Posted on 10/30/2009 9:01:19 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
A few years ago I was told that at the ceremony of induction of the vicar of one of the local Anglican churches, the Bible which was handed to him had embossed on its front cover the emblem of the Freemasons, the square and compasses. It subsequently came to light that nearly all the male members of his Parochial Church Council were "on the square", and his predecessor as vicar had been a Mason as well. This is not a "low", or Evangelical, church, but very firmly in the Anglo Catholic tradition, where a number of clergy and lay people over the years have talked of becoming Catholics.
Why is all this a problem? The reason is that the Catholic Church teaches that Freemasonry and Christianity are incompatible. The Holy See in 1983 reiterated the traditional position that Catholics who are Freemasons are in a state of grave sin and may not receive the sacraments - the Declaration on Masonic Associations was signed by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and makes it clear that local bishops cannot dispense from its provisions. There were two reasons for this document: first, the new Code of Canon Law, which came out at the same time, no longer mentioned Freemasonry by name in its list of organisations which Catholics are forbidden from joining; second, mistaken advice had been given in the late Seventies in Britain and America which suggested that Catholics could be Freemasons if local lodges were not anti-Catholic; the 1983 rescript corrected that advice. Consequently, Anglicans or others who are Freemasons wishing to become Catholics will have to discard their aprons: this may keep the numbers of potential converts down.
It is often claimed by Freemasons and others that the reasons for the Catholic Church's hostility to Freemasonry are to do with politics - the political hostility between the Church and what is known as "Grand Orient" Freemasonry in the rest of Europe and Latin America; English Freemasonry is completely different, it is claimed; unlike the "Grand Orient" it has retained belief in the "Supreme Being". But this is nonsense: the Church's original condemnations from the 18th century related to English Masonic lodges in Florence and elsewhere in Italy.
The reasons for our teaching, expounded in teaching from many popes since the 18th century, are theological. In the first place, Freemasonry is a naturalistic religion. Its rituals and constitutions present the member as a man who is able to advance towards enlightenment through his own efforts - a good parable of this is the depictions of the trials of Tamino in Mozart's opera The Magic Flute. The Mason can earn his salvation through rites of initiation and the activities of the lodge (including charitable giving); it is thus, in a way, the perfect religion for the "self-made", middle-class professional man. It is totally at odds with the Christian vision, in which we need God's grace, through the death and resurrection of Our Lord, to grow in holiness.
Second, the prayers in its rituals specifically exclude reference to Our Lord. They are often prayers of Christian origin which have been vandalised.
In order to encompass adherents of other faiths the Saviour of the world is simply removed and set aside: he is not important. How can any Christian go along with this?
Third, the oaths required in the initiation rites require the new Mason to promise to keep secret the organisation's rituals, even though he does not at that point know what they are. These oaths are what Christian moral theologians call "vain" - they are not acceptable and cannot bind the person making them, even if they are done in the name of God. This is the problem with the oaths, not (as is sometimes claimed) the dire penalties which used to be referred to in the rituals.
These are the principal reasons why we teach that Freemasonry and Christianity are not compatible. In addition, we could cite the reactionary world view espoused in the rituals, supportive of the status quo and urging members to "keep to their station" in society. This, coupled with the make-up of lodges and the mechanisms of social control identified in exposés written in the Eighties reveal the movement as being somewhat at odds with the social teaching of the Catholic Church and our witness for justice and peace in the world. The "preferential option for the poor" would not find a place in the lodge. One could also point to the exclusion of women from lodge membership and the strain placed on many marriages by the commitments demanded of Freemasons: in spite of claiming to be a "system of morality" infidelity and adultery seem often to be viewed with some indulgence.
It is important that Catholics rest their challenge to Freemasonry on the clear theological arguments which I have advanced and that we are well-informed about the subject: sometimes criticisms of Freemasonry are inaccurate and frankly hysterical, and we should avoid conspiracy theories. It is also true that it is somewhat weaker than it was, partly as a result of the books written 20 years ago and pressure for Freemasons to reveal their membership, particularly in the police and the legal profession. Because of the decline, Freemasonry is very conscious of its public image and superficially less secretive than in the past.
