Catholic Church and freemasonary?

[Mom2Bruno]

Why is it “okay” for someone to be involved in pre-Davidic Free Masonrie? Aside from the fact that it isn’t banned by the Church… isn’t it still pagan?

 

[masonicinfo]

Why is it “okay” for someone to be involved in pre-Davidic Free Masonrie? Aside from the fact that it isn’t banned by the Church… isn’t it still pagan?

Please remember that this construct you’re referencing is nothing more than a word-play designed by Mr. Clatworthy to describe his own little local group, completely separate and apart from regular/recognized Freemasonry. In fact, it’s got NOTHING whatsoever to do with Freemasonry in any way, manner, shape or form, except insofar as they use the ‘trappings’ of Freemasonry to define themselves.

Imagine yourself and a half dozen friends buying football jerseys from a local sports store and declaring that you actually were a professional football team, entitled to the recognition as such. That’s a pretty fair comparison, in my opinion, of what Mr. Clatworthy has done. Unfortunately, on the internet, there’s no way of knowing when someone making claims as he has done is really involved with the organization or not.

His organization, in fact, might be best compared with the Sedevacantists - but MUCH smaller in number.

Your question regarding whether Mr. Clatworthy’s own little group is pagan can be answered by him if he so chooses. Perhaps when answering, he’ll divulge how many members he’s speaking for - but I seriously doubt it and more than likely, he’ll fly into a hissy fit about what I’ve written. However, if you picked a number between 3 and 75, you’d be right in the ballpark, I think. Thus, defining what THEIR beliefs are is - to my way of thinking - hardly worth the electrons!

REAL Freemasonry is not - in any way - pagan any more than the Catholic Church is simply because they moved the date of Christ’s birth to coincide with a pagan holiday.

Merry Christmas!

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

 

[PeterClatworthy]

Mr King,

The vast majority of the World, outside the United States of America is far too educated and knowledgeable of world history to take you seriously. Your website is riddled with mistakes, false claims, innuendo, and libelous attacks on all and sundry.

With it you have elevated folly to new heights by suggesting that one of England’s most important kings, King Athelstan, the first Bretwalda, and his brother Prince Edwin of York are myths! Why would a supposedly intelligent man have so deliberately contrived to demonstrate such a powerful public display of crass ignorance but due to evil intent?

Why are you such a bitter and frightened man Ed? You have nothing to fear from debating the issues that matter here, rather than trying to concentrate your efforts upon practiced personal abuse and obfuscation.

The essential difference between your freemasonry and our Free Masonrie is that your freemasonry is very modern and purely symbolic. Ours is not. We actually practice the ancient religion, which dates from time immemorial.

We revived the Fellowship of Free Masonrie in December 2005, nothing else. Inner, or Templar Free Masonrie has never ceased, and has been practiced uninterrupted since time immemorial. As a matter of recorded fact, I was baptised under the Holy and Royal Arch, on the 23rd of June 1948 and then ordained a priest on the 24th June 1969. Generations of my family have also been so baptised and so ordained. John Gordon Graves (Grand Master of All Free Masons) and Richard Young (Chancellor) have similar backgrounds.

Your “symbolic” freemasonry is in fact the Invisible College of the Rosicrucians, a product of Baruch Spinoza’s Enlightenment. This is why it was and is banned and condemned by almost every respectable religion on this planet, especially, but not exclusively the Roman Catholic Church, our own Céli Dé religion, and the entire world of Islam.

Your form of freemasonry, the one that is banned by the Catholic Church, was self started by non-Masons in the back room of a London pub in 1717 (the so-called Grand Lodge of London). This is NOT a matter of dispute.

Our religious Free Masonrie is an historical fact, in EXACTLY the same way that the reign of King Athelstan and his brother Prince Edwin are historical facts. Our religious Free Masonrie is firmly based in the Abbeys, Cathedrals and Churches of Europe. Our Grand Lodge has met in the Crypt of the York Minster for many hundreds of years and it continues so to do.

To be continued …

 

[PeterClatworthy]

Your baseless, personal unsourced and unsupported attacks are IMHO based upon an irrational fear caused by a lamentable ignorance of Religion, England, Englishmen, English religious, political and social history, English and European law, the English parliamentary system of democracy, Masonic law, practice and tradition. Not your fault. I blame a combination of your parents, and the American education system,

Now let us start with the actual matter at hand on this thread: Catholic Church and freemasonry.

To attempt to debate this without the full involvement of the original and ancient religious form of Free Masonrie, “Y Maen”, would render this thread totally meaningless.

