What People Are Commenting

Lefèbvre, Franquerie & Maurras

‘I Am Convinced Msgr. Lefebvre Was Not a Mason’

In the last several weeks, TIA received from one of our readers two long correspondences that we reproduce below, without editing. The reader – M.C. – although clearly favorable to Msgr. Lefebvre, is a serious person who is investigating the possibility of him being a Freemason. We respond at the end of her exposé. – TIA correspondence desk.

______________________

First letter

Dear friends,

I am utterly shocked, confused and overwhelmed with even the possibility that Archb. Lefebvre might have had some sort of connection with the freemasons. I'd like to fight back in his defense, but above all I have learned to be open to learning that I have been once again misled and/or deceived -- but only after ample proof. Hopefully a freemasonry link is not true in this instance, but I have learned by now to question everything and do the research.

Is there a way to authenticate who "seminarian" "Christopher Sparks Shannon" is? Is he even for real? Is there anyone else who can confirm any of Mr. Shannon's information? about a "masonic band"? or the alleged talk around town in Econe? or his alleged rubbing elbows with Archb. Lefebvre???

And if Archb. Lefebvre were indeed getting his orders and/or funding from "Rome" why in the world would he tell Mr. Shannon at the dinner table????? (as the latter states in his article) This seems really a stretch to believe, bordering on the ridiculous.

I am hoping to raise questions (in desperation) concerning the authenticity of Mr. Shannon's allegations! And as well those of Mark J. Williams ("banned" from CathInfo) who accuses Bishop Williamson of being "controlled opposition!!" (We all know that Fellay is leftward leaning and cannot be trusted, but to say this of Bp Williamson is another very bitter pill to swallow and I will be very slow to believe he is controlled opposition.)

I have read an excellent book in French (I have seen nothing like it in English) that compellingly shows how Melanie Calvat for her entire life after La Salette was rejected almost everywhere, and hounded by persecution, calumny, hatred, viciousness, etc., etc. all because of the condemnatory and frightening message that she promoted in its fullness. She was particularly hated by the clergy, including bishops and their lackeys -- undoubtedly because Our Lady painted an especially catastrophic picture of the priesthood that was relevant in the 1800s as well as much more today.

The point being, Satan and fallen human nature love to attack, vilify and calumniate those who are doing things right.

And on the everyday, personal level, was not Archb. Lefebvre gentle, humble and self-sacrificing? Unlike "saint" Josemaria Escriva (who had a terrible temper, for example) whose close associates revealed terrible flaws about him which would preclude true holiness, I have not seen anything like this about the archbishop.

I would like to research this but I don't know where to begin. Maybe I just need to be happy there are still Traditional Masses in remote pockets, all of which can be attributed to the Archbishop and his legacy. Realizing that my mind is very small in the face of global and universal deception, I nevertheless cannot comprehend how Lefebvre's work would have benefited Freemasonry -- except maybe to help identify the greatest enemies (Traditional Catholics) of the world's anti-God forces.

I will attempt to do some research in French. In the meantime, can you confirm whether we know for a fact whether the above mentioned Mister Shannon's person and story have been verified? or confirmed in any way??? And even if Mr. Williams is real, can we possibly entertain his allegation of "controlled opposition" for even Bp. Williamson???

Thank you for your thoughts.

M.C.

______________________

Second letter

I have made clarifying edits in Fact #2 and some in Fact #3 below in the hopes that you will indeed post this information for anyone trying to follow the allegations against Archb. Lefebvre. I think this is all now a little better.

Thank you so much...

M.C.

Archb. Lefebvre -- FOLLOW-UP

Hello again.

After undertaking some pretty intense research, I would like to report back and I am hoping you will publish this information for the benefit of your readers who are trying to gather some pieces to the puzzle concerning the alleged Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre- freemasonic connection.

Fact #1: In a book entitled "Michael Davies, An Evaluation" by John S. Daly, the author confirms what I have known concerning the Marquis de la Franquerie, and that is that the Marquis was an expert on freemasonic infiltration in the Church, and even the world. [This is why I wanted to find out the relationship between the Marquis and Archb. Lefebvre. Both the Marquis and Lefebvre were from France and lived lives that spanned the vast majority (91 and 85 years respectively) of the 100 years in the last century. They were bound to have at least known of each other, and indeed this is way more than true as will be shown.]

