Featured Post

For Those Who Disregard Prophecy

People who snub prophecy bewilder me. They say, "I'm not obligated to pay any attention to private revelation. The strict teachin...

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Posting Style on SD and CI

As of late, there have been some sincere questions about my conduct and the rationale behind my approach to sedevacantism.

Why am I talking about it all the time? Why don’t I delve into the canon law? Why am I so aggressive and abrasive?

The Foundation of My Opinion is Not Accepted

To start with, let’s imagine someone mentions a news story about abortion. Perhaps a crime with an abortionist occurred, or perhaps there was a gross abuse by the abortionist doc. Maybe there was some sort of unsanitary abuse. Whatever happened in this hypothetical abortion story, someone on a forum makes a thread about it, and we all start talking about it.

Typically, we all talk about the implications of that abortion news story. We talk about what it means. We talk about how things are sliding downhill in our society, or we discuss how the value of life is so compromised, that it seems as if our society will accept anything. What we don’t talk about is why the abortion was wrong technically or how it is wrong morally. We assume it is wrong already, and so we share our opinions about the story. And usually, these opinions are not questioned because we all agree that abortion is wrong.

I try to do this with sedevacantism. In regards to the sedes, I just start sharing my opinion.

If in the last few months, news about sedevacantism has popped up, I just start talking about the implications of why sedevacantism is wrong without ever going into why sedevacantism is wrong or how it violates some law of the Church. Of course, I understand that not everyone agrees with me that sedevacantism is wrong, but I thought that I could just speak of the implications of sedevacantism with the assumption that it was wrong.

I thought that—on an internet forum—my opinion would be a contribution to the forum. I have always thought that members contributing their opinions on a forum is what helps keep the numbers up and keeps topics alive.

Where I have erred is that I thought that there would be a substantial amount of people who would accept me for having this viewpoint—the axiom upon which I base my opinion—and that they would accept my opinion about some sedevacantist issue for what it was. But in reality, I have not been accepted for having these opinions; and of course, the opinions themselves have not been accepted either.

To be honest, I did not see this coming so much at Suscipe Domine, or to so much an extent at Cathinfo.

For these reasons, it seems that I can never air an opinion against sedevacantism without constantly being asked to explain how sedevacantism is wrong. People will not rest with the idea that “Hirsch assumes sedevacantism is wrong, and here is his opinion in that spectrum.”

I have no desire to constantly explain why sedevacantism is wrong, just as no one here wants to explain why abortion is wrong, why homosexuality is wrong, or other presumed wrongs. Folks would think it’s a waste of time, because it’s already assumed. Yet, because I will not explain how I think the theology of sedevacantism is wrong, I am often told I am in over my head or that I lack the proper education to have any kind of opinion in regards to it.

Again, I am not tolerated for having an opinion based on the foundation that “the sedes are wrong” without being told to explain my foundation.

Laramie Always Says He Doesn’t Have Time

I do not have time to explain why sedevacantism is wrong. Just as many posters do not have the time to explain over and over again why abortion is wrong medically, morally, theologically, or historically. I do not have time to explore the documents of Vatican II, the teachings of Vatican I, or to differentiate between opinions of clergy vs infallible teaching on dogma. I do not want to spend hours every day talking about this. I once tried to talk about these things, beginning with Lumen Gentium—but that conversation was filled with so much hate-filled banter, I gave up on it.

I do not have time to start sourcing things. I never said I was a theologist nor an apologist. I don’t know how many times I have to keep saying this. Yet, is a forum member not allowed to have an opinion? Again, most of the people on these forums have opinions on a wide range of topics, and yet they do not hold doctorates in those topics.

So, I am asked: “Why, Laramie, do you have no time to back yourself up, but you have time to spout your opinions?”

My answer: Because typing out an opinion is easier and faster than research and source citation and delving into documents and drawn out apologetical arguments.

It does not take long to type up a blog post. And I’m a fast typist. I can type out a lot of text in minutes. Much of what I type out is in short bursts between tasks. It did not take long at all to type up everything I’ve written so far in this post.

And so, it has been my choice to only voice an opinion through the spectrum of “a man who believes that sedevacantism is schismatic,” rather than to go into heavy detail as to why it is specifically, theologically, morally, or historically. I choose to leave that to other voices. I understand that Bishop Williamson has been explaining why he opposes sedevacantism lately. Others will too, in time. But I prefer to be a guy with a blog on an internet forum with an opinion. I am not claiming to be an apologist.

