by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 8, 2024 | New Blog
PADUA, ITALY – SEPTEMBER 9, 2014: Paint of Saint Ann and little Mary in church Santa Maria dei Servi by R. Maluta from end of 19. cent.
+Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary+
Some people seemingly have no shame and simply cannot admit they are wrong. We speak here of a certain “recusant” site that has publicly stated a document of the Roman Pontiff was not properly quoted on this site and an inference was drawn on this blog that contradicts what the pope intended. This is a classic example of projection, not to mention a matter potentially libelous, and this should be taken as a warning. Such a grievous accusation, common to LibTrads, is one that cannot be tolerated.
What the recusants say
The betrayedcatholics blog on modesty now in question was featured HERE. We will now quote here what the recusant blog posted regarding St. Nicholas’ instructions to the Bulgarians: “We consider what you asked about pants (femoralia [which is the Latin for “breeches” or “knee-length pants”]) TO BE IRRELEVANT; for we do not wish the exterior style of your clothing to be changed, but rather the behavior of the inner man within you, nor do we desire to know what you are wearing except Christ — for however many of you have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ [Gal. 3:27] — but rather how you are progressing in faith and good works. But since you ask concerning these matters in your simplicity, namely because you were afraid lest it be held against you as a sin, if you diverge in the slightest way from the custom of other Christians, and lest we seem to take anything away from your desire, we declare that in our books, pants (femoralia) are ordered to be made, not in order that women may use them, but that men may.
“But act now so that, just as you passed from the old to the new man, [cf. Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9-10] you pass from your prior custom to ours in all things; but really do what you please. For whether you or your women wear or do not wear pants (femoralia) neither impedes your salvation nor leads to any increase of your virtue. Of course, because we have said that pants are ordered to be made, it should be noted that we put on pants spiritually, when we restrain the lust of the flesh through abstinence; for those places are constrained by pants in which the seats of luxury are known to be. This is why the first humans, when they felt illicit motions in their members after sin, ran into the leaves of a fig tree and wove loin cloths for themselves.[cf. Gen. 3:7] But these are spiritual pants, which you still could not bear, and, if I may speak with the Apostle, you are not yet able; for you are still carnal.[I Cor. 3:2] And thus we have said a few things on this matter, although, with God’s gift, we could say many more.” (End of St. Nicholas I quote.)
What betrayedcatholics has said
- In our blog, we were not talking about “breeches” or what today would be called pedal-pushers (femoralia), but loose-fitting, full-length women’s slacks.
- They pretend we have misrepresented what the pope said because we did not quote him in full, (see full text of what the Pope wrote HERE, under Ch. LIX). These so-called recusants do this by placing emphasis on different parts of what the pope said and no emphasis on the language used in his opening statement or the final conclusion he arrives at in his remarks. First, Pope Nicholas I wrote: “We consider what you asked about pants TO BE IRRELEVANT…” Do they not know the meaning of this word? Taken from Merriam-Webster, relevant means: (1) having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand; (2) affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion. The same source notes that irrelevant means NOT relevant; inapplicable. So are they going to make a matter the pope clearly intends to have no bearing on the issue at hand a major issue, against his will and the introductory statement to the contrary?
Secondly, the pope writes: “Pants (femoralia) are ordered to be made, not in order that women may use them, but that men may.” They then claim that in saying this, and referring to ”putting on the new man,” (see above) the pope is stating he does not want women to wear pants. But the pope makes his own words clear in the succeeding paragraph of his instruction by stating that: “Of course, because we have said that pants are ordered to be made, it should be noted that we put on pants spiritually, when we restrain the lust of the flesh through abstinence.”
- Yet pay attention to what the pope says after commenting on “the new man”: “But act now so that, just as you passed from the old to the new man, [cf. Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9-10] you pass from your prior custom to ours in all things; BUT REALLY DO WHAT YOU PLEASE. FOR WHETHER YOU OR YOURWOMEN WEAR OR DO NOT WEAR PANTS (femoralia) NEITHER IMPEDES YOUR SALVATION NOR LEADS TO ANY INCREASE OF YOUR VIRTUE.” How can one possibly misread this sentence?!
