Masonic Conspiracy Theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rumil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
beischel said:
Traditional Dogma? Not trying to get off topic, but TRADITIONAL Dogma allowed priests to marry for more than the first 1,000 years of Church history. So if we are concerned with maintaining tradition, shouldn’t we go back to what once was? The only real reason that priests were forbidden to be married was over concern that the children of priests could possibly inherit Church property due to the inheritance laws in force at that time. The smokescreen the Church created was that since Jesus was not married, priests should not be married. Apostolic tradition is that clergy were married so therefore we should return to what once was.
Click to expand...
I’m finding it not surprising that you attribute the basest motive to the Church’s discipline of priestly celibacy. This article might be helpful to you:

catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp

Please note in the article that priests have never been able to marry following their ordination to the priesthood; the discipline allowed (and allows today in the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches) that married men may be ordained to the priesthood.
 
Pope Leo XIII wrote in that Freemasonry
is dedicated to the elimination of the influence of
Catholicism in the life of nations. “Their god is the
Devil,”
:eek: :bigyikes:

:eek::bigyikes:

:eek::bigyikes:

:eek::bigyikes:

That’s pretty black and white
 
FCEGM said:
Right, John 😦

Did you see the “call me John”? - well, of course. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yes I mean with all due respect we’re not going to call him Father :p…although it is a bit paradoxical…

“rent a priest but just call him John - not Father”
Anyway isn’t rent a priest simony? :eek:
 
John_of_Woking said:
Pope Leo XIII wrote in that Freemasonry
is dedicated to the elimination of the influence of
Catholicism in the life of nations. “Their god is the
Devil,”
:eek: :bigyikes:

:eek::bigyikes:

:eek::bigyikes:

:eek::bigyikes:

That’s pretty black and white
Click to expand...
Totally and completely FALSE.
 
FCEGM said:
I’m finding it not surprising that you attribute the basest motive to the Church’s discipline of priestly celibacy. This article might be helpful to you:

catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp

Please note in the article that priests have never been able to marry following their ordination to the priesthood; the discipline allowed (and allows today in the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches) that married men may be ordained to the priesthood.
Click to expand...
That is NOT accurate. This prohibition about marriage after the priesthood took place in the 4th Century in the year 325. Prior to that, a priest could indeed marry after ordination. Read history.
 
beischel said:
In what way? From a historical perspective, it looks very accurate and is in line with other books I’ve read on the subject in the past.
Click to expand...
beischel said:
That is NOT accurate. This prohibition about marriage after the priesthood took place in the 4th Century in the year 325. Prior to that, a priest could indeed marry after ordination. Read history.
Click to expand...
:newidea: Well, I guess it’s all relative…

…depending on which books you read. :coffeeread:
 
Another_Mary said:
:newidea: Well, I guess it’s all relative…

…depending on which books you read. :coffeeread:
Click to expand...
Exactly, which really applies to the books on Masonry. A reasonable person would apply the same standard of review to both.
 
Another_Mary said:
And how, pray tell, am I going to find out the actual specifics from a secret organization?

🤷

Hmm. Why was my mother allowed to marry a non-Catholic then? I guess I am unaware of the secret document that warns Catholics about associating with non-Catholics. Maybe you can point me to an actual Catholic source, not dribble that others write or interpret.
Click to expand...
Well, there IS something to that as regards marriage to non-Catholics. To do that, you have to promise that you will take steps to prevent the children of any such marriage to not be “corrupted” or lose their faith etc. Basically you have to promise to raise any offspring Catholic. I am the product of such a marriage. I left the Church of my own accord in adulthood however.

So there is something to what the other poster says, but I don’t think it quite amounts to a policy of discouraging association with non-Catholics
 
beischel said:
Totally and completely FALSE.
Click to expand...
“Every Masonic Lodge is a temple of religion; and its teachings are instruction of religion.” “Morals and Dogma”, Albert Pike, page 213, teachings of the 13th Degree, Royal Arch of Solomon]

“When The Mason learns that the Key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the Mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply this energy.” [Manley Palmer Hall 33°, The Lost Keys Of Freemasonry page 48]

"I hereby promise the Great Spirit Lucifer, Prince of Demons, that each year I will bring unto him a human soul to do with as as it may please him, and in return Lucifer promises to bestow upon me the treasures of the earth and fulfil my every desire for the length of my natural life. If I fail to bring him each year the offering specified above, then my own soul shall be forfeit to him. Signed… { Invocant signs pact with his own blood } " [Manley Palmer Hall 33°, The Secret Teachings of All Ages page CIV]

“Lucifer represents…Life…Thought…Progress…Civilization… Liberty…Independence…Lucifer is the Logos…the Serpent, the Savior.” [Helena Petrovna Blavatsky 32°, Ancient and Accepted Primitive Rite Grand Orient of France The Secret Doctrine, pages 171, 225, 255 (Volume II)]

