Catholic Church and freemasonary?

[prexiousMary]

I have just returned from Malta and have just heard about the Order of Knights of St John, speaking of the Grand Master - my friend’s husband was deputy grand master in the masons and she told me there was a practicing catholic a mason. She recongnised the white mantle with the Maltese cross as being masonic regalae. Can you give me any information on this. One of the Maltese waiters tells us the Catholic Church, Knights of St John, Masons are the same thing? I have been left quite puzzled as everywhere you go in Malta are magnificent Catholic Churches - what’s all this about the masons then?

I was always taught that freemasonary and the Catholic Church was forbidden. Can you recommend any good books that I might pass to my friend to help understand better?

Many thanks.

 

[1ke]

I have just returned from Malta and have just heard about the Order of Knights of St John, speaking of the Grand Master - my friend’s husband was deputy grand master in the masons and she told me there was a practicing catholic a mason.

Catholics cannot be Masons. It is forbidden and has canonical consequences that bar the Catholic from the Sacraments until they renounce their association with the Masons.

She recongnised the white mantle with the Maltese cross as being masonic regalae. Can you give me any information on this. One of the Maltese waiters tells us the Catholic Church, Knights of St John, Masons are the same thing? I have been left quite puzzled as everywhere you go in Malta are magnificent Catholic Churches - what’s all this about the masons then?

The Knights of St. John are a Catholic order (also known as the Hospitallers, the Knights of Malta or the Chevaliers of Malta) and have *nothing *to do with the Masons. The Knights date to the first millenium in the Catholic Church, predating the Masons by close to 600 years.

Your friend simply does not know what she is talking about.

 

[FightingFat]

There is a tie in between the Templars and the Masons–there was a Mason a couple of hundred years ago who started this rumour that the free masons were actually the remnant of the Knights Templar, but the story is just a load of rubbish. The Masons use all kinds of religious stuff and as 1ke stated, Catholicism and Free Masonry are mutually exclusive organisations!!

 

[1ke]

I was always taught that freemasonary and the Catholic Church was forbidden. Can you recommend any good books that I might pass to my friend to help understand better?

Many thanks.

The Knights of Malta have a website, that would be a good start:

knightsofmalta.com/

 

[FightingFat]

I found this which seems to have sound info:

The theory that Freemasonry originated in the Holy Land during the crusades and was instituted by the Knights Templar was initially advanced by one person!

Chevalier Ramsey was an extraordinary figure of his day (born about 1680). A man with a great literary reputation, he was a tutor to royalty and ostensibly a Freemason although the details of his membership are somewhat obscure. In 1737, Ramsay, identified as ‘Grand Orator’ (although there was no such position in that Grand Lodge at that time), delivered a discourse before the Grand Lodge of France in which he set forth his theory in explicit terms. Coil’s Masonic Encyclopedia says this: “Rejecting all references to the Traveling Architects from Como, to the Stone Masons of Germany, and the Operative Freemasons of England, he had sought a noble and chivalric origin for Freemasonry, which with him was not a confraternity founded on a system of architecture, but solely on the military prowess and religious enthusiasm of knighthood.” Other writers, both Masons and non, have continued to attempt to make the same connection through this very day. It is one, however, with no provable basis, save conjecture."

masonicinfo.com/templars.htm

 

[flameburns623]

I have just returned from Malta and have just heard about the Order of Knights of St John, speaking of the Grand Master - my friend’s husband was deputy grand master in the masons and she told me there was a practicing catholic a mason. She recongnised the white mantle with the Maltese cross as being masonic regalae. Can you give me any information on this. One of the Maltese waiters tells us the Catholic Church, Knights of St John, Masons are the same thing? I have been left quite puzzled as everywhere you go in Malta are magnificent Catholic Churches - what’s all this about the masons then?

I was always taught that freemasonary and the Catholic Church was forbidden. Can you recommend any good books that I might pass to my friend to help understand better?

Many thanks.

