freemasonry

[Sir_Knight]

One of the past sins of the Catholic Church that Pope John Paul II forgot to apologize for was the sin of bearing false witness against the Freemasons.

No false witness was bore, therefore, no apology is required.

 

[catharina]

I assume the “theory” part you refer to is what are the individual Mason’s thought’s and beliefs.
Does his own personal experience as a ranking Mason constitute theory only?

And my previous question has not been answered:

If a Catholic embraces theological teachings other than Catholicism is he not in heresy? Isn’t this enough to excommunicate?

What are the Canon Laws for excommunication??

His theory is his theory. His personal experiences as a former mason would/could, no doubt, fill a book and make for some interesting reading to any reader who’s so inclined to read such testimony. As a member of the laity, he is not free to pass a judgment of “excommunication” on anyone - nor are you, nor am I. I accept the theory that King David wrote the Psalms. The theory that King David wrote the Psalms comes, historically, from the Jews. Some Catholic “Scripture scholars” say the credit goes to David; others say the credit should go to many, diverse authors. Now, because I happen to believe this point of JEWISH theological reference, am I to be excommunicated? No. You are swinging a very large ax through a jungle of scholarship. Maybe many of us need to duck.

As for Canon Law and excommunication, there are a number of references to the penalty of excommunication and these are scattered throughout the Code Of Canon Law according to the offenses given. If for some reason known to yourself (I guess), you want to find all of those citations, you can start with a google of “Code of Canon Law, 1983, excommunication” as the search term. I’m not about to hunt them down for you.

 

[kms123]

And my previous question has not been answered:

**If a Catholic embraces theological teachings other than Catholicism is he not in heresy? Isn’t this enough to excommunicate?
**

It’s pretty straight forward. If a mason embraces the theology of Masonry then he puts himself in such a position that he essentially excommunicates himself from the Church. No laity is passing judgment here.

 

[catharina]

kms123;3752539:

And my previous question has not been answered:

**If a Catholic embraces theological teachings other than Catholicism is he not in heresy? Isn’t this enough to excommunicate?
**

It’s pretty straight forward. If a mason embraces the theology of Masonry then he puts himself in such a position that he essentially excommunicates himself from the Church. No laity is passing judgment here.

Yoo hoo? You are now quoting YOURSELF?

There doesn’t appear to be a “theology of masonry” except in the minds of those who accuse masonry of being a religious organization. It’s a men’s social club. Get it yet?

If you are Catholic you are NOT free to invent your own Code of Canon Law. It’s a BIG no-no.

 

[kms123]

kms123;3752777:

Yoo hoo? You are now quoting YOURSELF?

There doesn’t appear to be a “theology of masonry” except in the minds of those who accuse masonry of being a religious organization. It’s a men’s social club. Get it yet?

If you are Catholic you are NOT free to invent your own Code of Canon Law. It’s a BIG no-no.

I am repeating an unanswered question. Are there rules against this?

I now see where you disagree with the Church. Masonry teaches indifferentism and syncretism which are condemned by the Church as heresies.

I do not know where you think someone is inventing Codes. All I’m presenting is how Codes apply in regards to Masonic teachings/beliefs.

Lastly, I find your posts uncharitable, condescending and unproductive. Why don’t you argue the point instead of attacking the posters.

 

[catharina]

catharina;3752861:

I am repeating an unanswered question. Are there rules against this?

I now see where you disagree with the Church. Masonry teaches indifferentism and syncretism which are condemned by the Church as heresies.

I do not know where you think someone is inventing Codes. All I’m presenting is how Codes apply in regards to Masonic teachings/beliefs.

Lastly, I find your posts uncharitable, condescending and unproductive. Why don’t you argue the point instead of attacking the posters.

Whatever you might find me to be is fine with me. I find you to be peculiarly obstinate. Perhaps we’re even. MIGHT other codes of Canon Law apply to some or many or even all Catholic masons? Yes, they MIGHT apply. DO THEY APPLY? NO, THEY DON’T. What we know FROM THE CHURCH, not from you nor from any civil lawyer is that, at present, the penalty for any Catholic who becomes a member of the masons is the forbidden reception of the Holy Eucharist. You can twist and turn and “what if” and hypothesize forever, but you cannot change Canon Law - nor can you declare this or that to be true of “penalties for Catholic masons” any point beyond Church Law as it stands - because you are not the Pope and it is the Pope alone who approves the Code of Canon Law. Why does legalism seem to have you by the throat?

