St Sulpice, headquarters of “Secret France”? Part 2: The Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement

 

In 1639, Jérôme Le Royer de La Dauversière (director of the Compagnie in La Flèche) told Jean-Jacques Olier that “God had destined him to the establishment of a seminary in the Saint-Sulpice parish in Paris”, a ‘prophecy’ that materialised three years later. But it appears that the creation of the Compagnie du Saint-Sulpice, the brainchild of Olier, was largely due to another organization, the Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement.

The Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement

We are working backwards in time: the church came after the creation of the Compagnie of St Sulpice, which itself came after the existence of the Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement, which some see as a child of Olier. The true history of the Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement is quite different from that what many now claim it to be. Many see the Compagnie as a secret society, founded by Olier, between 1627-1629, with headquarters in St Sulpice. The Compagnie was indeed a secret society, but was founded in March 1630, at the Convent of the Capuchins in the Faubourg Saint-Honore. Its founding members were:
- Henri de Levis, Duc de Ventadour, who had just escorted his wife to the Convent of Mont-Carmel;
- Henri de Pichery, officer of Louis XIII's household;
- Jacques Adhemar de Monteil de Grignan, a future bishop ;
- Philippe d'Angoumois, the Capuchin.

Though not a founding member, Olier and Vincent de Paul both joined. Amongst the others who joined, some should be mentioned: Pere Suffren, a Jesuit, confessor to Louis XIII and Marie de Medici; Charles de Condren, General of the Oratorians. In 1631 it was organized under the authority of a board composed of nine members, changed every three months. Louis XIII covertly encouraged it, but it never wished to have the letters patent that would have rendered it legal. Guido Bagni, the papal nuncio from 1645 to 1656, often attended the sessions of the company, but its existence was never regularly acknowledged by an official document from Rome. Despite everyone welcoming its official existence, the organisation repeatedly refused.
But this did not stop the Compagnie from being active: over the years, the Compagnie created many enterprises and fraternities with different names that allowed them to operate everywhere in France without attracting suspicion or reprehension. Each apparently unrelated group made it look like a decentralized and independent organization, while in fact it was really a large, nation-wide operational network – run by the Compagnie headquarters, with individual groups unaware of one another. Worse: there were fifty important branches outside of Paris, about thirty being unknown even to the local bishops. For all these reasons, according to Tallon, the Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement was considered a “state within the State, a church within the Church”.

“The secret”

Drawing by Jean-Jacques Olier (Image from the Confrérie du Saint-Sacrement), 1643

The rule of secrecy went much further than this. It obliged members "not to speak of the company to those who do not belong to it and never to make known the names of the individuals composing it”. New members were elected by the board and it was soon decided that no member of a lay congregation directed by ecclesiastics could be eligible. Matters of an especially delicate nature were not discussed at the weekly meetings, these being frequently attended by a hundred members, but were reserved for the investigation of the board. The company printed nothing and the keeping of written minutes was conducted with the utmost caution.

This secrecy meant, of course, that people began to suspect certain things – whether real or imagined. Thirty years after its foundation, the year 1660 witnessed the decline of the company. It was vigorously attacked in a libel by Charles du Four, Abbot of Aulnay, and denounced to Cardinal Mazarin by François Harlay de Champvallon, Archbishop of Rouen. On December 13, 1660, the members held a last general meeting at which it was decided to suspend their Thursday sessions and to add "ten or twelve elders" to the members of the board so that the company might continue to act provisionally. Then these elders and the board selected eight individuals who were to correspond with the country branches. Such extreme measures were the result from a decree of Parliament, prohibiting all illicit assemblies, confraternities, congregations and communities. The decree seems to have been specifically created to sink the Compagnie, but Lamoignon, a member of the company and the first president, succeeded in preventing it from being designated by name. It seems that the meeting of the board and the elders held regularly enough in 1664, but ceased almost altogether in 1665.

Cover?

