Fr. Michael Weninger is a priest who has been mentioned several times on this website, as he is one of the few ecclesiastical freemasons who makes no secret of his dual allegiance. (See articles here and here.)
Fr. Weninger, a former diplomat who entered the priesthood late, has never renounced his membership in Freemasonry, which scandalously has even been encouraged by his superiors. He is famous for publishing a book in 2019 called Lodge and Altar, which is based on his doctoral thesis. He studied under Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran at the Pontifical Gregorian University which casts some doubt on Tauran’s own allegiance to the Catholic faith. Weninger also works under the Cardinal at the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.
Fr. Weninger addresses the French National Grand Lodge
A Scandalous Conference
Last month, Fr. Weninger, gave an address at the French National Grand Lodge at which he again attempted to affirm a compatibility between Freemasonry and Catholicism. The lecture can be found here on Youtube, but as both the video and transcript are in French, it’s necessary to rely on translated reports for this article.
The Spanish website, Infovaticana, tells us that according to Fr. Weninger, the “Great Architect of the Universe” is synonymous with the God of the Bible, and that this is the same God “to the Yahweh of the Jews, to the Allah of the Muslims and to the Trinity of the Christians.” This is perfectly consistent with the heresy of indifferentism which is a hallmark of Freemasonry.
The priest also stated that “a Catholic Freemason is no longer excommunicated for the mere fact of his membership in Freemasonry” – an error he shares in common with the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference. Note that Weninger limits this apparent compatibility to Anglo-Saxon lodges; despite the Church making no exceptions to their centuries-old condemnation of Masonry.
Infovaticana suggests that the timing of Fr. Weninger’s address suggests that it is a test to the limits of the new pontificate’s authority – and to date no condemnation of the talk or of the Judas-priest’s dual allegiance has been issued by Pope Leo.
False Interpretation of Canon Law
Fr. Weninger makes his claim of compatibility based on the removal of the penalty of excommunication for Masons from the 1983 Code of Canon Law even though then-Cardinal Ratzinger confirmed that “Membership in them remains prohibited. The faithful who belong to Masonic associations are in a state of serious sin and cannot approach holy communion.”
Even Pope Francis, through Cardinal Fernandez, re-affirmed the ruling in 2023 when he stated that “Active membership in Freemasonry of a faithful is prohibited, due to the incompatibility between Catholic doctrine and Freemasonry.”
Weaponised Confusion
The French media outlet, Tribune Chretienne, com made some insightful comments about Fr. Weninger’s address:
Note that during this same conference, an anonymous speaker testified to a word received during a confession, which alone sums up the constant teaching of the Church: “I absolve you of all your sins, you can do whatever you want, except… don’t go to Freemasonry. “ A revealing sentence which says a lot about the perceived seriousness of this belonging with regard to the Catholic faith.
Father Weninger took the liberty of concluding his intervention with “So be it”, which is not trivial. This expression, [the] liturgical translation of the Christian “Amen”, traditionally concludes a prayer, a blessing or a proclamation of faith. Using it to close a relativistic presentation on the compatibility between the Gospel and an initiatory organization based on secrecy and the rejection of Christian dogma demonstrates the confusion he wants to create to accredit his speech. This amounts to giving a liturgical anointing to a word which contradicts the Magisterium.
As Serge Abad-Gallardo, a former converted Freemason, recalled in a direct criticism addressed to Father Weninger: “Masonic principles are incompatible with Catholicism: they profess doctrinal relativism, refuse all revealed truth and reject the Kingship of Christ. Freemasonry claims to replace faith with human reason. However, man cannot save himself.“
Unpublished Testimony of Fr. Malachi Martin, Taken from L’Eglise Eclipsee. TRanslated from the French by online translation tool.
Malachi Brendan Martin S.J. : July 23, 1921 ~ †July 27, 1999 Born in County Kerry, Ireland, he studied at the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium. There he received doctorates in Semitic language, archeology and Oriental history. He then studied at Oxford and at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
Ordained as a priest on August 15, 1954, he was a Jesuit priest in Rome from 1958 to 1964, and carried out certain delicate missions for Cardinal Augustine Bea, for whom he was private secretary, and Popes John XXIII and Paul VI. Relieved in 1964 by Paul VI of his vows of poverty and obedience at his own request, he moved to New York and became an international author of bestsellers, fiction and non-fiction. One of his favourite subjects is the Third Secret of Fatima, about which he spoke at length in his works. He recalls that what is most frightening is that it is apocalyptic and corresponds to the eschatological texts of the Holy Scriptures.
We approach this study through the testimony of Father Malachi Martin, who was extremely kind enough to sign his declarations. As he was secretary to Cardinal Bea, and the latter played a major role in the founding of the new “conciliar church”1, as well as in the execution of the plan by enemies of the Church, his testimony is both of great interest and extreme seriousness. This is why we will avoid mentioning the names of the people directly concerned by this investigation; except, of course, Father Malachi Martin himself. Some told us they didn’t really agree with some of the Father’s statements. We point out that it is necessary to distinguish, in this testimony, the events he relates from his personal opinions, which we are not obliged to follow. What seemed important to us in the context of this work are the objective facts that it reports.
It all started with an article entitled “Is the Pope Cardinal Siri?” » signed L.H. Rémy, of which here is the reproduction:
“In one of his writings, Prince Scortesco, first cousin of Prince Borghese, President of the Conclave having elected Montini to the Supreme Pontificate, gives the following information concerning the conclave of June 21, 1963: “During the Conclave, a cardinal left the Sistine Chapel, met the representatives of B’naï B’rith2, announced to them the election of Cardinal Siri. They responded by telling him that the persecutions against the Church would resume immediately. Returning to the conclave, he had Montini elected.”