Excommunication for falsifying papal documents
The above is further evidence of how LibTrads mislead Catholics, placing their own interpretation on the clear words of the popes! As we have repeatedly cited Msgr. Fenton as stating before, NO ONE may dare to interpret these documents contrary to their obvious meaning — Pope Nicholas I’s words are perfectly understandable, and he is not even talking about full coverage, loose women’s slacks, but form-fitting pedal-pushers! In their insistence on abiding by their own warped opinion of modesty in this regard, these Liberal-minded “Catholics” dare to misrepresent his very words and intent. THEY are the ones who are guilty of falsifying the meaning intended by Pope Nicholas I, not this author. But of course this was the very purpose of projecting blame — to deflect the guilt from themselves.
Perhaps they would be interested in knowing that there is an excommunication especially earmarked for misrepresentations of this kind, which states as follows: “All persons who forge or falsify letters, decrees or rescripts of the Apostolic See or with full knowledge of the forgery make use of the letters, decrees or rescripts, automatically incur EXCOMMUNICATION RESERVED IN A SPECIAL MANNER TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE” (Can. 2360 §1). Revs. Woywod-Smith comment on this canon: “The law of the code protects the official acts or documents not only of the Supreme Pontiff himself, but also of the Sacred Congregations and the Tribunals and Offices of the Holy See against forgery and mutilation and the willful use of forged or mutilated documents of the Apostolic See.”
Msgr. Fenton on honoring papal decisions on doctrinal matters
Surely even the recusants would agree that the wearing of pants by women is a matter of morals. Is it really necessary to remind them that the Roman Pontiff is infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals?! It is imperative that Catholic women know whether or not they are committing sin in wearing “breeches,” (women’s slacks). And the pope provided it above but the Puritanical LibTrads insist on distorting his words. This might not amount to an actual forgery, but we are forbidden to even attempt to interpret papal documents, so it would most likely qualify as a falsification. The serious nature of matters such as these is stressed below by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton, in his “The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Allocutions,” The American Ecclesiastical Review, February 1956:
“Theologians legitimately discuss and dispute among themselves doctrinal questions which the authoritative magisterium of the Catholic Church has not as yet resolved. Once that magisterium has expressed a decision and communicated that decision to the Church universal, the first and the most obvious result of its declaration must be the cessation of debate on the point it has decided. A man definitely is not acting and could not act as a theologian, as a teacher of Catholic truth, by disputing against a decision made by the competent doctrinal authority of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth. Thus, according to the clear teaching of the Humani generis, it is morally wrong for any individual subject to the Roman Pontiff to defend a thesis contradicting a teaching which the Pope, in his Acta, has set forth as a part of Catholic doctrine. It is, in other words, wrong to attack a teaching which, in a genuine doctrinal decision, the Sovereign Pontiff has taught officially as the visible head of the universal Church. This holds true always and everywhere, even in those cases in which the Pope, in making his decision, did not exercise the plenitude of his apostolic teaching power by making an infallible doctrinal definition.
“The Humani generis must not be taken to imply that a Catholic theologian has completed his obligation with respect to an authoritative doctrinal decision made by the Holy Father and presented in his published Acta when he has merely refrained from arguing or debating against it. The Humani generis reminded its readers that “this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth for any theologian in matters of faith and morals.” Furthermore, it insisted that the faithful are obligated to shun errors which more or less approach heresy, and “to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See.’ In other words, the Humani generis claimed the same internal assent for declarations of the magisterium on matters of faith and morals which previous documents of the Holy See had stressed.