As way of confirmatory background, Mr. Daley states: "The Marquis de la Franquerie is arguably the greatest living expert (before he died in the 1990s) on the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy against the Church, being now in his late eighties (when this quote was written) and having been in his youth, one of the right-hand men of the late Mgr. Jouin, founder and director of the anti-Judeo-Masonic League and editor of its periodical the Revue Internationale des Societes Secretes. He (Franquerie) had thus been aware of Freemasonry's inroads into the senior hierarchical positions in the Church from the time when they were just beginning...." p. 356-357.

Likewise, as further confirmation of the greatness of the Marquis, he was personally named by Heaven in the 100% Church-approved messages/prophecies of Marie Julie Jahenny as custodian of the messages so that they would be preserved in their integrity for the world after the death of this great French mystic. Marie Julie's messages include terrible warnings about Freemasonry, and predictions of its infiltration and subversion of the Catholic Church, along with impending chastisements to come.

Fact #2: Archb. Lefebvre was, in fact, a personal friend of the Marquis de la Franquerie. This is significant because the Marquis related how he avoided keeping company with prelates he knew to be Freemasonic, like Cardinal Lienart. In keeping with their friendship, we also see that the second edition of Franquerie's "L’Infaillibilité Pontificale" contains a commendation from Lefebvre in which he expresses his appreciation to the “dear Marquis” for publishing the book.

Fact #3: Archb. Lefebvre also wrote the dedication to Franquerie's 1964 book entitled "Saint Joseph". Seeing as both the Marquis and the Archbishop lived another almost 30 years after release of "Saint Joseph," there was ample time for the Marquis to discover anything unsavory about the Archbishop and remove the dedication from his "Saint Joseph" book or from "L'Infaillibilite Pontificale" if this had been warranted.

After all, as we have seen, the Marquis was the greatest expert for the majority of the 20th century on freemasonic infiltrations and machinations in the church and the world. After working as a young man in the anti-Judeo-Masonic apostolate, he then dedicated the last 46 years of his long life exclusively to exposing the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy in the Church and world.

All told, he was an expert because his entire and long adult life specialized in this important work, and at the highest levels.

--------------------

Having read numerous of the Marquis' books, I can vouch that he boldly exposes the Great Conspiracy and the specific names (some well known, others not so known) of many, many religious figures and political players throughout the world who are/were really wolves in sheep's clothing.

There is no doubt at least in my mind that if Archb. Lefebvre were in fact a freemason, or in any way something other than what Tradtionalists have admired, the world would have heard of it through the bold and outspoken books and conferences and presentations worldwide of the Marquis de la Franquerie.

But as it stands, the Marquis' longtime support of and friendship with Lefebvre carries the full weight of authority that comes from his lifetime of service and expertise in this very specific and crucial field aimed at exposing Judeo-Masonry everywhere.

Thank you.

M.C.

______________________

TIA responds:

Dear M.C.,

Thank you for your serious research. We are glad to deal with a person who values the weight of reason and does not dismiss arguments under the pretext that even raising the possibility of Msgr. Lefebvre being a Freemason would injure the respect his followers have for him.

We will answer your questions in the order you placed them in your two letters.

Response to your first letter:

Is Mr. Christopher Shannon a real person?

We quote the testimony of Mr. Shannon based on this website, which has been online since April 23, 2013. According to the website, he was known for publishing a traditionalist newsletter. The last time his name appears on that page is as Christopher Sparks. Based on this signature, we wrongly assumed that his name was Christopher Sparks Shannon. After posting our questions and answers based on this website, someone informed us that Sparks was the name of Mr. Shannon’s newsletter. Actually, his name is Christopher Shannon and his bulletin was Sparks. We apologize for the involuntary misinformation.

So, as far as we could verify, he exists.
Was his witness credible?

His report seemed too meticulous to be invented. When someone invents a story out of the air, he normally makes mistakes by including data that do not conform to the habits and customs of the institution he is allegedly describing. We did not see incidence of this type of mistake in his report.

The cities of Sion and Ecône are neighbors, about 9 miles apart, which seems to be long distance for a procession, but still a possible distance for a penitential procession, especially when we consider that Sion and Ecône are not only cities, but also include their surrounding municipalities, and a procession could be much shorter if it would march between outer neighborhoods of these two municipalities. This possibility can easily shorten the time of a procession from 4 hours (9 miles) to about 2 hours (4.5 miles), or even less.

The details he reports seem to correspond to customary procedure in processions.

Above, Catholic religious procession in Krakow;
below, a Masonic band
We know that it is not rare in Europe to have bands preceding processions. See at right a funeral procession in Poland, preceded by a military band.

