Coat of Arms for Freemasons Satanic?
kingfernidad
Note figures have red fur and cloven hooves along with wings. The
overall picture would appear at first to represent angels but then
what angels have you ever seen with cloven hooves and red fur. Also
very important to note... most depictions of angels include arms and
hands. These creatures do not possess arms or hands so we can only
conclude that they are some form of lesser angel or more probably
devils.
Jesus emphatically declared in John 3: 18-19 that the basis for
deciding one's eternal destiny is whether they accept Jesus, the Light
of the world. Good character and good works can exist in a person who
is not saved. Jesus said; "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no
man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Freemasonry has "missed" or
replaced entirely the most important part of the above statements.
Catholics are NOT free to become Freemasons
Why? Because of its Religion nature and masons worship false idols
Taken from http://bibleprobe.com/freemasonry.htm
Greg
You’re perspective is typical of the anti-masonic view that is popular
among the Southern Baptists sect. The cherubs as in this case are
known as guardians of God’s throne (Ezekiel 1:5-14, 28:12). They are
also sent to guard Eden after the expulsion of Adam and Eve (Genesis
24). How they appear in a drawing is up to the artist who drew them.
The motto translates as “Holiness to the Lord”. The Bible is full of
strange creatures; I suggest you re-read Revelations…
This business of a 33rd degree freemason is also absurd. That is an
honorary degree given for service rendered to a Scottish Rite body,
which is a concordant body and has nothing to do with Blue Lodge
masonry: there is no hierarchy and nothing higher than a 3rd degree.
A Grand Master is an elected administrator.The only thing freemasnory
misses is fighting of religious sects and “who best knows God”.
Freemasons were and are free thinkers as well, and thus as a group
were not controlled by the Pope and because of the importance of the
craft to building, the freemasons are not beholden to anybody. Adolph
Hitler also suppressed freemasonry, and we know what his motivations
were.
The trouble that anti-masons have is that they can find no logical
threat from freemasonry: a man’s mind is his own. Kings and princes
and statesmen throughout the world joined freemasonry to satisfy their
own curiosities and remained faithful to the fraternity for the rest
of their lives; because they took the time to learn what is, not waste
time on what is at the very best – speculations. These people who
claim to be or have been masons and go along with the nonsense are
those who have had a political falling out of sorts with other members
and thereby choose to act out in some sort of revenge that doesn’t add
up to anything.
Joseph McMillan
>
> You’re perspective is typical of the anti-masonic view that is popular
> among the Southern Baptists sect.
Rather more popular among the Roman Catholic "sect." While some
Southern Baptist preachers have had bees in their bonnets about the
Masons in recent years, a great many leaders in the Southern Baptist
Church are and have been Masons. Including my own maternal
grandfather, two great-great-grandfathers, a great-great-great-
grandfather, and at least two 3xgreat uncles on my father's side, all
of whom were Southern Baptist deacons, one an ordained minister.
Joseph McMillan
StephenP
>
> Rather more popular among the Roman Catholic "sect."
>
Joseph
I must confess to being somewhat disappointed by that comment of
yours. I had thought you were better than that.
Regards
Stephen
Joseph McMillan
would not seriously describe the Roman Catholic Church a sect.
However, I had expected that my use of quotation marks around the word
would have made clear that my purpose was only to convey that its use
is equally inappropriate in reference to the 16,000,000 or so members
of churches affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention (of whom,
I should add, I am not one).
As for the substance rather than the terminology, I think one must
deduce from the opening paragraph of "Humanum Genus" that the Roman
Catholic Church does indeed see Freemasonry as being of Satanic
inspiration. Leo XIII says as much, describing it as part of "the
kingdom of Satan, in whose possession and control are all whosoever
follow the fatal example of their leader and of our first parents,
those who refuse to obey the divine and eternal law, and who have many
aims of their own in contempt of God, and many aims also against God."
Southern Baptist official statements on this subject are more moderate
in tone (as, in fairness, are the more recent Catholic official
statements). For those who care, the official Baptist positions can
be found at http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/faqs.asp#19 and the pages
linked therefrom.