“This Constitution (sic Ed King’s Moderns) is based upon the charter of York, which, of all others, has served as a guide for all those which have been established since A.D. 926. Into this constitution were carried otherwise the changes and the developments which were rendered indispensable by the new object of the society, and properly above all was caused to predominate the supremacy of the Grand Lodge of London. This last tendency, so much to be, in this our own day, deprecated, but proves that the authors were not penetrated by the true spirit of the Charter of York.” * (SOURCE: A General History of Freemasonry in Europe, Page 96, translated and compiled from the Masonic Histories of Emmanuel Rebold, M.D., by J. Fletcher Brennan, Editor of The American Freemasons Magazine, 1869) *

Anderson was one of the originators of the London Grand Lodge, and as a man of strong prejudices he was biased in all his inditings, evidences of which are seen throughout his two publications on every possible occasion, in the omission of historical facts, or giving the contrary construction to, and diverting attention in cases reflecting unfavourably upon the New Grand Lodge. The Books of Anderson, however, are almost universally accepted by the Masonic fraternity as containing a true history of Freemasonry, at least from the time our review commences, and the Ancient Charges, especially those contained in the 1723 edition, are as generally adopted as the fundamental law and basis of Masonic principles. But notwithstanding Anderson’s Books of Constitutions were published by order of the London Grand Lodge, with its approval and sanction, yet no more untrustworthy, unreliable books were ever printed under the direction of any organised association. We affirm that Anderson is not to be credited. The Books of Constitutions were written purposely to deceive, to mislead and misrepresent facts as they existed; and if his reports of Grand Lodge Proceedings are true copies of Grand Lodge Records, then the records were corrupted with the design to mislead the reader." (SOURCE: Freemasonry in England from 1567 to 1813, Ancient York and London Grand Lodges , pages 15 and 16, by Leon Hyneman, 1877)

To be continued …

 

[PeterClatworthy]

“In 1738 Anderson brought out a second edition which was intended to replace the earlier one altogether, but it was a slovenly performance and the regulations were printed in so confused a manner, being all mixed up with notes and endorsements (many inaccurately stated), that it was difficult to make head or tail of them and to ascertain what was the law of the Craft. He also re-wrote the history entirely and greatly expanded it, introducing so many absurdities that Gould has suggested that he was deliberately fooling the Grand Lodge, or in the alternative he was in himself in his dotage. He died very shortly after. But this same ridiculous history has done duty in all seriousness till comparatively recent years, being brought up to date by Preston and others who were apparently quite unconscious of its true value. Unfortunately that portion of the history which professed to give an account of the proceedings of Grand Lodge and for which the official minutes were at Anderson’s disposal is full of what one must consider wilful inaccuracies and misstatements.” (SOURCE: Anderson’s Constitutions of 1723 by Lionel Vibert)

"Whosoever doubts the truth hereof, let him examine Dr. Anderson’s Constitutions (printed in 1738) page 109, where it is written, “that four lodges;” that is to say, some persons who were wont to meet "At the Goose and Gridiron ale-house, in St. Paul’s church-yard, "At the Crown ale-house, in Parker’s Lane, "At the Apple-tree in Charles-street, Covent Garden. “And at the Rummer and Grapes, in Channel-Row, Westminster, did meet at the Apple-tree aforesaid, in the year 1716, or rather 17, and having chosen (the nameless person before hinted) a Chairman, they constituted themselves a Grand Lodge. Such are the words of the most authentic history amongst Modern Masons, and beyond contradiction prove the origin of their supremacy to be a self-created assembly.” (SOURCE: Ahiman Rezon by Laurence Dermott, Grand Secretary of the “Antients” Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons According to the Old Institution, published by James Bedford, at London, 1756)

"The other thing that we have to remember is that Catholics, in those days, could be Freemasons. In fact, it was the only organization in England that afforded them equality within society since the day King James VII of the Scots (James II of England) had been deposed. (He had wanted everyone within the boudaries of his kingdoms to worship according to their own conscience.)

With the Stewarts out of the political picture in Britain, “liberty of conscience” and the concept of equality were firmly ousted. This meant that politics reverted back to the status quo, and no one but Anglicans had any rights at all. In order to retain this status quo, all lodges in England, or as many as possible, were to be taken over, subverted, even eradicated if necessary.

