The most interesting historical question, therefore, is not whether Garrigou-Lagrange was worried about occultism—he plainly was—but whether the author can produce primary-source evidence connecting Saint-Yves, Roca, Martinism, or Freemasonry directly to the particular theologians he accuses. That is where the argument either becomes a genuine intellectual-history thesis or remains an inference from similarities.
... could these visions of the "New Church" of the "Divine Synarchie" infiltrate mainstream Catholicism and be proclaimed authentic "development of doctrine.Read more...
... The Jesuits and the Lodge
The question again comes back to how could these visions of the "New Church" of the "Divine Synarchie" infiltrate mainstream Catholicism and be proclaimed authentic "development of doctrine."
By the end of the nineteenth century the plight of the "proletarian," or working class, a by-product of the industrial revolution, had become a legitimate concern of the Catholic Church, as seen in the Social Encyclicals beginning with *Rerum Novarum *by Leo XIII in 1891. Following these directives, by 1910, in France, the workers movements had found a hero in the Abbé Lugan, an orthodox but socially-oriented priest, known for his saying, "You can't preach to an empty stomach." Abbé Lugan founded the *Mouvement des idées et faits *to back what he believed to be the Church's position on social justice. The Abbé Lugan however, also collaborated intimately with Paul Vulliaud, an ostensible Catholic but secret Rosicrucian and Kabbalist.(22**) Here *****in the realm of social justice ***lies the incipient birth of Catholic and Masonic collaboration.
As early as 1907, tentative interaction had been established between high degree "speculative" or "spiritual" (those who believe in the immortality of the soul) Masons of both the Grand Lodge, as well as Grand Orient, and Catholic intellectuals led by Père Berteloot, S.J., and Père Desbuquois, S.J., Director of Action Populaire de Reims. By 1926, as reported in a 1928 article of the Frankfurter Zeitung, regular meetings were being held in Aix-la-Chapelle dedicated to the rapprochement of the Catholic Church and Freemasonry, led by Fr. Gruber, S.J., and Fr. Mukerman, S.J.(23) The ostensible reason given for these exploratory meetings was to combat the rising influence of Communism and atheistic materialism. In the words of Brother Kurt Reichl, of the Austrian Grand Lodge: "Today, masonry conveys the desire to collaborate with the Church against the dangerous forces of the revolution which are now present in the radical parties, Anarchists, Nihilists, Bolsheviks."(24)
Brother Brenier, president of the Grand Orient, expressed an even more enthusiastic view: "For two centuries our most dangerous enemy was the Church; it appears now that she (the Church) recognizes that she was on the wrong road." Attended not only by representatives of European Masonry but also by Brother Ossian Lang of the Grand Lodge of New York, these meetings arranged by Jesuits Gruber and Muckerman were not private initiatives. As Brother Lantoine, Secretary of the Grand Lodge of France explained:
Do not believe that Fr. Gruber, in his correspondence and with his meetings with Freemasons at Aix-la-Chapelle, were a personal initiative. A Jesuit is never allowed such initiatives. He has behind him the heads of his order, and I hope to believe, an even more astounding authority. Actually, far from disavowing such a policy, the [Jesuit journals] "Civiltà Cattolica" in Rome and "Études" in Paris have definitely endorsed this initiative.(25)
That these bilateral talks between the Jesuits and Freemasonry were continuing into the 1980s was confirmed by Fr. John Hardon, SJ. (a personal friend and mentor to both Robert Hickson and myself).(26)
Although these misguided initiatives may well have been inspired by the Jesuit motto, "to go in their door and bring them out ours," the reverse seems to have occurred, as it also did in the Jesuit rapprochement with Marxist Liberation Theology in the 1970s and 1980s.