Visiting Monsieur de la Franquerie in November 1984, with my friend Francis Dallais, we spoke again about this serious problem. Monsieur de la Franquerie, in 1963, was in close contact with numerous Roman prelates, and he confirmed to us that he had heard confidences from reliable and well-informed people who had knowledge of these facts.
To find out for sure, e decided to go see Cardinal Siri in Genoa. Monsieur de la Franquerie, having had the opportunity in the past to meet him and have friendly conversations with him, wrote to him to ask for an audience which the cardinal granted us on the Friday following Ascension 1985.
This is how on May 17, 1985, we found ourselves at my home in Lyon: Monsieur de la Franquerie and Francis Dallais. The evening was wonderful. I admit that I am sensitive to the very old French charm of our dear Marquis and that we spent, until very late in the night, unforgettable moments listening to him tell us his memories of a fruitful life and well filled. Whether it is his memories of Monsignor Jouin, Marshal Pétain or Pius XII, Monsieur de la Franquerie is inexhaustible and fascinating.
The next morning we left early for Genoa where the Cardinal was waiting for us around 10 a.m. and granted us a two-hour audience. We were received with great attention in the magnificent Episcopal Palace of Genoa. The Cardinal, who speaks French very well, was warm, attentive and had a courtesy typical of these people, great in office, but even more so in heart.
A dialogue then began between these two respectable people in a diplomatic language that I did not know and which is of a charm, of a delicacy, the fruit of the education of hundreds of years, and unfortunately disappeared from our days.
Giuseppe Cardinal Siri
They talked about several current or past problems, useless to recount today. As far as we are concerned, we had agreed the evening before to first talk about the exit, during the Conclave, of Cardinal Tisserand. Recalling this story, Cardinal Siri’s reaction was clear, precise, firm and indisputable: “No, no one left the Conclave.” He can only testify to what he saw and not to what might have happened in his sleep or behind his back. But what caught our attention was this firmness, this categorical ‘no’ from the Cardinal.
Moments later, when asked if he had been elected pope, his reaction was completely different. He began by remaining silent for a long time, he raised his eyes to the sky with a grin of pain and sorrow, clasped his hands and said, weighing each word with gravity: “I am bound by secrecy.” Then, after a long silence, heavy for all of us, he continued: “I am bound by secrecy. This secret is horrible. I could write books on the different conclaves; very serious things have happened. But I can’t say anything.”
Let’s think. If he had not been elected pope, he would have said it with as much promptness and firmness as the previous question. Having been elected, he could not say it, bound by secrecy, and, not being able to lie, he took refuge behind this secret.
In fact, it turns out that someone close to me who knew him closely assured me that the Cardinal told them that he had been elected pope twice: in place of Paul VI, and Wojtyla. The first time he refused, the second he was forced to refuse under threat of schism!
We three witnesses were left very shaken and practically convinced of his election.
And then serious questions arise. Did he resign? Was he forced to resign? What about these elections? What heavy secrets weigh on him? During the last Synod, he stayed a few hours and left. Despite his advanced age and the fact that he was over 75, he did not resign and it was not demanded. So?
As he was the last cardinal appointed by Pius XII, we leave it to historians and theologians to study this problem in depth and respond to it. We simply leave this grave testimony3. In the week following the publication of this article, Monsieur de la Franquerie received two telephone calls from Rome, proving that even a small, very confidential magazine was read in the Vatican. The correspondents wanted to know if the article was serious, which Monsieur de la Franquerie confirmed to them.
The article was then translated into English, German, Spanish, Italian and distributed everywhere, so much so that one day a priest asked for a meeting with the director of the magazine. This priest was sent by Father Malachi Martin, a Jesuit, living in New York.
He met him to let him know from Father Malachi Martin, present as an interpreter at the last conclaves (speaking several languages), that what he had written was true. He supplemented this information with an important element: namely that Malachi Martin had to translate a message intended for Cardinal Siri, which contained exactly this sentence: “If you accept the pontificate, we will retaliate against your family.”
During May 1996, one of our friends, who was in the United States for a few months, took the opportunity to go see Father Malachi Martin. He took the initiative to ask him a few questions in writing. Here is the report of the visits, the questions and the answers as they reached us.
First interview on June 3, 1996 in New York
“Malachi Martin lives in the United States. He always says his Mass, confesses and sees people. He is seventy-five years old and in his right mind.
I introduced myself as a friend of friends of the Marquis de la Franquerie. This was enough for him to put things in perspective. (…) Almost by himself, he told me about the Conclaves he experienced. I asked him two or three questions. He told me that Cardinal Siri was indeed elected pope in place of Paul VI and John Paul II and that he refused twice because of threats made against him and his family. He came from a great family from Genoa. During the two Conclaves, none of the cardinals went out. These threats were made to him by another cardinal.
I didn’t dwell too much on the subject and we talked about the crisis in general. Then, on his own, while he was talking about John Paul II, about the fact that he did not govern and that he did not believe in his infallibility, that the Church was governed by the bishops. He told that ultimately all this posed serious problems: that all the ordinations of priests by John Paul II were invalid and that the faithful were lost.
I asked him the question again: “So you say that all of this is invalid?” He answered me with great simplicity and assurance: “But yes, since the sacrament was changed at the Council”4.
So I told him that we should write all this down and he told me that he is writing a new book on this subject. At the same time he dedicated his latest book to me in English, which will be translated into French: “Windswept House”.
