That Old Freemason Question...

[TEPO]

We do it all the time. I had zero training. Nada. Zip. I didn’t even know I existed when the Church accepted me. I like the idea of RCIA, but wouldn’t you think that cradle Catholics maybe should be required to have a little more information than what they hear from the ambo? Why not let outsiders join and learn as they go like we had to?

Like for example, in parishes I know about, preparation for Confirmation is basically a farce. Some good information, along with some inane discussions and activities over who knows how it has anything to do with confirmation or Catholicism in general. A few weeks of enduring boring leaders a couple hours a week, and bam! They get confirmed – and my kids tell me that some others in the class admitted, though not to the leaders or the pastor, that they don’t even believe much of what they are told. So they are hypocrites, but they go through the process to avoid making waves. Can you imagine the parents of a “good catholic child” when the child tells them they really don’t believe in Catholicism so they will not be confirmed? So they don’t. They put on a happy face and eat what they are given, smile and chat a little, and bada boom bada bing.

If we don’t let outsiders join the Church without RCIA, then neither should any Catholic be confirmed without going through training of the equivalent rigor. Why penalize Catholics because they were baptized under the age of reason? If they don’t complete the training, they cannot be confirmed. Why should the rules be different for us v. them? It adds to the illusion (which may be an accurate illusion) that in general converts know more about the Church, and are more enthusiastic about it, than cradle Catholics. If they weren’t totally convinced (and convincing), they wouldn’t have been able to join.

Especially those people who want a “leaner, more devoted” congregation, they should jump on this bandwagon in a snap. Unless they, too, are cradle Catholics.

Alan

Good points Allen. You know somewhere in the back of my mind that idea still does make complete and total sense. I know I say it was my “mistake”, but at the same I also feel like maybe it wasn’t.

Just imagine that idea along with this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=707878

…reviving the old extinct Sarum Rite of the Catholic Church that went out with the reformation. Well, the “Church of the West” could have it back again -and the doing away of initiation could help ease the process. Wouldn’t that be something if a large chunk of the Protestants decided to come back to mother Church with their very own Rite and Canons just like the Eastern Churches have!

 

[bobcrawford]

Why would someone wish to become a Freemason when the Knights of Columbus and other Catholic groups are out there?

Being a newbee with the forums, and having a brother-in-law who is a Mason (wife is a convert to the Roman Catholic Faith, I can give my two cents on this.

Being in the KofC, I believe it is pretty much an insurance company wrapped as a fraternal organization. We do a lot of charitable projects, but ultimately the focus is getting “insurance members.”

The problem as one brother knight found out is that KofC Insurance is very selective on who they will accept as insured. Take a medication they don’t like and you are not insurable. So much for true charity and taking care of the brother knight and his family.

Now the Masons do not sell insurance, but each lodge I am told has a charity fund. These funds for many lodges are hundreds of thousands. So if a mason needs help and is without means, the charity fund is there to help. They also have a network of nursing homes that provide free care to needy masons.

So from what I can see, the masons have more of the ideals of the original KofC organization before it turned into an insurance company.

The masons also have extensive social offerings - like the Shiners - that offer a more fraternal feeling than anything I have seen in KofC.

He also tells me that there is an extensive business network among masons. They tend to buy from fellow masons, hire fellow masons, do business with fellow masons. None of that exists in the KofC that I have been able to witness.

In summary, they are both good organizations, but very different in their fraternal aspects. If you want help with business or employment, the Masons probably have more to offer. From what the brother-in-law said, they really help and take care of their own. If you want to do a lot of volunteer work, then KofC is the place to be as the Masons do not do that directly, but indirectly through their network of Childrens Hospitals.

Anyway, that’s what I know. Well I could go on, but I think you have an idea of why one franternal organization versus another may be more attractive to Catholics.

 

[bobcrawford]

Then no one here ought to accuse you of heresy.

Dogmas, doctrines, teachings of the Church = unchangeable.

Unchangeable? We just changed the mass again. The bishop approved girl alter servers in our diocese. How is that unchangeable? I am confused.

Oh, and it seems we fairly recently changed the position on infants who die without baptism.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Well why female altar servers, cantors, and ESPECIALLY lectors, when the Bible is clear on such things:
1 Cor 14:33b-35:

As in all the churches of the holy ones, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.

Alan

 

[bobcrawford]

Unchangeable? We just changed the mass again. The bishop approved girl alter servers in our diocese. How is that unchangeable? I am confused.

Oh, and it seems we fairly recently changed the position on infants who die without baptism.

I guess it is how narrow you define dogma. My parish priest told about this website, but he warmed that some of the information posted on the forums is not accurate. Just a warning to discuss it with him first.

 

[PRmerger]

Unchangeable? We just changed the mass again.

Really? Is the Mass something different than it used to be? Is it now not the Holy Sacrifice of Christ, that atoned for our sins, once and for all? It’s not the Divine Liturgy that is our participation in the Lamb’s Supper?