Laramie, Why Have You Focused on Attacking Sedevacantism So Much?

That question has been asked of me a few times. Larry said this to me yesterday:

C'mon, Pope Francis is calling a Protestant layman his "brother Bishop" and is basically giving aid and assent to the enemies of the Church. Meanwhile, his "peace and love" isn't extended to Trad Catholics who are trying to live the Faith.

Yes, I agree. Pope Francis has been doing a lot of damage to Catholic Tradition and the image of the Church. But these things are obvious. It is obvious that the world is awash in sin. It is obvious that the governments are about to collapse and that chaos is coming. It is obvious we are about to become persecuted and martyred and all sorts of horrible things.

I feel it is too easy for me to always talk about these obvious things.

Why have I discussed sedevacantism so much lately? Because it seems to me to be a hidden problem. A hidden and potential problem. If I am right about sedevacantism—if sedevacantism is truly wrong—then that means the implications I’ve been discussing over at my blog are correct, and that in a few generations, we will have a whole new schism, an entirely new wing of attack against the Church. This alarms me.

We already have Talmudic Judaism, Islam, Eastern Orthodoxy, 500-year old Protestantism, and New Wave Freemasonic Universalism. But if I am right, and if sedevacantism is wrong, then this can blow up into something potentially dreadful. We don’t need another wing of people attacking the Church, do we?

All my life, I have witnessed what happens when problems are allowed to linger and fester. I have seen problems graduate from an embryonic harmless stage into a catastrophic end result. It’s happened in politics, in our media, in our culture. If sedevacantism is wrong, then we will have a brand new parallel church that will challenge the actual Church, and it will be harder for actual laity to tell the difference between the two, and very very difficult to convert anyone into the Catholic Faith.

If I am right, and sedevacantism is wrong, then the Devil has been using the art of division this entire time to muddle up the Church and create new and complicated problems.

If all of this is true, then shouldn’t we do something? Shouldn’t we be vocal and unapologetic about how wrong this is? Shouldn’t we nail this phenomenon early? Won’t it be bad if we just let a schism linger and sit for a long time, slowly drawing in converts, until ten or twenty years down the line, we have a real problem? Do we have to wait a few decades, and then when we see that there is a parallel church, we all sit there and scratch our heads, saying: “Gosh? How did it get to be this way?”

Doesn’t anyone besides me who thinks sedevacantism is the wrong path want to do the right thing and try to head this off at the pass? Doesn’t anyone want to say in the future: “I was there in the beginning—years ago—trying to fight this”?

Larry, you told me:

you're complaining about the people who are reacting to a blazing fire instead of those who not only started the blaze, but are pouring kerosene and gasoline on it.

But I would argue that I am complaining about people who are reacting to the fire by mistakenly pouring kerosene and gas on it.

Yes, this pope is muddling things up. But, in my opinion, the sedevacantist movement is doing even more to muddle things up.

Larry, you also said:

It's just troubling to me that you seem more bothered by someone who is Catholic in every way but(for fairly obvious reasons) believes something is terribly wrong at the top than you are by those who are making people come to these conclusions in the first place.

It seems to me that the first Protestants were also seeming Catholic in every way. Again, liberal modernism is an obvious opponent to good Catholics everywhere. But we all know this. I feel that something hidden and devious is embedding itself among laity with sedevacantism. I don't want something to slip past me like this. I do not want to see a sudden parallel church in a few decades with Catholics asking themselves, "Where did this come from?"

Further division is the last thing the Catholic Church needs in these times of trouble.

- - - -

A few other points have been brought to my attention that I need to try to clear up.

You Take Pot Shots at Sedevacantists

No I do not.

I do not call Joe “deluded,” or Willie a “mistaken fool.” I don’t tell Brandon “you are going to Hell.” I do not tell Devin, “Hey! Devin! You have whored yourself off to a fake church, and you are a heretic!”

Instead, I have tried to stick with discussing sedevacantism as an idea. And when I say something against sedevacantists or those who sympathize with sedes, I am addressing everyone collectively, but not individually. I have been doing my best not to malign any individual person.

