freemasonry

[rinnie]

Here is what i was told about freemasonary the real object is to destory authority that comes from God and all revealed religion. The secret oath of obedience taken as it is is without any reservation is absolutely unlawful and the symbolism of many of their lodges is grossly blasphemous and insulting to Christianity. Pope Leo Xll stated that the ultimate aim of freemasonry is the overthrow of the whole religious political and social order based on Christians institutions and the establishment of a state of things based on principles pure nationalism. It goes on to say that the secret oath of obedience is a blasphemous practice and so freemasonary in these countries equally with coninental masonary is is punished with excomuniation simply reserved to the Holy See. This severe decision by the church has not been taken without a thorough understanding of freemasony both on the continent of europe and other countries. and the differences between these various types of freeasonry. Nor is the Church unaware of the claims of freemasonons that their sole object is to build a spiritual temple to humanity and enlightenment. Nevertheles this strict decision stands and does so for good and substantial reasons. That is good enough reasons for me.

 

[zerinus]

zerinus,
You are one of the most consistantly logical people on this site. I can almost always back up every assertion that you make. I admire the fact that you are knowledgeable and well-read, and I have learned from you.

You cannot however make the leap to the Catholic Church seeing conspiracies when you look at the facts of French and mainland Europe Freemasonry. Within the last 100 years, Mexican Freemasonry, heavily influenced by the French sort, ran one of the bloodiest campaigns against the Catholic Church in the history of the Western Hemisphere. That, my friend, is not being worried about the shadow government or whatever. That is called fact. The Freemasonry that we are used to in america is not the same. That does not mean that all Freemasonry is good, not does my statement mean that all is bad.

The Church based its rulings on Freemasonry as it had been exposed to: the violent, anti-Catholic kind. Even Zorro will tell you that this is not the Freemasonry here, but a kind that did exist in Europe. His position is based on there being two different kinds of Masonic Lodges.

I am not out to defend Freemasonry. I am not a Freemason (although I am thinking of becoming one just to find out what all the fuss is all about! ) I must leave the defense of Freemasonry to Freemasons. But I enjoy the debate; and in debate you have to play the devil’s advocate sometimes. I am, however, learning as I go along. I have already learned a lot about Freemasonry which I didn’t know before, which is a good thing I suppose. Judging by what I know, however, the Catholic Church’s opposition to Masonry seems to have very little logic or fact to back it up.

I knew nothing about Mexican Freemasonry until just now when I looked it up; and I don’t see what you seem to see. Masonry has in the past been associated with anti-clericalism, both in Europe and, apparently, in Mexico; and that was because of the Catholic Church’s involvement in politics. Well, I can only blame that on the Catholic Church. That is not how a religion should be. Unfortunately in those days the Catholic church did involve itself in politics, and therefore became the butt of opposition from those who opposed its politics—whether in the guise of Freemasonry or something else. That was to be expected. The Catholic Church’s stance on Masonry has always been inconsistent. Here are some interesting links I found.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Freemasonry
yorkrite.com/gcmx/os1999.html
catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7828

zerinus

 

[catharina]

Here is what i was told about freemasonary the real object is to destory authority that comes from God and all revealed religion. The secret oath of obedience taken as it is is without any reservation is absolutely unlawful and the symbolism of many of their lodges is grossly blasphemous and insulting to Christianity. Pope Leo Xll stated that the ultimate aim of freemasonry is the overthrow of the whole religious political and social order based on Christians institutions and the establishment of a state of things based on principles pure nationalism. It goes on to say that the secret oath of obedience is a blasphemous practice and so freemasonary in these countries equally with coninental masonary is is punished with excomuniation simply reserved to the Holy See. This severe decision by the church has not been taken without a thorough understanding of freemasony both on the continent of europe and other countries. and the differences between these various types of freeasonry. Nor is the Church unaware of the claims of freemasonons that their sole object is to build a spiritual temple to humanity and enlightenment. Nevertheles this strict decision stands and does so for good and substantial reasons. That is good enough reasons for me.

rinnie, good post with one exception.

