Freemasons - what are they?
DawnoftheForest
The Freemasons comprise an international secular fraternal order. Freemasonry
is not a secret society, cult, religion or sect, nor is it behind the
Illuminati, although membership does require belief in a Supreme Being.
There are several Masonic affiliated organizations, including the Shriners,
which extend the social and charitable work of the Freemasons.
There has been a campaign against the Freemasons almost from their inception.
The hatred of the group is kept alive by Christian leaders such as Pat
Robertson and talk show hosts like Art Bell.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
further reading
Freemason -- from the 700 Club to Art Bell, an Object of Conspiracy Thinking by
Conrad Goeringer
The Irish Freemasons
The Grand Lodge of England
Freemasons of Vermont
Masonic Resources on the Web
©copyright 2002
Robert Todd Carroll
The more you know, Dawn
Daniel Höhr
> The Freemasons comprise an international secular fraternal order.
Freemasonry
> is not a secret society, cult, religion or sect, nor is it behind the
> Illuminati, although membership does require belief in a Supreme Being.
> There are several Masonic affiliated organizations, including the
Shriners,
> which extend the social and charitable work of the Freemasons.
> There has been a campaign against the Freemasons almost from their
inception.
> The hatred of the group is kept alive by Christian leaders such as Pat
> Robertson and talk show hosts like Art Bell.
Wow, I've seldom come across such a good description in a nutshell!
Daniel
DawnoftheForest
>From: Daniel =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F6hr?= dho...@yahoo.com
>Date: 4/18/02 4:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20020418...@Medion.fuck.Bill.Gates.and.Microsoft>
>
>DawnoftheForest wrote:
>
>> The Freemasons comprise an international secular fraternal order.=20
>Freemasonry
>> is not a secret society, cult, religion or sect, nor is it behind the
>.
>
>> There are several Masonic affiliated organizations, including the=20
>Shriners,
>> which extend the social and charitable work of the Freemasons.
>
>inception.
>> The hatred of the group is kept alive by Christian leaders such as Pat=
>
>> Robertson and talk show hosts like Art Bell.
>
>Wow, I've seldom come across such a good description in a nutshell!
>
>Daniel
Me too, www.skeptic.com calls it as they see it! Dawn
Gary Schooley
Daniel Höhr wrote:
Yes, nice and sterilized of the truth and facts. But, if you want the WHOLE
truth about masonry, visit this site:
http://www.freemasonwatch.freepress-freespeech.com/
You'll see that all the points she made are FALSE.
Gary Schooley
Daniel Höhr
> The Freemasons comprise an international secular fraternal order.
True.
> Freemasonry
> is not a secret society, cult, religion or sect, nor is it behind the
> Illuminati, although membership does require belief in a Supreme Being.
True, although the Illuminati were organised in a similar way to the
Freemasons in the 18th century and very often met in the same building.
> There are several Masonic affiliated organizations, including the
Shriners,
> which extend the social and charitable work of the Freemasons.
True.
> There has been a campaign against the Freemasons almost from their
inception.
> The hatred of the group is kept alive by Christian leaders such as Pat
> Robertson and talk show hosts like Art Bell.
I can't tell -- never heard to Pat Robertson and Art Bell. Have I missed
anything?
The short article Dawn posted was certainly not to describe Masonry in
detail, nor does it say anything about the question whether Christians
can become Masons or not. Whether it's deistic is a completely different
question, isn't it?
Daniel
Daniel Höhr
> Daniel Höhr (dho...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> > The short article Dawn posted was certainly not to describe Masonry in
> > detail, nor does it say anything about the question whether Christians
> > can become Masons or not. Whether it's deistic is a completely different
> > question, isn't it?
> yup - she mentioned it was christian hatred that was inspiring the
compaign
> against masonry, but never mentioned any valid reason for it which is why
I did.
Exactly, only you did not give reasons for Christian *hatred* for
Masonry, you gave reasons for the (supposed) incompatibility of
Christianity and Masonry, which is a completely different thing.
Daniel
DawnoftheForest
>Date: 4/18/02 9:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <5gKv8.87632$GS6.8...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
>
>Gary Schooley (scho...@texas.net) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Daniel Höhr wrote:
>>
>>> DawnoftheForest wrote:
>>>
>>> > is not a secret society, cult, religion or sect, nor is it behind the
>>> > Illuminati, although membership does require belief in a Supreme Being.
>>>
>>> Shriners,
>>> > which extend the social and charitable work of the Freemasons.
>>>
>>> inception.
>>> > The hatred of the group is kept alive by Christian leaders such as Pat
>>> > Robertson and talk show hosts like Art Bell.
>>>
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>
>> Yes, nice and sterilized of the truth and facts. But, if you want the WHOLE
>> truth about masonry, visit this site:
>>
>> http://www.freemasonwatch.freepress-freespeech.com/
>>
>> You'll see that all the points she made are FALSE.
>>
>> Gary Schooley
>
>nonesense.
>
>I do beleive freemasonry is unchristian because it is deistic, but it
>requires
>deep thinking and insight into its rituals to see it.
>
>This site is much more realistic for information about freemasonry.
>http://choccult.8m.com/masonry.htm
>
>--
>Jason
>
>What we Are is God's gift to us.
>What we Become is our gift to God.
By the way people, lets do appropriate snipping okay?
I didn't write that, and since I know nothing at all about masons I will not
comment. I have heard negatives here so I posted this alternative view from a
non- religious source.
Freemasons
The Freemasons comprise an international secular fraternal order. Freemasonry
is not a secret society, cult, religion or sect, nor is it behind the
Illuminati, although membership does require belief in a Supreme Being.
There are several Masonic affiliated organizations, including the Shriners,
which extend the social and charitable work of the Freemasons.
There has been a campaign against the Freemasons almost from their inception.
The hatred of the group is kept alive by Christian leaders such as Pat
Robertson and talk show hosts like Art Bell.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
further reading
Freemason -- from the 700 Club to Art Bell, an Object of Conspiracy Thinking by
Conrad Goeringer
The Irish Freemasons
The Grand Lodge of England
Freemasons of Vermont
Masonic Resources on the Web
Šcopyright 2002
Robert Todd Carroll
DawnoftheForest
>Message-id: <hpVv8.95805$GS6.9...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
>>
>>
>>> Freemasonry
>>> is not a secret society, cult, religion or sect, nor is it behind the
>>> Illuminati, although membership does require belief in a Supreme Being.
>>
>> Freemasons in the 18th century and very often met in the same building.
>>
>> Shriners,
>>> which extend the social and charitable work of the Freemasons.
>>
>>
>>> There has been a campaign against the Freemasons almost from their
>> inception.
>>> The hatred of the group is kept alive by Christian leaders such as Pat
>>> Robertson and talk show hosts like Art Bell.
>>
>> anything?
>>
>> detail, nor does it say anything about the question whether Christians
>> can become Masons or not. Whether it's deistic is a completely different
>> question, isn't it?
>
>yup - she mentioned it was christian hatred that was inspiring the compaign
>against masonry, but never mentioned any valid reason for it which is why I
>did.
>
>Jason
>
I never mentioned anything , the information was from:
http://skepdic.com/freemasons.html
If you go to the link you will find links to many organizations re; masons.
Dawn
DOC 2
Daniel Höhr
> to the east, south, west, and north. They are evil.
Since you obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about, I'm sure
you would like to go home and do your homework. In the meantime, I'll put
you where you belong:
PLONK
Daniel Höhr
> I used the word hatred only because it was used in the origional post - I
dont
> hate masonry, and neither does the Church, but I do object to it for good
> reason.
I know you object to Masonry and you have your reasons and you've made
your point very clear. I also know you wouldn't use the word "hatred" in
this discussion unless as a quotation. I didn't get that wrong, but my
last posting was not quite unambiguous. My mistake.
dh
PS: I'll send you a mail in the next days. I haven't got round to doing
it, but I haven't forgotten.
Moe
Not only is Freemasonry unlawful in the eyes of the Church as a
secret society to the detriment of religion but also is really a sectarian
body, having its own formulae of belief about God, the soul, conscience,
etc., and its own secret and public rituals. A Catholic cannot be a
Freemason any more than he may be a member of any other Church than the
Catholic Church.
Freemasonry professes Naturalism and hence is opposed to
Supernaturalism. It is opposed not only to Catholicism and Christianity but
also to the whole system of supernatural truth. It systematically promotes
religious indifferentism ("all religions are equal"). Its ultimate purpose
is, according to its Universal Manual of Freemasonry, "the overthrow of the
whole religious, political, and social order based on Christian institutions
and the establishment of a new state of things according to its own ideas and
based in its principles and laws on pure Naturalism." Although claiming
religious toleration as one of its principles, it openly attacks Catholicism.
Since 1738 Catholics have been, under penalty of excommunication
incurred ipso facto and reserved to the pope, strictly forbidden to enter
Masonic societies or to promote them in any way. In 1894 Pope Leo XIII
issued the Encyclical Letter "Humanum Genus" [On Freemasonry], in which the
pope specifically warned the faithful to beware of organizations associated
with Masonry that "hide their real character under the mask of universal
toleration, of respect for all religions, of the mania of reconciling the
maxims of the Gospel with those of revolution" (para. 9).
In the same year, the Vatican added to its condemnation three other
secret societies: the Knights of Pythias, the Elks, and the International
Order of Odd Fellows. A decree of January 18, 1896, allows a nominal
membership in the Odd Fellows, Knights of Pythias, and Sons of Temperance,
secret societies, if these conditions are fulfilled: (1) the society is
entered in good faith, (2) there is no scandal, (3) grave temporal injury
would result form withdrawal, and (4) there is no danger of perversion.
Even for the post-conciliar Church, on November 26, 1983, after the
New Code of Canon Law had been promulged in Sacrae Disciplinae Legis on
January 25, 1983, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
issued the Declaration Regarding Masonic Associations, which stated in part:
"The negative decision of the Church regarding Masonic associations remains
unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable
with the Church's teaching, and, consequently, membership in them remains
prohibited by the Church. Members of the faithful who enroll in Masonic
associations are involved in serious sin and may not approach Holy
Communion."
Daniel Höhr
found somewhere. Let's see if you are able to discuss the topic at leng,
or if you prefer to withdraw as you did last time when I showed you that
you are actually not capable of exchanging different views and opinions
without getting emotional.
Moe wrote:
> Not only is Freemasonry unlawful in the eyes of the Church as a
> secret society to the detriment of religion but also is really a sectarian
> body, having its own formulae of belief about God, the soul, conscience,
> etc., and its own secret and public rituals.
Wrong. Freemasonry is not a secret society. Or have you ever heard of a
secret society that's in the phone book and whose members run hospitals?
(Shriner's hospitals for example). Have you heard of a secret society
that has websites with pictures of their members and meeting places? In
London you can go omn guided tours through the Grand Lodge of England
building and you can buy ritual books and regalia in the Grand Charity
Shops, not to mention the Masonic shops in Great Queen Street nearby.
They don't even ask you if you're a Mason.
Freemasonry does not have its own formulae of God, it asks its members
to respect the religion of others.The rituals aren't secret either. As I
said you can buy the ritual books in Freemasons' Hall in London. What is
secret, though, are the modes of recognition and even they can be found
out in any good library. The pass words are all in the Old Testament.
Freemasonry isn't unlawful in the eyes of the Church either, only "Canon
2335 regards only those
Catholics who join associations which plot against the church."
(Cardinal Franjo Seper, then prefect of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith in a letter to Cardinal John Krol, July 19, 1974).
Regular Freemasonry does not plot against anybody.
Still, Catholics who join Masonry live in a state of grievous sin and
may not approach holy communion.
> Freemasonry professes Naturalism and hence is opposed to
> Supernaturalism. It is opposed not only to Catholicism and Christianity but
> also to the whole system of supernatural truth. It systematically promotes
> religious indifferentism ("all religions are equal").
Wrong. Masons are required to respect the believes of other people. But
I'm repeating myself.
> Its ultimate purpose
> is, according to its Universal Manual of Freemasonry, "the overthrow of the
> whole religious, political, and social order based on Christian institutions
> and the establishment of a new state of things according to its own ideas and
> based in its principles and laws on pure Naturalism."
That I cannot comment on, since I don't know the Universal Manual of
Freemasonry, but this is ceretainly not the attitude of either the
United Grand Lodge of England or the United Grand Lodges of Germany.
> Although claiming
> religious toleration as one of its principles, it openly attacks Catholicism.
Not to my knowledge. But, as I said more than once in a similar
discussion with Jason, affairs seem to be different on either shores of
the Atlantic.
So far the Church history. Nicely quoted. I'm impressed, especially
because it was quoted by someone who knows better than the Una Sancta
when it comes down to a certain society of traditionalists who are in
schism... Moe, now *your* true colours are begining to show...
Daniel
Daniel Höhr
> Daniel Höhr (dho...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> <snipped>
> Daniel,
> I understand what your trying to do when you try to justify freemasonry
to
> Catholics... I was there before - I have told you that.
> but it really does pain me to see it.... I get the same feeling when I
see the
> 'catholics for a free choice group'.
Then don't read my postings on that subject...
<snipped>
> After our last debate on this issue and after you read that letter from
> Cardinal Law, I dont really believe you can honestly say "there is no
conflit
> between masonry and christianity".
For heaven's sake, Jason, read my posting you snipped!! I didn't say
there "is no conflict between masonry and christianity" and I actually
quoted from
http://choccult.8m.com/masonry.htm
I just said that regular Freemasonry doesn't plot against anybody!!!
Fair enough that you make your point that you've come to the conclusion
that Freemasonry and Christianity are incompatible and therefore resigned
from Masonry. Although I still disagree, I take my hat off to such a
consequent decision, but just let me make *my* point that Freemasonry is
not a secret society.
Daniel
DawnoftheForest
>Date: 4/20/02 1:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <pan.2002.04.19.19...@hotmail.com>
>
>MASONS (FREEMASONS)
>
> Not only is Freemasonry unlawful in the eyes of the Church as a
>secret society to the detriment of religion but also is really a sectarian
>body, having its own formulae of belief about God, the soul, conscience,
>etc., and its own secret and public rituals.
Hmm, rather like Opus Dei?
Daniel Höhr
Or that schismatic society Moe is so fond of....
dh
Moe
> Of course, Moe, I was waiting for you to come up with some nonsense you
> found somewhere. Let's see if you are able to discuss the topic at leng,
> or if you prefer to withdraw as you did last time when I showed you that
> you are actually not capable of exchanging different views and opinions
> without getting emotional.
>
> Moe wrote:
>
>> Not only is Freemasonry unlawful in the eyes of the Church as a
>> secret society to the detriment of religion but also is really a
>> sectarian body, having its own formulae of belief about God, the soul,
>> conscience, etc., and its own secret and public rituals.
>
> Wrong. Freemasonry is not a secret society.
Ever hear of a 33rd degree mason??
>Or have you ever heard of a
> secret society that's in the phone book and whose members run hospitals?
> (Shriner's hospitals for example). Have you heard of a secret society
> that has websites with pictures of their members and meeting places? In
> London you can go omn guided tours through the Grand Lodge of England
> building and you can buy ritual books and regalia in the Grand Charity
> Shops, not to mention the Masonic shops in Great Queen Street nearby.
> They don't even ask you if you're a Mason.
My uncle was a freemason. My cousin (his daughter) also.
His wife - my aunt - not interested. I remember most of what he told me.
But theone thing I remember is this - its a good thing the lower levels
in freemasonry dont know what they've gotten into.
My uncle caused alot of problems for the family, he disliked catholics
with a passion, he told me this is why he was a freemason.
>
> Freemasonry does not have its own formulae of God, it asks its members
> to respect the religion of others.The rituals aren't secret either. As I
> said you can buy the ritual books in Freemasons' Hall in London. What is
> secret, though, are the modes of recognition and even they can be found
> out in any good library. The pass words are all in the Old Testament.