However, as I’ve stated before, I’ve gotten a lot of nasty quips and jabs coming my way, and I have occasionally responded to those particular individuals.

I find it hypocritical that I'm always being accused of taking pot shots at sedes, when threads of discussion like this tend to pop up, and no one besides me objects.

I wish to put those bad interactions behind us and make up with these people. But I think I was mistaken to think that will happen. I think I've made permanent enemies of some folks because of where I stand.

I have been expressing my opinion about sedevacantism and trying to help explore the implications of sedevacantism through the assumption that it is wrong.

I have not been expressing my opinion about particular sedevacantists.

You Constantly Ridicule Sedes and Their Position

Again, I have not been attacking individuals.

But if I see sedevacantism as incorrect and wrong, am I not to disparage it? Do we not disparage something we see as wrong? Do we not come down against modernism? Homosexuality? Radical Feminism? We do. We come down on these ideas because we believe them to be wrong.

So therefore, if I have the opinion that sedevacantism is wrong, I am not supposed to come down on it?

Am I supposed to just keep quiet and let what I believe is wrong just pass on by in front of me?

Also, I do not constantly do this. I do my best to refrain from talking about sedevacantism on the forums, actually. But it just seems to crop up a lot lately, and I have opinions on it when it comes up in a current incident—such as the latest Michael Voris video. And, in fact, Bishop Williamson has even been talking a lot about sedevacantism.

And what about the sedes? Sedes continue to ridicule regular Catholics constantly. They are always calling the “conciliar Church” names and talking filth against the pope's legitimacy. Do I have a right to complain about how they constantly ridicule my pope—the man I consider to be the Vicar of Christ?

Am I supposed to just smile at them, wave, and say “Oh, I understand you!”

I am told to recognize them as my fellow Catholics. But if they are wrong, are they truly my fellow Catholics? Or—if I am right and sedevacantism is wrong—aren’t they now in a state of schism?

Laramie, Your Posts Lack Substance

Okay. There are plentiful examples of light posts on these forums. From smiley faces to posts consisting of one sentence.

Am I held to a different standard?

Here are some examples:

Trentcath has been reading Luke 16 and is getting his contingency plans together. -greg 

or another:

Hirschavacantism: the belief that sedevacantism is in any intellectually honest way comparable to feminism.  -tmw89

Is there any substance in this sour bit of sarcasm:

John XXIII and John Paul II are in Heaven, so shut up.

These are just examples of light back and forth between members. Yet, I am the one being held to account for having no substance in my posts.

All I simply have to say about this subject is that there is a double standard here if I am being scorned for having no substance in my posts.

Laramie, You Should Remember These Rules

Rule #5 at Suscipe Domine was brought to my attention lately in regards to how I’ve talked about sedevacantism:

5) "Trad-bashing" is not permitted. While raising concerns or making comments about various currents in the Traditional Catholic community is allowed, unfair accusations about individuals or groups who are sincerely trying to practice the Faith is forbidden. Likewise, insinuating that certain trads or groups of trads are not really Catholic will not be tolerated.

In regards to sedevacantism, I thought that I was raising a concern about a current in the Traditional Catholic community.

I thought I was making valid comments about this current in the Traditional Catholic community.

I thought that opening the possibility that sedevacantism was wrong and possibly schismatic was a fair accusation to consider.

I have not initiated any attacks on individuals or groups who are trying to practice the faith. I have responded to rude people, though.

As for insinuating that certain trads or groups of trads are not really Catholic…well, you got me there. Because if sedevacantism is wrong, and Pope Francis is truly our pope who was validly elected at Conclave in 2013, then that means there’s a lot of people here who’ve been mistaken.

And, I suppose, if anyone here believes that sedevacantism is the wrong path and that it leads away from the Church, then they are going against this final clause in Rule #5.

And, I further suppose that if believing sedevacantism is the wrong path and less Catholic than Catholic—then that means that Suscipe Domine does not tolerate people who maintain fealty to the pope and consider sedevacantism to be wrong. This clause would mean that there is a certain type of opinion not welcome here. This clause would also mean that sedevacantism is welcome at Suscipe Domine, but skepticism of sedevacantism is not welcome. And ultimately, that would make Suscipe Domine a pro-sedevacantist forum.

