Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Friday, July 26, 2013
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Distinguishing the terms: Latins and Romans
Distinguishing the terms:
Latins and Romans
Latins and Romans
dum conderet urbem, inferretque deos Latio, genus unde Latinum, Albanique patres, atque altae moenia Romae. Vergilius #Aeneid I:5-7. #Latino
while he was establishing a city and bringing gods to Latium, whence the #Latin race, the Alban fathers and the walls of lofty #Rome. #Lazio
Tali intus templo divum patriaque Latinus
sede sedens Teucros ad sese in tecta vocavit. #Vergil, Aeneid 7:192-193.
sede sedens Teucros ad sese in tecta vocavit. #Vergil, Aeneid 7:192-193.
In this high Temple, on a Chair of State, the Seat of Audience, old Latinus sate;
Then gave admission to the Trojan Train.
The Latins were an Indo-European people of the Italic branch who about the beginning of the 1st millenium BC have been settled in Central Italy, in a country south of the banks of the Tiber that was called Latium (modern Lazio). It was believed their names originated from the legendary king Latinus who ruled the city of Alba Longa in the 9th c. BC.
Politically the ancient Latium was a loose federation of city-states, such as Alba Longa, Tusculum, Lavinium, Ardea, Tibur (now Tivoli) and Praeneste (Palestrina), centered at the sanctuary of Jupiter on Albanus Mons. The city of Rome (in Latin Roma) was founded in the northern part of Latium in 754 or 753 BC by the twin brothers Romulus and Remus (it was called after Romulus) and for centuries served as a bulwark of Latinity against the Etruscan power. Starting in the late 6th c. BC the Romans gradually subjugated Italy and in the eve of the Christian era accomplished conquering the lands around the Mediterranean sea, thus creating an immense empire.
Under the Roman power the Latins had the status of socii (i.e. allies), which gave them great inner autonomy. After the so called Social war in 90-89 BC they obtained the rights of Roman citizens and subsequently all the people originating from Italy and speaking Latin as their mother thongue appealed themselves Romans. In 211 the Constitutio Antoniana de Civitate granted Roman citizenship to all the people under the rule of Rome. Since then the term Roman became a designation of a political community and as such went beyond the primary ethnic frames. It was applied to Celts, Iberians, Daco-Thracians and Illyrians who have abandoned their own languages for Latin and in this manner were completely assimilated, but also to the Greeks in the Eastern provinces who, though preserving their Greek language, adopted the name of Romans (in Greek Rhômaíoi) as a mark of their rise to political predominance in the state affairs of the East.
In the Middle ages the term Romans was used in Western Europe for making an inner distinction from Germans in the unified body of the Western Christendom. On the other hand, as Latin was the official written language in the matters of church and state, the term Latins was in common use by all Western Christians (whether Romance-, German- or Slavic-speaking nations) as distinguishing between themselves and the peoples from the rest of the world. Thus, the crusaders' states in the East were were given the name Latin. In the official political relations of Western Europe till the 11th c. the appeal of Roman was applied to the Eastern Roman empire (Byzantium), but its factual linguistic Hellenization combined with its power decline, made the Westerners to refer to it as a Greek empire and to its inhabitants as Greeks with a sense of undoubted despise. As a sign of prestige, both the empires of Charlemagne (established AD 800) and of Otho I (established AD 962) were labeled Roman.
Source: http://www.orbilat.com/General_Survey/Terms--Latins_and_Romans.html
So who are the #RealLatinos?
"Latins" refers to different groups of people and the meaning of the word changes for where and when it is used.
The original Latins were an Italic tribe inhabiting central and south-central Italy. Through conquest by their most populous city-state, Rome, the original Latins culturally "Romanized" or "Latinized" the rest of Italy. In this way the word "Latin" ceased to mean a particular people or ethnicity. Subsequently, other regions, particularly the European ones such as Italy, Spain, Romania, Portugal and France became lastingly culturally "Latinized" by the Roman Empire. Thus, from an early stage in its history, when used as a label for various groups of people, the term "Latin" has had purely legal and cultural meanings, not ethnic.
