Which religions and denominations forbid Freemason membership, and why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PazzoGrande
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
"How you have fallen from heaven, Day Star, son of the Dawn! How you have been thrown down to earth, you who laid low the nation!

And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
I don’t want Bible quotes. Only the next: Are you capable to show where in the doctrine of the Catholic Church the morning star mentioned in Isaiah 12:20 is refered to Satan? If you are capable to demostrate this I’ll recognize you are correct and I wrong. If you cannot then your Bible quotes are useless.
 
Is there any truth to Freemasonry having ties to the Knights Templar from the Middle Ages? I heard that once on a TV program but don’t know if there is any validity to it. That claim seems a little far-fetched to me but I’ve always wanted to ask a mason about it but I never knew anyone who was a mason.
I seen part of this. The comparison they made wasn’t explained only suggested as I heard this also. However, the connection also made was between Solomon’s Temple, Temple of Zerubbabel and Babylon-anti Christ.

Leviticus “'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD”

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jewishencyclopedia.com%2Farticles%2F10937-moloch-molech&ei=Xo2hVIbNFMOlgwTLmITQBw&usg=AFQjCNGpI0WXVmQy1qMtnC9pOzutaXTokA

In other words the Temple was built wrong and they are rebuilding it according to their understanding of God, thus the anti-Christ.

This is also associated with Western political leaders, abortion, Bohemian Grove and so forth further today.
 
I don’t want Bible quotes. Only the next: Are you capable to show where in the doctrine of the Catholic Church the morning star mentioned in Isaiah 12:20 is refered to Satan? If you are capable to demostrate this I’ll recognize you are correct and I wrong. If you cannot then your Bible quotes are useless.
Haydock Catholic Bible Commentary

Isaias Chapter 14, Ver. 12. O Lucifer. O day-star. All this, according to the letter, is spoken of the king of Babylon.** It may also be applied, in a spiritual sense, to Lucifer, the prince of devils, who was created a bright angel, but fell by pride and rebellion against God. ** (Challoner) (Luke x. 18.) (Calmet) — He fell by pride, as Nabuchodonosor did. (Worthington).
 
I don’t want Bible quotes. Only the next: Are you capable to show where in the doctrine of the Catholic Church the morning star mentioned in Isaiah 12:20 is refered to Satan? If you are capable to demostrate this I’ll recognize you are correct and I wrong. If you cannot then your Bible quotes are useless.
From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website:

Isaiah 14:12
How you have fallen from the heavens,
O Morning Star,* son of the dawn!
How you have been cut down to the earth,
you who conquered nations!i
  • [14:12] Morning Star: term addressed to the king of Babylon. The Vulgate translates as “Lucifer,” a name applied by the church Fathers to Satan. Son of the dawn: Heb., ben shahar, may reflect the name of a pagan deity.
 
John Cassian

How by reason of pride Lucifer was turned from an archangel into a devil.

And that we may understand the power of its awful tyranny we see that that angel who, for the greatness of his splendour and beauty was termed Lucifer, was cast out of heaven for no other sin but this, and, pierced with the dart of pride, was hurled down from his grand and exalted position as an angel into hell. If then pride of heart alone was enough to cast down from heaven to earth a power that was so great and adorned with the attributes of such might, the very greatness of his fall shows us with what care we who are surrounded by the weakness of the flesh ought to be on our guard. But we can learn how to avoid the most deadly poison of this evil if we trace out the origin and causes of his fall. For weakness can never be cured, nor the remedies for bad states of health be disclosed unless first their origin and causes are investigated by a wise scrutiny. For as he (viz., Lucifer) was endowed with divine splendour, and shone forth among the other higher powers by the bounty of his Maker, he believed that he had acquired the splendour of that wisdom and the beauty of those powers, with which he was graced by the gift of the Creator, by the might of his own nature, and not by the beneficence of His generosity. And on this account he was puffed up as if he stood in no need of divine assistance in order to continue in this state of purity, and esteemed himself to be like God, as if, like God, he had no need of any one, and trusting in the power of his own will, fancied that through it he could richly supply himself with everything which was necessary for the consummation of virtue or for the perpetuation of perfect bliss. This thought alone was the cause of his first fall. On account of which being forsaken by God, whom he fancied he no longer needed, he suddenly became unstable and tottering, and discovered the weakness of his own nature, and lost the blessedness which he had enjoyed by God’s gift. And because he loved the words of ruin, with which he had said, I will ascend into heaven, and the deceitful tongue, with which he had said of himself, I will be like the Most High, Isaiah 14:13-14 and of Adam and Eve, You shall be as gods, therefore shall God destroy him forever and pluck him out and remove him from his dwelling place and his root out of the land of the living. Then the just, when they see his ruin, shall fear, and shall laugh at him and say (what may also be most justly aimed at those who trust that they can obtain the highest good without the protection and assistance of God): Behold the man that made not God his helper, but trusted in the abundance of his riches, and prevailed in his vanity. (Institutes, Chapter 4. newadvent.org/fathers/350712.htm)
 
