Dialogue with Brother Freemasons?

[anon67074017]

I personally believe that Freemasonry is closely linked with the Illuminati. Would it really work to open dialogue with Freemasons? Would that get us closer to peace with forces seeking to destroy us?

 

[Duane1966]

Napoleon is a mixed bag, there are some positives that go along with the negatives. Along with famously refusing to cast out (or kill) any more Hugenots or Jews, Napoleon was responsible for a unified civil code, the metric system, abolishing the feudal system, the Council of State, the Bank of France, a secular national school system that quickly led to French children outperforming their European neighbors, among other very nice things. As summarized by British historian Andrew Roberts in “Napoleon: A Life”…

If you forget that Napoleon was responsible for introducing these sorts of ideas and ideals, you may be doomed to forget that the Catholic Church spent more time fighting some of them than it did with helping them along. There are bad things to say about him along with quite a bit of good (which you should not completely bypass, it makes you seem uninformed).

I highlighted the main part. Every tyrant you could say this about. So, what is the criteria that Freemasonry uses to decide which tyrant they choose to support, and which one they want to overthrow? Is it codified?

Oh trust me, English Freemasons were not ever silent about Napoleon. Again, that is one of the main reasons why the French Masons and English Masons wound up having a Great Divide. Now, the Catholic Church is not expected to address “every individual pocket” of Freemasonry, but it ought to be clear in addressing just one pocket instead of acting like any one pocket can speak for or represent the whole of it. In this particular instance, one pocket was actively seeking to harm another.

Tell me, which pocket represented the ideals of Freemasonry? The one doing the harming, or the one being harmed? Because, one of these pockets is going to have a different view of Freemasonry than you have stated.

This will probably address some of your concerns.
freemasons-freemasonry.com/prescott13.html

Actually, that link did not address any of my concerns. I found this particularly disturbing:

The world cannot be held together by any outward pressure, but only by the growth of that inner spirit enshrined in the very soul of Masonry.

Any Christian should find this quote disturbing. We know that Jesus did not found Freemasonry. Whatever church he founded, is the only way the world can be held together.

I asked this:

Can you give me links showing that Masons in positions of power have been investigated in a variety of settings?

You gave me this:

This is the First Special Report from the House of Commons, the government reply to the Third Special Report from the Home Affairs Committee. publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmhaff/577s1/has103.htm

It’s a key part in a larger interaction, but suffice to say that for more than a handful of years, unproven concerns over the Masonic membership of law enforcement and judges led to it being a registrable interest, and then it stopped being that way because close examination revealed nothing but rumors and suspicions.

Do you even bother to read the links you post? There is nothing in that link that shows that Masons in positions of power have been investigated. They were simply required to register that they were Freemasons. You have not shown, that once they registered, they were investigated because of it.

I’m not a member of law enforcement or a lawyer, but as far as I know there is a certain amount of discretion that permits leniency. Accepting money or favors in exchange for leniency would be a bigger problem, but that’s not at issue here, and I’d say you’ve described something within the bounds of acceptable discretion, as long as it’s not forming a consistent pattern.

If the leniency that was given because the person who violated the law was a Freemason, and would not have been given if that same person had not been a Freemason, then it is an abuse of power. That police officer said, and I am paraphrasing:

I let the person go because he was a brother Freemason.

It only follows that he would not have let him off if he had not been a brother Freemason.

It does. As a cop, he knows who’s union. As a Mason, he knows how many of those people show up at lodges because he physically sees them there. This is, in effect, an eyewitness account, and he regularly interacts with corroborating eyewitnesses.

This is an unreasonable and contrarian response.

Firsthand knowledge, does not in itself make a person credible. He is credible in your eyes. He has not established credibility in mine. And you are trying to prove your point with me. You know, if you can give me something official backing your friend’s statement, it would go a loooooooong way in establishing his credibility with me. As it is, the fact that you have produced nothing that backs his statement up, hurts his credibility immensely in my eyes.

Do you have a source who would actually know something about it?

No, but surely your source can prove what they stated to you. That is all I am asking, that your source prove it.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

I highlighted the main part. Every tyrant you could say this about. So, what is the criteria that Freemasonry uses to decide which tyrant they choose to support, and which one they want to overthrow? Is it codified?

In this particular instance? It was the French Masons who backed Napoleon (and the French Revolution before that) and it was the English Masons who were opposed to Napoleon (while also having some deeply felt reservations about the French Revolution that French Masons didn’t exactly share). That type of clear-cut disunity was not by design, and no one went out of their way to try and make it be that way. But that’s how it happened, and it illustrates a divide between one kind of Mason and another.