>
> Freemasonry isn't unlawful in the eyes of the Church either, only "Canon
> 2335 regards only those
> Catholics who join associations which plot against the church."
> (Cardinal Franjo Seper, then prefect of the Congregation for the
> Doctrine of the Faith in a letter to Cardinal John Krol, July 19, 1974).
> Regular Freemasonry does not plot against anybody.
>
> Still, Catholics who join Masonry live in a state of grievous sin and
> may not approach holy communion.
>
>
>> Freemasonry professes Naturalism and hence is opposed to
>> Supernaturalism. It is opposed not only to Catholicism and
>> Christianity but also to the whole system of supernatural truth. It
>> systematically promotes religious indifferentism ("all religions are
>> equal").
>
> Wrong. Masons are required to respect the believes of other people. But
> I'm repeating myself.
Where are you getting this information from??
Which are?????
Moe
>
> Daniel
Moe
Oh the RCC ?????
Moe
>
> dh
Daniel Höhr
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 23:34:51 -1000, Daniel Höhr wrote:
> > Wrong. Freemasonry is not a secret society.
> Ever hear of a 33rd degree mason??
Yup.
> My uncle was a freemason. My cousin (his daughter) also.
Women can't be (regular) Freemasons. It's for blokes. Unless she was in
Eastern Star or Co-Masonry and I'm not gonna comment on that. I stick to
regular Freemasonry in my discussions.
> His wife - my aunt - not interested. I remember most of what he told me.
> But theone thing I remember is this - its a good thing the lower levels
> in freemasonry dont know what they've gotten into.
> My uncle caused alot of problems for the family, he disliked catholics
> with a passion, he told me this is why he was a freemason.
Well, that's his business, isn't it? That doesn't mean Freemasonry is
anti-catholic. I know some really anti-catholic people who are not
Masons, but I also know some Catholics who are Masons. Now please don't
tell me, you can't be a Catholic and a Mason at the same time, I've been
through that with Jason already...
> > Wrong. Masons are required to respect the believes of other people. But
> > I'm repeating myself.
> Where are you getting this information from??
I'm a mason, Moe. I'm member of a German-speaking Lodge and an
English-speaking Lodge. I'm also Grand Officer of the Grand Lodge of
British Freemasons in Germany.
I was also quite active when I lived in England.
In contrast to you, I know what I'm taling about (when it comes down to
Masonry). I've never come across any anti-catholic attitude in Masonry.
<snipped>
> > So far the Church history. Nicely quoted. I'm impressed, especially
> > because it was quoted by someone who knows better than the Una Sancta
> > when it comes down to a certain society of traditionalists who are in
> > schism... Moe, now *your* true colours are begining to show...
> Which are?????
About Masonry you have no idea. You quote Church law when it suits you,
but bashed me when I said Lefebvre was excommunicated, didn't you?
Daniel
Moe
> Moe <moe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 23:34:51 -1000, Daniel Höhr wrote:
>
>> > Wrong. Freemasonry is not a secret society.
>
>> Ever hear of a 33rd degree mason??
>
> Yup.
Please give us a full description of what it takes to be one.
Also a 34th degree mason.
Can you tell us what level you are at?
>
>> My uncle was a freemason. My cousin (his daughter) also.
>
> Women can't be (regular) Freemasons. It's for blokes. Unless she was in
> Eastern Star or Co-Masonry and I'm not gonna comment on that. I stick to
> regular Freemasonry in my discussions.
She was or still is eastern star.
>> His wife - my aunt - not interested. I remember most of what he told
>> me. But theone thing I remember is this - its a good thing the lower
>> levels in freemasonry dont know what they've gotten into. My uncle
>> caused alot of problems for the family, he disliked catholics with a
>> passion, he told me this is why he was a freemason.
>
> Well, that's his business, isn't it?
Maybe - maybe not, his attitude disrupted many family gatherings.
wedding, funerals & etc.
> That doesn't mean Freemasonry is
> anti-catholic. I know some really anti-catholic people who are not
> Masons, but I also know some Catholics who are Masons. Now please don't
> tell me, you can't be a Catholic and a Mason at the same time, I've been
> through that with Jason already...
The catholic church says if you are a mason you are automatically
excommunicated. Even under the law of the novus ordo.
>> > Wrong. Masons are required to respect the believes of other people.
>> > But I'm repeating myself.
>
>> Where are you getting this information from??
>
> I'm a mason, Moe. I'm member of a German-speaking Lodge and an
> English-speaking Lodge. I'm also Grand Officer of the Grand Lodge of
> British Freemasons in Germany.
> I was also quite active when I lived in England. In contrast to you, I
> know what I'm taling about (when it comes down to Masonry). I've never
> come across any anti-catholic attitude in Masonry.
So now I know why you bash SSPX like you do.
I posted what is the catholic attitude toward freemasonry.
So you are not even a catholic????
You are not any more you have been excommunicated acording to RCC law.
But yet you bash catholic organizations.
you have opinions which are anti catholic as I believe.
When it comes to commenting about RCC you have no credibility.
You cant be a catholic and a mason.
>> > So far the Church history. Nicely quoted. I'm impressed, especially
>> > because it was quoted by someone who knows better than the Una Sancta
>> > when it comes down to a certain society of traditionalists who are in
>> > schism... Moe, now *your* true colours are begining to show...
>
>> Which are?????
>
> About Masonry you have no idea. You quote Church law when it suits you,
> but bashed me when I said Lefebvre was excommunicated, didn't you?
He was not excommunicated.
AND if he was you are too.
You cant be a mason and a catholic, read canon law.
You might be right - maybe I have no idea about masonry, except for what
my uncle told me and what I have read. But its nice to see what you are.
It sure does explain alot.
I quote church law????
I posted the RCC attitude toward your cult group and you bash me for it.
The way I see it Daniel -you have no credibility when it comes to your
biased comments on the RCC.
Try and understand something, SSPX is a part of the catholic church, its
not a church by itself.
Moe
>
> Daniel
Moe
From: Mark
Dear Fr. Moderator:
All Popes previous to Vatican II condemned Freemasonry and said that it was
incompatible with being Catholic. Given the secular
and anti-Catholic aims of Freemasonry, this is understandable. How can the 1983
Code of Canon Law make it okay to be a
Freemason and a Catholic at the same time? It sure makes you think that talk of
a Freemason infiltration of the Church to
de-Catholicise it (a la Vatican II and so on) has quite some truth to it.
Fr. Moderator Replies:
Most traditional Catholics don't accept the 1983 Code as being grievously tainted
with Modernism. Nevertheless, even the
1983 Code does not exonerate the Freemasons, but remains silent, thus
continuing the previous penalties. Furthermore,
an interpretation of the 1983 Code issued by the Vatican shortly
after it was published made it clear that the penalties against Freemasonry still hold.
Daniel Höhr
Moe <moe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 09:31:04 -1000, Daniel Höhr wrote:
> > Moe <moe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 23:34:51 -1000, Daniel Höhr wrote:
> >
> >> > Wrong. Freemasonry is not a secret society.
> >
> >> Ever hear of a 33rd degree mason??
> >
> > Yup.
> Please give us a full description of what it takes to be one.
> Also a 34th degree mason.
> Can you tell us what level you are at?
The 33rd degree is an administrative degree in the Scottish Rite, but
since I'm not a member of it, I don't know.
There aren't any levels in Freemasonry. When you want to know my degree,
I'm a Master Mason and in the Royal Arch. In Grand Lodge I'm Grand
Organist.
> > Well, that's his business, isn't it?
> Maybe - maybe not, his attitude disrupted many family gatherings.
> wedding, funerals & etc.
That's bad and I never understood that sort of anti-catholic attitude. As
a Mason you ought to practice a little bit of tolerance, but we are no
better than non-Masons. Fallible human beings, many of them with an
attitude problem. I don't mean to offend you uncle, of course, but Masons
should really not disrupt family gatherings. Well, anybody shouldn't.
> > That doesn't mean Freemasonry is
> > anti-catholic. I know some really anti-catholic people who are not
> > Masons, but I also know some Catholics who are Masons. Now please don't
> > tell me, you can't be a Catholic and a Mason at the same time, I've been
> > through that with Jason already...
> The catholic church says if you are a mason you are automatically
> excommunicated. Even under the law of the novus ordo.
Wrong. The "new" Canon Law doesn't even mention the word Freemasons.
> >> > Wrong. Masons are required to respect the believes of other people.
> >> > But I'm repeating myself.
> >> Where are you getting this information from??
> > I'm a mason, Moe. I'm member of a German-speaking Lodge and an
> > English-speaking Lodge. I'm also Grand Officer of the Grand Lodge of
> > British Freemasons in Germany.
> > I was also quite active when I lived in England. In contrast to you, I
> > know what I'm taling about (when it comes down to Masonry). I've never
> > come across any anti-catholic attitude in Masonry.
> So now I know why you bash SSPX like you do.
> I posted what is the catholic attitude toward freemasonry.
I *knew* you were gonna write that. No, my Freemasonry is not the reason
why I'm critical about the SSPX. That is my own opinion. I'm critical
about the SSPX for other reasons.
> So you are not even a catholic????
> You are not any more you have been excommunicated acording to RCC law.
I'm not in an organisation (wording again??? - I'll check that tomorrow)
that plots against the church and there is no excommunication for
membership in Freemasonry anymore. Tough, Moe.
> But yet you bash catholic organizations.
> you have opinions which are anti catholic as I believe.
No, Moe, I'm not anti-catholic. How yould I be? I'm pro-brain!
> When it comes to commenting about RCC you have no credibility.
Moe, show me where I have commented on the RCC...
> You cant be a catholic and a mason.
> >> > So far the Church history. Nicely quoted. I'm impressed, especially
> >> > because it was quoted by someone who knows better than the Una Sancta
> >> > when it comes down to a certain society of traditionalists who are in
> >> > schism... Moe, now *your* true colours are begining to show...
> >> Which are?????
> > About Masonry you have no idea. You quote Church law when it suits you,
> > but bashed me when I said Lefebvre was excommunicated, didn't you?
> He was not excommunicated.
He excommunicated himself. JPII only confirmed it the day after. You know
that.
> AND if he was you are too.
I don't really see the logic in here...
> You cant be a mason and a catholic, read canon law.
I'll do that. I'll be back tomorrow.
> You might be right - maybe I have no idea about masonry, except for what
> my uncle told me and what I have read. But its nice to see what you are.
> It sure does explain alot.
No, it doesn't. Because you haven't got a clue about Masonry and you tell
me, my membership in Freemasonry "explains" a lot. It is *you* who looks
stupid, Moe. At least I'm honest and
> I quote church law????
> I posted the RCC attitude toward your cult group and you bash me for it.
> The way I see it Daniel -you have no credibility when it comes to your
> biased comments on the RCC.
Moe, you can't even read properly! Show me one biased comment about the
RCC and if you find one, tell me how it is biased.
> Try and understand something, SSPX is a part of the catholic church, its
> not a church by itself.
True, it is a sect, it is in schism. Or why do you think they are not
registered with our Archdiocese? I've made my enquiries Moe.
Daniel
Daniel Höhr
> Dear Fr. Moderator:
> Fr. Moderator Replies:
You know what, Moe -- I'll see a Professor for Church Law tomorrow and
ask him. I'm sure he knows better than any dubious Fr. Moderator... I
know you'll tell me he's a modernist, but it's worth a try. There's still
hope you're capable of communicating in a normal way.
dh
Daniel Höhr
> I posted the RCC attitude toward your cult group and you bash me for it.
LOL - "cult group"... How rich, Moe, how rich. If anybody here supports a
cult group, it's *you*.
dh
--
"Bring it on, O Persecuted One. Would His Perscutedness care for a tissue
between whining, or would monsieur prefer a slice of brie with that
whine?"
"maf1029" to Mark Johnson on 20 April 2002
Moe
> Moe <moe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I posted the RCC attitude toward your cult group and you bash me for
>> it.
>
> LOL - "cult group"... How rich, Moe, how rich. If anybody here supports
> a cult group, it's *you*.
>
> dh
It appears you are no longer a "catholic" Daniel.
Canon Law says you are "OUT" !!!
Play by the rules Daniel !!!!!
Moe
>
Daniel Höhr
> It appears you are no longer a "catholic" Daniel.
Why did you put catholic in quotemarks? And if so it would be *my*
business and not yours, wouldn't it.
> Canon Law says you are "OUT" !!!
Just checked, it doesn't. The Church ban for Masons (according to
CIC/1917) was lifted according to c.6 § 1 nn.1 and 3 CIC/1983 (CIC/1983
does not mention the Freemasons). Maybe you should read Canon Law, Moe...
According to the Doctrine of the Faith (or whatever you say in English --
I really don't know), Freemasons live in a state of grivous sin.
dh
Moe
> Can we stop being emotional, please???
>
> Moe <moe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 09:31:04 -1000, Daniel Höhr wrote:
>
>> > Moe <moe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 23:34:51 -1000, Daniel Höhr wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Wrong. Freemasonry is not a secret society.
>> >
>> >> Ever hear of a 33rd degree mason??
>> >
>> > Yup.
>
>> Please give us a full description of what it takes to be one. Also a
>> 34th degree mason.
>> Can you tell us what level you are at?
>
> The 33rd degree is an administrative degree in the Scottish Rite, but
> since I'm not a member of it, I don't know. There aren't any levels in
> Freemasonry. When you want to know my degree, I'm a Master Mason and in
> the Royal Arch. In Grand Lodge I'm Grand Organist.
And how does one attain 33rd degree???
Whats the difference between the Scottish rite and freemasonry??
>> > Well, that's his business, isn't it?
>
>> Maybe - maybe not, his attitude disrupted many family gatherings.
>> wedding, funerals & etc.
>
> That's bad and I never understood that sort of anti-catholic attitude.
> As a Mason you ought to practice a little bit of tolerance, but we are
> no better than non-Masons. Fallible human beings, many of them with an
> attitude problem. I don't mean to offend you uncle, of course, but
> Masons should really not disrupt family gatherings. Well, anybody
> shouldn't.
Too late he died, and in the process of alienating himself from the
family, not many family members were sad to see him go.
He always told me he had an intense dislike for catholics Daniel and he
said his lodge was the same way.
>> > That doesn't mean Freemasonry is
>> > anti-catholic. I know some really anti-catholic people who are not
>> > Masons, but I also know some Catholics who are Masons. Now please
>> > don't tell me, you can't be a Catholic and a Mason at the same time,
>> > I've been through that with Jason already...
>
>> The catholic church says if you are a mason you are automatically
>> excommunicated. Even under the law of the novus ordo.
>
> Wrong. The "new" Canon Law doesn't even mention the word Freemasons.
Correct - please read what "Father Moderator" said about this.
>
>> >> > Wrong. Masons are required to respect the believes of other
>> >> > people. But I'm repeating myself.
>
>> >> Where are you getting this information from??
>
>> > I'm a mason, Moe. I'm member of a German-speaking Lodge and an
>> > English-speaking Lodge. I'm also Grand Officer of the Grand Lodge of
>> > British Freemasons in Germany.
>> > I was also quite active when I lived in England. In contrast to you,
>> > I know what I'm taling about (when it comes down to Masonry). I've
>> > never come across any anti-catholic attitude in Masonry.
>
>> So now I know why you bash SSPX like you do. I posted what is the
>> catholic attitude toward freemasonry.
>
> I *knew* you were gonna write that. No, my Freemasonry is not the reason
> why I'm critical about the SSPX. That is my own opinion. I'm critical
> about the SSPX for other reasons.
Which you cant even prove.
>> So you are not even a catholic????
