That Old Freemason Question...

[thistle]

It seems that we might be talking past each other.

From what I understand, you are saying that at the point of death, the person MAY repent, and therefore, there is no way that we can ‘say’ that X mortal sin will necessarily result in the person choosing hell.

Now I entirely agree with you that a person who repents at the point of death may indeed save himself/herself from hell.

But what I (and I think Thistle and others) have been discussing is NOT ‘whether’ a person MAY repent, but what the situation WOULD BE, IF, in fact, the person chose NOT to repent.

We aren’t discussing WHETHER the person COULD repent before death.

The person WILL repent. . or he won’t.

If he DOES, he may be saved.

But if he DOES NOT, then he will not. . .not because “I” say so, but because HE says so, he chooses so.

There comes a point where a person MUST choose --he or she cannot dither ‘on the fence’ with ‘maybe I will, maybe I will not’ for eternity. In the end, there WILL be a choice.

And what I’ve been trying to say is that there will be that point, that point of choice, and WHEN it happens, IF the person chooses to remain in unrepentent mortal sin, that person is choosing hell.

 

[James224]

I have seen all the arguements against catholics becoming freemasons, the main one being that masons are by their own law deist (which is not true; each mason has his own personal faith). In short, I remain unconvinced of there being anything inherently sinful with someone being catholic and a mason.

PLease, can someone clarify?

Any chance of the Church allowing catholics to become masons?

It is a religion. Also, Freemasonry was responsible for the many of the revolutions against the Church and State such as the French Revolution, the Revolution of 1848, the overthrow of the Papal States in 1869-70 and the starting of WWI. They ushered in the Enlightenment Period as opposed to the Reign of Christ the King over all nations. What they promote is the deification of man. I’ve had relatives that were in it (not Catholic) and the rank and file members are generally good men and trying to do charity and practice fraternity but those in the upper echelons in the past have been responsible for fomenting revloutions against nations. I would suggest you read the following books: Behind the Lodge Door by Paul Fisher, Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked by Msgr George Dillon, The Social Rights of Our Divine Lord Jesus Christ the King by Fr Denis Fahey and Secret Societies and the Kingship of Christ by Fr Denis Fahey. There are many others.

 

[4givemeasinner]

"Hmmm. Let me see.

Before, the people were in mortal sin AND excommunicated.

Now, they are only (!) in mortal sin.

So, you tell me. If unrepented mortal sin leads to spiritual death, then before, if the person died in mortal sin and excommunicated, they were spiritually dead. Right? The excommunication did not make the people ‘deader’.

Now, unrepented mortal sin still leads to spiritual death.

In both the before and after cases, unrepented mortal sin led to spirtual death. The excommunication did not make the person ‘more dead’ but did serve if you will as a ‘wake up call’ in a time period where we didn’t have the kind of internet ‘ability’ to look up and learn so much.

So nothing has really changed. IF the person is no longer excommunicated, it doesn’t mean that Freemasonry is somehow ‘less bad’ or the sin is ‘less mortal.’ Right?"

AN Excommunication is to becut off from the Body of Christ onearth. So yes, it is moresevere than simplymortal sin. AND, if the Sacred Congregation wanted to uphold the excommunication punishment, then they surely

 

[4givemeasinner]

"Hmmm. Let me see.

Before, the people were in mortal sin AND excommunicated.

Now, they are only (!) in mortal sin.

So, you tell me. If unrepented mortal sin leads to spiritual death, then before, if the person died in mortal sin and excommunicated, they were spiritually dead. Right? The excommunication did not make the people ‘deader’.

Now, unrepented mortal sin still leads to spiritual death.

In both the before and after cases, unrepented mortal sin led to spirtual death. The excommunication did not make the person ‘more dead’ but did serve if you will as a ‘wake up call’ in a time period where we didn’t have the kind of internet ‘ability’ to look up and learn so much.

So nothing has really changed. IF the person is no longer excommunicated, it doesn’t mean that Freemasonry is somehow ‘less bad’ or the sin is ‘less mortal.’ Right?"

AN Excommunication is to becut off from the Body of Christ onearth. So yes, it is moresevere than simplymortal sin. AND, if the Sacred Congregation wanted to uphold the excommunication punishment, then they surely they would have; yet they decided not to.