Although 1717 saw a new, London-based Masonic impetus, working to restore the Stewarts to their rightful inheritance, the plan was foiled after the failure of the Atterbury plot to overthrow George I in 1722. In 1723, at the end of the Duke of Wharton’s grand mastership, the Grand Lodge of England was taken over by Hanoverian infiltrators. (… It is interesting to note, in passing, that the lodge’s archival records, from its inception in 1717 to June 24, 1723, have totally vanished.)* (SOURCE: The Knights Templar of the Middle East by Michael James Alexander Stewart and Walid Amine Salhab, published by Weiser, 2007)*

Nothing changes it seems. As you can see I ALWAYS provide reliable sources and attributions for my contributions to this and other forums.

I cannot, in faith, wish you a Happy and Holy Christmas Ed, because you are obviously not a Christian and therefore this celebration of the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ will have no meaning to you. I do, however, wish you and your family a very happy and prosperous New Year.

 

[PeterClatworthy]

Why is it “okay” for someone to be involved in pre-Davidic Free Masonrie? Aside from the fact that it isn’t banned by the Church… isn’t it still pagan?

If you are a Roman Catholic, then you are involved in a religion with a very firm pre-Davidic history. Simply different tribes of Israel.

Our pre-Davidic predecessors were converted to Christianity by the Culdee St Patrick of Armagh in the 5th Century.

There never have been any snakes in Ireland. The “snakes” that were driven out of Ireland were the pagan (druidic) gods an essential element in the conversion process.

 

[PeterClatworthy]

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.

Please deal with the issue. We are not called freemasonry which is an entirely Moderns, (post 1717) concept.

We are, and have been since time immemorial Free Masons - two words not one which mean a great deal. Catholic saints are our past Grand Masters.

You are quite right there is NO evidence that the Moderns form of freemasonry dates back to the temple of King Solomon. How could it do so when it was self started in the back of a London pub in 1717 and does not know about, or practice Inner or Templar Free Masonrie?

The symbolic craft rituals of the Moderns, WHICH WE DO NOT USE, were invented and borrowed by Theophilus Desaguliers from a French non-Masonic Rosicrucian group called “The Sons of Solomon” between 1720 and 1730. In historical terms, that is yesterday afternoon.

"Who will show me the Mother Lodge? Those of London we have discovered to be self-erected in 1716. Ask for their archives. They tell you they were burnt. They have nothing but the wretched sophistication of the Englishman Anderson and the Frenchman Desagulliers.* (SOURCE: Freemasonry - Its Pretensions Exposed In Faithful Extracts Of Its Standard Authors, 1828)*

“Ancient Craft Masonry consisted of a single degree, the Fellow-Craft. The Master’s degree is little more than one hundred and fifty years old (sic, in fact c.1730) if, indeed, it has been a degree, and not merely a ceremony of investiture with office, so long as that.” (SOURCE: Albert Pike, 1868)

 

[flameburns623]

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.

There is a very good reason why Catholics cannot be Freemasons: the Church has expressly forbidden any membership in any Masonic order.

There is a difference to be noted between so-called British or traditional Freemasonry and Continental or Grand Orient Masonry: the latter are militantly secularistic, often anti-Catholic, sometimes anti-Semitic. The former are not explicitly so. The ban against Masonry tends to be one-sided: most lodges will accept Catholic members; however this does NOT give Catholics the right to disobey the legitimate authority of their Church to forbid membership.

Nevertheless, the issue has been explored by the Church, and the Church has made clear that it does not distinguish in it’s interdict against Masonry between variant forms of the movement.

Catholics cannot be Freemasons. If they join knowing this is forbidden, they have committed mortal sin and are in effect out of communion with the Church until they repent and demit from the order.

 

[PeterClatworthy]

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.)

No lather Mr King, cold hard facts, whether you like it or not.

The first fact is that you have not a clue about our, or anyone else’s Free Masonrie, and that situation will continue until you are no more.

I told you on this forum, that we, the Holy Order, simply reinstated the Fellowship of the Craft, or Outer Orders of Free Masonrie on the 10th December 2005. This took place in the Crypt of the York Minster and in the sight of God.

The priestly, ordained Holy Order has never ceased, and has continued uninterrupted since time immemorial.

I was baptised in the Holy and Royal Arch (something that you have never had in the Moderns form of freemasonry) on the 23rd June 1948 and ordained on the 24th June 1961 at the age of 21 years.

However, although you do not know what you are talking about, this does not stop you from spewing your vitriol and I am sure that all here have noticed that you NEVER deal with the issues, preferering innuendo, falsehood, allegation and other forms of un-called for ad hominem attacks. Irrational fear causes this where there is such insecurity.

So let’s get to it shall we?

