That Old Freemason Question...

[ess1113a]

John 8:7
They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!”

I guess you can interpret that as meaning I guess you are sinless so you can freely condemn others. I am not so blessed as you so I will refrain from using your language and accusations.

PLEASE have a blessed day and know that my love and Christ’s love are always with you.

 

[Sonic]

John 8:7
They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!”

I guess you can interpret that as meaning I guess you are sinless so you can freely condemn others. I am not so blessed as you so I will refrain from using your language and accusations.

PLEASE have a blessed day and know that my love and Christ’s love are always with you.

Is that directed towards anyone in particular or a certain post, Eric?

If it’s my post… No one is throwing stones. I asked out of charity instead of accusing you, mate. For all I know, you may have had two accounts… one for posting at home and another at work. I didn’t want you to get in trouble.

 

[R_C]

Thank you for your sorrow but I pray for you and your misguided beliefs every Sunday as I go to receive Holy Communion and I look among the congregation and see many other Masons.
When we condemn Freemasons but we allow KKK members, racial extremist, and pro choice doctors and politicians in our communion lines then my pity is with you and your beliefs.
Despite what you may say or believe, God will judge me and not you or any other person on earth. My belief is in the Trinity and no matter what you may believe, YOU are not included as a member of the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.
Blessings on you.

Your knowledge of the Canon Law is entirely flawed, at least on this matter.

First of all, I have quoted the official document by the Holy Father forbidding membership of Catholics into freemasonry, and stating that all Masons are in a state of grave sin and cannot receive communion. To do otherwise is to commit a sacrilege.

Second, the same document mentions that the term freemasonry is not spelled out, like other associations likewise unmentioned, inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories. In this case, their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church. I consider the KKK among those unmentioned associations. Pro-choice, meaning pro-abortion, is collaborating with abortion and - please others correct me if I am wrong - should bring an ipso facto excommunication.

So you are not alone in the sacrilege. I do not judge you, but I am a member of the Church and, ultimately, I am - despite your statement - a mystical member of the Trinity in the body of Christ Jesus, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, in the image of the Father, therefore it is my duty to let you know that you and others in the same state are in a state of disobedience to the Church.

Please, talk to your confessor about these things.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Is that directed towards anyone in particular or a certain post, Eric?

If it’s my post… No one is throwing stones. I asked out of charity instead of accusing you, mate. For all I know, you may have had two accounts… one for posting at home and another at work. I didn’t want you to get in trouble.

For me, I think it was the instances of “bloody” that made it sound more like accusation than question. I don’t use the term, but I had a boss from Scotland that used it as a strong word, and apologized for using it in mixed company. Maybe he was just too sensitive.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

John 8:7
They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!”

I guess you can interpret that as meaning I guess you are sinless so you can freely condemn others. I am not so blessed as you so I will refrain from using your language and accusations.

PLEASE have a blessed day and know that my love and Christ’s love are always with you.

And yet you didn’t acknowledge a single post of mine regarding what the Popes have said regarding the evil of freemasonry.

 

[FCEGM]

. . . Yes there are alot of Catholic masons in parishes throughout the US and they tithe and partake of the sacraments. That doesnt make them bad Catholics. I see parishoners every Sunday that I know support birth control stances, doctors that perform tubiligations, and even couples that are having sex outside of marriage. I am a sinner as they are so I dont stand in vocal opposition to their presence in the mass. I understand we are on a path to salvation.

Excusing one’s own sins by giving examples of the sins of others only makes one’s path to salvation a very iffy one.

 

[perro_sarnoso]

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?

-Alice Ann Bailey
-Helena Petrovna Blavatsky
-Pike
-Aleister Crowley

These are some of the precursor of the doctrine of demons that is freemasonry. Freemasonry is the black beast of prophecy. The red beast is communism.

 

[4givemeasinner]

“Catholics that are likewise masons are Latae Senentiae excommunicated.”

Wrong. Benedict XVI’s letter only states they cannot receive holy communion. Excommunication is an entirely different matter.

 

[thistle]

“Catholics that are likewise masons are Latae Senentiae excommunicated.”

Wrong. Benedict XVI’s letter only states they cannot receive holy communion. Excommunication is an entirely different matter.

So what? A Catholic who is a Freemason will go to Hell if they die unrepentant.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

So what? A Catholic who is a Freemason will go to Hell if they die unrepentant.

Maybe.

