Are the International Order of Odd Fellows Masonic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AngelicDoctor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O.S, Luke,

I have heard of “reds under the beds” but there is real paranoia here. :eek:

Peter
 
But surely the statement of Cardinal Ratzinger includes the Knights of St Columba, the Catholic Freemasons.
Click to expand...
ALL FORMS of Freemasonry. You said it yourselves. In fact you stressed it.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Either your have a bit of ‘cheeky’ fun, or missed the point.

The ONLY distinguishing factor between the Catholic Knighthoods/Fraternities and the “masonic” associations banned by the Church is that first part of their character: they are Catholic.

As told in “Parish Priest”, the KoC was created as a Church acceptable alternative for catholic men to Freemasonry, Pythias, Odd Fellows, ect; all the while trying to duplicate and fill the perceived ‘need’ for such initiatic societies.

But, the only true distinction between them (other than various particulars of their respective rituals, naturally) is the recognition of the Church as the only religious authority that they submit themselves to.

Even Masonic history, in the few places that will even discuss the old schism between the Moderns and Ancients in sufficient detail, will eventually bear out the fact that Masonry was NOT rejected by the Church until the protestants ‘won’ the quiet war in Lodge, and the Constitutions were changed to open up their religious ‘foundation’ to accept non-Catholic authority. The first bull condemning Masonry did not occur until the provisions for recognition of “The Holy Church” were removed in a revision of Anderson’s constitutions.

On the whole, how ‘masonic associations’ has come to be used in Church documents does create problems in regards to the Catholic Societies, and was one of the reasons they were so hard to establish as legitimate in the minds of many, because the Church never (directly) attacked ‘masonic’ associations for failing to recognize the Church as THE Church (albiet, it is there in very oblique terms… such as the various charges of religious relativism or indifference and such).
 
But surely the statement of Cardinal Ratzinger includes the Knights of St Columba, the Catholic Freemasons.

**To my knowledge, there is no such organization as the Knights of St. Columba.

The Knights of Columbus are NOT Catholic Freemasons (an oxymoron similar to “neat garbage”).**
 
I have heard of “reds under the beds” but there is real paranoia here.
Click to expand...
Yes, but a quick perusal of these Forums under the subject matter at hand would quickly reveal that it is a RARE thing that Masonry is discussed herein in any format that could be charaterized as being “rational” or even “subdued”, “logical”, or even without a fair amount of superstition.

For many of the posters, it is ‘simple’ enough: The Church has proclaimed, in no uncertain terms, that Masonry is forbidden to catholics.

For a rarer few, we do like to discuss the ‘why’ of it all; but even good catholic men who have given up Lodge out of respectful obedience, and who have researched it at length, will get attacked by their Catholic brothers and sisters as still being masons, even if the catholic ex-mason in question ultimately agrees with them. Eventually, the rational ones move on to other topics or forums.

I, myself, have often come under such attack, despite my clear reiterations of the Church’s Policy; all because I don’t let the silliness and false claims and accusations stand. And this was when I had given up Lodge to become Catholic.

Personally, I have studied the issue for long enough. Whether they like it or not, I have returned to Lodge. However and whatever my personal justifications for doing so, it still stands that the Church forbids such an action and membership, and so I could never in good conscience obscure the very real Policy of the Church, as do some “Catholic Freemasons” who post here. It may be a conflict that I am willing to risk; but that does not mean that there is no conflict, or that the Church doesn’t have the right to make rules and obligations on the disciplinary obedience of its members.

However ‘universal’ Masonry tries or claims to be, they still cannot abrogate the right of any religion (or society) to restrict its membership from becoming masons if it deems it necessary to do so (and for ANY reason at all). Far too many Masons get caught up in their own point of view that they forget this basic fact. Too many Masons get caught up in negative Rhetoric, and just end up feeding the vitriol which only ‘justifies’ the restrictions in catholic eyes. A lot must change before the Church would ever reconsider the ban…
 
O.S.Luke said:
Is that like a “fact” in a political-election-debate-sort-of-way?

Odd Fellows are “friendly” societies that originated in England, and came about as an organization that pooled its resources together to help each other out in time of need - as someone said earlier, if you needed some false teeth, the guys would help you out. If I’m not mistaken, they used to meet in pubs.