“Then we talked about this and that. He told me that the Abbot of Nantes had come to see him and asked him to insert a page about his community and himself in one of his books, but that he had to refuse. He knew Mgr Guérard des Lauriers, Mgr Ngo Dhin Thuc and many people.
I asked him what he thought of the consecrations carried out by Mgr Ngo Dhin Thuc. He thiinks they are completely valid. He believes that there are currently some 57 bishops who have been consecrated in this way. He asked me if Bishop Williamson is a “sedevacantist” at heart or not. I told him that in any case, he is, as are others, but that he doesn’t say it and that Bishop Fellay claims to have relations with “undeclared sedevacantists”. He invited me to come back and see him – which will happen very soon.”
Second interview of September 12, 1996 in New York
“In my last story I forgot to mention that Cardinal Ottaviani had probably been blackmailed in his last days so that he would accept the Novus Ordo, otherwise he would not be given the last sacraments.
This Thursday evening, Malachi Martin had prepared the written answers to the questions that I had asked him in writing by mail some time before. This with the aim of possible publication. He warned me that our interview will not be long because he was to receive a prelate from Rome in an hour.
John Paul II signed an official document authorizing a Conclave to depose the pope on grounds of physical incapacity or health. So much so that we only talk about the Conclave in Rome… but the next one will be worse and so will the situation!
In addition to the written responses, we took up some of them orally. In particular the question of the Conclave. He described to me again how Cardinal Siri’s refusal happened: “After having been elected Pope and having read a paper which had just reached him, in an envelope, from the rank of cardinals, one of the three cardinals presiding the Conclave approached to ask him according to the consecrated words if he agreed to be pope. At that moment, Siri stood up stiff as a stick and pronounced the Latin phrases of refusal in an impersonal and cold tone as if he were forced. The reason he gave for his refusal was propter metum, that is to say ‘because of fear’.” At this moment, Malachi Martin told me that, canonically, this way of responding could have been a reason to invalidate the Conclave5.
I asked him: “Who did this paper come from?”
He answered me: “It came from the cardinals, probably from Cardinals Villot and …..6..In any case it was the expression of the refusal of the Special Lodge. This Lodge is reserved in Rome for cardinals in close contact with the Grand East. John XXIII and Paul VI were part of the Special Lodge.”
I asked him to confirm: “Was John XXIII a Freemason?” He replied: “On the membership of John XXIII in Freemasonry, all the proofs are in the Vatican archives, jealously guarded by Cardinal Sodano. He himself saw photos taken by his driver revealing John XXIII frequenting Parisian dressing rooms.” The rest of our conversation was a bit of a repetition of the answers he had written. Due to lack of time we stop there. We must meet again the following Tuesday.”
Third interview of September 17, 1996 in New York
“This will be our last meeting before my return to France. Malachi Martin told me again that we are only talking about the Conclave in Rome, that everyone is looking for votes and that the Freemasons are agitating very actively within the special Lodge reserved for cardinals, but in liaison with the rest of Freemasonry via the Grand East and the Grand Master of Italy whose name he does not remember.
He told me that he spoke several times to John Paul II about these pressures (from Freemasonry) and the errors of Vatican II, but that he told him that it was nothing and that he made fun of it.
I asked him: “Does John Paul II consider himself pope?”. He answered me: “He even doubts whether he is pope and he behaves more like a bishop than like a pope.”
We then talked about Mgr Thuc, Mgr Mac Kenna then he read and signed the translation of his responses into French in order to be able to ask that they be published. I asked him for some details on the reason for Cardinal Siri’s first refusal and how it happened. He replied that it was the same process each time (for Paul VI and John Paul II).
Then I asked him what he meant by “advancing issues on Ecumenism and Judaism”. In fact, he was simply an intermediary between John XXIII and Cardinal Bea. Finally, after he gave me his blessing, we parted with the intention of remaining in correspondence.”
Questions asked of Malachi Martin (September 1996)
Subject: Traditionalism
Q. Do you know the so-called Cassiciacum thesis written by Mgr Guérard des Lauriers? What do you think? Do you consider that today the “pope”7 is a usurper, no longer has authority and should either convert or be deposed?
Q. The Society of Saint Pius X9 signed a recognition of the legitimacy of John Paul II before the diaconate. It gives the practical instructions to pray publicly for him and to say “Una cum famulo tuo papa nostro Joanne Paulo” at Mass. What do you think of that?
A. The Society is confused about the papacy.
Q. Do you think that the consecrations performed by Mgr Ngo Dinh Thuc are valid?
A. The consecrations of Mgr Ngo Dinh Thuc are valid.
Q. What do you think of the fight between Mgr Lefebvre and Mgr de Castro Mayer?
A. I think that Mgr Lefebvre and Mgr de Castro Mayer were fallible heroes but heroes.
Q. Do you know the book by Arnaldo Xavier da Silvera “The new Mass, what to think of it?” Is it true that he was murdered?
A. I don’t know anything about Arnaldo Xavier da Silvera.
Subject: Conclaves
Q. Was Cardinal Siri elected pope twice? When ? One might think that his refusal comes from him alone. Why did he refuse and give way to Paul VI then to John Paul II? Some have asked Cardinal Siri; he did not respond and remained silent. You say there was pressure. Which ones and how do you know? From which cardinal do these pressures come? We saw black smoke at the Conclave electing John Paul II. Was it because Cardinal Siri had been elected and refused?
A. That Siri, twice in his old age, was elected pope is an undeniable fact to those who know what happened. All that Siri himself conceded was that fear of retaliation was the determining factor in his behaviour. The pressure on him not to accept the pontificate did not come from a single cardinal. Simply Siri was not acceptable to the progressive faction and its bosses. Yes, there was confusion after a vote at the October 1978 Conclave.
