Masonic Order of St. Patrick

There is a plethora of appendant and invitational bodies that exist within the broader Masonic family; some are well known and well established, while others remain comparatively obscure, preserved primarily through the enthusiasm and fraternal spirit of dedicated Brethren. The Masonic Order of St. Patrick belongs to the latter category. It is a relatively modern Masonic body, niche in its organization and still evolving in its governance, yet deeply rooted in themes that resonate strongly within Masonic culture: chivalry, Christian symbolism, and the preservation of traditional fraternal fellowship.

Although the Order is distinct from the historic British chivalric order bearing a similar name, the Most Illustrious Order of St. Patrick, its symbolism and inspiration draw heavily upon the legacy of Irish knighthood, the Christian mission of Saint Patrick, and the long historical relationship between Ireland and Freemasonry. As with many invitational or side orders in Freemasonry, the Order exists primarily to celebrate fellowship among experienced Masons who have already advanced through several other Masonic bodies.

This article provides an overview of the Masonic Order of St. Patrick, including its historical inspirations, its modern development, membership requirements, and its connection to broader traditions of Irish Freemasonry.

Distinction from the Historic Order of St. Patrick

It is important at the outset to clarify that the Masonic Order of St. Patrick is not the same institution as the historic Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, a British order of chivalry established in the 18th century. While the Masonic body takes inspiration from that historical order, the two are entirely separate organizations.

The Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick was founded in 1783 by King George III at the request of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the 3rd Earl Temple (later the Marquess of Buckingham). The order was intended to serve as the Irish counterpart to the great British chivalric orders. Within the hierarchy of British knighthood, it stood as follows:

• Order of the Garter representing England 
• Order of the Thistle representing Scotland 
• Order of St Patrick representing Ireland

Among these three, the Order of St. Patrick was the youngest in both precedence and age.

The regular appointment of knights to the Order continued until 1922, when the majority of Ireland gained independence and became the Irish Free State. Although the order technically still exists, no new knight has been created since 1936, and the last surviving member, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, died in 1974.

The motto of the historic order is “Quis separabit?” meaning “Who will separate us?”, a phrase derived from Romans 8:35: “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” This explicitly Christian sentiment reflects the spiritual tone that also appears within the modern Masonic order bearing Saint Patrick’s name.

Freemasonry and the Founders of the Historic Order

An interesting historical intersection between Freemasonry and the original chivalric Order of St. Patrick lies in the fact that several of its founders were themselves prominent Freemasons. This reflects the deep integration of Freemasonry into 18th-century Irish political and aristocratic society.

Among the founding knights who were Freemasons were:

• Edward Augustus, Duke of York: initiated in Royal York Lodge of Friendship in Berlin in 1765 and later elected Past Grand Master of the Premier Grand Lodge of England in 1767. 
• William Robert FitzGerald, 2nd Duke of Leinster: served as Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Ireland beginning in 1770. 
• Thomas Nugent, 6th Earl of Westmeath: held the office of Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Ireland from 1763 to 1767. 
• Field Marshal Charles Moore, 1st Marquess of Drogheda: elected Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Ireland in 1758. 
• Richard Colley Wellesley, 1st Marquess Wellesley: served as Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Ireland in 1782.

These connections illustrate that Irish Freemasonry and Irish chivalric culture historically moved within the same social circles. The modern Masonic Order of St. Patrick reflects that same convergence of Masonic fraternity and Irish chivalric symbolism, albeit in a modern fraternal context rather than an aristocratic one.

The Modern Masonic Order of St. Patrick

The Masonic Order of St. Patrick is a comparatively recent development within the ecosystem of invitational Masonic bodies. Unlike long-established Masonic orders that possess centralized governance and clearly defined international structures, the Order of St. Patrick currently exists in a more decentralized form. Various councils or groups may operate with considerable autonomy, often conferring the Order through invitational gatherings of qualified Masons.

Due to this decentralized nature, there is no universally accepted sovereign governing body overseeing the Order at present. Nevertheless, the Order is typically treated with the same decorum and respect accorded to other Masonic bodies. Its ceremonies emphasize themes of Christian chivalry, Irish heritage, fraternal fellowship, and spiritual reflection, drawing inspiration from Saint Patrick and the monastic traditions associated with him.

Like many invitational degrees in Freemasonry, the Order spreads organically through personal connections among Brethren. A Mason who has received the Order may, under appropriate circumstances and permissions, confer it upon other qualified candidates. This method of transmission resembles the historical spread of several other Masonic orders whose early development occurred through fraternal networks rather than centralized authority.

Lorica Council and the Modern Revival of the Order

One of the most notable modern expressions of the Order is the Lorica Council Time Immemorial, formed in 2017. This Council traces its origins to the Masonic Week of 2017, when a group of Masonic Brethren from various parts of the United States gathered and conferred the Order in a private ceremony. Among those present were Brethren from the northeastern region of Indiana. Following this event, several participants began conferring the Order within their respective jurisdictions, with appropriate permissions depending on the Masonic body under which the Order was being organized.