I guess I’ll keep repeating this until it’s heard. Membership in the masons is no longer punished by the Church with a decree of excommunication. Indeed, since 1983 when the new Code of Canon Law went into effect, the punishment for membership in the masons is this: any Catholic who becomes a mason is to be barred from receiving the Holy Eucharist, due to the mortal sin incurred by masonic membership. That Catholics who are dissident enough to join the masons are also dissident enough to receive the Holy Eucharist regardless is another matter that speaks to gravely mortal compromise they have embraced in their lives.

When one willfully embraces sin, one is likely to embrace more sin. The Church regards freemasonry as the international organization that it is despite any harmlessness that might seem to exist in individual lodges around the world. No exceptions are made for the lodge brothers in Texas or in Alaska, etc…

 

[ralphinal]

I am not out to defend Freemasonry. I am not a Freemason (although I am thinking of becoming one just to find out what all the fuss is all about! ) I must leave the defense of Freemasonry to Freemasons. But I enjoy the debate; and in debate you have to play the devil’s advocate sometimes. I am, however, learning as I go along. I have already learned a lot about Freemasonry which I didn’t know before, which is a good thing I suppose. Judging by what I know, however, the Catholic Church’s opposition to Masonry seems to have very little logic or fact to back it up.

Did you read the links that you posted? I will give you a quote or two from them. The stance does not seem inconsistant from one point of view: it has never been acceptable. Now the level of punishment has changed, but not the prohibition.

SUCHECKI: On September 10, 1952, L’Osservatore Romano published an article, The Great Lodge of France Against the Catholic Church, dealing with the resolutions taken by the Grand Lodge of France in that period. It cited the resolutions as follows: “The Convent of the Great Lodge of France, seeing that human freedom is in danger due to the clerical intrigues of the Vatican in France, in overseas countries of the French Union and all over the world, decides . . . to unmask by every means the subtle scheming of the Vatican State Secretariat, which aims at imposing the shameful guardianship of religious and political-economic dictatorship on the whole of mankind . . . and to accept, in the relentless struggle against clericalism, every alliance compatible with the Masonic ideal.”

Google Mexican Martyrs of the 20th century. You will find information on it. Even if we take for granted that the only reason the Masons in Mexico were anti-Church was to set up a more egaliterian state, why kill priests and nuns?

 

[zerinus]

I am not out to defend Freemasonry. I am not a Freemason (although I am thinking of becoming one just to find out what all the fuss is all about! ) I must leave the defense of Freemasonry to Freemasons. But I enjoy the debate; and in debate you have to play the devil’s advocate sometimes. I am, however, learning as I go along. I have already learned a lot about Freemasonry which I didn’t know before, which is a good thing I suppose. Judging by what I know, however, the Catholic Church’s opposition to Masonry seems to have very little logic or fact to back it up.

I knew nothing about Mexican Freemasonry until just now when I looked it up; and I don’t see what you seem to see. Masonry has in the past been associated with anti-clericalism, both in Europe and, apparently, in Mexico; and that was because of the Catholic Church’s involvement in politics. Well, I can only blame that on the Catholic Church. That is not how a religion should be. Unfortunately in those days the Catholic church did involve itself in politics, and therefore became the butt of opposition from those who opposed its politics—whether in the guise of Freemasonry or something else. That was to be expected. The Catholic Church’s stance on Masonry has always been inconsistent. Here are some interesting links I found.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Freemasonry
yorkrite.com/gcmx/os1999.html
catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7828

zerinus

Just to add to what I said above, my continued investigation into this subject leads me to conclude that the first shot of this long-running feud between Catholicism and Masonry was fired by the Catholic Church—and it was completely unprovoked. The first Papal Bull against Masonry was published 1738, which is just 20 years after the first Grand Lodge of London was organized in 1717 (read it here). This Papal pronouncement deserves careful reading. It is totally unprovoked. It makes all kinds of hateful accusations against Freemasonry without any evidence to support it. It is just a baseless virulent attack against Freemasonry. And it seems to stem from pure jealousy, rather than from anything that the Masons had done. The Catholic Church wanted to be the top dog in Europe, and couldn’t bear to see the Freemasons (as they thought) stealing part of the cake. They felt that Masonry was an institution that had the social attractions to have the potential to gain popularity, thus cutting into their slice of popular support. Their response was to launch this vicious and hateful attack against Masonry. Well, it is part of human nature that when attacked, it wants to retaliate. If (Continental) Freemasonry has hated and attacked Catholicism, it was because they were hated and attacked first. That shouldn’t come as a surprise. But the smoke of that fire eventually went into the nostrils of the Catholic Church. They could have made Freemasonry their friends. Instead, they made it their enemies, with the result that during the French Revolution, as well as in other conflicts such as the Mexican war of independence, the Freemasons became anti-clerical, and acted against the interests of the Catholic Church. This site gives all the Papal Bulls against Freemasonry:

freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/papal_encyclicals.html

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

satisfied with the appearance of natural probity, are joined together, according to their laws and the statutes laid down for them, by a strict and unbreakable bond which obliges them, both by an oath upon the Holy Bible and by a host of grievous punishment, to an inviolable silence about all that they do in secret together. But it is in the nature of crime to betray itself and to show itself by its attendant clamor. Thus these aforesaid Societies or Conventicles have caused in the minds of the faithful the greatest suspicion, and all prudent and upright men have passed the same judgment on them as being depraved and perverted. For if they were not doing evil they would not have so great a hatred of the light. Indeed, this rumor has grown to such proportions that in several countries these societies have been forbidden by the civil authorities as being against the public security, and for some time past have appeared to be prudently eliminated.

True statement. They did make such oaths and did hold everything in secret. Now, it could be to conduct evil. Or, as claimed by Masons, just part of the game. Either way, such an oath is a sin. Secular governments and other denominations did ban them
’

This is due to the numberless errors and the teachings of perverse doctrines which, no longer secretly and clandestinely but openly and vigorously, attack the Catholic faith. You know how evil men have raised the standard of revolt against religion through philosophy (of which they proclaim themselves doctors) and through empty fallacies devised according to natural reason.

Remove the word evil and this is accurate concerning European Masonry.

Among these heresies belongs that foul contrivance of the sophists of this age who do not admit any difference among the different professions of faith and who think that the portal of eternal salvation opens for all from any religion

Again, true.

Furthermore, the Bibles are rarely without perverse little inserts to insure that the reader imbibes their lethal poison instead of the saving water of salvation

True. One posted on this forum has a Masonic Bible that includes anti-Catholic statements.

I can go on digging qoutes out of the letters. It will not change the fact that the CHurch saw something wrong in Masonry.

You feel that it saw Masonry as a threat. I do not disagree. I think, however, that they also saw Masonry as problematic theologically.

 

[zerinus]

Did you read the links that you posted? I will give you a quote or two from them. The stance does not seem inconsistent from one point of view: it has never been acceptable. Now the level of punishment has changed, but not the prohibition.

SUCHECKI: On September 10, 1952, L’Osservatore Romano published an article, The Great Lodge of France Against the Catholic Church, dealing with the resolutions taken by the Grand Lodge of France in that period. It cited the resolutions as follows: “The Convent of the Great Lodge of France, seeing that human freedom is in danger due to the clerical intrigues of the Vatican in France, in overseas countries of the French Union and all over the world, decides . . . to unmask by every means the subtle scheming of the Vatican State Secretariat, which aims at imposing the shameful guardianship of religious and political-economic dictatorship on the whole of mankind . . . and to accept, in the relentless struggle against clericalism, every alliance compatible with the Masonic ideal.”

This only backs up what I just said in my previous post. The Freemasons in Continental Europe became anti-Catholic because the Catholic Church attacked them first.

In Freemasonry’s vision of the world, a humanitarian and ethical attitude prevails. This type of subjectivism cannot harmonize with faith in God’s revealed word authentically interpreted by the Church.

Freemasonry denies the possibility of an objective knowledge of truth. The Freemason rejects all faith in dogmas; he does not admit any even in his own Lodge. He is required to be a free man without submission to dogma or passion. This concept is incompatible with the Catholic notion of truth in terms of both natural and revealed theology. The representation of a Universal Architect who dominates, remote from man, undermines the foundations of the Catholic idea of God who encounters man as a Father and Lord.

Freemasons often boast of their tolerance . . .

If you want to justify the Catholic stance by inventing a “theological” argument against Freemasonry, that is easy to do. You can do that against anything, not just Masonry.

Google Mexican Martyrs of the 20th century. You will find information on it. Even if we take for granted that the only reason the Masons in Mexico were anti-Church was to set up a more egaliterian state, why kill priests and nuns?

