An Introductional Priory of Sion Theory

jlockest · **Joined:** 13 Aug 2010 5:37 pm **Posts:** 990

Just FYI - UGLE publish their book of constitutions. Within their jurisdiction their rules obviously apply - I would assume (maybe incorrectly) that the Lyon Lodge would be under similar rules within their organising body. From the UGLE site:

Admission of Visitors
125. (a) No Brother subject to the Grand Lodge shall be admitted into a Lodge unless he be personally known
to, and vouched for, by one of the Brethren present, or unless he shall be well vouched for after due examination.
He shall, if required, produce his Grand Lodge Certificate and proof of good standing in his Lodge or Lodges.
(b) No Brother who is not subject to the Grand Lodge shall be admitted unless his Certificate shows that he
has been initiated according to the antient rites and ceremonies in a Lodge belonging to a Grand Lodge professing
belief in T.G.A.O.T.U., such Certificate not to be regarded as valid unless granted by a Grand Lodge recognised by
the Grand Lodge, nor unless he himself shall acknowledge that this belief is an essential Landmark of the Order,
and is able to produce proof of his good standing in his Lodge or Lodges. It is incumbent on the Master of any
Lodge to which a visitor from another Constitution seeks admission to satisfy himself by adequate enquiries, if
need be, from the Grand Secretary, that such Constitution is recognised by the Grand Lodge.
(c) Every visitor during his presence in a Lodge is subject to its relevant by-laws.

.......

Minutes
144. Every Lodge shall keep a Minute Book in which the Master or the Secretary shall regularly enter from time
to time:
(i) The names of all persons initiated, passed, or raised in the Lodge, or becoming members thereof,
with the dates of their proposal, initiation, passing, and raising or admission respectively, together with their ages,
addresses, titles, and professions or occupations.
(ii) The names of all members present at each meeting of the Lodge, and of all visiting Brethren with
the names and numbers of their Lodges and their Masonic ranks.
(iii) Minutes of all the proceedings of the Lodge.
The minutes of each meeting of a Lodge shall at the regular meeting next following be read (unless an
exact copy has been sent to each member of the Lodge with the summons to the meeting) and submitted for
confirmation as a true record of fact.

lovuian · **Posted:** 27 Mar 2012 9:58 pm

Baffled-mate wrote:

I would have to concur. Looks amazing, fantastic finds, thank you so much. I stand corrected on the rarity.All from the late 1800's early 20th century?

And for the pictures of the St. Anthony's

As I said, I am not a fan of the internet as s form of authorised research.

But, I stand completely corrected. I used the old fashioned method of checking the Latin, French and English lists and records of the names and depictions of saints. Also contacted the Vatican on the use and protocol of the use of phrases and scripture, to gain an understanding of its use, just to confirm my opinion. I should have stuck with the internet.

I would still, respectfully suggest contacting the Vatican, on which saint is called what, no matter what an internet page may say. But I cant dispute the images, even though you cant see the tops of most of the staffs or the side of the shoulders. And when you do actually Google your St Anthony the Great he doesnt appear as you have suggested.

As for the engravings, again which churches, if churches, when built etc.

I cannot recall if I stated, that a priest had altered scripture, as suggested, or just asked if it is common for them to amend core religious phrases? Again, not being sarcastic, I am just doing this via my phone, and have limited scope to see, and all my posts were from scattered memories anyway.

Well, I am worried that this will sound terribly sarcastic, but I really dont mean it to be. I have not talked about this subject for over a year, and I joined here just to banter and it has been fabulous. You all are fantastic,
Sincerely, thank you everyone

Tim Wallace Murphy in a interview admitted he saw Freemason symbols in the church too
he did not say what their were do to the fact that he was a Mason

So you are not alone Baffled Mate :wink:

TCP · **Posted:** 27 Mar 2012 10:05 pm

Baffled-mate wrote:

As I said, I am not a fan of the internet as s form of authorised research.

It does in a pinch, for the easy stuff.

Baffled-mate wrote:

But, I stand completely corrected. I used the old fashioned method of checking the Latin, French and English lists and records of the names and depictions of saints. Also contacted the Vatican on the use and protocol of the use of phrases and scripture, to gain an understanding of its use, just to confirm my opinion. I should have stuck with the internet.