“We may well ask why the Humani generis went to the trouble of mentioning something as fundamental and rudimentary as the duty of abstaining from further debate on a point where the Roman Pontiff has already issued a doctrinal decision and has communicated that decision to the Church universal by publishing it in his Acta. The reason is to be found in the context of the encyclical itself. The Holy Father has told us something of the existing situation which called for the issuance of the Humani generis. This information is contained in the text of that document. The following two sentences show us the sort of condition the Humani generis was written to meet and to remedy:
“And although this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth on matters of faith and morals for any theologian, as the agency to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the entire deposit of faith — that is, the Sacred Scriptures and divine Tradition — to be guarded and defended and explained, still, the duty by which the faithful are obligated also to shun those errors which approach more or less to heresy, and therefore “to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,” is sometimes ignored as if it did not exist. What is said in encyclical letters of the Roman Pontiffs about the nature and constitution of the Church is habitually and deliberately neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they claim to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks.”
“Six years ago, then, Pope Pius XII was faced with a situation in which some of the men who were privileged and obligated to teach the truths of sacred theology had perverted their position and their influence and had deliberately flouted the teachings of the Holy See about the nature and the constitution of the Catholic Church. And, when he declared that it is wrong to debate a point already decided by the Holy Father after that decision has been published in his Acta, he was taking cognizance of and condemning an existent practice. There actually were individuals who were contradicting papal teachings. They were so numerous and influential that they rendered the composition of the Humani generis necessary to counteract their activities. These individuals were continuing to propose teachings repudiated by the Sovereign Pontiff in previous pronouncements. The Holy Father, then, was compelled by these circumstances to call for the cessation of debate among theologians on subjects which had already been decided by pontifical decisions published in the Acta” (end of Msgr. Fenton quote).
And such individuals, obviously, still exist today. We remember another instance of this where a definite decision regarding the bishops as receiving their power from Christ only indirectly, but directly from the Roman Pontiffs. This was infallibly declared in Mystici Corporis Christi, Ad Sinarum Gentum and even by the Vatican Council. Two years ago it was called into question by an especially impertinent LibTrad who tried to refute it with a quote from a German theologian whose translated works were known to contain errors of the sort Msgr, Fenton mentions above (see HERE). This definition was even recognized as such by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, who Msgr. Fenton documented as testifying to this fact. This same individual once aligned himself with the recusant position but according to unconfirmed reports, later left the group.
Conclusion
The Acta did not exist in the time of Pope Nicholas I. It came into existence later when, as Msgr. Fenton explains, it was necessary to silence those “deliberately flouting” the teachings of the Holy See. This, however, does not lessen the authority of what Pope Nicholas I teaches. For as Msgr. Fenton also notes, “The private theologian is obligated and privileged to study these documents, to arrive at an understanding of what the Holy Father actually teaches and then to aid in the task of bringing this body of truth to the people. The Holy Father, however, not the private theologian, remains the doctrinal authority. The theologian is expected to bring out the content of the Pope’s actual teaching, not to subject that teaching to the type of criticism he would have a right to impose on the writings of another private theologian” (Msgr. J.C. Fenton,“The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals, Pt. II, ” Sept. 1949, AER). As Revs. Pohle-Preuss write in The Sacraments, Vol. IV: “It matters not what the private opinions of…theologians [are]. It is not the private opinions of theologians but the official decisions of the Church by which we must be guided.”
The recusants are scarcely theologians. They cannot produce one document from the Magisterium that specifically and unquestionably condemns the wearing of modest slacks by women. Do they really think that if this was such an important matter and that women were truly sinning by wearing slacks, something they already were doing in the 1940s and 1950s, the popes would not have been perfectly clear in their instructions concerning this? What a slap in the face to the Roman Pontiffs by insinuating they were remiss in not issuing such a prohibition! No one here is suggesting anyone switch to wearing slacks versus dresses or skirts, but we absolutely refuse to condemn others for wearing slacks when a pope has said it is “irrelevant” and no sin.
These recusants cannot and must not be allowed to interpret Pope Nicholas I as stating that pants are forbidden when he clearly does not do so. A better understanding of the English language and its usage would be helpful here, since this is what the Church instructs us to do whenever there is a doubt about any law or teaching (Can. 18), but they are not interested in that. They insist on acting as theologians when no one may dare to do so today, in believing as they wish to believe, for whatever reason. We may only quote those theologians loyal to the papacy writing on these topics, but most importantly it is the words and teachings of the popes that must always hold sway. We have no right to our own opinion when a pope has clearly stated otherwise.
We have said it before and will continue to repeat it for as long as necessary: We follow the popes and those scholastics loyal to them, not the opinions of men. We are to obey God not man, and the Vicar His Son set over us to be the never-failing source of His Truth.
Great quote from a reader by Fr. Charles B. Garside
(Writing more than a century ago [presumably during WW I -Ed.], Fr. Charles B. Garside was reacting to the Modernism that was already infiltrating the Holy Church. False doctrine had already entered “high place” in society and the Church. In his commentary on the life of St. Elias, he challenges Catholics of all times to take the correct position of active resistance in the face of error: The war must be waged on all fronts until the victory is achieved.)
“The world and the devil were never so successful as they are now in pretentiously disguising error under the garb of truth. Vices are enshrined as virtues in the attractive temple of falsehood. Immorality is idealized. Debased views of God and His creation, of the soul and the body, are openly processed in circles of rank and intellect.
“False doctrine is not only tolerated in the “high places” of social life; it is termed, as if in satire, “sound learning.” Presumptuous skepticism is canonized by popular acclamation, as not only a right but a duty, and the very perfection of mental and moral freedom. These are some of the hostile elements with which our present life is perilously charged.
“How can this array of foes be successfully met without a clear-sighted and persevering courage and how can this courage be obtained? Every Catholic is bound, according to his means and opportunity, to confront, denounce and resist the enemies of God. The war has to be waged by speech, by writing, by protests, by authority, by active and passive opposition, by sufferings, and by various other modes which need not be mentioned in detail.
“No class is exempt from military service in the great conflict which is perpetually raging. All are called to the ranks, no matter what may be their individual temperament or temptations. The contest is as unavoidable as it is difficult, but with the grace of God we shall succeed if we are “strong in faith.” “This is the victory that overcomes the world, even your faith.”
“Our adversaries may surpass us in station, talent and accomplishments. They may be clothed in them from head to foot, and we may, like Elias, be alone and unarmed, but we shall be the real “men of God.” We shall deliver our message without quivering; and though our personal Achab – whoever he may be – may refuse to believe in our words, we shall nevertheless, have borne testimony to the true God.”
by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 2, 2024 | New Blog
+Pope St. Pius X+
Prayer Society Intention for September, Month of The Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary
“Dear Mother, by thy heart sunk in the bitterness of desolation, obtain for me the virtue of diligence and the gift of wisdom.”
Introduction
There are those who have objected that the Jews are not cited here as the primary founders of Freemasonry and do not today function as the main movers and shakers in this organization. We have never denied they had a hand in founding Freemasonry, but only questioned their active participation in the role of all secret societies today. And there are theologians and Catholic authors who do not blame them directly, but only indirectly for Freemasonry’s emergence. So below we will assay Catholic writers and historians on this topic.
Here we are speaking of Freemasonry which began as an underground current following the disbanding of the Templars in 1312, during the reign of the Avignon popes. Supposedly some of these Templars disbanded, perhaps bearing grudges against the Church, but continued under other names and in secret. In his Freemasonry and the Vatican, quoting from several sources, Comte Leon de Poncins states that “In reality, there was an ancient Catholic Masonry, about which little is known, which gradually fell into abeyance” (p. 115). He here seems to refer to a Catholic Masonry in existence that was centered around the masonry, or brick and stone laying guilds. But he also quotes another source that claims the Stuarts and Irish/Scottish aristocracy also belonged to a type of Catholic Masonry, in the 1600-1700s, which was later infiltrated by Protestant Freemasons. Today there is no such thing as “Catholic Masonry,” and this will be explained below.
Quoting from what he claims to be the most comprehensive and well-documented history of Freemasonry ever written, by one N. Deschamps, de Poncins relates that: “In the Middle Ages and at the time of the Renaissance, the Freemasons in Germany and Italy were overwhelmed with favors by the sovereign pontiffs and there is not a trace of heresy or hostility against the Church in the statutes of Stroudsburg of 1462 or as revised in 1563. However, in 1535 we come across a document which reveals the existence of an order under the name of Freemasons whose anti-Christian principles are absolutely in harmony with those of modern Masonry, and this time it is no longer a question of builders protecting their arts… The oldest and most authentic document of the Masonic Lodge, known as the charter of Cologne, dates back to the year 1535. It reveals the existence already going back sometime perhaps even two centuries of one or several secret societies which eked out a clandestine existence throughout the various states of Europe in direct antagonism with the religious and civil principles that formed the basis of their constitutions.
Rogue Templars and Socinus
Deschamps then goes on to quote from Michelet regarding the hotbed of Jewish influence and heresies existing in the Languedoc region of southern France. De Poncins concludes his quotes from this author with the following: “Sixteenth century Freemasonry arose out of the ruins of the Knights Templar…” The Languedoc area of France was where some of the Templars had congregated, a largely Jewish region and source of the Cathar and Waldensian heresies. On the orders of King Phillip IV, several member of the Knights Templar were arrested on Oct. 13, 1307, and put to death in1307-1308. Pope Clement V formally disbanded the order in 1312. This would account for one or more secret societies “already going back sometime perhaps even two centuries” as Deschamps reports above. And the seedbed for this, as will be seen below, were the rogue Templars and Gallicanists.
Comte de Poncins’ observations were confirmed by Msgr. George E. Dillon in his work Freemasonry Unmasked, several decades prior to the publication of de Poncin’s book. Dillon’s book was first released in 1885 under the title, The War of Antichrist with the Church and Christian Civilization. Msgr. Dillon dedicated the work to Pope Leo XIII, and Pope Leo XIII personally reviewed Msgr. Dillon’s work and ordered the Italian edition to be printed in Rome at the Holy See’s own expense. (This according to the publisher’s note to the fifth edition, revised and enlarged.) In discussing the origins of Freemasonry, Msgr. Dillon cites the studies of Mgr. Segur, the Bishop of Grenoble France, who dates the founding to a Laelius Socinus of Siena, Italy, founder of the Unitarian sect, and his nephew Faustus, around the year 1547. According to Segur, the aim of both Laelius and Faustus was “not only to destroy the Church but to raise up another temple into which any enemy of orthodoxy might freely enter. It was called Christian but was without Christian faith or hope or love.” One Abbe Franc believed that Oliver Cromwell was a Socinian, Dillon relates.
According to Msgr. Dillon, Mgr. Segur, “…connects modern Freemasonry with the Jews and Templars as well as Socinus. There are reasons which lead me to think he is right in doing so. The Jews for many centuries previous to the Reformation had formed secret societies for their own protection and for the destruction of the Christianity which persecuted them and which they so much hated. The rebuilding of the Temple of Solomon was the dream of their lives. It is unquestionable that they wished to make common cause with other bodies of persecuted religionists. They had special reason to welcome with joy such heretics as were cast off by Catholicism. It is therefore not at all improbable that they admitted into their secret conclaves some at least of the discontented Templars burning for revenge upon those who dispossessed and suppressed the order. The fact would account for the curious combination of Jewish and conventional allusions to be found in modern Masonry.”
“The era of the so-called Reformation was a sad epoch… It was an era of church demolition rather than of church building. Wherever the blight of Protestantism fell, the beauty and stateliness of church architecture became dwarfed, stunted and degraded whenever it was not utterly destroyed. The need of brother Masons [builders] had passed and succeeding Masons began to admit men to their guilds who won a living otherwise than by the craft. In Germany their confraternity had become a cover for the Reformers and Socinus, seeing it as a means for advancing his sect a method for winning adepts and progressing stealthily without attracting the notice of Catholic government, would desire, no doubt, to use it for his purpose. We have to this day the statute the genuine Freemasons of Strausbourg framed in 1462 and the same revised as late as 1563 but in them there is absolutely nothing of heresy or hostility to the Church.
“But there is a curious document called the Charter of Cologne dated 1535, which if it be genuine, proves to us that there existed at that early date a body of Freemasons having principles identical with those professed by the Masons of our own day. It is to be found in the archives of the Mother Lodge of Amsterdam which also preserves the act of its own constitution under the date of 1519. It reveals the existence of lodges of kindred intent in London, Edinburgh, Vienna, Amsterdam, Paris, Lyons, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Antwerp, Rotterdam, Madrid, Venice, Goriz, Koenigsburg, Brussels, Danzig, Madgeburg, Bremen and Cologne and it bears the signatures of well-known enemies of the Church at that. Namely Hermanas, or Herman de Weir, the immoral and heretical Archbishop elector of Cologne, placed for his misdeeds under the ban of the empire; Doctor Coligny leader of the Huguenots of France; Jacob d’ Anville, prior of the Augustinians of Cologne, who incurred the same reproaches as Archbishop Herman Melancthon, the reformer… etc., etcetera.”
This leads us directly back to the Avignon papacy and the advent of the Gallicanist heresy, dedicated to eroding papal authority. Disbanded and frustrated, it appears the remaining rogue Templars and those wishing to eliminate or mitigate papal authority managed somehow to join forces with and influence those amongst the hierarchy in the Church. These members of the clergy most likely took them for good Catholics and trusted them, and it is into their ears they began to whisper doubts regarding papal supremacy and early ideas of democracy such as Marsilius of Padua taught. In short, they began the campaign to democratize and modernize the Church, to align Her with the state once they had toppled the monarchies, to strip the Church of Her rightful power. If their efforts are viewed over time with the hindsight afforded by history, it can easily be seen that this is what they did gradually over the centuries until the time of the Vatican Council.
Masonry’s Jewish origins
Did the Jews first instigate and fund Freemasonry and its many satellites? That appears to be the case. And it is still funding and supporting its efforts. But is it the primary source behind Freemasonry? It is hard to believe that it is any longer the driving force that propels it for two reasons. One, Protestant and atheistic hatred of Catholics has mushroomed to such an extent that active participation by the Jews is no longer necessary, although there may be supervisory forces at the upper levels of the Masonic pyramid directing certain groups. Secondly, Pope Leo XII, in his 1825 encyclical Quo Graviora, observed: “What is definitely ascertained is that those different sects, despite the diversity of their names, are all united and linked by the similarity of their infamous plans.”
Later Pope Pius IX would teach: “We have resolved, Venerable Brethren, to raise our Apostolic voice therefore, and We hereby confirm before you the constitutions of our predecessors and in virtue of our Apostolic authority We hold up to reprobation and we condemn this Masonic society and all other societies of the same order, which although different in appearance but pursuing the same aim against the church or legitimate civil power, are constantly being formed” (Allocution of Sept. 15, 1875). He further noted in this same allocution: “The Masonic sect has developed to such an extent that in these days of great difficulty it shows itself everywhere and with impunity and raises a more audacious countenance.”
Pope Leo XIII taught in Humanum Genus that: “There are several organized bodies which, though differing in name and ceremonial, in form and origin, are nevertheless so bound together by community of purpose and by the similarity of their main opinions as to make in fact one thing with the sect of the Freemasons, which is a kind of center whence they all go forth and whether they all return.” As Pope Pius IX observed above, even in his day these sects had greatly grown in number and become commonplace. They have now grown to such great proportions today that it would be almost impossible for such societies to be directly governed by Jewish entities. From the beginning, Freemasonry was populated primarily by Protestant heretics, both clerical and lay — renegades from the faith during the Reformation and the French Revolution. The majority of these individuals were baptized Catholics. Without their hatred of the papacy, the Mass, Catholic governments and Catholic culture, propelling them to destroy the Church, their efforts would have been in vain.
The Kabbala and the Talmud
And it is these same Protestants today who seek to replace the Catholic Church, particularly in this country, now that the usurpers rule in Rome. Quoting the Jewish author Joshua Jehouda in his Judaism and the Vatican, Vicomte Leon de Poncins tells us that: “The Renaissance, the Reformation and the Revolution of 1789 constitute three attempts to rectify Christian mentality by bringing it into tune with the progressive development of reason and science.” The discovery of the Jewish Kabbalah, imparted by Pico de Mirandola to various enlightened Christians, contributed much to the spiritual blossoming known as the Renaissance. About half a century later the rehabilitation of the Talmud was to lead to the Reformation… Laicism, to which the Revolution gave birth, confers on the Jew his dignity as a man but Christian theology has not yet abolished its spiritual contempt for him. This accounts for the twofold attitude of the modern world with regard to the Jew and for the successive outburst of anti-Semitism. Although the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution which followed it liberated the Jew in the social and political fields they both hold the monotheistic religion of Israel in the same contempt as Christian theology.”