Augustine
  1. John bears witness of Him, and cries, saying, This was He of whom I spoke, He that comes after me is made before me. He came after me, and He preceded me. What is it, He is made before me? He preceded me. Not was made before I was made, but was preferred before me, this is He was made before me. Wherefore was He made before you, when He came after you? Because He was before me. Before you, O John! What great thing to be before you! It is well that you bear witness to Him; let us, however, hear Himself saying, Even before Abraham, I am. John 8:58 But Abraham also was born in the midst of the human race: there were many before him, many after him. Listen to the voice of the Father to the Son: Before Lucifer I have begotten You. He who was begotten before Lucifer Himself illuminates all. A certain one was named Lucifer, who fell; for he was an angel and became a devil; and concerning him the Scripture said, Lucifer, who did arise in the morning, fell. Isaiah 14:27 And why was he Lucifer? Because, being enlightened, he gave forth light. But for what reason did he become dark! Because he abode not in the truth. John 8:44 Therefore He was before Lucifer, before every one that is enlightened; since before every one that is enlightened, of necessity He must be by whom all are enlightened who can be enlightened. (Tractate 3, 7)
 
So is this a sedevacantist/conclavist site? It has a thing on it “How To Support The Rev. Fr. Peter Khoat Van Tran’s Holy Works” – with links to “papal restoration” sites and stuff about “pope Siri”.
:confused: No, its just a Book:shrug:
 
Augustine
  1. John bears witness of Him, and cries, saying, This was He of whom I spoke, He that comes after me is made before me. He came after me, and He preceded me. What is it, He is made before me? He preceded me. Not was made before I was made, but was preferred before me, this is He was made before me. Wherefore was He made before you, when He came after you? Because He was before me. Before you, O John! What great thing to be before you! It is well that you bear witness to Him; let us, however, hear Himself saying, Even before Abraham, I am. John 8:58 But Abraham also was born in the midst of the human race: there were many before him, many after him. Listen to the voice of the Father to the Son: Before Lucifer I have begotten You. He who was begotten before Lucifer Himself illuminates all. A certain one was named Lucifer, who fell; for he was an angel and became a devil; and concerning him the Scripture said, Lucifer, who did arise in the morning, fell. Isaiah 14:27 And why was he Lucifer? Because, being enlightened, he gave forth light. But for what reason did he become dark! Because he abode not in the truth. John 8:44 Therefore He was before Lucifer, before every one that is enlightened; since before every one that is enlightened, of necessity He must be by whom all are enlightened who can be enlightened. (Tractate 3, 7)
Thanks Randy, you are always come through for me.😃
 
From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website:

Isaiah 14:12
How you have fallen from the heavens,
O Morning Star,* son of the dawn!
How you have been cut down to the earth,
you who conquered nations!i
  • [14:12] Morning Star: term addressed to the king of Babylon. The Vulgate translates as “Lucifer,” a name applied by the church Fathers to Satan. Son of the dawn: Heb., ben shahar, may reflect the name of a pagan deity.
Well, that’s a footnote. I think a footnote in a Conference of Catholic Bishops Bible, putting in context what some Church Fathers thought about the subject (I do knew the case of Tertulian, but he’s not strictly a Church Father) is not sufficient argument to support this hipothesis. If the footnote said: “Lucifer, a name applied by the Catholic Church to Satan” I would not have any problem in accept that Lucifer=Satan. But this is not the case. And there are solid arguments to discard this identity because that identity is philosophically saying mediate and not* inmediate* as the identity Jesus=Morning Star. That’s pretty clear in Revelation 22:16. To make admissible the identity Satan=Morning Star is necessary a extrapolation, from a text what is not refered directly to Satan but a babylon king and by a metaphorical process to assume this can be applied also to Satan. I cannot see possible that extrapolation (although I do admit some Church Fathers and pseudofathers like Tertulian made this identity) because then there is a theological problem:

Or
  1. Christ is Lucifer and Satan is Lucifer. Then Christ is Satan. Nonsense and absurd.
  2. Chris is Lucifer and Satan is another “lucifer”. Then the term Lucifer has two means. Some one should explain the differences between this two Morning Stars.
I have a third option that remove the problem. The extrapolation is inaccurate. The fact that some Church Fathers (but not the consensus of the Church Fathers or the Church) made this extrapolation doesn’t turn into infallible doctrine. Perhaps because we don’t deal here about a subject of doctrine.
 
