Who is the Devil ?

The Devil is not a who (a noun) but an adjective. It comes from the Greek word διάβολος or diábolos, which literally means diabolic, diabolical, deceiver, liar, or slanderer. It could be any man or being. It is not the name or title of an anti-God nor fallen angel. Below are a few examples of its usage incorrectly and correctly in scripture.

From Merriam Webster:

Devil: Middle English devel, from Old English dēofol, from Late Latin diabolus, from Greek diabolos, literally, slanderer, from diaballein to throw across, slander, from dia- + ballein to throw; probably akin to Sanskrit gurate he lifts up

Diabolical: Like the word devil, “diabolical” traces back to Latin diabolus, which itself descends from Greek diabolos, a word that literally means “slanderer.”

Revelation (Apocalypse) 20:10: “and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” _Incorrect

Revelation (Apocalypse) 20:10: “and the diabolic who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” _Correct

Revelation 12:9-10: 9) “And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10) And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.“_Incorrect

Revelation 12:9-10: 9) “And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the diabolic and adversary, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10) And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.“_Correct  [Satan is changed to its correct meaning, adversary]

1 Peter 5:8-9: 8) “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 9) Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world.“_Incorrect

1 Peter 5:8-9: 8) “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the diabolic prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 9) Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world.“_Correct

Luke 10:15: 18) 15) “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell. 16) He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. 17) And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. 18) And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.”_Incorrect

Luke 10:15: 18) 15) “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell. 16) He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. 17) And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the diabolical are subject unto us through thy name. 18) And he said unto them, I beheld [the] adversary as lightning fall from heaven.”_Correct

One could use diabolical or diabolic in place of any of those other words, and mean the same thing. One can clearly see that from the different scripture above, and how it works with what satan actually means; adversary. Somewhere along the line, the Greek word, diábolos, was turned into devil, (some claim it to be a German translation), and not properly translated into the English word, diabolic or diabolical.

You’ll notice a bit of trickery in the words at 1 Peter 5:8-9: 8) “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Here, they translate satan to adversary in Greek, because it will give the whole thing away if they didn’t. They did this throughout the New Testament. If it were written in Hebrew, it would have read: ” Your satan [adversary] the diabolic [liar] prowls around….”

In the instance of Luke 10:15-18, Jesus states that the city of Capernaum, and the people within it, thought themselves exalted to Heaven, but he would thrust them down to hell. After the seventy came back from the the different cities, they stated that the deceivers or the diabolical were subject to Jesus’ name. Jesus then stated that he had foresaw or beheld the adversary, (the people and the city), as lightning fall (plural) from Heaven. None of those verses was about a devil, anti-God, or fallen angel named Satan.


Remove Gunsmithing from ITAR.

The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), via the Department of State, has redefined Gunsmithing as manufacturing in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) law, which controls the export and import of defense-related articles and services on the United States Munitions List (USML). They redefined what the term “manufacturer” means, started by executive order 11958 by President Obama, in 2013. The term was not defined under the laws definitions, so the DDTC can define it how they wish, and due to this, they are stating that most all gunsmiths, in the US, are now considered manufacturers, must register with them, and purchase an expensive license costing $2,250.00 annually, to merely drill a hole, do any machining, fabricate an obsolete gun part, fabricate a gunstock, or accurize any firearm, which is the normal function of a gunsmith, that was regulated only by the BATFE beforehand. I ask that you follow the link below, and sign the petition, which asks that gunsmithing be removed from the ITAR as a manufacturer, and only be licensed and monitored by the BATFE as before. I am a retired gunsmith myself, and this will close many small businesses and several small shops who do daily repair work for their community and law enforcement agencies. This executive order is another attack, by the liberal far left, on the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of the United States.

Petition: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/remove-gunsmithing-itar

Ordo ab Chao

Section 1: The origin of the motto.

What does the motto, Ordo ab Chao, mean, and where does it come from, you may ask? It is a motto used by the Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite. It refers to the schism that was between the northern and southern jurisdictions of the early Rite, in the United States, when an illegitimate form of the Rite was invented in the northern jurisdiction, by both a con-man and the Cerneau group. The fake Cerneau Rite was reproduced by Rev. John Blanchard, of Wheaton College, where the untruthful reverend even claimed it was by a 33rd degree Freemason, when it was never the such. The illegitimate Rite was started as a scam, in 1806, by Antoine Bideaud, and later added to by Joseph Cerneau, in 1807, who had another illegitimate Rite. (1) When the Cerneau Rite was ruled to be illegitimate, the northern jurisdiction accepted the original Scottish Rite degree work, originating from the original French work, of the southern jurisdiction, thus making the northern jurisdiction “healed”, and the two Rites became in amity with each other. The motto, Ordo ab Chao, is Latin for “Order from Chaos”, which came from that schism, or the chaos that was created between the two jurisdictions, about what was illegitimate or what was not. (1) The Latin motto was selected for the schism, and was found in Count de Grasse’s patent, dated 1 February 1802. (4)

Section 2: The conspiracy theories about the motto.

As far as I can tell, the first conspiracy use of the motto, was from a prank for a conspiracy theory, which was written by two California students, by the name of Kerry Thornley and Greg Hill, during the communism scare of the 1950s and 1960s. It was triggered by the Kennedy assassination. Kerry’s group were known as the “Discordians”. (2)

Kembrew McLeod writes in Prankster, Making Mischief In The Modern World, on p. 153:

Before joining the Marines, Thornley helped create a joke religion called Discordianism with his pal Greg Hill. The pair met in the mid-1950s at California High School, where they bonded by messing with other students (including an elaborate War of the Worlds–type hoax played over the school’s intercom). Thornley and Hill also loved Mad magazine, which served as a touchstone for many countercultural pranksters. Their “religion” was invented in 1957, at a bowling alley. Thornley had been writing juvenile poems about how, through chaos, “order would at last unfold”—but his friend disagreed. Over the clattering of pins, Hill insisted that was impossible. “Order is something that the human mind projects on reality,” he said, claiming that everything is chaos. The Greeks even had a deity for it: Eris, a troublemaking goddess. Soon after, the two wrote the first draft of the Discordian holy book, Principia Discordia. The number of coauthors expanded a decade later when the book evolved into a surrealist chain letter that invited recipients to add their own collaged text and images.

Through the doctrine of Chaos, the Discordians half seriously believed, one could attain higher wisdom by upending the naturalized routines of everyday life. Because their motto was “We Discordians Must Stick Apart,” it comes as no surprise that faux factionalism was central to their absurdist belief system. The first major splinter group was the Erisian Liberation Front (ELF), which espoused a more anarchist, antiauthoritarian worldview. Thornley, a.k.a. Ho Chi Zen, led this branch. Malaclypse the Younger, a Hill alias, led the Paratheo-Anametamystikhood of Eris Esoteric (POEE). Its mystical approach was imbued with a heavy amount of silliness. [sic]

This new “Discordian religion” was so imbecilic, that the below was written in a chain letter that they sent out (2):

How to become a POEE chaplin:
1. Write the Erisian affirmation in five copies.
2. Sign and nose-print each copy.
3. Send one to The President of the United States.
4. Send one to The California State Bureau of Furniture and Bedding
1021 “D” Street, Sacramento CA 94814
5. Nail one to a telephone pole. Hide one. And burn the other.
Then consult your pineal gland. [sic]

Unfortunately, the John Birch Society got wind of this, and termed it a new diabolical communist cult, and twisted it into their claim that they were instilling communism into the US government, and added every other harebrained invention that they could write with it. The John Birch Society had became so fanatical and bad, that earlier, Barry Goldwater denounced their founder, Robert W. Welch, Jr., and also had Herbert Hoover, who had been investigating the group. (3)

Barry Goldwater on the JBS (3):

I think you have clearly stated the problem which Mr. Welch’s continued leadership of the John Birch Society poses for sincere conservatives. . . . Mr. Welch is only one man, and I do not believe his views, far removed from reality and common sense as they are, represent the feelings of most members of the John Birch Society. . . . Because of this, I believe the best thing Mr. Welch could do to serve the cause of anti-Communism in the United States would be to resign. . . . We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner. [sic]

Herbert Hoover on the JBS (3):

Personally, I have little respect for the head of the John Birch Society since he linked the names of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the late John Foster Dulles, and former CIA Director Allen Dulles with communism. [sic]

Welch’s conspiracy concoctions had claimed that all the university professors were in on the communism plot, that it was the Illuminati in disguise, and a whole host of other false claims. Below, I again quote Kembrew McLeod, and his book:

Robert Welch outlined the Bavarian Illuminati’s monstrous plans, which went far beyond mere gastrosophic cabals. “The purpose of the Order was to rule the world,” he said in a 1966 speech. “This incredibly ambitious undertaking was to be conducted as a conspiracy, and secrecy at every point and at all times was of utmost importance.” The Illuminati assisted Karl Marx by teaming him with Freemasons and other secret societies that orchestrated European revolutions. “All of these objectives and methods,” Welch insisted, “had either been specifically set forth by Weishaupt for his Order of Illuminati, or were the practical applications of his program.” By the twentieth century, “there had evolved an inner core of conspiratorial power, able to direct and control subversive activities which were worldwide in their reach.” At the center of Welch’s alternate reality were the “Insiders,” an all-purpose term for an omnipotent “ruling clique.” It is essentially the ideological flipside to left-wing sociologist C. Wright Mills’s “Power Elite” (though without the empirical evidence). Welch claimed that the Insiders first took control of popular culture by using the brainwashing powers of the novel. Charles Dickens, Upton Sinclair, and Sinclair Lewis were pinned as conspirators, and when radio and television came along, the Insiders seized these media as well. Welch assures us, “it has all been planned that way.”

In addition to the anti-Semitic fascist Nesta Webster, the Birchers regularly cited the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theories of William Guy Carr. His 1958 book, Pawns in the Game, claimed that the Bavarian Illuminati was the brainchild of a group of rabbis and high priests, who followed the teachings of “Lucifer during the performance of their Cabalistic Rites.” Citing Webster and her early-twentieth-century contemporary Lady Queenborough, Carr claims that Weishaupt conspired with Rothschild moneylenders. This prominent family of Jewish bankers followed “the age-old ‘protocols’ designed to give the Synagogue of Satan ultimate world domination.” Carr’s turn of phrase “Synagogue of Satan” was an artifact of Léo Taxil’s extended prank on French Catholic right-wingers, and it wasn’t the only time Carr cited one of his hoaxes. Pawns in the Game also credulously quoted the “Secret Instructions” allegedly authored by Freemason Albert Pike (but which were actually written by Taxil). The unhinged author wrote, “Can any thinking person deny that the conspiracy as revised by Weishaupt in the latter 1700’s, and the plans drawn up by Pike in the latter 1800s, haven’t matured exactly as intended?

The John Birch Society’s massive publishing operations disseminated these ideas far and wide. Robert Welch’s articles and speeches kept Carr’s basic arguments intact, but sanitized the anti-Semitism, by deleting his references to “the Synagogue of Satan,” “International Bankers,” and “Jewish influence.” Rather than blaming the creation of the Federal Reserve on the Jews, as Carr did, Welch attributed it to “highly placed Marxian influences in the Woodrow Wilson administration.” The John Birch Society was sometimes characterized as a right-wing hate group, but it actually did go out of its way to recruit members of other races and religions. However, Welch didn’t do himself any favors by asserting that Vladimir Lenin was the true author of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He claimed that Lenin and his allies planted the document among anticommunist sympathizers as part of an evil long-range plan to discredit conservatives. In a twisted kind of pretzel logic, Welch claimed some right-wingers hated Jews because they had been tricked into doing so. Leftists, he asserted, worked “both sides of this ‘anti-Semitic’ battleground in their efforts to weaken or destroy The John Birch Society. [sic]

From Welch’s concocted conspiracy writing, one can see, that the far right wing of the Republican Party, (which, to me, seem to consist of those with ultra-low IQs, fanatical religious bigots, those with paranoid personality and compulsive lying disorders, plus other uneducated and ignorant dingbats), had soon parroted this conspiracy about the Freemasons, due to the use of wording that resembled the motto of the Scottish Rite, and boldly proclaimed that the fraternity of Freemasonry was most certainly being ran by the Illuminati, and that the fraternity was pushing communism and satanism, along with every other diabolical deed, on the US citizens, and was trying to overthrow the church in the United States. (2) That was not the first time that they had lied about this, while quoting anyone who had a false derogatory view, or made similar claims. Pat Robertson parroted all of this, in his book, The New World Order, in 1992, which was exposed as a complete conspiracy theory, fraud, and a fallacy, by the book, A Pilgrim’s Path, by John J. Robinson, in 1993. Robinson wrote as a critical scholar, and cited his work, throughout, with scholarly fact. Pat Robertson, though, if and when he actually cited anything, used writing from other conspiracy lunatics, such as the John Birch Society, William Guy Carr, Edith Starr Miller, Leo Taxil, and used truncated text in his quotes, (which made it sound like it was other than it was), along with quoting other bilge water. Lies by omission are still a sin, Mr. Robertson, and so is the spreading of hate, bigotry, and lies, which you teach.

Last, this type of idiocy spread to the other idiots at the far left. There, the conspiracy peddling was just as bad as the far rights, and finally, Herbert Hoover addressed this too, about the John Birch Societies false conspiracy claims (3):

I have read that piece. My comment on it is this in general: I think the extreme right is just as much a danger to the freedom of this country as the extreme left. There are groups, organizations, and individuals on the extreme right who make these very violent statements, allegations that General Eisenhower was a Communist, disparaging references to the Chief Justice and at the other end of the spectrum you have these leftists who make wild statements charging almost anybody with being a Fascist or belonging to some of these so-called extreme right societies. Now, I have felt, and I have said publicly in speeches, that they are just as much a danger, at either end of the spectrum. They don’t deal with facts. Anybody who will allege that General Eisenhower was a Communist agent, has something wrong with him.

A lot of people read such allegations because I get some of the weirdest letters wanting to know whether we have inquired to find out whether that is true. I have known General Eisenhower quite well myself and I have found him to be a sound, level-headed man.” … [sic]

Section 3: Conclusion.

Kerry Thornley found that it does not do to write these kinds of things, hoax, prank, or not, as he had been stationed with, and was a semi-friend with, Lee Harvey Oswald. He was dragged into the Kennedy assassination investigation “on May 18, 1964, when he was called before the Warren Commission to discuss his association with Lee Harvey Oswald”. (2) He was also called to give a deposition by none other than attorney Jim Garrison, of New Orleans, Louisiana. (2)

One can clearly see, that when crackpot conspiracy theorists get a sniff of something, they fabricate many fallacies, and then it grows to the point that every lunatic conspiracy theorist writes about it, with each embellishing it on the way. They will take something completely innocent, quote it purposely out of context, and create a conspiracy that has no truth to it, whatsoever. That was certainly done with the motto, Ordo ab Chao.

I will finish this, with another quote, from Kembrew McLeod’s book (2):

William Cooper’s Behold a Pale Horse, Pat Robertson’s The New World Order, and the John Birch Society’s massive output of books and periodicals resonated widely because they used simple, gripping stories to explain complex socioeconomic changes. But their foundations were built on a sinkhole of deception. Few believers know, or care, that those books mixed citations of genuine historical documents with mean-spirited forgeries (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion), self-deluded historical scholarship (John Robison’s Proofs of a Conspiracy and Abbé Barruel’s Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism), government propaganda (CIA-sponsored brainwashing research and the FBI’s COINTELPRO program), and several satirical pranks (the invention of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood, Léo Taxil’s stories about Masonic devil worship, the Discordians’ Operation Mindfuck, the playful protests staged by the Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell, and Leonard Lewin’s The Report from Iron Mountain, to name but a few). Since the beginning of the modern era, an interconnected, selfreferential web of evidence has been recycled and expanded on by new generations of credulous conspiracy theorists. By the late 1960s, the mounting paranoia had reached a tipping point. The prank blowback caused by the Discordians, WITCH, and other like-minded mischief makers helped reconfigure American politics and, as the next chapter reveals, religious life as well. [sic]

Also, see my blog articles about the Taxil Hoax, Masonic Bologna, and Pike’s Fake Three World Wars Letter, for other facts on this article. One will find that the far right, nor the far left, could tell the truth, or state a fact, if their life depended upon it, and neither can the fanatical fringe religious groups.

So Mote It Be.


  1. Arturo de Hoyos: Cerneauism & Anti-masonry: Two Plaques of 19th-Century Masonry, 2010, The Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.
  2. Kembrew McLeod, Prankster, Making Mischief In The Modern World, 2014, pp. 151 to 182
  3. FBI on the John Birch Society, files are here.
  4. Timeline of Freemasonry mottoes, at the Grand Lodge of British Columbia Yukon. (Corrected with change to GLoBCY website on 6/5/16).




The Knights Templar, and the truth .

