Hand gestures are common among secret societies such as the Freemasons and the Illuminati, for the purpose of identifying the person making the gesture and they may also alert the viewer to a hidden agenda at play.
For Masons, a handshake is an “outward sign, or token, of the union of our minds and hearts.” Their handshakes are also known as “grips’ or “tokens”.
The left-hand image indicates the Grip of an Entered Apprentice and shows the Mason’s thumb pressing against the first knuckle-joint of the first finger of the recipient. If the recipient is also a Mason, he will usually press back. It also goes by the name of “Boaz”.
The image on the right indicates the Pass-Grip of Fellow Craft, where the Mason presses with his thumb between the first and second knuckles of the recipient’s hand. Also known as “Shibboleth”.
The image below left shows the Real Grip of a Fellow Craft where the Mason presses hard on the recipient’s second knuckle. This may be returned if the recipient is also a Mason. The formal name is “Jachin.”
The image below right shows the Pass-Grip of a Master Mason; the Mason presses on the space between the second and third knuckles. This is also known as “TubalCain.”
In the Masters Grip, the Mason pushes his fingertip into the recipient’s wrist. Pressure may be returned by a fellow Mason.
This one is the Real Grip of a Master Mason and shows the index and middle fingers extended over the recipient’s hand. It is also known as the “Lion Paw”.
Become a Member to get access to the Directory of Ecclesiastical Freemasonry. It’s full of exclusive documents & articles. Click here for more information.
Four files are shown below: a document outlining the Pacts of the Catacombs, the text of both the 1965 and the 2019 Pacts, and a biography of the instigator of the original Pact, Dom Helder Camara.
In 1971, Paul VI was presented with a painting, said to be his portrait, and which, to be honest, is one of the more disturbing images this author has come across. The picture emits a demonic violence that almost leaps out of the frame, leaving the viewer feeling oppressed and unsettled.
Most startling of all, the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church is surrounded by cold, dark Masonic symbols, hiding in plain sight.
Hansing described the portrait as showing “the tension-fraught situation of the church, caught in a multiplicity of issues, as reflected in the countenance of the Pope.”
I don’t profess to be the first to discover this particular connection between Pope Paul VI and Masonry – the articles cited in this one are testimony to that. But since I have only just come across this rather disconcerting episode in Paul’s life, I thought I’d write on it anew and add some further research.
Firstly, there are not one but nine versions of this scene. Each tells, I believe, a part of a story that begins at the Second Vatican Council and culminates in the very public accusations that Paul was a homosexual. Shown below are three versions, created in 1970, 1970/1 and 1975 respectively. The third is part of a series of screen prints, which are based on the second painted version of the portrait.
The artist, Ernst Guenter Hansing, was initially associated with Cardinal Josef Frings, for whom he painted two portraits. Hansing had trained under the abstract artist, Fernand Leger, and had mixed with many avant-garde artists of Europe. This of course, would have appealed to Montini, who was known for his love of the cultural elite. Fring invited Hansing, a Lutheran, to observe the final session of Vatican Two in 1965, in order to “internalise the atmosphere.”
Hansing claims to have been struck by the Pope’s meekness, describing Paul as “humility personified” and as a “pleading” or “begging” person. Hansing at once expressed a desire to paint the Pope, so the story goes, wanting to encapsulate the scene presented by the massive Bernini columns dwarfing the humble Pope, he who alone carried the burden of determining the Church’s future. Hansing also wanted to capture the rays of light which issued from the great dome surmounting the canopy. So the story goes.
Paul apparently did not commission a portrait, but was approached by Hansing who was eventually given a room to work from inside the Vatican from 1969. The artist was then allowed to sit in on 13 papal audiences over the next two and a half years to make his sketches. The Pope’s secretary, then-Fr Pasquale Macchi, acted as go-between for the artist and pontiff.
Strangely, the image of the Pope at the centre of the painting was not based on the sketches Hansing made during those many papal audiences. Rather, it is based on a photograph taken during the Pope’s trip to Jerusalem in 1967. A drawing made from that photograph was then transposed onto the “Papacy” work. The many sessions that saw Hansing scrutinising Paul’s speeches were justified by the artist’s need to ‘internalise” the character of Paul.
