Origins of a Fake P2 List

The Italian website and Youtube channel, Italia Misterio, is a helpful source of authentic evidence in the search for clues about Masonic infiltration into the Vatican’s financial departments. In fact, it is a good source of material on Vatican intrigues and Masonry in general.

New videos are being constantly released, which show photographs, newspaper clippings and testimonies from witnesses at the trials of some of the most infamous Vatican-related personalities like Licio Gelli, Michael Sindona and Roberto Calvi. Even Archbishop Marcinkus and Pope John Paul I occasionally get a mention.

One video entitled “The Real P2 List” caught my eye. This article looks at the content of that video, with some facts checked and a few more details added.

Licio Gelli’s List

On March 17, 1981, Gelli’s Abruzzo villa was searched by members of the Guardia di Finanza. The search had been secretly ordered by Magistrate Gherardo Colombo, who was hoping to find missing money belonging to the Vatican-swindler Michele Sindona. Sindona and the primary accomplice in his staged kidnapping, the Freemason Joseph Micalli, had both been seen in the Arezzo area prior to the raid. Apparently, Micalli was ostensibly visiting his dentist, but Colombo was suspicious.

The raid on Arezzo’s villa found nothing of interest, but a search of Gelli and Micalli’s Company Giole, which operated as a front for their illegal activities, turned up something very interesting. Police found a suitcase full of documents, the most notable of which was a list of one thousand names of men said to be members of the infamous P2 Lodge.

Immediately upon the document being found, Orazio Giannini, the General Commander of the Guardia di Finanza, confided to his employees that his name would be on the list. Among others on the list were: two government Ministers, five Undersecretaries, 33 Parliamentarians, twelve Generals of the Carabinieri, five Generals of the Guardia di Finanza, 22 Italian Army Generals, four Air Force Generals and many magistrates and state officials, including Silvio Berlusconi. Also included on the list were Gelli himself, as well as other personalities linked to financial scandals involving the Vatican Bank – Roberto Calvi, Michele Sindona, Umberto Ortolani and Mino Peccorelli.

The discovery of the list and the subsequent raid on the Grand Lodge’s Rome headquarters led Italy’s Grand Orient Lodge to cut its ties with Gelli. In 1982, it is said to have dissolved P2 completely.

Although there is little doubt that the organisation has remained active in some form, discovery of the list and legal action against its corrupt, high-ranking members was the beginning of the end of P2’s popularity. Rumours began to circulate suggesting that P2 had never been a legitimate Lodge and that it was part of a KGB plot to destabilise Europe. While it is true that P2 members were implicated in murderous terrorist attacks, it is more likely, as author Martin Short suggests, that the Grand Lodge of London started those rumours to discredit P2. Until that time, the London Lodge had enjoyed a close relationship with its Italian counterpart: later it was in danger of becoming tainted by the scandals surrounding P2.

Gelli escaped to Switzerland where he was arrested, then escaped again and fled to Chile. A bizarre story links Gelli to the desecration of the body of former Argentine President Juan Peron. Peron’s hands were removed and a ransom (which was not forthcoming) was sought. Apart from the money angle, it is thought that the removal of the dictator’s hands was related to an occult practice designed to empower the new owner with Peron’s political charisms.

Gelli Approaches the Masons

According to Italia Mysterio, Gelli later approached his old Lodge, seeking to rejoin it. Gelli allegedly took the list of names to the Grand Master of the Great East Lodge, Ennio Battelli, who flipped through the file, then thrust it back at Gelli, saying, “I’ve never seen it. Take it back.” Gelli apparently tried again with Battelli’s successor, Giuliano Di Bernardo, who also refused to have anything to do with the list.

Gelli remained on the run for many years until he was finally found guilty of a string of crimes and imprisoned. He died in 2015.

Licio Gelli’s will apparently included a map showing the location of 163kg of gold ingots buried at his property in Arezzo. The will also pointed to a huge property and investment portfolio owned by Gelli, which included 172,000 ha in Paraguay, 14 palaces, part ownership in two companies, an orange plantation in Brazil and a 30 ha residential development package in Argentina.

Where are the Cardinals?

Assuming even part of this strange tale is true, we are left with many questions: What did Gelli hope to achieve by taking the list to the Grand Orient Lodge? Blackmail? Influence? If, as the author at Italio Mysterio suggests, this list was fake, then why would Gelli risk trying to pass it off as the true list to the very men who were sure to know the identities of P2’s members, that is, the Grand Masters?

Several theories suggest that Gelli was never the real head of P2. One theory is that this was instead Giulio Andreotti, the Italian politician. There are also rumours of a super-lodge, even more secret and more exclusive than P2.

Another theory is that this was all a huge hoax designed to throw suspicion away from the man believed by Italio Mysterio to be the real head of P2, that is: Umberto Ortolani. With all of this in mind, it is possible that the true P2 list is stashed safely away in an archive somewhere in one of Gelli’s former estates in Paraguay?

If this list was accurate, then where are the prelates whom we have been told – quite credibly – were Masons: Cassaroli, Villot, Tauren, Ravasi – none of these are included in this “P2” list? Remember, Gelli’s list was found only three years after the mysterious death of Pope John Paul I: the man who was ready to completely reshuffle the Curia in order to remove the one hundred or so prelates who had already been identified as Masons.

Is there a connection between the international scrutiny of P2 and the Vatican’s weak pronouncement of the incompatibility of Masonry and Catholicism in the 1983 Code of Canon Law?

What of the presence of the many Argentinian Masons on Gelli’s list? Is it a coincidence that the man who would become Pope was Provincial of the Jesuits in Argentina at the same time P2’s active membership included a strong Argentinian presence?

Revisiting Paul VI’s Masonic Portrait

This article was updated on July 4th, 2021, in order to somewhat reduce the extremities of my speculations – AC

In 1971, Paul VI was presented with a painting, said to be his portrait, and which, to be honest, is one of the more disturbing images this author has come across. The picture emits a demonic violence that almost leaps out of the frame, leaving the viewer feeling oppressed and unsettled.

Most startling of all, the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church is surrounded by cold, dark Masonic symbols, hiding in plain sight.