A millennium after the fall of the Western Roman Empire of which they formed part, these European nations began to spread their Latin-derived languages and cultures around the world through their own empires, especially in the Americas. The meaning of the term "Latin" has thus broadened from its ancient meaning to refer to a number of different peoples in Europe and in Latin America, typically those who speak Romance languages.Contents [hide]
1 Antiquity
2 Middle Ages
3 Modern uses
3.1 Latin Europeans
3.2 Latin Americans
4 See also
5 External links
6 References
Antiquity
Main article: Latins (Italic tribe)
Further information: Latin League
Groups within the Italian peninsula.
Ligures
Veneti
Etruscans
Piceni
Umbrians
Latins
Osci
Messapii
Greeks
Latins were an ancient Italic people of the Latium region in central Italy, (Latium Vetus - Old Latium), in the 1st millennium BC, after migrating there from the Danube Region. Though they lived in independent city-states, the Latins spoke a common language (Latin), held common religious beliefs, and shared a close sense of kinship, expressed in the myth that they all descended from Latinus. Latinus was worshiped on Mons Albanus (Monte Albano) during an annual festival attended by all Latins, including those from Rome, one of the Latin states. The Latin cities extended common rights of residence and trade to one another.
Rome's territorial ambitions united the rest of the Latins against it in 341 BC, but the final victory was on Rome's side in 338 BC. Consequently, some of the Latin states were incorporated within the Roman state, and their inhabitants were given full Roman citizenship. Others became Roman allies and enjoyed certain privileges. Gradually, with the spread of Roman power throughout Italy and Western Europe, Latin ceased to be an ethnic term and became a legal category.
Middle Ages
Further information: Latin Rite and Western Christianity
After the fall of the Roman Empire, many Europeans held on to the "Latin" identity, more specifically, in the sense of the Romans, as members of the Empire.
In the Byzantine Empire or East Roman Empire, and the broader Greek-Orthodox world, Latins was a synonym for all people who followed Roman Catholic Christianity.[1] It was generally a negative characterization, especially after the 1054 schism.[2] Latins is still used by the Orthodox church communities, but only in a theological context.
The Holy Roman Empire was founded after the fall of Rome but brandished the name of the Roman people and honoured the king with the title "King of the Romans". Despite this, the Holy Roman Empire was largely a Germanic affair with German kings, although its territory was considerably greater than present day Germany. At times, the Holy Roman Empire did not even include the city of Rome.
The term was later borrowed, in various variants, by several languages of the Middle East and southern Asia, sometimes referring to any European.
The original Latins were an Italic tribe inhabiting central and south-central Italy. Through conquest by their most populous city-state, Rome, the original Latins culturally "Romanized" or "Latinized" the rest of Italy. In this way the word "Latin" ceased to mean a particular people or ethnicity. Subsequently, other regions, particularly the European ones such as Italy, Spain, Romania, Portugal and France became lastingly culturally "Latinized" by the Roman Empire. Thus, from an early stage in its history, when used as a label for various groups of people, the term "Latin" has had purely legal and cultural meanings, not ethnic.
A millennium after the fall of the Western Roman Empire of which they formed part, these European nations began to spread their Latin-derived languages and cultures around the world through their own empires, especially in the Americas. The meaning of the term "Latin" has thus broadened from its ancient meaning to refer to a number of different peoples in Europe and in Latin America, typically those who speak Romance languages.Contents [hide]
1 Antiquity
2 Middle Ages
3 Modern uses
3.1 Latin Europeans
3.2 Latin Americans
4 See also
5 External links
6 References
Antiquity
Main article: Latins (Italic tribe)
Further information: Latin League
Groups within the Italian peninsula.
Ligures
Veneti
Etruscans
Piceni
Umbrians
Latins
Osci
Messapii
Greeks
Latins were an ancient Italic people of the Latium region in central Italy, (Latium Vetus - Old Latium), in the 1st millennium BC, after migrating there from the Danube Region. Though they lived in independent city-states, the Latins spoke a common language (Latin), held common religious beliefs, and shared a close sense of kinship, expressed in the myth that they all descended from Latinus. Latinus was worshiped on Mons Albanus (Monte Albano) during an annual festival attended by all Latins, including those from Rome, one of the Latin states. The Latin cities extended common rights of residence and trade to one another.
