Freemasons - I have a few questions.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by AntoniusBlock

 

In 1974 Cardinal Seper, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, signed a document that stated, in part, that "The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith... has ruled that Canon 2335 no longer automatically bars a Catholic from membership of masonic groups... And so, a Catholic who joins the Freemasons is excommunicated only if the policies and actions of the Freemasons in his area are known to be hostile to the Church ..."

The source I lifted this from contains a long list of public persons who were both Catholics and Freemasons.

Even if this rule were binding, it is from 1974. The two clarifications and the Canon Law that I have posted are what are applicable now and come from a decade later. They are the most recent instruction on the matter and thus are binding on all Catholics. Furthermore, they clear up any confusion and state that the original canon law which prohibits a Catholic from joining the Masons has not changed once in any way, shape, or form since the first condemnation some several hundred years ago.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
reply to post by AntoniusBlock

 

There are five Masons in my lodge who are Catholics, as well as being Knights of Columbus, and still receive communion. Their monsignor is aware of their decisions to join.

I have showed you the official stance of the Catholic Church. It should be no surprise that there are all sorts of priests, monsignors, bishops, and even cardinals who act on their own. They, however, have no authority on their own. I could find you many priests and monsignors who deny the physical Resurrection of Christ, but this does not amount to anything but personal opinion, which is in fact heresy.

I'm not saying that Catholics don't attempt and succeed at becoming Masons. I'm saying that those who do incur excommunication and a grave fault, whether their personal pastor or local ordinary recognizes it or not.

A further question for the Masons, does Albert Pike not speak credibly on behalf of Freemasonry?

Originally posted by AntoniusBlock
I'm saying that those who do incur excommunication and a grave fault, whether their personal pastor or local ordinary recognizes it or not.

The rather ironic part of the situation is they are all very active in both orginizations but when the monsignor expressed his reservations after they joined they all offered to demit from the Knights but he encouraged them to remain. As far as them being de facto excommunicated by their membership, if they continue to receive communion then are they acutally excommunicated?

Originally posted by AntoniusBlock
A further question for the Masons, does Albert Pike not speak credibly on behalf of Freemasonry?

Pikes book is his personal interpretation of Freemasonry and is usually unknown to masons and very well known to conspiracy-theorists.

Originally posted by AntoniusBlock
A further question for the Masons, does Albert Pike not speak credibly on behalf of Freemasonry?

Not anymore or less then any other Mason. His opinion is his own and his interpretations are not necessarily the same as another members.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by AntoniusBlock
I'm saying that those who do incur excommunication and a grave fault, whether their personal pastor or local ordinary recognizes it or not.

The rather ironic part of the situation is they are all very active in both orginizations but when the monsignor expressed his reservations after they joined they all offered to demit from the Knights but he encouraged them to remain. As far as them being de facto excommunicated by their membership, if they continue to receive communion then are they acutally excommunicated?

One can continue to receive Holy Communion when they should not. In the same way, a Protestant is forbidden by Church law to receive Holy Communion but are often knowingly given it anyway. These are abuses, not Catholicism.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by AntoniusBlock
A further question for the Masons, does Albert Pike not speak credibly on behalf of Freemasonry?

Not anymore or less then any other Mason. His opinion is his own and his interpretations are not necessarily the same as another members.

I wonder how subjective interpretation can be so varied. How can the Masons on this board claim that Freemasonry is more or less about one's personal relationship with a benevolent Divine Being while Pike asserts that the society is most definitely Satanic?

"To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st, and 30th degrees - The Masonic Religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian Doctrine." (Instructions to the 23 Supreme Councils of the World, Albert Pike, Grand Commander, Sovereign Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry, July 14, 1889. Recorded by A.C. De La Rive, La Femme et l' Enfant dans la Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, page 588)

"Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay (The God of the Christians) is also god. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two gods: darkness being necessary for light to serve as its foil as the pedestal is necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive." (Instructions to the 23 Supreme Councils of the World, Albert Pike, Grand Commander, Sovereign Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry, July 14, 1889. Recorded by A.C. De La Rive, La Femme et l' Enfant dans la Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, page 588)

"Thus, the doctrine of Satanism is a heresy; and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay (The God of the Christians); but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of Darkness and Evil." (Instructions to the 23 Supreme Councils of the World, Albert Pike, Grand Commander, Sovereign Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry, July 14, 1889. Recorded by A.C. De La Rive, La Femme et l' Enfant dans la Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, page 588)

Originally posted by AntoniusBlock
I wonder how subjective interpretation can be so varied. How can the Masons on this board claim that Freemasonry is more or less about one's personal relationship with a benevolent Divine Being while Pike asserts that the society is most definitely Satanic?

Probably because the material you are quoting is a well known hoax.

Originally posted by AntoniusBlock
A further question for the Masons, does Albert Pike not speak credibly on behalf of Freemasonry?

Short answer: no. Long answer: no, and the question might be communicating a fundamental misunderstanding of exactly how and in what sense one can speak for Freemasonry.

Let's say the Church made two binding proclamations on all of its members: 1) That members of the Byzantine Catholic Church can receive communion as Catholics; and that 2) the Eucharist is no longer transubstantiative (extreme example is extreme).

Example 1 is what we'll call jurisdictional policy, as a statement of how the Church will conduct itself. It's expected to be within Catholic teachings, but it's not necessarily a theological statement. The equivalent would be a Grand Lodge deciding to recognize another Grand Lodge. In that sense, the Grand Master can speak for (his small corner of) Freemasonry, though it's not at all binding on any Freemason outside his state. Given that Pike never held this position, he cannot be said to speak for Freemasonry at any time, though he can speak for the Scottish Rite as its leader.