So I think that it is quite fair to say that the anti-masonic views of
the Roman Catholic Church are closer to those expressed in initial
post than are the anti-masonic views of Southern Baptists. But I
would insist that neither Catholics nor Baptists should be referring
to the other as "sects."
Joseph McMillan
Greg
> linked therefrom.
>
> So I think that it is quite fair to say that the anti-masonic views of
> the Roman Catholic Church are closer to those expressed in initial
> post than are the anti-masonic views of Southern Baptists. But I
> would insist that neither Catholics nor Baptists should be referring
> to the other as "sects."
>
> Joseph McMillan
The Catholic view, although unfortunate, is derived from an ignorance
as well. There are many - many - many masons who are Catholics
(particulalry in the Philippines, Mexico etc). Masons were and have
always been known as free thinkers. The traveling allowed very early
masons to experience many different views at a time when traveling was
all but forbidden. As a result the craft lodges began to operate as
seperate units from either king or church. Kings for their part,
rather than be insulted, joined. But because of masonry's spiritual
implications, the Church, unable to control or stop it chose rather to
condem it. Protestants however embraced it and do to this day. The
"Holy Rollers" as they are known in the states condem it because of
their 'literalists' views on all things spritual that spirit being
Jesus alone - full stop. The assertions lent by the Southern Baptist
(sect) have no authority whatsoever from which they derive their -
opinions and the arguments they put forward are at best exagerations
of (speculations) on their part. Freemasonry does not engage in
religion or politics for this very reason. It is masonry's -
objectivity - that serves as one method for such a long world wide
history.
StephenP
> So I think that it is quite fair to say that the anti-masonic views of
> the Roman Catholic Church are closer to those expressed in initial
> post than are the anti-masonic views of Southern Baptists. But I
> would insist that neither Catholics nor Baptists should be referring
> to the other as "sects."
>
> Joseph McMillan
Joseph
Sect or "sect" can be seen as a disparaging description, especially
when used by those of a Jack Chick mentality.
Freemasonry is also viewed with some suspicion in some non religious
circles. My limited understanding of the matter is that the European
Freemasonry has been very anti-clerical and anti the Roman Catholic
Church in particular. Freemasonry from the British "tradition" is not/
was not anti-clerical. However, the UK being a Protestant nation it
probably did not really enter the Catholic consciousness when
contemplating Freemasonry.
Yours aye
Stephen
Nathaniel Taylor
<10f2bb0d-c641-470e...@e17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
StephenP <plo...@uk2.net> wrote:
> Sect or "sect" can be seen as a disparaging description, especially
> when used by those of a Jack Chick mentality.
Right. Apparently you simply missed that Joseph used it in quotation
marks to point out the inappropriateness of its original use by Greg.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
StephenP
>
> Right. Apparently you simply missed that Joseph used it in quotation
> marks to point out the inappropriateness of its original use by Greg.
>
> Nat Taylor
I probably did.
Joseph McMillan
> The > "Holy Rollers" as they are known in the states condem it because of
> their 'literalists' views on all things spritual that spirit being
> Jesus alone - full stop. The assertions lent by the Southern Baptist
> (sect) have no authority whatsoever from which they derive their -
> opinions and the arguments they put forward are at best exagerations
> of (speculations) on their part.
Greg: Your apparent identification of "Holy Rollers" with Southern
Baptists suggests that you know no more about this than any other
subject you regularly babble about in this group.
Joseph McMillan
Greg
Dear Jack,
You obviously don't grasp the meaning of the word "sect" or its
application particularly in this sense: a subdivision with a narrow
purpose. In this case; punitive literalism. It has nothing to do
with Catholicism in the broader sense.
Don't just look at the pictures - read the book.
Greg
And I was told you were a nice guy: guess not... And by the way Joe:
your "clan" boasts a connection to MacGibbon. Do you think you can
clarify that?
I can tell by looking at these above replys that not one of you knows
what your talking about, so you've decided to Troll. (at least I
attempt to ask questions and gain - something). Its' very typical of
the mentality that haunts this forum: a "sect" in the strictist sense
of the word no doubt; a sort of "Holy Rollers" amongst yourselves.