Upon seeing a working sketch of himself, Paul is said to have uttered the cryptic comment: “One almost needs a new philosophy to grasp the meaning of this in its context.” [Emphasis added.]
The first version of the painting is made from two separate pieces of canvas: one above and one below. The bottom canvas is horizontal and the top one is vertical – which is like an inverted cross when you come to think of it.
Two vertical white blocks – red in the second painting – on either side of the piece are in fact said to represent an inverted cross – the Petrus cross – according to the artist, ostensibly calling to mind the martyrdom of the first Pontiff.
According to Hansing, his trademark blue colour represented “mystical depth” and was more prominent in the second painting. He referred to the use of red as denoting “blood circulation,” and indeed, much of the red in Hansing’s works resembles blood either dripping or in pools.
In the top of the internal space of the real dome, which was designed by Michelangelo, we can find the image of God the Father. In Hansing’s version, God has been replaced by a mere swirl, which could also be interpreted as an All-Seeing Eye, from which emanates a beam of light.
Hansing replaced God the Father with this ambiguous symbol
A ray of light proceeding from beneath this All-Seeing Eye, seems to pierce the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, then continue vertically downwards right through the person of the Pope. Blood appears to drip down this central axis, through Paul and merging with his own grotesque hands that grasp a threatening dagger-like implement.
A second painting was begun after Fr Macchi and Hansing’s poet friend, Stefan Andrew, suggested to him that the first work was too small. The second work contains a few changes: more “Hansing Blue” is incorporated and the pillars are emphasised. The Pope’s face is “more humble” and the phrase, Pro hominibus constitutus, meaning ‘appointed for service to the people’ – is written in the lower right hand corner. Surprisingly, this motto is also found on Cardinal Frings’ Coat of Arms.
The finished work was a massive 21.6 m x 3.6m (71ft by 12 ft) and was presented to the Pope in 1972.
Cardinal Fring’s Coat of Arms.
Detail from the painting. No, I can’t read it either.
In his speech at the time the second painting was presented to the Pope, Bishop Wilhem Cleven referred to John’s Gospel, stating “The time comes when someone else girds you and leads you where you do not want to go.” (John. 21:17).
When he saw the finished second portrait, he remarked that the it was “very useful” to make an “act of reflection’ in studying the painting. The artist then went on to make seven screen prints of the portrait, apparently at the behest of Paul, in order that they may be sources of “acts of reflection.”
Interpretation
The definitive explanation of the Masonic symbols found in the work was written by researcher and author, Craig Heimbichner, who detected, among other symbols, the three pillars of Masonry, inverted crosses, pentagrams, and at least one square and compass. Heimbichner also explains that the initiation rite of the 30th degree Mason, the Kadosh Degree, involves thrusting a dagger into the papal tiara. He believes the pope is represented as holding that dagger.
It is certainly true that Paul VI surrendered the Papal Tiara at the start of his pontificate. Could his devastating reforms and the emptying of papal authority on his watch also be considered as “killing” the papacy?
I am not normally given to making wild speculations on subjects that are outside my competency. However, this case is an exception. While we will never know the true meaning of this mysterious episode, or of the paintings themselves, I proffer the following hypothesis. You may like to think of it as fan-fiction:
Paul is represented as both victim and perpetrator in Hansing’s portrait: this is an image of his character and of his pontificate…..
Prior to the conclave, the blackmailable Montini promised his Progressive/Masonic coalition supporters that he would allow sweeping reforms once he was elected Pope. As Pope Paul VI, he went along with changes to the Mass, leaving details to the Freemason Bugnini, and approved the other innovations introduced during and after the Council.
Although the Council reaffirmed the Church’s teaching on birth control, Cardinal Frings later challenged Paul to review the that stance, leading Paul to establish a commission to look into the matter. The commission returned to Paul with their conclusion: birth control should be allowed.
This was a bridge too far for Paul. Already cracks were appearing as the Council’s love-fest aura began to wear off. The unity and renewal Paul had, far too optimistically, hoped for had not eventuated, and his latitude in doctrinal matters was being exploited by those closest to him.