The Knights Templar and Knights of Malta were sister orgianizations in the era of the Crusades and had much in common. When Prince Phillip of France exerted influence on the reigning Pope Clement to accuse the Knights Templar of heresy and suppress the order, many Knights Templar joined the Knightsof Malta

John J. Robinson speculated that modern Freemasonry was actually a vestigial surviving remnant of the Knights Templar. The story, as Robinson proposes it, is that after the Knights Templar were (probably wrongfully) suppressed, many also fled to the British Isles and there adopted covert identities as members of a stonemason’s guild. The guild, whether a pre-exisiting organization co-opted by the Knights, or one which they concosted for their purposes, may have become a refuge for renegades and free-thinkers of various stripes. This guild, evolved into the organization which eventually became known as British Freemasonry. (see Born In Blood: the Lost Secrets of Freemasonry for further details).

British Freemasonry is probably much more harmless than Continental or Grand Orient variants which sprang up after Freemasonry first became publicly known in 1717. The Continental and Grand Orient versions are sometimes occultic and almost invariably are anti-clerical and/or militantly secularistic. In Spain and in Mexico, Masonic revolutions led to the suppression of Catholic Churches and created many martyrs. Read Graham Greene’s novel, The Power and the Glory for an illustration of this.

It is likely Continental Freemasonry which evoked the first censures against Freemasonry. This is not to suggest that even English-speaking Freemasonry does not contain some issues and or problems, but these pale by comparison. In any case, no Roman Catholic should belong to a Masonic order simply because the magisterium has repeatedly forbidden such.

It should be pointed out, however, that one of the appendant orders of the Masonic fraternity, the so-called York Rite, has a degree called the Knights of Malta. This is not the same as the historic Catholic Knights of Malta.

Hope this helps!

 

[PeterClatworthy]

Catholics cannot be Masons. It is forbidden and has canonical consequences that bar the Catholic from the Sacraments until they renounce their association with the Masons.

The Knights of St. John are a Catholic order (also known as the Hospitallers, the Knights of Malta or the Chevaliers of Malta) and have *nothing *to do with the Masons. The Knights date to the first millenium in the Catholic Church, predating the Masons by close to 600 years.

Your friend simply does not know what she is talking about.

Not true. Catholics cannot be Moderns freemasons. A very high percentage of our members are practicing Roman Catholics and there is NO reason why they should not be so.

 

[ralphinal]

Not true. Catholics cannot be Moderns freemasons. A very high percentage of our members are practicing Roman Catholics and there is NO reason why they should not be so.

Has the pope lifted the ban on joining?

 

[PeterClatworthy]

There has never been a ban on our religious Free Masonrie, only on the Moderns form of freemasonry which is clearly anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-Judaic and anti-Islamic.

And for religious reasons, I agree with that ban without reservation.

 

[gamewell45]

I found this which seems to have sound info:

The theory that Freemasonry originated in the Holy Land during the crusades and was instituted by the Knights Templar was initially advanced by one person!

Chevalier Ramsey was an extraordinary figure of his day (born about 1680). A man with a great literary reputation, he was a tutor to royalty and ostensibly a Freemason although the details of his membership are somewhat obscure. In 1737, Ramsay, identified as ‘Grand Orator’ (although there was no such position in that Grand Lodge at that time), delivered a discourse before the Grand Lodge of France in which he set forth his theory in explicit terms. Coil’s Masonic Encyclopedia says this: “Rejecting all references to the Traveling Architects from Como, to the Stone Masons of Germany, and the Operative Freemasons of England, he had sought a noble and chivalric origin for Freemasonry, which with him was not a confraternity founded on a system of architecture, but solely on the military prowess and religious enthusiasm of knighthood.” Other writers, both Masons and non, have continued to attempt to make the same connection through this very day. It is one, however, with no provable basis, save conjecture."

masonicinfo.com/templars.htm

The key word here is: “seems”.

 

[PeterClatworthy]

The religious form of Free Masonrie is pre-Davidic. The Knights Templar were Free Masons, not the other way round.

The following were Grand Masters of the religious form of Free Masonrie:

AD1135 - Gilbert de Clare, Marquess of Pembroke, Prior of the Knights Templar in England under Henry II;

AD1155 - Richard de Hastings, Prior of the Knights Templar in England. Amongst the earliest of the Priors whose name figures in history. Richard de Hastings was at the head of the Order of the Knights Templar in England on the accession of King Henry II to the throne;

Readers here may not know, but the Master of the Temple in England sat in parliament as the first baron of the realm (primus baron Angliae)

AD1485 - Pierre D’Aubusson, Grand Master of the military-religious Order of St. John of Jerusalem. He was known for his defence of Rhodes against the Turks. For his military achievements, d’Aubusson received a cardinal’s hat, and was revered by all Christendom as “the Shield of the Church”.