 

[R_C]

Benedict XVI’s letter only states they cannot receive holy communion. Excommunication is an entirely different matter.

Really?

The former Code of Canon Law said:

Persons joining associations of the Masonic sect or any others of the same kind which plot against the Church and legitimate civil authorities contract ipso facto excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See.

The declaration by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ratifies the previously existing excommunication ipso facto and latae sententiae, clarifying why the new Code of Canon Law “does not mention them expressly” and stating that the position of the Church remains unchanged.

This article on ETWN is very clear.

a letter from Cardinal Francis Seper, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to the presidents of all the episcopal conferences, dated July 18, 1974, stated that … the express prohibition against Masonic membership by clerics, religious and members of secular institutes is hereby reiterated

on February 17, 1981, Cardinal Seper issued a formal declaration … canonical penalties are in no way abrogated

Following the promulgation of the new Code, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a new declaration: the new Canon 1374 has the same essential import as the old Canon 2335, and the fact that the “Masonic sect” is no longer explicitly named is irrelevant;

 

[thistle]

Maybe.

Not maybe but definitely.

The Church teaching is clear. Anyone who dies in a state of mortal sin goes immediately to Hell.
It has also been made clear in a very unambiguous way that any Catholic who is a Freemason is in a state of mortal sin.
Therefore if they die unrepentant they go immediately to Hell.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Not maybe but definitely.

The Church teaching is clear. Anyone who dies in a state of mortal sin goes immediately to Hell.
It has also been made clear in a very unambiguous way that any Catholic who is a Freemason is in a state of mortal sin.
Therefore if they die unrepentant they go immediately to Hell.

I didn’t know the Church taught that we can objectively know somebody is definitely going to hell? If she really teaches that, then I have a serious problem accepting it.

Alan

 

[thistle]

I didn’t know the Church taught that we can objectively know somebody is definitely going to hell? If she really teaches that, then I have a serious problem accepting it.

Alan

CCC 1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

CCC 1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

Thank you. I guess I’ll let the Freemasons take this one up for themselves.

Alan

 

[4givemeasinner]

The former Code of Canon Law said excommunicate. However, in Benedict’s letter, it simple states that those members of the faithful in freemasonry are in a state of mortal sin. mortal sin, however you want to describe it, does not equate to an excommunication.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I didn’t know the Church taught that we can objectively know somebody is definitely going to hell? If she really teaches that, then I have a serious problem accepting it.

Alan

That is NOT what Thistle is saying. It is not the ‘somebody’ who is the object, it is the SIN which is the object.

IF a person dies in unrepentent mortal sin (remember, that person in order to be sinning mortally must not only know it is a mortal sin but also must sin freely), THEN the person will have CHOSEN hell. The mortal sin is the means through which the person chooses hell. Do you understand?.

We say that a mortal SIN will (if unrepented) mean that a person who chooses that sin and does not repent at death is the FREE CHOICE of that person, who thus chooses hell. The focus is on the SIN itself.

Quite a different story.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The former Code of Canon Law said excommunicate. However, in Benedict’s letter, it simple states that those members of the faithful in freemasonry are in a state of mortal sin. mortal sin, however you want to describe it, does not equate to an excommunication.

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?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

That is NOT what Thistle is saying. It is not the ‘somebody’ who is the object, it is the SIN which is the object.

IF a person dies in unrepentent mortal sin (remember, that person in order to be sinning mortally must not only know it is a mortal sin but also must sin freely), THEN the person will have CHOSEN hell. The mortal sin is the means through which the person chooses hell. Do you understand?.

I will take you guys’ word for it. I am not an expert at moral theology.

We say that a mortal SIN will (if unrepented) mean that a person who chooses that sin and does not repent at death is the FREE CHOICE of that person, who thus chooses hell. The focus is on the SIN itself.

Quite a different story.

Yes, and if a person suffers just before death, that can have the effect of triggering a perfect act of contrition, right? Like theoretically why they burned heretics – in the hopes that in the searing flames they would repent and be saved for eternal life. Not the same thing exactly of course, but the take-home message is, get to confession and don’t repeat the sin.

Alan

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I will take you guys’ word for it. I am not an expert at moral theology.

Yes, and if a person suffers just before death, that can have the effect of triggering a perfect act of contrition, right? Like theoretically why they burned heretics – in the hopes that in the searing flames they would repent and be saved for eternal life. Not the same thing exactly of course, but the take-home message is, get to confession and don’t repeat the sin.

Alan

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.