

It is during the second banquet, to which Haman is now whisked off (v. 14), that there occurs an incident with the queen that the already angry king views in the worst possible light. The terrified Haman, once Queen Esther has exposed him before the king as a mortal enemy, throws himself on the couch where Esther was reclining to beg his life from her. The king had just risen from the feast in wrath and gone into the palace garden (7:5-7). “When the king returned from the palace garden to the banquet hall … the king said “Will he even assault the queen in my presence, in my own house?””. Now this serious story my have its slight resonance in the following account that Newman gives about Queen Melisande at a banquet, where it is the queen herself who is up to mischief (p. 59):



William of Tyre relates with great relish a story of how the queen was having an affair with her cousin, Hugh of Le Puiset ….The tale says that, one day at a dinner, one of Hugh’s stepsons accused him of being Melisande’s lover and plotting to kill the king. The young man challenged Hugh to prove his innocence in combat. When the day came, Hugh was nowhere to be found. He was judged guilty and his lands forfeit.



The accuser of the rebel in the Book of Esther is the king’s eunuch, Harbona. The ‘guilty’ man who has “his lands forfeit” is Haman. But the queen is not an active partner in any sort of affair with this guilty man, who had indeed harboured an ambition “to kill the king”. (And, when transferred to de Molay, the guilty man’s death is not by fire, but on the gallows). Thus Esther (7:9-10):



Then Harbona, one of the eunuchs in attendance on the king, said, “Look, the very gallows that Haman has prepared for Mordecai, whose word saved the king, stands at Haman’s house, fifty cubits high”. And the king said, “Hang him on that”. So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then the anger of the king abated.



Similarly King Philip makes his decision on the fate of de Molay in relation to his own palace garden (Newman p. 236):



King Philip was at his palace nearby and was immediately informed of the stand taken by Jacques and Geoffrey de Charney. The king had had enough. The chronicler, Guillaume de Nangis, says, “Without telling the clergy, by a prudent decision, that evening, he [the king] delivered the two Templars to the flames on a little island in the Seine, between the royal garden and the church of the Hermit brothers ….



King Ahasuerus had permitted Queen Esther to ask even for half of his kingdom. He subsequently gave her all of the deceased Haman’s property. In the Templar story it all goes one better – but most unbelievably. A whole kingdom is actually given to the Templars and the Hospitallers, as Newman tells (p. 157):



Many donation charters gave property equally to the Templars and Hospitallers. The most astonishing of these is that of Alfonso I, king of Aragon and Navarre, made in 1131 in which he left his entire kingdom to the Templars, Hospitallers, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre ….



Conclusion




Dan Brown could never have guessed that the ancient Book of Esther, an inspired book of the Holy Scriptures, contains all the secrets of the Knights Templar and is the very key to unlocking their many mysteries.




Feast of Christ the King


22nd November 2009