The Indiana Brethren subsequently agreed that a permanent council should be established to preserve the Order and provide a structure through which it could be conferred upon worthy candidates. Thus, on March 17, 2017, Lorica Council T.I. (Time Immemorial) was formally established.

The ritual used by this council includes several modifications intended to deepen its historical symbolism and spiritual emphasis. Certain portions of the ceremony were revised to highlight themes drawn from Irish Christian tradition, particularly the concept of the lorica.

In the Hiberno-Scottish monastic tradition, a lorica is a prayer of protection, invoking the power of God as a shield against evil. One of the most famous examples is “Saint Patrick’s Breastplate” (Lorica Sancti Patricii), an early Irish prayer attributed to Saint Patrick himself. This prayer invokes divine protection through the Trinity and through the presence of Christ in every aspect of life.

The symbolism of the lorica aligns naturally with Masonic ideals of spiritual armor, moral discipline, and the protection of virtue, making it a fitting theme for an order dedicated to Saint Patrick.

Membership Requirements

Admission into the Masonic Order of St. Patrick is typically by invitation. A candidate does not apply directly; rather, he is invited after unanimous election by the members of a council or assembly of the Order.

To be eligible, a candidate must meet several requirements that reflect the Order's chivalric and York Rite orientation. A prospective Knight must be:

1. A subscribing Master Mason in a regular and recognized Craft Lodge. 
2. A subscribing Royal Arch Mason in a recognized Royal Arch Chapter (or its equivalent in other jurisdictions). 
3. A member of at least one recognized Masonic chivalric or knightly order, such as: 

Knight Masons (sometimes called the Red Cross of Babylon in certain jurisdictions) 

Red Branch of Eri, under the Allied Masonic Degrees or SRIA constitutions.

To remain in good standing within the Order, a Knight must maintain active membership in these prerequisite Masonic bodies. These requirements ensure that membership in the Order of St. Patrick is composed primarily of experienced Masons who have already demonstrated dedication to the Craft and to the York Rite tradition.

My own introduction to the Masonic Order of St. Patrick occurred quite unexpectedly during a recent visit to Alaska. While attending events connected with the Grand York Rite of Alaska, it happened that a Senior Knight Commander of the Order of St. Patrick was present, accompanied by several members of the Order.

With a sufficient number of Knights present, they were able to formally open a Lodge of the Order and confer the ceremony. During that gathering, several of us were invited to receive the Order.

Such moments illustrate one of the enduring qualities of Freemasonry. Many Masonic bodies exist not because of rigid bureaucratic structures, but because dedicated Brethren carry their traditions wherever they travel. A group of Masons meeting in fellowship may suddenly find themselves able to confer a degree and extend the bonds of fraternity to new members.

Receiving the Order in that setting was both meaningful and symbolic. It reminded me that the living tradition of Freemasonry continues to unfold through the shared enthusiasm of Brethren who are committed to preserving the history, symbolism, and fellowship of the Craft.

Being St. Patrick’s Day, when Irish heritage is celebrated across the world, it is especially appropriate to remember that the traditions of Irish knighthood and Irish Freemasonry continue to live on, not only in historical records, but also in the living fellowship of Masons who gather together in brotherhood.

Erin go Bragh!

Anti-Mason Disinformation: Child Bride Ceremony

In recent years, anti-Masonic activists have circulated images and/or a video clip taken from a Lowton Adoption ceremony in Brazil, falsely alleging that Freemasonry conducts a “child bride” ritual involving sexual exploitation. These claims are completely false. They rely on deliberate misrepresentation and the intentional sexualization of a non-sexual ceremonial tradition that has existed in various forms for centuries.

The most commonly circulated images originate from a documented public event held by the Aurora da Serra Masonic Lodge in Júlio de Castilhos, Brazil, on June 26, 2012. On that evening, the Lodge convened a Grand Session for the Adoption of Lowtons, attended openly by members of the community, including Masons, their families, and local youth. During the ceremony, the Worshipful Master and the Orator explained to those present the meaning, symbolism, and obligations of the ritual.

Nothing about this event was secret, sexualized, or clandestine. The ceremony was public, documented, and explicitly educational in nature. Claims that it depicts a “child bride ritual” are not only false but require the viewer to impose a sexual interpretation where none exists.

Within Freemasonry, a Lowton refers to the child of a Freemason, typically between the ages of seven and fourteen, who is symbolically adopted by a Masonic Lodge. In some countries, daughters as well as sons may be adopted. The adoption ceremony represents a formal commitment by the Lodge to act as a moral tutor, social guide, and source of assistance should the child’s parent be unable to provide for them due to death, illness, or hardship. It is, in effect, a collective pledge of responsibility by adult members toward the welfare of a child. There is no marriage, no sexual symbolism, no initiation into Freemasonry, and no religious sacrament involved.

The word 'Lowton' is not found in common secular dictionaries, but appears historically in Masonic usage across several languages. In English jurisdictions, the term Lewis is more common; in France, Luveton is used. Etymologically, the term is often associated with the meaning “young wolf.”