Would you care to scan their reply so we can read it too?

Baffled-mate wrote:

I would still, respectfully suggest contacting the Vatican, on which saint is called what, no matter what an internet page may say. But I cant dispute the images, even though you cant see the tops of most of the staffs or the side of the shoulders. And when you do actually Google your St Anthony the Great he doesnt appear as you have suggested.

Well, again, given the context, Vatican protocol seems less important in this instance than common practice. I believe your assertion was that there was something wrong with that particular St. Anthony statue - you said it stuck out like a sore thumb in your estimation and that the Egyptian saint was "never" referred to as "the Hermit." I provided you with a fair number of examples of similar travesties to demonstrate that the statue in Saunière's church was by no means an anomaly. And I believe my suggestion to you was to Google "Saint Antoine l'Ermite" and see what the internet machine turned up. Shall I post a screen shot so we can all have a look together?

Baffled-mate wrote:

I cannot recall if I stated, that a priest had altered scripture, as suggested, or just asked if it is common for them to amend core religious phrases? Again, not being sarcastic, I am just doing this via my phone, and have limited scope to see, and all my posts were from scattered memories anyway.

In hoc signo vinces isn't taken from Scripture. And owing to the fact that the rite of baptism "conquers the devil" and it is the devil holding the water stoup on his back, "by this sign you shall conquer him" doesn't sound to me like much of a libertine abridgment.

TCP

Thomas D. · **Posted:** 27 Mar 2012 11:51 pm

jlockest wrote:

Thomas D. wrote:

jlockest wrote:

......
RS,
I wasn't aware of that about the collar - was the signature in the Lodge guest book also disputed? I saw the recent discussion here that mentioned the signature, and a few sites repeat basically the same - ie that the Sauniere in question may be BS or could be his brother. Is the signature document disputed in its own right?

This signature proporting to be our own Curé's often gets trotted out as proof of some masonic leanings.
However a number of issues remain.
1. Can we be sure it was the Curé of RLC who signed the book?
2. It was a GUEST book, that doesn't make him a member, was it just a social evening to which he was invited?
3. Membership would imply regular attendance so there would be many signatures over a period not one.
4. 19thc French Martinism is not the same as 21stc Craft Freemasonry
5. 2nd hand collars without jewels are two a penny, probably from the same junk shop as Ben's box.
6. Was there a signature at the next meeting or had he decided it definitely was not for him and didn't go back.

Just thinking out loud...........

TD

I thought:
2) That to sign a guest book in a lodge to attend a 'ritual' you had to be a Mason. So, I'm not sure here what this 'guest' book then is. Is it a ritual attendance guest book, or simply a general guest book?
3) Not quite sure about that. A Mason would attend their own lodge - and no attendance book is then kept AFAIK. If a mason attends a lodge (for ritual purposes) other than their mother lodge, then AFAIK they have to be invited to prove that they are masons - or else anyone could just turn up. If the book is a record of ritual attendance, then I would assume that if the signature is BS's, then it would show he was a Mason.

I don't know how Martinism works, but AFAIK, you can't attend any Masonic ritual without being a Mason. Part of the ceremony is to ensure that only Mason of the required degree are within the Lodge. You can't turn up to see if you like it per se.

Again maybe a Mason can clarify.

jlockest,
You missed #4
There seems to be a basic misconception here. Martinism is a quasi masonic body that has no relationship to modern UGLE Freemasonry.
The signature in that book is NOT evidence that anyone attended 'any Masonic ritual' though it might be suggestive of people attending a Martinist ritual.
Masonry is not a 'one size fits all' deal!
The UGLE ceased to recognise one of the main French Masonic bodies the Grand Orient in the 1870s because it dropped the notion of a belief in a Supreme Being as a pre-requisite for membership. Their increasingly political stance in France drew a political response in the papal bulls of Leo XIII.
This fundamental fork in the road meant that over 140 years ago UGLE ceased to have any relevance to 19thC French Quasi-Masonic bodies so quoting UGLE constitutions is irrelevant in this instance.
In short, that signature doesn't mean Sauniere was a Mason at all.

