S
St.James
Guest
"Every Masonic Lodge is a temple of religion; and it’s teachings are instruction in religion."
(Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, p. 213)
(Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, p. 213)
- Status
S
St.James
Guest
Stephen Mills:
And the church has not deemed the United States government as heretical. It has, however, condemned pantheism as heresy.
If you disagree with church teaching in this matter there are many other religions which may be more suitable to you. It appears that you are partial to Masonry.
And yes, I agree, this is ridiculous. It appears that you have no concept of the church magisterium. If you would like to reconcile that situation I would recommend reading the catechism of the Catholic Church as a good starting point.
No, not my criteria, the criteria of the Roman Catholic Church.
And the church has not deemed the United States government as heretical. It has, however, condemned pantheism as heresy.
If you disagree with church teaching in this matter there are many other religions which may be more suitable to you. It appears that you are partial to Masonry.
And yes, I agree, this is ridiculous. It appears that you have no concept of the church magisterium. If you would like to reconcile that situation I would recommend reading the catechism of the Catholic Church as a good starting point.
M
misericordie
Guest
Interesting! Wow, I did not know this. There is a mason guy who lives in my apartment building, seems like a very nice guy always says hello, and we have talked on occasion, he sometimes tells me: I am going to the “lodge.” He seems politically conservative, and has high standards and is involved in community helping.
Why do most seem such great guys?
T
The_Dead_Bishop
Guest
Stephen Mills:
T
terrcatholic
Guest
I am not positive and would not like to say anything out of line, but the Masons seem to have gained much influence in the church so maybe now they are OK. I read where Pope John XXIII was part of the Rosicrucian Masonic Sect in 1935 when he as in Turkey, which to be technical under Canon Law 188#4, he would have resigned himself from his Bishop/Pope position, as this was a group that is opposed to the church. I have also read that a communist named Bella V. Dodd, who was later converted to the church by a great man in Archbishop Fulton J Sheen (great show, a real priest and educator), she later gave speeches on how in the 1930’s, the communist party in conjunction with the Masons put over 1100 men into the seminaries to change the church and at that time make the church more favorable to communism (thank God for John Paul II, but Communism was dying at the same time also) but they all reached places of high importance within the church. I dont want to sound like a conspiricy theorist, but it does seem likely as many came out later to admit and the church would not deny they were Masons, like someone above stated about Bishop Bugnini who was known to be a Mason.
They are a sect to stay away from, and we should take a look at their goals, which is a One World Religion, which I have heard some today in the Church talk about at the Bishop level, and that is sinful as these other religions deny what we as Catholics and also Christians for our Protestant bretheren, our Lord Jesus Christ. I dont want to speak out of turn against our Holy Father, but every time I see him meet with a Moslem cleric or someone like that in the name of Ecumenism, a red flag goes up in my head.
They are a sect to stay away from, and we should take a look at their goals, which is a One World Religion, which I have heard some today in the Church talk about at the Bishop level, and that is sinful as these other religions deny what we as Catholics and also Christians for our Protestant bretheren, our Lord Jesus Christ. I dont want to speak out of turn against our Holy Father, but every time I see him meet with a Moslem cleric or someone like that in the name of Ecumenism, a red flag goes up in my head.
S
Stephen-Maguire
Guest
The same way that Eve thought lucifer was a great guy, they could charm the birds off the trees.
E
EddieArent
Guest
Don’t want to get too off topic. But here’s a shot. In the 1980s my family immigrated here from Poland. Back then, you needed a sponsor to get here. Anyway, a Lutheran church sponsored my parents. To make a long story short, my parents were offered a house and money to go into schism by joining the Lutheran church. My parents outright rejected this. One of the sponsors from the church, who was a free mason then asked “What has the Catholic church given you?” My parents stated properly “Our faith.” They still send us $100 checks for Christmas that usually goes back to the Catholic church in one way or another. They are good people morally. But spiritually not there and I thank my parents for being such strong people of the faith.
That’s really my family’s only direct experiance with Masons. Besides one of my friend’s mom taking me and her son to a Shrinner’s Circus when we were in Little League.
That’s really my family’s only direct experiance with Masons. Besides one of my friend’s mom taking me and her son to a Shrinner’s Circus when we were in Little League.
S
Stephen_Mills
Guest
St. James:
Also, I really don’t apreciate your condecending attitude. Perhaps your idea of apologetics is telling people that they should i) leave the Church, or ii) brush up on Church basics, but this is certainly not my idea.
It’s people like you that give groups like the freemasons plenty of ammo to beat up on the Church with. I think I’m done posting on this thread, you can go ahead and have the last word.
James, if I was going to leave the church because I had minor differences of opinion then I would have done so years ago. Perhaps this is your solution to such problems, but clearly the Church demands obedience on such issues, not agreement.
Also, I really don’t apreciate your condecending attitude. Perhaps your idea of apologetics is telling people that they should i) leave the Church, or ii) brush up on Church basics, but this is certainly not my idea.