Updated: 07/19/2017

In this article, I will examine the truth of what happened, when King Phillip the Fair, (Philip IV, born 1268, Fontainebleau, France, and died Nov. 29, 1314, Fontainebleau, and who was the king of France from 1285 to 1314), called in the Knights Templar, to France, before Pope Clement V. (1)

First, one must understand the history of King Philip IV, before these events. He was deeply indebted to the Templar banks, because they were the French monarchy’s financial agent, (1) and, he was afraid of the power and wealth of the Templar army, if they ever were called together from the other European countries that they were stationed at, to constitute a major military force, and be turned on him, by order of the church. (2) Also, king Philip had his eye on the property owned by the Templars, along with the gold in the banks, and wanted to get his hands on it. (2)

In 1306, Philip IV expelled all the Jews, seized their property, and confiscated any money owed to them. (1)(2) It was said that he used this as a “dress-rehearsal” for the Templars. (2) He did this, though, only after draining them dry. (1) He was guilty of using these funds for elaborate and costly ceremonies, in honor of St. Louis, where it is thought that St. Louis’ antisemitism, inspired Phillip, to act against the Jews.(2) However, it is has now been speculated, if not proven, to have all evolved around his need for money and greed.

Like the Jews, the Lombard bankers, (what are now known as pawn shops), were expelled from France, with their property stolen, and any debt owed by the monarchy unpaid. In addition to these measures, Philip debased the French money, which by 1306, had led to a 2/3 loss in the value of the livres, sous, and denier coins in circulation. This financial crisis led to rioting in Paris, which forced Philip to seek refuge in the Paris Temple headquarters, of the Knights Templar. He took refuge, and accepted the protection of, his next victim.

King Philip was also aware that king Edward I, of Britain, along with several other monarchs, (from Spain, Portugal, and Germany), would happily side with the Templars, and “carve up the corpse of the French monarchy”. (2) King Philip also had ideas of uniting all the crusading orders, into one, but the Templars opposed all such plans. (1) He also had his sights set on expunging his debt with the Templar banks, by hook, crook, or theft. If he had merged all the knights orders, he would have taken all their wealth, which equals to stealing from the Catholic church. Philip IV had no morals at all, and is clearly seen by his actions. These actions, and those of his descendants, along with the corruption of the church, are what finally led to the French Revolution by the citizens of France. The French Freemasons, from about 1730 to 1765, honored the Knights Templar, over what Philip IV did to them, by creating the degree work; writing 25 extra degrees, which later became the Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite, in the United States. Freemasonry also honored the Knights Templar, by creating an order for young men; those under the age of acceptance for Freemasonry, from the ages of 12 to 21, known as DeMolay International, in honor of the Templars Grand Master, Jacques DeMolay, (Jacques of Molay or Molai), who was born in Molay, Haute-Saône, in the County of Burgundy, in 1243. He died, being burnt at the stake, on March 18th, 1314, as a proud, defiant, and upright Templar.

To carry out what king Philip IV wanted to do, he would have to accuse the Templars of heresy, and try to get the cowardly but corrupt Pope, Clement V, on board with him. (2) He needed to keep Clement there, so he could control him, and thus, the king reminded the pope of the threat on his life, by going back to Rome. (2) This assured that Clement V would stay in France. This threat, that the Italians would murder the pope, was known as the “Babylonish Captivity”. Clement V had “pleased Philip by transferring the papal curia, (the administrative unit and court of the Holy See), from Rome to Avignon, a city near Philip’s realm. Charges against [Pope] Boniface were pressed until 1311, when Clement declared Philip’s zeal praiseworthy, and nullified all the offensive bulls that Boniface had issued, after November 1301″. (1) Still, the King’s “tentative overtures toward Clement V, about the Templars were fruitless”. (1) It was also in the best interest of the pope, to live as close to the French king and his army, as possible.

Also, the pope was just as conniving and scheming as king Philip IV. (2) The popes love for money was witnessed in 1309, when “Clement would purchase Avignon in Provence from its owner, Joan of Naples, for eighty thousand gold florins (about $10,000,000.00 US dollars today). (3) There, the popes would build a magnificent papal palace and fortress from which to rule their spiritual kingdom”. (2) Here, Clement used an older idea for the “Treasury of the Church” or the “Treasury of Merits”. This was a scam, ran by Clement V, where he sold “satisfaction of penances, partial or total remission of sins, reversals of decrees of excommunication, curtailment of years in purgatory for the already dead and the to-be dead, [selling of indulgences], which included everyone. Papal honors went on the block, along with exemptions and annulments. Everything was for sale, and all was pure profit, since what was being sold cost nothing. Clement V invented “annates”; (4) fees of up to 100 percent of the gross revenues for every Church benefice granted to a new holder upon the death of the incumbent”. (2) One has to chortle, as that sounds like modern day Televangelism, doesn’t it? It makes one wonder where they learned of it from. “The money showed up in magnificent robes, decorated with gold and jewels, luxurious furnishings, thousands of servants, solid gold table services, and elaborate ceremonies and pageantry. Clement V wallowed in his newfound wealth, that was beyond anything he had ever dared fantasize”. (2) The Televangelists, and some Evangelists, wallow in their new Mercedes, BMWs, and mansions, today. Some even own private Learjet Jets, and vacation at Nice, France, where they could make a short trip east, to Monaco, for some dice rolling. (5) Today’s pope can do the same.

Philip IV was set, and with the support of Guillaume de Nogaret, (6) and his own Dominican confessor, William of Paris, (7) who was also the papal inquisitor in France. Philip decided, in September 1307, to seize all Knights Templars in France, and to exhort his fellow rulers to follow his lead. (1) He planned to use the church priests, who were in his pocket, to spread the word of a heresy. The king overcame a problem, as “it would be much more complicated, because any Christian had legal protection not available to the Jews. In addition, the Templars were exempt from all secular law, responsible only to the pope. Their suppression would have to be based on offenses against God, and against the canons and customs of the Church”. (2) Thus, king Philip IV, invented the charges of heresy. “The charge of heresy was a must, because it called for the confiscation of property. Other sins could be trotted out in order to thoroughly blacken the Templar name, as in the accusations of sodomy, blasphemy, and witchcraft, hurled at Pope Boniface VIII, but heresy must play the major role”.

Quoting John J. Robinson, from his book, Dungeon, Fire and Sword, The Knights Templar in the Crusades :

Nor was it enough to prove the guilt of individual Templars. If found guilty of heresy, they had no personal property to confiscate. And if fifty individual Templars were found guilty of all manner of sins and crimes, they could be punished, even executed, without affecting the ongoing operations of the order. It was absolutely vital to a successful suppression and seizure of property, that the order itself be found guilty of those sins and crimes. If an individual knight held heretical beliefs, or engaged in any heretical practices, it must be shown that they were forced upon him by the Templar Rule or by his superior officers, so that the order itself was the guilty party, and the individual Templar simply the victim of an evil organization.

Philip was encouraged by the fact that the one crime that allowed confiscation of property, the crime of heresy, might be the easiest to prove, regardless of guilt or innocence. The Church approved, and sometimes even insisted on, the use of torture to extract confessions of heresy. Concepts born during the Albigensian Crusade had been refined, defined, and well-organized, during the years since the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition had been established, by Pope Gregory IX, in 1229, during the suppression of the Cathars in southern France.

The Inquisition (from the Latin inquirere, “to look into”) was largely based on the legal point, that the most conclusive evidence possible was a confession. In the pursuit of the purification of the faith, it was reasoned that the use of torture was a legitimate means to extract such a confession, since God would enable the innocent to bear up under any amount of pain, even when induced by practiced experts, at all the refinements of generating human agony. The next important legal point established, was that a confession extracted under even the most hideous torture was valid and, extremely significant, nonretractable. Any person who confessed under torture, and then retracted that confession when the torture stopped, was labeled a “relapsed heretic.” The relapsed heretic was conclusively and irretrievably guilty, and was summarily handed over to the secular authorities, who had no choice but to burn the guilty party at the stake. The Knights Templar would learn all of those things, firsthand, during the coming months and years, and they would suffer under the frustration of yet another legal aspect of the Inquisition: that the accused had no right to know the identity of his accuser, nor of anyone who “witnessed”, or gave evidence against him.

Since Philip’s objective was to prove that the Templar order was guilty of heresy, the whole machinery of the Inquisition could be put to work for him. There was only one obstacle. As a religious order, the Knights Templar were exempt from the application of torture. A way around that exemption would have to be found. The best idea, seemed to be to use the technique used so successfully against the Jews: Arrest the Templars in France all at one time. Then the torture could be applied immediately, to extract some confessions of guilt, before anyone could make a formal objection. The confessions would justify the action, but Philip would need the cooperation of the Inquisition.


In all of this, a factor in Philip’s favor would be the Knights Templar’s love of secrecy. All of their chapter meetings were conducted in total secrecy, usually at night, with Templar sentries outside the door, with drawn swords. Their initiation ceremonies and rituals, whatever they might be, had always been cloaked in mystery. That enabled all manner of rumors to rise up from time to time, such as whispered reports that someone trying to eavesdrop on a Templar meeting had been killed, or that a Templar knight who revealed what happened, at his own initiation, had been murdered by his Templar brothers. The cloak of secrecy also covered the Rule of the order, which was revealed to the knight on a need-to-know basis, and he was sworn to reveal no part of the Rule known to him, under the threat of severe disciplinary measures. It was thought that no more than a dozen or so of the highest officers, of the order, were familiar with the entire Rule. As always happens, their secrecy had aroused feelings from idle curiosity to envy and anger. It would work to Philip’s benefit, because he could unleash a wide variety of accusations against the Knights Templar, which no one outside the order could oppose, on the basis of any personal knowledge.

Just what those accusations would be, or what questions would be put to Templars on the rack, were still undecided, but they took shape when an Italian criminal informer, named Arnolfo Deghi, who had performed several special “missions” for William de Nogaret, introduced him to a renegade ex-Templar named Esquiu de Florian. Arnolfo Deghi had performed a valuable service for de Nogaret, in 1300, when he presented accusations of sorcery and magic against the bishop of Troyes, so he had a fair idea of what de Nogaret was looking for, to use against the Templars.

This matches with the conclusion of the Encyclopedia Britannica:

At first, dubious and reluctant, Clement V eventually supported Philip; he had been told of outraged anti-Templars appeals voiced in a large assembly of Philip’s subjects, and he had heard damning confessions from the mouths of representatives of the order, many of whom had been tortured. Far-flung tribunals had gathered enough materials to cast doubts on the Templars’ dedication, and, although not condemned as heretical, the order was quashed, and its property assigned to the Knights Hospitallers. [sic]

Esquiu de Florian, had risen in the Knights Templar, to become the prior of the Templar preceptory of Montfaucon, in the region of Perigueux, but for some reason, he was removed. When his master would not restore him, he murdered him. After this, he ran to Spain. (2) “A letter from de Florian, to the king of Aragon, was discovered generations later, in the royal archives at Barcelona. It recites de Florian’s attempt to provide information, condemning the Templars, in exchange for payment out of the property that would be confiscated from the order”. (2)

No money was coming from Aragon, so de Florian decided to “stage a drama, far from Paris, that would have the appearance of bringing the Templar crimes to King Philip’s attention, totally by accident. Deghi and de Florian were sent to occupy a cell together, in the prison at Toulouse, de Nogaret’s former home, where he had attended the university and still had many friends. Pretending a desire to confess their sins, the two prisoners, by arrangement, were denied the services of a priest, so taking advantage of the Church rule that permitted a Catholic with no access to a priest to confess to another Catholic layman, they heard each others confessions. As a former Templar, de Florian unburdened himself of a battery of Templar sins based on greed, treachery, sorcery, homosexuality, and heresy”. (2) “Now, de Nogaret had a document and a witness. He had a reason to arrest the Templars and a basis for questions they would be asked under torture”. (2)

It took a year for Grand Master Jacques de Molay to make it to France, and during that time, he had collected all the accounts of everything he thought pertinent to the pope, for his report. The Grand Master of the Hospitallers had also been commanded to appear, and DeMolay thought it would be another meeting about combining the two orders. How wrong he was. In 1307, DeMolay’s fleet of six Templar galleys put into the harbor at Marseilles. The pope had ordered DeMolay to appear at the papal court, at Poitiers, and to travel incognito. DeMolay ignored that, and proudly marched to the Temple fortress, in Paris. (2) When he entered the Temple, he told the officers of what he had been doing. Here, though, they related to “the Grand Master about the recent spate of rumors of improprieties and sinful conduct within the Templar order. They agreed that the best way to put the rumors to rest, was for the grand master to ask Clement V for a formal papal inquiry”. From here, DeMolay traveled to the papal court, and as he expected, they brought up the merger of the two orders.(2) He presented the court with a document entitled De Unione Templi et Hospitalis Ordinum ad Clementus Papam Jacobi de Molayo relatio. He hoped that it contained his own arguments, as he could not read nor write in his native French, nor Latin. He told them that the rumors about the order were false, and that “papal inquiry would find those allegations to be totally unfounded, the products of ignorance and envy”. (2) After this, he left the court, where weeks went by, with nothing happening.

However, de Nogaret was concocting and instigating his plan. He reportedly recruited a dozen spies, who were to join the order, but after they did, they could not find anything usable. (2) He then turned to the confession of Esquiu de Florian, to cite the Templars on charges. DeMolay, though, had sent an order to all the Templar preceptories, to not disclose the rituals or meetings to anyone.

De Nogaret delivered the news, to king Philip, that Edward I was dead, and now they had no worries about him stepping in to help the Templars, and that Edward II would not bother to help. After this, “Philip went to the pope, in a great show of reluctance and emotional stress, regretting his duty to present to the Holy Father the shameful evidence of Templar corruption and heresy, that had fallen into his hands. A former Templar officer had confessed it all, he moaned, as he produced the confessions of Esquiu de Florian”. The pope ordered a papal inquiry. “Early in September, orders went out to every seneschal of France, to organize a military force on the evening of October 12, but on pain of severe punishment, not to open and read [the order] until the time the sealed secret orders held enclosed. On September 22, perhaps with some knowledge of what was about to transpire, the archbishop of Narbonne, the king’s chancellor, resigned his post and returned the Great Seal. In his place Philip named his faithful servant William de Nogaret. The excommunicated lawyer”.(2) “As de Molay returned to his palace, after that day of somber
service in the company of kings, dukes, and counts, the seneschals throughout France were opening their sealed orders, as the knights and soldiers they had assembled, waited to learn what duties they were about to carry out for their king”. (2) Robinson goes on to say that: “at dawn of the following day, Friday the Thirteenth, in October of 1307, that almost every Templar knight, priest, sergeant, and servant in France, was arrested and put in chains. The arresting party at the Paris Temple was led by the king’s chancellor, in person, probably to assure admittance. The date was ever after regarded as an ominous time, but although for the rest of the world, it might become an amusing supersitition, for the Knights Templar, that Friday the Thirteenth, was the unluckiest day of that or any other year. Their torture began on that same day”.

The Knights Templar were imprisoned and tortured for four long years, from 1307, to 1311. There weren’t enough prisons to hold all the Templars they arrested, so they set up make-shift facilities. During this, every Templar building was searched, and anything of value was seized. “Most welcome to Philip were the chests of gold and silver coins, and the gold and silver religious objects on the altars, of which the most famous was the gold jewel-covered reliquary holding the Templars’ own splinter of the True Cross. Other items, such as furniture, ornaments, hangings, weapons, and horses, could be stored where they were. Since the buildings were now held by the forces of Philip the Fair, those items could be removed at leisure”. (2) A legend states, that DeMolay had already set up plans; that under the cloak of the night, some Templars were to take the majority of the gold and Holy relics, a wagon load, and leave France. (2) Nobody knows where this gold may have gone, nor how much. It is also said, that the king never found near the amount of gold and valuables that he thought that he would, and that a search for the missing Templars was fruitless. Whether this is fact, or not, is not proven. Also, their careful search never turned up “the idols and satanic symbols that would have provided concrete evidence of heretical guilt. A silver head was found with small bones inside, which appeared to have been made to house holy relics”. (2)

Chancellor de Nogaret ordered the tirture of the Templars to proceed at once. He was wanting fast confessions to take before the Pope, and to spread as propaganda. King Philip sent out letters, trying to explain his actions to the Christian monarchs of Europe. An order was to be read, as they had schemed, from every pulpit in France.

Quoting John J. Robinson’s book again:

When the news of the Templar arrests arrived at the papal court, Clement V was furious. The entire proceedings had been the most flagrant flouting of papal authority. The Church had established the Order of the Temple, which reported only to the Holy Father himself. No one, regardless of rank, title, or motivation, had any right, whatsoever, to lay hands on the persons or the property of the Knights Templar, without the specific permission of the supreme pontiff. He turned loose the full fury of the papal wrath on the guilty king.

Philip responded by launching a propaganda assault against Clement V. Announcements were published all over France condemning the pope for his lenience in the treatment of heretics, for his intention to take all of the Templar wealth for himself and his family, and for his protection of the enemies of God and his Holy Church. As king and pope thundered against each other, Philip went to the papal court backed by a small army.