Paul decided to risk the ire of the Masonic brotherhood, stand his ground and defend the Church’s teaching in Humanae Vitae, which was released it in 1968.
Frings and the Masonic forces he represented were furious. Paul needed to be reigned in but they knew him to be pliable and timid. (“Begging” and “pleading”, as Hansing said.) They decided to send him a warning – of the most severe kind. Hansing was conscripted to deliver the message on behalf of the Lodge.
Hansing is moved onsite although he didn’t really need to sketch Paul: he already had chosen the photograph taken in Jerusalem as a model – an indication, perhaps, that the Ecclesiastical Lodge that commissioned him had powerful Jewish connections. He sat in on thirteen of Paul’s Audiences merely to intimidate him.
The pressure mounted and Paul began to waver. He was shown a working sketch of himself and mused aloud: “One almost needs a new philosophy to grasp the meaning of this in its context.” Perhaps that “new philosophy” was something antithetical to Catholic teaching to which Paul had ambivalently subscribed.
Once the first painting was finished, the seriousness of the threat became even more apparent. The looming threat of violence overwhelmed him and Paul sensed that his life may be in danger. The angles of the painting resembled an axe cleaving his skull in two but also represented to him his double-mindedness.
He knew he was under pressure to fulfil the ancient decrees of Masonry and demolish Catholicism, as represented by the weapon in his bloody hands, and as symbolised in the stabbing of the Papal Tiara.
Paul finally relented and resigned himself to following the Masonic programme for the rest of his pontificate. He then informed the Lodge.
A second painting was commissioned and the Pope was now represented with a “more humble” countenance. The pillars of Masonry were emphasised, representing Paul’s triumph of “reason” over “superstition”. Bishop Cleven was on hand to remind Paul that someone else “girded him and led him where he does not want to go.” (As if he needed the reminder)
A humbled Paul then acknowledged that his “acts of reflection” led him to make the right decision. To prevent a relapse, the Frings-led Lodge commissioned seven prints of the portrait – one for each day of the week.
Paul later had a crisis of conscience (as did Frings). He was forced to confront the implications of his progressive reforms as the Church continued to implode and he grieved that no one anywhere on the Catholic spectrum respected him.
When he tried to impose his papal authority, the Lodge reacted swiftly: a staged attempt was made on his life when he visited the Philippines in 1975. Macchi and Marcinkus “saved his life,” and Paul was again beholden to the Masonic forces that elected him.
Paul wavered again, trying to warn Catholics of the Pandora’s Box that had been unleashed by the Council. His furious minders began to lose their patience. It was time for a showdown.
When Paul again publicly held his ground on the Church’s approach to sexuality morality, it was the last straw for the Ecclesiastical Masons. In 1976, a campaign was orchestrated to suggest that the Pope had a very dark secret: that he was a homosexual. Paul was crushed and defeated; he never issued another encyclical and openly expressed his regret for the direction taken by the Council, never admitting his part, overwhelmed as he was by the pressure that had been brought to bear on him.
No wonder Paul whispered to his biographers, “You will crucify me.”
Just to complete the flight of fantasy, on the left is a diagram commonly used in Gnostic Judaism, or Kabbalah.
It is interesting to note how many points line up with Paul’s “portraits.”
An alphabetical list, many with short bios, of the major identities relevant to the Church during the 20th century and beyond. This list will be updated regularly as more information comes to hand.
At this point, if anyone thinks it is hyperbole to suggest that there exists a group of prelates who are involved in ritual s** abuse or at the very least, who are addicted to deviant s**, then they are beyond convincing. The evidence seems quite overwhelming.
This is not only because of the notorious abuser, Rupnik, and his uncanny knack for escaping punishment despite so many credible accusations. Nor is it because of Tucho Fernandez and the disgusting books he wrote before landing the top job at the DDF.
Marko Rupnik pictured with Archbishop Mark Coleridge at Our Lady of the Southern Cross in Springfield, Queensland, Australia.Rupnik is notoriously protected by Rome while his abhorrent works of art continue to disgrace many a church around the world, including here in Australia.