(SOURCES: Masonic Yearbook of the United Grand Lodge of England (pre-1738); The Complete Freemason or Multa Paucis, Anon (1763); Acta Latomorum ou Chronologie de l’Histoire de la Franche-Maçonnerie Française et étrangére by Claude Antoine Thory (1784); The History of Freemasonry, by Dr William Preston (1742-1818); A History of Inventions and Discoveries by Francis Sellon White, F.A.S. (1827); A Freemason’s Pocket Companion Containing a Brief Sketch of the History of Masonry, A Chronology of Interesting Events, etc. etc., by a Brother of the Apollo Lodge, 711, Oxford, published by Henry Washbourne, London (1831); The Freemasons’ Monthly Magazine, Vol II, No.12, Early History of Masonry in England, by Charles Whitlock Moore; World’s Masonic Register by Leon Hyneman, p.477, Philadelphia (1860); Encyclopedia of Freemasonry by Albert Mackey (1873); The History of Freemasonry by J.W.S. Mitchell M.D., published by the American Publishing House: Philadelphia (1858); Notes on the Orders of the Temple and St. John by John Yarker, (Manchester 1869); Masonry in Norman England, The Arcane Schools by John Yarker (1909); A New Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry (Ars Magna Latomorum) by Arthur Waite, London, William Rider & Son (1921); Rosicrucian Chronology AD 1-1378 Society of Rosicrucians in America (2003); Current World Archaeology (2003); De Maçonnieke Encyclopedie, zoekt)

Masonicinfo: This site and its contents are © (copyright) 1998-2009 by Edward L. King (Ed King). All rights reserved. All comments and opinions are mine personally.

Masonicinfo is THE most unreliable source for factual information about Freemasonry, per se, being the opinion of one individual who has proven himself to be thoroughly misinformed. Masonicinfo is wedded to the ludicrous and insupportable notion that Freemasonry began by some process of spontaneous combustion in the tiny back room of a London public house in 1717, and that anything that preceeded this alleged and unrecorded meeting did not exist.

 

[masonicinfo]

The religious form of Free Masonrie is pre-Davidic. The Knights Templar were Free Masons, not the other way round.

Really, Peter: with this you could start a whole line of ‘alternative fiction’ somewhat akin to The Hiram Key. With the 3 or 4 members in your little group, it might be a good source of income for you!

The following were Grand Masters of the religious form of Free Masonrie:

Your alternative history is already kicking into high gear. Give it a try. If you keep 'pounding the pavement in every forum there is online, you might even get one or two people to buy your foolishness!

Masonicinfo is THE most unreliable source for factual information about Freemasonry, per se, being the opinion of one individual who has proven himself to be thoroughly misinformed. Masonicinfo is wedded to the ludicrous and insupportable notion that Freemasonry began by some process of spontaneous combustion in the tiny back room of a London public house in 1717, and that anything that preceeded this alleged and unrecorded meeting did not exist.

Really? You don’t think there’s just a teenie-tiny bit of jealousy going on there, do you? After all, my site is the one which has ‘called you out’ as a bunch of spurious pretenders. Folks can read all about it at masonicinfo.com/glae.htm. Oh, and on the next update, I’ll be adding some comments about this absolutely hilarious “Free Masonrie” stuff that your supposedly ancient group (two years old) decided to adopt in the last couple of months. It is to laugh.

For those who might not want to traipse around from website to website, the long and the short of it is that Mr. Clatworthy is NOT a Mason - except in his own couple of person group which uses the words, symbols and a grossly concocted history of Freemasonry. Don’t be fooled by the “Grand Secretary” bit: it doesn’t really have a lot of weight unless you’re a member of his tiny canoe club.

Oh, and finally, I don’t believe that I’ve EVER explained my position on the roots of Freemasonry but they are neither what you claim them to be (above) NOR are they anything like your foolish claims that try to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

Thanks for the holiday cheer!