Hansing described the portrait as showing “the tension-fraught situation of the church, caught in a multiplicity of issues, as reflected in the countenance of the Pope.”

I don’t profess to be the first to discover this particular connection between Pope Paul VI and Masonry – the articles cited in this one are testimony to that. But since I have only just come across this rather disconcerting episode in Paul’s life, I thought I’d write on it anew and add some further research.

Firstly, there are not one but nine versions of this scene. Each tells, I believe, a part of a story that begins at the Second Vatican Council and culminates in the very public accusations that Paul was a homosexual. Shown below are three versions, created in 1970, 1970/1 and 1975 respectively. The third is part of a series of screen prints, which are based on the second painted version of the portrait.

The artist, Ernst Guenter Hansing, was initially associated with Cardinal Josef Frings, for whom he painted two portraits. Hansing had trained under the abstract artist, Fernand Leger, and had mixed with many avant-garde artists of Europe. This of course, would have appealed to Montini, who was known for his love of the cultural elite. Fring invited Hansing, a Lutheran, to observe the final session of Vatican Two in 1965, in order to “internalise the atmosphere.”

Hansing claims to have been struck by the Pope’s meekness, describing Paul as “humility personified” and as a “pleading” or “begging” person. Hansing at once expressed a desire to paint the Pope, so the story goes, wanting to encapsulate the scene presented by the massive Bernini columns dwarfing the humble Pope, he who alone carried the burden of determining the Church’s future. Hansing also wanted to capture the rays of light which issued from the great dome surmounting the canopy. So the story goes.

Paul apparently did not commission a portrait, but was approached by Hansing who was eventually given a room to work from inside the Vatican from 1969. The artist was then allowed to sit in on 13 papal audiences over the next two and a half years to make his sketches. The Pope’s secretary, then-Fr Pasquale Macchi, acted as go-between for the artist and pontiff.

Strangely, the image of the Pope at the centre of the painting was not based on the sketches Hansing made during those many papal audiences. Rather, it is based on a photograph taken during the Pope’s trip to Jerusalem in 1967. A drawing made from that photograph was then transposed onto the “Papacy” work. The many sessions that saw Hansing scrutinising Paul’s speeches were justified by the artist’s need to ‘internalise” the character of Paul.

Upon seeing a working sketch of himself, Paul is said to have uttered the cryptic comment: “One almost needs a new philosophy to grasp the meaning of this in its context.” [Emphasis added.]

The first version of the painting is made from two separate pieces of canvas: one above and one below. The bottom canvas is horizontal and the top one is vertical – which is like an inverted cross when you come to think of it.

Two vertical white blocks – red in the second painting – on either side of the piece are in fact said to represent an inverted cross – the Petrus cross – according to the artist, ostensibly calling to mind the martyrdom of the first Pontiff.

According to Hansing, his trademark blue colour represented “mystical depth” and was more prominent in the second painting. He referred to the use of red as denoting “blood circulation,” and indeed, much of the red in Hansing’s works resembles blood either dripping or in pools.

In the top of the internal space of the real dome, which was designed by Michelangelo, we can find the image of God the Father. In Hansing’s version, God has been replaced by a mere swirl, which could also be interpreted as an All-Seeing Eye, from which emanates a beam of light.

Hansing replaced God the Father
with this ambiguous symbol

A ray of light proceeding from beneath this All-Seeing Eye, seems to pierce the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, then continue vertically downwards right through the person of the Pope. Blood appears to drip down this central axis, through Paul and merging with his own grotesque hands that grasp a threatening dagger-like implement.

A second painting was begun after Fr Macchi and Hansing’s poet friend, Stefan Andrew, suggested to him that the first work was too small. The second work contains a few changes: more “Hansing Blue” is incorporated and the pillars are emphasised. The Pope’s face is “more humble” and the phrase, Pro hominibus constitutus, meaning ‘appointed for service to the people’ – is written in the lower right hand corner. Surprisingly, this motto is also found on Cardinal Frings’ Coat of Arms.

The finished work was a massive 21.6 m x 3.6m (71ft by 12 ft) and was presented to the Pope in 1972.

Cardinal Fring’s Coat of Arms.
Detail from the painting.
No, I can’t read it either.

In his speech at the time the second painting was presented to the Pope, Bishop Wilhem Cleven referred to John’s Gospel, stating “The time comes when someone else girds you and leads you where you do not want to go.” (John. 21:17).

When he saw the finished second portrait, he remarked that the it was “very useful” to make an “act of reflection’ in studying the painting. The artist then went on to make seven screen prints of the portrait, apparently at the behest of Paul, in order that they may be sources of “acts of reflection.”


The definitive explanation of the Masonic symbols found in the work was written by researcher and author, Craig Heimbichner, who detected, among other symbols, the three pillars of Masonry, inverted crosses, pentagrams, and at least one square and compass. Heimbichner also explains that the initiation rite of the 30th degree Mason, the Kadosh Degree, involves thrusting a dagger into the papal tiara. He believes the pope is represented as holding that dagger.

It is certainly true that Paul VI surrendered the Papal Tiara at the start of his pontificate. Could his devastating reforms and the emptying of papal authority on his watch also be considered as “killing” the papacy?

I am not normally given to making wild speculations on subjects that are outside my competency. However, this case is an exception. While we will never know the true meaning of this mysterious episode, or of the paintings themselves, I proffer the following hypothesis. You may like to think of it as fan-fiction:

Paul is represented as both victim and perpetrator in Hansing’s portrait: this is an image of his character and of his pontificate…..

Prior to the conclave, the blackmailable Montini promised his Progressive/Masonic coalition supporters that he would allow sweeping reforms once he was elected Pope. As Pope Paul VI, he went along with changes to the Mass, leaving details to the Freemason Bugnini, and approved the other innovations introduced during and after the Council.

Although the Council reaffirmed the Church’s teaching on birth control, Cardinal Frings later challenged Paul to review the that stance, leading Paul to establish a commission to look into the matter. The commission returned to Paul with their conclusion: birth control should be allowed.