You behave in the same fassion, and this is what people say about this
forum and why many avoid it.
Anyone who doesn't speak "in tounge" obviously is incapable of
grasping any of the issues. There are what? about a dozen people who
use this room? What does that really say?
And Nat, you a Ph.D... Joseph's use of the word in his original reply
was just fine, placing it in italics was the proper way of
illustrationg the point, that is until Jack put down his crayon and
decided that he or somebody in wayward Balognia might be offended.
The thing I like best about this forum is that you guys eventually
make my case for me... in every instance.
Thanks again
Joseph McMillan
>
> And I was told you were a nice guy: guess not...
Oh, I can be a very nice guy, up to a point. In this case, up to the
point at which someone insults about 2/3 of the people from my home
state, including a good chunk of my family, and then doesn't have the
good sense to retract the insult when it is pointed out to him. I
don't feel any obligation to be a "nice guy" to someone who is
intentionally offensive.
> And by the way Joe:
> your "clan" boasts a connection to MacGibbon. Do you think you can
> clarify that?
No, I'm afraid not. I was unaware of any supposed connection, but if
anyone actually has pointed one out, I'm sure it was more in the
nature of a confession than a boast.
Joseph McMillan
Greg
Well Joey, here's some information for you. You guys always like to
post
supportive material....
Again, since you don't know what you're talking about and
you can't see that I have in no way intentionally insulted any
religion: which on my worst day, I would never do, I merely pointed
out the behavior of a (sect) within a demonination that is well known
for extemely prejudicail views: this sect is militant and quite on par
with other histroical suppressive movements. My wife is Babtist!!
You must clearly grasp the concept of teh meaning of the word...
You crack me up Joe. Because you can't defend your posistion, you
resort to playing the part of the victim. READ READ READ and then
speak!
http://www.masonicinfo.com/people.htm
So here brain: http://www.clanmacmillan.org/MacGibbons.html
I'll let you and the phhhhd and Jack chew on this for while.
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here's also a little something taken form this site:
http://home.golden.net/~djjcameron/13.2.htm#_Toc29777012
Southern Baptist Convention News Release
Quote:
(The following remarks are from the S.B.C. news release after the vote
on “Freemasonry” on June 16, 1993)
"Houston, June 16- Southern Baptist Convention messengers
overwhelmingly approved a Home Mission Board recommendation that
Masonic lodge membership be a matter of private choice.
The recommendation, approved June 16th by the SBC, in Houston is part
of a four page report, requested during last year’s SBC in
Indianapolis.
The report states, “may tenets and teachings” of Freemasonry are not
compatible with Christianity and Southern Baptist doctrine while
others are compatible.
We, therefore recommend that, consistent with our denominations deep
convictions regarding the priesthood of the believer and the autonomy
of the local church, membership in a Masonic Order be a matter of
personal conscience”.
Messengers rejected an amendment, proposed by M.G. “Dan” Daniels of
Cottage Hill Baptist Church in Mobile Al. The amendment would have
moved the recommendation and called Masonic teachings a “mixture of
paganism and Christianity”
Brad Allen, chairman of the directors of the Home Mission Board,
opposed the amendment , saying it would “strike two of the dearest
things to the Baptist heart” the priesthood of the believer and the
autonomy of the local church.
If we cannot trust the soul competence of the believer in Jesus Christ
to do the right thing, we’re sunk” said pastor Allen of the First
Baptist church of Duncan Okla.
Home Mission Board President Larry L. Lewis thanked messengers for
their support of what he called an “accurate, fair report and
recommendation that I believe most Baptists would want to live with”
I don’t think most Baptists wants us to condemn Freemasonry” he said,
adding that he estimated SBC messengers support for the HMB report to
be 75 - 80 percent on the vote. “We don’t win people to Christ by
condemning them.”
In a press conference after the vote, Lewis said he recognizes the
importance of the issue among some Southern Baptists. He questioned
however, whether the matter warranted the $111,000 price tag for the
study by the board’s interfaith witness department.