The bishop approved girl alter servers in our diocese. How is that unchangeable? I am confused.

Perhaps you need to read up on the difference between dogmas and disciplines.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-it-a-doctrine-or-a-discipline

Oh, and it seems we fairly recently changed the position on infants who die without baptism.

Did the Church once teach that infants who died without baptism went to hell and now they teach they go to heaven?

:nope:

 

[bobcrawford]

OK, you got me there on the mass. It’s not a matter of dogma.

Yes, the Church taught at one time, that infants who died having not been baptized, that they went to “limbo” (not to Hell), but could not go to Heaven.

That has teaching has now been changed. Where it once said the infant cannot enter Heaven, we now teach that God’s mercy may be granted to them and they could indeed enter Heaven.

 

[bobcrawford]

Yes, there indeed may have been founding members of the KKK who were Democrats, Freemasons, Catholics (even though KKK opposed Catholics, racial hatred ran deep in many groups), Protestants, etc.

Just about every group was represented in the KKK at one time or another.

But to say that Freemasons founded the KKK alone as if it were a part of any Masonic organization is simply false.

 

[bobcrawford]

But that what was taught in Catholic Schools and Parishes.

 

[PRmerger]

But that what was taught in Catholic Schools and Parishes.

The Magisterium has no control about what was “taught in Catholic schools and parishes”, bob.

That does not make it dogma.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, the Church taught at one time, that infants who died having not been baptized, that they went to “limbo” (not to Hell), but could not go to Heaven.

No, the Church has never taught this. Limbo was theological speculation. Nothing more and nothing less.

So for you to assert that the Church has changed its dogmas/doctrines, you need to offer an example of a dogma/doctrine of the Church that once proclaimed [A] and now proclaims [not-A].

And please make sure you understand what’s dogma and what’s discipline.

 

[bobcrawford]

Interestingly enough though, I wonder if there is a real difference between branches of Freemasonry, or if these branch lines (spinoffs) are just different functions of one big common goal.

By the way, if you run into Jack Straw over there in Wichita, tell him Cosmic Charlie said hello.

The only goal I have ever heard of for the masons is to help the members of their fraternity. Some of the branches as you referred to them do charity work. The Shriners have the Children Hospital that offer free healthcare for children. The Scottish Rite has mental health facilities and retirement homes for members.

Kind of like KofC in many ways, except mason tend to help their individuals members of their fraternity in business or as individuals when they or their families need assistance. Being a KofC member, I have never seen any of that on our side. KofC is all about insurance, raising money for charity and doing volunteer work. Not as much a fraternal organization like the masons.

 

[bobcrawford]

No, the Church has never taught this. Limbo was theological speculation. Nothing more and nothing less.

So for you to assert that the Church has changed its dogmas/doctrines, you need to offer an example of a dogma/doctrine of the Church that once proclaimed [A] and now proclaims [not-A].

And please make sure you understand what’s dogma and what’s discipline.

Well OK, but I know what we were taught now and then and its different.

So that begs another question. Is there salvation outside the Church? Meaning that if one is not Catholic, can the achieve salvation?

Back in the day, we were taught there is no salvation outside the Church. Now the explanation is that the judgement is the Lord’s alone - which has always been the case. But it seems that the position has softened.

 

[PRmerger]

Well OK, but I know what we were taught now and then and its different.

Well, sadly, what you were taught (or what you remember being taught) was incorrect. (Perhaps they even prefaced the limbo thing with: “this is what the Church teaches is speculative”, but you were trying to get the attention of pretty Mary Grace Jensen so missed that part. )

So that begs another question. Is there salvation outside the Church?

No, there is no salvation outside the Church.

Meaning that if one is not Catholic, can the achieve salvation?

If one is joined to the Church, whether formally or informally, one** may **achieve salvation.

Back in the day, we were taught there is no salvation outside the Church. Now the explanation is that the judgement is the Lord’s alone - which has always been the case. But it seems that the position has softened.

Perhaps it has “softened”. That, however, does not constitute a change in dogma.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The Magisterium has no control about what was “taught in Catholic schools and parishes”, bob.

That does not make it dogma.

Now you pushed one of my buttons.

What difference does it make what some document in a vault somewhere says, when the rank and file are being taught a bunch of trash?

This is the quality control problem I am adamant about the Church needing to fix. Not the sheep, but the established “power structure” in the Church. If the Church does not take responsibility for properly teaching her children, then their blood is on her hands, is it not? Whoever misleads these little ones?