This was a bridge too far for Paul. Already cracks were appearing as the Council’s love-fest aura began to wear off. The unity and renewal Paul had, far too optimistically, hoped for had not eventuated, and his latitude in doctrinal matters was being exploited by those closest to him.

Paul decided to risk the ire of the Masonic brotherhood, stand his ground and defend the Church’s teaching in Humanae Vitae, which was released it in 1968.

Frings and the Masonic forces he represented were furious. Paul needed to be reigned in but they knew him to be pliable and timid. (“Begging” and “pleading”, as Hansing said.) They decided to send him a warning – of the most severe kind. Hansing was conscripted to deliver the message on behalf of the Lodge.

Hansing is moved onsite although he didn’t really need to sketch Paul: he already had chosen the photograph taken in Jerusalem as a model – an indication, perhaps, that the Ecclesiastical Lodge that commissioned him had powerful Jewish connections. He sat in on thirteen of Paul’s Audiences merely to intimidate him.

The pressure mounted and Paul began to waver. He was shown a working sketch of himself and mused aloud: “One almost needs a new philosophy to grasp the meaning of this in its context.” Perhaps that “new philosophy” was something antithetical to Catholic teaching to which Paul had ambivalently subscribed.

Once the first painting was finished, the seriousness of the threat became even more apparent. The looming threat of violence overwhelmed him and Paul sensed that his life may be in danger. The angles of the painting resembled an axe cleaving his skull in two but also represented to him his double-mindedness.

He knew he was under pressure to fulfil the ancient decrees of Masonry and demolish Catholicism, as represented by the weapon in his bloody hands, and as symbolised in the stabbing of the Papal Tiara.

Paul finally relented and resigned himself to following the Masonic programme for the rest of his pontificate. He then informed the Lodge.

A second painting was commissioned and the Pope was now represented with a “more humble” countenance. The pillars of Masonry were emphasised, representing Paul’s triumph of “reason” over “superstition”. Bishop Cleven was on hand to remind Paul that someone else “girded him and led him where he does not want to go.” (As if he needed the reminder)

A humbled Paul then acknowledged that his “acts of reflection” led him to make the right decision. To prevent a relapse, the Frings-led Lodge commissioned seven prints of the portrait – one for each day of the week.

Paul later had a crisis of conscience (as did Frings). He was forced to confront the implications of his progressive reforms as the Church continued to implode and he grieved that no one anywhere on the Catholic spectrum respected him.

When he tried to impose his papal authority, the Lodge reacted swiftly: a staged attempt was made on his life when he visited the Philippines in 1975. Macchi and Marcinkus “saved his life,” and Paul was again beholden to the Masonic forces that elected him.

Paul wavered again, trying to warn Catholics of the Pandora’s Box that had been unleashed by the Council. His furious minders began to lose their patience. It was time for a showdown.

When Paul again publicly held his ground on the Church’s approach to sexuality morality, it was the last straw for the Ecclesiastical Masons. In 1976, a campaign was orchestrated to suggest that the Pope had a very dark secret: that he was a homosexual. Paul was crushed and defeated; he never issued another encyclical and openly expressed his regret for the direction taken by the Council, never admitting his part, overwhelmed as he was by the pressure that had been brought to bear on him.

No wonder Paul whispered to his biographers, “You will crucify me.”

Just to complete the flight of fantasy, on the left is a diagram commonly used in Gnostic Judaism, or Kabbalah.

It is interesting to note how many points line up with Paul’s “portraits.”


Novus Ordo Watch

Ernst Guenter Hansing

Even Cardinal Pell has swallowed the Lie

A few days ago, I reported on a new ecumenical initiative that is going ahead with the apparent support of the Vatican and which relies on the conciliar mistruth (heresy) that the three monotheistic religions worship the same God. This is the idea that religions who reject the Trinity and specifically reject the Redeemer, Our Lord Jesus Christ, are on their “own path” to heaven. Is this a parallel path?

Parallel universe is more like it.

This week, in one of his many interviews, Australia’s Cardinal Pell gave his support to the same error. The interview was for the occasion of the Cardinal’s 80th birthday and touched on his time spent in prison for a crime he did not commit. The interviewer asked the Cardinal,

“In your diary, you say that you often listened to the prayers of Muslim detainees from your cell. What did it feel like to pray while listening to those prayers?”

To this, Cardinal Pell answered,

“For me there is only one God, we are monotheists. The theological conceptions of Christians and Muslims are obviously different, but we all pray in different ways to the same God. There is no God of Muslims, Christians or other religions, there is only one God.”

Cardinal Pell to Fabio Colagrande, of Vatican News, June 8, 2021

Forget for a moment that the good Cardinal should not merely give his opinion, and that he has a responsibility to state clearly the doctrine of the Church he represents. That is bad enough. But the comments themselves show a teaching that was entirely new at the time of the Second Vatican Council and which has come to be seen as Magisterial.

While of course it is true that there is only one God – Scripture tells us that all other gods are in fact, demons – the Cardinal is quite wrong in stating that the monotheistic religions worship the same God. He himself seemed to reject that idea in the past. For example, in 2006, the Cardinal pointed out that Catholics, Christians and Muslims do not universally believe that they worship the same God.

He said that “It is difficult to recognise the God of the New Testament in the God of the Koran, and two very different concepts of the human person have emerged from the Christian and Muslim understandings of God.”

Has the Cardinal come to change his position? It certainly would appear so. Has the Pope’s Abu-Dhabi project, that great triumph of Freemasonic indifferentism, influenced the Cardinal so much so he renounces the Church’s consistent teaching on this fundamental truth? I certainly hope this is not the case.

Please note that I do not in any way suggest that the good Cardinal is connected in any way with Freemasonry – other than that he has almost undoubtedly been the victim of its assaults over the years.

I will be most upset – perhaps litigiously so – if anyone accuses me of saying such a thing.

I draw attention to his comments only to show how prevalent religious indifferentism is today, even in conservative circles. This indifferentism has its roots in Freemasonry and has long been one of its goals.