No, the idea of a formal group of deviant bishops, priests and even cardinals who are engaged in occult rituals, often involving s**, was suggested over a century ago when it became known that Cardinal Rampolla was a Mason. Not only that, but he was known to be involved with the OTO, a group for which ritual s** is its bread and butter. Since then, strange tales and mysterious events suggesting the existence of such a group within the Curia have popped up from time to time.
From “Windswept House“, and its shocking account of simultaneous Black Masses performed by high-ranking Catholic priests, to the disappearance of young girls within the Vatican walls, to the gay orgies and general air of sodomy prevalent among the hierarchy, there is no doubt that sinister forces have infiltrated the Curia’s ranks or that they are using the dark arts to further the reign of Satan. Even Fr. Gabriel Amorth – an exorcist but no great traditionalist – confirmed that Satanic Black Masses are in fact being held in the Vatican. And wherever one finds Black Masses, one finds deviant, ritual s**.
These men even arranged for children to be entertained by a drag queen at “world Children Day”!
The latest discovery which lends further credence to the existence of a s** cult in the Vatican comes from the highly informative blog, Pope Head. I have been following this Substack account for a while now, and have found it to be a good source for information relating to Masonry, especially its signs and symbols.
This recent article refers to one written at Pope Head some time ago; the original was a long post about an artist named Jago, who had created a sculpture of the late Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. (Incidentally, I also wrote about it here.) Pope Head gave quite an examination of the artist in question, and found other works of his which are even more disturbing than his bust of the Pope: works with a theme of child s** abuse.
Before and after pictures of Jago’s sculpture, which is clearly meant as a message – an insult to Benedict or the mocking triumph after a stolen Conclave. The right-hand version, made after Benedict’s abdication, retains the Papal ring and most bizarrely, has been given a set of eyes, which were conspicuously missing from the original.
His latest article, though, asks a pertinent question: who exactly was it that commissioned the sculpture of Benedict XVI? (And the answer may well be given in the PAID section of the Pope Head blog.) It is known that someone in the Vatican commissioned it and, according to the Pope Head thesis, it looks suspiciously like that person or persons unknown had in mind Benedict’s resignation when the sculpture was first created.
Four years prior to Benedict announcing it to the world.
Two names are then mentioned by Pope Head: Cardinals Ravasi and Bertone. They jointly gave Jago an award for his original bust in 2009, so are obviously great fans of his work. (Pope Benedict himself did not care for it.)
Ravasi, as the reader may recall, is known for his “Letter to Brother Masons” reproduced here.
Bertone was once Secretary of State and was said to have been close to Benedict.
Pope Head suggests he is a Freemason (Well, he DOES have a collection of black and white scarves) who helped Bergoglio gain power and who may have been responsible for Vigano’s “sideways promotion” away from the Vatican Bank. Indeed, Bertone is singled out for blame in Archbishop Vigono’s latest missive on his accusation of schism.
Bertone was also accused of helping himself to large amounts of Vatican funds and, according to Pope Head, is all round, a “terrifying” figure.
Not only that, he actually met Sr. Lucia of Fatima on three occasions, then went on to – how shall we put it – slightly change the Third Secret, something none of us would want on their conscience at our particular judgement.
One of Jago’s earlier pieces, said to be his own hand. Erm, does that look like a BITE MARK on the index finger?
Could Ravasi and Bertone have been the ones to commission Jago’s bust of Pope Benedict AND were they responsible for forcing Benedict’s resignation?
If not they, then what Vatican official chose an artist who (at least later on) is so obsessed by the r**ing of children that he sculpts artwork using that theme? Even Jago’s relatively normal works contain some abnormal element. (See his hand, above.) The man is simply not balanced.
But then, “balanced” is not not a word that could be used to describe the Curia under the Bergoglio pontificate. Rather, it is regime marked by sexual perversion, narcissism and diabolical disorientation.
And, incidentally, those are all the ingredients necessary for a thriving culture of ritual coupling.
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.
Ecclesiastical Freemasonry 