TD

rs2008 · **Posted:** 28 Mar 2012 12:02 am

QED TD.

PS: What's happened to all your sparring partners?

lovuian · **Posted:** 28 Mar 2012 2:17 am

TCP wrote:

Baffled-mate wrote:

As I said, I am not a fan of the internet as s form of authorised research.

It does in a pinch, for the easy stuff.

Baffled-mate wrote:

But, I stand completely corrected. I used the old fashioned method of checking the Latin, French and English lists and records of the names and depictions of saints. Also contacted the Vatican on the use and protocol of the use of phrases and scripture, to gain an understanding of its use, just to confirm my opinion. I should have stuck with the internet.

Would you care to scan their reply so we can read it too?

Baffled-mate wrote:

I would still, respectfully suggest contacting the Vatican, on which saint is called what, no matter what an internet page may say. But I cant dispute the images, even though you cant see the tops of most of the staffs or the side of the shoulders. And when you do actually Google your St Anthony the Great he doesnt appear as you have suggested.

Well, again, given the context, Vatican protocol seems less important in this instance than common practice. I believe your assertion was that there was something wrong with that particular St. Anthony statue - you said it stuck out like a sore thumb in your estimation and that the Egyptian saint was "never" referred to as "the Hermit." I provided you with a fair number of examples of similar travesties to demonstrate that the statue in Saunière's church was by no means an anomaly. And I believe my suggestion to you was to Google "Saint Antoine l'Ermite" and see what the internet machine turned up. Shall I post a screen shot so we can all have a look together?

Baffled-mate wrote:

I cannot recall if I stated, that a priest had altered scripture, as suggested, or just asked if it is common for them to amend core religious phrases? Again, not being sarcastic, I am just doing this via my phone, and have limited scope to see, and all my posts were from scattered memories anyway.

In hoc signo vinces isn't taken from Scripture. And owing to the fact that the rite of baptism "conquers the devil" and it is the devil holding the water stoup on his back, "by this sign you shall conquer him" doesn't sound to me like much of a libertine abridgment.

TCP

TCP could it be a reference to Exorcism?

Renne · **Posted:** 28 Mar 2012 2:43 am

Masonic Bible 1947.

I read that after the persecution of the Templars, they maintained their identity

by transforming their organization into crafts guilds.

jlockest · **Joined:** 13 Aug 2010 5:37 pm **Posts:** 990

Thomas D. wrote:

.....

jlockest,
You missed #4
There seems to be a basic misconception here. Martinism is a quasi masonic body that has no relationship to modern UGLE Freemasonry.
The signature in that book is NOT evidence that anyone attended 'any Masonic ritual' though it might be suggestive of people attending a Martinist ritual.
Masonry is not a 'one size fits all' deal!
The UGLE ceased to recognise one of the main French Masonic bodies the Grand Orient in the 1870s because it dropped the notion of a belief in a Supreme Being as a pre-requisite for membership. Their increasingly political stance in France drew a political response in the papal bulls of Leo XIII.
This fundamental fork in the road meant that over 140 years ago UGLE ceased to have any relevance to 19thC French Quasi-Masonic bodies so quoting UGLE constitutions is irrelevant in this instance.
In short, that signature doesn't mean Sauniere was a Mason at all.

TD

TD,
I'm not trying to prove BS is/isn't a Mason. I was attempting to show that the signature means nothing without knowing what the 'book' represents. IE (again maybe a Mason - or even better a Martinist could shed some light here) I would guess my local Lodge has a guest book for guests just visiting the Lodge (not taking part in any ritual) and then the separate record of visiting Masons for the ritual 'minutes'.
I hadn't read much on Martinism until yesterday - and am now only part way though Volume 4 of The Martinist Tradition - but so far it seems that 'Martinism' has undergone various forms, some of which closely tied to Masonry and others not. The original organization being borne out of a Masonic Charter from Charles Stuart. Later in the oft changing Martinist movement, enrolment was restricted to 3rd degree (Master) masons and then offshoots ignored that requirement.
I don't recall reading what 'Lodge' the BS signature came from - I vaguely recall the article I read just implying it was a Masonic Lodge in Lyons.
From 17 Questions (Andre Douzet) here :

Saunière’s name is noted down in the register of attendance of one lodge, where he is listed as a “visitor”. We have verified this. He was not a tourist or an outsider but a visitor, someone who was therefore a member of another lodge elsewhere. Furthermore, there are archives in Lyon which show that there was an attempt to merge a Catalan lodge with a Lyon lodge.