>> You are not any more you have been excommunicated acording to RCC law.
>
> I'm not in an organisation (wording again??? - I'll check that tomorrow)
> that plots against the church and there is no excommunication for
> membership in Freemasonry anymore. Tough, Moe.
Sure there is, you make the rules to fit your desires in life like most
people.
FACT: You cannot be a mason and a catholic.
You are no longer a catholic Daniel, those are the facts.
By the way do you wear a fezz????
>
>
>> But yet you bash catholic organizations. you have opinions which are
>> anti catholic as I believe.
>
> No, Moe, I'm not anti-catholic. How yould I be? I'm pro-brain!
>
>> When it comes to commenting about RCC you have no credibility.
>
> Moe, show me where I have commented on the RCC...
all over this group.
>
>> You cant be a catholic and a mason.
>
>> >> > So far the Church history. Nicely quoted. I'm impressed,
>> >> > especially because it was quoted by someone who knows better than
>> >> > the Una Sancta when it comes down to a certain society of
>> >> > traditionalists who are in schism... Moe, now *your* true colours
>> >> > are begining to show...
>
>> >> Which are?????
>
>> > About Masonry you have no idea. You quote Church law when it suits
>> > you, but bashed me when I said Lefebvre was excommunicated, didn't
>> > you?
>
>> He was not excommunicated.
>
> He excommunicated himself. JPII only confirmed it the day after. You
> know that.
Daniel, can you look this up at someplace OTHER than a novus ordo site.
>> AND if he was you are too.
>
> I don't really see the logic in here...
I do, if he was excommunicated by canon law, and I am assuming thats the
law that is the enforcer in this issue than you are also excommunicated
by the same set of laws.
>
>> You cant be a mason and a catholic, read canon law.
>
> I'll do that. I'll be back tomorrow.
You cannot be a mason AND a catholic.
>
>> You might be right - maybe I have no idea about masonry, except for
>> what my uncle told me and what I have read. But its nice to see what
>> you are. It sure does explain alot.
>
> No, it doesn't. Because you haven't got a clue about Masonry and you
> tell me, my membership in Freemasonry "explains" a lot. It is *you* who
> looks stupid, Moe. At least I'm honest and
I have been not honest??
Wheres the info on the SSPX you promised to give to the world???
You made accusations but fail to provide evidence to support your
claim. In any court of law you would be branded a liar.
>
>> I quote church law????
>> I posted the RCC attitude toward your cult group and you bash me for
>> it. The way I see it Daniel -you have no credibility when it comes to
>> your biased comments on the RCC.
> Moe, you can't even read properly! Show me one biased comment about the
> RCC and if you find one, tell me how it is biased.
You really want me to dig thru all that diahrea????
>
>> Try and understand something, SSPX is a part of the catholic church,
>> its not a church by itself.
>
> True, it is a sect, it is in schism.
Nope, do you know what schism means??
Or why do you think they are not registered with our Archdiocese?
Cause its run by the novus ordoites - thats why, and they dont want to be
forced to say the new order mass.
I've made my enquiries Moe.
They didnt tell you the truth.
Moe
>
>
> Daniel
Moe
> Moe <moe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It appears you are no longer a "catholic" Daniel.
>
> Why did you put catholic in quotemarks? And if so it would be *my*
> business and not yours, wouldn't it.
you want to bash me for what I believe, now you get some in return
non-catholic.
>
>> Canon Law says you are "OUT" !!!
>
> Just checked, it doesn't. The Church ban for Masons (according to
> CIC/1917) was lifted according to c.6 § 1 nn.1 and 3 CIC/1983 (CIC/1983
> does not mention the Freemasons). Maybe you should read Canon Law,
> Moe...
It has not been lifted, infact post the law here for all to see with
references to where you got it from.
>
> According to the Doctrine of the Faith (or whatever you say in English
> -- I really don't know), Freemasons live in a state of grivous sin.
Agree
Moe
>
> dh
Moe
Moe
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:11:54 -1000, Daniel Höhr wrote:
Moe
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:11:54 -1000, Daniel Höhr wrote:
>
>> Moe <moe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It appears you are no longer a "catholic" Daniel.
>>
>> Why did you put catholic in quotemarks? And if so it would be *my*
>> business and not yours, wouldn't it.
>
> you want to bash me for what I believe, now you get some in return
> non-catholic.
>
>
>>> Canon Law says you are "OUT" !!!
>>
>> Just checked, it doesn't. The Church ban for Masons (according to
>> CIC/1917) was lifted according to c.6 § 1 nn.1 and 3 CIC/1983 (CIC/1983
>> does not mention the Freemasons). Maybe you should read Canon Law,
>> Moe...
What is the Catholic Church's official position on Freemasonry? Are Catholics free to become Freemasons?
Freemasonry is incompatible with the Catholic faith. Freemasonry teaches a naturalistic religion that espouses indifferentism, the position that a person can be equally pleasing to God while remaining in any religion.
Masonry is a parallel religion to Christianity. The <New Catholic Encyclopedia> states, "Freemasonry displays all the elements of religion, and as such it becomes a rival to the religion of the Gospel. It includes temples and altars, prayers, a moral code, worship, vestments, feast days, the promise of reward and punishment in the afterlife, a hierarchy, and initiative and burial rites" (vol. 6, p. 137).
Masonry is also a secret society. Its initiates subscribe to secret blood oaths that are contrary to Christian morals. The prospective Mason swears that if he ever reveals the secrets of Masonry?secrets which are trivial and already well-known?he wills to be subject to self-mutilation or to gruesome execution. (Most Masons, admittedly, never would dream of carrying out these punishments on themselves or on an errant member).
Historically, one of Masonry's primary objectives has been the destruction of the Catholic Church; this is especially true of Freemasonry as it has existed in certain European countries. In the United States, Freemasonry is often little more than a social club, but it still espouses a naturalistic religion that contradicts orthodox Christianity. (Those interested in joining a men's club should consider the Knights of Columbus instead.)
The Church has imposed the penalty of excommunication on Catholics who become Freemasons. The penalty of excommunication for joining the Masonic Lodge was explicit in the 1917 code of canon law (canon 2335), and it is implicit in the 1983 code (canon 1374).
Because the revised code of canon law is not explicit on this point, some drew the mistaken conclusion that the Church's prohibition of Freemasonry had been dropped. As a result of this confusion, shortly before the 1983 code was promulgated, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a statement indicating that the penalty was still in force. This statement was dated November 26, 1983 and may be found in <Origins> 13/27 (Nov. 15, 1983), 450.
Daniel Höhr
> And how does one attain 33rd degree???
> Whats the difference between the Scottish rite and freemasonry??
Oh dear... Ask an American Mason, since the Scottish Rite is much more
widespread in the States than over here in Europe.
Freemasonry consists of three degrees: Entered Apprentice, Fellowcraft
and Master Mason (in the English tradition that includes the Royal Arch).
The Scottish Rite (degrees 4 - 33) was developed in France and it is said
that Jacobeans (Catholics, by the way), who had fled from Scottland, were
involved in it.
Apparently, a lot of the Blue Lodge (three degrees) business is decided
about in the Scottish Rite in the USA, but, again, I can't tell. As a 33
degree Mason you are no better than a Master Mason... In any case, Masons
aren't better people anyway, but I know many, who would disagree.
I don't know what you have to do to become a 33 degree Mason.
> >> > Well, that's his business, isn't it?
> >> Maybe - maybe not, his attitude disrupted many family gatherings.
> >> wedding, funerals & etc.
> > That's bad and I never understood that sort of anti-catholic attitude.
> > As a Mason you ought to practice a little bit of tolerance, but we are
> > no better than non-Masons. Fallible human beings, many of them with an
> > attitude problem. I don't mean to offend you uncle, of course, but
> > Masons should really not disrupt family gatherings. Well, anybody
> > shouldn't.
> Too late he died, and in the process of alienating himself from the
> family, not many family members were sad to see him go.
That's very sad indeed. Alienating from your family is actually against
Masonic principle: "Without detriment to yourself and connections" the
ritual says...
> He always told me he had an intense dislike for catholics Daniel and he
> said his lodge was the same way.
There are many Freemasons, who think they have to carry their
anti-catholic nature into Lodge -- sadly. And that poisons the lodge.
> >> > That doesn't mean Freemasonry is
> >> > anti-catholic. I know some really anti-catholic people who are not
> >> > Masons, but I also know some Catholics who are Masons. Now please
> >> > don't tell me, you can't be a Catholic and a Mason at the same time,
> >> > I've been through that with Jason already...
> >
> >> The catholic church says if you are a mason you are automatically
> >> excommunicated. Even under the law of the novus ordo.
> >
> > Wrong. The "new" Canon Law doesn't even mention the word Freemasons.
> Correct - please read what "Father Moderator" said about this.
See my other posting. Father Moderator is wrong here. My source was the
LthK (Lexikon fuer Theologie und Kirche) and that's really up-to-date.
Anyway, I shall ask my Church Law Professor tomorrow.
LOL -- no. The Shriners wear a fezz :-)
> > Moe, show me where I have commented on the RCC...
> all over this group.
Then you haven't been reading this group.
Come on, show me!
> > He excommunicated himself. JPII only confirmed it the day after. You
> > know that.
> Daniel, can you look this up at someplace OTHER than a novus ordo site.
And that's your problem, Moe. Don't tell me the Faculty of Catholic
Theology, University of Bonn is a Novus Ordo Site. What you mean by Novus
Ordo is the RCC as it has developed after Vatican II, if you like it or
not.
> >> AND if he was you are too.
> > I don't really see the logic in here...
> I do, if he was excommunicated by canon law, and I am assuming thats the
> law that is the enforcer in this issue than you are also excommunicated
> by the same set of laws.
> >> You cant be a mason and a catholic, read canon law.
> > I'll do that. I'll be back tomorrow.
> Wheres the info on the SSPX you promised to give to the world???
I translated a passage from an interview with Fellay where he showed his
anti-democratic attitude, didn't I? And if you remind me of that school
thing again, I'll have to tell you *AGAIN* that I'm not gonna give you
any information, because things have been sorted out...
> You made accusations but fail to provide evidence to support your
> claim. In any court of law you would be branded a liar.
I didn't make any accusations, I just gave *my* opinion.
> > Moe, you can't even read properly! Show me one biased comment about the
> > RCC and if you find one, tell me how it is biased.
> You really want me to dig thru all that diahrea????
Yup. Maybe you will realise what pathetic contributions you made.
> >> Try and understand something, SSPX is a part of the catholic church,
> >> its not a church by itself.
> > True, it is a sect, it is in schism.
> Nope, do you know what schism means??
Yup.
> Or why do you think they are not registered with our Archdiocese?
> Cause its run by the novus ordoites - thats why, and they dont want to be
> forced to say the new order mass.
O dear, I should have guessed. The Archdiocese of Cologne is run by "the
novus ordoites". That's it, Moe, you have just proven that you don't have
a clue at all and I don't know why I've been making an efford *once
again* to communicate with you...
> > I've made my enquiries Moe.
> They didnt tell you the truth.
As long as *you* tell me the truth -- LOL -- Moe, you are pathetic and I
should show some sympathy for you! Come on, go and tell the world I'm
excommunicated if it makes me happy, and enjoy rosary...
dh
Daniel Höhr
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:11:54 -1000, Daniel Höhr wrote:
> > Moe <moe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It appears you are no longer a "catholic" Daniel.
> >
> > Why did you put catholic in quotemarks? And if so it would be *my*
> > business and not yours, wouldn't it.
> you want to bash me for what I believe, now you get some in return
> non-catholic.
If it makes you feel better... BTW I never bashed you for what you
believe, I bashed you for your inability to have a discussion.
> >> Canon Law says you are "OUT" !!!
> > Just checked, it doesn't. The Church ban for Masons (according to
> > CIC/1917) was lifted according to c.6 § 1 nn.1 and 3 CIC/1983 (CIC/1983
> > does not mention the Freemasons). Maybe you should read Canon Law,
> > Moe...
> It has not been lifted, infact post the law here for all to see with
> references to where you got it from.
LthK, new edition, s.v. "Freimaurer"
> > According to the Doctrine of the Faith (or whatever you say in English
> > -- I really don't know), Freemasons live in a state of grivous sin.
> Agree
O good...
dh
Moe
What is the Catholic Church's official position on Freemasonry? Are Catholics free to become Freemasons?
Freemasonry is incompatible with the Catholic faith. Freemasonry teaches a naturalistic religion that espouses indifferentism, the position that a person can be equally pleasing to God while remaining in any religion.
Masonry is a parallel religion to Christianity. The <New Catholic Encyclopedia> states, "Freemasonry displays all the elements of religion, and as such it becomes a rival to the religion of the Gospel. It includes temples and altars, prayers, a moral code, worship, vestments, feast days, the promise of reward and punishment in the afterlife, a hierarchy, and initiative and burial rites" (vol. 6, p. 137).
Masonry is also a secret society. Its initiates subscribe to secret blood oaths that are contrary to Christian morals. The prospective Mason swears that if he ever reveals the secrets of Masonry?secrets which are trivial and already well-known?he wills to be subject to self-mutilation or to gruesome execution. (Most Masons, admittedly, never would dream of carrying out these punishments on themselves or on an errant member).
Historically, one of Masonry's primary objectives has been the destruction of the Catholic Church; this is especially true of Freemasonry as it has existed in certain European countries. In the United States, Freemasonry is often little more than a social club, but it still espouses a naturalistic religion that contradicts orthodox Christianity. (Those interested in joining a men's club should consider the Knights of Columbus instead.)
The Church has imposed the penalty of excommunication on Catholics who become Freemasons. The penalty of excommunication for joining the Masonic Lodge was explicit in the 1917 code of canon law (canon 2335), and it is implicit in the 1983 code (canon 1374).
Because the revised code of canon law is not explicit on this point, some drew the mistaken conclusion that the Church's prohibition of Freemasonry had been dropped. As a result of this confusion, shortly before the 1983 code was promulgated, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a statement indicating that the penalty was still in force. This statement was dated November 26, 1983 and may be found in <Origins> 13/27 (Nov. 15, 1983), 450.
.
>
> dh
Daniel Höhr
<Moe's nicely copied anti-masonic propaganda snipped>
Go and find the website Jason has recommended numerous times. It's
Cardinal Law's paper on Masonry and very well researched.
dh
Daniel Höhr
> Freemasonry is incompatible with the Catholic faith. Freemasonry teaches
a naturalistic religion that espouses indifferentism, the position that a
person can be equally pleasing to God while remaining in any religion.
Wrong
> Masonry is a parallel religion to Christianity.
Wrong
> The <New Catholic Encyclopedia> states, "Freemasonry displays all the
elements of religion, and as such it becomes a rival to the religion of the
Gospel. It includes temples and altars, prayers, a moral code, worship,
vestments, feast days, the promise of reward and punishment in the afterlife,
a hierarchy, and initiative and burial rites"
Common misunderstanding, hence wrong
> Masonry is also a secret society.
wrong
> Its initiates subscribe to secret blood oaths
Wrong
> Historically, one of Masonry's primary objectives has been the
destruction of the Catholic Church;
Wrong
> this is especially true of Freemasonry as it has existed in certain
European countries.
Wrong
> The Church has imposed the penalty of excommunication on Catholics who
become Freemasons. The penalty of excommunication for joining the Masonic
Lodge was explicit in the 1917 code of canon law (canon 2335),
True
> Because the revised code of canon law is not explicit on this point, some
drew the mistaken conclusion that the Church's prohibition of Freemasonry
had been dropped. As a result of this confusion, shortly before the 1983
code was promulgated, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
issued a statement indicating that the penalty was still in force.
Fact is, Canon Law doesn't say anything about Freemasonry.
Maybe you should consult better-informed sources?