Perhaps, before you make a fool of yourself, you should ask John Hamill, the Chief Librarian of the Moderns United Grand Lodge of England, to explain his “gaff” in the press last month where he let it slip that your “higher orders” of freemasonry pre-date 1717, are “above” the 33rd degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, are not a part of the Moderns UGLE system, or connected to it or “the Master Mason”.

He is, of course, a member of these secret Moderns “higher orders”, but of course you do not know about them. These “higher orders” are merely the “symbolic” version of THE Holy Order which pre-dates the one that pre-dates the Moderns “symbolic” version, carefully hdden from its members, including you, and your American Grand Lodges.

You have not a clue about true Free Masonrie, its history, or its membership. You will see from the secrecy of your own mother “Grand Lodge” that not even they will tell you what it is, or what they get up to behind their closed doors. Closed to you that is.

The membership of our priesthood is, as you know, a matter for us. Nobody, except the governing council of The Holy Order knows the membership of The Holy Order of Free Masonrie, and that is how it will renmain. So, when you make your silly uneducated guesses, you simply prove yourself to be a charlatan and an ignoramus.

Continued on the next posting …

 

[PeterClatworthy]

Now, as you have asked for a response, please allow me to prove to all those here, that you really know very little, or nothing, in truth, about Anglo-Saxon Free Masonrie:

One question that requires an answer from you - when you fail we can draw our own conclusions.

QUESTION 1: Do you accept that Elias Ashmole was made a Free Mason at 4.30 pm on the 16th October 1646, at Kermincham, Warrington, Lancashire, England, swearing his Masonic Oath on a copy of The Constitutions of Masonrie?

Substantiated fact: The actual and original hand written Constitutions of Masonrie used by Ashmole, is available for your, or anyone else’s inspection in the Royal Library of the British Museum. The manuscript reference number is 3848.

A simple “yes” or “no” will do Mr King, except that all of your American Grand Lodges accept that he was.

Now, please correct me if I am wrong, but the Masonic Constitutions used, the initiation of Ashmole, and the initiations of the many hundreds of his predecessors pre-date the very existence of your “symbolic” or “pretend” freemasonry.

As a matter of substantiated historical fact, Elias Ashmole had been dead for a full 25 years before your little playgroup was dreamt up.

“1646, Oct. 16, 4.30. P.M. - I was made a Free
Mason at Warrington in Lancashire, with Coll: Henry Mainwaring of Karincham in
Cheshire. The names of those that were then of the Lodge [were] Mr Rich. Penket
Warden, Mr James Collier, Mr Rich. Sankey, Henry Littler, John Ellam Rich: Ellam
& Hugh Brewer.” (PRIMARY SOURCE: Handwritten diaries of Elias Ashmole, The Ashmole Library, Oxford University, diary entry date Oct 16 1646)

Here are some more and eminently “substantiated” historical facts for you:

During the building of St. Paul’s, Wren was the zealous Master of the St. Paul’s Freemason’s Lodge, which assembled at the “Goose and Gridiron,” one of the most ancient lodges in London. He presided regularly at its meetings for upwards of eighteen years (sic Grand Master of The Grand Lodge of All England at York 1685-1692 and 1698-1702). He presented the lodge with three beautifully carved mahogany candlesticks, and the trowel and mallet which he used in laying the first stone of the great cathedral in 1675. In 1688 Wren was elected Grand Master of the order, and he nominated his old fellow-workers at St. Paul’s, Cibber, the sculptor, and Strong, the master mason, Grand Wardens. In Queen Anne’s reign there were 129 lodges—eighty-six in London, thirty-six in provincial cities, and seven abroad. Many of the oldest lodges in London are in the neighbourhood of St. Paul’s. (SOURCE: ‘St Paul’s: The churchyard’, Old and New London: Volume 1 (1878), pp. 262-274. URL: british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=45041&strquery=Paul’s churchyard, Sponsor: Centre for Metropolitan History
Publication: Old and New London: Volume 1, Author: Walter Thornbury, Year published: 1878, Supporting documents: List of illustrations, Errata, Pages 262-274)

You CANNOT have a Grand Master without a Grand Lodge Mr King, The Grand Lodge at York. Sorry to disabuse you, but the truth is the truth, even if it embarrasses you in the eyes of this entire forum.

Now, for your information Mr King, British History Online is official British History from a digital library containing core printed primary and secondary sources for the medieval and modern history of the British Isles. It was created by the Institute of Historical Research and the History of Parliament Trust. They support academic and personal users around the world in their learning, teaching and research.

