FAQ's on Freemasonry, by former 32 degree mason, shriner, proficiency card holder..

Originally posted by pbrez

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

is this not the current title for the organization that through out history
has done so much for the Catholic Image?

The Holy Office of the Inquisition.

This is what many say when a church is 2000 years old. Yes bad things happened in the church years ago. Look at it like this, when turn 90 and someone is still bringing up something you did wrong when you where 10. Also are you going to blame Hindus for killing Muslims back in the 50's (and Muslims killing Hindus)?

Well, that is a pretty facile response... a church is supposed to represent g-d, and to compare the life of the church to the life cycle of a human being just doesn't wash... especially as a human is SUPPOSED to get wiser as he ages, and the RCC is HARDLY doing that...

As for the SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH not being true to its ancient heritage, I would direct your attention to a book called The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception and the littany of deceptive and downright evil acts against the scientists that wanted to distribute the true and complete and correct translations of the contents of the scolls. The book is written by Baigent and Leigh, and is very well documented.

Now, really, who cares? The church is entitled to their view. and since I am not a RCC member, it doesn't matter. If RCC members can't join, (officially) I am ok with that...

As for the long littany, we could discuss those issues if you want, but what is the point? That is how Bernard Cardinal Law (who demonstrably has a challenging view of religious doctrine in... other areas already) sees it, and since it was published by the RCC, that is the official position...

But, as I have already noted, not all Catholics obey the "holy father" jot and tittle now, and since many catholics ARE masons... I guess I would point to Galileo and his quote: Nevertheless, it does move... the RCC has been wrong MANY times before based on prejudice and an unwillingness to look at facts, and I respectfully submit this is just one more case of the same...

Originally posted by Masonic Light

quote: Masonry's use of oaths. In an oath required of a Master Mason, the candidate solemnly swears to keep Masonic secrets and do or not do various things on penalty of being killed, having his body severed in two, and then having his bowels removed, burned to ashes and scattered to the winds.

The Church teaches that a solemn oath sworn on a Bible may be taken only for very serious reasons. It is considered a serious matter. Either the above-mentioned oath means what it says, in which case the man is entering a pact consenting to his own murder should he break it, or it does not mean what it says, in which case the man "is swearing high-sounding schoolboy nonsense on the Bible, which verges on blasphemy."

Not only is this an outright lie, but it also condemns the KofC as well.

The K of C doesn't not swear any oaths on the bible, let alone blood oaths.

[edit on 23-9-2004 by chief_counsellor]

[edit on 23-9-2004 by chief_counsellor]

Originally posted by Masonic Lightquote: Masonry's use of oaths. In an oath required of a Master Mason, the candidate solemnly swears to keep Masonic secrets and do or not do various things on penalty of being killed, having his body severed in two, and then having his bowels removed, burned to ashes and scattered to the winds.

The Church teaches that a solemn oath sworn on a Bible may be taken only for very serious reasons. It is considered a serious matter. Either the above-mentioned oath means what it says, in which case the man is entering a pact consenting to his own murder should he break it, or it does not mean what it says, in which case the man "is swearing high-sounding schoolboy nonsense on the Bible, which verges on blasphemy."

Not only is this an outright lie, but it also condemns the KofC as well.

Originally posted by chief_counsellor
The K of C doesn't not swear any oaths on the bible, let alone blood oaths.

Really?

For your personal reading enjoyment:

www.cin.org...

www.biblebelievers.org.au...

www.reclaimingwalther.org...

And the $64,000.00 question: Isn't a marriage ceremony an oath? (a "blood" oath to be sure... till death do us part ). Seems like the RCC has a few of those in their "skeleton closet".

Originally posted by theron dunn

Originally posted by pbrez

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

is this not the current title for the organization that through out history
has done so much for the Catholic Image?

The Holy Office of the Inquisition.

This is what many say when a church is 2000 years old. Yes bad things happened in the church years ago. Look at it like this, when turn 90 and someone is still bringing up something you did wrong when you where 10. Also are you going to blame Hindus for killing Muslims back in the 50's (and Muslims killing Hindus)?

Well, that is a pretty facile response... a church is supposed to represent g-d, and to compare the life of the church to the life cycle of a human being just doesn't wash... especially as a human is SUPPOSED to get wiser as he ages, and the RCC is HARDLY doing that...

As for the SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH not being true to its ancient heritage, I would direct your attention to a book called The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception and the littany of deceptive and downright evil acts against the scientists that wanted to distribute the true and complete and correct translations of the contents of the scolls. The book is written by Baigent and Leigh, and is very well documented.

Now, really, who cares? The church is entitled to their view. and since I am not a RCC member, it doesn't matter. If RCC members can't join, (officially) I am ok with that...

As for the long littany, we could discuss those issues if you want, but what is the point? That is how Bernard Cardinal Law (who demonstrably has a challenging view of religious doctrine in... other areas already) sees it, and since it was published by the RCC, that is the official position...

But, as I have already noted, not all Catholics obey the "holy father" jot and tittle now, and since many catholics ARE masons... I guess I would point to Galileo and his quote: Nevertheless, it does move... the RCC has been wrong MANY times before based on prejudice and an unwillingness to look at facts, and I respectfully submit this is just one more case of the same...