You can point out how “how Codes” MIGHT" apply in regard to certain Masonic teachings/beliefs;" you cannot declare that they DO apply because you have no knowledge of that as FACT. This is a point of law, CANON LAW.

 

[catharina]

If a Catholic embraces theological teachings other than Catholicism is he not in heresy? Isn’t this enough to excommunicate?

What are the Canon Laws for excommunication??

1. There is no theology of masonry. There is a philosophical stance relevant to masonry.
2. I’ve answered your other question. The canons governing excommunication are scattered throughout the Code of Canon Law.

Now I’ve answered both of your questions - twice.

 

[zerinus]

In fairness to the Catholic side, I should add that the LDS Church also opposes secret organizations which plot against church and state, and seek to destabilize or destroy legitimate civilian government. This in fact is a major theme in the Book of Mormon, where it is often referred to as “secret combinations”. They existed in ancient times, and still exist today. The Book of Mormon informs us that they brought abut the destruction of two great Book of Mormon civilizations, the Jaredites and the Nephites; and it predicts that they will exist in the latter days to do the same:

Ether 8:

18 And it came to pass that they formed a secret combination, even as they of old; which combination is most abominable and wicked above all, in the sight of God;

---

21 And they have caused the destruction of this people of whom I am now speaking *, and also the destruction of the people of Nephi.

22 And whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed;

---

25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, . . .

26 Wherefore, I, Moroni, am commanded to write these things that evil may be done away, and that the time may come that Satan may have no power upon the hearts of the children of men, but that they may be persuaded to do good continually, that they may come unto the fountain of all righteousness and be saved.*

The mistake that the Catholic Church made was to classify Freemasonry as such an organization, which it is not. Such organizations really try to keep themselves secret—unlike Masonry, which has a “lodge” on every other street corner.

zerinus

 

[kms123]

A Catholic who is a Mason and is aware of the Church’s judgement is in a state of grave sin and may not approach communion.

note: obstinate perseverance is when one chooses to disregard warnings to terminate (masonic) affiliation.

Automatic excommunication applies when one acts in a grave way with obstinate perseverance, full knowledge and deliberation. Though this is uncommon it can and has occurred.

“The excommunication that Bishop Bruskewitz announced covered not only to Call to Action, but also to members of Catholics for a Free Choice, Planned Parenthood, the Hemlock Society, the Freemasons, and the Society of St. Pius X.”

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=48072

x

 

[catharina]

A Catholic who is a Mason and is aware of the Church’s judgement is in a state of grave sin and may not approach communion.

~YES~

note: obstinate perseverance CAN OCCUR when one chooses to disregard warnings to terminate (MASONIC) affiliation.

~YES~

Automatic excommunication applies when one acts in a grave way with obstinate perseverance, full knowledge and deliberation. Though this is uncommon it can and has occurred.

~YES~

“The excommunication that Bishop Bruskewitz announced covered not only to Call to Action, but also to members of Catholics for a Free Choice, Planned Parenthood, the Hemlock Society, the Freemasons, and the Society of St. Pius X” ~~~ and the actions of the archbishop apply to those CATHOLICS IN THE DIOCESE OF LINCOLN NEBRASKA. ~~~

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=48072

x

Yep. You’re getting there.

 

[ralphinal]

What is your definition of slander, defamation, and false accusation? Do you have any? The tone of that Papal pronouncement suggests that it was motivated by jealousy than by good will.
zerinus

Again, show me the lie, the slander or the defamation. I have yet to see it in that pronouncement.

The fact is French Freemasonry, which spawned European mainland freemasonry, was anti-clerical and anti-Church. Even the Masons on this thread say that. The oaths to keep the secrets were taken on the Bible and did call for grusome dismemberments should they be broken. And again, an honest man does not fear the light shining on his actions

Show the sin.

 

[zerinus]

Again, show me the lie, the slander or the defamation. I have yet to see it in that pronouncement.

The fact is French Freemasonry, which spawned European mainland freemasonry, was anti-clerical and anti-Church. Even the Masons on this thread say that. The oaths to keep the secrets were taken on the Bible and did call for grusome dismemberments should they be broken. And again, an honest man does not fear the light shining on his actions

Show the sin.