It’s people like you that give groups like the freemasons plenty of ammo to beat up on the Church with. I think I’m done posting on this thread, you can go ahead and have the last word.
S
St.James
Guest
Stephen Mills:
I’m sorry that you feel that way and I still recommend that you study the catechism.
G
GoodKnight1443
Guest
St. James:
See the methods below and you can apply the to just about all of the pro-masonic arguments. Since there is no valid reason for the Church to change its position, the following mis-information tactics are used to create disctraction.
***Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme.
Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well.
Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad.
Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach.
Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans.
Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic.
Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent.
False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution.
Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.**
*
Finally, you will see the weary mason suddenly disappear once there confronted at their game.
That is good advice. Sadly our fellow Stephen MIlls has studied his masonic doctrine more carefully than is Catholic doctrine. My wife has a friend who’s husband has similar views. He proports to be Catholic but chooses to point out that the Church’s view on membership in freemasonry is akin to when the Church taught that the world was flat. What a wonderful non-sequitor. Masons love to refute arguments with such non-sequitors. If you study the posts from our pro-masonic forum members the are rife with ad hominum attacks, non-sequtors and other false logic.
See the methods below and you can apply the to just about all of the pro-masonic arguments. Since there is no valid reason for the Church to change its position, the following mis-information tactics are used to create disctraction.
***Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme.
Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well.
Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad.
Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach.
Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans.
Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic.
Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent.
False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution.
Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.**
*
Finally, you will see the weary mason suddenly disappear once there confronted at their game.
G
GoodKnight1443
Guest
For example our friend jamesclaude joined on November 30, made about 95 pro mason posts and vanished December 23 when he was called on the carpet by several members who saw through the shenangians.
T
terrcatholic
Guest
God bless you that is an amazing story. I have read over and over that they have infiltrated areas of the church, I wonder if that is true. They are like the Devil and get people to sell their souls. I hear also that they are doing exactly what happened to you to Mexicans in Mexico and in the Southwest and they actually have buses that pick them up, give them money and food and get them to convert
EddieArent:
J
jamesclaude
Guest
St. James:
No Grand Lodge have EVER taken a position on any particular religions’ “validity” - whether it be Mormon, Catholic or whatever you please.
Quoting the “philosophy of Freemasonry” is an impossible task - we are NOT a “church”, and we have no central leader to speak for us in a lockstep manner.
In general, Masonry HAS opposed tyranny - whether it be a corrupt pope, king, dictator or Congressman. Freemasons were the first guests of Hitler’s concentration camps and Stalin’s gulags. The Masons of the 19th Century didn’t hold exclusive franchise on being anti-Catholic - by a LONG shot. Protestant America was alarmed at the influx of Irish and Italian immigrants and their “popish” religion. (I haven’t seen “popery” or “Romanism” printed in ANY Masonic book or treatise since the early 20th Century). Yes, relations HAVE gotten better - I would suggest that Masons are the ones who have changed in the past 40 years…
Our “PR” ? The biggest “secret” ? Here it is:* we take good men and make them better.*
Are Masons anti-Catholic ?
www.masonicinfo.com/anticatholic.htm
To read about Albert Pike:
www.masonicinfo.com/pike.htm
Wouldn’t it be more productive to move away from a 19th Century mindset ? What’s to be gained by constantly stirring the er, “soup” ?
NO ONE speaks for Masonry. I love how anti-Masons grab onto Albert Pike ( a long-dead Confederate General ) and claim that he’s the “spokesperson” for all Masons ! This is utterly ridiculous !
No Grand Lodge have EVER taken a position on any particular religions’ “validity” - whether it be Mormon, Catholic or whatever you please.
Quoting the “philosophy of Freemasonry” is an impossible task - we are NOT a “church”, and we have no central leader to speak for us in a lockstep manner.
In general, Masonry HAS opposed tyranny - whether it be a corrupt pope, king, dictator or Congressman. Freemasons were the first guests of Hitler’s concentration camps and Stalin’s gulags. The Masons of the 19th Century didn’t hold exclusive franchise on being anti-Catholic - by a LONG shot. Protestant America was alarmed at the influx of Irish and Italian immigrants and their “popish” religion. (I haven’t seen “popery” or “Romanism” printed in ANY Masonic book or treatise since the early 20th Century). Yes, relations HAVE gotten better - I would suggest that Masons are the ones who have changed in the past 40 years…
Our “PR” ? The biggest “secret” ? Here it is:* we take good men and make them better.*
Are Masons anti-Catholic ?
www.masonicinfo.com/anticatholic.htm
To read about Albert Pike:
www.masonicinfo.com/pike.htm
Wouldn’t it be more productive to move away from a 19th Century mindset ? What’s to be gained by constantly stirring the er, “soup” ?
J
jamesclaude
Guest
What a very “Christian” supposition to make ! The buzzards were bound to circle once I went on a Christmas vacation…
I have made numerous postings in non-masonic areas as well, Goodknight.
The pace was set by folks like StJames, HagiaSophia and Cestusdei to ridicule whatever I posted - usually employing malicious arguments and a warped historical context. It was not a good faith exchange of ideas, and ultimately tiresome.