Tell me, which pocket represented the ideals of Freemasonry? The one doing the harming, or the one being harmed? Because, one of these pockets is going to have a different view of Freemasonry than you have stated.

I would argue that the English tradition more faithfully represents the true ideals of Freemasonry, which as far as I can tell was formed and founded in cooperation with religion in general, and Christianity in particular. Membership was originally limited to Christians, and for a time, when applicable, those members were required to practice the specific type of Christianity as their ruler, in cooperation with contemporary law and prevailing requirements. Enmity with Catholicism and/or religion in general was a most unfortunate departure from the ideals of Freemasonry (this is my opinion at least) and it was not done by all Masons in all places (that is not opinion, it is a simple fact).

What I’ve been trying to tell you all along is that there are incredibly distinct types of Masons with divergent and totally contradictory approaches to their relationship with religion. I’m more than aware of this, I’ve been trying to confront you with that very fact. If I were to become a Mason, I would find out if the specific lodge in question is a part of the French tradition or the English, and I would completely avoid it if it were in the French tradition.

We know that Jesus did not found Freemasonry.

We can certainly agree on that. This is something that I would have to talk about before seriously considering joining up.

There is nothing in that link that shows that Masons in positions of power have been investigated. They were simply required to register that they were Freemasons. You have not shown, that once they registered, they were investigated because of it.

I had showed you previously that Jack Straw was primarily responsible for beginning and then ending the practice of requiring English Masons in certain positions to reveal their membership. That last source showed the beginning of the process.

One of the reasons for revoking it was a legal decision made in Italy by the European Court of Human Rights. That can be seen here. wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1142711&Site=COE

I suppose the main thing I’m trying to get across is this. In different parts of Europe- both in England and on the continent- there have been examples of restrictions placed on Masons in certain positions of power, not because of any systematic corruption or wrongdoing that has been successfully demonstrated, but because of fear-based opinions and estimates of what might- could- possibly happen.

I wonder what would happen if I asked you to demonstrate that Masons in positions of power are guilty of systemic corruption and coordinated wrongdoing that is specifically linked to their Masonic affiliation? Actually, I think I have a guess- you’ll go back to talking about police officers who sometimes let other Masons off with a warning, which is really absolutely nothing. And beyond that- nothing else.

If the leniency that was given because the person who violated the law was a Freemason, and would not have been given if that same person had not been a Freemason,

Actually, leniency very well might have been given if that same person had not been a Freemason. I’m not a Freemason and I’ve gotten leniency when being pulled over. One time, I blew a red light and the officer said he’d change the violation to a seat belt fine. I was wearing my seat belt, but the fine was a lot less and it didn’t give me a ding on my driving record since it doesn’t count as a moving violation. I assume he made that change (very much in my favor) because he had a specific quota to meet, and he needed to issue more seatbelt citations but he’d already met the quota for red light violations.

I’ve heard plenty of stories from other people who avoid tickets for any and all of the following reasons: They succeeded in making the police officer laugh, there was no good reason for speeding but hey, I’m a beautiful woman, the person in question is the significant other of another police officer, he’s a friend of the officer and known to be in a bad financial place, or it’s a teacher who got pulled over near his school and the attention he got from his students on the way by was considered punishment enough. And of course there’s countless examples of celebrities and famous people getting away with stuff because they’re famous.

then it is an abuse of power…It only follows that he would not have let him off if he had not been a brother Freemason.

It doesn’t necessarily follow, because cops let people off with warnings all the time. Most of the time, those people are not Masons. If the police officer had said “I would never give a ticket to a brother Mason,” that would be a different thing. But if there has been one or two times that he did this for a Mason, alongside countless other examples of leniency toward random people…that isn’t an abuse of power. It’s nothing.

 

[Duane1966]

I had showed you previously that Jack Straw was primarily responsible for beginning and then ending the practice of requiring English Masons in certain positions to reveal their membership. That last source showed the beginning of the process.

One of the reasons for revoking it was a legal decision made in Italy by the European Court of Human Rights. That can be seen here. wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1142711&Site=COE

I suppose the main thing I’m trying to get across is this. In different parts of Europe- both in England and on the continent- there have been examples of restrictions placed on Masons in certain positions of power, not because of any systematic corruption or wrongdoing that has been successfully demonstrated, but because of fear-based opinions and estimates of what might- could- possibly happen.