This official non-Masonic, unbiased and highly academic British History of Great Britain tells you, and everyone else here, that in the time of the reign of Queen Anne, 1655-1714 (before pretend Moderns ale-house freemasonry, 1717) there were, as a matter of documented historical fact, 129 regular Masonic lodges: 86 in London; 36 in provincial cities; and 7 abroad under the Grand Mastership of Sir Christopher Wren, our Grand Master.

As for your late, pretend, Moderns plastic freemasonry, it simply did not exist during the reign of Queen Anne.

Continued on the next post …

 

[PeterClatworthy]

QUESTION 2: How do you account for your ludicrous claim that “regular” freemasonry" was self started at a meeting in the tiny back room of a London drinking den on the 24th June 1717?

Perhaps you should publish their records or their minutes?

"It is to be regretted that the records of the “Four Old Lodges” do not antedate those of the ‘Grand Lodge’, they brought into existence, as fortunately happens in the case of the single lodge which blossomed into the ‘Grand Lodge of all England, held at York,’ " (SOURCE: The History of Freemasonry, Vol. IV by Robert Freke Gould, 1884)

“No records of any of the “Four Old Lodges” have been made known of a date prior to the London Grand Lodge era …” *(SOURCE: Freemasonry in the Early 1600’s and 1700’s by W.J. Hughan, Leicester, 25th January 1904) *

"Who will show me the Mother Lodge? Those of London we have discovered to be self-erected in 1716. Ask for their archives. They tell you they were burnt. They have nothing but the wretched sophistication of the Englishman Anderson and the Frenchman Desagulliers. (SOURCE: Freemasonry - Its Pretensions Exposed In Faithful Extracts Of Its Standard Authors, 1828)

"The reality is that we have no written documents about the foundation of the first Grand Lodge in 1717, no evidence that the members of the four lodges meeting at the Goose and Gridiron Tavern were the successors of the operative stonemasonry which transmitted them its rituals. John Hamill (Chief Librarian of The United Grand Lodge of England) says that “the analysis of the context in England at 1717 demonstrates that the operative lodges had disappeared since a long time. Whatever the four London lodges were at that time, it is established that they could not have been the successors of the Stonemasons’ Lodges”. (SOURCE: The Scottish Key. An Investigation into the Origins of Freemasonry, by Tristan Bourlard and François De Smet, SimonGo! Productions, 2007)

I always provide sourced reliable and independent attributions and quotations for anything that I post here and elsewhere, unlike Mr King.

Now if you are going to bandy words with me Mr King, you should know that you have chosen to bandy words with some of the finest academic brains in the United Kingdom. I am not alone here. You, Mr King, are clearly NOT an academic brain.

You should stick to what you know best, your own personal website where you can spread your calumnies whikst at the same tine denying the right of reply to all those whom you seek to abuse and libel.

Unsubstantiated? I don’t believe so Mr King. I am afraid that due to your own dishonesty and folly, you are now thoroughly exposed for what you are. A user, a taker, an abuser, and a desparately frightened and lonely man.

I will pray for the redemption of your soul today.

 

[PeterClatworthy]

There is a very good reason why Catholics cannot be Freemasons: the Church has expressly forbidden any membership in any Masonic order.

There is a difference to be noted between so-called British or traditional Freemasonry and Continental or Grand Orient Masonry: the latter are militantly secularistic, often anti-Catholic, sometimes anti-Semitic. The former are not explicitly so. The ban against Masonry tends to be one-sided: most lodges will accept Catholic members; however this does NOT give Catholics the right to disobey the legitimate authority of their Church to forbid membership.

Nevertheless, the issue has been explored by the Church, and the Church has made clear that it does not distinguish in it’s interdict against Masonry between variant forms of the movement.

Catholics cannot be Freemasons. If they join knowing this is forbidden, they have committed mortal sin and are in effect out of communion with the Church until they repent and demit from the order.

You are both right and wrong on this important issue. There is a CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS description of the freemasonry that is banned. By definition it could NOT have been the Free Masonrie of The Grand Lodge of All England. Totally impossible.

If you would like to exhibit the detailed description of the “naturalistic religion” that is the strictly Moderns version of freemasonry, it will explain why this is the case. There is no doubt.

“Freemasonry” is not religious “Free Masonrie”. Nowhere is there a ban on “Free Masonrie”, the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church. To deny religious “Free Masonrie” is also a direct denial of your own religious faith. Two Saints have been our Grand Masters: St Dunstan and St Edward the Confessor. How do you account for this?

 

[masonicinfo]

Mr King,

The vast majority of the World, outside the United States of America is far too educated and knowledgeable of world history to take you seriously. Your website is riddled with mistakes, false claims, innuendo, and libelous attacks on all and sundry.