The pope reminded the king that a papal letter had gone to him, two months before, in which the pope had clearly stated that he did not believe the charges against the Templars. In rejoinder, Philip claimed a clear remembrance of the pope’s reaction when the king had presented those charges. He claimed that Clement had said, “Fils, tu enquerras diligement de leurs fais, et ce que to feras, to me rescripas” (“My son, you must look into their deeds with diligent care, and report to me what you make of them”). The king was simply conducting the inquiry the pope had called for. Clement replied that he had meant a quiet inquiry by a papal commission, not arrest and torture. Philip’s answer was that prior papal decrees, absolutely required secular princes to extend every assistance to the Holy Roman Inquisition, which was exactly what he was doing. Clement’s answer was to remove Guillaume Imbert from his post as grand inquisitor of France.

The argument raged for several weeks, with Philip’s knights and soldiers strolling about menacingly in their role of overt saber-rattling. A deal was obviously made, with terms we shall probably never know, but the secret sessions of pope and king resulted in a singleness of purpose, with Philip achieving full papal approval and cooperation.

It is said that the money that was stolen from the Templars, was divided between the king and the pope. The pope, then, supposedly gave a good amount of it to the Knights Hospitallers, who were already stationed there. Imagine that, would you, that they just happened to be conveniently called there, with the Knights Templar, too.

On November 22, Clement V wrote the bull Pastoralis preeminentae, where he lavished praise on king Philip IV, and ordered that the remaining Templars were to be arrested, in the papal lands, and they were to be turned over to the inquisition. (2) “Dominican brother Imbert, was returned to his lofty post as grand inquisitor of France, although there is no indication that the torture of the Templars had been stopped for even a single day, during his brief removal from office”. (2)

The Templars were tortured by gruesome means, and by law, that was supposed to be limited to one day. However, the friars had developed something known as recess or adjournment, which would permit them to be tortured for weeks, to circumvent the law. The inquisitors had orders to “spare no known means of torture”, so they performed the most terrible tortures known. “Some Templars had their teeth pulled out, one at a time, with a question asked between each extraction, then had the empty sockets probed to provide an additional level of pain. Some had wooden wedges driven under their nails, while others had their nails pulled out. A common device was an iron frame like a bed, on which the Templar was strapped with his bare feet hanging over the end. A charcoal brazier was slid under his oiled feet, as the questioning began. Several knights were reported to have gone mad from the pain. A number had their feet totally burned off, and at a later inquiry, a footless Templar was carried to the council, clutching a bag containing the blackened bones that had dropped out of his feet when they were burned off. His inquisitors had allowed him to keep the bones as a souvenir of his memorable experience. The hot iron was a favorite tool, because it could be easily applied again and again to any part of the body. It could be held a couple of inches away, cooking the flesh while the question was asked, then firmly pressed against the body, when the answer came out incorrectly or too slowly”. (2)

Robinson wrote: “it is not surprising that this treatment resulted in a number of Templar suicides, or that it produced a profusion of confessions. As the Templar treasurer said, “Under such torture, I would willingly confess to having killed God!” Robinson goes on to state that: “Three days after the confessed heretic had made his admissions to stop the torture, he was brought before an officer of the Inquisition, and his confession was read back to him, well edited of course, for his confirmation. The grand inquisitor himself conducted such confirmations, in Paris, in a room decorated with torture instruments, to keep the condemned man’s mind on track. If he declined to answer or objected, he could go right back to the hot irons for reinforcement. If he renounced his confession, saying that it had been extracted solely because of the torture, he could be deemed a “relapsed heretic” and be sent off to be burned at the stake, which is exactly what happened to dozens of French Templars”. (2)

The confessions ranged from their initiations, where they claimed they had been required to bestow the Osculum infame, or a “Kiss of shame,” on the prior, upon his mouth… or on his navel… or below his spine. They claimed that they were to spit on the cross, deny Christ, trample the cross, or urinate on the cross. They claimed that in denying Christ, they had worshiped a head, or a head with three faces, where it is thought that the invention of a baphomet, by king Philip, came from. Other Templars, though, claimed that they were worshiping a cat, and not a head. The claims were too numerous to count, and none hardly matched the others confessions. However, when torturing someone, they will say anything, especially if the inquisitors were telling them what to say, which they had already written down in their fake confession. The inquisitors had them claiming to have practiced homosexuality, but king Philip IV would not use that, as it was rumored that Edward II was a closet homosexual, and he was to later marry king Philips daughter. There were only three Templars who made that claim, out of the lot. There was no sin not invented, that the Templars were forced to admit to. (2)

It was found that the word, Baphomet, came from a July 1098 letter, by the crusader Anselm of Ribemont:

“Sequenti die aurora apparente, altis vocibus Baphometh invocaverunt; et nos Deum nostrum in cordibus nostris deprecantes, impetum facientes in eos, de muris civitatis omnes expulimus.”


“On the following day at dawn, the high voices of [from] the Baphometh called upon the Lord; there to intercede for us that our God is in our hearts, and, making an assault against them, we ejected him [the Muslim enemy] from the walls of the city.”

Anselm of Ribemont was speaking of a “Bafumarias,” which was a Mosque. A chronicler of the First Crusade, Raymond of Aguilers, called the mosques “Bafumarias.” “Bafometz” later appeared around 1195, in “Senhors, per los nostres peccatz” by the troubadour Gavaudan. Evidently, king Philip IV heard the word, and through ignorance, or ill intent, claimed that it was a devilish idol, and used it to vilify the Templars for heresy.

The king had another thing coming, when he wrote to Edward II, and asked him to arrest the British Templars. Robinson states: “Edward had received the letter from the pope, ordering the arrest and torture of the Templars, but had not acted on it. Instead, he had informed the pope that he believed the Templars were innocent, and had written letters to share that point of view with other Christian kings. Philip had sent his personal envoy, Bernard Pelletin, to encourage Edward to act, but with no success. Edward had been surrounded by Knights Templar all his life. They had willingly loaned their London facilities, to accommodate dozens of young men who had come to London to be knighted, along with Edward, then the Prince of Wales, before marching with the prince and his father against the Scots. The English Templars had fought on the English side, against the Scottish rebel William Wallace, a war in which the Templar master Brian de Jay had given his life for the English cause. Edward could not accept the accusations against his friends of the Temple”. Thus, we have the legend of the Templars escaping to England. However, Edward received the bull from the Pope, and had to act. He waited three weeks, and allowed the Templars to go underground. The Templar treasure disappeared too, and when Edward looked for it, the most he could find was about 200 pounds. Here, Robinson states: “A half-hearted royal manhunt, aided by the other religious orders, found only two of the fugitive Templars in all of England. Edward did not permit the torture of the Templars who were arrested, which incensed Clement V. (2) The pope demanded that the English Templars be “put to the question,” but Edward replied that torture was not part of English jurisprudence, so he didn’t even have anyone who knew how to do such things”. Edward II was loyal to the Knights Templar. Edward II would not allow the inquisition in England, which frustrated the pope and the Dominicans. (2) This lasted for three years, until the pope threatened Edward II’s soul, then sent the Dominican inquisitors, and Edward could not stop this. The cold hearted pope wrote the order, to torture the Templars, on Christmas Eve, December 24, 1310. (2) The pope also ordered that, “any [English] person, who gave aid or shelter to a fugitive Templar, or who even gave advice and counsel to a fugitive Templar, was to be arrested, excommunicated, and suitably punished”. (2)

The king of Scots was another matter, who was Robert Bruce. He had already been excommunicated, and when he received the popes order, it is written that he threw it in the bottom of a desk drawer, and didn’t publish it. Legend has it, that a few Templar knights, who revealed themselves to him, were welcomed into Bruce’s army. (2)

Germany has a legend, and that is also given by Robinson. Here, I quote his writing: “The German Templars, though few in number, did very well by themselves. As the archbishop of Metz was conducting a judicial inquiry, into the matter of the Templars, the door to the council chamber was flung open. In the doorway stood the fierce local preceptor, Hugo von Gumbach, in full battle armor, surmounted by his flowing white Templar robe. As he stomped into the chamber, twenty of his Templar knights followed, fanning out behind him, all armed and ready. Standing in front of the archbishop, von Gum-bach loudly proclaimed, that Grand Master de Molay was a man of deep faith and personal honor, and that he and the Templar order were innocent of all charges. In contrast, Pope Clement V was a completely evil man, who was hereby declared to be deposed, because he had been illegally elected. Turning his head, to look each member of the council in the eye, von Gumbach declared that all of the Templar knights present, were prepared to risk their bodies and their lives, in personal trial by combat, with their accusers, to let God decide the issue. As the council looked at the challengers, it was obvious that they weren’t just willing to fight, they were eager to fight. No accuser chose to speak up, and the council quickly adjourned. As it reconvened over the months ahead, the Templars in Germany were found innocent of the charges”. (2)

Germany wasn’t the only ones to turn their nose up at pope Clement V. Robinson states: “The Christian monarchs of the Iberian Peninsula, voiced their objections to the pope, for the whole ill-advised affair. They reminded the pontiff, that they were actively engaged in incessant warfare against the Muslim armies in Spain and Portugal. They alone, were holding the Muslims in check, protecting all of Europe from an Islamic invasion, and the Templars provided strong support in that struggle. The archbishop of Aragon announced that his investigation had proved the Templars were innocent of all charges. Another verdict of innocence came from the kingdom of Castile, where the charges had been investigated by the archbishop of Com-postela, and another from the archbishops in Portugal”. (2) Things were looking worse for the Pope, but he still had his tortures in the papal states, and in France.

Next, we have the aged Jacques DeMolay, himself. The threat of torture was too much, and it is said that he claimed to have denied Christ, three times, at his initiation, and admitted that he was ordered to spit on the crucifix, but he said that he spit on the floor, next to it. They lied to DeMolay, and told him that if he would admit to denying Christ, which he did, that he could go free, with serving penance, but they locked him back up, for execution, now that they had a fabricated confession. (2) He was burned at the stake, on March 18, 1314, and, it is said, that he gave both the king, and the pope, a going away present that they would never forget.

Next, I quote Robinson, about the start of this sordid and fabricated trial, by King Philip IV, and pope Clement V:

The confirmed confessions were called in, from all of the offices of the Inquisition, in the French provinces and in other countries. Templars who tried to recant on the grounds, that they had only confessed to stop the torture, and who insisted on maintaining that position, were pronounced relapsed heretics, and burned at the stake. An audience of other Templars was always present to witness the writhing, burning, and screaming of their errant brothers, making certain that all learned the lesson, and were kept in a state of shattering fear.

Pope Clement V called a great council of the church, to convene in 1310, at the French city of Vienne. The final disposition of the Templar order would be addressed at that time. To prepare for it, a papal commission of inquiry convened in Paris, on August 7, 1309, under the archbishop of Narbonne, and expressed its willingness to listen to any Templar, who cared to defend the order. It was emphasized that the commission would hear charges and defenses, only, of the Templar order as a whole, [and] not of individual members. The liar, Hugh de Peraud, appeared, but only to state that since he had already confessed to the guilt of the order, he could not possibly defend it. A Templar knight named Ponsard de Gisi appeared, to state that all of the charges against the order were false. He said that his own confessions were extracted by the most cruel tortures, and were all false. To prove his point, he showed the commissioners his fingers. His hands had been tied behind his back so tightly, that the circulation had been completely cut off. Blood flowed into his hands, but could not get out. As they turned blue and swollen, the built-up blood had burst open the tips of his fingers. He had spent hours in that condition, in his dungeon, before his torture was even begun.

On November 26, Jacques de Molay appeared, anxious to talk to representatives of the pope, who alone could get him and his order out of the clutches of the king of France. As had all of the Templars who had appeared ahead of him, with the single exception of Hugh de Peraud, de Molay denied the truth of his former confession, and denied as well, the accusations against the order. He also stated his principal reason for appearing before this council, which was to formally assert that “I challenge your jurisdiction over the Order of the Temple, since it is under the sole authority of the pope himself, so only he can be its judge.” Taken aback by this unexpected objection, the archbishop asked if the grand master was going to be the defender of the order. As an illiterate man, with no training in ecclesiastic law or proceedings, De Molay felt inadequate as defense counsel for the order. He wanted professional help and funds to pay for that help, as well as travel expenses to get supporting depositions from Christian leaders outside France, all of which could be paid from the Templar treasure, seized by Philip.

The archbishop pointed out, that the grand master should expect no funds to be provided to him, nor should he expect to be aided by outside counsel. He reminded de Molay, that the crime being investigated was heresy, which meant that the usual legal forms of a trial did not have to be followed, and that a suspected heretic had no legal right to representation by lawyers. He then read aloud the formal charges against the Templar order, including specific charges of the denial of Christ, and the worship of idols.

De Molay listened in rising anger, and repeatedly crossed himself. As the archbishop finished, he cried out that the prelates of the Church might feel safe from the wrath of men, but they were not protected from the wrath of God. The archbishop, who owed his appointment to the diocese of Narbonne, to King Philip, was concerned about what might be reported to the king, by the royal officers who were watching the proceedings. Prudence demanded that he be observed putting the grand master in his place. He sternly warned de Molay, that heretics who retracted their confessions, could be handed over to the secular authorities for burning, from which there was no recourse or appeal. De Molay was silenced by the threat of his own death. The archbishop suggested that he take time to consider if he indeed wished to act as the defender of the order. The council adjourned, and Philip’s officers hurried off to inform the king of the proceedings.

The grand master appeared again, on November 28, and was asked if he had decided to personally conduct the defense of his order. Apparently, the time he had spent thinking about it, only reinforced De Molay’s convictions that the pope, alone, could judge the Templars, over whom this commission had no legal authority. “I refuse to enter any defense before this commission. I demand to be led before His Holiness. I shall defend the Order from the wicked and false accusations, made by its enemies, and render to Christ the honor that is due Him.. Let the pope call me before him, and I shall defend the Order to the glory of God and His Church.”

De Molay was reminded that the pope, himself, had appointed this commission, and had delegated to it the responsibility to investigate the charges, not against individuals, but against the Templar organization. De Molay responded with a recitation of the history of the faith, and loyalty of the Templars throughout the Crusades. The king’s chancellor, William de Nogaret, who had decided to observe this session in person, had no problem interjecting himself into the proceedings, nor did anyone try to stop him. “The corruption of your Order is notorious. It is stated in the chronicles of St. Denis, that your Grand Master, de Beaujeu, and other Templars, did homage to the Sultan, and when the Templars were defeated, the Sultan had attributed that defeat to their vices and sodomy, and to the betrayal of their Christian faith.” The grand master answered that the chronicler had lied, and defended his predecessor’s treaties with the Muslims as necessary to survival: “… nothing else could be done if the land was to be saved…”

Since de Molay held firm his refusal to act as defender of the Templar order, except to the person of the pope, the council took a long recessm while the captive Templars were contacted to see if any of them would act as the defender. Of about six hundred and fifty Templar knights in Paris, five hundred and forty-six volunteered to defend the order, and reports of more voluntary defenders poured in from other French cities. It was also reported that the Templars were in a high state of excitement, over the news that the pope had taken over from the French king. Somehow, they believed that after two and a half years, in their filthy dungeons, [that] their lord, the pope, would not take long now to acknowledge their innocence.

Weeks were spent screening the men who had asked to defend the order. They told the commissioners of the tortures they had endured. One reported that twenty-five of the Templars in his prison had died, under torture. Another said that he had been given nothing but bread and water for three solid months. Now, the footless Templar was carried before the commissioners, so he could show them the fire-blackened bones that had fallen from his feet, as they had been burned off by his inquisitors. He wanted to retract the confessions he had made, only to stop the unbearable agony of his treatment. One Templar produced a letter from Philip de Vohet, a priest who had been appointed by the commission, to take charge of the imprisoned Templars. The letter set forth an order of the pope, that any Templar who reversed his confession of guilt, should be burned to death, a letter used to intimidate any Templar who had volunteered to defend his order. Called before the commission, de Vohet denied that he had ever seen the letter. When it was pointed out that the letter bore his seal, he said that someone else must have applied it.

The archbishop of Narbonne, and two of the other commissioners, were essentially creatures of Philip the Fair, but four of them were not, and they were beginning to grow suspicious at the tales of torture, bribery, and trickery. They were reserving judgment.

On March 28 all of the five hundred and forty-six volunteer Templar defenders, were assembled in the garden of the palace of the bishop of Paris. The formal charges against the order were read to them, arousing shouts of anger in response. With order restored, the investigative procedure was explained to them, and they were told to choose those who would present their defense.

The Templars had noticed the absence of their grand master, whose orders they would still follow, and asked that he be brought to the gathering. They were told that Jacques de Molay had made it very clear, that he would talk to no one but the pope, so he would not be a part of this hearing. With no other choice open to them, their defenders were agreed upon.