Saunière evolved in other environments as well, in societies that could be seen as the heirs of the Angelic Society. Previous members included Charles Perrault, Philibert Delorme, Polycarpe de la Rivière, and others. Saunière was thus guided and he recuperated certain information. These people helped Saunière, that’s for sure.

But I didn't see any independent verification of this document - nothing that gives the explicit name of the Lodge attended, or what other info BS may have given on his entry (ie his own Lodge no). So maybe all 'this' is another hoax as well.

Has the Douzet document ever been 'proven'?

Thomas D. · **Posted:** 28 Mar 2012 10:49 am

jlockest wrote:

Thomas D. wrote:

.....

jlockest,
You missed #4
There seems to be a basic misconception here. Martinism is a quasi masonic body that has no relationship to modern UGLE Freemasonry.
The signature in that book is NOT evidence that anyone attended 'any Masonic ritual' though it might be suggestive of people attending a Martinist ritual.
Masonry is not a 'one size fits all' deal!
The UGLE ceased to recognise one of the main French Masonic bodies the Grand Orient in the 1870s because it dropped the notion of a belief in a Supreme Being as a pre-requisite for membership. Their increasingly political stance in France drew a political response in the papal bulls of Leo XIII.
This fundamental fork in the road meant that over 140 years ago UGLE ceased to have any relevance to 19thC French Quasi-Masonic bodies so quoting UGLE constitutions is irrelevant in this instance.
In short, that signature doesn't mean Sauniere was a Mason at all.

TD

TD,
I'm not trying to prove BS is/isn't a Mason. I was attempting to show that the signature means nothing without knowing what the 'book' represents. IE (again maybe a Mason - or even better a Martinist could shed some light here) I would guess my local Lodge has a guest book for guests just visiting the Lodge (not taking part in any ritual) and then the separate record of visiting Masons for the ritual 'minutes'.
I hadn't read much on Martinism until yesterday - and am now only part way though Volume 4 of The Martinist Tradition - but so far it seems that 'Martinism' has undergone various forms, some of which closely tied to Masonry and others not. The original organization being borne out of a Masonic Charter from Charles Stuart. Later in the oft changing Martinist movement, enrolment was restricted to 3rd degree (Master) masons and then offshoots ignored that requirement.
I don't recall reading what 'Lodge' the BS signature came from - I vaguely recall the article I read just implying it was a Masonic Lodge in Lyons.
From 17 Questions (Andre Douzet) here :

Saunière’s name is noted down in the register of attendance of one lodge, where he is listed as a “visitor”. We have verified this. He was not a tourist or an outsider but a visitor, someone who was therefore a member of another lodge elsewhere. Furthermore, there are archives in Lyon which show that there was an attempt to merge a Catalan lodge with a Lyon lodge.

Saunière evolved in other environments as well, in societies that could be seen as the heirs of the Angelic Society. Previous members included Charles Perrault, Philibert Delorme, Polycarpe de la Rivière, and others. Saunière was thus guided and he recuperated certain information. These people helped Saunière, that’s for sure.

But I didn't see any independent verification of this document - nothing that gives the explicit name of the Lodge attended, or what other info BS may have given on his entry (ie his own Lodge no). So maybe all 'this' is another hoax as well.

Has the Douzet document ever been 'proven'?

jlockest,
I hear what you are saying but the point I was making is that there is no standard over-arching masonic identity and quoting UGLE Constitutions in this context is, at best, unhelpful and at worst down right misleading.
If you want to discuss constitutions then it is more appropriate to quote the constitutions of 19TH C French Masonic or Martinist bodies and not UGLE which is an entirely unconnected body.
After all you're not suggesting that Sauniere was an English Mason, are you?

