CathInfo.com

I've never denied being one when asked.  Heck, I think I openly admitted it during the flat earth debates a year or two ago. I'm just stating that admonishing a man for his faults is one thing, but connecting imaginary dots and declaring him to be not Catholic anymore is something else entirely.  The Church has made it quite clear.  If you are a mason, then you are excommunicated.  You are outside the Church.  I free acknowledge this.
The accusers take things way to far.  Its not enough to condemn Bishop Fellay's actions.  There must be a plot behind it so devious that it would invalidate all of his sacraments. In this thread we have seen not only Bishop Fellay being maligned and accused of being a freemason, but also the Archbishop's character, intentions and influence in creating the SSPX were maligned.  You are so concerned about freemasons destroying what's left of Church that you are actively tearing yourselves apart.
When someone joins a lodge, they sign the bi-law of the lodge.  None of these records are secret.  It would be rather difficult to attend the meetings anonymously.  It would be noticed if the bishop was always somewhere on the first and third Tuesdays at 7pm.  There would be a money trail with his dues card that shows he is in good standing with that lodge.  Even if none of that matters, his values are not masonic.  I personally don't believe he would be accepted because of who he is, let alone his beliefs.
Fr. Hewko years ago accused the SSPX of being masonic for having closed door meetings.  Equally ridiculous, I've even seen that Bishop Williamson was accused of being a Rosicrucianism on some website years ago.  Now it's bishop Fellay and the questioning of the Archbishop's intentions.  I just find it nonsense.  Its a zero sum game when you play it this way.  Someone does something wrong (the bishop actively compromising with the conciliar Church) and people cast doubt on his sacraments?  Example, A convert to the old SSPX gets conditionally reconfirmed by Bishop Fellay years ago...are you going to recommend that anyone who receive confirmation again through Bishop Williamson?  I actually wonder what Bishop Williamson would say if someone approached him with that concern.  I just wanted to say that Bishop Fellay is not a freemason.  I'm done.

The end effect of invalid SSPX Sacraments never crossed my mind, but it too, would fit nicely into the Freemasonic agenda.

Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ invalidates sacraments? I thought that the sacraments are the sacraments and whatever nefarious things a clergyman may be involved in only serves to condemn himself. How is Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ different?

We've been overly charitable by thinking Bp. Fellay is just a confused dupe, when the end result of his actions reveal a sly fox implementing a premeditated plan.

This is what I was thinking. The conservatives do this endlessly for the VII Popes. I'm personally not interested in doing that for +Fellay. Having said that, I also agree it isn't necessary that he be a freemason. There are certainly some in the SSPX, but who they are is not something many of us are in a position to know.