Cardinal Mazarin

The Priory claimed that the Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement was a cover for the Priory of Sion. At the start of the 17th century, their Nautonnier was supposedly Robert Fludd, a well-known alchemist, and he was allegedly followed in 1637 by Johann Valentin Andrae, author of The Rosicrucian Manifestos and The Chemical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz. During this time, the “Priory documents” assert that the Priory of Sion secretly engaged in a covert war against French King Louis XIV, and his powerful advisor, Cardinal Mazarin, via a front organization, the Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement. It seems that the Priory merely used the intrigue that surrounded the Compagnie and made it their own. However, it is clear that an organisation such as the Compagnie had a specific goal in mind.
Also according to the Priory, the Compagnie sealed their official documents away in Saint-Sulpice. We should not immediately condemn this information because it originates from the Priory. It is clear that the Compagnie had some paperwork and they either destroyed it, or placed it in a very safe place. St Sulpice would be as good as any.

So what was the Compagnie up to that it required such extreme devotion to secrecy? Church historians have all too easily accepted what the Compagnie pretended to be: devoted to charitable work. But why then construct such a strict hierarchy, with such strict rules and indoctrination? Furthermore, it is known that the Compagnie had a key message: protect “the Secret”, and it did this so successfully, that no-one knew what the Secret was.
Why did people in the government come down on this organisation, after originally supporting it? What was wrong with doing charitable work? It is clear that there was a hidden dimension to the organisation. It had infiltrated the upper echelons of government, nearly dominating (at times) the parliament, judiciary and police, as well as holding key positions in the king’s cabinet. Vincent de Paul was confessor to Louis XIII and Anne of Austria. She was, for a period, completely malleable in the hands of the Compagnie, who even managed to temporarily turn her against Mazarin. But what was it trying to do? Some believe that it tried to fight the king and perhaps even overthrow government, working with “the Fronde”.

An organization that did not want to be officially recognised, who worked through various fronts, trying to infiltrate government is, in essence, similar to a synarchist movement, that operates through various arms but itself remains in the background. Though synarchy is often stated as being an invention of the last century, it is clear that before its official “invention” as a methodology of political control, it was already practiced by the Compagnie.
An organization like the Compagnie is highly dangerous for those in control, for you never know whom you have in front of you and what role they play. You could be in a meeting full of members, but no-one would know, except those at the highest control of the Compagnie. As such, it must have caused great concern to the established powerbase. Did it finally understand the danger in 1660 and finally act? If so, the date of 1660 is purely coincidental. Or had something happened in 1660 that made people become very afraid of it?

Mission

Notre Dame de Montréal

What was the mission – the secret – of the Compagnie? They were indeed a charitable organization, with a goal to “rechristianise” France. But was this a purpose on itself, or did it fit a bigger goal? According to author Francine Bernier, they appear to have expected the imminent return of the “King of the Christian World”. Hence, they were preparing France for an imminent event. Prior to His glorious return to the throne of Jerusalem and the Final Judgment, as announced in the Book of Revelation, these fervent Crusaders had to “clean up the house” and fight against or convert the infidels. In short, they were Christian Apocalyptic warriors, intent on bringing about the end of a war, by preparing France for the arrival of the “King of the World”. It are ambitions that were not new to France, and we have come across them elsewhere, such as in the preaching of Vincent Ferrer, two centuries earlier.
Olier and co. – the Compagnie – seem to have identified themselves as people on a divine mission. They were transforming France, as well as preparing Canada, “New France”, into a “New Jerusalem”. Their Canadian efforts make it clear that their ambitions were partly political – and if so in Canada, did they try to engineer French society, so that it would be able to accommodate this new “King of the Christian World”? If this King was not the soon to be adult Louis XIV, it is obvious that his circle would withdraw their support from the Compagnie and do their utmost to destroy it.