Daniel
Moe
Here you go Daniel You are a fool !!!!!
Moe
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Declaration on Masonic Associations
November 26, 1983
THE QUESTION has been raised whether the Church's position on Masonic associations has been altered, especially since no explicit mention is made of them in the new Code of Canon Law, as there was in the old code.
This sacred congregation is able to reply that circumstance is to be attributed to a criterion adopted in drafting. This criterion was observed also in regard to other associations which were likewise passed over in silence, because they were included in broader categories.
The Church's negative position on Masonic associations therefore remains unaltered, since their principles have always been regarded as irreconcilable with the Church's doctrine. Hence joining them remains prohibited by the Church. Catholics enrolled in Masonic associations are involved in serious sin and may not approach Holy Communion.
Local ecclesiastical authorities do not have the faculty to pronounce a judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which might include a diminution of the above-mentioned judgment, in accordance with the intention of this congregation's declaration delivered on February 17, 1981 (cf. AAS 73 [1981], pp. 240-241).
The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II approved this declaration, deliberated at an ordinary meeting of this sacred congregation, and ordered it to become part of public law.
Rome. From the office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, November 26, 1983.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect
Jerome Hamer, O.P.
Archbishop of Loria
Secretary
Moe
And again Mr. non-catholic Daniel
What does the Catholic Church have to say about Freemasonry? Can a Catholic be a Freemason?
A. Can a California Golden Bear root for the Stanford Cardinal? Okay. So, no. Freemasonry is incompatible with the Catholic faith. Why? It teaches that a person can be equally pleasing to God while remaining in any religion; it?s a religion in its own right; and historically one of its primary objectives has been the destruction of the Catholic Church. It?s true that often in the United States it?s basically a social club, but it still contradicts orthodox Christiani-ty. Catholics who become Freemasons are excommunicated, a penalty confirmed in a statement by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1983.
Moe
Is the SSPX in Schism?
God bless Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre!
I am a subscriber of Envoy and recommend it as a good Catholic and apologetic magazine. Your article on Archbishop Lefebvre does not surprise me. I do not share the intention of the article, although I find it factual enough in describing some aspects of the situation of the SSPX. Indeed there is an irregular situation about the episcopal consecrations, though not at all on the priestly ordinations, which have a legal status.
I?m not a theologian, but I can tell you that for thirty-five years I was sick and tired of ?circus masses.? Of born-again-like ?Catholic preachers,? of religious brothers and sisters leaving their orders, of disappearing habits or religious dress, of priests and bishops getting involved in politics, of liberation theology, priests abandoning their sacred vows and getting married, child abusers, open and blatant homosexual acceptance and permissiveness . . . and many of these persons are in ?full communion with the Church?? Priests and bishops that oppose the Holy Father about contraception issues. Very intelligent and wise ?theologians? who disregard papal teachings, while some bishops do likewise, etc., etc. . . .
God put the SSPX in my way about four years ago. The first Tridentine Mass I had attended in more than thirty years almost made me cry, and ever since I have been getting closer to God. I can?t see what is so bad in what was good and holy for 2000 years and unchanged for 600 years. Modernism and aggiornamento have only brought sorrow to the Church. While many religious orders have almost vanished, we in the SSPX have steadily grown.
We love the pope, we pray for the pope, we love the Church, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Through Mary we go to Jesus, our only Savior. May our Lord bless all his sheep and make a true flock with one Shepherd.
Erick L. Parra P., Guatemala
Express yourself. Send your comments to ?As Received,? Envoy Magazine, P.O. Box 640, Granville, OH 43023, or email them to edi...@envoymagazine.com.
e
<http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/images/rounder-right-blue.jpg> Features <http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/images/rounder-left-blue.jpg>
LaHaying the Rapture on Thick
Taking a Tour of the House of God
Harry Potter: Agent of Conversion
_
<http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/images/rounder-right-blue.jpg> Departments <http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/images/rounder-left-blue.jpg>
As Received
Diplomatic Corps
Friends in the Field
Can We Talk?
Rocking the Cradle Catholic
Bible Basics
Soul Food to Go
I Have a Question
Family Matters
Nuts & Bolts
BACK TO CURRENT ISSUE'S DEPARTMENT PAGE
<http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/images/rounder-right-blue.jpg> Features <http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/images/rounder-left-blue.jpg>
LaHaying the Rapture on Thick
Taking a Tour of the House of God
Harry Potter: Agent of Conversion
_
<http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/images/rounder-right-blue.jpg> Departments <http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/images/rounder-left-blue.jpg>
As Received
Diplomatic Corps
Moe
> Moe <moe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I posted the RCC attitude toward your cult group and you bash me for
>> it.
>
> LOL - "cult group"... How rich, Moe, how rich. If anybody here supports
> a cult group, it's *you*.
>
> dh
Cult
* Why are religious groups such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses called "cults," while other groups, such as Fundamentalists and Calvinists, are not? Don't all of these groups teach cultic doctrines?
The word "cult" has fallen on hard times. Used authentically, it refers to a grouping of people for some religious purpose; it can also refer to specific ceremonial, liturgical, and prayer activities carried out within a particular group. Vatican II, for example, refers to the "cult of the saints," meaning the honor and devotion Christians show to Christians who are now reigning with Christ in heaven. Used this way, "cult" carries no pejorative connotations.
In the last few decades an unfortunatue phenomenon has sprung up, primarily among Evangelical Protestants who have appropriated the word and used it to categorize religious groups with whom they disagree. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have become "cultists," and their religions are branded as "cults." In popular jargon "cult" implies more than just a religion with odd tenets. It carries the implication that the group has a hidden agenda, uses deception and mind control techniques to keep its members in line, and may be satanic in origin. Calling someone a "cultist" has become a handy stick with which to beat members of minority religions. Some Fundamentalists call the Catholic Church a cult.
Of course, some religions are cults, but it's a matter of prudence whether to trumpet that fact. If you want to evangelize adherents to such religions, you must avoid approaches that will alienate them. Be firm but charitable. Don't throw around the terms "cult" and "cultist." With a little restraint you'll more likely get your message across. If you start by telling a non-Catholic that he's a member of a cult (even if he is), it's unlikely that he'll listen to anything you have to say.
Cults
The word cult comes from the French culte, and is rooted in the Latin cultus, which means "care" and "adoration." That idea comes from the Latin cultus - the past participle of colere, which means "to cultivate."
The word was used in the sense of "to worship or give reference to a deity." (1)
Today, the term "cult" can refer to:
1. : formal religious veneration : worship
2. : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3. : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4. : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5. a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
The term's ambiguity makes it necessary to determine in what sense the word is used. A sociological definition will differ from a religious one, and a Christian definition will differ from, say, the Mormon or Islamic view.
Given the fact that there's currently no universal definition of a cult, it seems best to ask one simple question whenever someone talks about cults: "Just what do you mean by the term 'cult'?" You may not agree with the way the person uses the term, but at least you'll know where he or she is coming from.
You may also want to ask yourself the same question before referring to any group as a cult. It may not be such as bad idea to begin by explaining what you mean by the term "cult" in order to avoid any potential misunderstanding. You never know. All the while you're talking about cults, the person listening may have a different concept altogether.
A Cult Recipe? by Kenneth Samples, Erwin de Castro, Richard Abanes, and Robert Lyle
Some experts, on all sides of the debate over cults, object to the use of the word ''cult,'' considering it to be a pejorative term designed to trigger a negative response. On this issue, see the following statement at the AFF site:
Even though we have each studied cults and educated people about this subject for more than 20 years, neither of us has ever felt completely comfortable with the term ''cult.'' No other term, however, serves more effectively the linked educational and research aims of AFF (American Family Foundation), the organization that we serve as president (Rosedale) and executive director (Langone). In order to help others who have asked questions about the term ''cult,'' we here offer some thoughts on the definition and use of this term.
(...)
Even though the term ''cult'' has limited utility, it is so embedded in popular culture that those of us concerned about helping people harmed by group involvements or preventing people from being so harmed cannot avoid using it. Whatever the term's limitations, it points us in a meaningful direction. And no other term relevant to group psychological manipulation (e.g., sociopsychological influence, coercive persuasion, undue influence, exploitive manipulation) has ever been able to capture and sustain public interest, which is the sine qua non of public education. If, however, we cannot realistically avoid the term, let us at least strive to use it judiciously.
On Using the Term ''Cult'' [Off-site Link] . Herbert L. Rosedale, Esq., Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.
Insight into how sociologists view the term ''cult'' can be obtained from an article by Michael York, of the Bath Archive for Contemporary Religious Affairs, Bath Spa University College, Bath, UK:
This paper traces the use of the term 'cult' by academics, the public and the mass media, from its early academic use in the sociology of religion to recent calls for the term to be abandoned by scholars of religion because it is now so overladen with negative connotations. But scholars of religion have a duty not to capitulate to popular opinion, media and governments in the arena of the 'politics of representation'. The author argues that we should continue using the term 'cult' as a descriptive technical term. It has considerable educational value in the study of religions.
Abstract, Defending the Cult in the Politics of Representation [Off-site Link] , DISKUS Vol.4 No.2 (1996)
Additional background information on the development and use of the term "cult" is found in A Cult Recipe? by Kenneth Samples, Erwin de Castro, Richard Abanes, and Robert Lyle.
Sociological definitions of the term ''cult''...
...include consideration of such factors as authoritarian leadership patterns, loyalty and commitment mechanisms, lifestyle characteristics, [and] conformity patterns (including the use of various sanctions in connection with those members who deviate).
Ronald Enroth, "What Is a Cult?" in A Guide to Cults and New Religions [Off-site Link] , e.d. Ronald Enroth (Downers Grove, Ill,: InterVarsity 1983), p14
Theological definitions make note of the reasons why a particular group's beliefs and/or practices are considered unorthodox - that is, in conflict with the body of essential teachings of the movement the group compares itself to.
For example, Christian apologist Robert Bowman defines a cult as
A religious group originating as a heretical sect and maintaining fervent commitment to heresy. Adj.: "cultic" (may be used with reference to tendencies as well as full cult status).
Robert Bowman, A Biblical Guide To Orthodoxy And Heresy.
Alan Gomes writes
A cult of Christianity is a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrine system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which (system) denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian Faith as taught in the sixty-six books of the Bible
Alan Gomes, Unmasking The Cults [Off-site Link] (Zondervan, 1995)
It should be noted that in addition to unorthodox doctrines, many - but not all - religious cults also have excessive or abusive sociological characteristics (e.g. authoritarian leadership patterns, strict conformity requirements, manipulative controls, etc.)
Distinctions are made between different types of cults: e.g. destructive cults (which have committed violence, or who advocate violence), vs. so-called "benign" cults (which some consider relatively harmless even though their teachings and practices may be out of step with societal and/or theological norms). There are commercial cults (e.g. the high-pressure, "fake-it-till-you-make-it" groups, the "pay-to-pray" movements, and the "pay-more-to-advance" variety), one-on-one cultic relationships, corporate cults, UFO cults, pseudo-religious cults, pseudo-political cults, etcetera.
To better understand the differences in cultic groups it is helpful to categorize them. Enroth offers the following classification scheme:
* Eastern Mystical: groups related to Hinduism, Buddhism and other pantheistic Eastern religions; examples in this category are Hare Krishnas and Self-Realization Fellowship.
* Aberrant Christian: groups that claim to be Bible-based but which deviate in practice or belief, such as The Way International, the Boston Church of Christ and the Shepherding Movement.
* Psychospiritual or Self-Improvement: groups offering seminars or workshops providing self- improvement or personal transformation (a growing cultic trend), includes Transcendental Meditation, Lifespring and The Forum (formerly est).
* Eclectic/Syncretistic: a combination of several religious traditions, includes the Unification Church (''Moonies'') and the Church Universal and Triumphant.
* Psychic/Occult/Astral: these groups offer ''secret wisdom'' and ''lost truths;'' examples include UFO cults and Edgar Cayce?s Association for Research and Enlightenment.
* Established Cults: Bible-based, cultic religious movements which have achieved mainstream status; this would include Mormonism, Jehovah?s Witnesses and Christian Science.
* Extremist/Political/Social Movements: groups cultic in the psychological or social sense which include the Aryan Nation, White Aryan Resistance and the Ku Klux Klan.
John Morehead, What Is A Cult?; quoting Ron Enroth, The Lure of the Cults, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1982), pp. 22-25
Sects
The term sect, sometimes used instead of cult (2) , is similarly ambiguous. It comes from the Late Latin secta, which means an "organized church body." That in turn is rooted in the Latin sequi, which means "to follow," and is used of "way of life," or "class of persons,"
Sect can refer to:
* a religious denomination
* a dissenting religious group, formed as the result of schism (division; separation). In this case, the term also borrows from the Latin sectus, which means "cut" or "divide."
* a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or leader
Theologically, sect is used of a group which has divided from a larger body or movement - generally over minor differences in doctrine and/or practice - but whose teachings and practices are generally not considered unorthodox or cultic (sociologically and/or theologically). (See: heterodox, suborthodox ). However, true to the ambiguous nature of this term, some sects do descend into heretical teachings and/or unorthodox practices. Often sects place unusual, dogmatic emphasis on one or two doctrines or practices. Such an unbalanced (and, often, unhealthy) approach usually led to the division from the main body in the first place.
Note that in some countries the term sect is used instead of - or interchangeably with - cult.
Alternative/New Religious Movements; Minority Religions
Some sociologists and cult-apologists claim the word cult has taken on too many negative connotations (for which they blame anti-cult and counter-cult movements, the government, ex-cult members , parents and friend of cult-members, and the media - but seldom, if ever, the movements and people themselves). They therefore advocate replacing cult with what they consider to be the "value-neutral" (or politically-correct) term New Religious Movement, "Alternative Religious Movement," or "Minority Religion."
However, as Alan Gomes points out
The word cult has an established history of usage, long before the secular media or social sciences got hold of it.
Note that historically cult has been a religious term, not a sociological or psychological one.
The term cult suggests an absolute standard of evaluation, which sociology - by its nature - can not provide. It is therefore well suited to describe theological heterodoxy, which is determined by an absolute, objective and unchanging standard.
Alan Gomes, Unmasking The Cults [Off-site Link] (Zondervan, 1995)
This last point is especially noxious to those who object to any religion's claims of exclusivity. Under the guise of defending religious freedom, they promote religious pluralism while denying Christians and non-Christians alike the freedom to critique a movement's teachings and practices.
Anticult; Countercult; "Neutral"
Anticult organizations and invididuals generally fight cults for reasons other than theological ones.
Countercult organizations and invididuals usually oppose cults for religious, doctrinal reasons. Most operate from an orthodox, Christian perspective. Their intend is to educate Christians and non-Christians on the dangers of heretical movements (sometimes referred to as ''boundary maintenance''), to help Christians counter the theological claims of such groups (for the purpose of ''boundary maintenance'' and/or evangelism), and to provide cult-members with information that may help them leave those movements (often, but not always, including a presentation of the Christian gospel) .
Since they operate from different perspectives, anticult and countercult professionals do not always agree on what constitutes a cult. The former evaluate movements using sociological criteria [Off-site Link] , while the latter do so using theological standards.
Not surprisingly, this sometimes leads to different conclusions. For example, some anti-cultists see Mormonism as just another form of Christianity, while Christians consider it an heretical cult of Christianity.
Often, though, concerns overlap. For instance, a movement like the International Churches of Christ is considered cultic by those who evaluate it sociologially, as well as by those who consider theology only.
Note that Christian countercultists are more apt to also look at a movement's sociological aspects, whereas non-Christian anticultists are - understandably - not nearly as willing to include theological considerations.