Goodness, Peter. You do get your nickers in a twist over these things. Rather than tossing around scurrilous charges, you might want to point out some SPECIFIC errors that I’ve made. You won’t because you can’t.

Your ‘interpretations’ of history are enough to make knowledgeable Masonic scholars roll over laughing.

With it you have elevated folly to new heights by suggesting that one of England’s most important kings, King Athelstan, the first Bretwalda, and his brother Prince Edwin of York are myths! Why would a supposedly intelligent man have so deliberately contrived to demonstrate such a powerful public display of crass ignorance but due to evil intent?

Why are you such a bitter and frightened man Ed? You have nothing to fear from debating the issues that matter here, rather than trying to concentrate your efforts upon practiced personal abuse and obfuscation.

In one paragraph, I’m “supposedly intelligent” while in the next, I’m “bitter and frightened”. It’s really kind of funny but the reality is that the reader can see through your foolishness. I might also mention that you’re probably also pushing the forum rules of behavior. Might want to read that part about personal insults, eh?

The essential difference between your freemasonry and our Free Masonrie is that your freemasonry is very modern and purely symbolic. Ours is not. We actually practice the ancient religion, which dates from time immemorial.

Of course, you didn’t discover that you were part of this so-called “Free Masonrie” (which, for the viewing public, means absolutely nothing!) until just two or three months ago, did you? Why for the first two years your website was online, there wasn’t a SINGLE MENTION of it but now, as you desperately struggle to get folks interested (when all they have to do is Google the group and they find my site). If anyone wants to verify what I’ve written, all they need do is check archive.org. It’s all there for 2006 and 2007.

We revived the Fellowship of Free Masonrie in December 2005, nothing else. Inner, or Templar Free Masonrie has never ceased, and has been practiced uninterrupted since time immemorial. As a matter of recorded fact, I was baptised under the Holy and Royal Arch, on the 23rd of June 1948 and then ordained a priest on the 24th June 1969. Generations of my family have also been so baptised and so ordained. John Gordon Graves (Grand Master of All Free Masons) and Richard Young (Chancellor) have similar backgrounds.

That’s truly hilarious.

Incidentally, I notice that you’ve ignored my question about membership. At least the renegate “Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” under Warren Jetts has about 9,000 members. How many do YOU have? NINE? THREE? (It seems yours and the other two are the only ones who’re ever talked about anywhere: what’s up with THAT? Afraid to share the limelight with others - or no others to share it with?

Thus, making a big deal about what your group things is no different than some children’s tree house club deciding that the world is flat. Nobody cares, really!

Your “symbolic” freemasonry is in fact the Invisible College of the Rosicrucians, a product of Baruch Spinoza’s Enlightenment. This is why it was and is banned and condemned by almost every respectable religion on this planet, especially, but not exclusively the Roman Catholic Church, our own Céli Dé religion, and the entire world of Islam.

Your form of freemasonry, the one that is banned by the Catholic Church, was self started by non-Masons in the back room of a London pub in 1717 (the so-called Grand Lodge of London). This is NOT a matter of dispute.

Where things occurred some three centuries ago really isn’t at issue here, except for you to attempt to denigrate. You do that so very well, Peter: I think folks can see…

Our religious Free Masonrie is an historical fact, in EXACTLY the same way that the reign of King Athelstan and his brother Prince Edwin are historical facts. Our religious Free Masonrie is firmly based in the Abbeys, Cathedrals and Churches of Europe. Our Grand Lodge has met in the Crypt of the York Minster for many hundreds of years and it continues so to do.

To be continued …

All three of you, eh? It is to laugh…

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

 

[masonicinfo]

No lather Mr King, cold hard facts, whether you like it or not.

The first fact is that you have not a clue about our, or anyone else’s Free Masonrie, and that situation will continue until you are no more.

We’ll see.

Or maybe you’ll go into another hiatus for 900 years. Frankly, I’m not making book on your longevity.

I told you on this forum, that we, the Holy Order, simply reinstated the Fellowship of the Craft, or Outer Orders of Free Masonrie on the 10th December 2005. This took place in the Crypt of the York Minster and in the sight of God.

The priestly, ordained Holy Order has never ceased, and has continued uninterrupted since time immemorial.

Oh, good grief. You REALLY believe this stuff, don’t you? Your Messianic complex seems to have kicked in totally. Bizarre…

I was baptised in the Holy and Royal Arch (something that you have never had in the Moderns form of freemasonry) on the 23rd June 1948 and ordained on the 24th June 1961 at the age of 21 years.