Q. You did not attend the Conclave electing John XXIII but you say that he kindly carried out his personal propaganda. Is this true? Why would he want to be pope?
A. Angelo Roncalli was always a missionary with his intention of becoming pope. He had an entirely Modernist agenda for the Church10.
Subject: The Popes
Q. Was John XXIII an initiate? Some documents refer to him as “brother”. What do you think?
Q. Does the encyclical Pacem in Terris contain heresies? Does it fall under the infallible Magisterium?
A. This should belong to the universal Ordinary Magisterium, but it is a Modernist document.
Q. Should we consider John XXIII as a legitimate pope? Should we follow his liturgical reform?
A. He was validly elected. No, we should not follow his liturgical reform.
Q. Did Paul VI have Jewish origins? What do you think of the thesis of the survival of Paul VI saying that he was replaced by a double?
A. No one really knows all of Montini’s ancestors. No, Paul VI was never replaced by a double.
Q. Did John Paul II have Jewish origins? Was he a heretic before his election? Some Masonic documents acclaimed him because he recognized “the right to make mistakes.” Do you think he is perfectly aware of what he is doing?
A. John Paul II, no, as far as I know, has no Jewish ancestors, but who really knows12? He is perfectly aware of what he did. He is not aware of the mistakes he has made.
Q. Was John Paul I assassinated? For what ?
A. We cannot explain the events surrounding the death of John Paul I by ordinary means. Powerful people didn’t like him as pope.
Q. What do you think of the reform of the psalms by Cardinal Bea under Pius XII? What do we think of the institution of the Easter liturgy at midnight by Pius XII?
A. I think all their changes were harmful.
Q. Which pope is guilty of obscuring the message of Fatima?
A. Pope John XXIII.
Q. Who are the current “papabile” cardinals? Can we hope for a return to order after John Paul II? What future do you envision for the papacy and therefore for the Church?
A. The future of the papacy: the hierarchy of the Church is extremely gloomy.13
Subject: Vatican II
Q. Does the Second Vatican Council include formal heresies? Which ones?
A. Certain parts of certain documents contradict past statements of the Roman Magisterium. For example, about religious freedom, papal primacy and infallibility; about the purpose of marriage, about the role of Jews, about the Church in the world.
Q. Does the Second Vatican Council fall under the Ordinary Universal Magisterium? Is it infallible?
A. Explicitly, Paul VI and the bishops of the Council denied the infallibility of the Second Vatican Council. If it had reflected the Tradition of the Roman Magisterium, it would have been part of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, but it did not do so.
Q. Should the Second Vatican Council be declared a robbery, in the same way as the Council of Ephesus? Can we interpret the Council in the light of Tradition?
A. What the Roman Magisterium will ultimately do regarding Vatican II is what everyone hopes. Ultimately the pope will have to correct Vatican II and its documents in light of the fixed teaching of the Roman Magisterium – which won’t happen very soon. If you want to interpret Vatican II in the light of Tradition, you will have to reform its main documents completely14.
Subject: Relations at the Vatican
Q. You were Cardinal Bea’s secretary and therefore probably followed his interviews. What do you think of him? Cardinal Bea is said to have been at the origin of Ch.4 of the Schema on Ecumenism concerning the Jews15, which rejects the guilt of the Jewish people in the crucifixion. What do you think? Did you participate in the writing of this text?
A. Cardinal Bea was busy introducing as many progressive doctrines and policies as possible. He was the leading hand in the Schema on Ecumenism. I refused to follow what John XXIII and Bea proposed about the role of the Jewish population.
Augustin Cardinal Bea
Q. It is said that you have spent your entire career in the Vatican. Is this true? In what position?
A. No, I was appointed professor at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome in 1958. From there I became an assistant and advisor to Cardinal Bea.
Q. What was your role during the Council? Did the “observers” participate in the writing of the “New Mass”?
A. During the Council, my role was to be “behind the scenes”, pushing forward plans on Ecumenism and Judaism. Six Protestant clergymen (out of a total of eight consultants) wrote the Novus Ordo under the direction of Mgr. Annibale Bugnini. Unless very special care is exercised, the Novus Ordo is invalid.
Q. All your books are released in novel form with imaginary names. Why is that ? Have you had death threats?
A. Not all of my books are in the form of a novel; only three of them. I have published sixteen books.
Q. Did you know Carlo Falconi? What do you think of him? In his book Seen and heard at the Council, he said: “An otherwise trustworthy thirty-third degree assured me that Montini was a Freemason. For my part, I don’t believe it.” What do you think?
A. I did not know Carlo Falconi personally. Yes, for a certain period, Montini was a member of the Lodge, as was John XXIII.
What matters in this testimony – disregarding the fact that these maneuvers may have rendered these conclaves invalid – is that the election of these conciliar pontiffs is due to enormous manipulation by the servants of the Masonic sect.
Let us thank Father Malachi Martin for his courage. His accusations raise serious questions that only theologians and canonists can resolve. How did we get to this?
The reader will have understood: what Father Malachi Martin reveals is the culmination of a long conspiracy. Indeed, what does he say?
“Siri was not acceptable to the progressive faction and its bosses.” “We cannot explain the events surrounding the death of John Paul I by ordinary means.” “Powerful people didn’t like him as pope.”
Who are the “bosses” of this progressive faction plaguing the Vatican? Who are these “powerful people”? How did they come to dominate in the Vatican, to the point of being able to manipulate Conclaves?