A third group of organizations or individuals claims to provide "value-free," "neutral," or "non-sectarian" information. This is a mixed bag. It includes
* organizations run by cult apologists , who seldom - if ever - acknowledge the sociological and/or theological problems with the movements they study. (If and when they do make note of them, those problems generally are glossed over or minimized). Often, these type of organizations appeal to "academic" standing.
* organizations that attempt to act like "consumer information agencies." They let people know what's available, but tend to refrain from making value judgements. Thus they are as likely to send someone to a cult, as they are to send someone to an exit counselor.
* interfaith organizations that affirm the legitimacy and equality of all religions.
* government task forces , or organizations set up on the recommendation of such task forces. Having acknowledged and studied the cult problem, these organizations act much like "consumer protection agencies."
Cult apologist organizations divide the latter into two categories, of which they consider one to be more neutral than the other. They rail against those government task forces that include information from anticult- or countercult organizations in their evaluations, and reluctantly "praise" the ones whose evaluations are, or appear to be, more in line with those of cult apologists themselves.
Cult Apologists; Anti-Anticult
Cult apologists are people who defend the teachings and/or actions of one or more movements which many Christian and non-Christian apologists , anti-cult and counter-cult professionals consider to be cults. Some are members of the movements they defend. Others claim to promote religious pluralism. Yet others appear to be opportunists interested in financial benefits. (3)
Cults and cult apologists alike try to bill their cause as a fight for "religious freedom," while failing to acknowledge the spiritual, mental, financial and/or physical slavery cult members are subjected to.
Academic dishonesty is common among cult apologists. See, for example, their misrepresentation of the controversial - but unsettled - issue of brainwashing, or their vilification of apostates.
Individuals and organizations that oppose the doctrines, methods, and/or goals of anti-cult and counter-cult organizations are sometimes called anti-anticult. These are not necessarily cult apologists (many are, indeed, also opposed to cults). They simply object to certain practices (e.g. involuntary deprogramming, even though it has long been abandoned in favor of voluntary exit-counseling or thought reform counseling), and/or theories (e.g. brainwashing, or claims of exclusivity).
Footnotes
1. Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1879, impression of 1984), p.370
2. e.g. Many European countries use the term "sect" instead of "cult." Some media outlets also make the substitution.
3. See Benjamon Zablocki on the funding of NRM research
Moe
parking lot at Sunday and daily Mass? It's very possible you are receiving Holy
Communion from a Mason! The Catholic Church, Canon Law and the Living
Magisterium along with many Popes including John Paul II all continue to
maintain that Catholics are forbidden from holding membership in the Freemasons
regardless of what the Masonic propaganda or some of your Pastors are telling you.
Are you hearing that adultery, homosexuality and other sins of the flesh aren't so bad being
preached from the pulpit at Mass or in the confessional? Are your children being taught
in school that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle? Were you aware that a lot of
unauthorized New Age and Earth based rituals are taking the place of Jesus at Mass
in many parishes while you are being told that they are ok?
Do you think Satan is just a cartoon character? We have news for you! The smoke of
Satan surely has entered the Church. He even has his own church on earth. See how
the pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood stems from Satan and Hitler.
http://showbread.tripod.com/index.htm
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:11:54 -1000, Daniel Höhr wrote:
Moe
<http://www.catholicexchange.com/ius/vm/ahd_pinline.gif>
10/27/01
There seems to be some confusion about whether Catholics are allowed to be
Masons. A friend of mine, who was a lifelong Catholic, died recently. He not only
had a Catholic burial, but some service conducted by the Masons. Is this right?
Before addressing the question at hand, let?s first consider the organization itself.
The origins of the Masons or what is officially called Freemasonry are hard to pinpoint.
With the decline of cathedral building in the aftermath of the Protestant movement,
the guilds of masons began accepting non-masons as members to bolster their dwindling
membership. Eventually, the non-masons outnumbered the masons, and the
guilds became places for the discussion of ethics and morality while retaining
the secret signs, symbols and gestures of the original guild. Four such guilds merged in
1717 in London, England, to form the Grand Lodge of Freemasons. (A "freemason" was
a highly skilled mason who enjoyed the privileges of membership in a trade guild.)
The Masons then spread throughout the world.
Old "handbooks" of Freemasonry define the organization as "a peculiar system of morality
veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols," "a science which is engaged in the search
after the divine truth" and "the activity of closely united men who, employing
symbolical forms borrowed principally from the mason?s trade and from architecture,
work for the welfare of mankind, striving morally to ennoble themselves and others and
thereby to bring about a universal league of mankind which they aspire to exhibit even now
on a small scale."
James Anderson (d. 1739), a Scottish Presbyterian minister, wrote the Book of
Constitutions in which he contrived the "traditional" albeit spurious history of
Freemasonry. Masons hold that God, "the Great Architect," founded Freemasonry, and that it
had as patrons, Adam and the Patriarchs. Even Jesus is listed as "the Grand Master" of the
Christian Church. They credit themselves with the building of Noah?s Ark, the Tower of Babel,
the Pyramids and Solomon?s Temple. In all, Freemasonry borrows liberally from the
history and traditions of cultic groups such as the Druids, Mithars, Egyptian
priesthood, Rosicrucians, and others to weave its own history.
The Catholic Church has difficulty with Freemasonry because it is indeed a kind of
religion unto itself. The practice of Freemasonry includes temples, altars, a moral
code, worship services, vestments, feast days, a hierarchy of leadership, initiation
and burial rites and promises of eternal reward and punishment. While in
America, most Masons are Christian and will display a Bible on their "altar," in the
same lodges or elsewhere, Jews, Moslems, Hindus or other non-Christian religions
can be admitted and may use their own sacred scriptures. (In France, in 1877,
the "Grand Orient" Lodge eliminated the need to believe in God or the immortality
of the soul, thereby admitting atheists into their fold; this atheistic type of
Freemasonry spread particularly in Latin countries.)
Moreover, the rituals involve the corruption of Christianity. The cross is merely a
symbol of nature and eternal life, devoid of Christ's sacrifice for sin. INRI (for
Christians, Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum, i.e., Jesus of Nazareth, King of the
Jews) means for Masons Igne Natura Renovatur Integra, i.e., by fire nature is renewed
entirely, referring to the sacred fire?s (truth and love) regeneration of mankind just as
the sun regenerates nature in the Spring.
The rituals are also inimical to Catholicism. During the initiation rite, the candidate
expresses a desire to seek "light," and he is assured that he will receive the light
of spiritual instruction that he could not receive in another Church and that he will gain
eternal rest in the "celestial lodge" if he lives and dies according to Masonic
principles . Note also that since Masonry involves non-Christians, the use of the
name of Jesus is forbidden within the lodge.
A strong anti-Catholicism also permeates Freemasonry. The two traditional enemies
of Freemasonry are the royalty and the papacy. Masons even believe that Christ,
dying on Calvary, was "the greatest among the apostles of Humanity, braving
Roman despotism and the fanaticism and bigotry of the priesthood." When
one reaches the 30th degree in the Masonic hierarchy, called the Kadosh,
the person crushes with his foot the papal tiara and the royal crown, and
swears to free mankind "from the bondage of Despotism and the thraldom
of spiritual tyranny."
A second difficulty with Freemasonry for Catholics involves the taking of
oaths. An oath is a religious act that asks God to witness the truth of the
statement or the fulfillment of a promise. Only the Church and the state
for serious reason can require an oath. A candidate makes an oath to
Freemasonry and its secrets under pain of death or self-mutilation by
kneeling blindfolded in front of the altar, placing both hands on the
volume of sacred law (perhaps the Bible), the square and compass, and
repeating after the "worshipful master." Keep in mind that the candidate
does not yet even know all the "secrets" to which he is taking an oath.
This oath is wrongful because of to whom and to what the candidate is swearing.
The history of Freemasonry has proven its anti-Catholic nature. In the United
States, one of the leaders of Freemasonry, General Albert Pike (d. 1891), referred
to the papacy as "a deadly, treacherous enemy," and wrote, "The Papacy has been
for a thousand years the torturer and curse of Humanity, the most shameless
imposture, in its pretense to spiritual power of all ages." In France in 1877, and in
Portugal in 1910, Freemasons took control of the government for a time and
enacted laws to restrict the activities of the Church particularly in education.
In Latin America, the Freemasons have expressed anti-church and anti-clerical sentiment.
Since the decree "In Eminenti" of Pope Clement XII in 1738, Catholics have been forbidden
to join the Masons, and until 1983, under pain of excommunication. Scanning official
documents, the Church has condemned Freemasonry and other secret societies at least
53 times since 1738, and has specifically repeated the condemnation of Freemasonry 21
times. (The Orthodox and several Protestant churches also ban membership in the
Masons.) Confusion occurred in 1974 when a letter by Cardinal Franjo Seper,
then Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was interpreted to
mean that Catholics could join Masonic lodges that were not anti-Catholic, an
interpretation widely advanced by the media; however, the same congregation
declared this interpretation as erroneous in 1981.
On Nov. 26, 1983, with the approval of Pope John Paul II, the Sacred
Congregation reiterated the ban on Catholics joining the Masons: "The
Church?s negative position on Masonic association ... remains unaltered,
since their principles have always been regarded as irreconcilable with the Church?s doctrine.
Hence, joining them remains prohibited by the Church. Catholics enrolled in Masonic
associations are involved in serious sin and may not approach Holy Communion."
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 04:39:01 -1000, Daniel Höhr wrote:
> Jason <geoc...@technogeeks.org> wrote:
>
>> Daniel Höhr (dho...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>
>> > The short article Dawn posted was certainly not to describe Masonry
>> > in detail, nor does it say anything about the question whether
>> > Christians can become Masons or not. Whether it's deistic is a
>> > completely different question, isn't it?
>
>> yup - she mentioned it was christian hatred that was inspiring the
> compaign
>> against masonry, but never mentioned any valid reason for it which is
>> why
> I did.
>
> Exactly, only you did not give reasons for Christian *hatred* for
> Masonry, you gave reasons for the (supposed) incompatibility of
> Christianity and Masonry, which is a completely different thing.
>
> Daniel
Moe
From: Fr. Moderator
A source from abroad reports that negotiations between the Vatican and the secretive Society of St. Pius X resumed again. According to the Superior of the Society, two letters arrived from the Vatican, one signed March 25 by Castrillon Cardinal Hoyos proposing the quick establishment of an "Apostolic Administration" with global effect, placed directly under the pope; the other one signed April 5 by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who proposing the creation of a "commission" that would analyze in depth the theological disputes between the two parties (the betrayal of Sacred Tradition, the Novus Ordo worship service, religious indifferentism, false ecumenism, etc.).
The Superior replied: "These propositions look like a beautiful Rolls-Royce, but who will remove the nails from the road? It must be remembered that the French bishops, and even certain cardinals, are vigorously opposed to all agreement with the Society of St. Pius X. Do they want to integrate us, in order to disintegrate us?"
Fr. Moderator Replies:
The leadership of the SSPX since the death of Abp. Lefebvre has not been known for good sense, but in this case one has to concur with its judgment. From recent events, like that of Campos, Brazil, which Novus Ordoized a once-traditional organization, and that of Protocol 1411 of 1999, Novus Ordoizing the "indult" organizations, it is quite clear that the Vatican holds out a carrot to "mentally challenged" organizations, only to wield the stick when they have been imbecilic enough to acquiesce. Haven't heard much lately from the Fraternity of St. Peter, have you?
Hoyos and Ratzinger are the pope's "mouthpieces" (in the Philadelphia sense) to sweet-talk traditional Catholic organizations into letting the Vatican inject its Novus Ordo poison, after a suitable anaesthetic to benumb the poor folk. The idea of an Apostolic Administration (which is just a loss-leader in any case) is, in any practical sense, ridiculous. Can you image two churches, one traditional and one Novus Ordo in a given diocese, and the bishop putting up with it. Now that arrangement is likely to last a New-York minute!
If the SSPX should ever be foolhardy enough to eat the Vatican carrot and suffer from paroxysmal diarrhaea, it would still count for only a relative drop in the bucket, because the SSPX represents only a minority of traditional Catholics -- about one in four or fewer.
Mark Johnson
>You know what, Moe -- I'll see a Professor for Church Law tomorrow and
>ask him. I'm sure he knows better than any dubious Fr. Moderator... I
>know you'll tell me he's a modernist, but it's worth a try. There's still
>hope you're capable of communicating in a normal way.
Church teaching on masonry is clear, in almost countless documents,
over the centuries.
I think people shop for judges, sometimes. But shopping for a
favorable verdict, here, is kind of pointless. If masonry is opposed
to The Church, then that's on them.
Peace.
------------------------------------------------------------
* When one finds nothing more to say to God,
* but just knows He is there --
* that, in itself, is the best of prayers.
[Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Ulimited downloads - 19 servers ==-----
Daniel Höhr
> Catholics enrolled in Masonic associations are involved in serious sin and
may not > approach Holy Communion.
Yup, but that doesn't mean you're "OUT" as you put it.
The tect itself uses the word "Catholic".
Daniel Höhr
Excellent work, Moe. The question remains whether you want to prove that
*Freemasons* are excommunicated, or if you just want to enjoy your own
little revenge on me, because last time you withdrew when you were
running out of answers.
Yes, even if I'm "out" (which I'm not, I may not "approach Holy
Communion" which is not the same), it's my business and not yours.
And since you called the Archdiocese of Cologne liars or otherwise
implied they lied, you showed your complete incompetence.
Now, I spent about two hours talking with a Professor for Church Law this
morning and ordered some material to contribute to this discussion, but
on second thoughts, I think I shan't, because obviously you're not
interested in the subject, you want revenge.
You are a fine example of a Christian Moe! Now go and read your SSPX
magazines, such FR. Moderator's dick. Before I'm off to my OT exegesis
seminar (which is more important than having this silly argument with a
religious fanatic), I shall do some spring cleaning and I'll start with
you!
Fare thee well.
Pax et salus
Daniel
PLONK
R. L. Measures
<moe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 10:49:14 -1000, Daniel Höhr wrote:
>
> > Moe <moe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I posted the RCC attitude toward your cult group and you bash me for
> >> it.
> >
> > LOL - "cult group"... How rich, Moe, how rich. If anybody here supports
> > a cult group, it's *you*.
> >
> > dh
>
> Cult
>
>
> * Why are religious groups such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses
called "cults," while other groups, such as Fundamentalists and
Calvinists, are not? Don't all of these groups teach cultic doctrines?
>
€ Mormons, JWs and fundamentalists use thought control tools.
> The word "cult" has fallen on hard times.
€ Indeed - "cult" is a pejorative term. It is better to talk about
specific thought-control tools. In my opinion, labeling masturbation as a
"sin", is the most pervasive cultic thought-control tool in the salvation
business.
>Used authentically, it refers to a grouping of people for some religious
purpose; it can also refer to specific ceremonial, liturgical, and prayer
activities carried out within a particular group. Vatican II, for example,
refers to the "cult of the saints," meaning the honor and devotion
Christians show to Christians who are now reigning with Christ in heaven.
€ Before the Resurrection?
>Used this way, "cult" carries no pejorative connotations.
>
> In the last few decades an unfortunatue phenomenon has sprung up,
primarily among Evangelical Protestants who have appropriated the word and
used it to categorize religious groups with whom they disagree. Mormons
and Jehovah's Witnesses have become "cultists," and their religions are
branded as "cults." In popular jargon "cult" implies more than just a
religion with odd tenets. It carries the implication that the group has a
hidden agenda, uses deception and mind control techniques to keep its
members in line,
€ JWs and Mormonites use deception and thought control tools.
>and may be satanic in origin. Calling someone a "cultist" has become a
handy stick with which to beat members of minority religions. Some
Fundamentalists call the Catholic Church a cult.
>
€ The RCC uses some of the most sophisticated thought-control tools in
the salvation biz. Freud is creditited as the father of psychoanalysis.