At the pretrial hearing, on April 7, de Boulogne delivered his opening statement. The willingness to appear before this court was not to be taken as acknowledgment of the authority or jurisdiction of this commission. The Order of the Temple, by this appearance, did not waive its rights to appeal the judgment of this court to the pope, and a formal council of the Church. The Templars would prove that the charges were false, and would give that proof in oral testimony, in depositions, and in documentation. Justice required that the defenders be allowed the freedom to travel, and access to their own Templar funds, to adequately prepare their defense. “Each and every one of us declare the accusations to be utterly unfounded. It is true that some Templars have admitted them, but only because of torture and suffering.” He had the names of men who had died under torture. He charged that some men had been bribed to confess, and charged that some confessions had been forged and falsified. The Rule that governed the order was not a secret. Not only was it available in writing, but it had been approved in every particular [way] by a succession of popes.

He pointed out that there was no shortage of accusations, but no accusers. Let the accusers come forward to be examined, if any could be found. As to the abominable charge of Templars denying Christ, who could believe such a thing? There was no proof that any Templar had ever denied Christ, but there was a well-documented history of thousands of Templars who died rather than deny Him. Could anyone believe that men would deny the Savior, in the security of their meetings, then refuse to deny him in Muslim prisons, even to save their own lives? How could anyone stoop to heap scandal on these martyrs of the Church?

He made a point of asking that all laymen be prohibited from attending the hearing, especially the officers of the king of France, whose presence was clearly for the purpose of intimidating witnesses. (Those officers would report to King Philip that this Templar priest, Peter de Boulogne, was a man who must be stopped. It was obvious to any observer that some of the commissioners were being swayed by his arguments).

The circus of a formal trial began on Saturday, April 11, 1310. This went as anyone, with any modicum of intelligence, would expect; it was a kangaroo court. The objections of the Templars was factual, and so was their testimony, while not under torture. King Philip IV was becoming concerned, but he still knew the court was in his pocket, and he was going to do something even better. He hatched a scheme to install a new archbishop, Philip de Marigny, who was underage, and use him to get rid of the Templars. Below, Robinson explains what actually occurred.

The new archbishop moved swiftly. He called a council of his bishops for Monday, May 22, for the purpose of declaring the guilt of Templars, in his territory, and imposing their sentences. The announcement was not public, but the Templars learned about the archbishop’s council the day before it was to convene. Although the papal commission had never met on a Sunday, the four Templar defenders, sent their urgent pleas to the commissioners, for an immediate emergency meeting. When they were assembled, Peter de Boulogne was called upon, to explain this extraordinary request. The Templar priest replied: “The pope has set up this commission to investigate the Order of the Temple, and all Templars who wish to defend the order, have been invited to appear before you. Most of the brethren have offered themselves as defenders. We are now advised, however, that the Archbishop of Sens, has summoned his council for tomorrow, to take action against those Templars who have offered to appear for the defense. This can only be for the purpose of preventing them from being heard in defense of the Order.”

The archbishop of Narbonne, the president of the council, immediately realized why Philip had engineered the appointment of the youthful archbishop, and had no intention of acting at cross purposes to his king. He suddenly remembered that he had promised to celebrate mass on this Sabbath day, and hurried out of the room.

The bishop of Trent followed his example, remembering some pressing business of his own, and walked out of the meeting. Those commissioners, who stayed behind, invited Peter de Boulogne to make his statement.

“We are told,” said the Templar defender, “that the Archbishop of Sens, and his suffragans [subsidiary bishops], have decided to reopen proceedings against the Templars. As, however, we have been accepted as defenders of the Order, before this commission, we claim that, until the commission has completed its inquiry, the Archbishop of Sens is not entitled to proceed against individual Templars. We claim that we are under the protection of this commission, and we ask that the Archbishop should be restrained. His action is irregular and unfair, and will make it impossible for the commission to fulfill its labors.”

The commissioners discussed the problem among themselves, and finally informed, de Boulogne, that after the most serious consideration, they could only express their regrets about the Templars’ dilemma. It was clear that every archbishop had direct authority over individual heretics, including individual Templars, which had been assigned to him by the Holy Father himself. This commission had no authority to interfere with the archbishop of Sens, operating under specific papal authority.

The next morning, the papal commission reconvened, and proceeded with business as usual, as though nothing had happened. Then in late morning, in the middle of their examination of a Templar servant, a messenger arrived, with news that brought the hearing to a halt. The archbishop of Sens had acted, swiftly and viciously. He had summarily announced that all of the Templar prisoners had been consigned to four different categories:

First were those who had confessed to minor transgressions, mostly servants and craftsmen. After suitable penances, which would be assigned to them, they would be set free. Second, those who had confessed to more serious sins would be sentenced to prison terms according to the seriousness of their crimes. The third group was to be made up of those Templars who had stood up under their tortures and had made no confessions at all. They were all sentenced to life in prison.

The fourth group contained the fifty-four Knights Templar who had confessed under torture and had then retracted their confessions, many of whom had testified or would testify before the papal commission. They were ordered to be turned over immediately to the secular authorities to suffer the punishment designated for relapsed heretics: They would all be burned to death at the stake. The papal commissioners were appalled by the actions of the archbishop, and dispatched emissaries to him to plead the point that his actions were destroying the efforts of the papal commission. Important witnesses had been sentenced to death, and those Templars who would be available to testify, would do so in a state of abject terror. They asked the archbishop to postpone his activities until the papal commission had completed its mission. The archbishop responded that he had no desire to interfere with the important work of the papal commission, and did not question it. In exchange, the commission should not question the archbishop’s authority, nor try to interfere with his performance of his duties. In essence, the papal commissioners had been told to go away, and to confine themselves to their own responsibilities.

As to the responsibilities of the secular arm, Philip was ready and eager to carry out the orders of the archbishop of Sens. The very next day, in the early morning, the fifty-four condemned Templars were taken from their dungeons. A number of other Templars, from each prison, were taken with them to witness the majesty of justice. In a field, by the Paris gate of Porte Antoine, fifty-four stakes had been set in the ground during the night. The bundles of faggots were piled up nearby.

Most of the knights, who were about to die, were from noble families, and Philip had invited those families to come and watch their sons, brothers, or cousins, being burned to death. After the Templars were chained to their stakes, and as the executioner’s assistants were piling the faggots around them, priests went to each man, holding a crucifix in his face, pleading with him to take this last chance to save his soul, and his life, by confirming his original confessions against his order. Remarkably, not a single Templar would save his life, by an act of treachery against the Templar order and his sacred vows. As the executioners lit their torches, the Templars’ families were turned loose to add their own pleas to those of the priests. Not a single man would back off his martyrdom, and the soldiers had to tear tearful relatives away from the condemned men, as the executioners thrust their flaming torches into the wood piled up to their waists.

Then came a horrible spectacle, as flesh began to blister and roast away. Some of the Templars screamed in pain, as others called out to them to be resolute, to trust in God. Others fought off the agony long enough to shout out the innocence of their holy order, all to a background of the yells and wails of their friends and relatives. One by one, their screams and shouts died out, and the flames consumed what was left of fifty-four dead Knights of the Temple. The king’s officers were delighted to report back to King Philip, that the Templar witnesses, moving back to their prisons, had to be prodded to move along, so paralyzed were they by revulsion at what they had seen. They moved in raw fear, that this same fate was waiting for them, if they attempted to retract the confessions that had been tortured out of them.

The other provincial archbishops, now saw clearly, what their king expected of them, especially in the praise and favor showered by Philip on the bloodthirsty young archbishop of Sens. Not to be left out, the archbishop of Rheims, and the archbishop of Rouen, the pope’s nephew, called their own councils, sending Templars to prison or to the stake. In all, the archbishops ordered the burning of 120 Templars, and it says something for the strength of their faith, that only two of the condemned Templars chose to lie to save their lives.

When the papal commissioners reconvened on November 3, 1310, many witnesses scheduled to be heard were dead, and the other  Templars were so scared, that they couldn’t give a good speech. They saw the court for what it was, fully rigged, and their sentence had been invented, by the king and the new archbishop. Robinson states that: “The papal commission went ahead, hearing the confessions of men who had watched their brothers burn, and now retracted their retractions. All was written out and collected for use by the highest prelates of the Church, who would decide the fate of the Templar
order at the Council of Vienne, which the pope had postponed to October 1, 1311. Philip of France would be there, too, with an army.

The Council of Vienne had been called to plan a new Crusade, and it was a joke. They tried to address church corruption, but that was mainly about the archbishops, and should have been about the illegitimate pope. They were more worried about arguing as where the profits, from the stolen Templar lands and moneys, would go. (2) They wouldn’t dare talk much about the Templars, as the Grand Master ranked with a bishop. Many were worried about losing their own wealth. Robinson writes: “If this council approved all of those actions, it would establish a dangerous precedent, that could threaten the life and the possessions of every prelate in the Church. They surely could not vote in favor of that, and the issue became the primary topic of their private conversations”. (2) They found out that Edward II had happily seized the Templar property in England, after the Templars had been released. (2) None seemed to be happy with the pope.

From Robinson, on the Pope at the Council:

Clement V, thundered on in papal rage, that the Knights Templar were so guilty that they merited no defense. He called for the unanimous vote of the council, to summarily effect the total condemnation of the Templar order. The delegates didn’t buy it. They expressed their doubts, and insisted that the Templars had the right to defend themselves, before this council. Clement retorted that when his papal commission had called upon the Templars to defend themselves, none had appeared. The delegates responded that they were well aware, that the defenders of the Temple had been seized by the archbishop of Sens, who appeared to be acting more for Philip of France than for the Church. Now they wanted Templar defenders to be invited to appear, with full protection accorded to any men, who would answer the call. Only the French archbishops of Sens, Rheims, and Rouen, with a small number of Italian bishops and cardinals, mostly from Naples and the Papal States, agreed with the pope. All of the other delegates favored the council inviting a “Templar defense”. [This is how the wicked can find their lies coming undone about the seams].

Since the pope’s supporters were outnumbered more than five to one, Clement V reluctantly gave in to the will of the overwhelming majority, and invited any Templar to come to the council to speak for his order. The response was a shock to him and everyone else.

A few days after the announcement, seven mounted and fully armed Knights Templar, rode proudly through the gate into Vienne, their brilliant white robes bearing their familiar red Templar cross. They almost appeared to be ghosts of past Templar glory. They asked to be directed to the council, where their leader announced that they were here to defend the Templar order, as the duly appointed representatives of between fifteen hundred and two thousand Templars, hiding in the forests near the city of Lyons. Although surprised by their appearance, most of the delegates welcomed the
Templars and their testimony.

They were not welcomed by Clement V, whose first thought was for his own personal safety. Lyons was just up the Rhone River, about twenty miles from Vienne. It was an ideal place for fugitive Templars to gather, because Lyons had been added to the kingdom of France, by force, less than two years earlier, and the local population was openly hostile to Philip the Fair. Clement had not given any thought to Templar vengeance on his own person, because most of the Templars he knew of, in France, were dead or in prison. Everyone knew that some Templars had escaped the trap of Friday the Thirteenth, including a party of knights that had been led away by the preceptor for France, and those who had taken the ships from the Templar naval base, at La Rochelle, but Clement had never thought there were so many. Now he had been told that a small army of the Templars who hated him, were an easy ride away from this almost unguarded city.

The pope ordered that his personal bodyguard be doubled, and in his panic, saw to his personal protection, by ordering the arrest of the seven Templars. The delegates were incensed that their promise of protection to Templar defenders was so quickly violated, and demanded that the Templars be released immediately. Clement felt constrained to turn the Templars loose, but in the absence of any other solution to his sudden dilemma, he adjourned the council, until April 3 of the following year, 1312. During the six months delay, he could only pray that King Philip could arrest or disperse the Templars gathered at Lyons. As for the seven Templar knights, they had not been heard, but were not going to take the risk of waiting for months to offer their defense. One night, they saddled up and rode off to rejoin the fugitive Templars in the forest, perhaps to warn them that their hiding place was now known to Philip of France. In any event, when Philip sent troops to round them up, they didn’t find a single Templar around Lyons.


For Philip and his staff, there was plenty of activity. His envoys were busy keeping pressure on a consistory of cardinals, that pursued the business of the council during the adjournment, and on the pope himself. The Jesuit scholar, Norman P. Tanner, wrote, “Secret bargains had been made between Clement V and envoys of Philip IV, from 17 to 29 February, 1312; the council fathers were not consulted. By this bargaining, Philip obtained the condemnation of the Templars. It is most likely, that he used a threat that he would bring a public action against Boniface VIII.”

Philip gave that threat some substance, by calling an assembly of the estates general of France, in Lyons, a few days later. On March 18, he met with Clement personally, and in private. Two days later, Clement presented to the consistory of cardinals, the bull: Vox in excelso, disbanding the Templar order, in the parliamentary sense of revoking its charter, without finding it guilty of any crime. The result would be the same, and the pope could act alone, with no need to debate the matter in the council, or to hear additional testimony, especially any direct Templar defense. The delegates, by now, were physically miserable and half starved, eager to be away from this ecclesiastic exile, and back in their comfortable homes. They were in no mood for a prolonged debate.

When Vox in excelso was presented to the council, on the opening day of its second session, on April 3, 1312, it was quickly approved. Clement soon followed with an announcement, that he would call a new Crusade, (which never happened), to set the stage for the disposal of the Templar property. Over the ensuing weeks, there was a battery of bulls and encyclicals published, which are worth quoting, at least in part. To start with, Pope Clement V, presents in Vox in excelso, the background of the Templar

“… a little while ago, about the time of our election as supreme pontiff… we received secret intimations against the master, preceptors, and other brothers of the order of Knights Templar of Jerusalem, and against the order itself. These men had been posted in lands overseas, for the defense of the patrimony of our lord Jesus Christ, and as special soldiers of the Catholic faith, and outstanding defenders of the Holy Land, seemed to carry the chief burden of the Holy Land. For this reason, the holy Roman Church honored these brothers, and their order, with her special support, armed them with the sign of the cross against Christ’s enemies, paid them the highest tributes of respect, and strengthened them with various exemptions and privileges. They experienced, in many and various ways, her help, and that of all faithful Christians, with repeated gifts of property. Therefore, it was against the lord Jesus Christ, himself, that they fell into the sin of impious apostasy, the abominable vice of idolatry, the deadly crime of the men of Sodom, and various heresies.”

“Yet it was not to be expected, nor seem credible, that men so devout, who were outstanding, often to the point of shedding their blood for Christ, who were seen to expose themselves, frequently, to the danger of death, who even more frequently, gave signs of their devotion, both in divine worship and in fasting, and other observances, should be so unmindful of their salvation, as to commit such crimes. The order, moreover, had a good and holy beginning, and won the approval of the apostolic see. The rule, which is holy, reasonable and just, had the deserved sanction of that see. For these reasons, we were unwilling to listen to insinuation and accusations against the Templars: We had been taught, by our Lord’s example, and the words of canonical scripture.”

“Then, came the intervention of our dear son in Christ, Philip, the illustrious King of France. The same crimes had been reported to him. He was not moved by greed. He had no intention of claiming, or appropriating for himself, any thing from the Templars’ property…” So [putting aside the fact that he had already raped every Templar preceptory in France, of every movable item of value], why did he do it? “He was on fire with zeal for the orthodox faith, following in the well-marked footsteps of his ancestors [a reference to St. Louis]. Then, in order to give us greater light on the subject, he sent us much valuable information, through his envoys and letters.”

“We were duty bound, by our office, to pay heed to the weight of such grave and repeated accusations. When at last, there came a general hue and cry, with the clamorous denunciations by the said king, and of dukes, counts, barons, and other nobles, clergy and the people of the kingdom of France, reaching us directly, and through agents and officials, we heard a woeful tale—that the master, preceptors, and other brothers of the order, as well as the order itself, had been involved in these and other crimes.” There was no mention of torture, of course, but there was at least the admission, that the grand inquisitor had been there, apparently as a passive observer: “This seemed to be proved by the many confessions, attestations, and depositions of the visitor of France [Hugh de Peraud], and of the many preceptors and brothers of the order, in the presence of many prelates, and the inquisitor of heresy.”

Now the pope had a confession of his own to make. Based on the evidence, there simply was not a legal basis on which the order could be found guilty. The suppression or dissolution of the order, would be justified on the basis that the reputation of the order, had been so blackened, that no one would join it, and that being true, it could not fulfill its mission; its purpose could no longer be served. Once again, torture was not mentioned, and the confessions that had been produced by months of indescribable agony, were described as “spontaneous”:

“… although legal process against the order, up to now, does not permit its condemnation for heresy by definite sentence, under canon law, the good repute of the order, had been largely taken away, by the heresies attributed to it. In addition, a number of individual members… have been convicted of such heresies, crimes, and sins, through their spontaneous confessions. These confessions render the order, very suspect, and the infamy, and suspicion, render it detestable to the holy Church of God, to her prelates, to kings, and other rulers, and to Catholics in general. It is also believed, that from now on, there will be no good person who wishes to enter the order, and so it will be made useless to the Church of God, and for service to the Holy Land, for which service the knights had been dedicated.”