FOOTNOTES
This is the name that Cardinal Benelli used to designate the church resulting from the Council. Cardinal Wojtyla, in his book “Sign of Contradiction”, gives it the name “post-conciliar church”. ↩︎
“B’naï B’rith, which means ‘Sons of the Covenant’ in Hebrew, is the first world Jewish organization. It is at the same time the oldest, the most numerous and undoubtedly the most influential. Founded in 1843 in the United States, this para-Masonic secret society exclusively reserved for Jews includes more than 550,000 Brothers and Sisters in around fifty countries” (The Warriors of Israel, Facta, 1995, p. 415). Also read the remarkable work by Mr. E. Ratier: Mysteries and secrets of B’naï B’rith. ↩︎
The question of the possible invalidity of the post-conciliar rite of the sacrament of orders is dealt with in the magazine “Forts dans la Foi”. Rama P. Coomaraswamy, MD: “The Anglican drama of the post-conciliar Catholic clergy”, n° 9/10, 2nd quarter 1990. ↩︎
L’Osservatore Romano of 03/21/1989 reports a comment by Father Betti about the new formulas of the profession of faith (a chapter should be written to comment on them). He says among other things: “The second category concerns the truths and doctrines that the Magisterium proposes in a definitive manner although they are not divinely revealed. To these truths must correspond to a total assent, even if it is not an assent of faith, because they are precisely not proposed as divinely revealed. For example, the legitimacy of a Roman Pontiff: his election is a historical fact. It could even be theoretically tainted by an electoral defect. It is not the fact in itself which is divinely revealed, but it is so linked to Revelation that the Magisterium can pronounce in a definitive manner on the legitimacy of this or that Pope. Otherwise, the Church would have remained for this or that period without a legitimate leader, without a successor to Peter. This extract would almost seem a response to the testimony published three years before, in 1986 in “Under the Banner”. ↩︎
The second name is difficult to grasp. In order to avoid an error we prefer not to transcribe it. ↩︎
We do not know why Father Malachi Martin did not answer the second question. ↩︎
The Society of Saint Pius X was founded by Mgr Lefebvre in 1970. ↩︎
By evoking this expression of “missionary” Father Malachi Martin means that Cardinal Angelo Roncalli was acting to become Pope. By the word “agenda” he means that he had a modernist program. We will come back to this later. ↩︎
This is an initiation into Freemasonry. Let us note this extract from Father Mouraux’s magazine: “Nuncio in Paris, Mgr Roncalli received at an open table Edouard Herriot and Vincent Auriol, notorious freemasons and politicians who carried out persecutory action against the Church. In the warmth of a banquet, he said to them one day: “What separates us is of little importance”. All his happiness seemed to be that of the table where he wanted above all to please” (Bonum Certamen 122, p. 7). ↩︎
Emilia Kaczorowska, the mother of John Paul II, was Jewish. ↩︎
Note from AC – Fr. Martin had read the Third Secret of Fatima, which is widely believed by traditionalists to have predicted the Crisis. He knew in the 1990’s where the Church was heading. ↩︎
We can note that “totally reforming the main documents” of Vatican II necessarily amounts to rejecting the Council, the good parts of which served to push through the bad ones. ↩︎
During the Council a brochure was distributed to the Council Fathers entitled Judeo-Masonic action in the Council. After having given several proofs that chapter 4 presented to the Council was of Jewish origin, we find this on page 10: “If we want definitive proof that chapter 4 of the Schema on Ecumenism presented to the Council by Cardinal Bea — who personally defended this thesis – is from a Judeo-Masonic source, we find it in the pages of the important French newspaper Le Monde, of November 19, 1963: “The international Jewish organization B’naï B’rith has expressed its desire to establish closer relations with the Catholic Church. The said Order has just submitted to the Council a declaration in which the responsibility of all humanity in the death of Jesus Christ is affirmed. If this declaration is accepted by the Council, declared Mr. Label A. Katz, President of the International Council of B’naï B’rith, the Jewish communities will study the means of cooperation with the authorities of the (Catholic) Church.” In presenting his draft decree in favor of the Jews – completely contrary to the Gospel – His Eminence Cardinal Bea took care not to properly inform the Fathers of the Council of the origin of his theses and to specify to them they were suggested by the Masonic Order of B’naï B’rith. Let us also add this letter from Cardinal Villot to Cardinal Marty of December 22, 1977: “…The Holy Father is indeed well aware of the sincere and fruitful relations that his venerated predecessor Pope John XXIII maintained with Jules Isaac. He also appreciates the happy consequences that these reports have had for subsequent orientation of the relations of the Catholic Church with Judaism, relations which found ecclesial expression in number 4 of the declaration Nostra Aetate of the Second Vatican Council, as well as in other manifestations which preceded it deated or followed” (The Churches before Judaism, Ed. du Cerf, Paris, 1980, pp. 181 and 182). ↩︎
We therefore know, as it is confirmed by this testimony, that the “New Mass” is the work of Protestants and Freemasons. Should we be surprised to find, for example, cabbalistic formulas in the Offertory? To know the thoughts of Protestants on the subject of the mass, let us read what Luther, founder of this sect, wrote: “We declare in the first place that our intention has never been to absolutely abolish all worship of God, but only to purge that which is in use, of all the additions with which it has been soiled: I am speaking of this abominable Canon, which is a collection of muddy lacunae; we made the Mass a sacrifice; we added offerories. The Mass is not a sacrifice or the action of the priest. Let us look at it as a sacrament or as a testament. Let us call it blessing, eucharist, or table of the Lord, or Lord’s Supper, or Memory of the Lord. Let us give it any other title we wish, provided that we do not sully it with the name of sacrifice or action” (Werke, t. xi, p. 774). “When the mass is overthrown, I think we will have overthrown the papacy” (Contra Henricum Angliae Regem, Werke, t. x; sec. ii). ↩︎
In his recent interview with Franca Giansoldati, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò accuses Cardinal Tarscisio Bertone of having Masonic sympathies. Bertone, who is still alive, was Secretary of State to Benedict XVI and he continued in that position for the first seven months of Francis’ pontificate.