TD

jlockest · **Joined:** 13 Aug 2010 5:37 pm **Posts:** 990

Thomas D. wrote:

jlockest wrote:

Thomas D. wrote:

.....

jlockest,
You missed #4
There seems to be a basic misconception here. Martinism is a quasi masonic body that has no relationship to modern UGLE Freemasonry.
The signature in that book is NOT evidence that anyone attended 'any Masonic ritual' though it might be suggestive of people attending a Martinist ritual.
Masonry is not a 'one size fits all' deal!
The UGLE ceased to recognise one of the main French Masonic bodies the Grand Orient in the 1870s because it dropped the notion of a belief in a Supreme Being as a pre-requisite for membership. Their increasingly political stance in France drew a political response in the papal bulls of Leo XIII.
This fundamental fork in the road meant that over 140 years ago UGLE ceased to have any relevance to 19thC French Quasi-Masonic bodies so quoting UGLE constitutions is irrelevant in this instance.
In short, that signature doesn't mean Sauniere was a Mason at all.

TD

TD,
I'm not trying to prove BS is/isn't a Mason. I was attempting to show that the signature means nothing without knowing what the 'book' represents. IE (again maybe a Mason - or even better a Martinist could shed some light here) I would guess my local Lodge has a guest book for guests just visiting the Lodge (not taking part in any ritual) and then the separate record of visiting Masons for the ritual 'minutes'.
I hadn't read much on Martinism until yesterday - and am now only part way though Volume 4 of The Martinist Tradition - but so far it seems that 'Martinism' has undergone various forms, some of which closely tied to Masonry and others not. The original organization being borne out of a Masonic Charter from Charles Stuart. Later in the oft changing Martinist movement, enrolment was restricted to 3rd degree (Master) masons and then offshoots ignored that requirement.
I don't recall reading what 'Lodge' the BS signature came from - I vaguely recall the article I read just implying it was a Masonic Lodge in Lyons.
From 17 Questions (Andre Douzet) here :

Saunière’s name is noted down in the register of attendance of one lodge, where he is listed as a “visitor”. We have verified this. He was not a tourist or an outsider but a visitor, someone who was therefore a member of another lodge elsewhere. Furthermore, there are archives in Lyon which show that there was an attempt to merge a Catalan lodge with a Lyon lodge.

Saunière evolved in other environments as well, in societies that could be seen as the heirs of the Angelic Society. Previous members included Charles Perrault, Philibert Delorme, Polycarpe de la Rivière, and others. Saunière was thus guided and he recuperated certain information. These people helped Saunière, that’s for sure.

But I didn't see any independent verification of this document - nothing that gives the explicit name of the Lodge attended, or what other info BS may have given on his entry (ie his own Lodge no). So maybe all 'this' is another hoax as well.

Has the Douzet document ever been 'proven'?

jlockest,
I hear what you are saying but the point I was making is that there is no standard over-arching masonic identity and quoting UGLE Constitutions in this context is, at best, unhelpful and at worst down right misleading.
If you want to discuss constitutions then it is more appropriate to quote the constitutions of 19TH C French Masonic or Martinist bodies and not UGLE which is an entirely unconnected body.
After all you're not suggesting that Sauniere was an English Mason, are you?

TD

TD,
Sorry, when I said:
Just FYI - UGLE publish their book of constitutions. Within their jurisdiction their rules obviously apply - I would assume (maybe incorrectly) that the Lyon Lodge would be under similar rules within their organising body.

I thought I had made it clear.

What I am getting at (and still getting at) is that Lodges aren't just places where you turn up and watch the ritual to see if you like it or not. They tend to exclude people who can't prove that they're not from the right 'discipline'.

From what I had read yesterday, the Martinist Lodges were started on the basis of warrants from England, so I would have assumed they adopted some form of secrecy with regard to their rituals.
The example from UGLE was showing how they handle the situation.

The issue seems to be moot anyway, given one or two things appear to be unknown. Firstly Douzet implies it was a Masonic Lodge (is that Martinist with entry restricted to Master Masons? or true Masonic). Secondly, I haven't seen BS's signature - and more importantly haven't even read what 'register' it is from. So can't tell if that is simply a public visitors book, or a 'visiting Brother' ledger entry that implies he witnessed ritual workings. Then, even if the Lodge was Martinist, I have no knowledge what type of Martinist and whether they accepted Masonic proof as proof of entry to their ritual. Finally, I still haven't read if the BS entry shows his mother Lodge and the ID of the Lodge he was visiting.
Most of the above could be cleared up if someone has seen or has a copy of the Lodge entry being quoted by Douzet.