SO in short, yes excommunication is worse than mortal sin. Obviously it is worse then something like, say, masturbation.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

But what I (and I think Thistle and others) have been discussing is NOT ‘whether’ a person MAY repent, but what the situation WOULD BE, IF, in fact, the person chose NOT to repent.

…

There comes a point where a person MUST choose --he or she cannot dither ‘on the fence’ with ‘maybe I will, maybe I will not’ for eternity. In the end, there WILL be a choice.

And what I’ve been trying to say is that there will be that point, that point of choice, and WHEN it happens, IF the person chooses to remain in unrepentent mortal sin, that person is choosing hell.

I’m just saying that I don’t buy there is an automatic formula that “if X then God will Y.” If mortal sin is defined as something that if unconfessed, will deny heaven, then by definition there is no disparity.

But if it’s a matter of definition, then there should be one to one correspondence between those who die unconfessed mortal sin and those who go to hell, and that relationship should go both directions. That means if there are no mortal sins on our souls, (and is it not possible to know that objectively, at least in some cases?) then we are guaranteed heaven. Either that or there is not a 1:1 correspondence.

If there is not a 1:1, but unconfessed mortal sin automatically implies God’s action of sending us to hell in judgment of such sin, that means that God is allow to “go against” the rules in the direction of punishment, but not mercy. Would that be like putting sentencing laws on God?

Then again based on what He told Peter about binding and loosing, maybe God does promise to follow the Church formula, as a part of His covenant with the Church and the authority granted by the keys. So the Church is actually the decision maker and God complies with her, by promise of authority?

Really, all I’m saying is that unless the Church teaches she can infallibly predict whether a particular person will go to hell (I’ll even say, “given we have ‘divine’ knowledge that they did not repent”) then I don’t see how being a member of a particular organization can sentence you to hell, any more than being a member of the Catholic Church guarantees heaven.

I really don’t care for my own sake. I’m not worried about my going to hell. I’m just surprised to hear what I think is saying that the Church has a formula that God is bound to follow. After all, when we say, “if a sinner does this then we absolutely know that God will do that,” is that not binding God? And even if God gave us that authority to bind His actions (what is bound on earth will be bound in heaven), have we used that authority in the matter of Freemasonry?

Alan

 

[thistle]

I’m just saying that I don’t buy there is an automatic formula that “if X then God will Y.” If mortal sin is defined as something that if unconfessed, will deny heaven, then by definition there is no disparity.

But if it’s a matter of definition, then there should be one to one correspondence between those who die unconfessed mortal sin and those who go to hell, and that relationship should go both directions. That means if there are no mortal sins on our souls, (and is it not possible to know that objectively, at least in some cases?) then we are guaranteed heaven. Either that or there is not a 1:1 correspondence.

If there is not a 1:1, but unconfessed mortal sin automatically implies God’s action of sending us to hell in judgment of such sin, that means that God is allow to “go against” the rules in the direction of punishment, but not mercy. Would that be like putting sentencing laws on God?

Then again based on what He told Peter about binding and loosing, maybe God does promise to follow the Church formula, as a part of His covenant with the Church and the authority granted by the keys. So the Church is actually the decision maker and God complies with her, by promise of authority?

Really, all I’m saying is that unless the Church teaches she can infallibly predict whether a particular person will go to hell (I’ll even say, “given we have ‘divine’ knowledge that they did not repent”) then I don’t see how being a member of a particular organization can sentence you to hell, any more than being a member of the Catholic Church guarantees heaven.

I really don’t care for my own sake. I’m not worried about my going to hell. I’m just surprised to hear what I think is saying that the Church has a formula that God is bound to follow. After all, when we say, “if a sinner does this then we absolutely know that God will do that,” is that not binding God? And even if God gave us that authority to bind His actions (what is bound on earth will be bound in heaven), have we used that authority in the matter of Freemasonry?

Alan

**The Church infallibly teaches that anyone who dies in a state of mortal sin goes immediately to Hell. **

Why are you talking about a formula??

Die in a state of mortal sin you go immediately to Hell.
Die in a state of grace you are immediately saved (either straight to Heaven or Purgatory first).
There is nothing unclear or ambiguous about that. It is absolutely clear.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

**The Church infallibly teaches that anyone who dies in a state of mortal sin goes immediately to Hell. **

Why are you talking about a formula??

Die in a state of mortal sin you go immediately to Hell.
Die in a state of grace you are immediately saved (either straight to Heaven or Purgatory first).
There is nothing unclear or ambiguous about that. It is absolutely clear.