I traveled to East TX for the holidays - and have only just returned to Austin. And I have yet to be properly “called on the carpet” for “shenanigans” by that goon squad -* or anyone. *
I seriously doubt that I am your “friend”.
Your malignant comments are an insult and a cheap shot at best. They showcase the mindset of the more hidebound on here - hopefully not that of the majority of all Roman Catholics.
Jamesclaude
S
Stephen_Mills
Guest
Um, just to set the record straight, I’m not a Mason, nor have I ever “studied masonic doctrine” I started this thread to find out a little more about what Masons believe and why the church thinks their beliefs are no good.
S
St.James
Guest
jamesclaude said:
How does an organization with no apparent philosophy, “take good men and make them better?”
J
jamesclaude
Guest
St. James:
Leaving out the second part of my quote makes sense for you, but not for what I was trying to say ( others - please see post # 73 for the the ENTIRE statement ).
A good journalist ALWAYS includes "the REST of the story " ( e.g. Paul Harvey on the radio ) - why don’t you ?
It’s obvious that you don’t like the masons in oh-so-many ways, but it makes posting in here so tiresome - and ruins any interesting dialogue with other more open minds. :banghead:
But - I know that you’re trying to defend the faith , etc and put those mischievous freemasons in their place, but please be fair. Do the ends justify the means?
I suffer even those who irritate or disagree with me - only as long as it’s a good faith effort on both’s part. Is that too much to ask?
Ah, St. James to the rescue ! * I love the way you spin…*
Leaving out the second part of my quote makes sense for you, but not for what I was trying to say ( others - please see post # 73 for the the ENTIRE statement ).
A good journalist ALWAYS includes "the REST of the story " ( e.g. Paul Harvey on the radio ) - why don’t you ?
It’s obvious that you don’t like the masons in oh-so-many ways, but it makes posting in here so tiresome - and ruins any interesting dialogue with other more open minds. :banghead:
But - I know that you’re trying to defend the faith , etc and put those mischievous freemasons in their place, but please be fair. Do the ends justify the means?
I suffer even those who irritate or disagree with me - only as long as it’s a good faith effort on both’s part. Is that too much to ask?
J
jamesclaude
Guest
St. James:
Leaving out the second part of my quote makes sense for you, but not for what I was trying to say ( others - please see post # 73 for the the ENTIRE statement ).
A good journalist ALWAYS includes "the REST of the story " ( e.g. Paul Harvey on the radio ) - why don’t you ?
It’s obvious that you don’t like the masons in oh-so-many ways, but it makes posting in here so tiresome - and ruins any interesting dialogue with other more open minds.
But - I know that you’re trying to defend the faith , etc and put those mischievous freemasons in their place, but please be fair. Do the ends justify the means?
I suffer even those who irritate or disagree with me - only as long as it’s a good faith effort on both’s part. Is that too much to ask?
Ah, St. James to the rescue ! * I love the way you spin…*
Leaving out the second part of my quote makes sense for you, but not for what I was trying to say ( others - please see post # 73 for the the ENTIRE statement ).
A good journalist ALWAYS includes "the REST of the story " ( e.g. Paul Harvey on the radio ) - why don’t you ?
It’s obvious that you don’t like the masons in oh-so-many ways, but it makes posting in here so tiresome - and ruins any interesting dialogue with other more open minds.
But - I know that you’re trying to defend the faith , etc and put those mischievous freemasons in their place, but please be fair. Do the ends justify the means?
I suffer even those who irritate or disagree with me - only as long as it’s a good faith effort on both’s part. Is that too much to ask?
S
St.James
Guest
It seems that someone wants to have it two ways.
Freemasonry either has a philosophy or it doesn’t.
If Masonry does have a philosophy then that philosophy can be stated. If Masonry doesn’t have a philosophy then it’s claims of “taking good men and making them better” is a farse. How could an organization that stands for nothing improve people?
Freemasonry either has a philosophy or it doesn’t.
If Masonry does have a philosophy then that philosophy can be stated. If Masonry doesn’t have a philosophy then it’s claims of “taking good men and making them better” is a farse. How could an organization that stands for nothing improve people?
J
jamesclaude
Guest
St. James:
For the simple Masonic “philosophy” so vigorously “questioned”, simply click on:
www.masonicinfo.com/primer.htm
All of this started from my attempt to state: no one person speaks for the Masonic fraternity. Never did. Never will.
As we say in Texas: *who put a burr under your saddle blanket, St.James ? *
No, someone simply wants to keep things simple.
Oh, it does - I assure you.
Rhetorical statements defeat the purpose of this forum. You already know the answers: you quote dead masons and masonic ritual ALL the time. ( See above: posting # 61 )
For the simple Masonic “philosophy” so vigorously “questioned”, simply click on:
www.masonicinfo.com/primer.htm
All of this started from my attempt to state: no one person speaks for the Masonic fraternity. Never did. Never will.
As we say in Texas: *who put a burr under your saddle blanket, St.James ? *
- Status