I did. The Mexican affair was the story of a war, and in war all kinds of crimes may be committed, whose actors could be Freemasons or anything else. But my original argument still stands. The first shots were fired by the Catholic Church, not by Freemasonry.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

This only backs up what I just said in my previous post. The Freemasons in Continental Europe became anti-Catholic because the Catholic Church attacked them first.

If you want to justify the Catholic stance by inventing a “theological” argument against Freemasonry, that is easy to do. You can do that against anything, not just Masonry.

I did. The Mexican affair was the story of a war, and in war all kinds of crimes may be committed, whose actors could be Freemasons or anything else. But my original argument still stands. The first shots were fired by the Catholic Church, not by Freemasonry.

zerinus

So a church should never be proactive in speaking out against evil?

 

[zerinus]

True statement. They did make such oaths and did hold everything in secret. Now, it could be to conduct evil. Or, as claimed by Masons, just part of the game. Either way, such an oath is a sin. Secular governments and other denominations did ban them

Remove the word evil and this is accurate concerning European Masonry.

Again, true.

True. One posted on this forum has a Masonic Bible that includes anti-Catholic statements.

I can go on digging qoutes out of the letters. It will not change the fact that the CHurch saw something wrong in Masonry.

You feel that it saw Masonry as a threat. I do not disagree. I think, however, that they also saw Masonry as problematic theologically.

Not true! Like I said, you can invent a theological argument against anything if you have a mind to. That does not mean a thing. The Catholic Church’s stance against Freemasonry has never really been theological. Just read the Canon Law and the Papal Bulls to find that out.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

So a church should never be proactive in speaking out against evil?

You have to point out the evil first.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

Not true! Like I said, you can invent a theological argument against anything if you have a mind to. That does not mean a thing. The Catholic Church’s stance against Freemasonry has never really been theological. Just read the Canon Law and the Papal Bulls to find that out.

zerinus

Taking all of it out, there is still the one position that is without question theological: the fact that an oath is taken on the Bible over an inconsequential matter. This cannot be refuted, and has not been refuted. Even if the words are empty words, a CHristian is commanded by Christ not to take oaths but let his yes be yes and his no be no. With that, allowances have been made when the matter is grave. Protecting the passwords or rituals of a club cannot ever be considered grave. In fact, it is worse…Taking the Lord’s name in vain is always a sin so why take it as a joke?

 

[ralphinal]

You have to point out the evil first.

zerinus

See the post about the oath.

 

[zerinus]

Taking all of it out, there is still the one position that is without question theological: the fact that an oath is taken on the Bible over an inconsequential matter. This cannot be refuted, and has not been refuted. Even if the words are empty words, a CHristian is commanded by Christ not to take oaths but let his yes be yes and his no be no. With that, allowances have been made when the matter is grave. Protecting the passwords or rituals of a club cannot ever be considered grave. In fact, it is worse…Taking the Lord’s name in vain is always a sin so why take it as a joke?

Not being a Mason myself, I cannot comment on the nature of the Masonic oaths. Perhaps Dallas can comment on that. But your distinction between “trivial” and “grave” is a subjective and artificial one. Jesus did not forbid “trivial” oaths. He forbade “oaths”. You either stick to His word and refrain from oaths, or you don’t. The distinction is not one that Jesus made.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

Not being a Mason myself, I cannot comment on the nature of the Masonic oaths. Perhaps Dallas can comment on that. But your distinction between “trivial” and “grave” is a subjective and artificial one. Jesus did not forbid “trivial” oaths. He forbade “oaths”. You either stick to His word and refrain from oaths, or you don’t. The distinction is not one that Jesus made.

zerinus

True, and the Church does not disagree. However, it is considered acceptable to take an oath to testify in court. However, you can also say affirm instead of swear.

Trivial and grave, however, is not an artificial one. Something is either serious or it is not. That is truth.

 

[zerinus]

True, and the Church does not disagree. However, it is considered acceptable to take an oath to testify in court. However, you can also say affirm instead of swear.

Trivial and grave, however, is not an artificial one. Something is either serious or it is not. That is truth.