Although it is weaker than in the past, Freemasonry still seems to have some influence in the Church of England. A study written by Caroline Windsor, Freemasonry and the Ministry (Concilium publications 2005), has shown that it is still quite strong in cathedrals (a big Masonic service was held in St Paul's Cathedral in 2002, with the Dean preaching) - and also that many parishes where Freemasons are active are weak in terms of Christian witness. If we are serious about ecumenical dialogue, the issue of Freemasonry has to be addressed; the same is true of interfaith relations, as Freemasons are sometimes involved in interfaith organisations - if they are there, we are talking about dialogue which is three-way, not two-way.
The overriding problem is that in spite of what Freemasons claim, their way of life is a religion, with all of religion's hallmarks. You can no more be a Freemason and a Christian than you can be a Muslim and a Christian. Catholics are committed to inter-faith dialogue and mutual respect, but this requires Freemasons to be honest about what they are. For Catholics, thinking about the reasons for the gulf between us can deepen our understanding of the Christian faith.
The Scottish Rite is an ancillary group to masons, it is not “freemasonry.” (Although you have to be a mason to be in the Scottish Rite.)
There are two groups that branch off of the Blue Lodge, the York Rite (Christian only) and the Scottish Rite (open to other religions, chiefly Jews).
Never been a fan of Pike myself; he was just one man with one opinion, with which I disagreed.
I ask Smelly, “...what obligations have you undertaken as a Mason of the Third Degree?”
Smelly says: “That’s not something I can share...”
Very interesting. If I wanted to join a Masonic Lodge that answer alone would stop me. If you cannot (why can’t you Smelly?) or will not answer that question, your organization ain’t for me.
Thanks for your reply. I think I’m getting a better idea though, if I’m understanding, it’s difficult to generalize.
There’s an area I’m still unsure about and that’s what the degrees are steps toward. Earlier I’d asked if mason’s taught they were steps toward purity or perfection. Can you say if this is part of it?
I really don’t know what you mean “steps toward.”
Masonry proper has three degrees: apprentice, fellowcraft, and master. The names are taken from the trade union designations, that show the skill of the mason building things.
Each degree shows the mason has spent the time and effort to earn that proficiency (really memorization, a lot of cleaning dishes and doing grunt work).
No more “perfection” than a Eagle Scout is “perfection.”
Just a designation of accomplishment.
All the other ranks you hear about (e.g., 33 or whatever are generally Scottish Rite, and mean the same thing, but are not masonry proper).
The highest rank in the York Rite (Knight Templar) comes with a series of oaths regarding the protection of Christiandom, pilgrims to Jerusalem, charity, etc. I understand it is near identical to the Knights of Columbus oath, but applies to all Christian denominations equally, and not merely Roman Catholic.
Each degree shows the mason has spent the time and effort to earn that proficiency..
I get it. But it's no longer stone masonry as I understand what you say. You're not learning how to lay out a building, etc. Or is that part of it too?
Is there something along the lines of relating or applying masonry/architecture to the universe? I'm thinking here of the Great Architect of the Universe.
really memorization
So, in addition to seniority, "paying your dues," there's an educational part, if I'm understanding correctly. A master knows more about something than an apprentice. If that is true, what, in general terms does he know more about? Is it considered knowledge in general, special knowledge, wisdom?
thanks again.
The answer to your question though can easily be answered by a Google search. It's not really the content of the obligation that it's important to keep private. That information is available from a variety of sources - it's the willingness to keep and maintain a promise that is the key.I kind find the answer on Google? Interesting. You can't tell me, even though "It's not really the content of the obligation that it's important to keep private."? Very odd.
... what is taught and learned in the three degrees is moral in nature and teaches us to be better men ...But it isn't religious? Very odd.
> I ask Smelly, “...what obligations have you undertaken as a Mason of the Third Degree?”
Translated: “Tell me your Secrets.”
That’s got to be the Guinness Book of World Records Stupidest Question Ever. No disrespect intended, Narses — but really. What is the point of us Masons swearing to keep things Secret from non-Masons if non-Masons like you can demand disclosure from us? Doesn’t that invalidate the whole point of keeping Secrets?
Believe it or not, you do not have a Right to Know. We have given our Word to keep Secrets, and any Mason who violates his Word is unfit to keep company with us.
Real question: could you briefly describe the relationship or connection, if any, between the Shriners and Freemasons? Thanks.
Another wannabe 'inquisitor' outed. That's gotta be embarrasing. The pope couldn't take "NO!" for an answer either, and that was the basis for the sanctions against freemasonry. No free associations that the 'church' didn't know about and approve. Too bad that the scourge followed us to America and is still active against freedom at this late date, even in the land of the free.
