freemasonry

[kms123]

"Canon 1364 also imposes an automatic excommunication upon apostates, heretics, or schismatics. This canon could also apply to Catholic Masons. If, for example, a Catholic Mason embraced the theological teachings of Freemasonry that the Church has condemned (indifferentism, syncretism), he would be in heresy by virtue of his belief in these teachings. Further, if a Catholic Mason knew the Church opposes membership in Freemasonry, and yet adamantly and persistently refused to submit to the pope’s authority in precluding his membership in the Lodge, he may also find himself in schism. Catholic Masons could also be subject to canon 1374 which imposes an interdict or just penalty upon those who join associations that plot against the Church.

For the canonical penalties to apply, the Catholic Mason would have to act in a gravely imputable way (that is, the Catholic would have to be aware of the Church’s teaching on Freemasonry and, after being warned about it, choose to disregard it). In my personal experience, a fair number of Catholic Masons do act in a gravely imputable way in regard to their Masonic membership. In these cases, the canonical penalties, including excommunication, apply. The Church’s penalties are not meant to alienate the person on whom the penalty is levied. Instead, the penalties are meant to communicate to the person the gravity of his conduct, encourage his repentance and reconciliation with the Church, and bring him back into the one fold of Christ. After all, the mission of the Church is the salvation of souls. "

Source:
scripturecatholic.com/freemasonfaq.html#faq10

 

[ralphinal]

Hmmm. If you don’t want to know, what makes you think I do?

LOL! There have been no “changes” in Mormonism. But since you are not interested, I guess I have nothing further to say.

What was the second offense? You know that that is not true. The first Papal Bull against Masonry, In Eminenti, was published in April 28, 1738, just twenty years after Freemasonry was publicly organized. Care to read that, and tell us on the basis of what evidence the Pope brings such accusations against Masonry? One of the Ten Commandments reads: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”.

zerinus

Hey zerinus,

I may just be stubborn, but can you point out where that papal bull is wrong?

They were secret and they did require oaths both on the Bible and calling for their own blood should they break them. Almost all secular and church officials were against them. Please show me the lie or lies.

 

[zerinus]

Hey zerinus,

I may just be stubborn, but can you point out where that papal bull is wrong?

They were secret and they did require oaths both on the Bible and calling for their own blood should they break them. Almost all secular and church officials were against them. Please show me the lie or lies.

Quote:

Now it has come to Our ears, and common gossip has made clear, that certain Societies, Companies, Assemblies, Meetings, Congregations or Conventicles called in the popular tongue Liberi Muratori or Francs Massons or by other names according to the various languages, are spreading far and wide and daily growing in strength; and men of any Religion or sect, 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.

zerinus

 

[Sir_Knight]

What was the second offense? You know that that is not true. The first Papal Bull against Masonry, In Eminenti, was published in April 28, 1738, just twenty years after Freemasonry was publicly organized. Care to read that, and tell us on the basis of what evidence the Pope brings such accusations against Masonry? One of the Ten Commandments reads: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”.

And another command is to not take the Lord’s name in vain – which is what happens when the masons require their members to take a blood oath.

The Masonic oath is clearly distinguishable from other oaths. A public oath binds us to Christ (which is the root meaning of sacramentum). By means of a public oath, we enter into marriage, lawyers promise to uphold the Constitution, a witness promises to tell the truth about serious matters before a court, etc. In the Masonic oath, we swear to keep things secret that have not even been revealed to us, under symbolic, blood-curdling penalties.

When you invoke God’s name in an oath, the subject matter must be grave; otherwise, the oath is trivial. This is basic moral theology. When you invoke God’s name to witness the trivialities of Freemasonry, you are using God’s name in vain. This amounts to blasphemy, which is a serious sin. If you want to argue that the subject matter of the oaths are serious, then you will have to still explain why Freemasonry requires oaths, when Jesus Christ never did. The Lord never required His disciples to swear trivial oaths promising to avoid sins such as fornication and adultery. The Scriptures warn against swearing such oaths. So if Jesus and the apostles warned against these oaths, then Freemasonry has no good reason to impose them.

If the oaths mean what they say, then God is being called to witness subject matter that He has sanctioned. If they don’t mean what they say, then God is being called to witness a joke. This is a violation of the Second Commandment about taking the Lord’s name in vain.

Listen to Jesus’ words regarding oaths: “Swear not at all, neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne, nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king” (Matt. 5:34-35). Hear also St. James’ words: “But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by earth, neither by any other oath; but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay, lest ye fall into condemnation” (James 5:12).

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Sorry Dante, you are worng.

