Due to popular request, I've been asked to restore this page as it has generated so much curiosity.  The information on this page deals with apparent Masonic connections to Lefebvre and to the bishop who ordained and then consecrated him.

The whole matter came up because of the Society's anti-American stance and their attempts to try to persuade people that the whole system of American government was some sort of Masonic plot.  The point the Society and its supporters made was that a number of the Founders of the United States were Masons; and this is true - as far as it goes.

But the truth of the matter is that they held their membership more as an honorary matter than as committed enemies of the Church.  Why, even Mozart and his father were Freemasons, but, the Church has continued to use Mozart's music.  They, as most of the Americans of the time, never progressed beyond the third degree.   Their commitment to Freemasonry was more as to a "good ole boys" club than as covert conspirators.  They used the contacts made in Masonic lodges for their own personal advancement, not as committed fanatics about to overthrow all existing order in much the same manner as most people hold membership in the Council of Foreign Relations and like groups - in other words, their intent is for personal advancement and social mingling rather than as part of a conspiracy to overthrow the exist order.  Which does not mean that the people who formed these groups or hold the reins of power do not have this objective in mind.

That being the case, the information that had originally been on this page showed that "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."  By this I mean that there was enough in Lefebvre's background to cast doubt on his true allegiance to the Church and the Vicar of Christ as well as to point to an association with Freemasonry.  The implication being that what he was doing with the Society was drawing people out of the Church and working with Its enemies.

As mentioned earlier, Agenda originally was intended to speak to the members of our group who had parted company with the SSPX at the end of 1992.  There were so many stories and questions floating around that I was continually being approached to try explain all this.  Hence the original newsletter and later the website.  For most people who now visit this site as compared to the people for whom I was writing back in '93 or '94, I had thought that this material now would have little meaning as I didn't think those kinds of questions were asked.  Most of the questions I had been getting were concerning the legitimacy of the Society, whether their sacraments are valid and if a Catholic can legitimately patronize the SSPX and I thought the matter of Masonic connections was a moot point.  Apparently I was in error. So I've restored this deleted material.

Bill  grossklas@sbcglobal.net

MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE? or THOSE WHO LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDN'T THROW STONES!

This title refers to the silly charges of Society partisans concerning Freemasonry and the founding of the United States.  Because of tenuous links to Freemasonry of some of the founders of the US, some Society boosters have said this is proof of a Masonic Conspiracy and the United States form of government is tainted because of that.   (Maybe that's why some in the Society have said you shouldn't listen to the music of Mozart because he and his father were Masons - albeit only 3rd degree.  No?)   But the same criticism can be made of the Society given some of the associations of Lefebvre.  Let's see what we've got.

I have been asked by some (and told by others) if I thought it was possible that the purpose of the Society of St. Pius the Tenth was to defuse some of the reaction to changes in the Church. In essence, could there have been a plan to neutralize those who tend to activism, by bringing them into one or more "traditionalist" organizations in order to control their activity? Was Lefebvre the paragon (model) of Catholic virtue and dogmatism so many, not the least of which has been the Society, have been saying he was? Did Lefebvre really believe that he had a mission to save the Church? Or was he a self-deluded, self-appointed, prelate who honestly thought so based upon an erroneous understanding of the Church and the basics of the faith?  Have the Society and Lefebvre been as squeaky clean as they would have you believe? Is there, indeed, a Society / Masonic connection; which charge against the Society has the same validity as the one the SSPX continually makes against the founders of the United States? These are fair questions for which I submit another view of the Society and Lefebvre.

CONSPIRACIES

There are those who maintain, and I am one of those, that there are two theories of history - conspiracy and accident. One with whom I am seldom in agreement, Franklin Roosevelt, once said something to the effect that "in politics, when something happens you can be sure it was planned that way." The accident theoreticians would have us believe that most major historical events happen by "accident." These poor souls cannot believe that people would actually get together to plan things - whether for good, or, for evil.