The distinction is an artificial one, in that Jesus did not make that distincition. That is your distinction, which by implication you are attributing to Jesus, which you shouldn’t do.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

The distinction is an artificial one, in that Jesus did not make that distincition. That is your distinction, which by implication you are attributing to Jesus, which you shouldn’t do.

zerinus

Ok. Let us say all oaths are forbidden as Jesus said. How does that help the Freemason’s position on the oath?

 

[zerinus]

Ok. Let us say all oaths are forbidden as Jesus said. How does that help the Freemason’s position on the oath?

It does neither. It means that you cannot condemn Freemasonry on the oaths issue, while at the same time allowing it in the courts, without appearing hypocritical. The “grave” vs. “trivial” is an artificial and arbitrary distinction that you have invented to justify your discrimination. To the Freemasons their oaths may be “grave”. Who are you to say?

zerinus

 

[DallasTexas]

Ok. Let us say all oaths are forbidden as Jesus said. How does that help the Freemason’s position on the oath?

It does neither. It means that you cannot condemn Freemasonry on the oaths issue, while at the same time allowing it in the courts, without appearing hypocritical. The “grave” vs. “trivial” is an artificial and arbitrary distinction that you have invented to justify your discrimination. To the Freemasons their oaths may be “grave”. Who are you to say?

zerinus

Gentlemen,

Hope this message finds you both doing well.

If I may chime in, some of the subject matter for which oaths are offered in a court of law appear to me to be a much higher grade of triviality than those of Freemasonry.

Thank you,

 

[rinnie]

rinnie, good post with one exception.

I guess I’ll keep repeating this until it’s heard. Membership in the masons is no longer punished by the Church with a decree of excommunication. Indeed, since 1983 when the new Code of Canon Law went into effect, the punishment for membership in the masons is this: any Catholic who becomes a mason is to be barred from receiving the Holy Eucharist, due to the mortal sin incurred by masonic membership. That Catholics who are dissident enough to join the masons are also dissident enough to receive the Holy Eucharist regardless is another matter that speaks to gravely mortal compromise they have embraced in their lives.

When one willfully embraces sin, one is likely to embrace more sin. The Church regards freemasonry as the international organization that it is despite any harmlessness that might seem to exist in individual lodges around the world. No exceptions are made for the lodge brothers in Texas or in Alaska, etc…

You are right I have a really old Catholic Bible and there was alot in it, i skimmed thru, was in a hurry, had a busy day, anyway yes you cannot receive communion, the reason i posted it the reasons was the main objective, and i believe that is what the RCC still agree with. that was more my point, but again you are correct, and i knew that i should have caught it myself. thanks for correcting me, we want to give as true and accurate information that we have.

 

[RevDrNorth]

rinnie, good post with one exception.

I guess I’ll keep repeating this until it’s heard. Membership in the masons is no longer punished by the Church with a decree of excommunication. Indeed, since 1983 when the new Code of Canon Law went into effect, the punishment for membership in the masons is this: any Catholic who becomes a mason is to be barred from receiving the Holy Eucharist, due to the mortal sin incurred by masonic membership. That Catholics who are dissident enough to join the masons are also dissident enough to receive the Holy Eucharist regardless is another matter that speaks to gravely mortal compromise they have embraced in their lives.

Your point is well taken. For a Catholic it does not matter whether the Church is factually accurate in her assessment of Masonry what matters is that the church says X and so X must be followed. Of course not all Catholics do anymore than they follow Catholic teaching on Birth control.

Similarly in terms of Anglicans. Pope Leo’s argumentation about Anglican orders for the most part no longer holds water because of factors discussed here with reference to infusion of OC orders into Anglicanism, etc (things that happened after Leo was long dead). BUT…as GKC has pointed out, for a Catholic whether Leo’s argumentation is factually inaccurate does not matter. What matters is that the Church holds X so we assent to X. One has to repect that. Same with its position on Masonry. Even if the church is factually wrong in its condemnation, Catholics should be loyal to the Church.

The Masonic order through its members has blessed the world for centuries as its Brotherhood has contained some of the finest leaders in every human undertaking from the arts, the military, science, government and more (in the US & worldwide). Not only that, the Masonic order teaches men to be men of honor, integrity, character, good citenzship and reverence. Have some failed? I imagine just as some men in the Church have failed.