Dunn do you really want to debate this here. We can but it is up to you. I think you and I might have drifted off the first subject.

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

Originally posted by Masonic Lightquote: Masonry's use of oaths. In an oath required of a Master Mason, the candidate solemnly swears to keep Masonic secrets and do or not do various things on penalty of being killed, having his body severed in two, and then having his bowels removed, burned to ashes and scattered to the winds.

The Church teaches that a solemn oath sworn on a Bible may be taken only for very serious reasons. It is considered a serious matter. Either the above-mentioned oath means what it says, in which case the man is entering a pact consenting to his own murder should he break it, or it does not mean what it says, in which case the man "is swearing high-sounding schoolboy nonsense on the Bible, which verges on blasphemy."

Not only is this an outright lie, but it also condemns the KofC as well.

Originally posted by chief_counsellor
The K of C doesn't not swear any oaths on the bible, let alone blood oaths.

Really?

For your personal reading enjoyment:

www.cin.org...

www.biblebelievers.org.au...

www.reclaimingwalther.org...

And the $64,000.00 question: Isn't a marriage ceremony an oath? (a "blood" oath to be sure... till death do us part ). Seems like the RCC has a few of those in their "skeleton closet".

The oath that you are refering to is called the "bogus oath" To settle of of this debate, not only with the first subject but with all of us is this www.masonicinfo.com...

We make an oath, well, it's more like a promise than an oath.....but we specifically do not swear an oath on the bible.....

[edit on 23-9-2004 by chief_counsellor]


pbrez...why did you post a whole bunch of bogus oaths??

[edit on 23-9-2004 by chief_counsellor]

Originally posted by chief_counsellor

Originally posted by Masonic Light

quote: Masonry's use of oaths. In an oath required of a Master Mason, the candidate solemnly swears to keep Masonic secrets and do or not do various things on penalty of being killed, having his body severed in two, and then having his bowels removed, burned to ashes and scattered to the winds.

The Church teaches that a solemn oath sworn on a Bible may be taken only for very serious reasons. It is considered a serious matter. Either the above-mentioned oath means what it says, in which case the man is entering a pact consenting to his own murder should he break it, or it does not mean what it says, in which case the man "is swearing high-sounding schoolboy nonsense on the Bible, which verges on blasphemy."

Not only is this an outright lie, but it also condemns the KofC as well.

The K of C doesn't not swear any oaths on the bible, let alone blood oaths.

Are you deliberately misinterperting what he meant???

Masonry does not ask for his own murder, and his reference seemed to me to be a reference to the deliberate lying about masonry by KOC than anything else...

C_C - Gadfly must be mad at you! I know that you were trying to condemn Masonry with that Previous Thread - but you actually make it sound Pretty Good - what a great Recruiting tool!

Quote: "Bernard Cardinal Law of Boston... Catholics who knowingly embrace the principles of Masonry are committing serious sin."

Oh you mean the same "Cardinal Bernard Law" that just stood by as many of his Priests Abused & Molested Children? Then he looked to move them around & Cover it up after the fact? Looks like the "Superior Morality of the Church" to me!!! Actually it looks like a "Serious Sin" & Hypocrisy to me!!!



[edit on 23-9-2004 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Alright, even though Godwin's Law kicked in about halfway through this thread, I'm going to continue to add to the banter. It appears to me that there are a couple of different arguments going on here.

1) The issue of religious primacy. Personally, I'm bored with moral relativism... it's so cliche. If you have a belief, stand by it! Religion, by definition, is exclusive of other religions. Religion explains origins. Christianity states explicitly that there is one god that has created the universe, man, etc. This theory is naturally in direct contradiction with, say, the Hindu belief of Purusha creating the universe. Religions are typically not compatable--luckily religion need not dictate how we interact with other people. People are people are people, no matter what they believe! If you believe that multiple religions are correct, that's your prerogative, but by ranting and raving, attempting to force your religious relativism on people then you are no better than those who proclaim that a single religion is the only way to go. Just because you believe someone is wrong, doesn't mean that you absolutely and immediately turn your back to them. I remind you of the story of the good Samaritan. Also, that idea is as ridiculous as suggesting that because my horse training philosophy differs from Denny Emerson that I can't talk to him. That's absurd. We don't all have to agree in every aspect of life to get along.

2) The issue of strict observation of canonical law. Going back to my statement that people are people are people. No one is perfect. No one never makes a mistake. Priests are humans and subject to making mistakes just as politicians, businessmen, athletes, soldiers, teachers, janitors, editors, and every other person to have ever graced earth. We try as hard as we can to not mess up, but occasionally we do. Infallibility is not within any human's grasp. So, understand that while people try to follow the laws of both state and church, give them some slack when the screw up.

As far as originator of this thread goes: I tip my hat to you. You are trying hard to follow your convictions. You believe that you should work hard to follow your church's doctrine--that you believe to be true. Good luck, and I hope that the Papacy changes their standing so that you may join the fraternity with a clear conscience. With a hierarchical structure, as has the Catholic Church, have you considered petitioning each level (successively) for a change in doctrine, with writings that clearly show the benefits of freemasonry as an organization, particularlly how it applies to Catholics? Again, good luck.