The only thing secret (and it’s not too secret anymore) is the handshakes and passwords.
The rest are the duties of officers in the lodge, who does what, etc.
Not “special knowledge” or gnostic stuff, if that is what you mean.
Well, Shriners are masons. It was organized in the 20th century as a “fun” (read drinking) sub-group of masons.
They party pretty hard and raise a lot of money for children’s hospitals in the process.
“The highest rank in the York Rite (Knight Templar) comes with a series of oaths regarding the protection of Christiandom, pilgrims to Jerusalem, charity, etc. I understand it is near identical to the Knights of Columbus oath,...”
Maybe. I don't know as I'm not a mason. But it doesn't sound much like the promises I made in any of my degree ceremonies as a Fourth Degree Knight of Columbus.
sitetest
Thanks for your reply. I wasn’t heading toward gnostic; I’m trying hard not to characterize other than whether it’s religious or not. I see the topic of the thread as two parts of contention: Does Freemasonry constitute a religion OR religious teaching; if so, is its teaching in conflict with that of the Catholic Church.
I’m attempting to determine the first part: is it a religion or religious teaching.
Definitely not trying to get anyone to reveal what they’re not allowed to; if it gets close, I hope they can say, “I can’t reveal that.” rather than obfuscate or whatever.
Where I’m left with your and my discussion is very little religious teaching (though I would say “you must be monotheistic and it does not matter which” is very close to a religious statement.)
What you have presented thus far would lead me to believe that all that exists is a fraternity of men who join in brotherhood and charitable work. (I don’t mean “all” derogatorily, that’s a lot.)
If this is the case then I’m at a loss as to why the trappings of an altar, rituals, re-enactment, Great Architect of the Universe and so on. It seems, in your experience, this is meaningless? Something that has lost its meaning today? There’s no knowledge offered by Freemasonry that purports to advance the brother in wisdom or deeper understanding of himself and his place in the cosmos?
If so, then I’d deduce that it is barely religious (with the exception I noted earlier.) However, wouldn’t that be a major loss from the viewpoint of historical Freemasonry that reduces its value?
Again, thanks for your courtesy in reply.
“No, he said not to make fake or misleading oaths.”
That’s like saying God was not against homosexual sex but only the ‘rent boys’ in the pagan temples! i.e. it is not in the text and you have to make inferences to draw that conclusion.
Yes I have read it in context many, many, many times.
God can make covenants He is able to keep them. He can in essence swear by His own Word because He is 100% reliable to keep it.
We are told not to swear oaths by anything - our yes should be yes and our no should be no - we should be transparent and honest and open.
Temples, altars, oaths - but no religion. Very odd.
> Even more odd are the number of vicious personal attacks that I have sustained in this inquiry.
If you ask a silly question...
Seriously, you asked for a Secret to be revealed, and you are upset because your request was declined as the silly question which it was. You don’t really have any cause to complain, surely?
> So what you do is secret, the obligations you undertake by serious oath, well they are secret too, and yet I am told here by a self-professed Mason that...
The information you seek may/may not be available to you on the Internet, I cannot possibly say. For centuries there have been Masonic “exposes”, and there have been countless books written on what people think is going on in Lodge. I’m not going to validate any of that, one way or the other.
As our brother has told you, none of that information is particularly relevant anyway. You may believe that is an odd way to do business: when you think about it carefully, it all makes perfect sense.
> Masons may have a secret religion - or may not, either way your claims about same cannot be trusted because you cannot tell us the truth, you have to either be silent, attack or lie.
Or you can do as Freemasons usually do, which is to willingly discuss any aspect of Freemasonry that tickles your fancy, except only for our Oaths and Obligations which we (rightly) refuse to discuss.
Given that you don’t *really* have a Right to Know, I think that is a most reasonable accommodation, don’t you?
> Your odd oath prevents you from actual honesty. Right?
No. Our Oath prevents me from Disclosure. I am more than happy to talk to anybody about anything regarding Freemasonry, except only my Oaths and Obligations, which I cannot divulge or discuss. As the Oaths and Obligations are only relevant to Freemasons, what else is there to know that is germane?
Twice now you have emphasized the “drinking” and “partying” tendencies of the Shriners. Is there a reason for this? I reference the Shrine convention scene from the 1963 hit “Bye, Bye, Birdie”.
Just curious, since as a Catholic I have no right to criticize the drinking habits of anyone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.