Rome's territorial ambitions united the rest of the Latins against it in 341 BC, but the final victory was on Rome's side in 338 BC. Consequently, some of the Latin states were incorporated within the Roman state, and their inhabitants were given full Roman citizenship. Others became Roman allies and enjoyed certain privileges. Gradually, with the spread of Roman power throughout Italy and Western Europe, Latin ceased to be an ethnic term and became a legal category.
Middle Ages
Further information: Latin Rite and Western Christianity
After the fall of the Roman Empire, many Europeans held on to the "Latin" identity, more specifically, in the sense of the Romans, as members of the Empire.
In the Byzantine Empire or East Roman Empire, and the broader Greek-Orthodox world, Latins was a synonym for all people who followed Roman Catholic Christianity.[1] It was generally a negative characterization, especially after the 1054 schism.[2] Latins is still used by the Orthodox church communities, but only in a theological context.
The Holy Roman Empire was founded after the fall of Rome but brandished the name of the Roman people and honoured the king with the title "King of the Romans". Despite this, the Holy Roman Empire was largely a Germanic affair with German kings, although its territory was considerably greater than present day Germany. At times, the Holy Roman Empire did not even include the city of Rome.
The term was later borrowed, in various variants, by several languages of the Middle East and southern Asia, sometimes referring to any European.
Modern uses It has been suggested that portions of this section be moved into Latin peoples.
Latin Europeans
Main article: Latin Europe
The term "Latin" is sometimes used in reference to European people whose cultures are particularly Roman-derived, generally including the use of Romance languages.[3] Strong Roman legal and cultural traditions characterize these nations. Latin Europe is a major subdivision of Europe, along with Germanic Europe and Slavic Europe.
Latin Americans
Main article: Latin America
Of all world regions, the Americas have been most significantly influenced by Romance-speaking European countries in regards to culture, language, religion, and genetic contribution to the population. The Latin European-influenced region of the Americas came to be called Latin America in the 19th century. The French Emperor Napoleon III is often credited with this naming.[4] The term is usually used to refer to Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries, namely Hispanic America and Brazil. Most Latin Americans have Latin European ancestry, especially Spanish and Portuguese, usually mixed with either Native American or African ancestry, or both.
Main article: Latin Europe
The term "Latin" is sometimes used in reference to European people whose cultures are particularly Roman-derived, generally including the use of Romance languages.[3] Strong Roman legal and cultural traditions characterize these nations. Latin Europe is a major subdivision of Europe, along with Germanic Europe and Slavic Europe.
Latin Americans
Main article: Latin America
Of all world regions, the Americas have been most significantly influenced by Romance-speaking European countries in regards to culture, language, religion, and genetic contribution to the population. The Latin European-influenced region of the Americas came to be called Latin America in the 19th century. The French Emperor Napoleon III is often credited with this naming.[4] The term is usually used to refer to Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries, namely Hispanic America and Brazil. Most Latin Americans have Latin European ancestry, especially Spanish and Portuguese, usually mixed with either Native American or African ancestry, or both.
Links:
The Vatican Vergil: A Masterpiece of Late Antique Art
Aeneid (Vergilius Vaticanus)
European Kingdoms
Ancient Italian Peninsula
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsEurope/ItalyRome.htm
Ancient Italian Peninsula
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsEurope/ItalyRome.htm
Misnomer
Friday, March 22, 2013
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Saturday, February 23, 2013
America Unearthed: A Response to Tucson Relics (The Desert Cross)
See Video of America Unearthed: The Desert Cross
http://www.vanishingtattoo.com/tds/images/cross/cross_large/latin_cross_004.jpg
Originally Posted on Facbeook:
Updated:
After reviewing Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucson_artifacts, it seems a certain Prof. tried to investigate the Latin word "Calalus" as referring to the Terra Incognita. It was considered a fraud since no usage of Classical Latin records Calalus and the letters seemed plucked out of Cicero. Also Cyclone Covey re-examined the controversy in his book titled Calalus: A Roman Jewish Colony in America from the Time of Charlemagne Through Alfred the Great. I would like to know what his thesis is in that book (as we shall see below).
The Wikipedia summary stated that the Latin inscription record the conflicts of the leaders of Calalus against a barbarian enemy known as the "Toltezus" (Toltecs).