Before the Council, this was the constant teaching of the Church, and the clergy warned of the dangers of religious indifferentism. Ideas like those put forward in the 19th Century by the Freemasonic occultist, Éliphas Lévi, who hoped for a Catholic Church that allowed Jews and Muslims to worship within Her without a renunciation of their own faith, were condemned. The errors were clearly exposed for all the faithful.

Similarly, academics like Hilaire Belloc warned of the heresy implicit in Islam, explaining the movement began as a corruption of Christianity from which Mohammed excised all that is supernatural from and then taught an erroneous, oversimplified doctrine.

Less than a hundred years later, this error was to find itself being promulgated by the Church Herself, in such documents as Lumen Gentium, which states that Muslims and Catholics worship the same God.

Hence a grave error has been sown in the fabric of the Church – a great contradiction that exhibits the hallmarks of a hermeneutic of discontinuity.

As Bishop Schneider remarked when speaking on this topic in his book, Christus Vincit, “We have to call all non-Christians to the one true path to God., which is the Catholic Church. The Apostles and the entire Church taught this for two thousand years. The Church could not err for two thousand years.” (p 97.)

Bishop Schneider is, however, not one to ignore or condemn individual members of other faiths. As he stated in Christus Vincit, he has good relations with Muslims in Kazakhstan and has, at times, joined in efforts with members of the Jewish faith. He is not xenophobic, but neither does he shy away from the truth that someone who rejects the Trinitarian God of Christians does not pray to that God, but to another of their own making.

A brief look at some of the Church Fathers will further illustrate the traditional Catholic view:

St Augustine: “This heresy affirms that all heretics are on the right path and that al teach the truth. This is so monstrous an absurdity that it seems to me to be incredible.”

Pope Pius VII: “By the fact that the indiscriminate freedom of all forms of worship is proclaimed, truth is confused with error, and the Holy and Immaculate Spouse of Christ is placed on the same level as heretical sects…” – Post Tam Diuturnas

Pope Gregory XVI: “…. those who pretend that the way to [eternal] beatitude starts with any religion at all should be afraid and should seriously think over the fact that, according to the testimony of the Saviour Himself, they are against Christ, because they are not for Christ, and that they are miserably scattering because they are not gathering with Him…” – Mirari Vos

It is to be hoped that Cardinal Pell and other conservative, yet sadly quite Modernist, clergymen wake up to the errors that were promulgated by Vatican II and begin to teach the Faith in its entirely and totally in accordance with tradition. Perhaps then, these well-meaning but deluded men will pray with St Celestine:

Pray that the Faith may be granted to infidels, that idolators may be delivered from the errors of impiety, that the light of truth may be visible to Jews….

St Celestine, Council of Ephesus. 431

Francis Preaches on Corpus Christi but fails to mention the Real Presence

Vatican News reported on the homily given by Pope Francis at Sunday’s Mass for the Feast of Corpus Christi. But instead of preaching on the Real Presence of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ, the pontiff played down the true meaning of the Eucharist.

While he mentioned the “Food and Drink of eternal life” it was lost in all the talk of encounter, community and welcoming. Continuing with what may be considered a theme of this pontificate, Pope Francis said that “a Church of the pure and perfect is a room with no place for anyone.” These are such strange words, as those who receive Our Lord worthily are no strangers to the Sacrament of Confession and thus do not in any way think of themselves as “pure” or “perfect.”

By contrast, the Sacrificial Victim of the Mass, Our Lord Himself, is the pure and perfect offering to God the Father.

Mass was offered at a side altar in St. Peter’s, rather than at the main altar, which apparently has not been used since the closing Mass of the Amazon Synod in 2019. It was at that Mass that a bowl containing earth and plants, not unlike an offering made to the demon Pachamama, was placed on the altar, in violation of Liturgical rubrics.

As is often the case with this Pope, he offered some words that would become very meaningful if placed in the context for which they were meant. He spoke of our need to be receptive to God’s presence, and of how the world becomes a better place when we go out and share what we have received in Mass. He vaguely mentioned God’s presence and Jesus’ sacrifice, but not in a way that would be offensive to a Protestant’s ears.

What Pope Francis did not explain clearly and precisely is the reality that Jesus’ Sacrifice on the Cross is perpetuated at each Mass, and that the Sacred Host is the True Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord.

This is the message that the world most needs to hear: that Jesus is alive and among us in every tabernacle of every Catholic Church in the world.

What Modernists fail to see is that Jesus is not present – in the Eucharistic sense – in meetings between Catholics and Protestants or in a social gathering of the poor and marginalised or in a simple hut in the Amazon. He is present, that is true, but not in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, as He is in the Blessed Sacrament.

Do Modernists not realise that Jesus Christ comes to all people – to rich capitalists, to “rigid” Traditionalists, to “clericalist” priests, whose only crime is their orthodoxy – yes, He brings His blessings and graces to all those classes and to anyone who is in a state of grace.

As the Pope sat (he alone did not kneel at the sight of the Lord exposed in the Monstrance) he looked unwell and unhappy, as he contemplated …… we shall never know.

Let us hope and pray that one day before he dies – and that day cannot be too far in the future – this Pope will repent of his grievous sins against Holy Mother Church, reject his Masonic agenda and implore God’s mercy for himself and for his corrupt hierarchy.

Catholics are encouraged to appreciate the “internal logic” of Islam

Vatican News this week published a story on a new ecumenical initiative designed to help Catholics find “a new understanding of their faith by taking Muslim questions seriously.” One wonders why the old method of teaching Catholics their catechism was found to be wanting. 

“Reasons for our Hope” is a joint project of the Cardinal Angelo Scola’s Oasis International Foundation and the McGrath Institute. 

The current phase of this Islamic-Catholic dialogue involves the release of three videos, designed to teach Moslems and Christians to appreciate the Internal coherence of each others’ faiths. The videos are animated and very simplistic – even insultingly so – distilling two thousand years of Catholic teaching into a feel-good fairy-tale and completely ignoring Islam’s 14 centtury-old animosity and blasphemy toward the Person of Jesus Christ.

The video entitled, “Jesus in the Bible and in the Qur’an” looks at similarities=es and differences between the two holy books’ approaches to Jesus Christ. Nowhere is it mentioned that Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, not that He Himself made that claim. Instead, the presentation focuses on the way both faiths present Jesus as a prophet who performed miracles.