As I reflect on this final clause of Rule #5, I am left speechless. It occurs to me that—because I believe that the sedevacantist position is wrong—I can be banned from Suscipe Domine at any time. This, in spite of the fact that I am a practicing Catholic who attends the Latin rite and feels oppressed by the current pontiff. It sort of boggles my mind in a way.

So, moderators, if you need an excuse, I've laid it out for you, I guess.

- - - -

Well, anyway. I've done my best to lay out why I've been the way I've been lately. I've tried to explain where I’ve been coming from as honestly as possible. I think there's been some misunderstanding, but I hope that this somehow clarifies things. I don’t know how this post will be received. But I can only do what I can do.

(This post was originally composed as a response to Larry.)

Friday, February 21, 2014

Sedevacantism 8: The Disappearance of Christian Charity

So, I was banned for a day from Suscipe Domine today, and predictably so.

I have been known to bring up uncharitable behavior from sedes before—and, of course, been labelled as thin-skinned for doing so.

In any event, during a thread where we were discussing the latest Vortex video attacking pope-deniers, our endearing and most Christian friend Larry decided to chime in with a clever little jab (In reply #17).

An exchange ensued, one of many that happens on these forums.  But somehow, this one seemed to get moderator attention.


Ultimately, and much to the delight of all sedevacantists who hate Laramie Hirsch and those who speak up for the authority of the pope, I was banned for a day.

"Hooray! We got LH banned today!"
Kaesekopf then told me to not "mock administrator warnings" and to "post constructively," though I hardly see how Larry's initial jab at me (in Reply #17) was constructive at all. In fact, the forum is filled with tons of nonconstructive chatter that seems to be tolerated.

I suppose I'm held to a higher standard.

Shortly after that, the poster named Recovering NOer (who secretly loves me, I believe) was allowed to mock your beloved Hirsch Files, making quips about my "typical histrionic evasion" on this blog.*

And yet, not a word from Kaesekopf when Recovering NOer (RN) is "kicking me while I'm down," so to speak. I suppose Kaesekopf finds RN's contribution to be constructive.

- - - - -

So, that happened today, and it gives me an opportunity to refocus some attention on this blog post that I've had sitting around for a while.

But before I continue, I wish to reiterate something I've said on Suscipe Domine before:

I get along with people here (on Suscipe Domine). Of course, I have strong feelings about sedevacantism [...] I am hopeful that those who disagree with me can simply tell me: "I disagree with you." Rather than saying something horrible, nasty, and un-Catholic.

I truly meant and mean that. I do my best to keep my disagreement with sedevacantism focused on the idea of sedevacantism, and not individuals. I try not to malign neither any particular sedevacantists, nor any particular sedevacantist-sympathizers.

But it seems that sedevacantists in these circles are unable to maintain the same standard.

I have been accused of being "woefully ignorant, offering ridiculous themes." My critical opinion of sedevacantism has been called Hirschavacantism. My writing has been called liberal ignorance and emotion, and I've been told that I make asinine comparisons, that I make uneducated remarks, that I whine like a girl, that I write drivel, and that I am thin-skinned. I am accused of being happy to continue calumniating good Catholics. One of my devotees, Roland Deschain, tells me that I write emotionally-charged pablum, that I am a coward who throws a sucker punch, and then runs when taken to task, and he says that it doesn't take a sedevacantist to see the feminine qualities of my sissy hit-and-run sucker punches. He tells me that I emote, slander and label.

And yet…taking a look at all of this, can a person not sincerely question who truly is emoting, slandering, and labeling?

I keep my thoughts on sedevacantism focused on the idea of sedevacantism. These "good Catholics" seem rather focused on me.

Charles Coulombe, one of the most cheerful Catholics I know of, laments the lack of charity on the internet:

Perhaps it's because I'm 53. Perhaps it's because I am recovering from a major bereavement. Perhaps it's because I see no political solutions for the problems facing America and the West. Perhaps it's because I weary of endless wrangling on the internet - on the ad hominems against and defriendings of folk whose major sin is to disagree with one. But more and ever more, the altar rail, the confessional, and the rosary and other devotions seem like the only realities in my day. The jumping up and down over questions of politics, science, and so on that seem to engross my friends to the point of incivility leave me cold, regardless of whether or not I agree on a given point. To silence rather than to answer one's opponents seems the order of the day. This would not be so bad, perhaps, save for the temptation to place my own opinion on par with revealed dogma, and to simply dismiss those who might disagree with me.