Ed King
Webmaster
www.masonicinfo.com – Anti-Masonry: Points of View

 

[masonicinfo]

Not true. Catholics cannot be Moderns freemasons. A very high percentage of our members are practicing Roman Catholics and there is NO reason why they should not be so.

Just for the benefit of the viewing public so that they won’t be misled:

Mr. Clatworthy is the so-called “Grand Secretary” of a group which is but 2-3 years old and he would not be allowed admission in any lodge of regular/recognized Freemasons anywhere in the world. He does NOT speak for Freemasonry (except for his own little group of well under a hundred people - and more like a handful if reports are correct) and his concotions of what Freemasonry is or does are NOT representative in nearly ANY way of what regular and recognized Freemasonry thinks.

Listening to Mr. Clatworthy’s presentations here and accepting them as fact would be somewhat akin to taking the writings of the Episcopal Bishop of Manchester, New Hampshire, USA and saying that they represented the epitome of Papal thought.

Ed King
Webmaster
www.masonicinfo.com Anti-Masonry: Points of View

 

[PeterClatworthy]

Hell beckons Ed.

We have no wish to be associated with any of your blasphemous, irreligious Moderns lodges thank you very much. So please stop trying to suggest that we have the slightest interest in you, your lodges, or your disingenuous, and ill-educated personal opinions.

 

[brigantine]

Unless something has changed Freemasonry is banned in the Roman Catholic Church in all its forms. Same for the Orthodox Church. Many individual Catholics (and Orthodox) will claim its ok but thats not the case at all and has consistently been a group(s) that Church members can not join.

 

[PeterClatworthy]

No. Nothing has changed, and you are quite wrong about a ban on freemasonry “in all its forms”.

The Moderns form of freemasonry, a product of the Enlightenment, is the EXCLUSIVE subject of the ban, quite rightly. It is anti-catholic and irreligious.

The religious (Christian) Free Masonrie which preceded it, and is not connected with it, is definitely not banned, and a very high proportion of its members are practicing Catholics who are perfectly entitled to, and indeed do receive the Holy Sacraments.

 

[PeterClatworthy]

No. Nothing has changed, and you are quite wrong about a ban on freemasonry “in all its forms”.

The Moderns form of freemasonry, a product of the Enlightenment, is the EXCLUSIVE subject of the ban, quite rightly. It is anti-catholic and irreligious.

The religious (Christian) Free Masonrie which preceded it, and is not connected with it, is definitely not banned, and a very high proportion of its members are practicing Catholics who are perfectly entitled to, and indeed do receive the Holy Sacraments.

Freemasonry is not “a group”. The Moderns is “a group”. We stand alone. We are not, never have been, and do not wish to be associated with that group, and we will not be associated with them. That is our decision and nobody else’s.

 

[brigantine]

No. Nothing has changed, and you are quite wrong about a ban on freemasonry “in all its forms”.

The Moderns form of freemasonry, a product of the Enlightenment, is the EXCLUSIVE subject of the ban, quite rightly. It is anti-catholic and irreligious.

The religious (Christian) Free Masonrie which preceded it, and is not connected with it, is definitely not banned, and a very high proportion of its members are practicing Catholics who are perfectly entitled to, and indeed do receive the Holy Sacraments.

It really does not matter how many are Catholics are part of the group or what you call it because Freemasonry is incompatible with the Catholic Church!! You can find Catholics that will swear there is nothing wrong with abortion, contraception, homosexuality, etc… The fact still remains the same that all those are against Church teachings.

Just in case you going to keep throwing out the word “moderns” I know what you are trying to do. There is absolutely NO credible evidence masonry goes back to the Temple of Solomon! There has been tons of research on this and the evidence that the Templar’s passed masonry down is weak at best so the distinction between moderns and the masonry that preceded it is mute unless true historical evidence from impartial sources can be produced. After that the Pope would need to say its compatible with the Church. All this goes for Orthodoxy also.

 

[masonicinfo]

Hell beckons Ed.

We have no wish to be associated with any of your blasphemous, irreligious Moderns lodges thank you very much. So please stop trying to suggest that we have the slightest interest in you, your lodges, or your disingenuous, and ill-educated personal opinions.