In ancient symbolism, the wolf represented courage, vigilance, and fearlessness, as well as the defense of what is entrusted to it. In some of the ancient mysteries, the son of an initiate was symbolically designated a “young wolf.” This symbolism later influenced other youth traditions, including Scouting, where Baden-Powell famously adopted the wolf imagery for Cub Scouts. Some sources also note that Lowton may refer to a stone-working tool, reinforcing its symbolic association with moral formation and preparation rather than sexualized meaning.

One of the most exploited visual elements in anti-Masonic propaganda is the presence of a veil worn by the child during the ceremony. Anti-Masons routinely attempt to sexualize this imagery by associating veils exclusively with marriage. This interpretation is historically indefensible. For centuries, children of both sexes wore veils during solemn occasions such as adoptions, funerals, religious observances, and periods of mourning. A well-documented example appears in Ron Chernow’s 'Alexander Hamilton', which recounts that in 1768 in St. Croix, black veils were purchased for two orphaned boys to wear at their mother’s funeral. The veil signified solemnity and vulnerability, not marriage or sexuality. The Brazilian Lodges that continue to use veils in Lowton ceremonies are preserving this older cultural tradition, not inventing a new or sinister practice. To project modern marital or sexual meanings onto historical ceremonial attire is an act of anachronism, not scholarship.

No symbol carries a single universal meaning across all cultures and eras. This misuse of symbolism parallels other common anti-Masonic distortions. For example, the inverted pentagram, long used in Christian iconography as a symbol of Christ’s descent into the world, was later appropriated by modern Satanist movements in the 20th century. That later usage does not retroactively redefine centuries of prior symbolism. The same error is committed when critics sexualize the Lowton ceremony by imposing contemporary anxieties onto historical forms.

During the Lowton Adoption ceremony, the child is dressed in white, symbolizing innocence and moral purity. The Temple itself is decorated with white ornamentation, bees, flowers, and garlands (traditional symbols of childhood, industry, and growth). Symbolic elements such as water, salt, honey, wine, and fire are used to convey virtues: purity of action, sound judgment, kindness of speech, vitality, wisdom, and moral refinement. Following the ceremony, the Lowton receives a certificate of adoption and sometimes a small medal bearing Masonic emblems. The Lodge formally assumes a duty of care and mentorship. There is no oath of secrecy imposed on the child, no sexualized language, and no physical contact beyond what is customary in public ceremonial settings.

Lowtons are entitled to Masonic assistance and protection, and many Lodges historically organized Lowton Workshops (educational gatherings)to cultivate character, civic responsibility, patriotism, and moral discipline. These workshops often included visits to civic institutions, ecological parks, and public services, emphasizing citizenship and ethical responsibility.

Historical accounts from Brazil and elsewhere illustrate that these programs were formative, humane, and deeply paternal in nature. In many jurisdictions, the decline of Lowton programs was lamented precisely because they represented a uniquely Masonic approach to youth mentorship, later supplemented (though not replaced) by organizations such as DeMolay.

The allegation that the Lowton Adoption ceremony is a “child bride ritual” requires ignoring all documented explanations, historical context, ritual texts, and lived practice. It depends on selectively isolating images, stripping them of explanation and context, and imposing a sexual narrative where none exists.

This tactic is not accidental. Sexual panic has long been a tool of moral conspiracy theories. By sexualizing children in imagery where no sexuality exists, anti-Masonic propagandists aim to provoke outrage rather than understanding. The result is not criticism, but defamation. It is a deliberate distortion to manufacture a scandal.

Anti-Mason Disinformation: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Few documents have caused as much enduring harm while resting on such fragile foundations as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Presented as secret minutes of a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world, the Protocols have fueled antisemitism, political extremism, and conspiracy thinking for more than a century. Despite being thoroughly exposed as a forgery by journalists, courts, and historians, the text continues to circulate - often repackaged to target new enemies, including Freemasonry.

Understanding the Protocols is therefore not merely an exercise in historical correction, but a case study in how conspiracy theories are manufactured, spread, and preserved even after they have been conclusively disproven. This article examines the origins of the Protocols, their connection to anti-Masonic conspiracy theories, and the substantial evidence that demonstrates they are a deliberate political fabrication.

Origins and History

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion emerged in the final years of Imperial Russia, most likely between 1897 and 1903. The document is widely attributed to individuals connected to the Tsarist secret police, the Okhrana, whose role included surveillance, propaganda, and political manipulation. The most frequently named figure is Matvei Golovinski, a Russian journalist and Okhrana agent operating in Paris; however, historians agree that he was part of a small network rather than the lone author.

The purpose of the Protocols was political. Late Tsarist Russia was wracked by social unrest, revolutionary movements, and pressure for liberal reforms. Antisemitism provided a convenient scapegoat. By portraying Jews as a unified, secretive force undermining Christian civilization, the document sought to redirect popular anger away from the autocracy and toward an imagined internal enemy.