If you cannot read plain English, then I cannot help you. What do you expect me to do, read to you the In Eminenti word for word, analyze it line by line and phrase by phrase, and spoon-feed it to you syllable by syllable, to make you understand why it is needlessly slanderous and defamatory to freemasonry? My time can be better spent than to do that.

Your arguments lack logic and rationality, which makes you a difficult person to debate with.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

If you cannot read plain English, then I cannot help you. What do you expect me to do, read to you the In Eminenti word for word, analyze it line by line and phrase by phrase, and spoon-feed it to you syllable by syllable, to make you understand why it is needlessly slanderous and defamatory to freemasonry? My time can be better spent than to do that.

Your arguments lack logic and rationality, which makes you a difficult person to debate with.

zerinus

Let me explain my point. One of the common lies about Freemasonry is that they are satanic. That is not contained in the bull. What the bull says is that they are up to no good or else they would not be secret. That may be an assumption, but based on history of other secret things, it is a safe one. Another is that they are anti-Church. Again, the European one was (is). The third claim was about the oaths, and again, that is true.

Now, you seem to be focused on the words “reached our ears” and “common gossip.” The first shows that the pope himself did not ever attend any meetings but had someone else do it. The second refers to the "word on the street’and is not meant to imply any falsehood. Further, it is part of his position that if they were not hiding something, they would not be hidding. Why is that a lie?

 

[rinnie]

I have heard when a person is a mason they are considered a brotherhood, they are told to cover for eachother and even lie for eachother if necessary. I have heard that many years ago, then like 20 years later on ewtn a person was indeed a Catholic and Mason. He said the same thing. ironic isnt it. Didnt Jesus leave a commandment about lies. Second if its not a secret society (then why is everything they do kept in secret) why are you not to share what goes on in the meetings? Again i know this for a fact. A fact i repeat. If two people need a job and one is a mason and one is not, a mason must give the job to a mason. How many people have heard that one before, many im sure,and how many have seen it (i sure have). So please dont tell me that these meetings are not in secret because they are. Why would you need to hide things if they were not wrong? Masons are against the CC and always have been, and always will be. Now my question, why would a Catholic want to join an organization that is ANTI CATHOLIC? Just like why would a protestant want to join the Knights is they are not Catholic? Why is their bible not a Catholic bible but a protestant one. Probally the same reason, because they are against the CC. Now do you see why the Pope said no. They are not a Catholic Organization shouldnt that in itself be enough. If someone wants to join a organization, to as they claim help someone why not do it within your religion. That would be my question if i were the Pope. I would say we have an organization its called the Knights, you can join it, that way i can be sure you stay within your Religion. Hows that good enough. Again i will repeat for those who dont understand the Popes job, It is to keep us on the straight and narrow path to our Lord. I understand People who are not Catholic dont believe that. I cant make you, but as a Catholic i will follow him the way our Lord Jesus Christ taught us.

 

[zerinus]

Let me explain my point. One of the common lies about Freemasonry is that they are satanic. That is not contained in the bull. What the bull says is that they are up to no good or else they would not be secret. That may be an assumption, but based on history of other secret things, it is a safe one.

No it isn’t. You don’t accuse someone of wrongdoing on the basis of mere assumption. You investigate, find the evidence, and back up your accusations with evidence. You can’t take someone to court on the basis of an assumption. If you suspect something, you investigate, find the evidence, present the evidence to court, and prosecute according to the evidence.

Another is that they are anti-Church. Again, the European one was (is).

That is not true. At the time that the In Eminenti was issued, Freemasonry was not anti-Church (any church). It became anti-clerical after the sustained and vicious attacks against it conducted by the Catholic Church. In England, prominent churchmen have been Freemasons, and nobody cared.

The third claim was about the oaths, and again, that is true.

What about the oaths? The objections on the oaths in In Eminenti are not theological. They are part of the objection to the secrecy of the organization.

Now, you seem to be focused on the words “reached our ears” and “common gossip.” The first shows that the pope himself did not ever attend any meetings but had someone else do it. The second refers to the "word on the street” and is not meant to imply any falsehood.

My focus is on phrases like “it is in the nature of crime to betray itself” and “depraved and perverted” and “if they were not doing evil. . .” These are slanderous accusations that in civilized society one does not bring against someone without firm evidence to prove it.

Further, it is part of his position that if they were not hiding something, they would not be hidding. Why is that a lie?