"To silence rather than to answer one's opponents seems the order of the day." Indeed. What else could be behind my online opponents who want to ban me from forums?

When I first read Coulombe's words, Fr. Cekada came immediately to mind. That night, I stumbled across one of Cekada's recent articles, titled: Papa Gaga's "Pastoral" Code. It was an entertaining read, but right off the bat, in the title we see Cekada referring to the pope in an insulting fashion—assigning him the name of a very immoral apostate Catholic, the musician Lady Gaga.

Later on that night, after reading Coulombe and Cekada's article, I came across this forum post about Michael Voris (who, at the time, had not even spoken out against pope-deniers):

Now instead of exposing lies, Voris is a whore to a paycheck. he will put himself in check to keep the Libby NOMer money pouring in so he keep going on speaking cruises and travel all over Europe. He will pick and choose who he attacks- but his days of exposing error are over when it comes to Pope Francis, Heretic. He just won't risk the gravy boat.

What hate. What contempt. "By their fruits, you shall know them." Indeed. Want to know why the SSPX and different sedevacantist groups will continue to fracture in the future? Just observe their immaturity.

The sedes and those who sympathize with them that I have been encountering have been proving themselves to truly be the ones emoting, slandering, and labeling. They have been proving to be the nasty ones, here. It is their camp who has the snide remarks and uncharitable quips. And just as they lack the ability to stay loyal to the Church and weather this storm, they also lack the ability to maintain self control and refrain from personal attacks.

As far as I can tell, I am the only one in these circles who is so vocally supporting the authority of the pope against this growing tide of people falling into schism. Even though this pope has been a disaster for our Church's image, I still respect the office and his authority to affirm infallible truths. Even though this pope appears to be spouting informal heretical statements, courting Cuban-styled Marxists, and winking and nodding to liberal godless media—in spite of my disdain for his conduct, I still respect his office.

So excuse me if I jab back at Larry. Excuse me if I hit back from time to time.

*As for Roland Deschain's request for me to address his statement from December, I actually started on a response. It was even going to be a new post to this blog--an honorary post with his name in it, no less:

Should I continue writing on this? Nah.
However, when I review the nasty words Deschain has to share for yours truly, or perhaps even his rude online manner, I just tend to forget about ever responding to him at all, since such a response would only be met with further derision and dismissal.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Michael Voris Mentions "Lunatic" Pope Deniers

Michael Voris at the Vortex decided to throw The Hirsch Files a bone and speak out indirectly against the likes of the sedevacantist movement and others.

In this latest fantastic episode of The Vortex, Michael Voris begins blaming "the dearth of leadership in the Church" for the creation of two extremes: the obvious liberal column of revolutionaries that are trying to destroy Church traditions, and then the not-so-obvious conservative column of reactionaries who do not even think the current Catholic Church is real.

Voris sympathetically gives credit to these reactionaries—who typically cry out "heretic!" quite often in their postings—explaining that after the Second Vatican Council, that understandably "many faithful, simple Catholics could not deal with this psychologically and emotionally."  He further continues and says that these people took refuge in apparitions in private revelations, looking for "psychological comfort."

Voris goes on to say that "they were told by the Queen of Heaven, allegedly, that the explanation was that the pope or popes were heretics or imposters, that the real pope had been kidnapped, or other sorts of stories."  I've heard this sort of thing quite often in the last five years on the Internet.

These people, Voris states, claim that "what looks like the authentic Church is actually false," and that "because of the crisis of the Church, they and their allies are now the true repositories of the Church."  Yet, what these people have actually done is to "establish their own parallel church."

Voris concludes this part of the video by stating that a whole cottage industry has grown up in the Church, and then he polishes it off with this:

"Call this branch of the current crisis, 'the lunatics.'"

Thank you, very much, Michael Voris.  It's about time you at least acknowledge that these sorts of people exist.  I am sure that the lot of them will only hate you even more for calling them out for what is clear and obvious to most people who attend Mass.

Voris is correct when he blames this sort of thing on weak and blind Church leadership that is in denial.  I highly doubt that the current Church leadership will get off of its duff to confront this rot from the inside of the Catholic Church.  I wish that they would.  I wish a cardinal would come out and confront these true schismatics point by point once and for all.

