Friday, May 27, 2016

Fr (or otherwise) Ray Blake seems Roman Republican

Update added below, important!

Here is what he writes about "Expanding Papacy" in his "part 2" on the subject:

I think one of the things that could well develop is a fixed term papacy, an expectation that the Pope will retire after five or six years or when he has reached 80 or 85 he will become a former-Pope. Would it be possible that with two or three pope's emeritus around they develop a particular role, as advisers to the reigning Pope? I rather like the idea of retired Popes Home with popes in vary states decrepitude eager to advise their successor, whilst they scheme and skype friends in the media, some maybe doing an occasional television interview or 'going viral' on the net.

From: Fr Ray Blake's Blog : Expanding Papacy: 2

Senators in Rome used to be:

  • ex-consuls and ex-praetors
  • emeritus on life time
  • giving most of all (at least that is Theodor Mommsen's reading of original intention) advice to any ruling pair of consuls and praetors.

They were very important up to Caesar.

Now, when it comes to Daniel's Fourth Beast, there is little doubt it means Pagan Rome (if any doubt at all), just, is it Rome between Tarquin the Proud and Caesar, the Republic, or is it Rome from Caesar to Constantine, somewhat mis-called Empire (which the Republic was also) and divisible into Dictature, Principate and Dominate, Dictature of Julius Caesar, Principate from Augustus to before Diocletian, and Dominate starting with Diocletian and living on into Christian Rome?

There is a little other question. Can Antioch IV Epiphanes be a preliminary fulfilment about Daniel's Antichrist prophecies or not?

Daniel Mackey of AMAIC had to answer someone saying "Antioch belongs to the third beast, Greece, since he is a Greek". And his answer was that Antioch IV Epiphanes was a client of Republican Rome, had in his youth been brought to Rome as hostage and acknowledged Roman Senators as his kings, basically.

Therefore, despite being himself a Greek, Antioch IV Epiphanes represented the Fourth Beast of Daniel, Rome. Which was already in the time of the Republic a real Empire.

Is it not worrying that a Church claiming to be that of Rome (some would consider her a harlot driving the real Church of Rome into Exile) starts imitating Rome of the time of the Republic, Rome of Antioch IV Epiphanes?

Some might of course say that the Dominate was worse than the Republic - but was it? Especially in Biblical terms?

Daniel says the fourth beast ... I will copy paste from Douay Rheims so as not to misquote him:

Daniel 7 : [7] After this I beheld in the vision of the night, and lo, a fourth beast, terrible and wonderful, and exceeding strong, it had great iron teeth, eating and breaking in pieces, and treading down the rest with its feet: and it was unlike to the other beasts which I had seen before it, and had ten horns.

I was wanting to check if "ten horns" could refer to the Decemviri, like as if Antiochus was taken hostage by one of them.

Not really, but during the Republic, even in Antioch's time, Rome was ruled by the law of twelve tables written by the Decemviri legibus faciundis a few centuries earlier. In that way, "ten horns" does make sense of the Roman Republic, though I am less sure who would be the three displaced or plucked up by Antioch, if that is what next verse tells us:

[8] I considered the horns, and behold another little horn sprung out of the midst of them: and three of the first horns were plucked up at the presence thereof: and behold eyes like the eyes of a man were in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things.

His captor, the victor of Battle of Magnesia who dictated the Peace Treaty of Apameia, was Lucius Cornelius Scipio, later called Scipio Asiaticus, accompanied by Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (probably already called so). Rome of the Scipios was already in league with Pergamon - where Christ says there was the Seat of Satan in Apocalypse.

There seems to be some controversy whether this seat of Satan was the altar of Zeus or that of Serapis. That of Zeus, which is now in a Museum in Berlin (and where Vladimir Lenin may have worshipped before getting back into the sealed train - yes, a seal could have been opened and then restored - to Russia) we know is from first half of second Century BC, from Eumenes II who received rule from the hands of the (Republican) Romans. That of Serapis, known as Red Hall, we do not know when built, but there is a possibility it is also from ...

The temple's date of construction is not recorded, but from the style of the sculptures and the building techniques a date in the first half of the second century AD has been proposed.

Oh, sorry, AD. In that case a bit later than Apocalypse. And in that case Serapis is out as candidate, Pergamon Altar is it.

However, let's suppose Hadrian was not the one and study these words:

Its use of red brick on a massive scale, unique in Asia Minor but relatively common in Italy at the time, indicates that the architect was not local. The immense size and lavish construction of the complex points to an extremely wealthy patron who sent a Roman architect and brick masons to Pergamon to build the temple. The most likely candidate is the emperor Hadrian himself. He is known to have been an enthusiastic sponsor of the Egyptian gods; he built temples of Isis and Serapis at various places in the Roman world, including at his own villa in Tivoli.