Like Pope John XXIII, Cardinal Bertone’s coat-of-arms includes a tower, which according to Masonic heraldry, represents the Masonic temple.
Bertone is widely regarded as one of Benedict’s ‘gatekeepers’, one who controlled the flow of information to the Pope; he admitted to knowing months in advance of the Pope’s decision to resign. Bertone’s farewell address to Benedict, flatters the Pope for his decision, even though elsewhere he said he did not agree with it:
“All of us have realized that it is precisely the deep love that Your Holiness has for God and the Church that prompted you to make this act, revealing that purity of mind, that strong and demanding faith, that strength of humility and meekness, along with great courage, that have marked every step of your life and your ministry…”
According to Viganò, it was Bertone who exerted pressure on Pope Benedict to have Viganò removed from the Secretariat of State and subsequently transferred to the US as Nuncio. All of this was aimed at stopping Viganò from exposing financial corruption in the Vatican. Viganò was also abruptly evicted from his Curial home the day he turned 75, and denied an alternative within the Vatican walls.
Alarmingly, he suggests that his predecessor as Nuncio, Cardinal Pietro Sandri, was murdered for opposing then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.
Said Viganò:
Archbishop Sambi died in circumstances that have never been clarified, after a trivial operation at John’s Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore (which is connected to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum in Davos). McCarrick disappeared for a month in 2011 – simultaneous to the death of the Nuncio – and did not attend his funeral. The death certificate issued to Msgr. Jean-François Lanteaume, Chargé d’Affaires at the Nunciature, did not explain the causes of the Nuncio’s death, nor was an autopsy ever carried out on Archbishop Sambi.
So, what is known about Bertone and does he have Masonic form?
We know that he was part of the ‘Old Guard’: that ‘mafia’ of prelates at the highest levels in the Vatican, who ran things behind the scenes before Bergoglio’s new gang came to town. Parolin is one of these, as was Sodano.
Bertone was responsible for making influential appointments within the Curia, the most notable of which was Cardinal Becciu’s appointment as sostituto in 2011. He also appointed Alberto Perlasca as head of the administrative office of the Secretariat of State in 2009. Perlasca monitored all the department’s financial transactions – including the ill-fated London Sloane Avenue deal and both he and Becciu went on to become central figures in the Vatican financial corruption trial.
Bertone himself is no stranger to accusations of financial misappropriation. In 2015, he was at the centre of the Vatileaks 2 scandal when it was revealed that he had used funds from the Bambino Gesù Foundation to renovate his large apartment in Vatican City. The apartment was apparently designed to house Bertone, his secretary and three nuns and included a rooftop entertainment area; half a million US dollars was diverted from the Bambino Gesù to pay for the renovations. In addition, there was corruption involved in the tendering process and a long-time friend of Bertone was given the contract for the job.
Although the case was mentioned in 2017 during the complicated Vatican finances trial, no charges were laid against Bertone, nor was he even called as a witness – Bertone repeatedly has claimed that Pope Francis sanctioned the renovations. The only conclusion given at the trial was that the Bertone affair was ‘anomalous.’
Yet that event pales into insignificance with older accusations that Bertone was involved in a misappropriation of Vatican funds to the tune of USD $15 million. Somehow this incident was never properly investigated and news articles about it have been scrubbed from the internet.
Bertone is also implicated in serious moral failings within the hierarchy. He knew at least as early as 2008 that Theodore McCarrick had slept with seminarians and although he was one of those responsible for placing sanctions on McCarrick, did nothing to enforce them. Also, despite his integral role in the McCarrick case, Bertone was not mentioned in the McCarrick Report.
But without a doubt, the most serious affair Bertone has been involved in was the deception surrounding the Third Secret of Fatima. Bertone, along with then-Cardinal Ratzinger and others, fabricated the interpretation of the Third Secret which was announced to the world in 2000. Their interpretation said that the ‘bishop in white’ who was murdered actually referred to the attempted assassination of John Paul II, that predictions of a chastisement actually referred to the Church’s ongoing opposition by the world and so on. Bertone met with Sr. Lucia on three occasions, claiming she approved their false interpretation as well as the inadequate Consecration made by Pope John Paul II. (For anyone with doubts: where are the fruits of this Consecration?)
It is difficult to fathom the magnitude of this betrayal by Bertone, Ratzinger, John Paul II and their clique. To firstly ignore and then misrepresent Our Lady is treachery of the most hideous kind.
If, as Archbishop Viganò suggests, Bertone is at the very least least, adjacent to Freemasonry, then this only adds insult to the injury of Holy Mother Church. Bertone should be added to the list of prelates who need our prayers: at 89, he has not much time left for conversion, and without it, an eternity in hell awaits him and all those who profit from their status in the Church or go so far as to mock the Mother of God.
IMAGE SOURCES: White House Image/Lawrence Jackson, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
The figure of Cardinal Mariano Rampolla is well known among those who take an interest in the inner workings of the Roman Curia, especially in events surrounding papal conclaves. He was famously very close to being elected Pope after the death of Pope Leo XIII in 1903, when he was vetoed on behalf of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
At that time, only three nations retained that ancient power of veto: Austria, Germany and Italy. Even so, Emperor Franz Joseph had been reluctant to intervene in such a solemn matter. He had no choice, however, once presented with evidence that Rampolla was at least associated with Masonry, if not a fully-fledged Freemason himself.