With the world all around us lost and going to hell, I’m not sure that
the large expenditure of time and resources on this issue were
justified” he said, “it did cost more than any other study we’ve done”
Noticeably absent from the debate was Larry Holly, the Beaumont Texas
physician who last year requested a study of the compatibility of
Freemasonry with Christian and Southern Baptist teachings. The author
of two books on the subject, Holly also appeared before the HMB study
committee during its research on the matter.
Lewis said he hopes the study and report will satisfy most messengers
so Southern Baptists can focus on planting churches and evangelism."
This is just the tip of the iceberg on the subject, but it clear that
my warrat is supported by the Suthern Babtists themselves.
Joseph McMillan
>
> This is just the tip of the iceberg on the subject, but it clear that
> my warrat is supported by the Suthern Babtists themselves
The mind boggles. Are you totally incapable of reading what is put in
front of you, or are you so confused when you encounter correct
spelling that you can't process the information provided? If you had
bothered to follow the link I gave you to the authoritative Southern
Baptist statements on this subject, you would have found exactly the
document you just quoted, which shows that the Southern Baptist
position on Freemasonry is not the way you characterized it in your
first post in this thread, but rather exactly as I characterized in in
reply.
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Correction: the last line of my above post should read:
"This is just the tip of the iceberg on the subject, but it is clear
that
my warrant is supported by the Southern Baptists themselves."
I freely admit to this egregious error, and humbly implore your pardon.
Greg
I suggest that you read it again Joe. The SBs are clearly backing
away form what is an issue concerning members of their denomination. I
used a completely different URL to show this. Yes, your mind does
boggle sometimes. Neither of the three of you however have disputed my
argument and I find it rather interesting that when put on the other
side of the knowledge curve you back away so quickly. Here again,
from your own supplied URL under the heading: "What is the SBCs stance
on Freemasonry?"
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=328
Joe: there are 38 different URLs and links on the page you
provided,which one is the one to read Joe? I just gave you one that
contradicts your entire position form your own source!
Joe, Joe..., if you are going to argue from fact present your material
in a digestible format, otherwise your position appears confused: 38
different opinions, and only one concerned with the topic at hand.
Thats' bad presentation.
georg...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Greg,
The view of most Christian churches (including Catholic and Southern
Baptist) on freemasonry would be straightforward, not based on
ignorance as you suggest but on a solid foundation - some of the
tenets of freemasonry are simply not compatible with Christian
beliefs. Catholic guidance has historically prohibited and to this day
discouraged participation in freemasonry. Notwithstanding this there
are of course Catholics who choose to join masonic groups. The basis
of Catholic concern is not in historical anti-clericalism or anti-
Catholicism in some masonic groups but rather theological and
pastoral.
I respect the choice of individuals to belong to whatever clubs or
societies they wish and have no quarrel with your membership in such
groups but I deeply resent some of your disparaging language related
to Christian churches. It would be best if you simply apologized and
let this unfortunate thread come to an end.
George Lucki
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hello George,
Again, I have meant no disrespect to any religion. The sects within
orgainzed religions (a sect, not THE sect) particulalry those within
the Southern Baptists, as I have shown, probigate a very insulting
diabolical view based on wild speculations. George, there are no
foundations of supportive evidence wherewith these groups can back up
there assertions, and that's all they are; assertions. None George.
Yet, as is par, rather than ask for a clarification or proceed with a
question, this rec group begins with ad hominem.
Yes the Vatican discourages membership in Freemasonry, such that
masonry is supressed in Italy, but flourishes none the less: don't ask
don't tell... Why is that? But the question is why is it supressed
and (hated) by these American zealots? That is the key question to
this debate. Freemasonry has been labeled some sort of reilgion that
is in some way counter to Christian practice, and this is at best a
fallacy. And no one has been able to offer any evidence contrary to
my supported satements on the issue.
George, I very respectfully disagree. I have proven my case, the web
and any bookstore is full of this sort of thing, and for it to be
challenged is not an insult to anybody. As is known, I never
intentionally engage in trying to insult anybody, I do respond; with
sarcasim, but the record will clearly indicate that I have a very even
temperment. What happens is that some of these forumeers don't much
care for a straightforward challenge, or they don't like to be pinned,
and they fall back on personalizing.