OK, so since we know if we are in a state of grace, then we should be assured of salvation. Or does that not follow from your statements?

So either the Church binds God, or God has slack in determining who is in a state of grace, beyond the ability for the person in question to be able to determine/recognize his/her own fate?

Here’s what I’m seeing. It’s like saying “you can’t put the cart before the horse.” It makes sense, and as cliches go is fairly straightforward, but it is a symbol for saying order must be preserved, not a description of a limitation imposed by God via the physical properties he instilled into carts and horses.

Maybe this will expose the distinction I’m trying to make: Does one of these statements seem more accurately stated than the other? A) “a soul went to hell and we know that because he died in sin,” or B) “a soul went to hell which is another way of saying he died not in sin.”

Alan

 

[thistle]

OK, so since we know if we are in a state of grace, then we should be assured of salvation. Or does that not follow from your statements?

So either the Church binds God, or God has slack in determining who is in a state of grace, beyond the ability for the person in question to be able to determine/recognize his/her own fate?

Here’s what I’m seeing. It’s like saying “you can’t put the cart before the horse.” It makes sense, and as cliches go is fairly straightforward, but it is a symbol for saying order must be preserved, not a description of a limitation imposed by God via the physical properties he instilled into carts and horses.

Maybe this will expose the distinction I’m trying to make: Does one of these statements seem more accurately stated than the other? A) “a soul went to hell and we know that because he died in sin,” or B) “a soul went to hell which is another way of saying he died not in sin.”

Alan

First of all you should not use the word sin on its own. It is dying in a state of mortal sin that sends you to Hell. If you die with only venial sins on your soul you will be saved.

You seem to have difficulty in seeing what dying in a state of mortal sin means.

If a person commits a mortal sin and they die before they repent and confess then that means they die in a state of mortal sin and they would go to Hell.

Only God knows the state of a person’s soul at death.

By the way your B) point doesn’t make sense because you are stating that a soul went to Hell without being in a state of mortal sin which is not true.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

First of all you should not use the word sin on its own. It is dying in a state of mortal sin that sends you to Hell. If you die with only venial sins on your soul you will be saved.

Understood. I’m trying to tweak myself not to be so specific and full of disclaimers all the time. I meant “sin” in short for unconfessed or unabsolved mortal sin. Sorry in this case it was unclear; I’m usually more precise. I guess “mortal sin” works without too much verbage, like you used.

You seem to have difficulty in seeing what dying in a state of mortal sin means.

Yes I think I am. Does it mean that God is “required” to send you to hell? That’s all I’m really asking. The Church binds on earth – “this man died in mortal sin so this man must go to hell,” consequently God follows suit and binds in heaven? I would think the Church could infallibly define what is a sin based on morals, and whether death in mortal sin requires hell in all cases would be a matter of faith.

Honestly, I feel like in the matters of morality, there is no objective “truth” standard other than the Church herself. But in matters of faith, I feel more like it is a framework that I understand but not quite sure I can agree both intellectually and in my heart, and get it by my skepticism as a actual belief and not just a theory.

If a person commits a mortal sin and they die before they repent and confess then that means they die in a state of mortal sin and they would go to Hell.

Here’s the ambiguity that confuses me at the nuance level I’m trying to get at: Let A=“die in a state of mortal sin,” and B=“they go to hell.” You are saying they A AND B. I want to know if A “predicts” B or whether A “causes” B or whether A “forces” B, or whether A and B are just different words for the same phenomenon. So like is it causal, coincident, or just plain semantically equivalent?

Only God knows the state of a person’s soul at death.

OK, so regardless of the answer to my dilemma, this fixes the problem of humans having the ability to know in advance in any specific case. It also helps define my own questions. We cannot say, “Joe went to hell” because we cannot know the state of his soul at any given time. But if we did know the state of his soul at death, then we can say, “Joe went to hell,” as a completely equivalent statement to "Joe died in mortal sin.?

But also note that if God only knows the state of Joe’s soul at death, then how can we conclude that just because Joe is a member of Freemasons at death, we know he went to hell?

By the way your B) point doesn’t make sense because you are stating that a soul went to Hell without being in a state of mortal sin which is not true.

Oh dear, you are right. I typed it wrong and it convolved the logic. Please forgive me and please do not suffer that attempted question any more, at least on my behalf.