Example 2 is an interpretation of Catholic ritual. It is a binding theological position concerning how Catholics interact with God through participation in a Catholic service. This kind of power cannot be exercised by anyone within Freemasonry. Though, of course, Pike speaks with a great amount of knowledge (and perhaps a greater amount of verbiage; one has to be careful to avoid misunderstanding him), his opinion only holds sway to the extent that he convinces someone else of it. No one speaks for Freemasonry in this manner.

reply to post by AntoniusBlock


As Augustus said, that material is fraudulent. That's why I asked for your sources when you first made this claim; this was what I expected.

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213

Originally posted by doomsdaymachine
i read in a book about cults that it was punishable by death. i guess depending on how important the secret was. maybe they don't do that now-a-days but im pretty sure they used too.

There's your trouble. You're not likely to find reliable information from a source that throws around pejoratives without bothering to check whether it's accurate.

yeah, so let me guess. you're also a freemason, like everyone else on this thread. lol you guys seriously know everything. your level of unwarrenated self-importance is astounishing. lol seriously get off your soapbox. all of you.

Originally posted by doomsdaymachine
yeah, so let me guess. you're also a freemason, like everyone else on this thread.

Why do you find it so odd that Freemasons would show up to a thread asking Freemasons questions?

lol you guys seriously know everything.

When did any of us claim that?

your level of unwarrenated self-importance is astounishing. lol seriously get off your soapbox. all of you.

You'd be surprised how personable we can be when you start with something other than calling us a cult based on wildly false information.

Originally posted by AntoniusBlock


Even if this rule were binding, it is from 1974. The two clarifications and the Canon Law that I have posted are what are applicable now and come from a decade later. They are the most recent instruction on the matter and thus are binding on all Catholics. Furthermore, they clear up any confusion and state that the original canon law which prohibits a Catholic from joining the Masons has not changed once in any way, shape, or form since the first condemnation some several hundred years ago.

Even if Freemasons are excommunicated (which I see there seems to be confusion about) that would not necessarily mean they are evil. The Catholic Church is not infallible. They have erred.

Originally posted by AntoniusBlock
I have showed you the official stance of the Catholic Church. It should be no surprise that there are all sorts of priests, monsignors, bishops, and even cardinals who act on their own. They, however, have no authority on their own. I could find you many priests and monsignors who deny the physical Resurrection of Christ, but this does not amount to anything but personal opinion, which is in fact heresy.

I'm not saying that Catholics don't attempt and succeed at becoming Masons. I'm saying that those who do incur excommunication and a grave fault, whether their personal pastor or local ordinary recognizes it or not.

Your words, yes? Let me paraphrase them back to you and see if we can come to an accord?

I have showed you the official stance of Freemasonry. It should be no surprise that there are all sorts of members who act on their own. They, however, have no authority on their own. I could find you many Masons who deny the esoteric aspects of Masonry, but this does not amount to anything but personal opinion, which is in fact heresy.

I'm not saying that people who might do wrong don't attempt and succeed at becoming Masons. I'm saying that those who do incur expulsion and a Masonic charges, whether their Worshipful Master or District Deputy Grand Master recognizes it or not.

If one is a Bible expert and studies the Bible, one will come to the conclusion the The CatholincChurch is The Mystery Babylon
The Catholic Church openly adds to the Bible, and puts their own beliefs into it
IF you read this whole article, you will understand where I am coming from
www.666numberofthebeast.com...

Originally posted by santjime
So how come you decided with Gnostic? As opposed to Traditional Christianity.

Gnosticism is traditional Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church decided to make a power grab and attempt to stomp out the Gnostic Catholic Church, but the Gnosis of the Holy Logos has still been preserved from age to age by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

And is it focused around the Bible?

It should be remembered that most of the Bible was not composed for the masses. Indeed, at the time it was written, most of the masses were illiterate. The Bible contains in allegory and symbol the Holy Doctrines. However, over time, as it became available to the general public, it also became corrupted. The masses, not naving been instructed in the mysteries, began to read it literally, and impose doctrines upon people by force, whic were themselves absurd if taken literally.

Where did the belief oh Sophia come around, I was lead to believe that Sophia was a Hebrew word for Wisdom.

Actually, it is Greek for Wisdom. The Hebrew is Chochmah.

And last but not least, were you raised in a Gnostic household? If not When did you convert to Gnosis? and what brought you to it?

I was raised Anglican. I've had an interest in the mystical interpretation of the scriptures since childhood.

I find it unsettling to kneel before any man of this earth. Is that required in the process?

Originally posted by santjime
If one is a Bible expert and studies the Bible, one will come to the conclusion the The CatholincChurch is The Mystery Babylon
The Catholic Church openly adds to the Bible, and puts their own beliefs into it
IF you read this whole article, you will understand where I am coming from
www.666numberofthebeast.com...

You do realize that Catholicism has never added anything to the canon of Sacred Scripture, and that it was Luther who decided to adopt the post-Christian Jewish rabbinical canon which Christ Himself didn't even use?

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by AntoniusBlock


Even if this rule were binding, it is from 1974. The two clarifications and the Canon Law that I have posted are what are applicable now and come from a decade later. They are the most recent instruction on the matter and thus are binding on all Catholics. Furthermore, they clear up any confusion and state that the original canon law which prohibits a Catholic from joining the Masons has not changed once in any way, shape, or form since the first condemnation some several hundred years ago.

Even if Freemasons are excommunicated (which I see there seems to be confusion about) that would not necessarily mean they are evil. The Catholic Church is not infallible. They have erred.

edit on 4-4-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

Erred in opinion and some teaching? Sure. The Church only claims infallibility in certain (and very specific) circumstances. There has never been error promulgated infallibly.