Although the fact that no one would ever join the order again, was given as a major reason for its suppression, the final decree, nevertheless, forbade anyone to join, on threat of excommunication:

“Therefore, with a sad heart, not by definitive sentence, but by apostolic provision or ordinance [the direct orders of the pope], we suppress, with the approval of the sacred council, the order of Templars, and its rule, habit, and name, by an inviolable and perpetual decree. We entirely forbid, that any from this time forward, should enter the order, or receive or wear its habit, or presume to behave as a Templar. If anyone acts otherwise, he incurs automatic excommunication. In addition, we reserve the persons and the property of the Templars, for our own disposition and the apostolic see.”

That was it for the Templars, with the words of a corrupt pope. Though the Pope and the king supposedly heard of Jacques DeMolay’s curse, the present I mentioned above, while he was being burned alive, that claimed that they would both die within one year. Whether the curse legend is true, or not, both did die within the year. King Philip IV suffered a cerebral ictus (stroke), during a hunt, and the pope died of disease or poisoning. According to one legend, while Clement V’s body was lying in state, a thunderstorm developed during the night, and lightning struck the church where his body lie, igniting the building. The fire was supposedly so intense, that when it was extinguished, the body of Pope Clement V was almost destroyed. If God ever listened to the righteous, he did when he listened to the Grand Master, on the stake, taking out a corrupt pope, and a tyrannical king. On top of that, it is said that the kings family didn’t fare well, and seemed to die off easily, until the line was gone.

Supposedly, Clement V had made an order to absolve the Templars, but it was never sent. It was found in the Vatican archives, in 2001, and is titled the Chinon Parchment. The Parchment is dated August 17–20, 1308, at Chinon, France, and was written by Bérenger Fredoli, Etienne de Suisy, and Landolfo Brancacci, all Cardinals who were of Saints Nereus and Achileus, St. Cyriac in Thermis, and Sant’Angelo in Pescheria. Barbara Frale, an Italian paleographer, at the Vatican Secret Archives, claimed that, in 1308, Pope Clement V absolved the last Grand Master, Jacques de Molay, and the rest of the leadership of the Knights Templar, from charges brought against them by the Medieval Inquisition. If the pope had the gonads to send it, he may not have died within a year, of the murder of Jacques de Molay. Who knows?

Philip (Philippe) de Marigny, the Archbishop of Sens and half brother of Enguerrand, who took over the questioning of the Templars and ordered their deaths, only lived until 1316, two years and nine months after De Molay was burned at the stake. His half brother, Enguerrand, who had obtained this job for Philip, was sentenced to hang by King Louis X, (King Philip IV’s son) with twenty-eight articles of accusations against him, including taking bribes and sorcery. It seems that they also met a sticky end.

The tales of the Knights Templar, escaping with their wealth to Scotland, and the knights being tied to Freemasonry, is a myth, with not one drop over verifiable fact to back it up, no matter what the conspiracy theorists want to claim. Freemasonry received the Templar legend from the French, well after the fraternity was created in 1717. It started as a single side degree, known as Scotch Masonry, in England, which made its way to France, around 1730, where it was eventually added to, with another 24 invented degrees, by 1760. By 1800, the rite had made its way to the US, where the Scottish Rite was formed. The conspiracists also love to claim that William Sinclair was a Templar, because of what he had engraved on his tomb, but William was born 100 years after the order was disbanded, and could not have been a knight. It is true, however, that the Scottish Freemasons built Roslyn chapel for Sinclair. The Lodges of Scotland built all the cathedrals for the church, and many other buildings for the Scottish crown. Sinclair’s chapel is a scaled down version of a larger cathedral, such as those located all around the UK and Europe.

Below is what the church has to say about Clement V, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and their excuse for his behavior, by allowing all those men to be murdered by a tyrant:

Of Pope Clement it may be said that the few measures of equity that appear in the course of this great crime were owing to him; unfortunately his sense of justice and his respect for the law were counterbalanced by a weak and vacillating character, to which perhaps his feeble and uncertain health contributed. Some think he was convinced of the Templars’ guilt, especially after so many of the chief members had admitted it to himself; they explain thus his recommendation of the use of torture, also his toleration of the king’s suppression of all proper liberty of defence on the part of the accused. Others believe that he feared for himself the fate of Boniface VIII, whose cruel enemy, William Nogaret, still lived, attorney-general of Philip, skilled in legal violence, and emboldened by a long career of successful infamy. His strongest motive was, in all probability, anxiety to save the memory of Boniface VIII from the injustice of a formal condemnation which the malice of Nogaret and the cold vindictiveness of Philip would have insisted on, had not the rich prey of the Temple been thrown to them; to stand for both with Apostolic courage might have meant intolerable consequences, not only personal indignities, but in the end the graver evil of schism under conditions peculiarly unfavorable for the papacy. [sic]

One should be galled, and mad, about this article, as my blood pressure was raised the entire time that it took to write it, and read the entirety of John Robinson’s book. This corruption did not stop here, nor did the French forget this horrible story. The Catholic church had became even worse, and this triggered Luther’s 95 theses. From there, the church and the Pope was seen by many, for what it truly was, and eventually, several revolutions occurred. The first was the Glorious Revolution of England, the second was the US Revolution, the third, the French Revolution, and the forth, the Italian Revolution. Now, democracy, liberty, freedom of thought and speech, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, and the secular education of the masses, have been hard won, and brought into being. That is something to honor, and to celebrate.

So Mote It Be


  1. Phillip IV, King of France, Encyclopedia Britannica.
  2. Dungeon, Fire and Sword: The Knights Templar in the Crusades, John J. Robinson, 1991.
  3. A minor lord would earn about 500 livres parisis (minted French coin) per year, and when using 50,000 a year for something similar, (a middle class yearly pay), for 2016, then there is a 125:1 difference. Thus, 80,000 livres would equal 10,000,000.00. See here.
  4. Annates: a payment from the recipient of an ecclesiastical benefice to the ordaining authorities.
  5.  Televangelists and Their Jets. These pastors include Paul Crouch, Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Pat Robertson, and Mark Barclay.
  6. Guillaume de Nogaret: was Councillor and keeper of the seal to Philip IV of France. “His name is mainly connected with the quarrel between Philip IV and Pope Boniface VIII. In 1300 he was sent with an embassy to Boniface, of which he left a picturesque and highly colored account. His influence over the king dates from February 1303, when he persuaded Philip to consent to the bold plan of seizing Boniface and bringing him forcibly from Italy to a council in France meant to depose him. On March 7 he received, with three others, a secret commission from the royal chancery to “go to certain places … and make such treaties with such persons as seemed good to them.” On March 12 a solemn royal assembly was held in the Louvre, at which Guillaume de Nogaret read a long series of accusations against Boniface and demanded the calling of a general council to try him”.
  7. See the Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 26, p. 597, and at another source: “William was made inquisitor of France in 1303, and began a campaign against the Templars in 1307. The arrest of the Templars led Pope Clement V to suspend William’s powers, after a complaint from Edward II of England, but King Phillip’s “bold and contemptuous” written reply, caused the Pope to back down and re-instate William”.

Catholicism can’t have it two ways about Freemasonry .

In this article, I wish to address another article, (1)(6) that I found on the internet about the canonical ruling of the Roman Catholic church, and their inane beliefs about regular Freemasonry. I will tear into each accusation and show it to be the blatant lie that it is. As you can see, I am not one to sugarcoat my words on a subject, (like apologists with political correctness), so that they will sound saccharine sweet to the reader. Here, I state cold, hard, fact.

First, one must remember that the Roman Catholic church accused Freemasonry of worshiping lucifer, for twelve long years, during the Taxil Hoax of the 1890’s. Now though, they have changed gear in the 1980’s, to make the claim that Freemasonry is Deistic, and they contradict themselves within their own spiel. This untruthful bundle of claims was given by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL, (Juris Canonici Licentia – Licentiate of Canon Law, (a church canon lawyer, and as laughable as that is, they do have them), on March 19th, 2006. He quotes from “the German, in an article by Ronny E. Jenkins, in the canon law journal The Jurist, 1996“, (1)(6) which are in the block quotes below.

1. The Masonic World View. The Masons promote a freedom from dogmatic adherence to any one set of revealed truths. Such a subjective relativism is in direct conflict with the revealed truths of Christianity. [sic]

Freemasonry does not promote none of the such, as every regular Freemason has their own dogma about their own religion. Freemasonry is a secular fraternity which does not mention, nor discuss, the differing religious beliefs of its membership. The talk of religion and politics are banned in a Lodge of regular Freemasonry, (2) and have been since it fraternal founding in 1717. It is even stated within the Masonic Constitution! What Freemasonry does not do, (which the Roman Catholics do), is to teach prejudice, bigotry, and hatred of all religions other than their own. Evidently, the Roman Catholic church is afraid that a Catholic member might learn some hidden truth about a lie, which was concocted by their own church, by associating with those of other numerous religions. Regular Freemasonry is most certainly religion tolerant, as any good man, of good repute and moral character, and of any religion, who believes in the one God, the creator of the universe, can be a member. Similar principles are also held within most any other fraternal organization, except the Knights of Columbus. I, myself, find it quite unexplainable why the Roman Catholic church does not single out the other similar fraternities? I also find it quite odd, that the Roman Catholic church claims that regular and irregular Freemasonry are the same thing, and that they teach the same moral lessons. They do not.

2. The Masonic Notion of Truth. The Masons deny the possibility of an objective truth, placing every truth instead in a relative context. [sic]

That is an outright lie, as Freemasonry mentions that nowhere. If any member wrote about it, then it would be their personal belief and not that of the fraternity, nor of its other members who number in the millions. As a matter of fact, and as an example, if you are caught lying on your Masonic petition, you will most certainly be expelled from the fraternity, which, it seems to me, proves that Freemasonry has a clear definition between a lie and the truth. There is nothing “relative” about it. It is the same with any other Masonic law that may be broken, which is written in the Constitution of Freemasonry. (2) What this boils down to are the members who see the Pope as fallible, even though he claims to be infallible within his edicts and bulls. The only ones who are truly infallible are God and Jesus the Nazarite, not any man. Since many of the bulls have been proven to be incorrect over the years, then it is the church that is being relative to the time. What is relative, is that the Roman Catholic church scribes have made many statements within the New Testament, which do not pass muster when compared to the Old Testament, and what mainstream Rabbinical Judaism, that which sprang from the Pharisees, state as being incorrect. Rabbinical Judaism does not believe in a devil nor fallen angel, nor an anti-God named Satan, for instance, as only the Essenes had begun to believe that Zoroastrian and Hellenistic myth. The Catholics go on to to claim that New Testament scripture is speaking about a devil or anti-God, named Satan, who creates all sin and evil, when the scripture is clearly speaking about an “adversary” or “stumbling block” which was in mention at the time in the text. Peter was called a satan (Hebrew word for an adversary), and a “stumbling block,” at Matthew 16:22-23. Several cities and their population were called a satan, (especially the people and the city of Capernaum), in Luke 10:15-18. Peter was no devil named Satan, nor were the citizens of Capernaum, (though some of the people were called devils, which means one who is “diabolical”), nor was the city itself. They were an adversary to Jesus and the apostles ministering at the time, and in those cities and peoples case, Jesus was going to cast them to hell like a lightning bolt, (since he had already foreseen it). This Hellenist ideology originates from Zeus casting down Typhon into Hades.

Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error “When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church. [sic]

A proposition is considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when the truth conditions are met without biases, caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc, of a person or persons. We can say that with science after an experiment, which has the revelation of all evidence displayed, and much study. However, the Catholic church wants one to believe that anything they say, especially the “infallible” Pope, is objectively true, and not relative or false. Again, many of those bulls have been disproved, as well as church doctrine. Also, there is a slight mater of James being called the Bishop of Bishops at Jerusalem, not Peter. The Gospel of Thomas states that it was James who Jesus left his church to. Whether they claim that the Gospel is gnostic, and thus heretical, is beside the point, as doubt was cast. Didn’t you ever wonder why they did not include this Gospel as cannon, even though many in clergy wanted it included? However, they included 1st and 2nd Enoch, even though the Jews have always stated that it is pure fiction, and was written by several unknown authors. The church even put the two books in the apocrypha, but use this fiction to shore up the myth of a Hellenistic mythical fallen angel!

As an example of the churches objectivity, they want everyone to believe in the Hellenistic  Satan, a devil, or an anti-God of the underworld, who runs a purgatory (Tartarus), where souls are held to be punished before they are released to go on. However, Jesus the Nazarite was not taught this as a Pharisee, nor was it anywhere in mainstream Judaism, especially within pre-Roman Judaic cannon. What the church is asking the laity to believe in, is the Greek pagan and pantheist God, Hades (Pluto), (7)(8) who supposedly controls the underworld, which was not known of in the pre-Roman Levant nor Mesopotamia. That Greco-Roman myth was brought to the early Christians and Jews of those lands, by the invading Roman army, along with the anti-God of Persian Zoroastrianism, and the Roman Catholic church made it a part of their new religion, not the Jews, after the second Temple fell. Now, is it objective, to ask everyone to believe in a Hellenistic Greco-Roman pagan myth, from their Greek pantheon of Gods? Does the church clergy reveal this truth to the laity? Does the church reveal that they are asking them to believe in paganism, pantheism, (8) dualism, and to blaspheme against the word of God in Isaiah 45:5-8? Are they claiming that Jesus dying on the cross negates what God said in Isaiah? Is it an objective truth to preach that an angel was named Satan, in Job, when that was not the angel’s name, but was its temporary occupation, the adversary (ha-satan), which was always under God’s command? Does the church reveal that they had sold indulgences to the rich, claiming that the indulgence gave the rich person a free pass through this mythical purgatory? There are numerous other examples one could use, but I will leave the reader with these few. Funnily enough, the church also teaches that it is a sin to lie by omission.

3. The Masonic Notion of Religion. Again, the Masonic teaching holds a relative notion of religions as all concurrently seeking the truth of the Absolute. [sic]

The bigotry of the Catholic religion raises its ugly head, here, again. A regular Freemason’s religion is private to him, and the talk of religion is banned in the Lodge. The Roman Catholic church claims that they are the only way to Heaven, and that no other religion can save you, including the Protestant church, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and many others. Ask yourself a hard question, why? Freemasonry has no notion of religion or a religious dogma, nor does it teach one. What the Roman Catholic church is speaking of, is their utter dislike of allowing men of differing religions to congregate in the same fraternity. They seem to think of other religions as some disease, which one might catch, if they get close to another man of a differing religion. The Roman Catholic churches blatant bigotry really shines brightly here. See at the bottom of this page: “Pertinent biblical scripture, about God not being partial to one religion”. Who is really the sinner, here? You tell me!

4. The Masonic Notion of God. The Masons hold a deistic notion of God which excludes any personal knowledge of the deity. [sic]

That statement is an outright barefaced lie. I also find it funny, that from April 1885 to April 1897, the Roman Catholic church, from the Pope to the laity, accused Freemasonry of worshiping lucifer. Now, which is it? Do we worship lucifer, or do we worship God in a deistic way? During each time, the Pope has based his belief on nothing but pure speculation, rumor, and, in a lying pornographer, anti-cleric, and hoaxer. Since the Pope claimed that he was infallible, then what he stated about all of this was supposedly the truth, all fact, whether it was a lie or not. I guess that they never figured out that the Pope, in fact, lied. The Roman Catholic church even admits to it within the last paragraph under the article on “impostor”, in the Catholic Encyclopedia. (3)

It is needless to say that regular Freemasons do not worship in Lodge, and never have. Freemasons worship how they wish to worship, at the the church of their choice, on the Sabbath. Freemasonry has never taught who God is, except to say that God, or the Great Architect of the Universe, created the universe and all things within it, and a member must believe in the singular Godhead. A members religion, though, is private to him, and it has been ever since the writing of the Constitution of Freemasonry (Anderson’s 1723 Constitution). (2)

Deism, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Deism refers to what can be called natural religion, the acceptance of a certain body of religious knowledge that is inborn in every person or that can be acquired by the use of reason and the rejection of religious knowledge when it is acquired through either revelation or the teaching of any church. [sic]

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the word Deism was used by some theologians in contradistinction to theism, the belief in an immanent God who actively intervenes in the affairs of men. In this sense, Deism was represented as the view of those who reduced the role of God to a mere act of creation in accordance with rational laws discoverable by man and held that, after the original act, God virtually withdrew and refrained from interfering in the processes of nature and the ways of man. [sic]

Merrian-Webster Dictionary:

A movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe. [sic]

Deism also states that “the natural religion/philosophy of Deism, frees those who embrace it, from the inconsistencies of superstition, and the negativity of fear, that are so strongly represented in all of the “revealed” religions, such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. That “superstition” would be God answering a prayer, a regular Freemason Lodge’s prayer being given, or a Freemason being afraid to break an oath that he made to God, over it being a sin. Funny that, when regular Freemasons swear an oath to God to not reveal the secrets of the fraternity, (which are the modes of recognition). An oath would not be any good if the person swearing the oath was a Deist, nor would a deistic fraternity have an oath! Also, regular Freemasonry would not have an opening prayer, just as do most all the other fraternities, trade unions, and even government congresses or parliaments, if it were deistic. That would be “superstitious” would it not? Asking God to bless us by a prayer? On top of that, why would regular Freemasonry have allegories that were based on the biblical scripture of Judaism and Christianity within it, if they were deistic? Freemasonry would not, if that were the case! It seems this cannon lawyer can’t keep his accusations straight! One must also believe in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity, in order to advance through the higher degrees (17 to 33), within both the regular Scottish and York Rites. The 26th degree, a Trinitarian degree, even requires one to be baptized and receive the Eucharist, in the Christian church of your choice, to be perfect. If regular Freemasonry or either Rite are deistic, then those degrees would not be there! It seems that the truth is not in these Roman Catholic church apologists, nor do they have very well read or learned cannon lawyers.