OK I see it now, the Knights Templar are insinuated to somehow be connected with all this because of the Goats Head.
The word “baphomet”, in relation to “head worshipping”, exists only in one unique “interview” with one solitary Occitan Knight. The accusation of “head worshipping”, however, occurs in several “interviews”, all equally stressful, and almost certainly due to the “interviewer” being quite eager to tie the Order to a known “heretic sect” of the time, or at the very least to a known heretic practice. None of the accusations were very inventive, as all had been leveled at one sect or another, by that time.
The “head worshipping” accusation was eventually dropped even by the Inquisition. Only our contemporary inquisitors make it live on and on ad nauseam.
 
Masons are godless evil wretches and deserving of hatred, scorn, oppression and persecution. Mistreating Masons is morally upright as far as I’m concerned.
If you know a Mason, condemn them and call them worthless, unloved monsters undeserving of any happiness and friendship.
 
Luciferians are, uh, “enlightened” and unashamedly so, more’s the pity. Theosophists had their Lucifer Publishing" as changed to “Lucis Trust” which is now a United Nations N.G.O./Non-governmental Organization that proffered a plan for world peace. First, have the U.N. take all weapons. Instant peace; but no peace of mind. Then, use said weapons to insure peace of mind by eradicating any meddlesome entities, and–this is the example they gave–if anybody was troublesome, like the Vatican, nuke 'em.

Colonel Albert Pike, Freemasonic author, Confederate torturer of Union soldiers, and the only Confederate to have a statue in our nations Capital, had a letter of his quoted in John Ankerberg’s expose of Freemasonry asking a pal, "Should we call our god “Lucifer” or “Satan?” That’s the Freemason’s understanding of the Lucifer/Daystar dilemma.

The Luciferic Initiation was a popular New Age rite quoted by Constance Cumbey and reprinted in READER’S DIGEST–once pro-NAZI-- but with the “death” part expurgated. It starts out as a paean to death and luciferic enlightenmet. LET LIGHT AND LOVE AND DEATH… This is why Jesus Christ said, “BEWARE OF SATAN APPEARING AS AN ANGEL OF LIGHT.”

Here’s the brilliant Israeli researcher Hannah Newman exposing the New Age bloodlust: philologos.org/__eb-trs/naD.htm

So where were we? Again, Gnostics are against all that God is for. So whatever Judeo-Christianity teaches as ideal, Gnostics do the opposite.
 
Here’s Hannah Newman’s info on the Luciferic Initiation, and the Barbara Marx Hubbard quoted–“Change or die,” is the same Gnostic PRO FORMA Freemason for our purposes, that was keynote speaker before the 2013 LCWR/Leadership Conference of Women Religious, showing you don’t need to be a card-carrying Gnostic to love…enlightenment. Father of Lies & Murder…Oy vey.

**Foster Bailey made it clear that the NA initiation would not only be mandatory but would create a caste system: “[Young and old alike] will have to live with the New Age standards. Those who do not will end up as irreconcilable outcasts.” (Things to Come, p.39) Those who cannot surrender (having no souls), or who will not (not sufficiently developed in their spiritual journey), will simply be “sent on to their next life” in a global “cleansing action” (Alice Bailey, The Rays and the Initiations p.754-755). Barbara Marx Hubbard puts it even more bluntly: “People will either change or die. That is the choice.” (Happy Birth Day Planet Earth! p.32) Hubbard makes it clear, however, that the human agents of the Plan of Love and Light will never be guilty of murder, or even of mercy-killing: “New Choices enter history. Death by choice. Life by choice… The dignity of humans requires death and life, by choice not coercion”, giving rise to a “new science [called] thanatology, the art of dying with grace.” (“The Future - Previews of Coming Attractions” First Foundation News Aug.1995, p.4) **
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top