See above.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

No it isn’t. You don’t accuse someone of wrongdoing on the basis of mere assumption. You investigate, find the evidence, and back up your accusations with evidence. You can’t take someone to court on the basis of an assumption. If you suspect something, you investigate, find the evidence, present the evidence to court, and prosecute according to the evidence.

See OJ Simpson vs The Goldman Family…Civil and criminal are two different things

That is not true. At the time that the In Eminenti was issued, Freemasonry was not anti-Church (any church). It became anti-clerical after the sustained and vicious attacks against it conducted by the Catholic Church. In England, prominent churchmen have been Freemasons, and nobody cared.

Again, you keep saying England. The majority of Masons were not English but European, and they were anti-Church. Even the Masons admit that.

What about the oaths? The objections on the oaths in In Eminenti are not theological. They are part of the objection to the secrecy of the organization.

My focus is on phrases like “it is in the nature of crime to betray itself” and “depraved and perverted” and “if they were not doing evil. . .” These are slanderous accusations that in civilized society one does not bring against someone without firm evidence to prove it.
zerinus

I see where you are coming from. It just doesn’t make sense to me to have all the ritual and stuff. Then why the secrecy? Why the oaths saying “let my neck be split and my intrails pulled out” if it was a big game? A men’s club does not need all that ****.

 

[zerinus]

See OJ Simpson vs The Goldman Family…Civil and criminal are two different things

Have no idea what you are talking about.

Again, you keep saying England. The majority of Masons were not English but European, and they were anti-Church. Even the Masons admit that.

You must be hard of hearing (or reading). When In Eminenti was issued, there were few Freemasons in Europe, and they were not anti-Catholic.

I see where you are coming from. It just doesn’t make sense to me to have all the ritual and stuff. Then why the secrecy? Why the oaths saying “let my neck be split and my intrails pulled out” if it was a big game? A men’s club does not need all that ****.

That is your opinion. I don’t care about your opinion, and neither do the Freemasons.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

Have no idea what you are talking about.

A civil court awarded the Goldman family basically all of OJ Simpson’s money. Now, OJ was found not guilty of the killing of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, but a civil court found him guilty. The civil court was looking at a perponderance of evidence, in other words, it seems like enough to blaim him. The pope was likewise using a perponderance of evidence: it seemed like enough to make the case against them.

You must be hard of hearing (or reading). When In Eminenti was issued, there were few Freemasons in Europe, and they were not anti-Catholic.

The date of the papal bull was 1738. According to Wikipedia (I know), the oldest jurisdiction on the continent of Europe, the Grand Orient de France (GOdF), was founded in 1728. I would like to note that by 1877, most of the European lodges had cut ties with the French group because of their removal of the requirment of believing in a diety. Most latin American Lodges are from the French type (again, per Wikipedia). Ten years is enough time to establish a track record. Doesn’t it say something that even other MASONS found the French group problematic?

That is your opinion. I don’t care about your opinion, and neither do the Freemasons.

zerinus

But my opinion is formed by two things. The first is the Alabama experiance of Masonry, which is not good. The second is Catholic teaching. I wish the Masons would come and see the cess-pool that Alabama Masonry has been, with George Wallace as the poster boy, but they can ignore it if they wish. If they didn’t care about what the CHurch said, why have these threads been popping up on here?

I know you don’t care about my opinion. I love you anyway

 

[armyross]

I always thought that masons is where LDS came about?

 

[zerinus]

A civil court awarded the Goldman family basically all of OJ Simpson’s money. Now, OJ was found not guilty of the killing of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, but a civil court found him guilty. The civil court was looking at a perponderance of evidence, in other words, it seems like enough to blaim him. The pope was likewise using a perponderance of evidence: it seemed like enough to make the case against them.

First of all, there were no “preponderance of evidence” against Masonry, and the Papal Bull does not mention any. Second, comparing a rigorous judicial process to a Papal Bull is like comparing apples with car tires. Third, in a murder investigation conclusive evidence may be nonexistent or difficult to obtain; in freemasonry, evidence is readily available, from the Masons themselves. In the in-depth investigation into Masonry carried out by the West German Conference of Bishops in 1980, which lasted 6 years, the Freemasons fully cooperated with the bishops in their inquiry, and provided them with all the information required for the purpose.

As I said before, your thought process and arguments are so irational that it makes an intelligent discussion impossible. No further comment is required for the remainder of your post.

zerinus