Freemasonry uses the Kabbala as its bible. In a 1914 work written by Rabbi Elie Benamozegh, Israel et l’Humanite, the Rabbi writes: “What is certain is that Masonic theology corresponds well enough to that of the Kabbalah. Moreover a profound study of rabbinical works in the first centuries of the Christian era provides abundant proof that the Haggada was the popular form of a secret science whose methods of initiation bore the most striking resemblances to Freemasonry.” And in an editor’s note to this work it is written: ”To those who may be surprised by the use of such an expression Masonic theology we would say that there is a Masonic theology in the sense that there exists in Freemasonry a secret philosophic and religious doctrine which was introduced by the gnostic Rosicrucians at the time of their union with the Freemasons in 1717. The secret doctrine or gnosis belongs exclusively to the high or philosophic degrees of freemasonry (Vicomte Leon de Poncins, Freemasonry and the Vatican).
De Poncins next quotes the anti-Semitism authority Bernard Lazare, who relates: “it is true of course that there were Jews connected with freemasonry from its birth students of the Kabbalah as is shown by certain rites which survive. It is very probable too that in the years preceding the outbreak of the French Revolution they entered in greater numbers than ever into the councils of the secret societies, becoming indeed themselves the founders of secret associations. There were Jews in the circle around Weishaupt and a Jew of Portuguese origin, Martinez de Pasquales, established numerous groups of illuminati in France and gathered around him a large number of disciples whom he instructed in the doctrines of reintegration.” De Poncins then quotes another English source to the effect that: “Although I have not by any means dealt with the Hebraic influences on all the symbolism of Masonry, I hope I have given sufficient illustrations to support the deduction that Masonry as a system of symbolry rests entirely on a foundation which is essentially Hebraic” (Hebraic Influences on Masonic Symbolism, B. Shillman). De Poncins then goes on to show the affinity between Jewish and Masonry’s doctrines and their conception.
There can be no doubt, then, that Freemasonry was founded on the Kabbala and the Talmud. That being said, it cannot be used as an excuse to exhibit hatred toward Jews today or engage in anti-Semitism, for surely the popes knew that this was the case before they ever forbade us to engage in such persecution. Are they using ignorant non-Catholics to help them rebuild their temple? Yes. Have they managed to convince them that their Christian roots are Jewish? That is true of at least some Protestant sects, who believe they are helping the Jews to fulfill biblical prophecy in advancing their cause. Can they then claim to march as Christian soldiers in the cause of Christ the King? Absolutely not. For Christ alone is the King of Zion and He it is who at His Second Coming will reclaim the throne of David.
No “Catholic” Masonry
It is no coincidence that the usurpers John 23 and Paul 6 embraced Freemasonry, as de Poncins explains, and along with it the ecumenism that brought both the Jews and all non-Catholic sects into their New World Order fold — Novus Ordo Missae, Novus Ordo Saeculorum. Some say they have seen articles claiming that Francis intends to dissolve the papacy, and this would be consistent with what was reported in the article HERE. Some Protestant evangelists even claim that Protestantism is dissolving into an amorphous mass of “believers.” The stage has been set, and we are being propelled headlong into the vortex. Traditionalism has played its part in the advancement of this process by their involvement in Freemasonry, as indicated in site articles and recent blogs. And no specious objection of what they belong to as being permitted under the title of “Catholic Masonry” can be tolerated. This according to the Holy Office itself, as we see below.