The Protocols gained wider circulation after 1905 when they were promoted by Sergei Nilus, a mystic who claimed they were authentic records of a Jewish cabal. Nilus offered no original manuscripts, no verifiable chain of custody, and no consistent explanation for how such secret meetings supposedly occurred. Nonetheless, the text spread rapidly, especially among reactionary and nationalist circles.

Plagiarism

At the heart of the Protocols lies a critical fact: they are not an original document. Large portions are plagiarized, nearly word for word, from Maurice Joly’s 1864 political satire, 'Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu.' Joly’s work was written as a critique of Napoleon III’s authoritarianism and had nothing whatsoever to do with Jews.

In the Protocols, references to Napoleon III are crudely replaced with references to “the Jews,” while the structure, arguments, and even errors of Joly’s text are retained. This plagiarism is so extensive and precise that accidental similarity is impossible. The Protocols are, in essence, a recycled political polemic repurposed to serve antisemitic propaganda.

The Protocols, Freemasonry, and Conspiracy Thinking

The Protocols did not exist in a vacuum. They emerged within a broader ecosystem of 19th-century conspiracy literature that already targeted secret societies, especially Freemasonry. Long before the Protocols, Masons were accused of manipulating governments, undermining religion, and orchestrating revolutions. These accusations intensified after the French Revolution and were often promoted by reactionary and clerical writers.

The Protocols absorbed and repurposed these existing anti-Masonic tropes. In many versions and interpretations, Jews and Freemasons are portrayed as interchangeable or allied forces, both allegedly operating behind the scenes to control finance, politics, and culture. In some cases, the language of the Protocols is simply reassigned: where the original text speaks of “the Jews,” later conspiracy theorists substitute “Freemasons,” “globalists,” or “elites.”

This adaptability explains the document’s persistence. The Protocols function less as a historical claim and more as a template...a flexible narrative framework that can be redirected against whichever group a particular movement wishes to demonize. In this sense, anti-Masonic conspiracy theories are not separate from the Protocols, but part of the same myth-making tradition.

Early Skepticism and the Debunking

Contrary to popular belief, the Protocols were not universally accepted when they first appeared. Russian journalists, scholars, and political observers quickly noted their internal inconsistencies, stylistic oddities, and lack of credible sourcing. It is important to note that many of these early critics were not Jewish and some were openly antisemitic themselves, yet still rejected the document as implausible.

After the Russian Revolution in 1917, investigations of Tsarist archives by both anti-communist émigrés (Russians who left in the wake of the Bolshevik revolution) and Bolshevik officials failed to uncover any evidence of an authentic Jewish source. Instead, the evidence increasingly pointed toward state-sponsored forgery. That investigators from opposing ideological camps reached the same conclusion underscores the weakness of claims to authenticity.

The most decisive exposure of the Protocols occurred in 1921, when The Times of London published a series of investigative articles by journalist Philip Graves. Graves conducted a meticulous side-by-side comparison of the Protocols and Joly’s Dialogue in Hell, demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the former was plagiarized from the latter.

Graves was not Jewish and had no affiliation with Jewish organizations. He worked for one of Britain’s most established and conservative newspapers. His case rested entirely on textual evidence (evidence that anyone could verify by consulting the original works). This was not a rhetorical rebuttal, but a forensic one, and it effectively dismantled the Protocols as a historical document.

Legal Confirmation

Further confirmation came during the Bern Trial in Switzerland between 1933 and 1935. Jewish organizations brought legal action against groups distributing the Protocols, and the court heard extensive testimony from historians, linguists, and textual scholars. The court ruled that the Protocols were a forged and plagiarized document and constituted defamatory propaganda.

Although the verdict was later overturned on a procedural technicality, the court’s factual findings were never disputed. Crucially, the evidentiary case rested on expert analysis, not on appeals to Jewish authority or identity.

Consensus and Continued Misuse

By the mid-20th century, the conclusion that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were a forgery had become universal among serious historians. No credible academic institution or historian regards the document as authentic. Its continued circulation is therefore not a matter of unresolved debate, but of ideological utility.

The Protocols persist because conspiracy theories often operate independently of evidence. Once accepted as truth, contradictory facts are dismissed as further proof of the conspiracy. This dynamic explains why the text continues to be invoked in attacks on Jews, Freemasons, and other perceived “hidden powers,” despite more than a century of refutation. Their connection to Freemasonry lies not in reality, but in the shared logic of conspiracy thinking that seeks hidden enemies to explain social change.

Understanding the Protocols is essential not because the document is credible, but because it demonstrates how falsehoods can acquire power when fear, prejudice, and political opportunism converge. The lesson is not merely historical. It remains urgently relevant wherever conspiracy replaces evidence and myth is mistaken for truth.

Masonic Week 2026

This weekend brings to a close another Masonic Week, an annual gathering that stands as both a working convocation and a celebration of Masonic fellowship.

I arrived on Wednesday morning after a red-eye flight, tired but eager, and immediately began reconnecting with Brothers from across the world. The day was spent catching up, renewing friendships, and easing back into the familiar rhythm of Masonic Week. That evening concluded with dinner alongside several Brothers from Missouri - delicious food, good company, and great conversations.