The evidence came from Monsignor Jouin, founder of the International Review of Secret Societies; a priest who dedicated his life to exposing Masonry and its associated ideology. It is said he went first to the Cardinals, but was ignored and so he took his evidence instead to the Emperor.This led to the saintly Pius X being elected instead of Rampolla.
There have been attempts to play down the role of Cardinal Mariano Rampolla in this matter: written histories vary as to the reason behind the veto, with some historians, even Catholic ones, concluding that the intervention was merely political. Some go so far as to accuse the Emperor of vengeance: after son had tragically died, apparently by his own hand, it is said that Rampolla denied the boy a Christian burial.
However, after Rampolla’s death in 1913, hard evidence implicating him in Masonry was discovered by the Curia. Papers confirming his membership were shown the Pope Pius X, who ordered them burned, ostensibly to protect the reputation of this ghastly man. Surely no favours were done to the Church or to the faith of Her members by covering up Rampolla’s true allegiances. Ecclesiastical Freemasonry in the Curia has only flourished from that point forward.
In 1929, Rampolla’s betrayal was corroborated by a Bishop Marty in an interview with Felix Lacointa of the newspaper, The Anti-Revolutionary Bloc. Bishop Marty stated that he had been told by Cardinal Merry dal Val, Secretary of Sate to Pius X that the Pope had indeed viewed and then destroyed the incriminating papers. [Cited in L’Église Éclipsée by Georges Vinson.]
What makes Rampolla’s case even more serious is that the specific cult in which he was involved was the Ordo Templi Orientis or OTO. This cult is a blend of Masonry and Rosicrucianism, with a strong focus on magic and Rampolla is said to have achieved a very high status. While a man may join Masonry without fully realising what he is doing, the same cannot be said about the OTO. It is possible to potentially complete multiple rituals and levels in Masonry without understanding that one in fact giving one’s allegiance to Satan, believing that one is simply doing one’s best to be a good person by acknowledging God, albeit in the vaguest sense possible.
However, the OTO is something different. It is only approached by those who have a keen desire to access hidden knowledge and the powers that go with that.
There are several different routes into OTO initiation. Some first complete all the levels available at their local Masonic Lodge, finding that they still ‘want more’. Others complete several levels of Freemasonry then pivot to follow the seductive promises of magic, alchemy and power that are promised by the OTO and similar groups. Still others, knowingly rejecting the True God from the beginning, pursue from the beginning the rituals that promise them wealth, sex and power in this world, even while damning them in the next. Notably, the OTO has always been seen by Freemasons as something “irregular” and it has received many condemnations from within Masonry, particularly of the OTO’s homosexual rituals.
So what is the OTO and why is it so dangerous, yet so alluring to fallen human beings? Looking at one well-known member, Aleister Crowley, will shed some light on those questions. Crowley was among the OTO’s adherents at the end on the 19th century, eventually becoming a Grand Master. He publicly flaunted his immoral antics and invented some of his own rituals centred around sex magick.
It is perhaps this aspect for which he is most infamous. It was possibly Crowley, moreso than any other individual, who helped to make spell-casting, sexual deviancy and even satanism mainstream, to the point where, in our days, occult rituals at rock concerts and Olympic opening ceremonies are commonplace.
The sexual deviancy promoted by Crowley needs little explanation. It has saturated our culture to the point where its practitioners are a protected class. Even the diabolical Alfred Kinsey, the man responsible for deceiving millions of Westerners into accepting deviancy with his disgusting sexual experimentation on children, and even babies was a protege of Crowley’s.
Since sex-magick is integral to the OTO rituals, this means that Rampolla almost certainly engaged in such rituals. We can only wonder at how great a role he may have played in introducing rampant clerical homosexuality and pedophilia into the Church. ‘Uncle Ted’ McCarrick participated in sex-magick; Cardinals Bernadin and Murphy O’Connor were credibly accused of ritual sex abuse. The writings of Cardinal Tucho Fernandez are replete with sexual occultism and Rupnik is obviously into spiritualised sexual abuse.
When it comes to Rampolla, Crowley and McCarrick, though, there another link tying them to technocracy and the Synarchists: they all spent time in Switzerland. Crowley admitted to first dabbling with alchemy during a trip to Switzerland – a hotspot for the occult and the New World Order ‘elite.’ McCarrick is known to have spent many vacations at St. Gallen, which was also the birthplace of the notorious ‘St. Gallen Mafia’, those unworthy Cardinals who conspired to have Bergoglio elected to the papacy. Rampolla also vacationed in Switzerland, where, according to Felix Lacointa of The Anti-Revolutionary Bloc, that he regularly attended lodges in both Einsiedeln and Zurich.
Felix Lacointa provides the testimony of an unnamed French priest who, when on pilgrimage at Einsiedeln Abbey, was so impressed by Rampolla that he decided to write a favourable report on the conversations he had with the pilgrims. An Einsiedeln bookseller quickly brought him back to earth: “He is not worth it! Every fortnight he goes to the lodge in Zurich!”
Einsiedeln and St. Gallen are only a short distance from each other by car, and each is almost equidistant from Davos, the regular gathering spot for the world’s technocrats, many of whom are part of their own diabolical and esoteric group, Synarchy. Like members of the OTO (and it must be remembered, many of these occult groups overlap in both philosophy and membership), Synarchists access ‘secret knowledge’ from demons which they use to steer the world toward total enslavement to science and rationalism. All three sites are close to Zurich, as well as Lucerne, known as a centre of the OTO in the early twentieth century.