If there were C14 datings indicating earliest foundation is from AD, I would respect it. The stable and present content of C14 seems to have been reached earlier than these times, so datings are already accurate ones, normally.

If there isn't - well, Eumenes II and the Patricians who held Antioch IV hostage in Rome also would count as Roman patrons, able to muster Roman architects.

Red brick temple of maion deities in Rome in Ostia ... probably from the time of Cicero, too late (he was writing fan fiction about the Scipios and their friends, not a contemporary!).

Here is a word from an architect (I am not):

Style in the Technical and Tectonic Arts, Or, Practical Aesthetics
By Gottfried Semper, translation/foreword Harry Francis Malgrave, co-translator Michael Robinson

In google books I am reading a passage on or around p. 405, which indicate that red brick temples were indeed very old in Rome and surroundings. One temple in Ardea is cited, red brick, considered by an ancient author as "older than Rome" even if Semper and Francis think he may have overestimated it.

So, unless there are clear C14 indications to the contrary at foundation, saying Red Brick Serapis Temple of Pergamon must be from later than Scipios, it could as well be from their time as from that of Hadrian. Or, perhaps, stylistic, though that is less reliable.

Other fun fact : Serapis was, under Ptolemy Soter (it means "Ptolemy the Saviour"!) introduced as an ecumenical gesture of reconciliation between Greek and Egyptian Paganisms, between Khemetism and post-Homerism, if you like. And ... Ptolemies were rivals to the Seleucides, so, if Rome forced a Serapis temple on Pergamon, Antioch IV would in Jerusalem have been just repeating to the Jews as conquered what his own city had suffered at Roman conquerors. But even if this were not so, even if Serapis Temple in Pergamon was from Hadrian's time, the ecumenical fervour is suspicious.

Wait, I was actually wrong.

The earliest mention of a Serapis occurs in the disputed death scene of Alexander (323 BC).[7] Here, Serapis has a temple at Babylon, and is of such importance that he alone is named as being consulted on behalf of the dying king. The presence of Serapis in Babylon would radically alter perceptions of the mythologies of this era: the unconnected Babylonian god Ea (Enki) was titled Serapsi, meaning "king of the deep", and it is possible this Serapis is the one referred to in the diaries. The significance of this Serapsi in the Hellenic psyche, due to its involvement in Alexander's death, may have also contributed to the choice of Osiris-Apis as the chief Ptolemaic god.

According to Plutarch, Ptolemy stole the cult statue from Sinope in Asia Minor, having been instructed in a dream by the "unknown god" to bring the statue to Alexandria, where the statue was pronounced to be Serapis by two religious experts. One of the experts was of the Eumolpidae, the ancient family from whose members the hierophant of the Eleusinian Mysteries had been chosen since before history, and the other was the scholarly Egyptian priest Manetho, which gave weight to the judgement both for the Egyptians and the Greeks.

Ptolemy "the Saviour" (from the kind of conflict threatening between Greeks and Egyptians ....?) was actually importing a deity from Asia. This means it could have been known by people in Asia Minor too.

Anyway, whether seat of Satan be that of "Zeus" or that of "Serapis" (both have a heavily ecumenical pedigree!) it is also noteworthy that the kingdom of the Seleucides after battle of Magnesia were receiving their power from Rome and its Republic - a bit like Vatican City State in 1929 received its new existence (after defeat in 1870) from Mussolini and Victor Emmanuel III - heir to a "neo-Pagan" ultimate Roman, Victor Emmanuel II and to a similar Umberto I.

I find it worrying that the kings of Vatican City State start imitating the Republican era of Rome. Very worrying indeed. I am already not a fan of Georg Gänsewein. I was already worried after he had revealed what Susana Maiolo had to say - I had thought she was complaining about Catholic clergy supporting psychiatry, which is per se reasonable, though the sacrilage was a very desperate way if so ... no, according to Gänsewein, she was pushing an agenda. Close to that of Sarah Silverman, actually.

One little more tidbit: the list of Decemviri Consulari Imperio Legibus Scribundis (451 B. Chr.) includes two men called Vaticanus. Publius Sestius Capito Vaticanus, and Titus Romilius Rocus Vaticanus. The little horn displacing three horns may refer to displacements in the Vatican.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Day after Corpus Christi

Update : Fr Ray Blake is not the only one who has spoken of the anomaly of "two popes". Here is a post by Fr Hunwicke:

Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment : Two popes? More UPDATE

It is 2 days after my own blog post above, but I did not see it until today./4.IV.2017, HGL

No comments: