I'm curious if any Roman Catholic think there are members of Propaganda Due among their ranks. There were two Freemasons as Patriarchs of Constantinople (both pushed hard to liberalize the Church), and we feel just like you do about Freemasonry (automatic excommunication); the only reason we found out is because the Freemasons straight said, "These guys were Masons." So I'm just curious if that could have happened with Rome. I mean, the "Vatican's Banker" was a member of Propaganda Due, so I don't think it's out of the question, they're probably just a lot more cautious than the Freemason branch in Greece.
You see these three letters? They literally say Baal in Hebrew.
"Masonry, around whose altars the Christian, the Hebrew, the Moslem, the Brahmin, the followers of Confucius and Zoroaster, can assemble as brethren and unite in prayer to the one God who is above all the Baalim, must needs leave it to each of its Initiates to look for the foundation of his faith and hope to the written scriptures of his own religion. For itself it finds those truths definite enough, which are written by the finger of God upon the heart of man and on the pages of the book of nature. Views of religion and duty, wrought out by the meditations of the studious, confirmed by the allegiance of the good and wise, stamped as sterling by the response they find in every uncorrupted mind, commend themselves to Masons of every creed, and may well be accepted by all."
setting aside conspiracy theories about demon worship,you realise that's strictly forbidden by your Church(and most old-school Christendom, for that matter, sans Church of Scotland), right?
>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.
>I'm curious if any Roman Catholic think there are members of Propaganda Due among their ranks. There were two Freemasons as Patriarchs of Constantinople (both pushed hard to liberalize the Church).
Constantine did you literally forget everything from the last big thread you had about the Masons?
Certain Christians hold that Masonry is a religion and as a religion it must have a "bible", Pike's book is the closet they can come to something like this which is why they latch onto it.
>the altar in Freemasonry is not merely a convenient article of furniture, intended, like a table, to hold a Bible. It is a sacred utensil of religion, intended, like the altars of the ancient temples, for religious uses, and thus identifying Freemasonry, by its necessary existence in our Lodges, as a religious institution. Its presence should also lead the contemplative Freemason to view the ceremonies in which it is employed with solemn reverence, as being part of a really religious worship.
Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry
>That is what it seems like. They're just imposing their needs and beliefs on it, rather than learning how it actually works. Odd, i say.
Not really, their hireachy states that it is bad and set on destroying them and they follow that.
>Masonry certainly has numerous symbols, each of which means something in the context of a larger philosophy. The symbols aren't meaningless.
Relgion goes beyond mere symbolism
>Relgion goes beyond mere symbolism
What the hell is this supposed to even mean? Religious truths are expressed heavily in symbols, since it's pretty hard to materially put God in a room.
So you could congregate in a building to collectivly worship a diety and that wouldnt be considered a religion as a long as they didnt call that building a temple or had a statue instead of an altar ?
>What the hell is this supposed to even mean?
Literally what the words state.
>Religious truths are expressed heavily in symbols, since it's pretty hard to materially put God in a room.
painters, novelists and moviemakers use symbolism. Goverments and secular states also make heavy use of symbolism but none of these are religions.
You seem to be under the false understanding that symbolism is limited soley to religious or devine issues.
>pretty hard to materially put God in a room.
Unless you are a christian because all a preist has to do is say a special prayer.
But in all seriousness God can be understood in far more ways that just symbolism in the same way you can paint more than one picture with oil paints
>painters, novelists and moviemakers use symbolism. Goverments and secular states also make heavy use of symbolism but none of these are religions.
And they are conveying something with them. You're trying to paint Masonry as having zero beliefs or philosophy at all by saying it has no "Bible". It has universal beliefs and philosophy expressed in its symbols.
Then yes, for they would be shrines and temples by another name.
The fact that they choose to embrace the actual meaning and not conceal it behind words point to a rather dogmatic approach
>And they are conveying something with them.
They are, and whats more they can do it for things outside of religion.
>You're trying to paint Masonry as having zero beliefs or philosophy at all by saying it has no "Bible".
Not at all, Im simply saying that it doesnt qualify as a religion. You can have philosophical beliefs wihtouth being a religion.
>You don't have to be a serial rapist to be a bad person, but being a serial rapist makes you a bad person.
Thats a false analogy, you stated the masons were a church because they called their buildings a temple and have a bench called an altar yet denying that me doing that in my own home would make it a religion.
In both instances I and the Masons carried out indentical practices yet only they were labled a religion.
Hence for you being a serial rapist makes you a bad person.except when it doesnt
>And when do philosophical beliefs turn into religious ones? Is it perhaps when they're dogmatically enforced?
When they cease being about the pursuit of truth.
>They have a statue and rituals but until they have a united theological dogma they aren't a religion, they're just a club of eccentrics.
What sperates principles of common belief with theological dogma?
>There is a universal Masonic requirement of belief in Deity, which is followed by all regular Grand Lodges of the world. As Entered Apprentices, receiving Light for the first time, Masons are cautioned that no Atheist may be made a Mason. Therefore, as soon as we become Entered Apprentices, we are warned not to submit known Atheists for candidacy for the Degrees. Upon being raised to the Sublime Degree of Master Mason, Brethren are later reminded not to proffer Atheists for membership as one group in a list of people whom may never be made Masons. As Macoy puts it, “Freemasonry accepts the idea of God, as a supreme fact, and bars its gates with inflexible sternness against those who deny his existence” (p. 156).
n-no dogmas guise
>Do you call the bench an alter and have special rites, symbols for some sort of deity, and a group of followers who participate?