5. The Masonic Notion of God and Revelation. The deistic notion of God precludes the possibility of God’s self-revelation to humankind. [sic]

Again, another lie about deism that regular Freemasonry has never taught. They almost quote the deists dogma verbatim here, but lie about the rest. Read my explanation, above, for proof of this. Also, you will read below, where they contradict themselves again, over their own deism claims, within the following text of their other inane proclamation spiel. Look for it!

6. Masonic Toleration. The Masons promote a principle of toleration regarding ideas. That is, their relativism teaches them to be tolerant of ideas divergent or contrary to their own. Such a principle not only threatens the Catholic position of objective truth, but it also threatens the respect due to the Church’s teaching office. [sic]

Here we go with that ugly beast of bigotry and prejudice again, spewing their hatred against differing religions, which the Catholics love to teach and preach, (along with some Protestant churches, sadly). I find it very sad, and it concerns me greatly, that this belief is still touted by the Catholics or any other religion. It does put them under the vile light that they should be placed under over it. I, myself, am a Christian, but I have never held a pure spiteful hatred or prejudice, for anyone, due to what religion they believe in. I am above that, and I live by Peters own words in Acts 10:28 and 10:34-35. God does not produce bigots in the womb; it is taught to the child by their parents and the church. It also goes against the original teachings of Jesus, especially when this is peddled in and by the church. Maybe, they should read and remember Proverbs 6:16-19, and 24:23, along with Acts 10:28 and 10:34-35. Also, see the end of this article for the entire list of biblical scripture that applies. Many churches are quite hypocritical, I’d say, and are going against scripture. This is why I joined regular Freemasonry all those years ago, where I learned to not be a bigot full of hate.

7. The Masonic Rituals. The rituals of the first three Masonic grades have a clear sacramental character about them, indicating that an actual transformation of some sort is undergone by those who participate in them. [sic]

Here is another bare-faced lie, which they have spread since not long after the fraternities founding. The Pope admits in the papal bull, the In eminenti apostolatus, of 1738, (4) that everything is based on rumor and speculation, and is without one ounce of fact. There is no “transformation”, except that one learns a moral lesson per each degree, and that being “raised” means that a Freemason’s living soul (the conscience) is raised to a better place, over having greater morals. One is not transformed, but educated in morality. Regular Freemasonry is all about morality. Also, they claim that the ritual allegories are of a “sacramental character“. How can that be, if Freemasonry is Deistic? I told you they contradict themselves, didn’t I? These three allegorical moral lessons should be taught by the church, but they’re not in many places. I wonder why? Below is the pertinent scripture that regular Freemasonry has within the allegories, which is what we live by:

2 Peter 1:5-7

5) And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6) And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; 7) And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

About regular Freemasonry being said to be religious or a religion, Freemasonry has:

  • No specific Holy Book or Bible.
  • No form of doctrine, nor does Freemasonry minister it.
  • No sacraments or baptism.
  • No ordained clergy.
  • No set definition or name of a Deity. Regular Freemasonry uses a generic Christian title, the Great Architect Of The Universe, to satisfy all. (See John Calvin)
  • No dogma, no creed; there is no ideological doctrine.
  • No means to salvation.
  • The fraternity is religion tolerant, and secular.

Now, let’s continue with section 8 of their inane spiel:

8. The Perfection of Humankind. The Masonic rituals have as an end the perfection of mankind. But Masonry provides all that is necessary to achieve this perfection. Thus, the justification of a person through the work of Christ is not an essential or even necessary aspect of the struggle for perfection. [sic]

No, it is not the perfection of mankind, but those who are worthy of perfection in God’s eyes. Those whom have morals! Regular Freemasonry does not provide everything, nor has it ever claimed that it does. (See above, about what Freemasonry lacks, which is religion). What it does do, is teach good men to be better, but mainly, it teaches one to not to be a prejudiced bigot, which the Catholic church can’t swallow. Also, notice that their last sentence slips that wisp of bigotry about other religions in again.

9. The Spirituality of the Masons. The Masonic Order makes a total claim on the life of the member. True adherence to the Christian faith is thereby jeopardized by the primary loyalty due the Masonic Order. [sic]

This is one of the biggest lies that they’ve ever told. Regular Freemasonry does not take a “total claim on the life of the member”, as the member can go to any meeting he wishes, when he wants, or not go at all. Every Freemason that I know attends Lodge on a Friday evening, if and when they want, and they go to their church of choice on the Sabbath. Again, the truth is not in these Roman Catholic church apologists, by what is evidenced within their: “Pastoral Research and Practices Committee Report of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Masonry and Naturalistic Religion,” issued in 1985, and from the conference that the “bishops of Germany gave in 1980”. (1) My thoughts on the subject are this: One; that they’re afraid of what a Catholic might learn; a truth that the church wishes to keep concealed. Two; that he may turn away from prejudice and bigotry, and three; that the church wants their hands on the money that they see Freemasonry receiving from its dues and donations, which go to helping the elderly, sick, and the poor. Remember 2 Peter 1:5-7 from above?

10. The Diverse Divisions within the Masons. The Masons are comprised of lodges with varying degrees of adherence to Christian teaching. Atheistic lodges are clearly incompatible with Catholicism. But even those lodges comprised of Christian members seek merely to adapt Christianity to the overall Masonic world-view. This is unacceptable. [sic]

The Lodges under the Grand Orient de France, and the GOdF itself, became irregular and clandestine in 1877, after they allowed the first atheist membership, where the United Grand Lodge of England, then, pulled their warrant to operate. The Lodges of regular Freemasonry have no association with the GOdF, nor does any of the regular membership, (whom are those in amity with the United Grand Lodge of England, the Premiere and Mother Grand Lodge), as the members are banned from attending a meeting of any irregular Lodge upon the penalty of suspension or expulsion. Also, the Catholics contradict themselves here. Remember, that I stated above to look for this. How can one be a Christian and be deistic at the same time? Again, the truth is not in the Roman Catholic churches apologists.

11. The Masons and the Catholic Church. Even those Catholic-friendly lodges that would welcome the Church’s members as its own[,] are not compatible with Catholic teaching, and so [are] closed to Catholic members. [sic]

Really? The only possible reason why, is that of the Roman Catholics belief in being bigoted toward other religions, whom have members in those Lodges, and again, they contradict themselves, as one can’t be deistic and be Christian at the same time! I even had to correct their errant text, much less what they wrote about!

12. The Masons and the Protestant Church. While a 1973 meeting of Protestant Churches determined that individual Protestants could decide whether to be members of both the Christian Church and the Freemasons, it included in its decision the caveat that those Christians must always take care not to lessen the necessity of grace in the justification of the person.” [sic]

The 1973 meeting of Protestant Churches, eh? That was the meeting that produced the Leuenberg Agreement or Leuenberg Concord, which is an ecumenical document adopted in 1973, by the major European Lutheran and Reformed churches, at the Swiss conference center, Leuenberg, (near Basle). That is not the totality of the Protestant churches around the world! God does not like deceivers and lairs; it is a sin! I have found no other source for any other 1973 meeting, but did find the meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention which was held in 1985, and their 135th convention in 1992. Their 1992 convention stated that their members were to: “maintain personal purity in all activities, associations, or memberships; avoiding any association which conflicts with clear biblical teaching”, etc. The SBC issued a report, titled: A Study of Freemasonry, (5) where they concluded that most everything that the fraternity has been accused of, including the accusations made by the Roman Catholic church, along with some of their own Baptist pastors and other clergy, was a lie, and they suggested things that Freemasonry might do to make it more religious friendly to the Baptist religion. Below is part of the recommendation of the Southern Baptist Convention:

It was not found that Freemasonry was anti-Christian or satanic, nor does it oppose the Christian church. While a few Masonic writers glorify non-Christian philosophy and religions, they are clearly a minor voice. Every organization, including the Christian church, has some individuals who espouse positions not held by the vast majority of the members. Organizations must be judged by the positions of the majority, not those of a small minority. [sic]

The Home Mission Board Interfaith Witness Department staff agree with Charleston Southern Baptists, who, in 1798, advised that the matter of Southern Baptist membership in Freemasonry “be left with the judgement of the individual”. They agree with George W. Truett who said, “The right to private judgement is the crown jewel of humanity, and for any person or institution to dare come between the soul and God is blasphemous, impertinence, and defamation of the crown-rights of the Son of God. [sic]

That study was pretty damning about the charlatans and liars, wasn’t it? Now, I continue with the conclusion of the article in question, and the words of our cannon lawyer:

I am not an expert on Masonry but only on canon law. If someone is involved in Masonry here in the U.S., I think that person should carefully consider these doctrinal concerns of the German bishops, and of course a Catholic should consider the statements I quoted above and defer to the judgment of his local bishop in case of any doubt. [sic]

Above, he states: “I am not an expert on Masonry“, but he feels up to telling the world about what the Roman Catholic church claims are truthful facts, though they are errant at best or lies at worst, but has no idea about what is actually practiced in Freemasonry, nor what the differences are between the regular and irregular/fake Lodges. Maybe, he and the other Catholics should take a good look at themselves within a mirror, and read Proverbs 6:16-19 and 24:23, along with Acts 10:28 and 10:34-35, then try to live by it. Personally, I would not want to live my life by being colored as a prejudiced hateful bigot, and not being looked upon favorably by Jesus and God All Mighty.

Below, is pertinent biblical scripture about God not being partial to any one religion, what the Lord hates, and about those who accuse, judge, and condemn others:

Acts 10:28

28) And he [Peter] said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man, who is a Jew, to associate with a foreigner, or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

Acts 10:34-35

34) Opening his mouth, Peter said: “I most certainly understand, now, that God is not one to show partiality, 35) but in every nation, the man who fears Him, and does what is right, is welcome to Him.

James 2:9

9) But if you show partiality, you are committing sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

Luke 6:22

22) Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake.

Hebrews 10:26

26) For if we sin wilfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.

Proverbs 24:23

23) These also are sayings of the wise. To show partiality in judgment is not good.

Romans 10:12-13

12) For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13) for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”

Galatians 3:28

28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3:11

11) a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.

1 John 2:11

11) But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

Things the Catholic church should heed about itself:

Proverbs 6:16-19, King James Version (KJV)

16) These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17) A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

18) An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

19) A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

About judging others:

Luke 6:37-42

37) Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: 38) Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again. 39) And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? 40) The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master. 41) And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 42) Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.

Freemasons are blessed by their critics:

Luke 6:22

22) Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s [Jesus’] sake.

So Mote It Be


  1. EWTN Catholic Q&A, See Here for source.
  2. Anderson’s Constitution of Freemasonry, at The Grand Lodge of British Columbia Yukon. Here, I quote the pertinent text of the ban on the discussion of religion and politics: “Therefore no private Piques or Quarrels must be brought within the Door of the Lodge, far less any Quarrels about Religion, or Nations, or State Policy, we being only, as Masons, of the Catholick Religion above-mention’d ; we are also of all Nations, Tongues, Kindreds, and Languages, and are resolv’d against all Politics, as what never yet conduc’d to the Welfare of the Lodge, nor ever will”. [sic] Also, notice, that it mentions that Freemasonry was part of the Catholic religion, at the time of its founding, which completely flies in the face of deism.
  3. Catholic Encyclopedia on Impostor, see the last paragraph.
  4. The Papal Bull of 1738, In eminenti apostolatus.
  5. A Study of Freemasonry, by the Interfaith Witness Dept, Home Mission Board, Southern Baptist Convention.
  6. The Catholic church and Freemasonry, at the Freemason Information website here.
  7. Hades at Greek Mythology:”The Greeks were not keen on uttering his name, afraid of causing some kind of reaction that would end up with them dead sooner. Instead, they decided to give him another name, Plouton, deriving from the Greek word for wealth, due to the precious metals mined from the earth. Thus, Hades also became the god of wealth. [sic]”Although an Olympian, Hades preferred the Underworld and rarely left his kingdom. His weapon was a pitchfork, which he used to create earthquakes, similar to the way Poseidon used his trident. He also had a helmet of invisibility, which he had received as a gift from the Cyclopes, in order to use it during the clash of the Titans. He was married to Persephone, daughter of Demeter, whom Hades abducted and carried down to the Underworld. [sic]”Hades Is also called Pluto, Dis Pater, Orcus, Plouton”. The Greek God, Hades, was renamed Satan, by the Roman Catholics, and they renamed the Sheol as Hades. The belief in after-life’s temporary punishments, agreeable to every one’s behavior and manners, was expressed in the early Christian work, in Greek, known as, Josephus’ Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades, which was once attributed to the Hellenist, Josephus, (37 AD – 100 AD), but is now believed to be by the Hellenist, Hippolytus of Rome, (170 AD –235 AD), who was a “theologian” in the Christian Church in Rome.
  8. Pantheists do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god. The term is used for the Greek pantheon, where they believed in a multitude of Gods, such as Hades, Poseidon, and Zeus.

The psychology of conspiracy believers and theorists .

A conspiracy believer falls into several psychological categories, that will be discussed below. The conspiracy theorists are either those like the believer, or they are liars, who create these theories out of malice, or to make money off the gullible. Sadly, the gullible, who have a paranoid personality, falls for the theory, and the unscrupulous makes money from selling them books, DVDs, lectures, and the like. This has been taking place for hundreds of years, and one good example of this is the Taxil Hoax, which lasted twelve years, before it’s author revealed it to all be a lie, to the Catholic clergy and the press, at Paris, France, in 1897. The problem is, the liars still use this hoax, to make money off the believers, as they are not aware that it is a hoax from 1897, or they believe that Taxil confessed under duress, which he did not, as he made two confessions; the last was a year before he died, where he laughed at the gullible.

According to several psychologists and psychiatrists, the multi-conspiracy believers have to have someone to blame. They have a paranoid personality (1)(2)(3) that needs to be in control of any situation, and when they think that someone else is in control, they tend to believe in conspiracies, that are not based on evidence and fact. They need to shift blame onto someone else, and demand to see them pay for their crime. Also, if their life has not gone the way they think it should, then they look for an outside reason or someone else to blame. Dr Darshani Kumareswaran, PhD in psychology, states that “according to the literature, people are more likely to believe in, or create, conspiracy theories to try to make sense of situations where they have little or no control”. (2)(3) Also, those who have this paranoid type of personality may be the very ones who spread the theories. According to Dr Darshani Kumareswaran : “I also found that someone who creates conspiracy theories is more likely to have some form of psychopathology or mental illness, such as paranoid thinking, compared to those who believe in conspiracy theories, but do not create them, or people who do not believe in them at all,” explains Dr Kumareswaran. “Belief in conspiracy theories is possibly a means of trying to re-establish a sense of control over a situation.” There is also the psychological disorder known as compulsive lying disorder, which may come into play, along with sociopathy.

Now, I will write about the charlatans, liars, and frauds, who either make up conspiracy theories, or hoaxes, out of mid air, or repeat old hoaxes and theories, and use them to defraud the believers. Here, I will use the Taxil Hoax as an example. I have found that not only do some well known authors use parts of the hoax, such as Dan Brown, but so do many so-called clergymen, who claim to be pastors of certain church denominations, along with the conspiracy peddlers, themselves.

The Southern Baptist Convention did a study on Freemasonry, mainly over the Taxil Hoax, titled A Study of Freemasonry, by the Interfaith Witness Department, Home Mission Board, Southern Baptist Convention. (4) The study debunked many of the SBC’s own pastors, such as Dr. James L Holly, Larry Kunk, Jerry Falwell, Ted Haggard, David Carrico, Dan Harting, Kent Hovind, Pat Robertson, John Ankerberg, John Weldon, Texe Marrs, William “Bill” Schnoebelen, and the comic publisher, Jack Chick. There are also the conspiracy theorists, who parrot all or part of the hoax, such as Alex Jones, David Icke, Jim Marrs, John Todd, Milton William ‘Bill’ Cooper, and Kevin McNeil-Smith. One will also note, that most all of these conspiracists, have offered up books, DVDs, video tapes, audio CDs and tapes, and lectures for sale to their audience. If you are thinking the same as I, then you are correct, in that they are using the Taxil hoax, along with many other conspiracies, to make a profit from their gullible followers, even today, after they were debunked by the study mentioned, and by many others. In my opinion, that is fraud, plain and simple.