A second video, “Reasons for our Hope” features images that look eerily like the temples planned for the Pope’s Abrahamic House project. “Parallel universes of meaning, each governed by its own law”

“Many prophets, one message.” – to remind the people to worship God. 

This video inches a little closer to the truth about Jesus, saying that His identification with “Emmanuel – God-With-us” is “inconceivable” to Moslems. No problem, the video purrs, all that is necessary is to “journey into another universe of meaning” aka the Christian Bible, where an alternative, internally coherent Truth is taught.

The narrator then males the extraordinarily false claim that “Bible is the story of God’s search for humanity.”

The final episode, “The Place of Jesus in the Bible”, also fails to mention the Trinity and the fact that Jesus is more than the Messiah, but is the only-begotten Son of God. The video closes with the hope that “ … with a generous heart, everyone can see coherence and beauty in the universe of the Qur’an and of the Bible. With this as a beginning, fraternity and friendship are the next steps.”

Cardinal Scola was part of the Nouvelle Théologie of the Conciliar years, and contributed to the publication, “Communio” along with Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar and then-Fr Ratzinger. Like many proponents of the “New Theology”, Scola was relatively orthodox in matters such as the indissolubility of marriage, non-reception of Communion for those in irregular marriages and the existence of the devil. He even defended the traditional Mass when he became Archbishop of Milan in 2017. However, one area in which the “New Theology” went dangerously wrong was in its attitude toward ecumenism.

Cardinal Scola founded the Oasis International Foundation in 20014. Typical of projects attempting to find a “third way” and “common ground”, the Foundation omits much of the truth about Catholicism and the Person of Jesus Christ while glossing over fundamental problems with Islam.

A quote from Cardinal Scola on the Oasis website states that the Christian faith recognises that non-Christian cultures are “inalienable and intrinsic dimensions of its own nature.”

The website features  this logo from the Pope’s trip to Egypt several years ago. It looks less like an image of Catholicism and more like the emblem for a One World Religion.

Collaborating with the Cardinal’s Oasis Foundation is the McGrath Institute for Church Life. A look at the McGrath Institute’s History and Mission page proves quite illuminating and the “Origins” section tells you all you need to know about this outfit. The organisation began as The Centre for Pastoral and Social Ministry, under the guidance of the late Monsignor John Egan, and the website cites his “Chicago-based urban ministry projects.” If that rings an alarm bell, it should – Monsignor Egan was a protege of Saul Alinsky, the communist agitator who actively sought out members of the Catholic hierarchy to collaborate with during the 1940’s.

The videos’ New Age background music and fluid graphics cause one to wonder what kind of subliminal message may be presented to the unwary viewer. 

At a time when the world needs more than ever to hear the saving message of the Gospels, in its pure and unadulterated form, it is more than irresponsible for members of the Church to suggest a “deeper look’ at Islam. However, if one is committed to promulgating a Freemasonic, indifferentist religion, then a project like this ticks all the boxes.

Deism, Esotericism and Gnosis in the Masonic Constitutions of 1723


Published May, 2020. (Automatic online translation from Italian)

1723 is the year of the first Constitutions of the new Grand Lodge of London (later of England ) founded in 1717. The author is the Presbyterian pastor and Master Mason James Anderson (1679-1739). By now modern Freemasonry, that of the “Modern” Freemasons, no longer builds churches, but wants to rebuild Man, Society, social and religious relations.

In The Constitutions of the Free-Masons (London 1723), instead of the Old Charges , or Ancient Duties (for which cf. article here ), we find new Duties (“Charges”: Pp. 49-56), still valid in Freemasonry, for example in the Grand Orient of Italy from which I draw the Italian translation (GOI, Antichi Duty – Constitution – Regulation , Rome 2018) of some passages from the 1723 text.

New duties establish in Title I ( The Constitutions , p.50) that Freemasons are henceforth bound ” to that Religion in which all men agree, leaving them their particular opinions; that is, to be good and sincere men, or men of honor and honesty“.

In Title VI, 2 it is written that Freemasons belong to the aforementioned Universal Religion (“as Masons, of the Catholick Religion above mention’d “: p.54; catholic means universal). This religion, with which Freemasonry unites men of all religions or religious confessions (in an alchemical coincidentia oppositorum ), is not at all the Catholic Christian religion ( as, instead, some Catholic Freemasons of the pro-English area affirm ), but it is a natural, anthropocentric and rationalist religiosity that relegates the dogmas to mere opinions. It is Deism, as also admitted by English Freemasons [ AQC 78 (1965), pp.50-51.55].

Historian David Stevenson notes that Anderson, as pastor, hates Catholics and Deists in his sermons, but writing as a Freemason the Constitutions also includes Deism in the Masonic Universal Religion (cf. Heredom, vol. 10/2002, Scottish Rite Research Society , Washington DC , USA, pp. 97,115-116,119-121,127; p.136 note70).

There’s more: I discovered that even in the Constitutions of 1723 there are traces of Esotericism and Gnosis. Here they are in summary. On the cover or frontispiece there is the image of Phoebus-Apollo, the shining sun-god who, young and naked, travels the sky with his chariot. Phoebus, god of divination, gives life and death (alchemical death-rebirth?), Loves both Daphne and Giacinto (divine, initiatory bisexuality?). The image of the god Phoebus, together with that of the Cainite Tubalcain, is already in an alchemical booklet printed in Florence in the 14th century (cf. A Libretto di Alchemy engraved on lead sheets in the 14th century… , Città di Castello 1910, pp. 27.30). Again on the title page of the Constitutions, under the title there is a bird that seems to resemble the ibis, the symbol of Hermes Trismegistus.

I discovered that, in the seventeenth century, in London, in the Devil’s Tavern, in a room called the Oracle of Apollo, the Apollo Club met: a literary club that also recited odes to the Devil. In the Devil’s Tavern there was also a libertine and blasphemous circle, the Hell-Fire-Club to which belonged the Duke of Wharton, Freemason, depicted in the Constitutions of 1723 as newly elected Grand Master!