Ritalin? Sounds like you might need some lithium, Glorfindel. 👍
Click to expand...
And you are a deacon…:confused: No wonder people don’t go to church.
 
I am a deacon and a presbyter.

I hope people go to church to worship God and the risen Christ.
 
I have a friend who owns a pub named “Odd Fellows.” The bar even uses the Odd Fellows Crest as it’s emblem above the door. The pub has been in my town for a long, long time but as far as I know, they no longer hold meetings there. I don’t think anyone is actually a member of the Odd Fellows.
 
So… can you be Catholic and an Odd Fellow?

That is as clear as mud!

Odd Fellows sound like to me a bunch of guys who like good beer and throw money in the hat to help each other out.
 
I’d have to agree that (name removed by moderator) is correct in that the Church does bar membership in the OF, and other societies cited.

Furthermore, and perhaps (name removed by moderator) could provide the citation, but I believe there is a further ruling that disallows the financial contribution to such organizations, so that, even with the apparent ‘permission’ granted here of making such contributions, you would not actually be allowed to make such contributions.

At least that is what was resolved here in my case back when I joined the Church.

Again, the only ‘difficulty’ in any of this is in clearly establishing that the organizations cited do, in fact, meet the requirements presented.

Additionally, in this particular issue/citation, I cannot honestly say that any of these organizations act in such a way as to allow a Catholic member even this nominal membership. Remember, ALL FOUR conditions must be met to retain the memberships, and while I cannot argue that conditions 1, and probably 2 & 4 are likely to be very true, none of the organizations being questions operate in a manner that would make condition 3 a viable objection to resigning membership. Since they are all speculative organizations (rather than ‘operative’ ones), unless the catholic in question is a paid employee of the Order, to which their only/primary source of income is from the Order, then condition 3 won’t apply.

So, again, short answer of the Church is: No, you can’t be a member of said societies.
 
Clear? I don’t think so.

You can’t be a member… but you can… but only nominally… and then you can’t even contribute, even though earlier you could.

Hmmm. :confused:
 
If we are honestly evaluating the Church’s position, it is clear what She intends: No membership of Catholics in such societies.

It only becomes less clear when we want to see a different result, or when we look too closely at modern attempts to strengthen the matter. Yes, when we look for legalistic loop holes that might allow it, it gets really murky really fast.

Frankly, there are areas that need consideration and much reflection and attempts at rectification and clarity on the issue; however the net, final, resolution of the Church really isn’t one of them. She has reiterated time and again, often very bluntly, where she stands on the matter.
 
If anyone’s interested, the latest episode of one of my favorite podcasts, Catholic Under the Hood deals with the issue of Catholicism and Freemasonry. You can find it at:

catholicunderthehood.com/

Fr. Seraphim does a good job of looking at the historical animosity between Catholicism and Freemasonry. He suggests that while the Church is not likely to allow Catholics to become Masons anytime in the near future, we may be able to find ways to work together for the common good (through charitable work etc.) in much the same way that Catholics work with members of other faiths.
 
BJRumph said:
If we are honestly evaluating the Church’s position, it is clear what She intends: No membership of Catholics in such societies.

It only becomes less clear when we want to see a different result, or when we look too closely at modern attempts to strengthen the matter. Yes, when we look for legalistic loop holes that might allow it, it gets really murky really fast.

Frankly, there are areas that need consideration and much reflection and attempts at rectification and clarity on the issue; however the net, final, resolution of the Church really isn’t one of them. She has reiterated time and again, often very bluntly, where she stands on the matter.
Click to expand...
So why doesn’t she simply say, “No.”?
 
No, the Church chases the rabbit about the tree, hems and haws, and KINDA says no.

Before you think I’m being anti-Catholic, canon law in various traditions does the same thing, including my own tradition.
 
There seems to be some disagreement as to whether a Catholic is permitted to be a member of the Odd Fellows. I know that the Church prohibits the faithful from joining the Freemason’s, but I am unsure about the Odd Fellows. Therefore, I would advise Catholics not to join the Odd Fellows just in case the Church forbids it. It would be better to err on the side of caution, instead of joining and then finding out later that the Church forbids it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top