Thursday began in earnest with my service as Grand Registrar for the Grand Masters Council of the Commemorative Order of St. Thomas of Acon USA. In that role, I assisted with formal introductions and took a small part in the investiture of the Knights Caritas, as well as the installation of the new Grand Prior. The dignity and continuity of the Order were on full display, and the Festive Board that followed offered a welcome moment of fellowship and reflection.

Later that day, I attended the annual meeting of the Grand Chapter of the Sovereign Order of Knights Preceptor; I serve as Eminent Preceptor for the Idaho Chapter. The remainder of Thursday unfolded as Masonic Week often does at its best: shared meals, thoughtful discussion over a libation, laughter, and the exchange of ideas with my fellow Brothers.

Friday and Saturday marked significant milestones in my life. Friday afternoon, I attended the 92nd Annual Ingathering of the Grand College of America, Holy Royal Arch Knights Templar Priests, where I, along with the other installed Very Eminent Preceptors, was elected to the rank of Knight Commander. Saturday afternoon, I attended the 134th Annual Communication of the Grand Council of the Allied Masonic Degrees of the United States of America, during which I was installed as Grand Superintendent of the Pacific Northwest.

Masonic Week is always a highlight of the year for me. It offers me the opportunity to meet new Brothers, renew old friendships, and take part in the ongoing work of the Craft. I return home exhausted but grateful for the experiences.

Secrecy, Wisdom, and Discretion in the Bible

One of the most common accusations leveled against Freemasonry by its Christian critics is that its private or reserved nature is inherently unbiblical. John 18:20 is frequently invoked as a proof text: “I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.” From this verse, critics conclude that any form of secrecy or restricted knowledge must be incompatible with Christianity. This argument, however, rests on a serious misunderstanding of both the immediate context of Christ’s words and the broader biblical theology of knowledge, wisdom, and discretion. This article builds upon an earlier one (Secrecy: What’s the Big Deal?) in which I examined secrecy through sociological and anthropological lenses, addressing longstanding criticisms of Freemasonry’s private nature.

Scripture does not equate secrecy with deception, nor does it present openness as an absolute moral requirement in every domain of life. Rather, the Bible consistently treats the responsible withholding, ordering, and gradual transmission of knowledge as an expression of wisdom and stewardship. When examined in its full canonical context, John 18:20 does not condemn private instruction or reserved knowledge; instead, it affirms the public legitimacy of Christ’s teaching against the charge that He was fomenting sedition or teaching illicit doctrines in hidden corners.

Christ’s statement before the High Priest must be understood juridically and polemically. He is not offering a universal doctrine of disclosure, but defending Himself against an accusation of subversive teaching. His appeal is to the openness of His proclamation in synagogues and the Temple, places where His words could be publicly heard and examined. The passage addresses where and with what authority He taught, not whether all truth must always be disclosed to all people at all times.

Far from opposing discretion, the Old Testament explicitly affirms the selective handling of knowledge. Deuteronomy 29:29 establishes the principle at the outset: “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” Revelation and concealment are not opposites in Scripture; they are complementary aspects of divine wisdom. God Himself withholds certain knowledge while revealing what is fitting for human understanding.

The wisdom literature reinforces this theme repeatedly. “A prudent man concealeth knowledge: but the heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness” (Proverbs 12:23). “Wise men lay up knowledge: but the mouth of the foolish is near destruction” (Proverbs 10:14). “A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter” (Proverbs 11:13). In these texts, restraint is not a moral failure but a virtue. Discretion is presented as evidence of faithfulness, maturity, and sound judgment. Scripture does not praise the indiscriminate divulgence of all things; it warns against it.

Christ Himself consistently practiced selective instruction. In Matthew 7:6, He cautions against careless disclosure: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” This is not elitism; it is discernment. Holiness requires context, preparation, and receptivity. The same principle governs His use of parables. When asked why He spoke in this manner, Jesus explained that the parables were intentionally designed to veil understanding from some while revealing truth to others (Matthew 13:10-13). Later, He explained their meanings privately to His disciples (Matthew 13:36). He states the rationale explicitly: “Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given” (Matthew 13:11).

This pattern did not end with His crucifixion. After the Resurrection, Christ spent 40 days instructing His disciples concerning the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3), yet there is no indication that these teachings were publicly proclaimed in full. The apostolic Church inherited not only the content of Christ’s teaching, but also His pedagogical method: truth communicated according to readiness, capacity, and responsibility.

The apostolic writings confirm this framework. Paul repeatedly refers to divine truth as mystērion, not in the modern sense of something irrational or occult, but as something once hidden and later revealed according to God’s timing (Ephesians 3:3-6; Colossians 1:26). He distinguishes between levels of instruction, reminding the Corinthians: “I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able” (1 Corinthians 3:2). Knowledge, in this view, is not a weapon to be indiscriminately distributed but nourishment to be given responsibly.

Paul’s exhortation to Timothy reinforces the same ethic: “That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.” (2 Timothy 1:14). Truth is something entrusted, preserved, and transmitted with care. Guarding does not imply deception; it implies stewardship.