NAKED UNION AGGRESSION

Conspiracies throughout history have been numerous, but one should not be complacent that such machinations are somehow foreign to our Republic. For instance, there is ample evidence to suggest a plan by the northern industrialists who wished, with the necessary politicians in their collective hip pockets, to turn the South into a virtual fiefdom for their benefit. The South was heavily out-voted, by about two to one, in Congress and was suffering economically because of legislation being enacted against its best interests - usually in the form of taxes and tariffs on goods produced in the southern states. So the obvious question is, was Lincoln the consummate politician rather than the hick from down home who cooperated in such a scheme?

Now the Federal Government is a creature of the states. The entry of a number of the states into the "union" was based upon the understanding that should any state find that their membership in the "union" was not to their liking they would have the option of leaving it. Yet we have the spectacle of blatant aggression by Lincoln. Unlawfully the North invades the South (not vice-versa) - Lincoln violated the borders of sovereign states contrary to constitutional law.

If we recall, when John Wilkes Booth jumped to the stage after shooting Lincoln, he shouted "Sic semper tyrannis (Thus always tyrants). The South is avenged." Now there was little tyranny in the Emancipation Proclamation for it had no teeth and, practically speaking, couldn't be enforced. The tyranny he was speaking of was the illegal invasion of the sovereign states of the South by the tyrant Lincoln.

The Constitution does not prohibit states from leaving the "union," nor does it allow federal sovereignty over the states (see the Constitution - Tenth Amendment). As the law was clear, is it possible that the so-called "Civil War," which would be more aptly called the War of Northern Aggression, was a conspiracy to force the South into economic involuntary servitude to the North? Many historians, considering the facts in an unbiased manner, confirm this thesis.

This is but one of the many conspiracies that punctuate the whole cloth of history. Important circumstances in the history of mankind rarely come about through the good fortune of an "accident." And the more important conspiracies rarely last but a short period of time. Often, they go on for decades and even centuries. Those such as Freemasonry and the Illuminati are, of course, part of the greater diabolical conspiracy against God and mankind.

THE MARRANO

An ongoing conspiracy in Europe concerned the Marrano of 15th century Spain. The Marrano were Jews who pretended to Catholicism but, in fact, continued to hold to their old religion and engaged in practices odious (abhorrent, detestable) to the Spaniard. It was the ancestors of these Marrano who were instrumental in bringing the invasion of the Moors to the shores of Spain in the early 8th century, according to author William Thomas Walsh.

The Marrano, having become a virtual nation within a nation, were such a problem that Queen Isabella had them expelled not only for the good of Spain but for their own safety as popular feeling was so strong against them. The Marrano and their activities were an ongoing and long-lived conspiracy against Spain and its people for seven hundred years.

THE PRIORY OF SION

Then we have the Priory of Sion (Prieuré de Sion - according to French police records, the Priory was subtitled Chevalerie d'Institutions et Regles Catholiques, d'Union Independante et Traditionaliste - [Chivalry of Catholic Rules and Institutions of the Independent and Traditionalist Union]) which has been deemed by some as another long-lived conspiracy. In his book, Guardians of the Grail, J. R. Church unmasked the existence of this "shadowy secret society in Europe." Tied in with the Hapsburg dynasty of Austria-Hungary, Mr. Church tells us that they've "been hard at work for over 800 years influencing world affairs and events."

This group holds the belief that Jesus and Mary Magdalene wed, had children and thus established a "holy bloodline." The Priory's own leader, they teach, being a direct descendant of Jesus, will someday assume center stage in the world and take the reins of world government. The Priory, in practice, embraces the Nestorian heresy.

Texe Marrs wrote in his book Dark Majesty, in the chapter International Network of Light "that the Priory of Sion controversy has definite connections and tie-ins with such groups as the Bohemian Club, the Bildebergers, the Vatican Bank, the Grand Alpina Lodge of Switzerland, the Grand Orient Lodge of Freemasonry in Paris, the P2 Black Masonic Lodge in Italy, numerous British-Israel groups, the traditional Catholic hierarchy, the Knights of Malta, goddess worship covens, witchcraft sects, mystery teaching groups, the Ordo Templi Orientis, the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light, Islamic Sufi groups, and on and on."