The article you linked (it’s mostly an explanatory commentary by Cardinal Law) has been posted re masonry several times in recent weeks. If you read to the very end of the linked article (that YOU LINKED), you will find this:

"Since the decree “In Eminenti” of Pope Clement XII in 1738, Catholics have been forbidden to jojn the Masons, and until 1983, under pain of excommunication. (The Orthodox and several Protestant churches also ban membership in the Masons.) Confusion occurred in 1974, when a letter by Cardinal Franjo Seper, then prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was interpreted to mean that Catholics could join Masonic lodges that were not anti-Catholic; the same congregation declared this interpretation as erroneous in 1981.

On Nov. 26, 1983, with the approval of Pope John Paul II, the Sacred Congregation reiterated the ban on Catholics joining the Masons: “The Church’s negative position on Masonic association … remains unaltered, since their principles have always been regarded as irreconcilable with the Church’s doctrine. Hence, joining them remains prohibited by the Church. Catholics enrolled in masonic associations are involved in serious sin and may not approach Holy Communion.” However, neither this declaration nor the 1983 Code of Canon Law imposed the penalty of excommunication on Catholics belonging to the Masons.

Fr. Saunders is president of the Notre Dame Institute and pastor of Queen of Apostles Parish, both in Alexandria.

This article appeared in the May 9, 1996 issue of “The Arlington Catholic Herald.”"

Lesson noted: read an article to the end, THEN draw conclusions.

Without debating this particular source, I will concede the point in light of what Zerinus cited below. My apologies.

Peace,
Dante

 

[ralphinal]

Quote:

Now it has come to Our ears, and common gossip has made clear, that certain Societies, Companies, Assemblies, Meetings, Congregations or Conventicles called in the popular tongue Liberi Muratori or Francs Massons or by other names according to the various languages, are spreading far and wide and daily growing in strength; and men of any Religion or sect, 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.

zerinus

So, you are saying that he lied when he said that he had heard about them or that it was commonly known? It was a lie to say that those who are up to no good fear exposure while those doing good do not fear the light?

OR, is it more accurate to say that you feel that the pope should not have made any ruling until they did something?

This is not lying.

Besides, there is still that stupid oath on the Bible and asking for blood to spill. Vile indeed

 

[catharina]

Hmmm. If you don’t want to know, what makes you think I do?

LOL! There have been no “changes” in Mormonism. But since you are not interested, I guess I have nothing further to say.

What was the second offense? You know that that is not true. The first Papal Bull against Masonry, In Eminenti, was published in April 28, 1738, just twenty years after Freemasonry was publicly organized. Care to read that, and tell us on the basis of what evidence the Pope brings such accusations against Masonry? One of the Ten Commandments reads: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”.

zerinus

Go talk to the masons. They’ll tell you anything your want to hear about masonry.
The Church needs to recognize no second offense.

Aren’t you bored by you yet?

 

[catharina]

"Canon 1364 also imposes an automatic excommunication upon apostates, heretics, or schismatics. This canon could also apply to Catholic Masons. If, for example, a Catholic Mason embraced the theological teachings of Freemasonry that the Church has condemned (indifferentism, syncretism), he would be in heresy by virtue of his belief in these teachings. Further, if a Catholic Mason knew the Church opposes membership in Freemasonry, and yet adamantly and persistently refused to submit to the pope’s authority in precluding his membership in the Lodge, he may also find himself in schism. Catholic Masons could also be subject to canon 1374 which imposes an interdict or just penalty upon those who join associations that plot against the Church.

For the canonical penalties to apply, the Catholic Mason would have to act in a gravely imputable way (that is, the Catholic would have to be aware of the Church’s teaching on Freemasonry and, after being warned about it, choose to disregard it). In my personal experience, a fair number of Catholic Masons do act in a gravely imputable way in regard to their Masonic membership. In these cases, the canonical penalties, including excommunication, apply. The Church’s penalties are not meant to alienate the person on whom the penalty is levied. Instead, the penalties are meant to communicate to the person the gravity of his conduct, encourage his repentance and reconciliation with the Church, and bring him back into the one fold of Christ. After all, the mission of the Church is the salvation of souls. "

Source:
scripturecatholic.com/freemasonfaq.html#faq10

John Salza can draw any conclusion he chooses as he considers a number of HYPOTHETICALS. However, he is neither a canon lawyer nor a person of authority
in the Church. Therefore he cannot re-make, re-invent or re-state Canon Law.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I see nothing wrong with the comments made by John Salza. Oh, and he is a lawyer. Not a Canon lawyer, though.

 

[catharina]

I see nothing wrong with the comments made by John Salza. Oh, and he is a lawyer. Not a Canon lawyer, though.

I know that he’s a lawyer.
I’m saying his considerations are speculative in this matter.

 

[fat_hank]

zerinus I am new to this site and am looking for words of wisdom as to the church’s feeling as to mason joining the Catholic Church. If you are a mason you would be an embarrassment to my lodge.

 

[kms123]

John Salza can draw any conclusion he chooses as he considers a number of HYPOTHETICALS. However, he is neither a canon lawyer nor a person of authority
in the Church. Therefore he cannot re-make, re-invent or re-state Canon Law.