So you’re a pensioner who’s looking desperately to garner a shred of attention from a world that has passed you buy. SEVENTY YEARS OLD! You really should update that picture of yours…

However, although you do not know what you are talking about, this does not stop you from spewing your vitriol and I am sure that all here have noticed that you NEVER deal with the issues, preferering innuendo, falsehood, allegation and other forms of un-called for ad hominem attacks. Irrational fear causes this where there is such insecurity.

So let’s get to it shall we?

Oh - and those aren’t attacks, eh? I see…

Perhaps, before you make a fool of yourself, you should ask John Hamill, the Chief Librarian of the Moderns United Grand Lodge of England, to explain his “gaff” in the press last month where he let it slip that your “higher orders” of freemasonry pre-date 1717, are “above” the 33rd degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, are not a part of the Moderns UGLE system, or connected to it or “the Master Mason”.

This is nothing more than ‘inside baseball’, folks. Mr. Clatworthy, spinning like a whirling dervish, attempts to obfuscate at every turn. It’s also worth noting that Mr. Clatworthy has no idea whatsoever what I know and what I don’t - and that a number of Masonic organizations (REAL ones that have existed for 50 years or more) have seen fit to honor me with various awards and accolades, something the elderly Mr. Clatworthy obviously seems truly jealous of.

He is, of course, a member of these secret Moderns “higher orders”, but of course you do not know about them. These “higher orders” are merely the “symbolic” version of THE Holy Order which pre-dates the one that pre-dates the Moderns “symbolic” version, carefully hdden from its members, including you, and your American Grand Lodges.

You have not a clue about true Free Masonrie, its history, or its membership. You will see from the secrecy of your own mother “Grand Lodge” that not even they will tell you what it is, or what they get up to behind their closed doors. Closed to you that is.

The membership of our priesthood is, as you know, a matter for us. Nobody, except the governing council of The Holy Order knows the membership of The Holy Order of Free Masonrie, and that is how it will renmain. So, when you make your silly uneducated guesses, you simply prove yourself to be a charlatan and an ignoramus.

Continued on the next posting …

Oh, the name calling. Golly. That REALLY enhances your case.

Hiding behind a bunch of fancy names and titles doesn’t help in this matter either. You couldn’t muster a hundred people on a sunny day in May. Heck, the local geocaching clubs probably get a far larger turnout than you and your two mates do.

Stop pretending, Peter - or head back to the David Icke forum where you’ve thrown up (and I used the term advisedly) over FOUR THOUSAND POSTS. Must be awfully quiet for you there in the office of the Grand Secretary (a/k/a your dining room table).

I’m wondering, by the way, when you’re going to threaten a lawsuit again. Have you told the folks about THAT? Perhaps they might find it enlightening.

Or perhaps you can tell them how desperate you were for recognition from the Commission on Recognition of the Grand Masters of North America and then, when they saw through your silliness, you’ve decided that it was unimportant.

Yes, I’m sure everyone here wants to learn about ALL of these things, peppered with selected insults from a seventy-year old. It is to laugh.

Ed King
Webmaster masonicinfo.com Anti-Masonry: Points of View
And for more information about Mr. Clatworthy’s completely unrecognized pub club, see masonicinfo.com/glae.htm

 

[masonicinfo]

I always provide sourced reliable and independent attributions and quotations for anything that I post here and elsewhere, unlike Mr King.

Now if you are going to bandy words with me Mr King, you should know that you have chosen to bandy words with some of the finest academic brains in the United Kingdom. I am not alone here. You, Mr King, are clearly NOT an academic brain.

I’ll bet everyone reading this is now going to be SO totally impressed.

Good thing that there’s national health care there in the U.K. since you’re going to be doing a lot of tending to that ripped shoulder muscle from patting yourself on the back so hard and often.

You should stick to what you know best, your own personal website where you can spread your calumnies whikst at the same tine denying the right of reply to all those whom you seek to abuse and libel.

You can CERTAINLY have a right of reply on my website, Mr. Clatworthy, providing, of course, I have the same opportunity on yours! Deal?

Unsubstantiated? I don’t believe so Mr King. I am afraid that due to your own dishonesty and folly, you are now thoroughly exposed for what you are. A user, a taker, an abuser, and a desparately frightened and lonely man.

I will pray for the redemption of your soul today.

That and twenty cents…

I think that the reading public has probably had quite enough of your preening and prancing. How long are you going to bore them prostituting for your little pub club?

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

 

[PeterClatworthy]

Many words Ed, but you say nothing.

Elias Ashmole?

Yes or no.