Thomas D. · **Posted:** 28 Mar 2012 11:39 am

[quote="jlockest
TD,
Sorry, when I said:
Just FYI - UGLE publish their book of constitutions. Within their jurisdiction their rules obviously apply - I would assume (maybe incorrectly) that the Lyon Lodge would be under similar rules within their organising body.

I thought I had made it clear.

What I am getting at (and still getting at) is that Lodges aren't just places where you turn up and watch the ritual to see if you like it or not. They tend to exclude people who can't prove that they're not from the right 'discipline'.

From what I had read yesterday, the Martinist Lodges were started on the basis of warrants from England, so I would have assumed they adopted some form of secrecy with regard to their rituals.
The example from UGLE was showing how they handle the situation.

The issue seems to be moot anyway, given one or two things appear to be unknown. Firstly Douzet implies it was a Masonic Lodge (is that Martinist with entry restricted to Master Masons? or true Masonic). Secondly, I haven't seen BS's signature - and more importantly haven't even read what 'register' it is from. So can't tell if that is simply a public visitors book, or a 'visiting Brother' ledger entry that implies he witnessed ritual workings. Then, even if the Lodge was Martinist, I have no knowledge what type of Martinist and whether they accepted Masonic proof as proof of entry to their ritual. Finally, I still haven't read if the BS entry shows his mother Lodge and the ID of the Lodge he was visiting.
Most of the above could be cleared up if someone has seen or has a copy of the Lodge entry being quoted by Douzet.[/quote]

jlockest,
There's a whole series of erroneous assumptions that you are making that allows the current UGLE constitutions to have any relevance whatsoever to the constitutions of a 19thC French Martinist body.
Sadly, this is a normal part of the uninformed and inaccurate discussion of Masonic history. To most of the profane world they all look the same! :roll:

Kind regards,
TD

jlockest · **Joined:** 13 Aug 2010 5:37 pm **Posts:** 990

Thomas D. wrote:

......

jlockest,
There's a whole series of erroneous assumptions that you are making that allows the current UGLE constitutions to have any relevance whatsoever to the constitutions of a 19thC French Martinist body.
Sadly, this is a normal part of the uninformed and inaccurate discussion of Masonic history. To most of the profane world they all look the same! :roll:

Kind regards,
TD

TD,
So I'm wrong in assuming that the Lodge in Lyon had rules to restrict the entry of people who weren't suitably qualified to enter (ie rules similar to those shown from a known Masonic body)? Maybe - OK.

Can you then set me straight and tell me exactly what Lodge system we're talking about? IE what Lodge is the register page from (and what jurisdiction it was under) and what Lodge (if any) BS belonged to as his mother Lodge?
Once I have those, I can read up the rules (if published) from the time and see what they say about admitting visitors.

Thomas D. · **Posted:** 28 Mar 2012 1:47 pm

jlockest wrote:

Thomas D. wrote:

......

jlockest,
There's a whole series of erroneous assumptions that you are making that allows the current UGLE constitutions to have any relevance whatsoever to the constitutions of a 19thC French Martinist body.
Sadly, this is a normal part of the uninformed and inaccurate discussion of Masonic history. To most of the profane world they all look the same! :roll:

Kind regards,
TD

TD,
So I'm wrong in assuming that the Lodge in Lyon had rules to restrict the entry of people who weren't suitably qualified to enter (ie rules similar to those shown from a known Masonic body)? Maybe - OK.

Can you then set me straight and tell me exactly what Lodge system we're talking about? IE what Lodge is the register page from (and what jurisdiction it was under) and what Lodge (if any) BS belonged to as his mother Lodge?
Once I have those, I can read up the rules (if published) from the time and see what they say about admitting visitors.

No, I'm afraid I cannot help you with any details about 19thC french quasi Masonic activity.
However I am grateful that you acknowledged the yawning chasm in your logic and had the opportunity to
correct the unhelpful perception that all Masonry is the same .
Roscoe is always keen to trot out this issue, ask him!
Kind regards,
TD

Thomas D. · **Posted:** 28 Mar 2012 1:51 pm

rs2008 wrote:

QED TD.