I wonder what would happen if I asked you to demonstrate that Masons in positions of power are guilty of systemic corruption and coordinated wrongdoing that is specifically linked to their Masonic affiliation? Actually, I think I have a guess- you’ll go back to talking about police officers who sometimes let other Masons off with a warning, which is really absolutely nothing. And beyond that- nothing else.

You really need to read what you link to. Nothing in this document says anyone was investigated because of being a Freemason. In fact, it goes on to say that the only person among the candidates that declared himself a Freemason, got the post. Hmmmmmmm. I wonder if the other candidates were more qualified, but did not get the post because they were not Freemasons? Very suspicious.

Actually, leniency very well might have been given if that same person had not been a Freemason.

If someone says they let you go because of something, it follows if that something were absent, they would not have let you go. So that police officer made it clear that leniency was only given because the person he had stopped was a fellow Mason.

I’ve heard plenty of stories from other people who avoid tickets for any and all of the following reasons: They succeeded in making the police officer laugh, there was no good reason for speeding but hey, I’m a beautiful woman, the person in question is the significant other of another police officer, he’s a friend of the officer and known to be in a bad financial place, or it’s a teacher who got pulled over near his school and the attention he got from his students on the way by was considered punishment enough. And of course there’s countless examples of celebrities and famous people getting away with stuff because they’re famous.

I’m happy for them.

It doesn’t necessarily follow, because cops let people off with warnings all the time. Most of the time, those people are not Masons. If the police officer had said “I would never give a ticket to a brother Mason,” that would be a different thing. But if there has been one or two times that he did this for a Mason, alongside countless other examples of leniency toward random people…that isn’t an abuse of power. It’s nothing.

Again, if being a Freemason was the deciding factor in whether that person got a ticket or not, then yes, it is an abuse of power.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… It was the French Masons who backed Napoleon (and the French Revolution before that) and it was the English Masons who were opposed to Napoleon (while also having some deeply felt reservations about the French Revolution that French Masons didn’t exactly share). That type of clear-cut disunity was not by design, and no one went out of their way to try and make it be that way. But that’s how it happened, and it illustrates a divide between one kind of Mason and another.

…

I think they started to back the Revolution because they got cheesed off with Louis XV and especially XVI; the ruling house had suited them rather well prior to that. Masonry is probably an offshoot of Berulleanism but some got impatient with the superficial image of that.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Freemasons promote syncretism. The oath taken when they join up is taken on all the religious books of the world where all faiths are equal and true. This declaration is at fundamental odds with the Catholic faith. There is only one true faith.

 

[anon67074017]

Freemasons promote syncretism. The oath taken when they join up is taken on all the religious books of the world where all faiths are equal and true. This declaration is at fundamental odds with the Catholic faith. There is only one true faith.

Is that why they used they used the Qur’an as symbolism in V for Vendetta?

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Is that why they used they used the Qur’an as symbolism in V for Vendetta?

Not sure what V for Vendetta is. Amongst other reasons that make masonry incompatible with Catholicism is the oath taken to a “higher being”. Only the Church has the authority conferred to it by Jesus to decide upon oaths taken by it’s clergy and parishioners. Oaths are serious statements, the masons take an oath to a “a higher being” and their declaration essentially places all faiths as being equal and true.

There is only one true faith. A Catholic who joins the Freemasons incurs an automatic excommunication.

I’m sure they do good deeds but God gave us the Church to warn and guide us against false prophets and false teachings. It’s up to us as individuals to pay attention and inform ourselves. Our salvation is our responsibility and ours alone but we are blessed to have the Church there to guide us and lead the way.

 

[anon67074017]

Not sure what V for Vendetta is. Amongst other reasons that make masonry incompatible with Catholicism is the oath taken to a “higher being”. Only the Church has the authority conferred to it by Jesus to decide upon oaths taken by it’s clergy and parishioners. Oaths are serious statements, the masons take an oath to a “a higher being” and their declaration essentially places all faiths as being equal and true.

There is only one true faith. A Catholic who joins the Freemasons incurs an automatic excommunication.

I’m sure they do good deeds but God gave us the Church to warn and guide us against false prophets and false teachings. It’s up to us as individuals to pay attention and inform ourselves. Our salvation is our responsibility and ours alone but we are blessed to have the Church there to guide us and lead the way.

V for Vendetta is a film with Masonic symbolism.