Where did the conspiracy theorists and charlatan pastors get their idea? One can go back to John Robison, and his book, Proofs of a conspiracy, and the French Jesuit priest, Abbot Augustin Barruel’s, writing. (8) John Robison quoted Barruel’s writing, which was put forth by the Catholic clergy. (8) They used rumor and speculation to claim that the Illuminati still survived, had infiltrated Freemasonry, and was responsible for the French Revolution, even though neither had any solid nor factual, citable, evidence, (5)(8) and both have been debunked by university scholars of world history. (8) Both made a good amount of money over peddling rumor and speculation as truth, which was fanned by the Catholic church. (5)(8) Later, you had writers such as Edith Starr Miller, (Lady Queenborough), Cardinal Rodriguez of Chile, and William Guy Carr, who parroted not only Robison, but Leo Taxil. (6) William Carr was even caught forging the so-called Three World Wars letter, supposedly written by Albert Pike, which was also thoroughly debunked by university scholars. Taxil’s work had died down, until Carr gave the idea to the other charlatans, such as those mentioned above, and all of them have made money, through what I think is fraud, from gullible conspiracy believers.

Below, I quote Rob Brotherton’s article at The Daily Beast (7):

Over nine years, the Illuminati grew to a few hundred members. But Weishaupt’s personality rubbed some members the wrong way, and they spilled the beans. Rumors about the secret society spread, getting embellished along the way into ever more sordid allegations. By the mid-1780s it had caught the attention of the Bavarian government, which put an end to Weishaupt’s fun by banning Illuminati activity under penalty of death. Weishaupt fled and gave up the secret shenanigans; there’s no evidence that he or anyone else tried to keep the organization going.

That likely would have been the last anyone heard of the Illuminati, if not for the French Revolution, which kicked off a few years later. Searching for an explanation for the unprecedented social upheavals taking place around them, some European authors suggested the Illuminati was pulling the strings. Sensational theories spread around Europe and America alleging that the Illuminati was still operating in secret, more powerful than ever, and that it aimed to overthrow all the governments of Europe.

This is not to say that some conspiracies aren’t true. The JFK assassination is one example, where a recent congressional hearing concluded that the killing was a conspiracy, and not a lone gunman, but they have no idea about who was involved in it. Another was Richard Nixon and Watergate. However, many of the people who believed in these theories only had the one conspiracy belief, and did not believe in every other conspiracy theory that was before the public, like the multi-conspiracy beliefs of the paranoid personalities.

My conclusion is this. If you see someone offering pamphlets, magazines, books, DVDs, audio tapes and CDs of lectures, or comic books, that claim to be spreading the truth about conspiracies, and they are always pro-conspiracy, etc, then you should be very weary of them, as the chances are, and the odds are low, that they may be frauds. Look at the sources that they cite, and if they are citing similar pro-conspiracy material, as fact, from known conspiracy theorists or religious sources, and not from scholarly sources, such as universities, professors, professionals, etc, then that is a sign of malice, bias, prejudice, nonfactuality, untruthfulness, conjecture, and rumor mongering. Also, if one believes in every conspiracy that is now before the public, then maybe one should seek the help of a psychologist or psychiatrist, as this is not normal human behavior. They can help one cope with their paranoid personality disorder, if they are diagnosed as having one.


  1. Paranoia and the Roots of Conspiracy Theories, by  Ilan Shrira, a social psychologist at Arkansas Tech University, and  Joshua D. Foster, Assistant Professor of Social Psychology at the University of South Alabama in Mobile.
  2. The psychology of conspiracy theories, by Dr Darshani Kumareswaran, PHD, at Medical Press.
  3. Insights into the Personalities of Conspiracy Theorists, Scientific American.
  4. A Study of Freemasonry, by the Interfaith Witness Department, Home Mission Board, Southern Baptist Convention.
  5. The French Revolution and the Bavarian Illuminati, Grand Lodge of British Columbia Yukon.
  6. Leo Taxil at Encyclopedia.com.
  7. Rob Brotherton is the author of the book, Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories, 2015.
  8. The Bavarian Illuminati In America: The New England Conspiracy Scare, 1798, by Vernon Stauffer, PHD, pub. 1918.

So Mote It Be.

Review of the book: Encyclopedia of Enlightenment by Reill and Wilson .

E of E

I will review, below, the section of the Encyclopedia about Freemasonry.

The history of the organization that has relevance for the Enlightenment begins in 1717, when four LONDON Masonic lodges united to create the Grand Lodge of London. Its early leaders were drawn from the ranks of philosophers and pastors committed to spreading the ideas of Isaac NEWTON, of MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY, and of DEISM. The Grand Lodge quickly established power over English lodges, but the Scottish and Irish lodges refused to recognize its claims to dominance. [sic]

Deism (6) has no part in regular Freemasonry and never has. Since the Lodges beginning, it has never taught anyone about who God is, other than God is the creator of the universe and each member’s religion is private to them. (13) As a matter of fact, the 4th degree of the Scottish and York Rite mentions the ten names of God in the lecture, which are the Jewish and Christian names used today for the creator. The Grand Architect of the Universe is a Christian based name for God, which John Calvin used extensively. To proceed on through the higher degrees, one must believe in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. That does not equate to deism now does it? Because a few, (very few), early members may have thought that “the Great Architect of the Universe is a God who does not interfere in human affairs, but whose very nature orders and structures all of creation,” does not mean that the majority of the Lodge believes so, nor that this is the official belief of regular Freemasonry; especially when the majority of the members were Christians during its founding years as a fraternity! They are trying to paint all with the brush of a few.

They say that this Deism comes from one man, John Toland. (17) To this day, Deism, (claiming that God does not interfere in human affairs), is not taught anywhere in regular Freemasonry, but the GAOTU, being the singular creator of all, is mentioned. If Deism was taught, then there would be no 1st to 3rd degree in regular Freemasonry, nor any 4th to the 33rd degree in the Scottish Rite, which is Christian belief based. The York Rite is similar, except it has fewer degrees. Deism is defined as the “natural religion/philosophy of Deism frees those who embrace it from the inconsistencies of superstition and the negativity of fear that are so strongly represented in all of the “revealed” religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam.” (15) In this case, swearing an oath to God would not matter, as God would not intercede if one broke the oath, and it would be considered “superstition”. Also, one would not have the “negativity of fear” of God after swearing the oath, if he was a Deist. Then, there is the prayer to the GAOTU (God) to bless our Lodge and brethren at every Lodge meeting. Prayer would be considered superstitious would it not? Why pray, if God will not answer? Also, why would any of the 33 allegories be taken from biblical scripture and Christian history if it was deistic? Dr. James Anderson wanted the fraternity to be strictly Christian, but that idea was thrown out. There are many more contradictions within regular Freemasonry to prove the point against Deism. What about the mention of the Ark and Jacob’s ladder in the lectures? The majority of the founding Grand Masters, Worshipful Masters, Lodge officers, and brethren were Protestant Christians of differing denominations, which puts a damper on their whole Deism claim. Regular Freemasonry, as a trade union (college of artificers), was founded under Catholicism, but the fraternity takes any man whom believes in God, and is of good repute and good moral character, irregardless of their brand of religion. Freemasonry is secular, though it is uses religious based allegories to teach moral lessons. If Freemasonry was deistic, that would not be so!

There is no evidence that Isaac Newton was ever a Freemason, though he was friends with several of his fellow scientists, at the Royal Society, who were Freemasons; several being Grand Masters. (10) Also, the mathematics and geometry that was known by Freemasons did not come from Newton. It was handed down through the Master Masons and Architects, since they became registered as a college of artificers, (company union), in Rome under Constantine. (11) If nothing else, Newton borrowed knowledge from the Freemasons and the Rosicrucians, along with learning the work of the ancient mathematicians such as Euclid of Alexandria, Archimedes of Syracuse, and Pythagoras of Samos. Newton also borrowed from the knowledge of Judaism, as he had corresponded with several in the Holy Land, because he was studying the design of King Solomon’s Temple, and he was looking for hidden mathematical numerology and formulae. It is rumored that it was over his study of alchemy.

One of the earliest grand masters (highest leaders) of the London lodge was John Theophilus DESAGULIERS, the experimental scientist who was curator and demonstrator for the ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON. With J. Anderson, Desaguliers drafted the first constitution of the Freemasons, published in 1723 as The Constitutions of the Free-Masons containing the History, Charges, Regulations, etc., of that most Ancient and Right Worshipful Fraternity, For the Use of the Lodges. [sic]

The earliest known Grand Master, in London, was said to be Sir Christopher Wren before the fraternity was formed. After the fraternity was formed, the newly elected Grand Master was Anthony Sayer. He was the first Grand Master of the fraternity. George Payne was the second Grand Master, and John Theophilus Desaguliers was the third. John Theophilus Desaguliers was a Protestant pastor who had been exiled as a Huguenot refugee from France, by the Catholic regime.

John Desaguliers was only the Grand Master for one year, in 1719, though he did oversee the compilation of the first version of the Masonic constitution. Just after his time, it was Grand Master George Payne who compiled The Constitutions of the Free-masons, with its author, Dr.  James Anderson, which was printed in 1722 or 1723, where it states that the new Grand Master was Prince John Duke of Montague as of 1722. One can tell that the authors of this article performed no factual research. Payne was the Grand Master, again, from 1720 to 1721, and was deputy Master in 1725. Grand Master Desaguliers wrote the 1723 books dedication, while Dr. James Anderson wrote the Constitution and Charges, citing the oldest Masonic manuscripts, along with Grand Master George Payne compiling it.

The Constitutions of the Free-Masons provides a mythologized history of the organization that traces it back to the first man, Adam, and to the ancient Egyptians and Greeks. This “history” illustrates the strong links between Freemasonry and deism, especially in the vision of God as the architect of the universe. [sic]

Again, the author brings up Deism, when it is not mentioned in the 1723 book of Constitution by Anderson. They conveniently leave out that Freemasonry was a Catholic college of artificers until it became a fraternity. The mythical history is all about the Christian religion going back to Adam, but they call it Deism! They seem to be trying to push a fallacy that isn’t so, even though Anderson’s charges state:

But though in ancient Times Masons were charg’d in every Country to be of the Religion of that Country or Nation, whatever it was, yet ’tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves; that is, to be good Men and true, or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguished; whereby Masonry becomes the Center of Union, and the Means of conciliating true Friendship among Persons that must have remain’d at a perpetual Distance. [sic]

To continue with the Encyclopedia, the next paragraph is below:

Freemasons were searching for the universal religious beliefs rooted in the natural feelings and ideas of earliest primitive human beings. Freemasons hoped that such a NATURAL RELIGION could act as a substitute for dogmatic forms of Christianity. This natural, universal set of beliefs would bring men (no women were originally admitted) from conflicting religious and socioeconomic backgrounds together into a common brotherhood of humanity. The ideals of the Enlightenment—religious TOLERATION, the universal brotherhood of humankind, REASON, PROGRESS, PERFECTIBILITY, and humanitarian values—find early expression in the teachings of English Masonic organizations. And the rites of the organization were designed to ensure that these ideals would be realized. [sic]

Freemasonry has never “searched for universal religious beliefs rooted in the natural feelings and ideas of earliest primitive human beings,” (7)(13) and Anderson sure did not, since he was a Presbyterian pastor from Scotland. Anderson was a devout Christian, and mentions that Freemasonry is of Catholic origin. John Desaguliers was ordained as an Anglican priest in 1717, so he would not have searched for any other religion, and he wrote the books dedication, where the authors claim that this “search” and “deism” was found. One also notices the lack of citation through this entire so-called encyclopedia article, which means that it is all personal opinion and pure speculation!

Freemasonry has never “hoped that such a NATURAL RELIGION could act as a substitute for dogmatic forms of Christianity.” (13) The founders of the secular fraternity of Freemasonry were Christians, and the earlier body of Freemasonry was of Catholic origin. Freemasonry is not a religion nor is it a substitute for one. It is a meeting place for those good men of every religion, who believes in the one God, to congregate and have a fellowship while leaving their religion at the door. The men from conflicting religions were those of Christianity, both Protestant and Catholic, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, etc. This paragraph sounds like more conspiracy propaganda to me.

Freemasonry grew rapidly in England and in Scotland, but the English lodges remained markedly distinct from the Scottish lodges, separated on political rather than philosophical grounds. The Scottish lodges served as sources of institutional support for the JACOBITES. These people supported the claims of the Stuarts to the 18th century British throne. From their exile in FRANCE, the Jacobites and the Stuart pretender to the throne marshalled support for their claims. Between 1700 and 1720, they also established the first French Masonic lodges to provide a secret organization through which to disseminate their political claims. [sic]

The Jacobites had nothing to do with the Scottish Lodges not joining under the new Grand Lodge in London England. The Scottish Lodges were mainly all still operative at the time, and were still building for the monarchy and the church. Several operative Scottish Freemasons came to the US in order to build the hewn stone buildings of the new US government in Washington DC, starting with the White House and the Capital Building. The Scottish Lodges did not want to join a speculative Grand Lodge over this, and it was many years until they started a Scottish Grand Lodge, in 1736, which was in amity with the United Grand Lodge in England. (8) Only one third of the Scottish Lodges were represented by their new Grand Lodge at that time. The rest is pure rumor and speculation about any “secret organization,” which was parroted by the Catholic church. It seems to me, that the authors of this book are again quoting conspiracy theory instead of fact.

Also, during this time, the Grand Lodge in London had one Grand Master, (who gained it under dubious means), that was a professed Jacobite who claimed that it was: “not for religious or nationalist reasons, but, he explained, because he was a true Old Whig like his father, whose principles had been betrayed by Walpole and the new non-native royals.” That was Philip Wharton, 1st Duke of Wharton, who, during his time as Grand Master from June 1722 to June 1723, got himself in deep debt and in trouble over his publishing. On “June 24, 1723, he attempted, unsuccessfully, to deprive the new Grand Master of the privilege of appointing his Deputy, by making the office subject to election in Grand Lodge. Unsuccessful in his attempt, the minutes of Grand Lodge record that “The late Grand Master went away from the Hall without Ceremony.” (16) That was the last time he ever associated himself with the Grand Lodge in London. The 6th Grand Master who replaced him, was Francis Scott, 2nd Duke of Buccleuch.

It was well known about the history of the Scottish Lodges and the truth about the pretender King, which was written about in the Book of Words, by Albert Pike, on pp. 27-28. Below, I quote the truth of the matter, and show that an Irishman by the name of Laurence Dermott, had created a schism between regular Freemasonry in Britain and France, when he wrote Ahiman Rezon and introduced it to the Freemasons of England.

Laurence Dermott, author of the Ahiman Rezon, began his schism about the year 1745, in which year the Pretender, as the legitimate King of England and Scotland was called, made an attempt to recover the throne.

Dermott was an Irishman, and, it is all together probable, an adherent in secret of the Stuarts. The English Masonry [regular] was Hanoverian, Hanoverian noblemen managed it, the Prince of Wales being a member, and the third Grand Master and several subsequent ones, Ministers of George the first. Hence, probably, the rebellion of Dermott against the Grand Lodge of England; and his charge that it had removed the old Landmarks, and his claim that he and his adherents were the Ancient Masons.

Dermott himself introduced into England, about 1750, the Royal Arch, modified from that of Enoch, with other French degrees; and the title of his book, which he never explained, meant, we believe “A Brother, Constituted or Accepted Prince”, to show to those who could understand, under cover of a title of a book, that he was a Prince-Mason [one loyal to the prince?], as those called themselves in France who had the high degrees, and that he was a Jacobite – an adherent of the family of Stuart.

Many of the English say that the Stuart line was none the such, and we can see that it was the Irishman, Dermott, who created the schism in Freemasonry about this. Below are some more facts about the Stuart line.

James Francis Edward Stuart, the Roman Catholic son of the deposed James II and VII, was barred from the succession to the throne by the Act of Settlement 1701. Notwithstanding the Act of Union 1707, he claimed the separate thrones of Scotland, as James VIII, and of England and Ireland, as James III, until his death in 1766. In Jacobite terms, Acts of Parliament (of England or Scotland) after 1688, (including the Acts of Union) did not receive the required Royal Assent of the legitimate Jacobite monarch and, therefore, were without legal effect. James was responsible for a number of conspiracies and rebellions, particularly in the Highlands of Scotland. The most notable was the Jacobite rising of 1715-16.

Charles Edward Stuart (Bonnie Prince Charlie), James Francis’ elder son and the would-be Charles III, who led in his father’s name the last major Jacobite rebellion, the Jacobite rising of 1745-46. He died in 1788 without legitimate issue.