PS: What's happened to all your sparring partners?

No idea RS, but I suspect they might be 'reconsidering their positions'......................
Perhaps a new 'statement' might be in the offing clarifying some issues!
Maybe we can look forward to some choice abuse in Italian soon!
Who knows!
TD

lovuian · **Posted:** 28 Mar 2012 3:00 pm

Well what is amazing and maybe a point that is missing here

Sauniere was a PRIEST
He would be forbidden to be a visitor because Pope Leo XIII
had FORBIDDEN any Catholic to be a Mason

but did he forbid a priest to be a Martinist?

so if his name is even as a visitor ...it would be frowned upon if the Pope heard about

but what is obvious is at the end we find Sauniere was not such a priest who towed the line

jlockest · **Joined:** 13 Aug 2010 5:37 pm **Posts:** 990

Thomas D. wrote:

.....
jlockest,
There's a whole series of erroneous assumptions that you are making that allows the current UGLE constitutions to have any relevance whatsoever to the constitutions of a 19thC French Martinist body.
Sadly, this is a normal part of the uninformed and inaccurate discussion of Masonic history. To most of the profane world they all look the same! :roll:

Kind regards,
TD

TD,
Just for my edification, which Martinist body are you referring to here? Presumably no one apart from Douzet knows what 'jurisdiction' the Lodge (if it existed) came under? So it could have been Masonic or Martinist or....?

jlockest · **Joined:** 13 Aug 2010 5:37 pm **Posts:** 990

lovuian wrote:

Well what is amazing and maybe a point that is missing here

Sauniere was a PRIEST
He would be forbidden to be a visitor because Pope Leo XIII
had FORBIDDEN any Catholic to be a Mason

but did he forbid a priest to be a Martinist?

so if his name is even as a visitor ...it would be frowned upon if the Pope heard about

but what is obvious is at the end we find Sauniere was not such a priest who towed the line

Lov,
I cannot see any proof so far that BS did attend a Lodge.
The other snagette is that the perillos site (Douzet?) seems to imply he was Masonic, then throws in Martinist. If the Martinist sect then enforced their members to be Master Masons, then IF the register spoken about is a record of ritual attendance, then maybe BS was a 3rd degree Mason.
But without the documents I don't see how anyone can say one way or the other.

This all seems very old as well - this http://www.perillos.com/bs_fm.html implies that the knowledge is 12 years older than the page itself (and I can't see that that is dated) - so pre 2000. I would have thought that the document would have done the rounds by now - maybe it has and I have missed it?

Thomas D. · **Posted:** 28 Mar 2012 4:48 pm

jlockest wrote:

Thomas D. wrote:

.....
jlockest,
There's a whole series of erroneous assumptions that you are making that allows the current UGLE constitutions to have any relevance whatsoever to the constitutions of a 19thC French Martinist body.
Sadly, this is a normal part of the uninformed and inaccurate discussion of Masonic history. To most of the profane world they all look the same! :roll:

Kind regards,
TD

TD,
Just for my edification, which Martinist body are you referring to here? Presumably no one apart from Douzet knows what 'jurisdiction' the Lodge (if it existed) came under? So it could have been Masonic or Martinist or....?

jlockest,
I wouldn't dream of taking any responsibility for your moral, intellectual or spiritual improvement nor could I claim to have the skills to do so.......... :lol:

However, it was my understanding that the attendance book in question was that of a Martinist lodge in Lyon. If I'm incorrect in this belief then I, in turn, look to you for edification!
In anticipation,
TD :wink:

rs2008 · **Posted:** 29 Mar 2012 1:56 am

In the first paragraph of the article Douzet states a "register' (presumably an attendance register) in a "MASONIC Lodge".
It was my assertion that the collar pictured was Martinist, and to be fair, nowhere in the article does AD claim the collar pictured is the one displayed by Captier.
But it's a fair bet that is what is implied.