If any of my statements have been out of line, then I offer my deepest apologies. For now, at least, I'm sticking by them!

-Andrew

Originally posted by chief_counsellor
We make an oath, well, it's more like a promise than an oath.....but we specifically do not swear an oath on the bible.....

[edit on 23-9-2004 by chief_counsellor]


pbrez...why did you post a whole bunch of bogus oaths??

[edit on 23-9-2004 by chief_counsellor]

Sorry I goofed on the quotes. I was simply quoting another message. They where showing links to the Bogus Oaths.

Source

Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. In addition, whoever points out that Godwin's Law applies to the thread is considered to have lost the battle, as it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. Many people understand Godwin's Law to mean this, although (as is clear from the statement of the law above) this is not the original formulation.

Nevertheless, there is also a widely-recognized codicil that any intentional invocation of Godwin's Law for its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

more...

Wow... I'll be damned if I'm not guilty of that. Looks like I need to find another cliche analogy. Godwin is a brilliant man.

I know what you mean, but occassionally, the similie is correct...

example: The UK is trying to pass laws requiring masons to declare their affiliation if they are in the military or any government job (police, fire, judge, lawyer, etc)... now, the stated purpose of these laws is to stop masons from working in these fields... so, the similie to the Nazis forcing Jews to wear the star of David and the Nazi's outlawing and arresting masons is appropos.

Most of the time, though, it is not, and is simply tossed out like a verbal hand grenade to supply an ad hominem attack of the vilest kind...

Can we please remember to seperate Masonry in the UK from Masonry in the U.S.

Over in the U.S. it's much less formal that the UK and also 33rd Degree isn't the peak degree in UK Masonry. In fact UK Masonry does not have a ladder structure in place like the U.S. does.

My 2$

Originally posted by lucifuge
Can we please remember to seperate Masonry in the UK from Masonry in the U.S.

Over in the U.S. it's much less formal that the UK and also 33rd Degree isn't the peak degree in UK Masonry. In fact UK Masonry does not have a ladder structure in place like the U.S. does.

My 2$

Oh, thanks... I know the difference between the two, but I was making a similie to the current situation and another in the 1930's...

In the US this registration could never happen as a violaiton of my right to assemble, speak, and privacy.

In my view the problem is that PEOPLE
keep messing with some very basic simple guidelines to humanity.

The best 10 lines ever written, yes those one's!

Men and churches have added timely rules and regulations of worthiness to suite their
own goals an/or perspectives.

This has twisted the truth as we SHOULD know it.

The Biggy's being equality of Men and Women
Equality of race color creed
and Who's rules are right and wrong to various degrees of punishment, guilt and fear.

Jesus and Paul were accused of RADICAL PROPAGANDA by Rome
for even implying that women were equal to men and that they should read and write
just like men. " God Forbid! "
The Muslim weren't to keen on that idea either as we still see today.
There are times when I wouldn't mind a Stepford wife, but
that's only when she pi$$es me off

reply to post by LTD602

God WOULD NEVER counsel anyone to stay away from any Church. I suppose it is the opposite of God that is pretending to be so. Better do some discernment.

I was raised Catholic and I was married in a Lutheran church. I'm also a Master Mason. I know longer attend church, but my parents are still active in it, father has been on the parish council for about 20 years now, and even they take everything with a grain of salt and ignore the parts of Catholic teachings they find stupid. Probably most Catholics and those in most other main stream religions don't take everything seriously. You use what you like and disregard the rest. My own sister is getting married for a second time this summer and is being married by a married Catholic priest. The state considers it legal and she didn't have to pay several thousand for an annulment.

If you want to follow every little article of faith that a religion has, go for it, as long as you're not hurting other people. My personal thought is in line with Masonry, all men worship the same god under different names. I believe all religions are equal, as soon as you say my religion is better and is the only way, then you should be viewed as a danger to society.

Originally posted by mikedw


If you want to follow every little article of faith that a religion has, go for it, as long as you're not hurting other people. My personal thought is in line with Masonry, all men worship the same god under different names. I believe all religions are equal, as soon as you say my religion is better and is the only way, then you should be viewed as a danger to society.

I agree with this completely. I was raised in the Episcopal-Anglican tradition, but have since joined a Unitarian Universalist Church.

reply to post by LTD602
even if this topic is never read again i would like to reply and express my opinion.Christianity is not a polytheist faith that is true .Christianity being rooted in Judiaism it is understandable for the Almighty is a jealous god and exacts exclusive devotion.By sending his son to become a propitutory sacrifice for mankinds sins ,God is giving all mankind a chance to accept his message and gain salvation through faith and the teachings of christ help in this regard.God is not one to just deny everyone a fair warning before divine retribution is applied. So when one of his representatives invites you to learn of him just remember you can go on walking in your own way but at least you were given a chance to learn the truth.Just as jesus corrected many who were not walking in the way of his father in the first centry, so it is in this day.Mankind of all walks of life will one day be united in faith of one god.Just as it was in the beginning so shall it be in the end.