1950 instruction from the Holy Office
“Among the things which are springing up again with renewed vigor and not only in Italy is Freemasonry with its ever-recurring hostility to religion and to the Church. What appears to be a new feature in this Masonic renaissance is the rumors circulating in various social classes that a particular rite of Masonry might no longer be in opposition to the Church whereby even Catholics can enroll at their ease in the sect without fear of excommunication and reproach. Those responsible for propagating these rumors must surely know that nothing has been modified in the Church’s legislation relative to Freemasonry and if they continue this campaign, it can only be in order to profit from the naivete of simple folk. The bishops know that Canon 684 and especially Canon 2335 which excommunicates those who have given their names to Masonry without any distinction between rights are as full in force today as they always have been; all Catholics ought to know this and remember it so as not to fall into this snare and also so as to know how to pass due judgment on the fact that certain simpletons believe they can call themselves both Catholics and Freemasons with impunity. This, I repeat, applies to all Masonic rites, EVEN IF SOME OF THEM IN VARYING CIRCUMSTANCES DECLARED THAT THEY ARE NOT HOSTILE TO THE CHURCH” (Most Reverend Mario Cordovani, Master of the Sacred Palace; printed in Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1950, as quoted by de Poncins. https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/what-happened-to-the-church/
Later Masonic indicators
In 1985, Christopher Shannon of Arizona and one Ely Jason (Dennis D’Amico) proposed to found an International Society of Catholic Scholars. David Bawden was working with Jason on this. But Jason wanted this to be a “Catholic” secret society and Shannon and Bawden later disassociated themselves from each other and from Jason for this and various other reasons. In 1989, Bawden wrote a letter to this author saying he had “doubts” about “Fr.” Peter Tran Van Khoat, whom he was then assisting in his ministry in Texas, because Khoat had also proposed a Secret Society of Catholics, based on the Essenes, a group that seems to have been neither entirely Jewish nor Christian. (The Catholic Encyclopedia says of Essenism: “Freemasons pretended to find in Essenism pure Christianity.”) At that time Khoat, who in the 1980s served as a priest for the Gibsons and the Traditionalist chapel St. Jude’s Shrine, was working with Hutton Gibson and Gary Giuffre to validate the Siri “papacy.” In January 2023, with research help from a friend, I exposed Khoat in a blog as a complete fraud, con man and married man who had never even been a priest. Shortly before this blog was released, Hutton Gibson dropped completely off the radar. A Gibson apologist who later denounced the Siri theory had earlier questioned whether Khoat was a reliable source of information, but never investigated him fully.
So it seems that the infiltration of the secret societies did not stop with the Birchers, but went even deeper still, as Blood on the Altar author Craig Heimbichner and others have attested, even descending to the OTO, or Order of the Oriental Templars, associated with Aleister Crowley’s order of the Golden Dawn. Is it mere coincidence that Crowley was once friends with Rama Coomeraswamy’s father, the Buddhist Ananda Coomeraswamy? Is it coincidence that the “Catholic” convert, Rama Coomeraswamy, was a married “monsignor” who belonged to the Society of St. Pius X? Coincidence is a messenger to the truth, so it seems highly unlikely. Masonic involvement, however, was not limited to the Lefebvre bunch and the Priory of Zion they were obviously connected with, as other sources have proven. The Knights of St. John Jerusalem was home to the SSPX as well as other Traditional organizations. How deeply their involvement ran will never be known, as the secrecy of these groups hides all from view.
Conclusion
What we now know is that a certain number of LibTrads were participants in the very forces that destroyed the juridic Church, and their leaders’ ready access to unlimited funding may well be explained by their affiliation with certain secret societies. Excommunication for Masonic membership means nothing to them since they do not recognize the supremacy of papal jurisdiction. Gallicanism is their game and abandonment of papal teaching is the tool used to ready those who still value the ritualistic element of Catholicism for the eventual dissolution of the papacy. By avoiding all contamination with any secret society, we hope and pray, even if only by desire, to still count ourselves members of Christ’s Mystical Body,— the Church Militant, the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant — of which He is the supreme Pontiff. The gates of hell shall never prevail against that Body, which Christ has promised us will last unto the consummation.
Viva Cristo Rey!