From 1722 in the Devil’s Tavern a lodge met that took that name, “Devil”. In the “Apollo” of the Devil’s Tavern, from 1725 to 1767, the Grand Lodge of London held at least 75 meetings (cf.The New England Freemason, N° 12, pp.543-544; AQC 11 (1898), p.30; cf. G. Oliver, in W. Hutchinson, Spirit of Masonry, 1843, p.12).

In the historical-legendary part of the Constitutions of 1723 the 4 sons of Lamech, Cainites, do not have a prominent position as in the previous Old Charges of the XV-XVIII centuries. Now it is God who directly transmits the Art / Science of Geometry / Masonry to Adam and these then to his sons Cain and Seth. Abel is not mentioned (pp. 1-2). Anderson does not say that, even according to the Jewish Kabbalah, God passed on the Secrets of the Kabbalah to Adam.

In fact, modern Freemasonry presents itself as an initiatory society and as a spiritual art that binds the Initiates to each other and to the Divine. In a hymn attached to the Constitutions , Freemasonry is defined as divine art revealed by Heaven ( “Craft divine!… From Heav’n reveal’d“: P. 83). Even in Anderson’s Constitutions, Cain figures as the first Mason who builds a city.

Anderson writes that Cain is the Prince of one half of humanity and his posterity has imitated his royal example in improving Science and Masonry (p. 2). Then, in a note, the descendants of Cain (Tubalcain, Jabal…) are credited with the invention of metalworking, architecture and other arts (p. 2). Among the keepers of the Masonry, Nimrod, king of Babylon, is also praised; in footnote Anderson specifies that Nimrod means Rebel and that he was revered as Baal and Bacchus (p. 4).

Anderson mentions the wise men of the Chaldeans, the “Magi,” – hence the term: magic, and the priests of ancient Egypt as custodians and transmitters of Masonry; he specifies that about the Chaldeans, the Magi, Hiram Abiff and Moses, it is necessary to speak only in a constituted Lodge! Another keeper of the Muratoria is Cam (“Ham”), one of Noah’s sons. Pythagoras and Euclid are also among the keepers of the Masonry (cf. pp. 4-5, 8, 16, 20-21). It is good to know that in magical literature, at least since the sixteenth century, Cam is associated with black magic (cf. BE Jones, Freemasons’ Guide and Compendium , London 1950, p. 314).

In the Constitutions, Anderson praises the architect, Vitruvius, (p.25) and affirms that in times of ignorance geometry was considered to be the evocation of spirits (p. 36, note *). The scholar, Frances Yates, (1899-1981) sees a similarity between these statements by Anderson and what the magician, John Dee, (1527-1608) wrote in his preface to Euclid’s Mathematics: Dee praised Vitruvius and called out those who accused him of evoking spirits (The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, London – New York 2002, pp. 271-272). Scholar Susann Mitchell Summers found that Anderson possessed the writings of John Dee and other wizards and occultists (cf. The Square , December 2018, Addlestone, UK, p. 18).

In the Constitutions 1723 there is mention of the ” shining and free Genius ” of the Freemasons, then in one of the songs in the appendix to the Constitutions the powerful Genius of the Upper Lodge is praised (” The Mighty Genius of the lofty Lodge “: p.80). Later in the title page of the Constitutions of 1784 will appear ” the Genius of Masonry “, a winged angel bearing light (a lucifer), defined as she (“She”). Initiatory androgyny? In Title II of Masonic Duties , Anderson writes that even if a Mason commits a crime against the State, he cannot be expelled from the Lodge and maintains an irrevocable bond (“indefeasible “), or indelible, with the Lodge (p. 50)

Also interesting is Anderson’s 1738 New Book of Constitutions approved by the Grand Lodge of London at the Devil’s Tavern . After Anderson’s preface, there is the image of a seated woman, surrounded by various objects including the Caduceus of Mercury (p. X), that is the winged staff with two entwined snakes, symbol of Hermes Trismegistus. In the appendix to The New Book of Constitutions there is a pamphlet from 1730, A Defense of Masonry , in which the rites and principles of Freemasonry are linked to those of ancient pagan, Egyptian, Pythagorean, Druid, Qabalist Mysteries (pp. 216- 226).

In 1739 a posthumous, non-Masonic work by Anderson, ” News from Elysium: or Dialogues of the Dead ” was published in two volumes in London . On the title page of both volumes stands the figure of Hermes Trismegistus flying in the sky and carrying his Caduceus (cf. AQC 18 (1905) pp. 34-37). In the second image Hermes / Mercury appears to have female breasts. Androgyny? 

Rapprochement from 2017


In 2017 the Masonic lodges will celebrate their 300th anniversary. Since 1717 the relationship between Lodge and Church has been rife with tension and conflict. In Syracuse there is a new attempt at an understanding with a spectacular aspect: For the first time a Catholic bishop takes part in a public box event and will discuss with the master of the chair. Some insights into the background of a controversial experiment.

Truth and the search for truth

For the Catholic Church the prescribed relativism and the factually practiced syncretism of the Lodge Brothers are incompatible with the truth of reality revealed by God. The lodges reject this revelation as a truth of faith. The orientation of the lodges is not only deistic, agnostic or atheistic, depending on obedience, but was from the beginning significantly shaped by the esoteric “search” for a “different” truth than the Christian one. In the Catholic states the lodges saw and organized themselves as direct opponents of the church. Following their relativistic credo, they want to eliminate the public influence of the church, which is why Freemasonry has always been attached to a striving for power. This battle has been raging for three centuries.

The history of the lodges, however, also knows the phenomenon of church representatives who allowed themselves to be initiated and thus became apostates according to the church’s understanding. Your covert work in the church as “agents of the lodges” is still awaiting investigation. A particularly striking example is the magnificent Benedictine Abbey of Melk on the Danube. At the end of the 18th century there was not only a monk’s convent in the monastery, but also a lodge. A part of the monks belonged to her and thus formed a convention of the “initiates” in the convent.

The status as a secret society, to which the lodges cling to this day, allows the abbreviated brothers undetected to infiltrate other organizations, parties and churches and to create an invisible network.