I have asked, and will again, that evidence be produced to support
these claims, but none is ever forthcoming.
It's not the religions, it never was. It's elements within the
religions that are the topic.
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here is a rather popular website that supports my statements on the
issue. Those interested will find it very revealing.
http://www.masonicinfo.com/people.htm
georg...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Greg,
It is hard to get through to you.
Freemasonry is incompatible with Christianity. So say the Catholic
Church, the Orthodox Church and a number of Protestant Churches. It is
not zealots withion these great Churches it is the Churches themselves
that say so.
This takes nothing away from pro-Christian freemasons or lodges.
The beliefs and rituals of freemasonry are simply incompatible with
the beliefs of major Christian churches. See the following clear
statement (by the current Pope) from 1983. (It represents a softening
of the Leonine position which excommunicated Catholics who joined
freemasonry). Following this I've appended a very thoughtful letter by
the current Pope (then head of the Sacred Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith) about what is irreconcilable between
Catholicism and Freemasonry. I think it would be possible to go
further ritual by ritual and premise by premise and point out the
incompatibilities with Christian beliefs but I am respectful of your
requirement to keep some things secret (even though they are easy to
learn in any good library) and this would make it a one-sided
discussion.
Freemasons are generally people of good will and fine members of their
communities. They have simply, which is their choice, joined a club or
fraternity whose beliefs are not compatible with Christian beliefs. I
for one would be more comfortable if Freemasonry were more upfront
about this. I think that lodges unfortunately draw in individuals who
are not clear enough about the incompatibilities between their
religion and their club and who participate naively thinking these
things can somehow be reconciled. There are of course Freemasons who
know the craft well enough that they would seem to have an obligation
to clearly state to fellow members that Freemasonry actually implies a
clear and outright rejection of the creeds of Churches their members
belong to. That way Freemasons can make an informed choice of
conscience. It is as simple as that.
George Lucki
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
DECLARATION ON MASONIC ASSOCIATIONS
It has been asked whether there has been any change in the Church's
decision in regard to Masonic associations since the new Code of Canon
Law does not mention them expressly, unlike the previous Code.
This Sacred Congregation is in a position to reply that this
circumstance in due to an editorial criterion which was followed also
in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as
they are contained in wider categories.
Therefore the Church's negative judgment in regard to Masonic
association remains unchanged since their principles have always been
considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and
therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enrol
in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not
receive Holy Communion.
It is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to
give a judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which would
imply a derogation from what has been decided above, and this in line
with the Declaration of this Sacred Congregation issued on 17 February
1981 (cf. AAS 73 1981 pp. 240-241; English language edition of
L'Osservatore Romano, 9 March 1981).
In an audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, the
Supreme Pontiff John Paul II approved and ordered the publication of
this Declaration which had been decided in an ordinary meeting of this
Sacred Congregation.
Rome, from the Office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith, 26 November 1983.
Joseph Card. RATZINGER
Prefect
+ Fr. Jerome Hamer, O.P.
Titular Archbishop of Lorium
Secretary
===================
REFLECTIONS A YEAR AFTER DECLARATION
OF CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Irreconcilability between Christian faith and Freemasonry
On 26 November 1983 the S. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
(S.C.D.F.) published a declaration on Masonic associations (cf. AAS
LXXVI [1984], 300). At a distance of little more than a year from its
publication, it may be useful to outline briefly the significance of
this document.
Since the Church began to declare her mind concerning Freemasonry, her
negative judgment has been inspired by many reasons, both practical
and doctrinal. She judged Freemasonry not merely responsible for
subversive activity in her regard, but from the earliest pontifical
documents on the subject and in particular in the Encyclical Humanum
Genus by Leo XIII (20 April 1884), the Magisterium of the Church has
denounced in Freemasonry philosophical ideas and moral conceptions
opposed to Catholic doctrine. For Leo XIII, they essentially led back
to a rationalistic naturalism, the inspiration of its plans and
activities against the Church. In his Letter to the Italian people
Custodi (8 December 1892), he wrote: <<Let us remember that
Christianity and Freemasonry are essentially irreconcilable, so that
enrolment in one means separation from the other>>.