But, the word Calalus may be the clue in the story. It seems that it refers back to Portus Cale, the Latin name for the Portuguese city Oporto. It literally means "beautiful port", see Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portus_Cale
Perhaps Calalus was a contraction used by this Iberian people to establish a territory in the newly discovered Terra Incognita? I just noticed that David Hatcher Childress also recognized this connection as did Dr. Covey and he connects this with the Seven Bishops and Cities of Gold--what a coincidence! Why did H2 not mention this?
Update: Recently, I saw the Narragansett Rock episode, and of course Scott Wolter talked about his Masonic beliefs. He confessed to believe the Dan Brown hoax of the Gnostic Blood Line with the Hooked X as its symbol. He doesn't seem to consider the Hooked X simply can mean Chi - Greek letter with the Rho means Christus. This symbol XP Constantine the Great used and other Crusaders. The Hooked X should be considered a Medieval Latinization of Greek Chi. It's possible it may have a cipher meaning in coded messages too. The name Hooked X in Xpoferens means Christopher of Christ-bearer from the Greek for which Columbus signed into his cipher (see video below). Wolter should consult a Paleographer.
Interestingly, Scott did not show the rocks off Rhode Island with the Order of Christ Crosses--could be on the same rock he sought? But it is clear that the Catholic Orders were here. He did say that Christopher Columbus was a member of the Order of Christ and his wife was of the Order of Christ royal blood. I am unsure if he was a member or not, but it would not surprise me, after all he was a zealous Roman Catholic Crusader and he married on the Island of Madeira--whose flag is of the Order of Christ. But he seems not to grasp that these zealous Catholic men in Iberia hate heretics and work for the Roman Catholic Church. Oh by the way, they are the true branches of the Knights Templar--in the Catholic Church as the Orders of Christ and Montesa--not of some occult and wicked Anti-Catholic sect like the Freemasons. Rather Columbus and his like worked for the great Catholic Monarchs--who helped the Glory of Holy Inquisition to fight against the Masons and Protestants. Philip II would become Monarch of Spain and Portugal and thus uniting the Orders of XP & Montesa under His Most Catholic Majesty.
Reply to Paul Green:
The Order was established at the Council of Troyes in 1128 with papal approval of Pope Honorius II on January 13, 1128. In 1139 Pope Innocent II issued the papal bull Omne Datum Optimum to give them general powers of jurisdiction and exemptions. Pope Eugene III made them wear the Red Cross.
The Church did NOT kill Templars. The Church excommunicated certain persons who forfeited their membership in the Order because of delicta graviora of heresy, etc. and they were executed by the Kingdom of France, but they were technically ex-Templars (there is a Parchment in the Vatican that shows an abjuration and absolution of some Templars). Many true Catholic Templars were found NOT guilty by the Church and State and were not put in any harm. In Spain and Portugal they were found guiltless and the Pope (John XXII) approved new Orders for them, i.e Order of Christ and Order of Montesa. How about that Scott Wolter! The Inquisitions in Iberia did not find any heresy amongst them. They were orthodox Roman Catholics--they rejected Catharism, Dualism, Manicheanism, etc. The Iberian Templars believed all the dogmas of the Catholic Faith and anathematized all heresies and vowed to crush heresy for Spain / Portugal.
As far as your reference to the C.E. it is not an official account by the Catholic Church, but someone's own revision of the matter. The Templars must be remembered for their Catholic heritage and heroic virtue as the other Military Orders of the Church. They upheld the dogmas of the Catholic Religion and were witnesses the Supreme Primacy of the Roman Pontff. Who can deny that? The Crusaders of the Temple who gave their lives for Christ are true Catholic heroes. I believe some are hallowedly listed with Venerables, Blesseds, and Saints. Anyone denying that cannot claim to be a Catholic Christian. St. Bernard of Clairvaux was their champion! St. Bernard wrote a book to Pope Eugene III called De Consideratione:
Who are you? The high priest, the Supreme Pontiff. You are the prince of the bishops, you are the heir of the Apostles; in primacy you are Abel, in governing you are Noah, in patriarchate you are Abraham, in orders you are Melchisedech, in dignity you are Aaron, in authority you are Moses, in judgment you are Samuel, in power you are Peter, by anointing you are Christ. You are the one to whom the keys have been given, to whom the sheep have been entrusted.