Alan

 

[thistle]

Understood. I’m trying to tweak myself not to be so specific and full of disclaimers all the time. I meant “sin” in short for unconfessed or unabsolved mortal sin. Sorry in this case it was unclear; I’m usually more precise. I guess “mortal sin” works without too much verbage, like you used.

Yes I think I am. Does it mean that God is “required” to send you to hell? That’s all I’m really asking. The Church binds on earth – “this man died in mortal sin so this man must go to hell,” consequently God follows suit and binds in heaven? I would think the Church could infallibly define what is a sin based on morals, and whether death in mortal sin requires hell in all cases would be a matter of faith.

Honestly, I feel like in the matters of morality, there is no objective “truth” standard other than the Church herself. But in matters of faith, I feel more like it is a framework that I understand but not quite sure I can agree both intellectually and in my heart, and get it by my skepticism as a actual belief and not just a theory.

Here’s the ambiguity that confuses me at the nuance level I’m trying to get at: Let A=“die in a state of mortal sin,” and B=“they go to hell.” You are saying they A AND B. I want to know if A “predicts” B or whether A “causes” B or whether A “forces” B, or whether A and B are just different words for the same phenomenon. So like is it causal, coincident, or just plain semantically equivalent?

OK, so regardless of the answer to my dilemma, this fixes the problem of humans having the ability to know in advance in any specific case. It also helps define my own questions. We cannot say, “Joe went to hell” because we cannot know the state of his soul at any given time. But if we did know the state of his soul at death, then we can say, “Joe went to hell,” as a completely equivalent statement to "Joe died in mortal sin.?

But also note that if God only knows the state of Joe’s soul at death, then how can we conclude that just because Joe is a member of Freemasons at death, we know he went to hell?

Oh dear, you are right. I typed it wrong and it convolved the logic. Please forgive me and please do not suffer that attempted question any more, at least on my behalf.

Alan

God stated he will be bound by what the Church does.

Matt 18:18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.

This means that anyone dying in a state of mortal sin goes to Hell and has no chance after death to repent so that God might save them.

Next point is that neither we nor the Church know which individuals go to Hell because only God knows the state of your soul at death. Nobody knows in advance.
What we do know because it is an infallible teaching is that anyone dying in a state of mortal sin goes to Hell.
So we cannot say Joe went to Hell because we don’t know the state of his soul at death but we can say that if Joe dies in a state of mortal sin then he goes to Hell.
To use your example if Joe is a Freemason he is in a state of mortal sin and if he does not repent before he dies then we know he will go to Hell.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

God stated he will be bound by what the Church does.

Matt 18:18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.

This means that anyone dying in a state of mortal sin goes to Hell and has no chance after death to repent so that God might save them.

Next point is that neither we nor the Church know which individuals go to Hell because only God knows the state of your soul at death. Nobody knows in advance.
What we do know because it is an infallible teaching is that anyone dying in a state of mortal sin goes to Hell.
So we cannot say Joe went to Hell because we don’t know the state of his soul at death but we can say that if Joe dies in a state of mortal sin then he goes to Hell.
To use your example if Joe is a Freemason he is in a state of mortal sin and if he does not repent before he dies then we know he will go to Hell.

I think you have completely addressed my questions. Thank you for your time and energy in doing so. :tiphat:

So you’re saying that Freemason membership at time of death implies unrepentant mortal sin? I assume we have the usual exception of renouncing membership before death even if still formally a member as shown in the books?

So Freemasonry is a subset of “unrepented mortal” sin.

If a Catholic does not know these things, are they still bound by them? They may think, for example, that it is morally akin to a social club – and I do believe there are a lot of people who would be that naive, at least until they got so far into it they were brainwashed.

Alan

 

[thistle]

I think you have completely addressed my questions. Thank you for your time and energy in doing so. :tiphat:

So you’re saying that Freemason membership at time of death implies unrepentant mortal sin? I assume we have the usual exception of renouncing membership before death even if still formally a member as shown in the books?

So Freemasonry is a subset of “unrepented mortal” sin.

If a Catholic does not know these things, are they still bound by them? They may think, for example, that it is morally akin to a social club – and I do believe there are a lot of people who would be that naive, at least until they got so far into it they were brainwashed.

Alan

It makes no difference if you are a Freemason, or a murderer, or a thief, or an adulterer, or a sexually active homosexual etc.
The issue is not what particular type of mortal sin you have committed but whether you die with that mortal sin unrepented or not. If the mortal sin remains unrepented at death then you go to Hell.