Over at Fisheaters, I pushed for Vox to create or transform one of the forum folders into a section where Catholics could take a critical look at sedevacantism.  It was my hope that people with more knowledge, resources, and time could broach the subject of sedevacantism and examine different arguments one thread at a time.  Instead, it seems that the remaining Fisheaters who did not leave that forum have not taken up that fight, and for the most part at this point, sedes now openly post their schismatic hatred for Church authority.

Some confrontation with sedevacantism occurs over at the lively forum known as Cathinfo.  That forum is well run, and there has always been good conversation there thanks to Matthew, the forum owner.  However, the place has been becoming a haven for sedes in recent years.  At Cathinfo, yours truly has taken a part in announcing his objections to sedevacantism.  And we can all thank TCat—who now calls himself soulguard—for forcing me to come to a conclusion about this odious path away from Church authority.

Over at the Suscipe Domine forum, sedevacantism promotion is allowed, and others there flirt with the idea and slowly become inculcated into this movement away from the Catholic Church.

Catholic Answers Forum never allows any discussion of sedevacantism at all, though they will happily host web shows that bash Traditional Catholics.  So much for them.

Ann Barnhardt has occasionally mentioned sedevacantism in her podcasts, and she has stated what a horrible path it is to take.  But there has not really been a full podcast devoted to the topic.

Occasionally, on Audiosancto, one might find an anonymous priest mentioning the wrong of sedevacantism in a sermon, but that is rather rare.

So, as is plain, discussion about such schismatic breaks from the Church has been minimal and mostly between laity.  So I say thank God that Voris is giving at least a little lip service to this crisis within the Church among the Traditionalists.  With any hope, he will perhaps devote another episode to the matter at some point in coming months.

Thursday, February 6, 2014

Sedevacantism 7: Those Who Panic

If one is on a stormy ship at sea, the most cowardly thing I can think of doing is jumping off of the ship into the ocean.  Declaring that the pope is not your pope is the most Lutheran thing I can think to do in this troubling period, and such fear is a strong mark of cowardice.  This type of anxiety should be condemned more heartily and zealously, for Satan himself uses these kinds of craven pessimists to gnaw at the Church on merely one of many fronts from within.  People who fall for schismatic ideas such as sedevacantism are, as John Zmirak says, "self-congratulating Pharisees who enjoyed being part of the 'saving remnant.'"

Heaven forbid Catholic Traditionalists remain loyal to the Church, come together, and combat modernism within the Church in a legitimate fashion, as Michael Matt of the Remnant recommends.

The Catholic thing to do is to simply retain your peace.  As a Catholic, do you not welcome the dwelling presence of the Holy Spirit into your life?  Maintain this peace with frequent use of the sacraments, and pray the Holy Rosary.

I found a great sermon by an anonymous FSSP priest.  He does a fantastic job of explaining how, in the midst of a seemingly questionable papacy, one should not lose their nerve and panic.

"We need to keep in mind it is a salvation issue.  In order to preserve our union with Christ, we have to preserve our union with our holy father, the pope, we have to preserve our union with the local bishop, we have to preserve our union with our priest.  The hierarchy is a divine origin.  And that union is not based on how we feel about it, we have to have that union on Christ's terms, not our terms.  It might be crazy up in the wheelhouse, but all we have to do is hang on."

As this fantastic priest says, people (such as sedes) who leap off of the Barque of Peter into the storm waters are later fished out...by their new master, the Devil.  And again, as this priest says, these despairing schizmatic people who take scandal and allow themselves to become scandalized are committing spiritual suicide.  

"We might abandon [Christ] by allowing ourselves to get too discouraged and falling into despair, by allowing ourselves to become scandalized,  by jumping overboard and drowing in this terrible storm in these waves of apostasy, of heresy, of schism, scandal, and sedevacantism.

"Stay calm.  Keep your inner peace.  Stay close to our Lady.  Don't let yourself be scandalized.  Remember the pope does not have the power to change anything essential to salvation.  He can make things pretty rough, but it won't be impossible.  Stay on board."

May God perpetuate and enlarge the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, and may wise and prudent priests such as this continue to grow in number and boldness in this time of chaos and noise.

We need prudent leaders in these very confusing times.

This image comes from the Masonic Times Blogspot newsletter