(from De consideratione; cited in Christopher Ryan, The Religious Roles of the Papacy, Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1985, 119-120)
http://books.google.com/books?id=kkoJAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Saint+Bernard+On+consideration%22&hl=en&ei=ubhoTZnSHsTflgeZk9mBAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
So I think there's some disconnect here. The C.E. article I read is NOT the terminus. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493a.htm It gives some facts, right? But it is not an Ode to the Knights Templar, right? Charles Moeller wrote that article. I do not see any notes to it. I would like to read a fair and Catholic historical presentation of the good deeds and Catholic virtue of The Templars before the Philip Affair.
There is no connection between the Templars and the Masons because the Order belongs to the Catholic Church and cannot belong to a heretical secret sect such as the Freemasons. The Templars were suppressed, so once that happened they no longer exist as an organization. That does not mean someday a Pope couldn't decide to resume the Order of the Templars, as happened to the Jesuits.
Interestedly, as I said before, the Knights of the Templar Order were found innocent in Iberia-Spain & Portugal-and incorporated into new Orders that would continue their Templar heritage as the Order of Christ and the Order of Montesa. These men were good Catholic heroes. Vasco da Gama comes to mind immediately. This act of wisdom was made by Pope John XXII-the same pope who canonized Thomas Aquinas.
The bull was issued on 10 June 1317 to establish the Order according to the Cistercian rule. King James II of Aragon helped the Order continue in Spain as he was against the suppression of the Templars. The Pope listened to the King and allowed the Order to survive under a new name. Likewise King Dinis I of Portugal pleaded his case, and like James II he got the same Supreme Pontiff to give rich powers to the Order of Christ so they may continue the Templar Crusader tradition. In essence these two great branches of the Templars continue even to this day. If I overlooked another branch is only by nescience for a Pope may of permitted another branch of the Order to re-organize likewise in Italy or anywhere. There is a Vatican Supreme Order of Christ as well by the way. Also these "branches" of military orders of Christ and Montesa should have the same general powers, esp. the Order of Christ, meaning the Grand Masters have jurisdiction of a general ordinariate in the Catholic Church and their prelate does have religious hierarchal and sovereign power. He answers to the Pope and depending on how the Constitution is worded he may have some moral obligations to the King. They have their own clergy as well.
The Order of the Templar was disbanded and suppressed in 1312, and so there is no Masonic document validating a succession of that, and even if for argument's sake there was such a claim, it would not matter because Masonry is antithetical to Catholicism--the Religion of the Religious Military Order. Rather the true successors are of the Orders of Montesa and Christ.
The Knights Hospitallers also exist today, better known as the Knights of Malta in the Catholic Church. They are actually older then the Templars and many innocent Templars joined them once the Order (of the Temple) was suppressed by Pope Clement V. The Knights of Malta of St John of Jerusalem have the same overall mission of the Templars, just as the Orders of Montesa, Christ, Santiago, Alcantara, Calatrava, Teutonics of St Mary in Jerusalem, etc.--which is to serve the Catholic Church.
Paul Green please address what I actually wrote above, if you think I said something false point it out and I will consider what you say. If I should err in my post I will dutifully make sure to clarify anything. I will provide updates to any news or further thoughts. I wish Scott Wolter would adopt this honest practice.