 

[masonicinfo]

Many words Ed, but you say nothing.

Elias Ashmole?

Yes or no.

Really, Peter: anyone can see I’ve said FAR more than you have, although I’ve used a LOT fewer electrons. Nobody here gives a tinker’s damn about your trying to count the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. It’s a puerile attempt to ‘score points’ without even realizing how utterly foolish you look.

That notwithstanding, since the ONLY official and binding documents of Freemasonry are those adopted by the Grand Lodge in which one is a member, I would defy you to identify the naming of ANYONE involved in the foundation of Freemasonry contained in an official document of my Grand Lodge.

Ooooppppsssss… Gotcha!

Your attempts to claim some sort of ‘priesthood’ and ‘secret order’ are really the type of things that kiddies do in a tree house - not adults in Freemasonry. Of course, a 70 year old seeking attention obviously has limited options and trying to argue the foundation of Freemasonry on catholic.com seems perfect for someone who has been referred to on Masonic forums as a Walter Mitty character. Sedevacantists would really enjoy having you on board with them: you could show them a LOT of moves, I suspect.

Oh, and the link I posted in my last message was wrong. Those wanting to read about you and your mates, now trying desperately to re-write history, should head to masonicinfo.com/allengland.htm

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

 

[PeterClatworthy]

Really, Peter: anyone can see I’ve said FAR more than you have, although I’ve used a LOT fewer electrons. Nobody here gives a tinker’s damn about your trying to count the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. It’s a puerile attempt to ‘score points’ without even realizing how utterly foolish you look.

That notwithstanding, since the ONLY official and binding documents of Freemasonry are those adopted by the Grand Lodge in which one is a member, I would defy you to identify the naming of ANYONE involved in the foundation of Freemasonry contained in an official document of my Grand Lodge.

Ooooppppsssss… Gotcha!

Your attempts to claim some sort of ‘priesthood’ and ‘secret order’ are really the type of things that kiddies do in a tree house - not adults in Freemasonry. Of course, a 70 year old seeking attention obviously has limited options and trying to argue the foundation of Freemasonry on catholic.com seems perfect for someone who has been referred to on Masonic forums as a Walter Mitty character. Sedevacantists would really enjoy having you on board with them: you could show them a LOT of moves, I suspect.

Oh, and the link I posted in my last message was wrong. Those wanting to read about you and your mates, now trying desperately to re-write history, should head to masonicinfo.com/allengland.htm

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

Self-started in the back room of a London ale-house. That is EXACTLY what I said.

“The Earl of Crawford seems to have made the first encroachment on the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge in the city of York, by constituting two lodges within their district; and by granting, without their consent, three deputations, one for Lancashire, a second for Durham, and a third for Northumberland., This circumstance the Grand Lodge of York highly resented …” *(SOURCE: Illustrations of Masonry by Dr William Preston, 1772) *

"In 1735, the Earl of Crawford, Grand Master of England, constituted two Lodges within the jurisdiction of the York Grand Lodge and granted, without its consent, Deputations for Lancashire, Durham and Northumberland. (SOURCE: Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry Part 1, page 327, by Albert Gallatin Mackey and H.L. Haywood, 1909)

History.

 

[PeterClatworthy]

So your Grand Lodge was started when, and how? Where does it gain its claimed legitimacy if not from the Moderns United Grand Lodge of England?

This is just obfuscation Ed.

Your mother Grand Lodge, the one that gives you your claimed legitimacy, self-started in the back room of a London ale-house. That is EXACTLY what I said.

“The Earl of Crawford seems to have made the first encroachment on the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge in the city of York, by constituting two lodges within their district; and by granting, without their consent, three deputations, one for Lancashire, a second for Durham, and a third for Northumberland., This circumstance the Grand Lodge of York highly resented …” (SOURCE: Illustrations of Masonry by Dr William Preston, 1772)

 

[masonicinfo]

Self-started in the back room of a London ale-house. That is EXACTLY what I said.

More obfuscation. You’re answers really show your disingenuity, Peter.

You’re flailing, trying to claim that a four year old organization using a moniker of “Free Masonrie” (instead of Freemasonry) invented for more attention two months old is somehow a “priesthood”… it is to laugh!

Whether the Grand Lodge that formed my Grand Lodge took its current form in the back of a pub (a VERY common meeting place for the time) in 1717 or not, it certainly was NOT formed in 2005 - like yours. You’ve hijacked the thread to prance and prattle, providing misleading information and it’s pretty clear to all who’ve bothered to read through your dull prose.

Facts, though, can be found about your group at masonicinfo.com/allengland.htm

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