No need to work yourself into a lather, Peter. I was simply pointing out to these folks that your organization has no connection whatsoever (except as perhaps an imposter) to regular/recognized Freemasonry.

You continue to prance about the internet presenting your wholly unsubstantiated theories and because folks who aren’t Masons don’t know the whole story behind your group (something they can read by going to this page on my site), it’s easy for them to assume that you somehow represent what they know as Freemasonry. You don’t put disclaimers on your material saying, for example, “I’m the Grand Secretary of a group far smaller than your local hiking club.” or do they know that within a few years the group you represent won’t even be a footnote in history - while all the while, Freemasonry (the regular/recognized kind) moves on.

Have a very merry Christmas, Peter.

Ed King
Webmaster, masonicinfo.com – Anti-Masonry: Points of View
Older than Google - and about 6 times older than the so-called Grand Lodge of All England (which should never be confused with the regular/recognized United Grand Lodge of England for whom Mr. Clatworthy was a one-time staff employee if I recall correctly.)

 

[masonicinfo]

It really does not matter how many are Catholics are part of the group or what you call it because Freemasonry is incompatible with the Catholic Church!!

The Catholic Church has issued various documents stating this but regular/recognized Freemasons would argue that the basis for their assumptions has been wrong.

It would, perhaps, be more correct to say “The Catholic Church has declared that holding Masonic membership is incompatible with being a member of the Catholic Church.”

You can find Catholics that will swear there is nothing wrong with abortion, contraception, homosexuality, etc… The fact still remains the same that all those are against Church teachings.

I’d suggest that, as in the prior instance, you may have put the cart before the horse. Each of the things you’ve mentioned is CONTRARY to Catholic Church teachings - as is holding membership in Freemasonry.

Just in case you going to keep throwing out the word “moderns” I know what you are trying to do.

Mr. Clatworthy’s posts here - as they are all over the internet - are (in my opinion) simply more of his efforts to garner attention for his pub club and dissemble the actual facts of history.

In truth, there is much more behind the word “Moderns” used in a Masonic sense but it’s hardly worth the effort.

There is absolutely NO credible evidence masonry goes back to the Temple of Solomon!

When the ‘authentic school’ of Masonic research arrived around the 1900s, this claim passed into the dust-bin of history. No reputable Masonic scholar would ever make such a claim today so it’s not something to get upset with. Back when Freemasonry in its current form first came to the attention of the residents of London - not too distant from the formation of the Royal Society - it was quite fashionable to attribute one’s lineage to Biblical times. Freemasonry did so as did the Royal Society (claiming a further lineage back to Adam, in fact!) It’s what Mr. Clatworthy’s group STILL is trying to do, by his claiming that their group dates back to the 1300s when, in fact, they were formed just a couple of years ago. Mr. Clatworthy’s dissembling can be confusing to most, though, so it’s understandable.

There has been tons of research on this and the evidence that the Templar’s passed masonry down is weak at best so the distinction between moderns and the masonry that preceded it is mute unless true historical evidence from impartial sources can be produced. After that the Pope would need to say its compatible with the Church. All this goes for Orthodoxy also.

Since the quote from my website was what drew me here, and the part about the lack of historical evidence is what I wrote, I can’t disagree with that! Mr. Clatworthy is not unlike many authors today: he’s simply writing his own version of “alternative history”. At times - and on its face without examining the evidence in detail or applying sound logic - it even sounds plausible. He claims, for example, that his group is a continuation (not a continuation of the TRADITIONS, mind you, but an ACTUAL CONTINUATION) of a group that ceased to exist several hundred years ago. It’s even more ludicrous than you or I saying that we’re the heir to the throne of Russia because we had a relative five generations ago who was part of the royal family there! What’s even more comical is when someone making such bizarre claims expects everyone to simply accept their statements as fact - and pay them proper homage as a result. (Another group which formed a couple of years ago about the same time as Mr. Clatworthy’s group and to which it is reported that he belonged for a short period of time actually snagged the ‘Duke of Cabinda’ as its titular head.)

It is to laugh…

Ed King
Webmaster, www.masonicinfo.com – Anti-Masonry: Points of View