A couple of quick rejoinders and a thank you:
>except that one thing that all Freemasons will agree to is that Freemasonry is neither a religion
There’s lots of quotes we’ve seen from Freemasons that contradict this. I know it’s changed, but still, “all” is a bit too broad, unless it’s “all since 19__” and even then maybe not completely accurate.
>the Masons took a bunch of rocks and shaped and carved them into beautifully-architected Cathedrals..
I think masonry today is quite removed from the trade guilds of the past. I believe speculative masons entered in the 1600s or so, So it’s no longer a trade guild, quite different; I’m not sure the connection to the Cathedral builders is valid. Now a comparison to “trade secrets” may be, but it’s quite a different “trade” involved.
>Freemasonry is more than a clinical assessment of who we are and why we are: it also encompasses and incorporates the truly ennobling aspirations of the human spirit, such as Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth — all of which are also, coincidentally, part-and-parcel of most decent world religions (including and perhaps especially Catholicism, and certainly excluding Militant Islam).
Which is why it can be classed as a “religion” by some definitions.
>As to the Indifferentism, I guess it espouses Indifferentism to the same degree as, say, the US Military espouses Indifferentism or the local Businessman’s Club
These allow atheists and they don’t teach indifferentism, they are indifferent to religion. There’s a difference. :)
It’s back again to whether masonry is a religion or religious teaching.
>Perhaps for some Freemasons it can become a “religion” in the same way that Alcoholics Anonymous can become a de-facto “religion” for a recovering alcoholic.
Not a good comparison if masonry is not a religion. AA freely admits that it is a spiritual program and a set of spiritual tools. It’s steps are quite similar to Catholicism, and the Orthodox movement, AA’s predecessor, is Anglican and very much self-admittedly religion.
And finally, the thank you. Thank you for engaging in honest and courteous discussion with me here.
best regards..
> There’s lots of quotes we’ve seen from Freemasons that contradict this. I know it’s changed, but still, “all” is a bit too broad, unless it’s “all since 19__” and even then maybe not completely accurate.
If some Freemasons view it as their religion, I guess it’s their right. It was and is certainly never intended to be a religion. Here is what the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) has to say on the matter:
> Basic Statement
>
> Freemasonry is not a religion, nor is it a substitute for religion. It demands of its members a belief in a Supreme Being but provides no system of faith of its own.
>
> Freemasonry is open to men of all religious faiths. The discussion of religion at its meetings is forbidden.
Their website is here: http://www.ugle.org.uk/masonry/freemasonry-and-religion.htm
UGLE is where modern Freemasonry finds its roots, and if there were to be an “authoritative” voice in Freemasonry, UGLE is it... (remember I DID say that we have no central authority like the Pope. That still holds true here).
> I think masonry today is quite removed from the trade guilds of the past. I believe speculative masons entered in the 1600s or so, So it’s no longer a trade guild, quite different; I’m not sure the connection to the Cathedral builders is valid. Now a comparison to “trade secrets” may be, but it’s quite a different “trade” involved.
Speculative Masonry has uplifted Operative Masonry philosophy and lessons, and applied them to building the human character, allegorically. We are not a “trade guild” anymore (altho’ we do have close Amity with many “Operative” mason lodges even today) but we do practise and celebrate their traditions.
> Which is why it can be classed as a “religion” by some definitions.
Insofar as, say, the US Marines build good Citizens from raw material, and insofar as, say, the Guardian Angels (which I also belong go) make good Citizens out of raw material, I guess if you were to really stretch a definition of “religion” to its breaking strain-point, just perhaps “religion” fits. Freemasons are as religious as Marines, or as Guardian Angels. Once a Marine, always a Marine. Once a Guardian Angel, always a Guardian Angel. And once a Freemason, always a Freemason.
Actually, now that I think about it, this is an excellent analogy: it fits perfectly.
> These allow atheists and they don’t teach indifferentism, they are indifferent to religion. There’s a difference. :)
We don’t allow athiests. No belief in God = no admittance into Freemasonry. Belief in God is an absolute requirement that is never, ever waived. Never.
> It’s back again to whether masonry is a religion or religious teaching.
In all honesty it is neither. It is a Self-Improvement club if it is anything. But definitely, definitely not a Religion.
> Not a good comparison if masonry is not a religion. AA freely admits that it is a spiritual program and a set of spiritual tools. It’s steps are quite similar to Catholicism, and the Orthodox movement, AA’s predecessor, is Anglican and very much self-admittedly religion.
It’s actually a fairly good comparison, insofar as our members are Anonymous if they want to be, and that we do, indeed, provide spiritual support for the individual, and insofar as we do provide a framework for our members to self-improve.
Aside from that? Well, no — it has no resemblance to a religion. None. Some of our members may substitute Freemasonry for a religion in their lives — that is fine, that is their business — but we really don’t seek to have that role, and indeed we don’t provide many of the essentials that a proper religion would otherwise provide. We are just there to make good men into better men, that’s all.
I think it timely to introduce you to a new concept, which is “Regular” Freemasonry versus “Irregular” Freemasonry — a split-off group.
Most of the objectionable things you may have heard about Freemasonry finds its origins with “Irregular” Freemasonry. They are not “in Amity” with Freemasons such as myself, or “uglybiker” or “MeanWestTexan” or George Washington or Winston Churchill or Benjamin Franklin.
“Regular Freemasonry” is “In Amity” with the United Grand Lodge of England — where modern Freemasonry ultimately started. “Irregular Freemasonry” is everybody else who claims to be Freemasons but who are not. These would include the so-called “Co-Freemasons” (allows female members) and more especially the lodges that are in amity with “The Grand Orient of France”.
The Grand Orient of France and lodges of their ilk *do* believe some very weird stuff. Some of their members probably are into the occult. And many of them are thoroughly corrupt (see the fabled “P2” Lodge, to which Villot, Marcinckus, and others belonged).
They are not us.
The Holy Roman Church is right to be opposed to Irregular Freemasonry: it is an ugly movement that does mankind no credit at all.
They are quite different to your garden-variety Freemason that attends Lodge in your neighborhood. Irregular Freemasonry has nothing to do with us at all: they are unwelcome at our Lodges and they may not attend any of our rituals. We are not permitted to have Freemasonic communication with them at all, on any level.
I personally feel that it is Irregular Freemasonry that the Holy Roman Church has reacted against (and rightly so). I also believe that my Regular Freemasonic brethren who are also Catholics are perfectly safe within Regular Freemasonry, and that their Salvation is not in jeopardy and their consciences clean and pure, despite the prohibitions that Rome has placed upon “Freemasonry”.
The Papal Bulls surely apply against Irregular Freemasonry. Not us.
> And finally, the thank you. Thank you for engaging in honest and courteous discussion with me here.
And likewise, thank you. It is a pleasure having honest and courteous discussion. As often as not, you will find me on various Catholic or LDS threads, defending Catholics and LDS against bigots — it’s a hobby of mine. Do an “In Forum” on me and have a look, you’ll see.
Here I recently gave an explanation of Papal Infallability — I thought it was fairly good: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1998581/posts?page=87#87
Anyrate, always happy to answer any questions you may have about Freemasonry: so long as it doesn’t violate my Oaths of Secrecy I will be more than happy to explain whatever I can.
Kind regards
*DieHard*