“We shall unleash the Nihilists and Atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effects of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will be from that moment without compass, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view, a manifestation which will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.” [Sovereign Grand Commander Albert Pike 33°, Letter to Italian Grand Master Guiseppie Mazzini 33°, 15 August 1871, Archives British Museum, London]
 
“Whatever bigotry is in evidence in the United States is exhibited solely by the Roman Catholic hierarchy; that the Canon Law of the Roman Church and the directives of the Pope validate the fears of the people that the dual allegiance of American Catholics is a present danger to our free institutions, and lastly that the people in passing upon the qualifications of a Catholic candidate for the Presidency will be guided by their knowledge of history and their great store of plain old-fashioned common horse sense, and their innate caution not to gamble when their Liberties and National Security are at state.
Among American citizens there should be no question or suspicion of allegiance to any foreign power, but in the case of the Roman Catholic citizen, his church is the guardian of his conscience and asserts that he must obey its laws and decrees even if they are in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” [Luther A. Smith, Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 33°, S.J., U.S.A. The Mother Supreme Council of the World, New Age Magazine, The official organ of the Supreme Council 33°
February 1960]

Ware, nor of good nor ill, what aim hath act?
Without its climax, death, what savour hath
Life? an impeccable machine, exact
He paces an inane and pointless path
To glut brute appetites, his sole content
How tedious were he fit to comprehend
Himself! More, this our noble element
Of fire in nature, love in spirit, unkenned
Life hath no spring, no axle, and no end.

His body a blood-ruby radiant
With noble passion, sun-souled Lucifer
Swept through the dawn colossal, swift aslant
On Eden’s imbecile perimeter.
He blessed nonentity with every curse
And spiced with sorrow the dull soul of sense,
Breath life into the sterile universe,
With Love and Knowledge drove out innocence
The Key of Joy is disobedience.

‘The Beast 666’, Hymn to Lucifer, Aleister Crowley 33°]
 
“The Papacy has been for a thousand years the torturer of humanity, the most shameless imposture in its presence to spiritual power of all ages . . . In presence of this spiritual cobra, this deadly, treacherous, murderous enemy, the most formidable power in the world, the unity of Italian Masonry is of absolute and supreme necessity . . . The Freemasonry of the world will rejoice to see accomplished and consummated the unity of the Italian Freemasonry” (Official Bulletin, Sept. 1887, 173).

“The absolute oneness of the craft is a glorious thought. Neither boundaries of States, nor vast oceans separate the Masonic fraternity. Everywhere it is one. There is no universal church, but there is a universal fraternity, Freemasonry” (Freemason’s Chronicle, 1906, II, 132).
 
beischel said:
In what way? From a historical perspective, it looks very accurate and is in line with other books I’ve read on the subject in the past.
Click to expand...
My favorite tidbit was that Pope Gelasius (supposedly) put an end to women priests in 494. What the Pope actually did was to address a small and specific geographical area where this was attempted (not unlike the supposed priestesses “ordained” on a boat last year). What’s sad is that people today are so incredibly ignorant of history that this probably seems credible to many. So, we’ve now gone from the liberal fantasy that women led the Church in its catacomb-period infancy, to the silliness that they were now in leadership during the post-Constantinian Church. Of course, the Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon were just brimming over with female delegates, right?

Also, of the Popes who were supposedly married … Most of those counted as “married men” are named as such because they are documented to have fathered children; but this of course does not mean that they fathered these children (or were still married) while in office. As was typical of most bishops (in both East and West) during late Roman and medieval times, many of them were widowers, for by the 5th Century at the latest, celibacy was essential for candidates to the episcopacy. And if any Popes were married before that time (e.g. Peter and perhaps some of his early successors - but not Clement, who is recorded as being a celibate man), they would have lived continently with their wives, as was the official and expected discipline for all married clergymen until the Byzantine council of Trullo of 692, which made the dissenting position (the “lower-the-bar” behavior of certain worldly priests) the norm, authorizing married priests to have relations with their wives for the first time in history.

Fr. Christian Cochini’s work, The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, Ignatius Press, illustrates that even though the Church had married priests and bishops, the issue wasn’t so much married priests and bishops, but such practicing chastity, i.e., marital continence. THAT is the crux of the Church’s discipline regarding priestly celibacy.

We have strayed off the topic; if you wish to discuss this discipline of the Church further, please began a new thread.
 
beischel said:
That is NOT accurate. This prohibition about marriage after the priesthood took place in the 4th Century in the year 325. Prior to that, a priest could indeed marry after ordination.
Click to expand...
Again off topic, but Piffle. The first Council of the Church to address the issue was that of the Council of Elvira (ca. 305) in Spain; canon 33 of that Council forbade bishops, priests and deacons from having relations with there wives. The same is true in 314 with the First Council of Arles. (And these simply reflect what was already the discipline in the Church since apostolic times - see Cochini’s book.) It is ludicrous, then, to claim that while bishops, priests and deacons were forbidden consort with their wives, they were, however, able to marry up until the year 325 came around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top