Renne · **Posted:** 29 Mar 2012 2:56 am

The Martinists were a branch of the Lodge of Memphis-Mizraim.

jlockest · **Joined:** 13 Aug 2010 5:37 pm **Posts:** 990

Thomas D. wrote:

.......

jlockest,
I wouldn't dream of taking any responsibility for your moral, intellectual or spiritual improvement nor could I claim to have the skills to do so.......... :lol:

However, it was my understanding that the attendance book in question was that of a Martinist lodge in Lyon. If I'm incorrect in this belief then I, in turn, look to you for edification!
In anticipation,
TD :wink:

TD,
Sorry to be a pain, but you appeared to reproach me for using Masonic rules in reference to what you said was a 19th C French Martinist Lodge. So I simply asked where you got the knowledge it was a Martinist Lodge from - or were you assuming it was Martinist?

Thomas D. · **Posted:** 29 Mar 2012 7:45 am

jlockest wrote:

Thomas D. wrote:

.......

jlockest,
I wouldn't dream of taking any responsibility for your moral, intellectual or spiritual improvement nor could I claim to have the skills to do so.......... :lol:

However, it was my understanding that the attendance book in question was that of a Martinist lodge in Lyon. If I'm incorrect in this belief then I, in turn, look to you for edification!
In anticipation,
TD :wink:

TD,
Sorry to be a pain, but you appeared to reproach me for using Masonic rules in reference to what you said was a 19th C French Martinist Lodge. So I simply asked where you got the knowledge it was a Martinist Lodge from - or were you assuming it was Martinist?

jlockest,
Rest assured I wouldn't dream of reproaching you over this particular bone, gnaw away to your hearts content!

You may recall my point was not related to what you describe as 'Masonic rules' but I questioned the relevancy of your post containing UGLE Constitutions in the context of this discussion.

This subject has been chewed over on these boards and elsewhere. My recollection of those discussions was that the lodge in question was claimed to be a Martinist one. As you may recall I suggested you look at Roscoes output on the subject. A recent book explored the rammifications too. When I have a moment I'll try and provide a reference.
Naturally, if my recollection is imperfect I am happy to accept edification, my daily advancement, so to speak!
Kind regards,
TD

jlockest · **Joined:** 13 Aug 2010 5:37 pm **Posts:** 990

Thomas D. wrote:

......
jlockest,
Rest assured I wouldn't dream of reproaching you over this particular bone, gnaw away to your hearts content!

You may recall my point was not related to what you describe as 'Masonic rules' but I questioned the relevancy of your post containing UGLE Constitutions in the context of this discussion.

This subject has been chewed over on these boards and elsewhere. My recollection of those discussions was that the lodge in question was claimed to be a Martinist one. As you may recall I suggested you look at Roscoes output on the subject. A recent book explored the rammifications too. When I have a moment I'll try and provide a reference.
Naturally, if my recollection is imperfect I am happy to accept edification, my daily advancement, so to speak!
Kind regards,
TD

TD,
I'm no wordsmith so I take on board that sometimes I do not get my point across as I intended.
I also took it from your post that you 'knew' BS attended a Martinist Lodge.

You still keep going back to the UGLE post. I repeat, what I was attempting to show was how Masonic orders attempt to protect their secrets. I would 'assume' that 17th Century and 18th Century lodges did something similar - ie they just didn't let any one walk in and take part in an 'nth' degree ceremony.

rs2008 · **Posted:** 29 Mar 2012 10:10 am

I think that's a safe assumption.

Edited to say: "Them that were literate".

jlockest · **Joined:** 13 Aug 2010 5:37 pm **Posts:** 990

rs2008 wrote:

I think that's a safe assumption.

Edited to say: "Them that were literate".

I suppose it's all irrelevant really anyway, as so far I haven't seen any source for this other than Douzet and I now presume that Douzet isn't treated as the most reliable source here anyway (I found this darkly amusing in light of current affairs http://www.benhammott.com/douzet-tomb-f ... ction.html)?

So maybe BM can state what elements of the Church's redecoration he sees as being specifically Masonic?

Maybe again someone can clarify for me the source of the artefacts used in the Church. I thought BS had bought the statues etc from local Church suppliers - and presumably again in that case, any Masonic implication was purely unintentional?

Arcadia Discussion Zone

An Introductional Priory of Sion Theory

Who is online