The Church of rome deserves credit as the mother of psychoanalysis. The
most powerful of thought control tool invented was "discipling" -- which
was invented c. the 5th century; and dropped soon thereafter. This is
covered in Yeakley's book '''The Discipling Dilemna''' which is available
on my web site. The International Churches of Christ/BCC is based on
discipling.
> Of course, some religions are cults, but it's a matter of prudence
whether to trumpet that fact.
€ The C word, like the F word, undermines those who use it.
>If you want to evangelize adherents to such religions, you must avoid
approaches that will alienate them. Be firm but charitable. Don't throw
around the terms "cult" and "cultist." With a little restraint you'll more
likely get your message across. If you start by telling a non-Catholic
that he's a member of a cult (even if he is), it's unlikely that he'll
listen to anything you have to say.
>
> Cults
>
> The word cult comes from the French culte, and is rooted in the Latin
cultus, which means "care" and "adoration."
€ Latin: "Cultus" =s worship
That idea comes from the Latin cultus - the past participle of colere,
which means "to cultivate."
>
> The word was used in the sense of "to worship or give reference to a
deity." (1)
>
> Today, the term "cult" can refer to:
>
> 1. : formal religious veneration : worship
> 2. : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
> 3. : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body
of adherents
> 4. : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its
promulgator <health cults>
> 5. a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work
(as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or
intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such
devotion
>
> The term's ambiguity makes it necessary to determine in what sense the
word is used. A sociological definition will differ from a religious one,
and a Christian definition will differ from, say, the Mormon or Islamic
view.
>
€ better to not use it.
€ Yeakley's aforementioned book deals with the BCC. As I understand it,
the cult leader, Thomas/Kip MsKean is resigning the Alpha-male position.
The cult from Boston to L. A. escape unflattering media coverage and is
now called the Los Angeles Church of Christ. [The *Boston Globe* had a
plethora of articles on the practices of the Boston Church of Christ.]
> * Psychospiritual or Self-Improvement: groups offering seminars or
workshops providing self- improvement or personal transformation (a
growing cultic trend), includes Transcendental Meditation, Lifespring and
The Forum (formerly est).
€ EST rhymes with incest, which the founder reportedly did with his daughters.
> * Eclectic/Syncretistic: a combination of several religious
traditions, includes the Unification Church (''Moonies'')
€ Steven Hassan's book '''Combatting Cult Mind Control''' torpedos the
moonies in the engine room. (Rev. Moon claims to be the 2nd Coming of
Christ)
€ Amen -- and that's the sticky wicket
>It is therefore well suited to describe theological heterodoxy, which is
determined by an absolute, objective and unchanging standard.
> Alan Gomes, Unmasking The Cults [Off-site Link] (Zondervan, 1995)
>
> This last point is especially noxious to those who object to any
religion's claims of exclusivity. Under the guise of defending religious
freedom, they promote religious pluralism while denying Christians and
non-Christians alike the freedom to critique a movement's teachings and
practices.
>
> Anticult; Countercult; "Neutral"
>
> A and invididuals generally fight cults for reasons other than
theological ones.
>
€ Some anticult organizations use what are widely recognized as cultic
thought-control tools and are operated by individuals who are seemingly
S&D freaks. (submission and domination).
>
> Countercult organizations and invididuals usually oppose cults for
religious, doctrinal reasons. Most operate from an orthodox, Christian
perspective. Their intend is to educate Christians and non-Christians on
the dangers of heretical movements (sometimes referred to as ''boundary
maintenance''), to help Christians counter the theological claims of such
groups (for the purpose of ''boundary maintenance'' and/or evangelism),
and to provide cult-members with information that may help them leave
those movements (often, but not always, including a presentation of the
Christian gospel) .
>
> Since they operate from different perspectives, anticult and countercult
professionals do not always agree on what constitutes a cult.
€ ... cult as well as beauty are in the eye of the beholder. Thus, 'tis
better to discuss which organizations use which specific thought-control
tool.
"The former evaluate movements using sociological criteria [Off-site Link]
, while the latter do so using theological standards.
>
> Not surprisingly, this sometimes leads to different conclusions. For
example, some anti-cultists see Mormonism as just another form of
Christianity, while Christians consider it an heretical cult of
Christianity.
>
€ Mormonism uses two thought-control tools that were used by the
Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei.
> Often, though, concerns overlap. For instance, a movement like the
International Churches of Christ is considered cultic by those who
evaluate it sociologially, as well as by those who consider theology only.
>
€ It is all that. I went to a ICoC/ LACC meeting and I saw numerous
cases of "zombie eyes".
€ Enablers are never without a covert agenda.
€ Interesting. Thanks. The Internet is the great nemesis of those orgs
who use cultic thought-control tools. The "Church" of $cientology is
rapidly being marginalized by the Internet.
Thanks -- have fun, Moe.
--
Rich, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures (radio)
www.vcnet.com/measures/library.html (org. religion)
Legatus
Daniel Höhr <dho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am amazed by your efford to prove Freemasons are excommunicated.
> Excellent work, Moe. The question remains whether you want to prove that
> *Freemasons* are excommunicated, or if you just want to enjoy your own
> little revenge on me, because last time you withdrew when you were
> running out of answers.
>
> Yes, even if I'm "out" (which I'm not, I may not "approach Holy
> Communion" which is not the same), it's my business and not yours.
Um... er... yes the ecclesiastical censure of excommunication does
involve more... but to be barred from Holy Communion is the very origin
of "ex-communication". And you're right, it isn't our business... but,
has anyone brought up the whole fast on friday business as a comparison
to freemasonry?
Steve
Moe
> I am amazed by your efford to prove Freemasons are excommunicated.
> Excellent work, Moe
Thank You non catholic Daniel.
> The question remains whether you want to prove that
> *Freemasons* are excommunicated, or if you just want to enjoy your own
> little revenge on me, because last time you withdrew when you were
> running out of answers.
I dont have time to chase answers all over the place - but I knew where
to find these. So stop whinning boy !!!!
> Yes, even if I'm "out" (which I'm not, I may not "approach Holy
> Communion" which is not the same), it's my business and not yours.
you didnt know that you were automatically excommunicated???
Well I told you. Going to your so called source will probably confuse the
issue. Read what I posted and save yourself some grief.
Some of this stuff came from the Vatican. So are you going to go to the
local guy with the hopes he can tell you what you dont want to hear???
It just shows how knowledgeable you are about the catholic faith,
obviously you know very little about anything.
> And since you called the Archdiocese of Cologne liars or otherwise
> implied they lied, you showed your complete incompetence.
Nope, the Vatican made them liars.
> Now, I spent about two hours talking with a Professor for Church Law
> this morning and ordered some material to contribute to this discussion,
> but on second thoughts, I think I shan't, because obviously you're not
> interested in the subject, you want revenge.
Look Daniel, no matter how you try to spin this the catholic church says
you have been excommunicated.
> You are a fine example of a Christian Moe!
I am, I told you what you are doing wrong, now go and fix it so you can
get right with God. You should be thankful I had the guts to tell you.
>Now go and read your SSPX
> magazines, such FR. Moderator's dick.
And I am the one who wants revenge????
>Before I'm off to my OT exegesis
> seminar (which is more important than having this silly argument with a
> religious fanatic), I shall do some spring cleaning and I'll start with
> you!
Religious fanatic?? Why thank you I am a religious fanatic, I am a fan of
the one true church.
To bad you have to resort to name calling.
Bye bye Mr. non catholic Daniel!!!!!
Moe
Moe
Associations
November 26, 1983
THE QUESTION has been raised whether the Church's position on Masonic
associations has been altered, especially since no explicit mention is
made of them in the new Code of Canon Law, as there was in the old code.
This sacred congregation is able to reply that circumstance is to be
attributed to a criterion adopted in drafting. This criterion was
observed also in regard to other associations which were likewise passed
over in silence, because they were included in broader categories.
The Church's negative position on Masonic associations therefore remains
unaltered, since their principles have always been regarded as
irreconcilable with the Church's doctrine. Hence joining them remains
prohibited by the Church. Catholics enrolled in Masonic associations are
involved in serious sin and may not approach Holy Communion.
Local ecclesiastical authorities do not have the faculty to pronounce a
judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which might include a
diminution of the above-mentioned judgment, in accordance with the
intention of this congregation's declaration delivered on February 17,
1981 (cf. AAS 73 [1981], pp. 240-241).
The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II approved this declaration, deliberated
at an ordinary meeting of this sacred congregation, and ordered it to
become part of public law.
Rome. From the office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, November 26, 1983.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect
Jerome Hamer, O.P.
Archbishop of Loria
Secretary
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 01:55:53 -1000, Daniel Höhr wrote:
Daniel Höhr
> In article <20020422...@Medion.fuck.Bill.Gates.and.Microsoft>,
> Daniel Höhr <dho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snipped>
> > Yes, even if I'm "out" (which I'm not, I may not "approach Holy
> > Communion" which is not the same), it's my business and not yours.
> Um... er... yes the ecclesiastical censure of excommunication does
> involve more... but to be barred from Holy Communion is the very origin
> of "ex-communication".
Very true, it is the origin of ex-communication, but not the same.
> And you're right, it isn't our business...
I leave it to God to judge me and not to Moe or anybody else. In fact, I
did spent a long time in a proper library and talked to somebody who
actually knows Church Law. After some time I found two articles on that
issue and I would have presented two different points of view.
I've always known that the RCC is against Freemasonry, but that has never
stopped me from going to church, approaching communion and, above all,
actually *studying* Catholic theology. But opinions on what the Church is
seem to differ here anyway and I have better things to do and more
interesting matter to discuss than whether I'm a Catholic or not. Yes,
I'm proud to be a member of a Masonic Lodge that's basically running a
leper hospital in Africa and without our help and support, a lot of
people would have died. I know there is some theological friction between
the teachings of the Church and Freemasonry, but, as I said, I'll let Him
judge me.
I have never denied any of the church's teachings, even if I find some of
them hard to understand and years of exegesis have shown me that some
issues (immaculate conpection being one) are hard to support from
Scripture (when you look at OT sources of the gospels).
I don't really care if people like Moe think I'm a non-catholic (and
forget the hyphen) or not, the whole Novus Ordo thing is not really my
business, I only get a bit angry when I'm being patronised...
Now, what was I talking about in the first place???
Oh yes:
> has anyone brought up the whole fast on friday business as a comparison
> to freemasonry?
Now that reference needs clarificaton...
Daniel
Daniel Höhr
> If masonry is opposed
> to The Church, then that's on them.
The next expert on Freemasonry. Is it really so hard to read the postings
in here??? Masonry is *not* opposed to the church and in spite of many a
rumour spread by uninformed know-it-alls over the centuries, *regular*
Masonry has never plotted against the church. The church is opposed to
Masonry, not vice versa.
Daniel
Daniel Höhr
> In article <pan.2002.04.21.13...@hotmail.com>, Moe wrote:
> > * Why are religious groups such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses
> called "cults," while other groups, such as Fundamentalists and
> Calvinists, are not? Don't all of these groups teach cultic doctrines?
As to Masons, there is no masonic doctrine.
dh
Legatus
Daniel Höhr <dho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Legatus <leg...@notcharter.not> wrote:
> > has anyone brought up the whole fast on friday business as a comparison
> > to freemasonry?
>
> Now that reference needs clarificaton...
Good, that means no one has suggested this angle yet.
Did the Church have the authority to require Catholics to abstain from
meat on fridays? I believe she did. Meat is good (my favorite food is
half raw beef), but the Church used to say, "Don't eat it on fridays".
And the restriction obliged under mortal sin. So while the Bible makes
no prohibitions against having a steak on friday, that doesn't seem to
matter.
Just tossing that out for consideration.
Steve
Daniel Höhr
> Did the Church have the authority to require Catholics to abstain from
> meat on fridays? I believe she did. Meat is good (my favorite food is
> half raw beef), but the Church used to say, "Don't eat it on fridays".
Yeah, mine too :-) But I think Wednesdays used to be meetless as well.
> And the restriction obliged under mortal sin. So while the Bible makes
> no prohibitions against having a steak on friday, that doesn't seem to
> matter.
I'm getting your drift. A lot of things are hard to support from
Scripture and mind you, prior to Vaticam II, Catholic Bible theologians
had the task to interpret the Bible in such a way that it supports the
teachings of the church. It wasn't called "exegesis", it was called
"apologetics". Thanks God, that's over and done with, although about ten
years ago my fellow-German Cardinal Ratzinger stated that a Bible scholar
should always remember the teachings of the church when doing his work.
Daniel
Legatus
<geoc...@technogeeks.org> wrote:
> Daniel H–hr (dho...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>
> > Legatus <leg...@notcharter.not> wrote:
> >
> >> Did the Church have the authority to require Catholics to abstain from
> >> meat on fridays? I believe she did. Meat is good (my favorite food is
> >> half raw beef), but the Church used to say, "Don't eat it on fridays".
> >
> > Yeah, mine too :-) But I think Wednesdays used to be meetless as well.
> >
> >> And the restriction obliged under mortal sin. So while the Bible makes
> >> no prohibitions against having a steak on friday, that doesn't seem to
> >> matter.
> >
>
> I am not aware of that requirement being lifted... I never eat meat on Fish
> Friday. =o)
Mackerel Snapper. :)
Um, certainly we are no longer limited to abstaining from meat on
friday. We are expected to do SOMETHING, but meat is optional. You're
gonna ask me to back that up aren't you? :)
Steve
Daniel Höhr
> Daniel Höhr (dho...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> > Legatus <leg...@notcharter.not> wrote:
> >
> >> Did the Church have the authority to require Catholics to abstain from
> >> meat on fridays? I believe she did. Meat is good (my favorite food is
> >> half raw beef), but the Church used to say, "Don't eat it on fridays".
> >
> > Yeah, mine too :-) But I think Wednesdays used to be meetless as well.
> >
> >> And the restriction obliged under mortal sin. So while the Bible makes
> >> no prohibitions against having a steak on friday, that doesn't seem to
> >> matter.
> >
> I am not aware of that requirement being lifted... I never eat meat on
Fish
> Friday.
No no no --- misunderstanding. I meant the meetless Wednesday that's been
lifted.
> I study Apolgetics Daniel, in the USA with all these protestants running
around
> challenging the Church authority and using their Catholic Bible to do it
with,
> its important that all Catholics be able to defend their faith.
Not surprising that the USA is not known as a fruitful soil for
historical-critical exegesis...
I study exegesis, which involves working on the Biblical texts in their
original language. I'm specialised in the First Testament and I'm just
sitting here and translating from Hebrew.
The aim of exegesis is not proving the teachings of the church wrong, but
letting the texts speak themselves and do them justice. The Bible is
God's written revelation, as my tutor said today, but the aim of
historical-critical exegesis (critical being a scientific method of
exegesis and doesn't mean ctitical against the teachings of the church)
cannot be to back up the teachings of the church by all means. If (or:
when) the teachings of the church are difficult to support by the results
of exegesis, the bible scholar has the right to say so. Thanks to Vatican II.
Fifty years ago an OT professor from Bonn University got into severe
trouble for saying that Isaiah was not written by one author, but by (at
least) three: Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah. He was forbidden
by the archbishop of Cologne to teach his students that sort of "heresy".
Now, no serious Catholic Bible scholar would deny the three Isaiahs, an
exegesis result that even the headquarter in Rome has swallowed.
Daniel
lucas adams
and condemned Freemasons to excommunication!Last time I spoke to him
he was O.K. with me...as a matter of fact,i'm awash in his
blood!Thanks Jesus!BTW,Popes can be wrong...oops...here i go again
picking and choosing from the prescribed and required menu...
LGAdams
MasonKnight
Daniel Höhr
> did you say you still receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion Daniel?