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??

 

[Sir_Knight]

I know that he’s a lawyer.
I’m saying his considerations are speculative in this matter.

But do you disagree with his comments? If so, how?

 

[catharina]

But do you disagree with his comments? If so, how?

My disagreement is with any notion that he speaks with authority in his extrapolations. Yes, he says: ‘if this also happens, then this too might happen; if this is also so, then this too will come to pass.’ In other words, he is dealing with hypotheticals only. He has no basis for concluding that the ban from the Eucharist for any so-called “Catholic-masons” can/must/will include excommunication. Why is he wrong in his conclusions? He’s wrong in the pretense that one result will equal the other. He is floating theory - fine, as long as all agree it’s only theory. You can float theory and so can I, but neither we nor he can change the essence of the Code of Canon Law as it has been explained/defined by Rome in regard to penalties for masonry.

 

[kms123]

My disagreement is with any notion that he speaks with authority in his extrapolations. Yes, he says: ‘if this also happens, then this too might happen; if this is also so, then this too will come to pass.’ In other words, he is dealing with hypotheticals only. He has no basis for concluding that the ban from the Eucharist for any so-called “Catholic-masons” can/must/will include excommunication. Why is he wrong in his conclusions? He’s wrong in the pretense that one result will equal the other. He is floating theory - fine, as long as all agree it’s only theory. You can float theory and so can I, but neither we nor he can change the essence of the Code of Canon Law as it has been explained/defined by Rome in regard to penalties for masonry.

How is he changing the essence of the Codes? All I see is that he is trying to explain what codes may apply in the case of Masons depending on their beliefs and actions in regards to Masonry.

 

[catharina]

How is he changing the essence of the Codes? All I see is that he is trying to explain what codes may apply in the case of Masons depending on their beliefs and actions in regards to Masonry.

Yes to “MIGHT APPLY.”

He’s presenting his theory. HIS THEORY.
Nothing wrong with that - but it’s only his theory.
His case can be accepted as HIS theory, not as Canon Law.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I don’t SEE it as “his theory” but him explaining existing Church law.

 

[catharina]

I don’t SEE it as “his theory” but him explaining existing Church law.

It is his theory because he’s dealing in hypotheticals.
We might subscribe to an identical theory – but it’s still only theory based in hypotheticals.
To move it beyond the realm of theory, he’d need actual (real) cases, not hypotheticals.

 

[kms123]

"Canon 1364 also imposes an automatic excommunication upon apostates, heretics, or schismatics. This canon could also apply to Catholic Masons. If, for example, a Catholic Mason embraced the theological teachings of Freemasonry that the Church has condemned (indifferentism, syncretism), he would be in heresy by virtue of his belief in these teachings. Further, if a Catholic Mason knew the Church opposes membership in Freemasonry, and yet adamantly and persistently refused to submit to the pope’s authority in precluding his membership in the Lodge, he may also find himself in schism. Catholic Masons could also be subject to canon 1374 which imposes an interdict or just penalty upon those who join associations that plot against the Church.

For the canonical penalties to apply, the Catholic Mason would have to act in a gravely imputable way (that is, the Catholic would have to be aware of the Church’s teaching on Freemasonry and, after being warned about it, choose to disregard it). In my personal experience, a fair number of Catholic Masons do act in a gravely imputable way in regard to their Masonic membership. In these cases, the canonical penalties, including excommunication, apply. The Church’s penalties are not meant to alienate the person on whom the penalty is levied. Instead, the penalties are meant to communicate to the person the gravity of his conduct, encourage his repentance and reconciliation with the Church, and bring him back into the one fold of Christ. After all, the mission of the Church is the salvation of souls. "

Source:
scripturecatholic.com/freemasonfaq.html#faq10

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??

 

[zerinus]

So, you are saying that he lied when he said that he had heard about them or that it was commonly known? It was a lie to say that those who are up to no good fear exposure while those doing good do not fear the light?

OR, is it more accurate to say that you feel that the pope should not have made any ruling until they did something?

This is not lying.

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.

Go talk to the masons. They’ll tell you anything your want to hear about masonry.
The Church needs to recognize no second offense.

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.

Aren’t you bored by you yet?

No. But I am beginning to get bored by you though.

zerinus I am new to this site and am looking for words of wisdom as to the church’s feeling as to mason joining the Catholic Church. If you are a mason you would be an embarrassment to my lodge.

If you are a Freemason, then I am glad that I am not one.

It is his theory because he’s dealing in hypotheticals.
We might subscribe to an identical theory – but it’s still only theory based in hypotheticals. To move it beyond the realm of theory, he’d need actual (real) cases, not hypotheticals.

At least I can credit you with having a logical mind, which is more than can be said for most other Catholics here.

zerinus