“Relaxation Exercises” after the Council

One consequence of the Second Vatican Council it was that lodge-friendly church districts ventured with newfound confidence from obscurity. The 1970s were marked by efforts, also in the German-speaking area, to bring about a “reconciliation” between lodge and church. Faithful bishops in the countries and the election of Pope John Paul II put an end to these attempts in the early 1980s.

Lists of alleged or actual church representatives, including cardinals, who are said to be lodge members, circulate repeatedly. The sociologist of religion, Massimo Introvigne, warned against false suspicions and in May 2013 formulated a sure way to clarify the suspicion of lodge membership:

“The crucial core of Masonic ideology is relativism, with all the related political implications, which often lead Masonic obedience to promote laws to legalize abortion, euthanasia, and gay associations. So if you hear about a Catholic church representative or politician saying that he is a Freemason, the question should be: does he represent relativistic ideas? Is he an abortion advocate? Is he in favor of euthanasia or the legal recognition of gay partnerships?

If the answer is ‘yes’, then he is – according to the definition used by the current Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy – a ‘Freemason without an apron’, a companion of Freemasonry, and the question of whether he has an official membership card or not is then only secondary.

If the answer is ‘no’ and the church official or Catholic politician openly opposes relativism and its consequences, then there is good reason to conclude that the allegations are defamatory. “

New signals of rapprochement

Although Freemasonry failed 35 years ago in its attempt to be recognized by the Church, the Lodge Brothers have neither given up their fight for repression against the Church, nor have they tried to make them spiritually submissive to their thinking. Since Pope Francis was elected, the curtailed or unvarnished “brothers” believe they see a new opportunity outside and inside the Church .

Among the signals that point in this direction include not only praise of the pope from Latin America, but also the sensational letter from Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi to the ” Brethren“.

The latest example is a discussion meeting of the Masonic Grand Orient of Italy , to be held at Syracuse next November 12 in the cathedral square. The invitations show Jesus Christ with a compass in hand, a typical Masonic instrument. The circle is one of the “three great lights” of Masonic symbolism, which lies on the altar in the lodge temples.

The theme of the event is: “ Church and Freemasonry – so close, so far? “The portrayal of Jesus is part of the title picture showing the creation of the world. The representation has nothing to do with the Lodge Brothers and their world of ideas. It was created around 1220, 500 years before Freemasonry was founded. The panel discussion is part of the 300-year-anniversary celebrations of the Grand Orient.

The purpose of the event is to present an understanding between lodge and church as possible. It gives the impression of a compatibility that the Church has rejected for 300 years.

Despite the provocative image and an even more provocative title, a Catholic bishop will take part in the discussion. Msgr. Antonio Staglianò, Bishop of Noto and Msgr. Maurizio Aliotta from the Archdiocese of Syracuse will discuss with two Honorary Grand Masters of the Greater Orient, Santi Fedele and Sergio Rosso. The host is the Master of the Chair of Syracuse, Alessandro Spicuglia.

“Communitarianism” as common ground?

Nuova Bussola Quotidiana (NBQ) reports that there are violent protests from devout Catholics against the event. People ask the Archdiocese of Syracuse what this “hug” is about with an organization condemned by the Church.

“It’s about an organization that in southern Italy has always had to do with (often occult) power and always had an esoteric streak between rites and brotherhood that was never really revealed.”

The Catholic Internet newspaper asked Bishop Staglianò what his participation was about. The bishop referred to the spectacular and equally controversial letter from Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi to the “Brothers Freemasons”. The chairman of the Pontifical Council for Culture had “clearly shown” that there could be similarities between the Church and Loge, namely the “communitarianism”. Bishop Staglianò said:

“I assume that he meant the opposition to unbridled individualism, anti-materialism, a certain idea of spirituality and finally also the philanthropy, that is, the solidary aspect.”

However, the Church gave a negative answer to all these alleged “similarities”, which not least had to do with the “danger of a relativistic and deistic methodology”, according to NBQ, which the lodges are trying to do.

“Hug process in progress”

“The reality is that there is a hugging process going on today,” NBQ said. The most recent example: On the discussion in Syracuse, there appeared in the daily newspaper of the Italian Bishops Conference an article by the priest Ennio Stamile, who argued for the “dialogue” with the Freemasons. Bishop Staglianò was one of his theology professors, the priest defends the bishop’s participation. Stamile also refers to Pope Francis, who called for a dialogue “with everyone, no one excluded”.

The priest accuses the critics of rapprochement as “ignorant” and “superficial” because they “have no idea” about Freemasonry. The claim that the lodges are a “power lobby” is a fairy tale that must finally “disappear”.

Fr Ennio Stamile is one of the most famous priests in southern Italy. He is chairman of the Libera Calabria (Free Calabria) association, an umbrella organization “against the Mafia”. The association proves to be a firmly integrated part of the political left through language, symbols, actionism and contacts, and in any case it is fully recognized by this side. Stamile comes from the circle of Don Ciotti, the founder of the association, whom Pope Francis kissed on the hand in March 2014.

The union has received several hundred hectares of agricultural land by the state, confiscated from the members of the ‘Ndrangheta. The ‘Ndrangheta is the group of organized crime in Calabria and the Mafia in Sicily is comparable. The association runs farms on these areas with those who have been released from prison, former drug addicts, immigrants and those who have dropped out of the Mafia.

Lodge and Mafia?

Don Stamile’s request to speak is important not only because of his anti-Mafia reputation. His partisanship for the dialogue with the lodge is interesting. More information could explain this and open the door to a remarkable circular if the entanglement with organized crime – mafia and lodge are “occult” powers, as it has already been said – may even be a regional problem.

Since the 1960s there have been indications that mafia bosses have entered the lodges. Within the Calabrian mafia, the ‘Ndrangheta, there were violent conflicts about it. The initiative for this cooperation seems to go back to Gioa Tauro’s boss, Girolamo Piromalli (1918–1979).