So I can have all that and not be a religion as long as I do it by myself then?
>So without an alter or a temple, no religion?"
But those are the grounds on which you condem the Masons despite them not having any worship and the like
>So I can have all that and not be a religion as long as I do it by myself then?
Yeah. Religion, I think, is not something done on one's own. Try getting tax exemption doing that by yourself.
>But those are the grounds on which you condem the Masons despite them not having any worship and the like
>So then by that definition do the Gnostics not have a religion?
Not particularly as they purisit of truth takes place in a very narrow framework - ie within the confines of their dualism. If their pursuit leaves this then they cease to be gnostics unless you are talking about some other kind.
>Religions are not about pursuit of truth?
See the above, the confines they place regarding revealed truths and dogmas bar this. Religions start with the a conclusion then work their way backwards, hence why scared unalterable texts/oral testimonies are the backbone of thier systems in general
>Yeah. Religion, I think, is not something done on one's own. Try getting tax exemption doing that by yourself.
So I can go about sacrificing babies as long as I do it byself and get the government doesnt state on paper that I am a religion?
They have dogma because they believe dogma expresses the truth. Trying to distort or change it would be just be lying. This is what allows them to have things like non relativist morality.
You're not a religion, unless you're interfacing with the tradition of another religion. You're just one person. A one person religion makes about as much sense as a one person community.
>Like a belief in deity, which forbids you to pursue the truth together with atheists.
Masons dont discuss religion or set out to provide answers regarding matters of that sort as a religion does.
>They have dogma because they believe dogma expresses the truth.
Were that the case there would not be divine mysteries like the trinity which are forever beyond human reason or view points like pic related.
>You're not a religion, unless you're interfacing with the tradition of another religion. You're just one person. A one person religion makes about as much sense as a one person community.
I think it makes about as much sense as redefining a word like religion.
>But he's not suggesting Christ is outside the truth, just that his motive for following Christ is deeper than truth. To Dostoevsky, Christ is as true as 2 + 2 = 4
The issue is Jesus being true or not has zero meaning to him, its not even a question. Its akin to saying
"But Mao is not suggesting Communism is outside the truth, just that his motive for following the teachings of Marx and Engels is deeper than truth. To Mao, Communism is as true as 2 + 2 = 4
>Masons dont discuss religion
>November: We’re inviting a local Catholic priest, a rabbi from a local synagogue, and Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist clerics for an interfaith dialogue. This is a great way to show that Masonry is one of the places that men of different religious beliefs can gather and learn from one another.
W-we host interfaith diaolgue because we are secular and don't discuss religions like ever seriously guise
Freemasonry has enough of a bad reputation, we don't need further lies on the topic.
Doesn't sound like the Masons are discussing religion. Plus, they may not be proselytising or even talking about their religiosity, just theological comparisons, which everyone should learn from.
In the 1985, the U.S. Catholic Conference Bishops' Committee on Pastoral Research and Practices concluded in its Letter to U.S. Bishops Concerning Masonry that "the principles and basic rituals of Masonry embody a naturalistic religion, active participation in which is incompatible with Christian faith and practice."
On September 15, 2000, the Reverend Thomas Anslow, Judicial Vicar of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, wrote a letter to David Patterson, Executive Secretary of the Masonic Service Bureau of Los Angeles. In reply to the question "whether a practicing Catholic may join a Masonic Lodge" Father Anslow said that "at least for Catholics in the United States, I believe the answer is probably yes". This letter was publicly retracted by Father Anslow on February 12, 2002, with the explanation that his analysis was faulty. He said that Freemasonry fostered a "supraconfessional humanitarian" conception of the divine "that neutralizes or replaces the faith dimension of our relationship with God."
On March 1, 2007, Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, the regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary made a statement that membership in Masonic organisations "remains forbidden" to Catholics and called on priests who had declared themselves to be Freemasons to be disciplined by their direct superiors. It was in reaction to the declaration that the 85-year-old priest Rosario Francesco Esposito had declared himself a Freemason even though he was once commissioned by the Church to study the Church’s teaching on masonry.
As you can see there is a constant failure of inserting directly in the Code of Canon Law the ban of masonry, at most you get declarations of unclear legal status, a need to reiterate that masonry is banned over and over and over again throughout the recent history of the Church, and a constant attempt to infiltrate her ranks by masons.
Only according to a Papist Catholic. Plenty of Catholics disagree, and more so, other religions disagree.
And a "damnable abomination"? What does that make the Vatican, hive of pederasty and corruption?
>You don't hear Hindu's with such a victim complex like this.
t. someone who never talks to Indians
Brings up an interesting topic, do we become members of a group by declaration, or by behavior.
If I say I am a Catholic but never do the rituals?
What if I say I am not a Catholic but do all the rituals?
Universalize this to any label or indeed any quality.
They accept the faith all well and good. Mary and idol worshiping heretics. But they have found that the Vatican was wrong about Masonry.
In fact, the Holy See's argument was mostly feels, since it sure as hell wasn't based on fact.