One could not therefore omit to take into consideration the positions
of Freemasonry from the doctrinal point of view, when, during the
years from 1970-1980, the Sacred Congregation was in correspondence
with some Episcopal Conferences especially interested in this problem
because of the dialogue undertaken by some Catholic personages with
representatives of some Masonic lodges which declared that they were
not hostile, but were even favourable, to the Church.
Now more thorough study has led the S.C.D.F. to confirm its conviction
of the basic irreconcilability between the principles of Freemasonry
and those of the Christian faith.
Prescinding therefore from consideration of the practical attitude of
the various lodges, whether of hostility towards the Church or not,
with its declaration of 26 November 1983 the S.C.D.F. intended to take
a position on the most profound and, for that matter, the most
essential part of the problem: that is, on the level of the
irreconcilability of the principles, which means on the level of the
faith, and its moral requirements.
Beginning from this doctrinal point of view, and in continuity,
moreover, with the traditional position of the Church as the
aforementioned documents of Leo XIII attest, there arise then the
necessary practical consequences, which are valid for all those
faithful who may possibly be members of Freemasonry.
Nevertheless, with regard to the affirmation of the irreconcilability
between the principles of Freemasonry and the Catholic faith, from
some parts are now heard the objection that essential to Freemasonry
would be precisely the fact that it does not impose any <<principles>>,
in the sense of a philosophical or religious position which is binding
for all of its members, but rather that it gathers together, beyond
the limits of the various religions and world views, men of good will
on the basis of humanistic values comprehensible and acceptable to
everyone.
Freemasonry would constitute a cohesive element for all those who
believe in the Architect of the Universe and who feel committed with
regard to those fundamental moral orientations which are defined, for
example, in the Decalogue; it would not separate anyone from his
religion, but on the contrary, would constitute an incentive to
embrace that religion more strongly.
The multiple historical and philosophical problems which are hidden in
these affirmations cannot be discussed here. It is certainly not
necessary to emphasize that following the Second Vatican Council the
Catholic Church too is pressing in the direction of collaboration
between all men of good will. Nevertheless, becoming a member of
Freemasonry decidedly exceeds this legitimate collaboration and has a
much more important and final significance than this.
Above all, it must be remembered that the community of <<Freemasons>>
and its moral obligations are presented as a progressive system of
symbols of an extremely binding nature. The rigid rule of secrecy
which prevails there further strengthens the weight of the interaction
of signs and ideas. For the members this climate of secrecy entails
above all the risk of becoming an instrument of strategies unknown to
them.
Even if it is stated that relativism is not assumed as dogma,
nevertheless there is really proposed a relativistic symbolic concept
and therefore the relativizing value of such a moral-ritual community,
far from being eliminated, proves on the contrary to be decisive.
In this context the various religious communities to which the
individual members of the lodges belong can be considered only as
simple institutionalizations of a broader and elusive truth. The value
of these institutionalizations therefore appears to be inevitably
relative with respect to this broader truth, which instead is shown in
the community of good will, that is, in the Masonic fraternity.
In any case, for a Catholic Christian, it is not possible to live his
relation with God in a twofold mode, that is, dividing it into a
supraconfessional humanitarian form and an interior Christian form. He
cannot cultivate relations of two types with God, nor express his
relation with the Creator through symbolic forms of two types. That
would be something completely different from that collaboration, which
to him is obvious, with all those who are committed to doing good,
even if beginning from different principles. On the one hand, a
Catholic Christian cannot at the same time share in the full communion
of Christian brotherhood and, on the other, look upon his Christian
brother, from the Masonic perspective, as an <<outsider>>.
Even when, as stated earlier, there were no explicit obligation to
profess relativism as doctrine, nevertheless the relativizing force of
such a brotherhood, by its very intrinsic logic, has the capacity to
transform the structure of the act of faith in such a radical way as
to become unacceptable to a Christian, <<to whom his faith is
dear>> (Leo XIII).