While the corrupting inroads of Freemasonry were certainly not confined to the Jesuits, I have followed this path for two reasons: First, it was precisely to the Jesuits at the Lyon theologate of *La Fourvière *that Père Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., directed his explosive 1946 article, *La Nouvelle théologie, où-va-telle? *["Where is the New Theology Leading Us?"]. In his reasoned attack on the so-called "New Theology," without explicitly mentioning Freemasonry, he brought to light the occult influences of some of the above-mentioned movements, especially in reference to the "Cosmic Christ," and the convergence of all religions in their writings:
Authors such as Téder and Papus, in their explication of Martinist doctrine, teach a mystical pantheism and a neo-gnosticsm by which everything comes out of God by emanation (there is in the fall a cosmic evil, a *sui generis *original sin), and all aspire to be re-integrated into the divinity, and all shall arrive there. This is in many recent occultists' works on the modern Christ, and fullness in terms of astral light, ideas not at all those of the Church and which are blasphemous inversions because they are always the pantheistic negation of the true supernatural, and often even the negation of the distinction of moral good and moral evil... which with the reintegration of all, without exception, will disappear.(27)
The second reason for following Jesuit-Masonic interaction is the tremendous negative influence that Jesuit theologians have exerted on both the "progressive” and "conservative" wings of the post-Conciliar Church. Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., widely read in anonymous typewritten tracts at La Fourvière, has been and continues to be the forerunner for the progressives (pantheists): "No Spirit (not even God within the limits of our experience) exists, nor could structurally exist without an associated multiple, any more than a centre without a circle or circumference. In a concrete sense there is not matter and spirit. All that exists is matter becoming spirit."(28**) **While the *sui generis *theology of Teilhard de Chardin is officially proscribed, it has had its promoters along with its detractors in high Vatican circles. He is certainly still revered within his order and is widely read in Masonic lodges.
Karl Rahner, S.J., one of the most liberal of the Conciliar theologians, is not far behind Teilhard. As quoted by Bernhard Lakebrink in his book, *Die Warheit in Bedrängnis *["Truth in Torment"], "God and the grace of Christ are in all things, as the secret essence of each reality.... He who accepts his own existence, and thereby his humanity, even though he doesn't know it, says yes to Christ."(29)
More disturbing is that two of the *La Fourvière *Jesuits went on to become Cardinals, as well as the leading lights of post-Vatican II "conservative" thought: Henri de Lubac, S.J., and Hans Urs von Balthasar, SJ.(30**) **While, to the best of my knowledge, neither of these authors directly cite Masonic sources as such, they both showed interest in the same esoteric foundations of D'Alveydres' *Divine Synarchie *and Roca's neo-gnostic Catholicism based on the Christ-humanity model.
ChapGPT:
The passage is making a much stronger historical claim than the evidence presented in it establishes. There are several different propositions here that need to be separated.
1. Garrigou-Lagrange really did attack la nouvelle théologie
This part is solid. In his 1946 La nouvelle théologie, où va-t-elle?, Garrigou-Lagrange argued that the nouvelle théologie risked returning to Modernism and objected particularly to treating historical development or contemporary relevance as a criterion for theological truth. The article was published in Angelicum 23 (1946), pp. 126–145.
And his criticism was not merely about "Masonic influence." He was making a specifically theological and epistemological argument concerning:
- the immutability of dogma,
- the nature of truth,
- the relation between philosophy and theology,
- the authority of St. Thomas,
- historical development,
- and the danger of relativizing dogmatic formulations.
Modern scholarship describes the nouvelle théologie as a movement principally involving figures such as de Lubac, Daniélou, Chenu, and Congar, with substantial internal diversity.
2. Garrigou-Lagrange did discuss occultism—but that does not establish a Masonic genealogy
The quoted passage about Téder, Papus, Martinism, pantheism, emanation, "cosmic evil," and reintegration into divinity is genuinely relevant to understanding Garrigou-Lagrange's polemical framework. His concern was that certain modern philosophical and religious currents could converge with Modernism in ways incompatible with Catholic doctrine.
But there is a crucial logical jump in the article you quoted:
occult/Martinist ideas resemble certain formulations found in modern theology
therefore
those theological formulations came from Freemasonry or occultism.
That conclusion requires independent documentary evidence.
Similarity of concepts—especially concepts such as evolution, cosmic unity, immanence, or universal reconciliation—is not by itself evidence of historical transmission.
3. The Jesuit–Masonic story is the part that most needs documentation
The author makes several very specific historical assertions:
- contacts beginning around 1907;
- Berteloot and Desbuquois allegedly involved;
- meetings at Aix-la-Chapelle beginning around 1926;
- Gruber and Muckerman allegedly organizing them;
- Civiltà Cattolica and Études allegedly approving the initiative;
- a statement attributed to Lantoine that a Jesuit could not have acted independently;
- continuation of the contacts into the 1980s.
Those claims cannot safely be accepted merely because the article gives numbered footnotes. The actual primary documents need to be examined—especially the 1928 Frankfurter Zeitung article, Lantoine's original statement, the relevant Jesuit journal articles, and the correspondence surrounding Gruber and Muckerman.