> even with full knowledge that you cannot?
Yes, I did. And I'll wait for Him to tell me off for that if I may...
> I did it when I was a freemason, but hardly when I was a knowledgable
Catholic.
We seem to differ on that subject and I really, really appreciate your
advise. I'm sure you won't be the next one who judges me. Understood?
Because I'll let Him judge.
dh
Daniel Höhr
Welcome to the club, Brother!
It's very reassuring to come across people who use their common sense --
certainly an invaluable gift from God.
Fraternally yours
Daniel
Daniel Höhr
> Daniel Höhr (dho...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> > Welcome to the club, Brother!
> he is your brother because he is a freemason?
> > It's very reassuring to come across people who use their common sense --
> > certainly an invaluable gift from God.
> yes that sense is certaintly 'common'....
oh dear...
Daniel Höhr
> http://choccult.8m.com/masonry.htm <-- did you ever read that?
You really are on a mission, aren't you? It's a good text, there's
certainly much truth in it and also some flaws, but you also ought to
realise that not everybody shares your, Cardinal Law's, Ratzinger's or
the Pope's opinion...
Of course it's easier to switch your brain off and blindly follow what
other *people* tell you.
Feel free to tell me I'm not a proper Catholic -- I'm getting used to
that here. As I said, He's got the final word and not any high ranking
church officer.
Daniel
R. L. Measures
Daniel =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F6hr?= <dho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> R. L. Measures wrote:
>
> > In article <pan.2002.04.21.13...@hotmail.com>, Moe wrot=
> e:
>
> > > * Why are religious groups such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witness=
> es
> > called "cults," while other groups, such as Fundamentalists and
> > Calvinists, are not? Don't all of these groups teach cultic doctrines?=
>
>
> As to Masons, there is no masonic doctrine.
>
> dh
€ ¿ ?
Daniel Höhr
> do what you like Daniel, but dont applaud other Catholics for going
against the
> church like you are doing with Lucas....
And you don't tell me what to do. I can say to Lucas whatever I want and
if he disagrees, he'll let me know, okay?
The fact that you turned an orthodox Catholic doesn't mean others have to
follow you.
> Dont leave Jesus because of Judas Daniel...
Has it gone that far already?
dh
Moe
> Jason <geoc...@technogeeks.org> wrote:
>
>> did you say you still receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion Daniel?
>> even with full knowledge that you cannot?
>
> Yes, I did. And I'll wait for Him to tell me off for that if I may...
Daniel now admits to committing a sacrelige...
What else has the good know it all "catholic"
who spent time in a seminary done or going to do???
Didnt learn squat did ya !!!!
Moe
Moe
> Daniel Höhr (dho...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>
>> Jason <geoc...@technogeeks.org> wrote:
>>
>>> do what you like Daniel, but dont applaud other Catholics for going
>> against the
>>> church like you are doing with Lucas....
>>
>> And you don't tell me what to do. I can say to Lucas whatever I want
>> and if he disagrees, he'll let me know, okay?
>
> of course he will agree, he is starving for some Catholic to say "its OK
> to ignore the Church"
> he will eat your praise up like candy...
>
> see my comments below...
>
>> The fact that you turned an orthodox Catholic doesn't mean others have
>> to follow you.
>
> well there are 2 types of Catholic, 1. Orthodox Catholics, 2. Bad
> Catholics why go half-way?
>
>>> Dont leave Jesus because of Judas Daniel...
>>
>> Has it gone that far already?
>
> you tell me?
>
> ya know... with your comments about telling people to suck 'dick' and
> other such things in this thread, I am losing respect for you quickly.
> and what you are doing by giving Catholics advice to ignore the Church
> teachings is no different than a 'troll'.... I have never insulted you,
> I have only reasoned with you, and now you are moving into righteous
> indignation to defend your stand against the Church Christ founded. . .
Daniels a phony like most of the people who inhabit this newsgroup.
Moe
>
Moe
> Legatus <leg...@notcharter.not> wrote:
>
>> In article <20020422...@Medion.fuck.Bill.Gates.and.Microsoft>,
>> Daniel Höhr <dho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>> > Yes, even if I'm "out" (which I'm not, I may not "approach Holy
>> > Communion" which is not the same), it's my business and not yours.
YOU ARE OUT !!!!
Moe
Moe
Daniel you accuse me of being in schism - I ask you why are you
disobeying the Popes directive???
Moe
>
> I have never denied any of the church's teachings, even if I find some
> of them hard to understand and years of exegesis have shown me that some
> issues (immaculate conpection being one) are hard to support from
> Scripture (when you look at OT sources of the gospels).
>
> I don't really care if people like Moe think I'm a non-catholic (and
> forget the hyphen) or not, the whole Novus Ordo thing is not really my
> business, I only get a bit angry when I'm being patronised...
>
> Now, what was I talking about in the first place???
YOU ARE OUT !!!!
Moe
> Legatus <leg...@notcharter.not> wrote:
>
>> Did the Church have the authority to require Catholics to abstain from
>> meat on fridays? I believe she did. Meat is good (my favorite food is
>> half raw beef), but the Church used to say, "Don't eat it on fridays".
>
> Yeah, mine too :-) But I think Wednesdays used to be meetless as well.
>
>> And the restriction obliged under mortal sin. So while the Bible makes
>> no prohibitions against having a steak on friday, that doesn't seem to
>> matter.
What does the Catholic Church have to say about Freemasonry? Can a Catholic be a Freemason?
A. Can a California Golden Bear root for the Stanford Cardinal? Okay. So, no. Freemasonry is incompatible with the Catholic faith. Why? It teaches that a person can be equally pleasing to God while remaining in any religion; it?s a religion in its own right; and historically one of its primary objectives has been the destruction of the Catholic Church. It?s true that often in the United States it?s basically a social club, but it still contradicts orthodox Christiani-ty. Catholics who become Freemasons are excommunicated, a penalty confirmed in a statement by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1983.
Moe
Try this one - if you dare !!!!
Especially you Daniel !!!
http://religion-cults.com/Secret/Freemasonry/Freemasonry.htm
Moe
Heres your buddy Cardinal Ratzinger for ya Daniel !!!
Even he says you are out!!!
Moe
> Daniel
Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com > wrote:
>> If masonry is opposed
>> to The Church, then that's on them.
>The next expert on Freemasonry. Is it really so hard to read the postings
>in here??? Masonry is *not* opposed to the church
Deal with reality. Read the Church documents against freemasonry,
spanning the course of centuries, from various Popes.
You are just ignorant, and maybe proudly so. If you want to find out
the truth about masonry, just read what The Church has said on the
matter. It's very straightforward. It's very simple.
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Ulimited downloads - 19 servers ==-----
Mark Johnson
>lgad...@aol.com (lucas adams) wrote:
>> I wish I wouldn't have missed it when God Almighty came down to earth
>> and condemned Freemasons to excommunication!
Then you need to read the various documents, written by various Popes
over the course of centuries, condemning masonry for good reason.
Perhaps, you don't . . wanna know. Many people are like that. But
ignorance, such as you show - is still ignorance.
Be ignorant no longer. Google seach - encyclical . . masonry. See what
happens.
Mark Johnson
>Jason <geoc...@technogeeks.org> wrote:
>> http://choccult.8m.com/masonry.htm <-- did you ever read that?
>You really are on a mission, aren't you? It's a good text, there's
>certainly much truth in it and also some flaws, but you also ought to
>realise that not everybody shares your, Cardinal Law's, Ratzinger's or
>the Pope's opinion...
>Of course it's easier to switch your brain off and blindly follow what
>other *people* tell you.
It is. And that's just what you're doing. You won't consider Catholic
teaching on this, and all the many reasons for The Church's opposition
to masonry.
Just be honest. Better for . . you.
Daniel Höhr
> ya know... with your comments about telling people to suck 'dick' and
other
> such things in this thread, I am losing respect for you quickly.
Yes, I'm sorry for that and Moe, if you're reading this, please excuse
me. I Lost my temper and I probably should have killfiled you earlier....
Sorry, man, this is an honest apology.
> and what you are doing by giving Catholics advice to ignore the Church
> teachings is no different than a 'troll'....
I'm not giving Catholics advice to ignore that Church's teachings, I have
never done that! And if you think I have, please show me where.
All I'm saying is that I have problems with *some* of the teachings. I've
never said I'm the role model of a Catholic. I'M in this newsgroup
because I want to exchange different views about Catholicism and I think
that's a good reason, isn't it. And if you don't like my point of view,
you are very welcome to killfile me -- maybe it would be best.
> I have never insulted you, I have only reasoned with you, and now you are
> moving into righteous indignation to defend your stand against the Church
> Christ founded. . .
Once again, I find it highly difficult to accept some of the Church
teachings. For various reasons. But that's my point of view, my opinion,
my "problem" if you will. Actually, it's not a problem at all, because
I'm at peace mith myself, I'm at peace with God, because I trust Him and
I'm sure He has the last word on everything. This is the fundamental
aspect of my belief, which is very, very personal and I feel reluctant to
discuss that. He has worked some wonders in my life and I've never taken
anything for granted. That is important to me and if people see my
salvation at stake, then I can only wonder why they don't mind their own
business.
Daniel
Mark Johnson
>Of course, Moe, I was waiting for you to come up with some nonsense you
>found somewhere. Let's see if you are able to discuss the topic at leng,
Catholic documents. The Church teaches that Catholics cannot be
masons.
I guess you've decided to ignore all evidence that suggests otherwise.
As is increasingly the case among a few UseNetters on this ng - that's
just nuts.
Robert A. Walker
> Daniel Höhr <dho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Jason <geoc...@technogeeks.org> wrote:
>
> >> http://choccult.8m.com/masonry.htm <-- did you ever read that?
>
> >You really are on a mission, aren't you? It's a good text, there's
> >certainly much truth in it and also some flaws, but you also ought to
> >realise that not everybody shares your, Cardinal Law's, Ratzinger's or
> >the Pope's opinion...
>
> >Of course it's easier to switch your brain off and blindly follow what
> >other *people* tell you.
>
> It is. And that's just what you're doing. You won't consider Catholic
> teaching on this, and all the many reasons for The Church's opposition
> to masonry.
>
> Just be honest. Better for . . you.
>
>
> Peace.
>
Daniel Höhr
> YOU ARE OUT !!!!
And you are in -- in my killfile. I'm just using the computer at work.
But you'll be in...
PLONK
Legatus
Jason <geoc...@technogeeks.org> wrote:
> Legatus (leg...@notcharter.not) wrote:
>
> > Um, certainly we are no longer limited to abstaining from meat on
> > friday. We are expected to do SOMETHING, but meat is optional. You're
> > gonna ask me to back that up aren't you? :)
>
> hahaha
> nope, I think I recall that being a US Catholic Bishops specific thing?
There are days when I feel like Catholicism is optional according to
the US bishops.
Steve (this is one of those days)
Daniel Höhr
> Daniel Höhr (dho...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> > I'm not giving Catholics advice to ignore that Church's teachings, I have
> > never done that! And if you think I have, please show me where.
> you praised Lucas for ignoring the church magestrium - or did you forget
> already? you said he had used his 'common sense'.
So? I don't need to tell you (or Moe or anybody else in here) to tell me
what to do. Until now I've really enjoyed discussing this topic with
you, but I hate being patronised and that's what you're doing here.
And if certain people need to sing the "Daniel's not a Catholic" anthem
to make them happy, they're very welcome to sing it as loud as they want
to, because I have decided to ignore it.
Why don't you mind your own business???
The whole bloody argument -- and I feel reluctant to refer to it as a
discussion, because neither Moe nor you (sadly) are showing any ability
to comprehend my point of view -- just started because I simply said
that the definition of Freemasonry Dawn posted was a good one.
I shall stick to my point of view, even if I ignore the teachings of the
Una Sancta in *THAT* respect and even if Moe (wrongly) thinks I'm "out",
because I've lived happily with it, I'm proud of it and I don't give a
toss about what the pair of you think. If God sticks to *man-made* Canon
Law and denies my salvation (which He won't), then I will have to bow
down and accept it. Yet I doubt He's as *narrow-minded* as some *people*
who hold a high office in the Vatican or even as you prenet yourselves
in here. Full stop.
dh
Daniel Höhr
> you, as a Catholic should know that the church is the body of Christ, what you
> do here, will most certaintly effect your final judgement, for what you do to
> the least of man, you do to Christ.
And since I'm very active in contributing to the welfare of lepers in
Zambia (who are seen there as "the least of men"), I'm sure I do
something to Christ He appreciates :-)
> are you a Catholic who beleives in Justification by Faith Alone? =o)
According to "Saint" Moe, that mega-Catholic, whose word even the
Almighty will have to bow down to because "Saint" Moe's word seems to be
mightier than the Almighty's, I'm out anyway, so why bother.
BTW, Justification by Faith, Good Deed and God's Grace suits me well.
dh
lucas adams
>
> >Jason <geoc...@technogeeks.org> wrote:
>
> >> http://choccult.8m.com/masonry.htm <-- did you ever read that?
>
> >You really are on a mission, aren't you? It's a good text, there's
> >certainly much truth in it and also some flaws, but you also ought to
> >realise that not everybody shares your, Cardinal Law's, Ratzinger's or
> >the Pope's opinion...
>
> >Of course it's easier to switch your brain off and blindly follow what
> >other *people* tell you.
>
> It is. And that's just what you're doing. You won't consider Catholic
> teaching on this, and all the many reasons for The Church's opposition
> to masonry.
>
> Just be honest. Better for . . you.
WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THAT YOU WILL BELIEVE ANYTHING THAT A CARDINAL
OR POPE SAYS...I DON'T CARE WHO'S CHAIR THEY SIT IN...THEY ARE HUMAN
AND SOMETIMES SPEAK IN IGNORANCE.TRY LOOKING AT MASONRY ON YOUR OWN
AND NOT THROUGH THE EYES OF MEN WHO HAVE NO DIRECT CONNECTION WITH OR
USE FOR MASONRY...I MEAN,GOD FORBID FREE SOCIETY,PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND A
FAIR AND EQUAL VOTE...THESE ARE MASONIC PRINCIPALS AND IF THEY ARE IN
CONFLICT WITH THE 'CHURCH' THEN MAYBE THIS 'CHURCH' IS NOT
RIGHT...NOW,TURN YOUR BRAIN BACK ON,PICK UP A BOOK,AND LEARN SOMETHING
BESIDES PROPAGANDA.seethe seethe
>
>
> Peace.
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
> discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
> to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
>
> [Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
>
>
> -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
> ------== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Ulimited downloads - 19 servers ==-----
THANK YOU POPE MARK!I CAN'T WAIT UNTIL WE ALL DIE AND I MEET YOU ALONG
WITH MY MASONIC BRETHREN IN HEAVEN...JUST SO I CAN SAY..."I TOLD YOU
SO!"
Moe
Glad to hear it, kill file me please - you just cant stand being proved
wrong can you Daniel.
You dont know squat when it comes to being a "good" catholic
Daniel, you have no credibility - actually you never had any.
Moe
Bye Bye non catholic Daniel
Mark Johnson
>> It is. And that's just what you're doing. You won't consider Catholic
>> teaching on this, and all the many reasons for The Church's opposition
>> to masonry.
>> Just be honest. Better for . . you.
>What an incredible hypocrite you are.
Not here. There's nothing hypocritical in pointing to sound, orthodox
and established Church teaching, from the hand of many Popes, over the
centuries, pointing out the opposition of masonry to Catholicism, and
the proper response of Catholics to that assault.
Just read it for yourself. Don't stick your head in the sand. People
will just wonder.
Peace.
------------------------------------------------------------
* When one finds nothing more to say to God,
* but just knows He is there --
* that, in itself, is the best of prayers.
[Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]
Daniel Höhr
> I believe I can speak to your point of view better than any Catholic you
know
> on this topic.
LOL, no Jason. I know Catholics, even a Catholic priest, who knows
certainly more about Masonry than you do, and he's not an ex-32 degree
Mason, he's not a Mason at all. He's been studying Freemasonry in its
various forms for decades, he's been invited by masonic research lodges
to give lectures on masonry because he knows more than many a self-titled
expert, in the early eighties he got masons and Catholic theologians
together and it was partly down to his work c 1374 got its final wording.
This Father attends every social function of my motherlodge and his
lectures on ritual and its symbolic impact are always much appreciated.
At the same time, he's an excellent theologian, so don't think because
you're an ex-32 degree mason and turned an orthodox catholic who studies
apologetics (i.e. reading the Bible in the way the Church wants you to
instead of reading what's actually written in the Bible, which I do) and
thinks following Canon Law in all its detail is the way to Salvation.
Read Matthew 23 and meditate on it.
> However, now that you fully understand the churchs logic behind the law,
you
> have no excuse whatsoever to continue down your current path - except for
self
> richeousness which appears to be the road you chose.
There is no logic behind the declaration of 26 November 1983.
> > then I will have to bow
> > down and accept it.
> how humble of you...
Yes, and I mean it. That, btw, I learned in Lodge.
dh
Daniel Höhr
> Daniel Höhr (dho...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> > Jason wrote:
> >> you, as a Catholic should know that the church is the body of Christ,
what
> >> you do here, will most certaintly effect your final judgement, for what
you
> >> do to the least of man, you do to Christ.
> > And since I'm very active in contributing to the welfare of lepers in
> > Zambia (who are seen there as "the least of men"), I'm sure I do
> > something to Christ He appreciates :-)
> but is that enough?
Who do you think you are? I don't feel the need to justify what I do to
you and you don't know what else I do. God does and He knows me and He
alone has the final word on that. My name, Daniel (I'm sure you've
learned enough Hebrew in apologetics to understand the complete sentence
"dani el"), is at the same time the motto of my life and I'll stick to
it.
> I am sure you know that faith + works = Faith and faith - works !(not) =
Faith
> further that being saved is an ongoing process of three processes which
are
> Justification, Sanctification, and Salvation
> We are saved, being saved, and hope to be saved.
You've done your homework very well! Top grade.
dh
Debunks
>From: Mark Johnson 1023...@compuserve.com
>Date: 4/23/02 10:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <bnhccuca7v697ev67...@4ax.com>
>
>rwa...@nycc.edu (Robert A. Walker) wrote:
>
>>> It is. And that's just what you're doing. You won't consider Catholic
>>> teaching on this, and all the many reasons for The Church's opposition
>>> to masonry.
>
>>> Just be honest. Better for . . you.
>
>>What an incredible hypocrite you are.
>
>Not here. There's nothing hypocritical in pointing to sound, orthodox
>and established Church teaching, from the hand of many Popes, over the
>centuries, pointing out the opposition of masonry to Catholicism, and
>the proper response of Catholics to that assault.
>
>Just read it for yourself. Don't stick your head in the sand. People
>will just wonder.
>
>
>Peace.
>
Just how proficient are you in Hebrew, Daniel?
Daniel Höhr
> Just how proficient are you in Hebrew, Daniel?
Well, I've got the Hebraicum (Hebrew certificate for theologians) from
the Faculty of Catholic Theology, University of Bonn and I used to quite
good. After years of not doing anything, I'm now back at the Old
Testament department and I'm currently working on an exegesis of Genesis
28:10-22, which is based on the Hebrew text. My Hebrew has got a bit
rusty and it took some hours to look up some words and to revise some
grammatical forms, but if you give me a dictionary to look up the odd
word, I'll be able to read and understand texts from the Tanakh in
Hebrew. It's coming back though. I don't actually speak Ivrit.
Daniel
Moe Bush
But Daniel still doesnt know and abide by the rules
of the RCC
MOE
You're history Daniel !!!
Daniel Höhr
> But Daniel still doesnt know and abide by the rules
> of the RCC
No, I don't. And so don't you. And if you don't like it, tough for you,m
because it's none of your business.
> MOE
> You're history Daniel !!!
If something is history, it's your SSPX mumbo jumbo, pal.
And you're one of the greatest narrow-minded parrots I've ever come
across... You're absolutely ridiculous, mate, and your "Daniel's not a
Catholic" line may be true to that extend that I value God's word more
than any laws that have been made up by fallible human beings, but what's
the bloody point in repeating it over and over again, when I'm trying to
communicate it to somebody who is too busy with running around with his
book of Canon Law, which he doesn't understand himself.
If you really understand you Canon Law so well, I wonder why you're
supporting a schismatic group and if you know the rules oh so damn
fucking well, you should have realised that *your* cult club is *OUT*,
yet I'm not in full communion, strictly speaking, or why do you think I
actually pay church tax?
It's about high time you either shut your foul mouth or *you* learn
something apart from propaganda!
And now excuse me, I've got better things to do than getting annoyed with
such a load of bollocks only you can produce.
By the way, you can change your login name as often as you wish, there is
enough space in my killfile...
dh
Moe Bush
Dont like the truth do you.
I never changed my login name
SSPX is not in schism - please learn to read and understand what you read
By the way the pope says you're not a catholic. You cant be a freemason
and a catholic at the same time.
Moe
I thought you plonked me????????????????????????????????????????????
Daniel Höhr
> Daniel why you appear to be angry.
> Dont like the truth do you.
> I never changed my login name
Yes, you did. From "Moe to "Moe Bush". You knew you're in my killfile as
"Moe" You're a liar and here's the proof.
> SSPX is not in schism - please learn to read and understand what you read
Yes, they are.
> By the way the pope says you're not a catholic. You cant be a freemason
> and a catholic at the same time.
He says I can't approach communion, which is not the same.
> Moe
> I thought you plonked me????????????????????????????????????????????
I plonked Moe, and not Moe Bush.
dh
Moe Bush
> Moe Bush wrote:
>
>> Daniel why you appear to be angry.
>> Dont like the truth do you.
>
>> I never changed my login name
>
> Yes, you did. From "Moe to "Moe Bush". You knew you're in my killfile as
> "Moe" You're a liar and here's the proof.
You're dumber than I thought you were,
I use 2 different news readers, my other reader doesnt have all the
functions this one has. So I decided to use this one instead AND if you
think I am foul mouthed I never used and 4 letter words like you did.
>> SSPX is not in schism - please learn to read and understand what you read
>
> Yes, they are.
So wheres the basis of your argument fool !!!!
Go get some novus ordo propaganda to prove your point.
By the way wheres the info you promised to give the group concerning your
accusations of SSPX improprieties ????
>> By the way the pope says you're not a catholic. You cant be a freemason
>> and a catholic at the same time.
>
> He says I can't approach communion, which is not the same.
He says you are excommunicated - You still cant read.
But then again your pal Cardinal Ratzinger also says you are excommunicated.
You are in denial Danial
Daniel Höhr
> You're dumber than I thought you were,
> I use 2 different news readers, my other reader doesnt have all the
> functions this one has. So I decided to use this one instead AND if you
> think I am foul mouthed I never used and 4 letter words like you did.
I'm sorry, pal, my psychich powers have been a bit low recently, but I
should have known, of course, you're using two newsreaders. That make be
certainly dumb, yes, mate, you're absolutely right. Mea culpa, mea maxima
culpa.
> >> SSPX is not in schism - please learn to read and understand what you
read
> >
> > Yes, they are.
> So wheres the basis of your argument fool !!!!
> Go get some novus ordo propaganda to prove your point.
> By the way wheres the info you promised to give the group concerning your
> accusations of SSPX improprieties ????
> >> By the way the pope says you're not a catholic. You cant be a freemason
> >> and a catholic at the same time.
> >
> > He says I can't approach communion, which is not the same.
> He says you are excommunicated - You still cant read.
What do you say to that then??? Call it "Novus Ordo propaganda"? Want to
to dig out the documents for you?
> But then again your pal Cardinal Ratzinger also says you are
excommunicated.
Well thanks God, Ratzinger is not the church...
> You are in denial Danial
And you are blinded, mate.
Daniel
Daniel Höhr
> >> SSPX is not in schism - please learn to read and understand what you
read
Maybe it's time you learn to read and understand?
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/docume
nts/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
Daniel
Daniel Höhr
> So wheres the basis of your argument fool !!!!
Matthew 5:22 "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his
brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever
shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but
whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
dh
Daniel Höhr
> What do you say to that then??? Call it "Novus Ordo propaganda"? Want to
> to dig out the documents for you?
Sorry, forgot the link:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/docume
nts/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.htm
Even I'm not infallible ;-)
dh
Moe Bush
> Moe Bush <moe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> SSPX is not in schism - please learn to read and understand what you
> read
>
> Maybe it's time you learn to read and understand?
There you go Daniel plucking novus ordo stuff to justify your cause.
Moe
>
> http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/docume
> nts/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
>
>
> Daniel
Daniel Höhr
> There you go Daniel plucking novus ordo stuff to justify your cause.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/docume
nts/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
So the Pope's Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei" is "novus ordo stuff"???
You don't make sense, mate. You claim to be such a good catholic, then
you say the RCC is / could be in schism. Next you come up with the
declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as of 26
November 1983, because you think it proves your point. When I, however,
remind you of the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei" (by the same Pope who
approved the aforementioned declaration), you call it "novus ordo stuff"
- LOL!
I'm sure you can explain that, which appears to be a paradox (if not
hypocrisy), in full...
Daniel
Moe Bush
> Moe Bush <moe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There you go Daniel plucking novus ordo stuff to justify your cause.
>
> http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/docume
> nts/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
>
> So the Pope's Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei" is "novus ordo stuff"???
It has been happening for a while now Daniel, the new order
people - better known as the modernists - have been hammering away at the
traditionalists trying to bring them "back" to the church as "they" the
modernists say. But the reality is this Daniel, the traditionalists have
never lost the true faith, the modernists have the churches, we
traditionalists still have the faith, that which was before the modernists
changed everything and continue to do so. The faith we traditionalists
speak of it that before Vatican II. It was correct for 1900 yrs, now its
not??????? Why??? What made it wrong now??? It looks like the modernists
have their service and we have ours. The modernists are the ones who have
changed things Daniel, not the traditionlists. Even the pope has recently
made comments about returning things to the way it was before Vatican II.
I would think if the pope continues to push this direction, he wont be
around much longer. The modernists will find a way to get him out of the
way.
Most likely thru forced retirement.
Now can you show me the results of Vatican II ??? Has the church been
better off????
Well at the last look at things we have homosexual priests, pedophile
priests, vocations for nuns and priests way down, attendance at mass way
down. This tells me that this modernism is a failure.
Next on the agenda for these modernists is married priests and women
priests.
So when a traditionalist looks at the "new order" church one sees a church
in schism. The modernists see the same thing. And the accusations go on and
on both ways. Reality is its somewhere in between. Except the traditional
church hasnt changed from the way things were done before Vatican II.
Why Daniel is all these things before Vatican II now incorrect??
They were correct for 1900 yrs. What makes it wrong now????
Every 4-6 months the modernists approach SSPX to try and have them "come
back to the church". How can that be - they never left!!!!!
And its the same discussion over and over again, with the same sticking
point - the traditionalists must say the new mass. Well every true
traditionalist priest I know will not say this mass. They dont believe that
this new mass is correct and valid.
This is why SSPX sits on the "outside" looking in as far as the modernists
are concerned. There are other issues too, but this is the big one.
SSPX is not a cult either, SSPX is nothing more than a group of traditional
men and women who deeply believe that the church before Vatican II is the
way things should be done. The one thing I remember from parochial school,
you know the ones with the nuns, was their discipline. Their is alot of
that in the traditional church. there has to be to be a good and faithful
catholic, one cannot be lax to be a good catholic. This is what the good
people of SSPX believe.
SSPX is a traditional group, I am a traditionalist, not attached to ANY
particular group. When you attack SSPX with your nonsense Daniel, you
attack me directly because we both are traditional in our beliefs.
I defend all traditional groups.
I have taken the time to explain this to you, but I dont think you will
ever understand what I just wrote here.
You as a mason cant be catholic at the same time. Its not possible.
The church says you have been excommunicated. Theres no gray area here
Daniel. Even before Vatican II the rules were the same and they still exist
today in modern form.
> You don't make sense, mate.
You have this wrong, you dont make sense, you want to tell people all about
how things should be in the RCC and how to worship God and SSPX is a cult,
but yet you are not correct in your standing with the RCC, you dont believe
in the churches laws. I see that as you living by Daniels rules not the
churches.
>You claim to be such a good catholic, then
>you say the RCC is / could be in schism.
I just explained that - look above.
> Next you come up with the
> declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as of 26
> November 1983, because you think it proves your point.
It does. It says you as a mason are no longer inside the catholic church.
You are unable to comprehend that I see. What part dont you understand???
> When I, however,
> remind you of the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei" (by the same Pope who
> approved the aforementioned declaration), you call it "novus ordo stuff"
> - LOL!
It is novus ordo stuff, except Daniel tha same law saying you are not
catholic was affirmed by many popes before Vatican II. And continues even
by the modernists. So how can you be a mason and a catholic???
You cant !!!! So make a decision Daniel, do you choose God or do you choose
the masons????
> I'm sure you can explain that, which appears to be a paradox (if not
> hypocrisy), in full...
If any one is a hypocrite its you.
I have stuck by my traditional catholic faith while the modernists are
destroying the chuch. You say the church cant tell you what to do and you
will continue to be a catholic and a mason.
And you say I am a hypocrite?????????
Moe
>
> Daniel
Daniel Höhr
childish, because it doesn't suit either of us.
Moe Bush <moe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
> So when a traditionalist looks at the "new order" church one sees a
church
> in schism. The modernists see the same thing. And the accusations go on
and
> on both ways. Reality is its somewhere in between. Except the traditional
> church hasnt changed from the way things were done before Vatican II.
ACK. Okay, I'm getting your drift and I do respect the traditionalists'
point of view. The truth (you said "reality") is somewhere in between.
Yet can you answer me one question (and I'm really asking you because I
don't know): what is the traditionalists' approach to the 1983 CIC and to
what extend do traditionalist Catholics accept decisions made by the
present pope and the Congregation for the Doctrine the Faith?
<snipped again for brevity>
> I have taken the time to explain this to you, but I dont think you will
> ever understand what I just wrote here.
Yes, Moe, believe it or not, I have. And I'm grateful you explained this
to me. I think I have learnt a bit and I can understand you better now. I
shall abstain from attacks against SSPX or personal attacks on you, but I
would like to ask you to do the same for me. We've been extremely angry
with each other and I don't like that. Peace?
> You as a mason cant be catholic at the same time. Its not possible.
> The church says you have been excommunicated. Theres no gray area here
> Daniel. Even before Vatican II the rules were the same and they still
exist
> today in modern form.
Hang on, before we start the whole thing over and over again, it is true
that a Catholic can't be a mason (I've never said I was a Catholic), it
is true that under the 1983 CIC (according to the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith), Catholics can't be Masons, but the penalty is not
excommunication. Church Law (as it is now, and that's why I asked whether
traditiona Catholics accept it) makes a difference between not being
allowed gto approach Communion and excommunication.
<snipped because we're moving in circles>
> If any one is a hypocrite its you.
> I have stuck by my traditional catholic faith while the modernists are
> destroying the chuch. You say the church cant tell you what to do and you
> will continue to be a catholic and a mason.
Hey, I've never said I'm a Catholic.
Okay Moe, we know each other's points of view now and one again I thank
you for taking the time to explain all this. Much appreciated and I'm
sure we can avoid getting personal in the future.
Daniel