In this post-conciliar time of general inter-religious dialogue, where we have seen Masonic Lodges manifest their solidarity with Popes and Bishops, it is not difficult to imagine that the local Masonic Lodge would offer its band to precede a SSPX procession.

At right, we see a Masonic Band as shown in The Northern Light, a magazine of the Scottish Rite

As a side note, if the Priory of Sion is located in the village of Sion, as some affirm, and if Msgr. Lefebvre were one of its officials, it would make sense that the Freemasonry of Sion would offer its band for a procession of an organization linked to it.

As for the fact that Mr. Shannon mentions that he spoke with Msgr. Lefebvre at the dinner table – which you consider to be ridiculous, probably because it seems unlikely that such a great person would sit at a dinner table with such an obscure seminarian – this can be easily explained when we consider that the conversation could have taken place at the refectory table of the seminary, where not rarely the superiors speak familiarly with the seminarians at breakfast, lunch or dinner time. So, in a simplified way Shannon could say: “I sat next to him at the dinner table.”

Therefore, although we did not make an investigation into the details of his report, we believe, as we have already affirmed, that the account has the appearance of being true, which is enough to configure a circumstantial evidence.
Is Mr. Mark Williams a real person?

Yes, he is. He is an American citizen, a 21-year-old young man who presently works for Tradition in Action. Please, check his photo at right taken yesterday to alleviate your doubt.
Was he expelled from Cathinfo forum?

Yes, he was, as he spontaneously wrote in this article.
Does he have proof that Bishop Williamson is a “controlled opposition”?

We are passing on your question to him. Now or later, in a private note to you or in public, he may or may not, at his convenience, enter into more detail about his affirmation.

However, it has been a long-held opinion at TIA that the SSPX policy as a whole constitutes a large noose of false-right anti-progressivist reaction, whose final goal is to bring Traditionalism back to Vatican II and the New Mass, that is, to Progressivism. You may read our general view in this article. It also specifies the role of Msgr. Williamson as the one assigned to lead the leftovers in Traditionalism, after the merger of SSPX with progressivist Rome.

Response to your second letter:

We are well acquainted with the work of André Lesage, whose pseudonym was Marquis de la Franquerie. In some ways we can say that he continued the work of Msgr. Ernest Jouin and Msgr. Henri Delassus, who both are great names of the Catholic Ultramontane Movement of the 19^th century in France.

However, in the Preface of the book The Divine Mission of France, Msgr. Ernest Jouin notes that Lesage “does not pretend in the choice of his documents to have critical severity or surfeit erudition,” (here) which seems to us an euphemism to say that he was not very precise in his proofs. Further, at the end of his life Franquerie adhered to the Siri Theory, which purports that the Conciliar Popes have not been valid since John XXIII. These characteristics seem to lessen the weight you give to his opinion.
Given the association of Msgr. Lefebvre with Marquis de la Franquerie, you concluded that the former was not a Mason; otherwise, the latter would have discerned it and denounced him or, at the least, broken his friendship with him.
This type of argument by association has its value in logic and also in criminal law when one wishes to prove the guilt or the innocence of a person. However, it is not as apodictic as you seem to consider. The sequence of our answer will demonstrate this, we hope.
Your objection to the suspicion that Msgr. Lefebvre could have been a Mason leads us to distinguish between general colloquial language and the specific technical language referring to Freemasonry.

Indeed, when colloquially speaking one says, “This person is a Mason,” the accuser can be referring to almost any secret society that is against the Church: that is, not only Freemasonry, but also Rosicrucianism, Pythagoreanism, the Knights of Pythias, Skull and Bones, the Bohemian Grove, the Illuminati, the Carbonari, many French Compagnonnages, German Burschenschaften, etc. Some people also include other groups generically in the name Masonry: e.g., the Lions Club, the Rotary Club, the Elk Club, to mention just a few. It is an understandable generalization, since we can say that Masonry is the most significant representative of all these secret or para-secret societies.

Analogously, there were/are Nazi and Fascist secret forces, such as the Thule Society and the Vril Society, which generally speaking can be included in the same generic denomination. But, since Nazism and Fascism were publicly against Freemasonry, in colloquial language some Masonries would paradoxically be anti-Masonic.

So, since you enter the discussion using precise language, let us specify the terms: When we speculated whether or not Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre was a Mason, we were using the colloquial language.

Now, let us rephrase our suspicion about him adopting precise language: Was he a member of a secret society that was a French version of those societies of Nazism in Germany and Fascism in Italy? It seems to us that the Priory of Notre Dame of Sion, of which Msgr. Lefebvre was allegedly a grand-master, could possibly be included in this category.