When viewed in this light, the blanket condemnation of secrecy as “unchristian” collapses. Scripture does not oppose secrecy as such; it opposes falsehood, manipulation, and the concealment of injustice. Discretion, ordered instruction, and the faithful keeping of entrusted knowledge are not only permitted in the biblical worldview…they are repeatedly commended.

Thus, appeals to John 18:20 as a criticism against Freemasonry’s private or reserved elements fail both exegetically and theologically. They isolate a single verse from its legal context, ignore Christ’s own instructional practice, and disregard the consistent biblical testimony that wisdom often involves knowing when to speak, what to reveal, and to whom. The Christian tradition has never understood truth as something cheapened by indiscriminate exposure, but as something ennobled by reverential handling.

A Decade in the Rose & Cross

On this date 10 years ago, I was initiated into the Societas Rosicruciana in Civitatibus Foederatis and joined Wyoming College. Even now, it is difficult to fully express what that step has meant to me, but I can say without hesitation that membership in this Society remains one of the greatest honors of my Masonic journey.

Alongside one of my closest friends, I traveled hundreds of miles (through severe snowstorms) to attend that first meeting, where I received the I° through IV°. From the beginning, I sensed that this was something rare: a Society devoted not only to scholarship and ritual, but to quiet service and genuine fraternity.

Over the past decade, I have tried to engage as fully as possible in the life and work of the SRICF. In October 2016, I assisted the Chief Adept of Wyoming in initiating several Fratres and establishing Montana College. In May 2017, I delivered a lecture before Wyoming College and was appointed Acolyte, an early encouragement that affirmed my commitment to the work and aims of the Society.

In January 2018, I was advanced to the VII° and later that year attended the inaugural Rocky Mountain SRICF Conference in Salt Lake City. That November, at my first High Council meeting, I joined with another Idaho Frater, who would later become the first Chief Adept of Idaho, in petitioning the then Supreme Magus for permission to form a College in Idaho.

That work came to fruition in 2019. After further initiations in Wyoming and preparation of regalia and paraphernalia, Idaho College officially received its charter in April. I was honored to serve as its founding Celebrant, a role I held until 2024. That summer, at the Rocky Mountain SRICF Conference in Denver, I witnessed a friend receive his IX° from Supreme Magus, Billy Koon. In November of that year, I was myself elevated to the VIII° and, unexpectedly, to the IX°, in recognition of my service in establishing Idaho College and assisting Montana College. I received that degree in the presence of the Supreme Magi of England, Scotland, Portugal, and the United States, during a High Council that also saw the election and enthronement of a new Most Worthy Supreme Magus.

Like so much else, Rosicrucian activity was curtailed in 2020. In 2021, I was grateful to return to active participation at the Southwest RCC and SRICF Conferences, and to witness several Fratres from Mexico receive the I° from Arizona College.

In February 2022, I was appointed Celebrant of the VIII° team. That year included the inaugural Southeast SRICF Conference in Birmingham, AL, and a High Council meeting at which I had the profound honor of presiding over the conferral of the Grade of Magister (VIII°). I was asked to continue in that role and was also appointed Guardian of the Cavern for the triennium. At that same High Council, I gave a presentation on the Roman cult of Mithras, a subject of longstanding interest to me.

In 2023, working with the Chief Adepts of Arizona, Utah, and Colorado, I helped coordinate the Rocky Mountain SRICF Conference in Las Vegas, where several Fratres from Nevada were initiated. That November, I presided over the VIII° for the second time and witnessed the installation of one of my closest friends as Chief Adept of Idaho.

The following year included the inaugural Midwest SRICF Conference in Dayton, OH, in August and my third opportunity to preside over the VIII° at High Council in November. I believe that conferral was our strongest yet.

Last year, I assisted in coordinating the 2025 Rocky Mountain SRICF Conference in Boise. We welcomed new Fratres, shared excellent educational work, and at High Council I again served as Guardian of the Cavern and presided over our largest VIII° class to date. With the election of new Senior and Junior Deputy Supreme Magi, I was also appointed First Ancient of the High Council.

Looking back on these years, I am struck less by offices held than by gratitude...the gratitude for the trust placed in me, for enduring friendships, and for the privilege of service. To preside over the conferral of the Grade of Magister, and to serve both Idaho College and the High Council, has been an honor I do not take lightly.

May the next decade be guided by the same Light that has illuminated the first.

Matthew 5 and Masonic Obligations

From time to time, critics of Freemasonry attempt to condemn the taking of Masonic obligations by appealing to Christ’s words in Matthew 5:34-37: “Do not swear an oath at all.” This passage is often quoted in isolation, treated as a universal and absolute prohibition against any form of oath, vow, or solemn obligation. Such readings are not only contextually unsound, but they stand in clear contradiction to the rest of Scripture and the historic understanding of the Christian Church.

Christ’s teaching in the Sermon on the Mount is not a series of disconnected prooftexts. It is a sustained moral discourse aimed at correcting abuses of the Law, not abolishing lawful moral practices rooted in truth, justice, and integrity.