Henry Benedict Stuart (Cardinal-Duke of York), the younger brother of Charles Edward and a Roman Catholic Cardinal, who took up the claim to the throne as the would-be Henry IX of England, though he was the final Jacobite heir to publicly do so. He died unmarried in 1807.

The Act of Settlement was prompted by the failure of King William III and Queen Mary II, as well as of Mary’s sister Queen Anne, to produce any surviving children, and [due to] the Roman Catholic religion of all other members of the House of Stuart. The line of Sophia of Hanover was the most junior among the Stuarts, but consisted of convinced Protestants. Sophia died on 8 June 1714, before the death of Queen Anne on 1 August 1714, at which time Sophia’s son duly became King George I and started the Hanoverian dynasty.

The act played a key role in the formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain. England and Scotland had shared a monarch since 1603, but had remained separately governed countries. The Scottish parliament was more reluctant than the English to abandon the House of Stuart, members of which had been Scottish monarchs long before they became English ones. English pressure on Scotland to accept the Act of Settlement was one factor leading to the parliamentary union of the two countries in 1707.Under the Act of Settlement anyone who became a Roman Catholic, or who married one, became disqualified to inherit the throne. The act also placed limits on both the role of foreigners in the British government and the power of the monarch with respect to the Parliament of England. Some of those provisions have been altered by subsequent legislation.

Along with the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement remains today one of the main constitutional laws governing the succession not only to the throne of the United Kingdom, but to those of the other Commonwealth realms, whether by assumption or by patriation. The Act of Settlement cannot be altered in any realm except by that realm’s own parliament and, by convention, only with the consent of all the other realms, as it touches on the succession to the shared crown.

As one can see, the Stuart line did not hold to the Bill of Rights of 1689, nor the Act of Settlement of 1701, (nor did the Catholic church, who was stirring the pot), so the Stuarts were not legitimate. Now, I continue on with the untruthful encyclopedia article on Freemasonry.

In England, meanwhile, the Masonic lodges loyal to the Grand Lodge of London (called Blue Lodges) had developed strong ties to the Hanoverian dynasty and to the political principles of the Whig Party. They repudiated the radical republicanism of the 17th-century English Commonwealth, favoring instead a monarchy with firm constitutional limitations. They also dedicated themselves to philanthropic activities. [sic]

The Lodges in England have never been known as “Blue Lodges“; they are known as Craft Lodges. Blue Lodge is an term coined in the United States. Also, the Lodges did not repudiate republicanism, as again, the author misses what Anderson stated in the Constitution; that the talk of religion or politics are not tolerated in the Lodge. Most of the membership of regular Freemasonry did proclaim their support for democracy, liberty, freedom of religion and speech, and education for all (republicanism), outside of Lodge, though the Lodge itself did not teach nor support anything concerning it. A small number of the membership did not support it either (those being from the old ruling class). To discuss politics in Lodge would lead to suspension or expulsion. Also, see above, about the one Grand Master of 1723, Philip, 1st Duke of Wharton, who was in for one year and did not associate with the London Grand Lodge afterwards. Members supporting the Whig Party, does not equate to Jacobinism. The Whig Party supported the great aristocratic families, the Protestant Hanoverian succession, and toleration for nonconformist Protestants who were the dissenters, such as Presbyterians. Some Tories supported the exiled Stuart royal family’s claim to the throne. The Whigs primarily advocated the supremacy of Parliament, while calling for the toleration for Protestant dissenters. They adamantly opposed a Catholic as king. They opposed the Catholic Church because they saw it as a threat to liberty. It seems to me that the encyclopedia’s authors get the two parties reversed, especially about republicanism. This whole thing article looks more like Roman Catholic propaganda to me.

The authors do not mention the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which changed Britain’s monarchy into a constitutional monarchy with popular sovereignty. Here, citizen’s natural rights, democracy, and liberty was brought into the British Constitution from the ideas of those like John Locke. The next revolution was that of the United States. The US Constitution contains the ideas of liberty and democracy from those like Locke. Later, the French Revolution brought about a democratic government based on liberty and natural rights, as did the later revolution in Italy. The only people who were against the revolutions was the monarchs, the ruling class, and the Catholic church, who put the monarchs and ruling class in place. The people themselves, not Freemasonry, had enough of the status quo, and fought for those basic rights everywhere in Europe. It started with the reformation, when Luther nailed his ninety-five theses to the church door. All those revolutions were a form of republicanism.

Below, I quote Anderson’s Constitution, about discussing politics or religion in the Lodge:

Therefore no private Piques or Quarrels must be brought within the Door of the Lodge, far less any Quarrels about Religion, or Nations, or State Policy, we being only, as Masons, of the Catholick Religion above-mention’d ; we are also of all Nations, Tongues, Kindreds, and Languages, and are resolv’d against all Politics, as what never yet conduc’d to the Welfare of the Lodge, nor ever will. [sic]

Notice, above, that Anderson’s Constitution bans politics and religion being discussed and that it mentions the Catholic religion, (though there were many more Anglican and other protestant members at the time of Anderson’s Constitution being written). Freemasonry started under Catholicism as operative Freemasonry. Operative Freemasons were who built Cathedrals and buildings for the monarchs and church, which was and still is totally against Deism. It continued on with the fraternities Protestant founders. Now, I continue on with debunking the Encyclopedia article in question.

The membership of English Freemasonry included several high-ranking aristocrats, Whig Party members and sympathizers, deists, and members of the Royal Society of London. Among their number were Desaguliers, Brook TAYLOR, John TOLAND, and Robert WALPOLE. [sic]

One notices that the author slips in deist again, though they do not cite any source. If there were any deists as members and they believed in God, the creator, then that was their business and their belief. They would not be allowed to talk about it in the Lodge. It would seem that the authors think that you, the reader, will not actually read Anderson’s Constitution of 1723 to find the truth.

As Freemasonry grew, the number of distinct rites (rituals and teachings) also proliferated. This phenomenon accounts for the vast and confusing complexity of enlightened freemasonry. It also helps to explain the kaleidoscope of reactions to the organization that occurred across Europe. [sic]

Freemasonry teaches nothing but a moral lesson per degree, which is an allegorical (fictional) play. The lecture afterward hints at things, which are barely broached, and leaves it up to the candidate to study that, if they want, later on. They are under no obligation to do so, nor are they told to do so. The subjects which are hinted at are from a multitude of different academic fields.

Certain lodges in German-speaking states incorporated the teachings of the ROSICRUCIANS, while others, especially in Bavaria and AUSTRIA, joined with the Bavarian ILLUMINATI. The result was the creation of both a conservative Rosicrucian Freemasonry and of a progressive and actively revolutionary Illuminist Freemasonry. Similarly, in France, the progressive, deist Loge des Neuf Soeurs existed alongside lodges devoted to mystical, esoteric rites. The latter, inspired in some instances by the comte de SAINT-GERMAIN, Louis-Claude de SAINT-MARTIN, and Emanuel SWEDENBORG, included the Scottish rites, the Cohen Elect (Élus Cohens), Adhonimarite Masonry, the Philalètes, and the rites of Benedict Chastanier. [sic]

The author states “while others, especially in Bavaria and AUSTRIA, joined with the Bavarian ILLUMINATI“, but does not cite one drop of evidence for this. There is no source or proof of this, at all. (18) The Illuminati, allegedly, did try to infiltrate Lodges in Germany and France, but their success has not been proven in any writing, whatsoever. (9)(18) As a matter of fact, the Bavarian Lodges of Strict Observance, which was infiltrated by the Illuminati, was ordered to be disbanded at the Masonic Congress of Wilhelmsbad. They didn’t tell you that, did they? The books that have been written which claim this infiltration, such as the ones by John Robison and Augustin Barruel, have been debunked by many scholars. (18) Mostly, it was all rumor and speculation generated by the Catholic church, with Barruel being a Jesuit priest, who Robison cited. (18) Robison said he had a spy, who just happened to be a Benedictine Black Monk, with Robison himself being a Catholic apologist.

You also notice that the author tries to push the word, deist, again, with not one drop of proof. They seem to think that if one or two Freemasons were deists, then the entire membership was. The Catholic church has used that ploy since the fraternity of regular Freemasonry was founded. The members of Loge des Neuf Soeurs did support the American Revolution. The authors seem to contradict themselves, again, as Freemasonry could not be “devoted to mystical, esoteric rites” if deism was what Freemasonry professed, since those mystical and esoteric rites would be considered “superstitious”. One has to laugh at the audacity of the authors.

Finally, this is quoted as their source material for further reading, at the end of the article on Freemasonry:

Further reading:

Bernard Fäy, Revolution and Freemasonry,
1680–1800 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1935)

Margaret C. Jacob, Living the Enlightenment: Freemasonry and Politics
in Eighteenth-Century Europe (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1991)

Margaret C. Jacob, The Radical Enlightenment: Pantheists, Freemasons, and Republicans (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1981).

No wonder their facts are wrong, as they are either paraphrasing or quoting Margret Jacobs of UCLA, who knows nothing about regular Freemasonry, because she isn’t one. One can read my article about the CBS News’ article: 9 things you didn’t know about Freemasonry, to see where I have debunked some of Mrs. Jacob’s other misconceptions about Freemasonry, along with brother Brent Morris, PhD, who is a Masonic historian.

Last, Bernard Fäy (4)(12) was an anti-Masonic polemicist, who believed in a worldwide Jewish-Freemason conspiracy. That is what these authors also used for their source material, and they have the unmitigated gall to ask you to believe it! If this “encyclopedia” wasn’t proposed or instigated by the Catholic church, I’ll eat my hat. Read more below about Fäy:

Faÿ edited and published, during the four years of the German occupation of France, a monthly review Les Documents maçonniques (“Masonic Documents”), which published historical studies of Freemasonry together with essays on the role of Freemasonry in society and frank anti-Masonic propaganda. (5)

During Faÿ’s tenure with the Vichy regime, 989 Freemasons were sent to concentration camps, where 549 were shot. In addition, about 3,000 lost their jobs. All Freemasons were required by law to declare themselves to authorities. (4)

In 1943 Faÿ produced the film Forces Occultes, directed by Jean Mamy, which depicts a worldwide Jewish-Freemason conspiracy. (3)

Despite his anti-Semitism, Faÿ, who was suspected to be a Gestapo agent for much of the occupation, protected Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas. Following the liberation, Stein wrote a letter on Faÿ’s behalf, when he was tried as a collaborator. (1) In 1946, a French court condemned him to dégradation nationale, a forced labor for life, but he managed to escape to Switzerland in 1951. (2) The funding to facilitate his prison breakout came from Alice B. Toklas. Faÿ was pardoned by French President René Coty in 1959.

All together, this article about Freemasonry in the Encyclopedia of Enlightenment, edited by Reill and written by Wilson, is pure hogwash; it’s errant at best and lies at worst, so the rest of the book would be suspect at best. It would almost seem as if it was written by a Catholic apologist, propagandist, or someone in their clergy, especially when noticing the emphasis placed on certain words such as Deism, which is very telling.

Dr. Jacobs has shown herself to be completely inept about the subject of Freemasonry, (I have personally listened to her lectures and read her writing). She is not a regular Freemason, though she touts a PhD in history, and evidently that is all the authors used for their source material besides Faÿ, who was a Gestapo collaborator and anti-Masonic bigot that wrote conspiracy theories which have been proven patently false. Any page in this so-called Encyclopedia, which mentions Freemasonry, is not worth the paper that it is written on, and the text might as well be ripped out and discarded.

From the French orchestra conductor and brother Freemason,  Maximianno Cobra:

Liberty, beloved Liberty – Fight with your defenders! (From La Marseillaise)

Bestiality, ignorance, bigotry, and all of their vile obscurantist (14) processions are at your feet – My Freedom – Your Freedom – Our Freedom, as a base, Equality and Fraternity come through as our goal!

My respects and my solidarity are with those who died for this ultimate fight, and giving us the Enlightenment, and the Forces that continue and triumph!

Vive la France, Vive la République – indivisible, secular, democratic and social!

–Maximianno Cobra, Nov. 2015

As a companion to the article, read my article: Catholicism can’t have it two ways about Freemasonry, and you will see where the deism claim was spawned from.

Footnotes (at least I do cite many scholarly sources):

  1. Michael Kimmelman: The Last Act (review of Janet Malcolm, “Two Lives: Gertrude and Alice”), New York Review of Books, Vol. LIV No. 16 (Oct. 25, 2007), pp. 4-5.
  2. Alan Riding (2010). And the Show Went On: Cultural Life in Nazi-Occupied Paris. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-0-307-26897-6.
  3. Zox-Weaver, Annalisa (2011). Women Modernists and Fascism. Cambridge UP. p. 89.
  4. Bernard Faÿ article at Med Library.org
  5. Historia Thématique: Aux heures sombres de Vichy, 2005, Michèle Cointet. Also see (12) below.
  6. Deism is “a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe,” and, Deism is defined as: “the natural religion/philosophy of Deism frees those who embrace it from the inconsistencies of superstition and the negativity of fear that are so strongly represented in all of the “revealed” religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam.Desim has never been taught nor mentioned in regular Freemasonry. Deism, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica: “Deism refers to what can be called natural religion, the acceptance of a certain body of religious knowledge that is inborn in every person or that can be acquired by the use of reason and the rejection of religious knowledge when it is acquired through either revelation or the teaching of any church….In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the word Deism was used by some theologians in contradistinction to theism, the belief in an immanent God who actively intervenes in the affairs of men. In this sense, Deism was represented as the view of those who reduced the role of God to a mere act of creation in accordance with rational laws discoverable by man and held that, after the original act, God virtually withdrew and refrained from interfering in the processes of nature and the ways of man”. Deism in the Merrian-Webster Dictionary: “A movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe.”
  7. Freemasonry has studied all the comparative religions through the Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia which is “an independent Christian society,” who “accept[s] and believe[s] in the fundamental principles of the Trinitarian Christian faith“, to understand the comparative religions history and affect on Judaism and Christianity, and “for Masons who wish to extend their contemplation of the hidden mysteries of Nature and Science“. Since Freemasonry is not a religion, nor is a substitute for one, then it does not look for one to replace the other. Freemasonry was founded by Christians, both Protestant and Catholic. To state that they were looking for another religion is a fallacy to which I quote the authors; “searched for universal religious beliefs rooted in the natural feelings and ideas of earliest primitive human beings,” and “hoped that such a NATURAL RELIGION [note their added emphasis] could act as a substitute for dogmatic forms of Christianity“, which is not stated anywhere in the writings of the original Lodges or Grand Lodge, nor is it today. It is not stated anywhere in Anderson’s Constitution. The charges of the secular fraternity state it plainly, in that the Lodge is to”oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves; that is, to be good Men and true, or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguished…” [sic]
  8. See the lecture of the Curator of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, Brother Robert L. D. Cooper, The Evolution of Scottish Freemasonry, from Lewis Masonic.
  9. See the blog article: “The 1782 Congress of Wilhelmsbad“. It states: “According to anti-Masons and conspiracy theorists alike, this Convention is where the Illuminati integrated and took-over the Masonic fraternity even though they provide no citation or documentation, but rely on speculation,” and concludes, “With the limited information that is indicative of 18th century Masonry record keeping, it is not surprising to see theories that are formed based solely on speculation and not fact, whether by Masons or otherwise.” Most of these theories and speculation came from the Catholics. Here, Augustin Barruel was a Jesuit priest and an anti-Mason, who wrote about a conspiracy first, then John Robison copied his work and cited Barruel. Those like the anti-Mason and Gestapo collaborator, Bernard Fäy, cite Robison and Barruel as proof.
  10. See “Ars Quatuor Coronatorum of the Twentieth Century” at the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon.
  11. See the academic paper, titled: “Freemasonry and the Transmission of Geometry” by James C. Stewart, at Academia.edu.
  12. Freemasons The commitment the dark hours of Vichy, by By Michèle Cointet.
  13. See the academic editorial paper, titled: “Cats Dont Go To Heaven“, by James C. Stewart, at Academia.edu. I quote: “In fact, all discussion of religion and politics is forbidden within a Masonic Lodge,” and “Freemasonry is not a religion, nor has it ever claimed the prerogatives of religion, yet Freemasonry’s detractors continue to believe since Freemasonry doesn’t define God, it cannot be their God. Freemasonry believes that men of all faiths can dwell together in peace. Freemasonry requires its members to believe in God but will not dictate those beliefs.
  14. obscurantist : opposition to the spread of knowledge : a policy of withholding knowledge from the general public. 2 a : a style (as in literature or art) characterized by deliberate vagueness or abstruseness b : an act or instance of obscurantism.
  15. See the World Union of Deists website, here.
  16. See Philip, Duke of Wharton, at the Grand Lodge of British Columbia Yukon, here.
  17. See Will and Ariel Durant, The Age of Louis XIV (1963), at the Grand Lodge of British Columbia Yukon, here.
  18. The Bavarian Illuminati In America: The New England Conspiracy Scare, 1798, by Vernon Stauffer, PHD, pub. 1918.