Since then, investigative files by the public prosecutor have repeatedly referred to a “mass mafia”, a merger of Freemasonry and mafia into a Masonic mafia. 2014 protocol extracts were the interrogation of the former Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy, Giuliano Di Bernardo (1990-1993), known. Di Bernardo left the Grand Orient in the wake of the scandal surrounding the mysterious Propaganda Due Lodge (P2). Today he is Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Italy . According to the data Di Bernardo early 90s were 28 of 32 Calabrian boxes from , ‘Ndrangheta has been inspected.

In 2007 mafia boss Sebastiano Altomonte said in a conversation with his wife that had been recorded by the police through acoustic room surveillance:

“There is one you know about and one you don’t know about. There is the visible and the invisible that nobody knows about, except the invisible. “

The statement has been associated with the “Santa” – the group created by Girolamo Piromalli at the highest management level; the ‘Ndrangheta , whose members are all members of Freemasonry. However, this thesis has not yet been confirmed in a court-relevant manner.

In a conversation between mafia boss Pantaleone Mancuso, overheard by the police in 2013, said during a walk:

“The ‘Ndrangheta no longer exists… It once existed. Today ‘Ndrangheta is part of Freemasonry … Let’s put it this way: It is under Freemasonry but has the same rules! … The ‘Ndrangheta no longer exists, all that remains are Freemasonry and the four idiots who still believe in the’ Ndrangheta. “

Against this background, the words of Don Ennio Stamile may have a slightly different meaning, who mentions a connection between Mafia and Freemasonry in his statement, but dismisses it as an invention and attempt at disinformation by people who want to become something without “merits and competencies” and by to whom the Church is not free either.

But it is also a fact that the former President of the Higher Regional Court of Catanzaro (Calabria) and Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy, Giuseppe Tuccio, has to answer in court for membership of the Mafia. It was only in 2016 that Tuccio, who was not unknown to Libera Calabria , published a book about the fight against the Mafia. “The Piromalli had judge Tuccio, a Freemason, in their hands,” a key witness had testified in a court case. Even in the wheels of justice of senior judges came in the wake of anti-mafia Operation Gotha .

Bishop Staglianò: Hans Küng and “why I talk to the Freemasons”

But back to the discussion event in Syracuse. Bishop Staglianò justifies his participation with a statement from Pope John XXIII: “Let us look more for what unites us than what divides us.” Despite all condemnations by the Church, especially Leo XIII. With the encyclical Humanum genus and the letter Inimica vis , or the declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of 1983, the bishop sees no problem in “having a dialogue with the lodge brothers, for example when these Freemasons should organize themselves to fight against injustice “. It should be examined where one can act together for the “common good”.

The question remains, according to NBQ, what “common good” means from a Catholic point of view and what it means, however, from the point of view of Freemasonry. Bishop Staglianò admitted that he was not “competent” to answer this question. Literally he let it be known:

“Look, I don’t know anything about Freemasonry. I am in the process of reading up, starting with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declaration [from 1983]. I think that one can have no other opinion on the condemnation of the Masonic theses. I will say more: it is the first time that I have found myself in the situation of speaking to Freemasons. I think that I will begin my remarks with the text by Hans Küng on the ‘Magic Flute’ by Mozart, who was both a Freemason and a Christian. But we cannot ignore the church at the time of the genius from Salzburg as a bureaucratic institution. Not true?”

Criticism of the “integralist” dialogue

NBQ asks whether it is “credible” when a recognized theologian and bishop like Staglianò describes himself as “not competent”. The bishop’s statement could also be seen as a provocation, since he seems to be saying one thing in a few sentences but seem to mean the opposite.

When asked about the Freemason’s invitation with the representation of Jesus Christ, the bishop said that this “does not scandalize” him:

“Didn’t Arius also attribute the cosmogonic traits of a demiurge to Jesus? If Arius made a mistake, it was – if he did – that he did not ascribe God’s features to the demiurge. “

And further:

“I will go like Jesus to the tax collectors and prostitutes and proclaim Christ. The Freemasons will then determine how close or how far they are to this proclamation. “

Bishop Staglianò condescendingly described criticism of the dialogue with the Freemasons as “stupid, superficial and integralistic”. He used one of those “magical” terms with which progressive church circles bludgeon devout Catholics. Ultimately, the bishop insulted the popes of the past 300 years, who condemned Freemasonry, as “stupid, superficial and integralist”. Leo XIII. wrote in Humanum genus :

“The sect is, according to its whole being and its innermost nature, corruption and vice; therefore it is not allowed to join her and to be of any help. “

Finally, Bishop Staglianò also refers to Pope Francis, who urged to go to the “existential fringes”, “and Freemasonry seems to be one”.

Is the Church still equipped for “dialogue” with Freemasonry?

The question that remains, according to NBQ, goes beyond Bishop Staglianò. In the past few years the church has tried to hardly speak about the Freemasons anymore. The intellectual and scientific preoccupation with the lodges at the relevant academies, institutes and faculties had almost completely come to a standstill. There are hardly any more coherent and thorough studies on the subject. The declaration by Paolo Maria Siano, of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, form a remarkable exception.

It is almost as if one does not want to be labeled with the stigma of a “conspiracy theorist”. However, the boxes are a reality, as the celebrations show. Other church districts have elevated dialogue to the “highest dogma” in which they believe, which is why any form of exclusion is frowned upon – at least any form contrary to the spirit of the times. The attempt at a more or less open distancing from the past with its condemnations of Freemasonry is obvious. This raises the question of “how the Church wants to meet Freemasonry, since its younger representatives have hardly any knowledge of the Lodge and reflexively tend to dismiss criticism of it as a“ yesterday’s conspiracy theory ”of an“ integralism ”that has been overcome.

The signals for a new “dialogue” are increasing, although the church staff seem less and less prepared for it. Or is the willingness to dialogue growing parallel to the loss of knowledge?

Dazu NBQ:

“Dialogue is not a gospel term. Does the church want to use the excuse of dialogue – after the radicals, the Protestants, the anti-clerical atheists and the plutocratic elites – to break the last taboo that lodges, which were once enemies, are now only ‘different’? “

Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Wikicommons / Grande Oriente d’Italia (Screenshots)

(Note – the original article was published in German. An online translation rendered some phrases unintelligible.)