Scott Wolter lacks quality. He fails to mention what I say here in a complete and fair way. The Catholic Church has a right to manage Her Religious Orders. Orders can be suppressed. Orders can be re-organized. He also seems to say all the Knights Templars were heretics and apostates, which is a lie. If some persons who were members of the Order believed in Dualism or other heretical ideas, then that's their own personal crime of heresy--and per tacit resignation they would lose their office ipso facto; however, it does NOT mean the other men who believed all the Catholic dogmas and professed obedience to the Pope through the Grandmaster were heretics. The same can be said about any other religious order in the Church. If a group of say Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans cling to heresy, that does not mean all the members of the Order are also in favor of that heresy. That's a Non Sequitur fallacy of hasty generalization. Scott Wolter is painting that hasty picture. He is not careful in how he words things. He also does not bring on his greatest critics, in fact the one time someone in N.C. disagreed with him, he basically called him a name. For example, the "Lost" Tomb of Jesus Son of Joseph has been shown to be a blasphemous hoax, and he endorses something that is offensive to Christianity. The Israel Antiquities Authority does not consider it the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. Rather, as the Kings in Iberia had investigated the matter, many Knights were found to be truly orthodox and untainted with the Gnostic heresy. So let's continue to commemorate the good Templar tradition in the Roman Catholic Church in line with the deposit of faith and magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. Consider this: anyone detracting from the general Catholic loyalty of Knight Templars is doing a great disservice to the Roman Catholic Church and all Military Orders and thus that person would be guilty of defamation. People warning others about hasty generalizations like Scott Wolter's are doing good deeds and it will help to protect the positive and perennial memory of the Knights Templar in the Roman Catholic Church. +Deus Vult.
Update: I watched the Newport tower episode and again I heard the reiterations by Scott Wolter that the Hooked X is an occult code for Dualism. This is not proven by his story. He provided no credible evidence to prove that historically the Hooked X unequivocally meant that. He consulted no paleographer to confirm his Hooked X thesis. Scott Wolter the geologist is basing his theory on what a paleographical expertise ought to prove. I admit the Newport tower is interesting and may indicate the Order of Christ or Templars or perhaps other Iberian people were in Rhode Island long ago, but of course this would need to be proven. The Hooked X seems to perhaps to be a Latin character of Greek Chi or a navigational notation device. It could also be an evolution from the Phoenician alphabet which used Greek characters. Anyhow whatever the case is, Mr. Wolter must discuss the Hooked X with some experts on Medieval Latin and Paleography of Navigators. Columbus clearly used the Hooked X to sign his Christogram to Christ as the Chi Latinized letter. Also, I liked to note that the claim for Masonic succession to the Knights Templar was refuted by Professor Malcolm Barber of the University of Reading in England & Dr. David Nicolle of the University of Nottingham in England as well. Both men are noted Medieval Historians and authors, Prof. Barber being a noted historian on the Crusades, and Dr. Nicolle being very well versed on medieval history, castles and warfare. You can buy the DVD from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Knights-Templar-James-Wignall/dp/B00005QW54/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1362967338&sr=8-5&keywords=templars+dvd+documentary
Lastly, Mr. Wolter tried to connect the Newport tower's astro-architecture to denote the Masonic Occult. Again he fails to understand the Roman Catholic Church has always had churches built to align with the stars such as Venus in order to measure the liturgical days of the year, in fact, that's how Easter and the Gregorian Calendar was reckoned accurately besides calculus. I quote Wikipedia:
"Easter is a moveable feast, meaning it is not fixed in relation to the civil calendar. The First Council of Nicaea (325) established the date of Easter as the first Sunday after the full moon (the Paschal Full Moon) following the March equinox. Ecclesiastically, the equinox is reckoned to be on 21 March (even though the equinox occurs, astronomically speaking, on 20 March in most years), and the "Full Moon" is not necessarily the astronomically correct date. The date of Easter therefore varies between 22 March and 25 April. Eastern Christianity bases its calculations on the Julian calendar whose 21 March corresponds, during the 21st century, to 3 April in the Gregorian calendar, in which the celebration of Easter therefore varies between 4 April and 8 May."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinox
So when Pope Gregory XIII ordered the Bull of the Calendar does that make him a Masonic Occultist? Or how about the Nicene Council under Pope St. Sylvester I? I think the Masons, like other sects, have tried to take ideas, rites, signs, etc. from the Roman Catholic Church and that's why some of these monuments so happen to resemble each other, i.e. the Masons are emulating some elements of Catholicism, not vice-versa. Thus, the Masons may show elements that emulate to the Roman Catholic Templars and the Cistercians. It seems Scott Wolter has twisted things around so much that he is simply ignoring the Roman Catholic Traditions utilizing what the Ancients before used to measure time or build edifices and even align both. The Popes simply made sure that whatever was worth keeping from Ancient Rome was to be stabilized in Christian Rome. This happened throughout Church History and was celebrated during the Renaissance. See video below to see what I mean in regards to the Vatican using Roman astro-architecture to measure time.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)