THE KNIGHTS TEMPLAR

The Knights Templar, suppressed by Pope Clement V, was another group shrouded in controversy and conspiracy. The full name of this organization is the Poor Knights of Christ and the Temple of Solomon. As a military association their reason for being was to help the princes of Europe retake the Holy Land from the Mohammedans who were persecuting Christians and desecrating sacred places.

Now it was Lord Acton's contention that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." As an historical observation of human behavior, it seems, this axiom was true in the case of the Templars. By 1307 reports were surfacing of strange beliefs and gross immoralities. It has been said that while they had taken the vow of chastity, sodomy (homosexuality) was practiced widely. William of Paris O.P., inquisitor-general of the kingdom, investigated and interrogated one hundred and forty knights of the Templars' house in Paris.

Records of the Continuator of Nange and the Acts of the inquiry as taken from the Royal Archives in 1650 by Dupuy indicated that there were a number of accusations made against this order, an order which had, by now, outlived its original mandate.

These records say that novices to the order were required to spit on the crucifix and deny Christ. They paid obeisance (honor, respect, veneration) to an idol in the shape of a golden head known as the head of Baphomet (a goat-headed figure having both male and female characteristics), a name said to be derived from Bapimiteos meaning a baptism of the spirit or of fire which was a Gnostic or Ophitic idea (ophis, [greek] - serpent - the object of worship of a 2nd century gnostic sect). Also confessed to by members of the Knights Templar were apostasy, heresy, superstition, devil worship, and gross impurity. It appears that priests of the Order would often omit the words of consecration at their Masses.

Among those questioned as to the truth of these charges were James de Molay, the Grand Master; Guy the brother of the dauphin of Auvergne; and, one Hubert de Perault. Of the one hundred forty questioned only three denied the charges. One hundred eleven Templars were interrogated at Troyes and admitted all but the worship of the head of Baphomet. At Caen thirteen knights were questioned and admitted their guilt as did ten at Pont de l'Arche and forty-four at Cahors.  Because some questionable methods were used in the interrogations, the Holy Father, Clement V, personally interrogated seventy-two of the knights sent to him at Poitiers, reluctantly, by Philip IV of France who was admittedly a political enemy of the Templars.

TEMPLAR / MASONIC BROTHERHOOD?

While the Order of the Knights Templar was suppressed by Rome it did anything but disappear. Those who had used this Order for their own evil machinations had no intention of giving up so easily. According to a number of writers and historians the Templars continued in a clandestine manner known to us as Freemasonry in their continuing efforts to influence political events to bring nations and states under their control.    Indeed, there is even a Masonic website using the name of the Knights Templar - http://www.knightstemplar.org/  Here is the home page for this group as of September 2004 is the link to the left fails.

Condorcet, a prominent member of the Legislative Assembly during the French Revolution, has said that "We shall see whether we ought not to number among secret societies this celebrated Order (the Templars), against which Popes and kings so barbarously conspired."

Deschamps, writing in 1882 in his "Secret Societies and Society, or the Philosophy of Contemporaneous History," says that Masonry derives from four sources, Gnosticism, Manicheism, the Albigenses, and the Templars.

What do the Masons have to say regarding this? On April 8th, 1939, M. de Banville, an ex-officer of the Grand Orient of France, said this in a Lodge of the Knights of the Cross: "The Masonic Order is an emanation from that of the Temple, with the history and misfortunes of which you are acquainted, and reasonably it can have no other origin. Masonry was born in Scotland, and originally it was a prudent and ably arranged disguise conceived by some knights of that country in order to hide the continuation of their illustrious Order from the keen eyes of its powerful enemies. The heroic (sic) William de Moure, grand prior of England and Scotland, directed from his prison the knights of his language in the creation, organization and development of the Masonic rite, destined to shield, from the eyes of the profane, the proscribed, and the anathematized, Order of the Temple."