Nicholas Fouquet

In France, there is one important event that occurs in 1659: The Treaty of the Pyrenees, which sees the Roussillon transfer from Spain to France. This indeed means that Perillos, previously in the hands of Spain and the Aragons, is now French. And intriguingly, whereas in the early 15th century Vincent Ferrer is preaching around Perpignan about an end of the world that could occur if people repent, from 1630 onwards, we see the Compagnie displaying an identical agenda, this time not merely preaching, but actively converting people.
This is not just idle speculation: it fits well within the sequence of known events. In 1656, the Fouquet brothers correspond amongst themselves about a meeting in Rome with Poussin: “He and I discussed certain things, which I shall with ease be able to explain to you in detail - things that will give you, through Monsieur Poussin, advantages which even kings would have great pains to draw from him, and which, according to him, it is possible that nobody else will ever be able to rediscover in the centuries to come. And, what is more, these are things so difficult to discover that nothing now on this earth can prove of better fortune nor be their equal." Something that is extremely difficult to discover, in the possession of Poussin, this painter is willing to share with the Fouquet brothers
The reference “advantages which even kings would have great pains to draw from him” is not just idle speculation. We know that previously, Poussin had been invited to work at the court of the French king, which he grudgingly had to agree to. Poussin resided in Rome, but was recalled to France by the intermediary of Cardinal Richelieu, to submit himself to the French court. He arrived in Paris on December 17, 1640. He was received by King Louis XIII, who seemed to make life for the painter as pleasant as possible. But he did not adapt to the atmosphere and seemed to spend much time traveling about France. On November 2, 1642, he returned to Rome.

A month later, on December 4, Richelieu died and on May 14, 1643, King Louis XIII himself died. Anne of Austria became Queen Regent. Sublet, Poussin’s protector, was immediately disgraced. Poussin himself would never return to France. But it seems that his return to Rome was in haste: it seems that he knew that the death of Richelieu and perhaps even that of the king were imminent, and that his stay in Paris beyond their demise might turn out to be very dangerous. Once back in Rome, he became linked with Cardinal Giulio Rospigliosi, who would be elected Pope Clement IX in 1667, two years after Poussin’s death. It is this man who ended up with some of Poussin’s paintings – including the infamous Shepherds of Arcadia.

Nicolas Poussin

If Poussin possessed a secret by 1640 which the French king wanted to learn, he never caves in. But by 1656, he is willing to talk to the Fouquets. We can only wonder why. For several years, preparations for the annexation of the Roussillon are under way – Courtade has been making inventories of some of the territories affected. In 1659, the Roussillon finally becomes subject of the French king. In 1660, the government stamps down on the Compagnie. But that is not all. On September 5, 1661 he orders the arrest of Nicolas Fouquet, the Minister of Finance and his right hand man. This arrest is one of the biggest travesty of justice and it is the king personally who makes sure that Fouquet is convicted and receives the toughest jail sentence imaginable… for a crime he has not committed (the jury actually acquitted him). We can only wonder what it is that so upset the king. Historians have speculated, but have not come up with a satisfactory answer. It is not mere idle speculation that this king indeed tried to get his hands on something that Fouquet knew, received from Poussin… and which may have involved the Treaty of the Pyrenees… whereby Perillos became in the hands of the French king.
Let us note that the king also personally goes through Fouquet’s paper, apparently in search of something. For those who have argued that he was merely looking for incriminating evidence, that is clearly not sufficient as an explanation: the king didn’t care about evidence in the final analysis – he put him in jail for the rest of his lifetime because he wanted to. Instead, it seems reasonable to suggest that the King was looking for something… of which he may find a trace in Fouquet’s papers. It echoes how de Beausejour demands that Saunière submits his personal papers, so he can go through them, apparently in an effort to find out what was going on in his bishopric at the time of his predecessor, Billard.
Fouquet, it seems, will never speak. Instead, he spends the rest of his life in prison, in solitary confinement – which means he will never be able to tell anyone… unless the king, the sole person who will be able to end his nightmare. But Fouquet never speaks… like Gélis so many centuries later.

continued>>

Filip Coppens