Moreover, this distortion of the fundamental structure of the act of
faith is carried out for the most part in a gentle way and without
being noticed: firm adherence to the truth of God, revealed in the
Church, becomes simple membership, in an institution, considered as a
particular expressive form alongside other expressive forms, more or
less just as possible and valid, of man's turning toward the eternal.
The temptation to go in this direction is much stronger today,
inasmuch as it corresponds fully to certain convictions prevalent in
contemporary mentality. The opinion that truth cannot be known is a
typical characteristic of our era and, at the same time, an essential
element in its general crisis.
Precisely by considering all these elements, the Declaration of the
Sacred Congregation affirms that membership in Masonic associations
<<remains forbidden by the Church>>, and the faithful who enrolls in
them <<are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion>>.
With this last statement, the Sacred Congregation points out to the
faithful that this membership objectively constitutes a grave sin and
by specifying that the members of a Masonic association may not
receive Holy Communion, it intends to enlighten the conscience of the
faithful about a grave consequence which must derive from their
belonging to a Masonic lodge.
Finally, the Sacred Congregation declares that <<it is not within the
competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to give a judgment on
the nature of Masonic associations which would imply a derogation from
what has been decided above>>. In this regard, the text also refers to
the Declaration of 17 February 1981, which already reserved to the
Apostolic See all pronouncements on the nature of these associations
which may have implied derogations from the Canon Law then in force
(Can. 2335). In the same way, the new document issued by the S.C.D.F.
in November 1983 expresses identical intentions of reserve concerning
pronouncements which would differ from the judgment expressed here on
the irreconcilability of Masonic principles with the Catholic faith,
on the gravity of the act of joining a lodge and on the consequences
which arise from it for receiving Holy Communion. This disposition
points out that, despite the diversity which may exist among Masonic
obediences, in particular in their declared attitude towards the
Church, the Apostolic See discerns some common principles in them
which require the same evaluation by all ecclesiastical authorities.
In making this Declaration, the S.C.D.F. has not intended to disown
the efforts made by those who, with the due authorization of this
Congregation, have sought to establish a dialogue with representatives
of Freemasonry. But since there was the possibility of spreading among
the faithful the erroneous opinion that membership in a Masonic lodge
was lawful, it felt that it was its duty to make known to them the
authentic thought of the Church in this regard and to warn them about
a membership incompatible with the Catholic faith.
Only Jesus Christ is, in fact, the Teacher of Truth, and only in him
can Christians find the light and the strength to live according to
God's plan, working for the true good of their brethren.
[Article from L'Osservatore Romano dated March 11, 1985]
Greg
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, George. I agree with you that the Churches see a divide of
compatibility. However that devide is never made clear.
The letter you provide says in part: "She judged Freemasonry not
merely responsible for subversive activity in her regard.." (with
respect to the Chruch).
and: "the Church has denounced in Freemasonry philosophical ideas and
moral conceptions opposed to Catholic doctrine.
I looked into Encyclical Humanum Genus by Leo XIII and found it
interesting: http://www.trosch.org/bks/freemaso.htm
And - very briefly, for the sake of discussion; it makes this
statement:
"The race of man...... separated into two diverse and opposite
parts.... The one is the kingdom of God on earth, namely, the true
Church of Jesus Christ.... The other is the kingdom of Satan...."
I placed the link for those interested in the treatise.
To name anybody else as a particpant in some sort of satanic "rituals"
is exactly the point. Freemasonry has been since the 19th century,
dragged into some sort (religion), which is not, and that by its very
nature is subversive (Pope Leo's word) to the teachings and practices
of The Church.
This confounds rationale: look again at the headline post to this
thread.
This entire argument supposes that Freemasonry acts with some sort of
intent to circumvent any church. Yet time and again, there are no
proofs offered to explain this assertion.
George, I'm seriously not trying to be hard-headed about this. I
truely wish to understand your position. But based on [opinions] from
an authority without supportive evidence, other than "The Word" of
that authority: being the Pope, the entire argument is that of ad
vercundiam.