Compton's Encyclopedia tells us there is, today, a Masonic order of Knights Templar which is based on the "traditions" of the crusading order. It is open only to Masons who have taken the Royal Arch degree (York Rite). And then there is the Order of De Molay, a "nonsectarian" secret organization of young men between the ages of 14 and 21. Founded in 1919 in Kansas City, Missouri, it was named in honor of Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar. This Order is governed by a Grand Council of Freemasons, and the chapters are sponsored by Masonic bodies.

As the Masons seem to have such an affinity for the Templars, it is no wonder then that the Templars are listed among the secret societies of Illuminati fame such as the Rosicrucians, Priory of Sion, Freemasonry, Skull and Bones, the Grand Orient and Alpina Lodges among others.

By now you're probably saying to yourself, yes Bill, it's all very interesting, but, what has it got to do with anything? As we have seen, conspiracies are not at all uncommon. The Society of St. Pius the Tenth rants about Masonic conspiracies, and, yet, there is enough in SSPX history so that, when viewed from a certain perspective, the same can also be said of them as well.

The charge which is by now almost common knowledge, (Bishop Williamson's denunciations of Masonic connections not withstanding) is that Achille Cardinal Lienart, Bishop of Lille, was initiated into the Masonic brotherhood at the Masonic lodge in Cambria on October 15, 1912.

By 1918, Lienart had risen to the 18th degree, the Rose-Croix (Rosy Cross), Rosicrucian, in which it is said the Divine Maternity is sullied and ridiculed. By 1924 Lienart attained the 30th degree of Masonry. Lienart was a life-long liberal and a leader of the "progressive" forces at the Second Vatican Council. It was said that his ideas were redder than his robes. Shortly before his death he was reported to have said to those present in the room that "Humanly speaking, the Church is dead."

Surprisingly or not, Lienart was one of Lefebvre's instructors in the seminary who subsequently ordained Lefebvre a priest and later, it is said, at Lefebvre's request, consecrated him a bishop. All this is not said to cast doubt on the validity of Lefebvre's ordination and subsequent consecration, nor upon his ordination of men to the priesthood or the validity of the sacraments (except Penance and Matrimony) confected by Society priests.

But many wonder "how can a Mason have the intention to do what the Church has always done? While excommunication was automatic for one who became a Mason, it does not strip away the power of a priest or bishop to confect the sacraments. One simply cannot say that such a person does not, or will not, have the intention "to do what the Church has always done." Is such a one likely to have the proper intention? While it doesn't seem likely, these are matters for the Church to deal with. However, you are known by the company you keep, and it is therefore valid to question Lefebvre's intentions in founding his "Society" based on his associations.

LEFEBVRE'S MEMBERSHIP

In a February 22nd, 1982 Newsweek review of the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the French journalist Jean Luc Chaumeil, an expert on the Templars, is quoted as asserting that Archbishop Lefebvre resigned his membership in the Priory of Sion in 1981. This has raised the question "Was Lefebvre a Mason or at least an agent provocateur. Was he, then, acting under orders from the Masons who apparently infest the Vatican?" It should also be mentioned that both the Priory of Sion and the Knights Templars shared the same Grand Masters until their separation in 1188.  Also see the following site:  http://www.catholicanswer.org/homepage.html

With the apparent connection between the Knights Templar and the Masons, and knowing the sordid pasts of both, I was surprised by a statement in the December 1979 issue of the Angelus, page sixteen, middle column (The Angelus is the official publication of the Society of St. Pius the Tenth). The article had to do with a Mass at the church the Society uses in Paris, St. Nicholas du Chardonnet. Quoting from the article: "The 10:30 Mass was the First Solemn High Mass of one of the newly ordained priests from Ecône, Father Philippe Laguerie. The church was more crowded than at even the earlier Mass. The procession entered to the strains of a baroque organ and trumpet voluntary. First, a Knight Templar in full regalia..."

What? A Knight Templar?

That's what the article says, and that begs the question, why would the Society allow someone to show up in the costume of a Templar? Remember, the Templars were an organization banned for homosexuality, heresy and superstition, as well as a group being honored as the highest order of York Rite Masons. Yet here was someone in the regalia of this highly suspect, if not diabolical, group marching up the aisle of the crown jewel of Society churches in Paris.