The quotation attributed to Lantoine is particularly important. Even if authentic, it would demonstrate that a Masonic official claimed the Jesuit initiative had institutional backing. That is not automatically equivalent to documentary proof that the Jesuit superiors or Rome authorized a program of theological infiltration.
That distinction is essential.
4. There is an even bigger problem with the argument about de Lubac and Balthasar
The author says that de Lubac and von Balthasar:
"showed interest in the same esoteric foundations of D'Alveydres' Divine Synarchie and Roca's neo-gnostic Catholicism"
This is an extremely serious allegation, and it requires direct citations from de Lubac and Balthasar, not merely similarities perceived by the author.
In particular, one would want to see:
- where de Lubac explicitly discusses Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre;
- where Balthasar explicitly discusses him;
- what texts they actually read;
- whether they endorse, criticize, or merely describe those ideas;
- whether their theological concepts can be historically traced to those sources.
Without that chain of evidence, the argument remains an intellectual-association argument rather than a demonstrated genealogy.
5. Teilhard is a different case
There really is a substantial documentary record concerning Teilhard's difficulties with ecclesiastical authorities. Garrigou-Lagrange mentioned Teilhard in his 1946 article, and subsequent archival research has examined the Holy Office's treatment of Teilhard between 1931 and 1950.
But again, this doesn't establish the proposed Masonic connection.
Teilhard's theology can be analyzed directly through his own writings: evolutionary cosmology, the Omega Point, the transformation of matter, cosmic Christology, and his understanding of humanity's movement toward greater unity.
There is no need to posit Freemasonry as the explanation unless documentary evidence establishes that transmission.
6. Rahner needs the same distinction
The quoted Rahner formulation concerning Christ and grace being present in all things certainly raises important questions about nature, grace, Christology, and the possibility of salvation outside explicit Christian faith.
But those questions belong to the history of twentieth-century Catholic theology and can be studied through Rahner's actual theological sources.
Moving from:
Rahner has a theology of universal divine presence
to:
Rahner therefore reflects the esoteric "Divine Synarchy"
is not historically demonstrated without evidence showing an actual intellectual connection.
7. The strongest version of the author's argument
I think the argument becomes considerably more defensible if reformulated like this:
Some Catholic theologians in the twentieth century developed theological ideas concerning evolution, cosmic unity, universal salvation, immanence, and the relationship between Christ and humanity that critics such as Garrigou-Lagrange regarded as dangerously similar to ideas found in Modernism and certain occult movements. There were also documented instances of Catholic–Masonic dialogue in particular contexts. The historical question is whether these similarities resulted from actual intellectual transmission, rather than merely parallel development.
That is a legitimate historical question.
The original passage goes substantially further: it proposes a causal pipeline
Freemasonry / Martinism → Catholic social movements → Jesuit contacts → nouvelle théologie → Vatican II/postconciliar theology.
That pipeline needs to be demonstrated link by link. Establishing one link doesn't establish the next.
And there is an important chronological issue: Garrigou-Lagrange's 1946 article itself shows that the conflict over nouvelle théologie was already being articulated in terms of Thomism, Modernism, historical development, and the nature of truth. Contemporary scholarship likewise treats the controversy as an intra-Catholic theological dispute, not simply as a Masonic penetration of Catholicism.
So I would distinguish three levels of claim:
| Claim | Historical status |
|---|---|
| Garrigou-Lagrange opposed nouvelle théologie | Well documented |
| Garrigou-Lagrange associated certain modern theological tendencies with occult/gnostic ideas | Documented |
| Catholics and some Masons explored forms of cooperation/dialogue | Potentially documentable, but individual episodes require primary-source checking |
| Jesuit–Masonic dialogue caused nouvelle théologie | Not established by the material quoted |
| de Lubac/Balthasar derived their theology from Saint-Yves/Roca | Requires substantial documentary proof |
| Vatican II theology represents an occult/Masonic infiltration | Much broader thesis requiring evidence far beyond these quotations |
The most interesting historical question, therefore, is not whether Garrigou-Lagrange was worried about occultism—he plainly was—but whether the author can produce primary-source evidence connecting Saint-Yves, Roca, Martinism, or Freemasonry directly to the particular theologians he accuses. That is where the argument either becomes a genuine intellectual-history thesis or remains an inference from similarities.
Comments