In 1st century Judaism, a complex hierarchy of oaths had developed. People swore by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or their own heads (anything short of explicitly invoking the name of God) to preserve the appearance of piety while retaining plausible deniability. This casuistry (using clever but unsound reasoning; sophistry) allowed individuals to evade accountability by manipulating the form of their oath rather than honoring its substance.

Christ cut through this hypocrisy and deception. His rebuke is directed at dishonest speech and moral evasion, not at the concept of solemn promises themselves. His command, to let one’s “yes” be yes and “no” be no, is a call to radical truthfulness, not legalistic silence. His point is not a prohibition of all oaths in every circumstance, but the elimination of deceitful systems that undermine moral responsibility.

A blanket ban on all oaths immediately collapses under the weight of the rest of Scripture. The Mosaic Law explicitly affirms the moral seriousness of vows:

“If a man vows a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word.” (Numbers 30:2)

Here, the sin is not vow-making but vow-breaking. The Law condemns false or manipulative oaths, not sincere promises made in good faith.

Scripture further records God Himself swearing oaths (Genesis 22:16), commands lawful oath-taking under the Law (Deuteronomy 6:13), and shows St. Paul invoking God as witness to his truthfulness (2 Corinthians 1:23). If Matthew 5 were an absolute prohibition, Scripture would contradict itself and Christianity would fail to understand Christ, not as contradicting the moral law, but that He came to fulfill it.

The historic Christian consensus overwhelmingly rejects the idea that Christ abolished all oaths. Augustine of Hippo taught that Christ’s words were aimed at correcting dishonesty, not abolishing lawful oaths. In his writings on truth and lying, Augustine explicitly permits oaths when taken truthfully, justly, and for the sake of moral order or charity.

John Chrysostom likewise interpreted Matthew 5 as a rebuke of habitual swearing and moral evasion. He recognized that solemn oaths remained necessary in courts, covenants, and public life precisely because of human unreliability.

Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologiae, teaches that oaths are morally lawful when they meet three conditions: truth, judgment, and justice. Aquinas directly cites Numbers 30:2 to affirm that vows are binding and good when made rightly, and he interprets Matthew 5 as condemning careless or deceitful swearing, not solemn promises made in good faith.

Protestant Reformers like John Calvin rejected the idea that Christ forbade all oaths, arguing instead that Jesus dismantled reliance on verbal formulas used to mask dishonesty. Calvin affirmed judicial oaths, marriage vows, and civic obligations. Martin Luther defended lawful oaths taken in the service of truth, neighbor, and social order, including oaths of office and military service.

Modern New Testament scholarship continues this consensus: Christ is confronting casuistry or systems that preserve the appearance of righteousness while hollowing out integrity. His teaching calls believers to such deep truthfulness that oaths become unnecessary, not unlawful.

It is worth noting that those who condemn Masonic obligations on this basis rarely, if ever, condemn wedding vows, courtroom oaths, or soldiers taking lawful oaths of enlistment. This faux outrage reveals that the objection is not biblical but selective. If Matthew 5 truly prohibited all obligations “at all,” consistency would require the rejection of marriage covenants, civic office, and military service alike. Such absolutism has never been the position of historic Christianity.

Masonic obligations are moral commitments. They do not replace Scripture, supersede civil law, or demand immoral action. They are precisely the kind of solemn promises that presume honesty and accountability, not deceit.

If one’s word is truthful and one’s life upright, the form of the promise is secondary. Christ condemns deception, not honor; duplicity, not fidelity; hypocrisy, not moral accountability.

Reducing Matthew 5:34-37 to a blanket ban on all obligations ignores biblical context, contradicts Scripture, and stands outside the historic Christian tradition. Christ’s teaching condemns dishonest speech and manipulative oath-taking, and not solemn promises made in good faith. To claim otherwise is not a defense of biblical Christianity, but a distortion of it.

Looking Back on 2025

This past year proved to be an unusually full chapter in my Masonic journey. It unfolded much like life itself: marked by moments of honor and advancement, tempered by loss and reflection, and enriched by new experiences that challenged and renewed me. Within the Masonic family, the year brought historic milestones, unexpected responsibilities, and opportunities at every level.

At Masonic Week in February, I was appointed Grand Registrar for the Commemorative Order of St. Thomas of Acon USA. During that same gathering, I witnessed a truly historic moment: the inauguration and constitution of the Grand Court of the Masonic Order of Athelstan in the United States of America.

That momentum carried into my attendance at the Grand York Rite of Washington DC, in March, followed by the Easter Sunrise Service in the nation’s capital in April. Welcoming the dawn in that setting was a moment of quiet renewal, both spiritually and fraternally.

Soon after, I had the honor of presiding over the Grand Commandery of Idaho, and was elected to serve as Grand Secretary of the Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of Idaho, Grand Recorder of the Grand Council of Cryptic Masons of Idaho, and Grand Recorder of the Grand Commandery of Knights Templar of Idaho. I accepted them with a clear understanding of the trust they represent.