Could the Society maybe have been ignorant of the Templars history? Give me a break! Why don't you write and ask them? I'm sure no response to that question will be forthcoming from the Society; so don't hold your breath.

But isn't all this just a little circumstantial? Of course it is. But if I see the footprints of a bear in the snow that fell last night, it's a certainty that a bear was in the vicinity.

LEFEBVRE'S CONSPIRACY?

We now have the picture of a Lefebvre imbued (tinged, filled) with a number of heretical opinions; a Lefebvre linked to secret and Masonic groups. A tactic of despots is to try to control all opposition. Essentially, they create the opposition and give it high visibility. This draws out those opposed to their real plans and allows them to control and blunt any real opposition efforts. Could it be that Lefebvre and the Society may be part of conspiracy wherein they performed the function of a lightning rod, taking the dissatisfied and the disaffected out of the local dioceses?

Had these very people stayed with their local dioceses and parishes, they may have caused so much grief for the local ordinaries that efforts to accelerate the changes of the liberal agenda might well have been thwarted. But they didn't, for Lefebvre provided them with what they wanted. And so they left - allowing local bishops to oversee the total installation of the new order of things with little, if any, interference.

Would it have made a difference if they stayed? Who knows? But it couldn't have hurt. There are many churches that today have their main altars, side altars, stations of the cross, and statues intact because people protested the planned destruction. Who can say what could have been achieved if people had stayed in the parishes to protest and get under the skin of the clergy at home while constantly petitioning Rome? After all, what does the ordinary Catholic think of the Society, if anything? Unless he knows what's in this digest, the average Catholic doesn't understand the conflict. In fact, its fair to say he doesn't have a clue, so he's neutralized. The Society wouldn't get support from that quarter. So the only people Lefebvre's activities appealed to were those openly disaffected by the changes - and these are the very ones that the Society pulled out of the local parishes.

So Lefebvre helped get rid of troublemakers at the local level. And what did he do in the upper echelon? Much the same as the Society does today after his death - stonewalling, stridency, defiance, lacking charity and justice, flirting with, if not openly embracing, heresy; openly schismatic and displaying an unwillingness to submit to the Vicar of Christ.

If Lefebvre's plan really was to restore tradition, he sure had a funny way of going about it. Consider his actions with respect to the papacy. Here comes Lefebvre out of retirement to found an order. He is not a member of any ruling body in the Church. Within a few years he is defying Rome by ordaining priests. He constantly criticizes the Church and the Pope. Through these attacks he actually forces Paul VI to defend the changes - to defend that to which Lefebvre is supposedly opposed. After all, even a child knows that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar!

This stance quashed any possibility of support from amongst the bishops and cardinals of the Church who might wish to restore "tradition." Lefebvre and his Society, with the ordinations and later episcopal consecrations, go it virtually alone. What respectable prelate wants to become openly involved with the SSPX? Yet, what can the Society accomplish without this support?

You tell me. Were Lefebvre's actions calculated to endear him to the Pope and the hierarchy? Or were they intended to harden Rome's position against a return to the Tridentine Rite and associated liturgies? Is the Society now effectively working for the return of the venerable liturgy? The answer to that is a unqualified "NO!" for there is no dialogue. In dialogue there is give and take, but the Society appears to be either incapable or unwilling to do this. Are they a thorn in the side of the Vatican? Somewhat. But they have effectively rendered themselves impotent with respect to Rome because they have isolated themselves from the Church through their strident and offense language as well as their illicit activities.

Sad to say for laymen, lacking proper jurisdiction, all the confessions the Society hears and all the marriages they perform are invalid, despite the Society's claims. As a moving force and a voice in Rome for the restoration of tradition - no more, if ever, actually! Rome keeps an eye on them I'm sure. But she doesn't listen to them. Given the nature of the personalities that run the SSPX, there is more of sanctimoniousness than sanctity about the Society of St. Pius the Tenth.