That’s like taking a driver’s ed class from Sears, and the teacher tells you it’s OK to use the exit ramp to get on the highway as long as there is nobody around. Then somebody gets a ticket or gets killed, and Sears gets sued. They use the defense, “we don’t control what is taught in our schools.” :knight1:

How far would that defense get Sears, and why are we using the same defense for the Church instead of facing her problems and trying to fix them rather than the ostrich in the sand approach? “She has fullness of truth.” Well, her alleged Truth and Light is under a big, complicated bushel basket, and very few people get to see anything but this facade. I think it’s a cop out to say the Church may do a lousy job of teaching her people, and people may not be going to heaven because of poor catechesis (of course we’ll blame it on the students and not the teachers) but since somewhere in the bowels of the Vatican archives is the Full and Infallible truth, so everything is OK and the Church doesn’t need to change the way she does anything. :whacky:

To me, those who can’t see this and are willing to be honest about it, are not protecting the Church at all, but allowing her to fall into error. Remember the Church is the mystical Body of Christ and if one member hurts, we all hurt. So to just brush off the bulk of the pew-sitters (another way to justify is to say, “hey Jesus said only a few will get in”) and say, “well the Church is perfect even though 95% of her members don’t know even the basics of what she’s taught.” If the Pope were the CEO of a corporation, there would be congressional hearings over this human spiritual disaster, and the corporation and the CEO personally would have their feet held to the fire.

Again, it’s a quality control problem, pure and simple. Excuses and denials keep it intact. If Church teachings are perfect, she has no excuse to allow those of us in the trenches to go around for generations believing things that are false and highly scary, that robs them of their spirituality like what happened to my own mother – and with me, for that matter, before CAF. The Church can’t say “yes it was our franchise but we have no control over what is being served.” And then we all say, “all hail the Church, for she is the fullness of truth,” and let her, by intent or by incompetence, get away with spiritual murder. :sad_yes: (Again, “anyone who misleads one of these little ones…”) In this day of communications she cannot pretend not to know this is going on – like I am, along with other “rebels,” holding up big mirrors up so she can see those Body Parts she needs to see. I’m thinking of Man of La Mancha with Sophia Loren and Peter O’Toole, where they all held up the mirrors to Don Quixote to show him what he looked like. He couldn’t see things as they were – real, not pie-in-the-sky.

And yeah, as far as telling the “lesser” member of the Church, the Body of Christ, it is their fault and we righteous (or “better informed”) ones can wash our hands of their fate:

Eph 4:25
Therefore, putting away falsehood, speak the truth, each one to his neighbor, for we are members one of another.

1 Cor 12:22-31
Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary, and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety, whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another.

If [one] part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy. Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it. Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles;* second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? Strive eagerly for the greatest spiritual gifts.

So what do we say? The weaker members are weak because of their own faults, let them suffer because it isn’t the fault of the rest of us? This is everyone’s problem, not just those who are misled.

Alan

 

[TEPO]

Are RCIA type classes or Catholic workshops out of the question as a for of penance…? Just asking cause I don’t know.

 

[bobcrawford]

If you’re claiming that Masons don’t worship Hiram Abiff, then he at least represents the crafts emergence into the world… Have you been to Blue Lodge lately?

No one is worshiped at any masonic function. Each mason worships the God of his religion. So a Catholic and other Christians worship Jesus and the Trinity. The Jews would worship the God of the Old Testament which is the same God as Christians, Muslims would worship whoever that god is, etc.

Hiram Abiff represents betrayal, as in the one person who was betrayed by his fellow apprentice masons because of jealousy. No, Abiff does not represent “the crafts emergence” whatever that means.

Having studied masonry as a result of the Catholic opposition and by bro-in-law who is a mason, I am amazed at the misinformation about masons.

 

[bobcrawford]

Well, sadly, what you were taught (or what you remember being taught) was incorrect. (Perhaps they even prefaced the limbo thing with: “this is what the Church teaches is speculative”, but you were trying to get the attention of pretty Mary Grace Jensen so missed that part. )

No, there is no salvation outside the Church.

If one is joined to the Church, whether formally or informally, one** may **achieve salvation.

Perhaps it has “softened”. That, however, does not constitute a change in dogma.

So then if I understand this correctly, Jews, Protestants and other cannot achieve salvation because they are outside the Church. Is that the official position of the Catholic Church? Not sure what “formally” and “informally” mean and are those references in the Magisterium?

 

[TEPO]

No one is worshiped at any masonic function. Each mason worships the God of his religion. So a Catholic and other Christians worship Jesus and the Trinity. The Jews would worship the God of the Old Testament which is the same God as Christians, Muslims would worship whoever that god is, etc.

Hiram Abiff represents betrayal, as in the one person who was betrayed by his fellow apprentice masons because of jealousy. No, Abiff does not represent “the crafts emergence” whatever that means.

Having studied masonry as a result of the Catholic opposition and by bro-in-law who is a mason, I am amazed at the misinformation about masons.

As official doctrine, Catholics may not be masons. That’s all I have to say about that.

 

[bobcrawford]

As official doctrine, Catholics may not be masons. That’s all I have to say about that.

In doing a lot of reading here the past few days, I would say that is the position of many who hang out here.

Does not change that from my reading, the Church appears to have much mis-information on the subject of masons and therefore has based its exclusion on wrong information.

I’m not going to change that opinion. Frankly the Democratic Party is more of a threat to our Church and Faith than masonry. That’s where I am focusing my attention.

Cheers!