In May, the rhythm of the year shifted in a far more personal way with the loss of my grandmother. Her passing brought with it a season of reflection, and her loss added a deeper gravity to the remainder of the year and gave new meaning to the idea of stewardship, both within and beyond the fraternity.

In June, alongside my travel to England for the Mysteries of Mithras, I was also appointed Escort to the Grand Electa for the Order of the Eastern Star in Idaho, a role that allows me to support my mother as a Grand officer.

In July, I coordinated the 2025 Rocky Mountain SRICF Conference, an undertaking that demanded careful planning and broad cooperation. A few weeks later, I was deeply honored to receive the Order of the Purple Cross.

The year continued with international fraternity. I attended the constitution of a new Court of the Masonic Order of Athelstan in Canada and was appointed Senior Deacon of my own Court in Washington. In October, I attended Knights of the York Cross of Honor (KYCH), where I also assisted in the constitution of the Gulf Coast Province for the Commemorative Order of St. Thomas of Acon. This same month, I also served as Eminent Commander for the knighting of several new Knights Templar, a responsibility that never loses its weight or its beauty.

My travels returned me again to England at the end of October for the annual meeting of the Grand Court of the Masonic Order of Athelstan UK in Leicester, where a new Grand Master was installed by his predecessor.

In November, I went to Louisville, KY, for the annual meeting of the High Council of the SRICF. There, I was unexpectedly commissioned as a Kentucky Colonel, presided over the conferral of the VIII° (Magister), and was appointed First Ancient of the High Council for the 2025-2028 Triennial. Sunday, I attended the formation of the Great Lakes Province of the Commemorative Order of St. Thomas of Acon.

A few days after that, I traveled to Baden-Baden, Germany, for a Joint Conference of the Cryptic Masons and Knights Templar, experiencing firsthand how fraternity transcends language, borders, and culture.

In December, I was elected and installed as Very Eminent Preceptor of my Tabernacle, closing the year grounded once again in local leadership. Most recently, I returned from attending the Grand Council of the United Kingdom for the Commemorative Order of St. Thomas of Acon.

Looking back, this was not a year measured merely by offices held, but by trust received. It was a year of standing on ancient stones, welcoming new institutions into being, honoring those we have lost, and ensuring that what has been entrusted to us is preserved and strengthened for those who will follow.

As the year comes to a close, I remain grateful for the opportunities, friendships, and the reminder that service and leadership, when undertaken with sincerity, become a legacy of their own.

Humilitas et Caritas

I just finished a journey that marked my final Masonic event of the year and there could not have been a more meaningful way to conclude it. I arrived in London on St. John’s Day, a date of deep symbolic importance within Freemasonry, and immediately made my way north to Derby (pronounced Darby). My purpose was to attend the Grand Council of England, Wales, and its Provinces Overseas for the Commemorative Order of St. Thomas of Acon.

The Commemorative Order of St. Thomas of Acon exists to reaffirm the vows of a Knight Templar and to raise funds for the care and maintenance of Canterbury Cathedral. Membership in this Order is invitation-only and requires that a candidate already be a member of a recognized Commandery or Preceptory of Knights Templar. It is an Order rooted in duty and service, values that resonated deeply throughout the entire visit.

That first evening, I had the pleasure of dining with the Grand Master of the United States, whom I was accompanying to the meeting, and setting the tone for what would be several days of fellowship, history, and exceptional hospitality.

Sunday was devoted to exploring some of England’s historic sites, each offering a different window into the nation’s layered past.

Perched dramatically above the surrounding countryside, Bolsover Castle is less a medieval fortress and more a statement of aristocratic ambition. Built in the 17th century by Sir Charles Cavendish, the “Little Castle” was designed for lavish entertainments rather than warfare.

Originally founded as an Augustinian priory, Newstead Abbey later became the ancestral home of the poet, Lord Byron. The site blends monastic ruins with a stately home and beautifully landscaped gardens.

Overlooking the city from its rocky promontory, Nottingham Castle stands as a symbol of royal authority, rebellion, and legend. Though rebuilt many times over the centuries, it remains inseparable from the stories of medieval England and the enduring mythos of Robin Hood.

That evening, I was graciously hosted for dinner by several Knights of the Order from around the UK; an evening marked by warm conversation, shared purpose, and genuine fraternity.

On Monday, the Grand Master of the USA and I attended the meeting of the Grand Council of England, Wales, and its Provinces Overseas. We were formally received and warmly welcomed by the Grand Master in England, an honor that underscored the strength of the bonds shared between our jurisdictions.

The hospitality and generosity extended to me throughout the entire visit were truly second to none. The meeting concluded with a traditional festive board. Afterward, I made my way south to a hotel near Heathrow, preparing for an early morning departure. I have now made it safely back to my home.

As journeys go, this one was rich in symbolism, history, and fraternity - a fitting close to the Masonic year and a reminder of the enduring ties that bind us across time and space.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all of my family, friends, Brothers, Companions, Sir Knights, Companion Knights, Fellows, Knights Companion, Cousins, Knights, Knight Priests, and Fratres around the world.