If he were, he could easily be acquainted with an anti-Mason author, such as Marquis de la Franquerie, without denying his allegiance to his anti-Masonic secret society.

So, the three points of your second letter are based on the precise language that we did not use until now. To continue your research, you should consider our explanation in this n. 9.
If you want to prove that he was innocent, you should go further and investigate the liaison of Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre with a French movement, which was a visible movement that perhaps was the external face of a secret society. It is the Action Française, founded and led by Charles Maurras.
As far as we could find, Lefebvre was a great admirer of the Action Française and in particular of its founder Maurras. (check 30 Days magazine - red part) We have seen a photo of the latter with a warm hand-written dedicatory to Fr. Marcel Lefebvre. According to your way of reasoning by association, this would prove sufficiently that both were on the same ideological path.

Maurras was also officially anti-Mason and anti-Jew. Nonetheless, after the Nazis were expelled from France, Maurras was sentenced to jail for life due to his collaboration with the Nazi enemy. He was released from jail only in 1952 to go to a hospital and die.

Thus, in principle, the fact of being anti-Mason does not clear Maurras from being part of a bad movement, and also possibly a part of a secret society that inspired it.

If we would apply your method of declaring a person innocent or guilty by association, we would be obliged to conclude that having been an admirer of Maurras places the French Archbishop in a very uncomfortable situation.
Besides being condemned as a sympathizer and collaborator with Nazism, Maurras was also condemned by the Catholic Church.

He was a known agnostic, a follower of Auguste Compte’s Positivism. He considered the Gospel to be “the scriptures of four obscure Jews” whom he did not trust. He advocated many doctrines against the Catholic Church. For this reason several of his books were placed by St. Pius X on the Index of Forbidden Books. Later, under Pius XI, other of his books shared the same fate.

Further, Pius XI condemned Action Française in 1926 (September and December) in indisputable documents, as you may read in two postings (here and here) on this website, which has a reputation for seriousness. In the discussions that follow those postings, you may verify that in a autobiography Msgr. Lefebvre gives emphatic support to Action Française and issues a criticism of Pius XI for having condemned that movement.

His support for Maurras’ movement is unquestionable. So then, here we are facing no longer circumstantial evidence by way of association, but direct evidence of Lefebvre’s support for Action Française with no censure regarding its condemned errors and its unsubordination toward the Church.
Pius XII cleared the Action Française movement in 1939 because the representatives of the movement expressed their “sincere sadness” for everything that had been “disrespectful, injurious and also unjust” in their previous position and rejected “every principle and theory against the teaching of the Church.” They asked forgiveness and “abjured everything erroneous that they had written” and promised not to publish anything that did not give “due adherence to the teachings and religious and moral directives of the Church.” (text here; context of the website here)

Msgr. Lefebvre was silent about the repentance of the directors of Action Française in 1939, and did not say that its officials had made a public denial of its errors in order to be absolved. Instead, he insinuated that Pius XII was just correcting a previous mistake of his Predecessors. So, he presented Pius XI as not having any valid reason for issuing that condemnation. This is not an honest procedure.
Also, as far as we could verify, Lefebvre always “forgot” to mention that St. Pius X had condemned Maurras and the Action Française. Again, a dishonest move to prevent the truth about Action Française from being known.
To make Pius XI look still worse, Lefebvre wrote that Pius XI also would have ordered the Cristeros in Mexico to put down their weapons (1927), which caused their defeat and massacre by Calles’ Masonic government. In short, Pius XI would have betrayed the Cristeros. So, by putting Action Française and the Cristeros in the same basket, Msgr. Lefebvre and his followers tried to save the former.

However, according to this website, things are not so simple. It was not Pius XI who betrayed the Cristeros, but some specific Mexican Bishops who are identified and named. If the documents presented are sound, Pius XI would have supported the Cristeros to the end.

These are points, dear M.C., that you should investigate in order to see whether or not Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre is entirely free of suspicion. More specifically, what should be proved is that he did not belong to a secret society that has the goal of continuing that Fascist-like Action Française, which was condemned by two Popes: St. Pius X and Pius XI.

You present yourself as an honest researcher. We hope that you really are and wish you the best in your inquiry.

Cordially,

TIA correspondence desk

Share

Follow us

Posted September 17, 2019

______________________

The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting - do not necessarily express those of TIA

______________________

Volume I	Volume II	Volume III
Volume IV	Volume V	Volume VI
Volume VII	Volume VIII	Volume IX
Volume X	Volume XI	Special Edition