Our knowledge of Rampolla’s alleged attendance at lodges in Switzerland, and his founding of a lodge for ecclesiastics within the walls of the Vatican is confirmed by the occultist (and apostate priest) Roca. Roca moved in circles with Saint-Alveydre, Eliphas Levi and other like-minded magicians. Roca and others stated that Rampolla set up an ecclesiastical lodge within the Vatican, something the Marquis de la Franquerie claimed was recognised by St. Pius X. Roca also included the names of other Cardinals: Ferrata, Gasparri, Ceretti, Béa, and Liénart.
Tellingly, the name of this lodge is dedicated to St. John [either St. John the Baptist or St. John of Jerusalem] which was, of course, the name taken by Angelo Roncalli when he ascended to the papacy in 1958. St. John is apparently a “patron saint” of occultists, along with St. Michael the Archangel.
Rampolla’s name can still be found in registers compiled by members of the OTO. One website, to which I won’t link, lists his name among other famous members: Eliphas Levi, Nietzsche, Papus and Richard Wagner. The page seems to be reproduced from an OTO publication called The Equinox. That journal was once said to be highly confidential but that can hardly be the case now that it is freely available on the ‘net.
While there have been concerted efforts in the last few years to expose Rampolla’s involvement with an esoteric cult, the fact that he is known as a Freemason rather than as an occultist is intriguing. Freemasonry is often treated as a threat of the past and tolerated as no longer being seen as subversive. The result is that the word, “Freemasonry” has largely lost its meaning. Like “abortion” and “gay” the word no longer evokes an image of its true nature, indicating that the trend of describing Rampolla merely as a Mason might be part of the whitewash.
Cardinal Alfons Stickler once told a reputable monk that Annibale Bugnini was something “far worse than a Freemason.” One can only wonder what that was and whether Bugnini was merely following in the magical, alchemical footsteps of Mariano Rampolla.
One-Time
Monthly
PLease donate to help me create more content like this! Make a one-time donation
How surprising it is to think that the episcopal ring which once graced the finger of the arch-fiend Annibale Bugnini has become a treasured relic amongst the post-conciliar wreckovators.
The ring first fell into the possession of Bishop Luca Brandolini, a protege of the late Archbishop Annibale Bugnini. Bugnini was of course the treacherous architect of the new Mass. Brandolini, always a sensitive chap, revealed his jewellery fetish in 2007, after Pope Benedict XVI released Summorum Pontificum, the motu proprio which allowed for a wider use of the traditional Mass. At the time, Brandolini tearfully said,
“The episcopal ring which I carry on my finger belonged to archbishop Annibale Bugnini, the father of the Conciliar liturgical reform. I was, at the time of the Council, a disciple of his and a close co-worker. I was close to him when he worked in that reform and I always recall with how much passion he worked for liturgical renewal. Now, his work has been canceled.”
(Brandolini is on the right. I can’t quite make out the ring – can you? Let me know if anyone out there can find a close-up of the ring somewhere.)
Back in 1993, Brandolini had ordained a young man named Vittorio Viola to the priesthood; Viola was made a Bishop in 2014.
Seven years later, our Viola scored a top job when the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments was overhauled by Pope Francis. The saintly Cardinal Sarah was given the flick, the TLM-hating Arthur Roche was put in Sarah’s place and the new-look Dicastery for Divine Worship was born. Secretary of the new outfit was Bishop Viola.
Viola has been in the news in recent days for it was he who signed the dastardly decree shutting down a well-loved Latin Mass at the Cathedral in Melbourne. And it is Viola who now wears Bugnini’s ring!
I think we can safely say that Brandolini did not cut a finger from Bugnini’s cold hand in order to gain the precious ring. Far more likely is the hypothesis that Bugnini bequeathed it to his protege as a kind of torch which would illuminate the way along the next phase of the Latin Mass’ destruction. In a similar way, Brandolini, who is aged but apparently still living, must have passed on the ring to Viola to keep the flame alive. What a rotten legacy that is. A ring that is surely worthy of being flung into the Cracks of Doom.
taken from “the jesuits” by malachi martin. something to remember: this is written from Fr Martin’s perspective, as he saw it in 1988. judging from his later books, it appears that he had a less-than-rosy appraisal of JPII’s effectiveness in geopolitical strategy.
” …. there were continual streams of complaints arriving at the papal office, all detailing the unorthodox opinions being taught by Jesuits in Europe and the United States. There were, in addition, revelations that certain circles of the international section of the Masonic Lodge in Europe and Latin America were actively organising opposition to the Pontiff in Poland, that Vatican prelates – some twenty in all – were formal members of the Italian lodge; and that once again Arrupe’s [Superior General of the Jesuits] Jesuits seemed involved with Lodge circles opposed to the Pontiff.
“Paul VI had already in 1965 warned Arrupe and the Delegates to the 31st Jesuit General Congregation of the dangers in belonging to the Compact; it began to appear to John Paul that the warning had not been too wide of the mark.” p 76
“And then, too, there was the strange case of Jesuit Father Caprile, who wrote in the official Jesuit magazine, Civilta Cattolica, published in Rome. At issue for Caprile was the Roman Catholic prohibition, under pain of excommunication, against Catholic membership in the lodge. Excommunication was a dead letter, Caprile wrote in his article, and lodge membership was open to any Catholic. That was a blatant undermining of the Pope’s own decisions about morality….The alliance between the Cardinal Secretary [Cardinal Agostino Casaroli] and Civilta Cattolica was a matter of record….”
Ecclesiastical Freemasonry 