Of course if a person does not know a particular sin they have committed is a sin of grave matter or even a sin at all then they have not committed a mortal sin. If someone did not know contraception was a sin of grave matter and they used condoms they would not have committed a mortal sin. If they are then informed that contraception is a sin of grave matter and they continue using condoms then they would be committing a mortal sin.

Likewise with a Catholic being a Freemason. If they really did not know that Catholics are not allowed to be Freemasons then they have not committed a mortal sin. However, as soon as they are informed that being a Freemason is a sin of grave matter they would immediately have to cease being a Freemason, go to Confession and repent. If they do not and continue to be a Freemason they would then be in a state of mortal sin and if they die unrepentant they would go to Hell.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

"Hmmm. Let me see.

Before, the people were in mortal sin AND excommunicated.

Now, they are only (!) in mortal sin.

So, you tell me. If unrepented mortal sin leads to spiritual death, then before, if the person died in mortal sin and excommunicated, they were spiritually dead. Right? The excommunication did not make the people ‘deader’.

Now, unrepented mortal sin still leads to spiritual death.

In both the before and after cases, unrepented mortal sin led to spirtual death. The excommunication did not make the person ‘more dead’ but did serve if you will as a ‘wake up call’ in a time period where we didn’t have the kind of internet ‘ability’ to look up and learn so much.

So nothing has really changed. IF the person is no longer excommunicated, it doesn’t mean that Freemasonry is somehow ‘less bad’ or the sin is ‘less mortal.’ Right?"

AN Excommunication is to becut off from the Body of Christ onearth. So yes, it is moresevere than simplymortal sin. AND, if the Sacred Congregation wanted to uphold the excommunication punishment, then they surely they would have; yet they decided not to.

SO in short, yes excommunication is worse than mortal sin. Obviously it is worse then something like, say, masturbation.

No, you have a misunderstading.

Excommunication is not worse than mortal sin and doesn’t make the mortal sin’ more mortal’.

 

[4givemeasinner]

"No, you have a misunderstading.

Excommunication is not worse than mortal sin and doesn’t make the mortal sin’ more mortal’."

I’m not saying that it makes sin more mortal. However, an excommunication hampers your life on earth from ever receiving the sacraments. Mortal Sin can be confessed, and then the sacraments are open to you. Before the sacraments can be available to you if your ina state of excommunication, then the excommunication must be lifted first.

 

[R_C]

Mortal Sin can be confessed, and then the sacraments are open to you. Before the sacraments can be available to you if your ina state of excommunication, then the excommunication must be lifted first.

Well that’s not quite exact…excommunication implies that you have committed a very grave sin. If you repent of that sin, you go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation and the Code of Canon Law says that it is possible even for a priest to temporarily lift the excommunication through Reconciliation and allow you to receive the Beloved in the Eucharist. Of course you still need to take the proper steps to confess with the Bishop within a certain amount of days . But since the sin that carries an excommunication is in itself greater inasmuch as it has caused greater harm than other mortal sins, you are supposed to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation from the bishop.

P.s.: only some particular offenses (ex. performing an unauthorized episcopal consecration, etc.) are reserved to the Holy See, so in this case only the Holy Father can lift it.

 

[ess1113a]

Apparently Sister Ruth has the right idea !

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2177804/Catholic-nun-sent-envelopes-containing-white-powder-parliamentary-figures-including-Nick-Clegg.html

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Apparently Sister Ruth has the right idea !

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2177804/Catholic-nun-sent-envelopes-containing-white-powder-parliamentary-figures-including-Nick-Clegg.html

Cause that’s obviously what we want to happen.

 

[ess1113a]

Cause that’s obviously what we want to happen.

Now I am shocked. Sounds like something you would have endorsed and supported based upon your diatribes here.

 

[FCEGM]

Now I am shocked. Sounds like something you would have endorsed and supported based upon your diatribes here.

Warning someone about a practice dangerous to the soul is different from hastening the death of that someone to prove a point. The first is an act of charity, the second an act “worthy” of equal condemnation.

 

[ess1113a]

Warning someone about a practice dangerous to the soul is different from hastening the death of that someone to prove a point. The first is an act of charity, the second an act “worthy” of equal condemnation.

Threatening excommunication is a long ways removed from “warning about a practice” wouldnt you say?