Yes . . . Vatican II was mentioned only in Mehitabel’s post, which didn’t really answer the question of whether Vatican II changed the Church’s policy WRT Freemasonry.
I suspect that Guin was referring to my two posts, particularly the third link in my second post.
That’s not an accurate description. While the Knights are certainly active in the areas you mention, it’s not a “mostly” thing: the Knights are active in five main service areas: church, community, youth, family, and council. You describe church activites; we devote considerable effort to community, family, and youth programs as well.
Well, don’t ask. My belief is none of your business and I am not a liar.
Jeez, just asking.
Ummm…given that both the Masons and the Catholics are dying institutions here in North America (and deservedly so, IMHO), why should we care?
Many Masons founded the United States. Many catholics caused the world to be as fucked-up as it is. They may be dying, or they may not be, but they certainly have a lot of people impressed with their culture, who are willing to take action on the part of said organizations.
Sorry, Bricker, my mistake.
Brain Glutton, obviously if the church still frowns on Masonry, then Vatican II didn’t change a thing.
Scott_plaid:
:rolleyes:
Got a cite for that? I tend to think that Oscar Romero, Bartolome de Las Casas, Gregor Mendel, Hugh O’Flaherty, Frances of Assisi, John XXIII etc would strongly disagree.
So would Mark of Arethusa, Cyrill of Heliopolis, Emperor Theodosius (408-450), Humphrey Gilbert, Fulcher of Chartres, Pope Urban II, Torquemada, Reverend Solomon Stoddard, and most recently in 1942 Ante Paveliç would all stand with you.
Those who would disagree include Hypatia of Alexandria, John Huss, Giordano Bruno and Thomas Aikenhead. But they can’t. Because they’re dead. Killed by those on the above list. And that’s just a few. But that is beside the point. It definitely answers why both groups are relevant, as was asked by Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor in post 46. Althought to my knowledge none of the killers were Masons. Their relevency was founding the U.S.
Cite:
P.W.Edbury, Crusade and Settlement, Cardiff Univ. Press 1985.
H.C.Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, New York 1961
A True Account of the Most Considerable Occurrences that have Hapned in the Warre Between the English and the Indians in New England, London 1676.
.B.Russell, Witchcraft in the Middle Ages, Ithaca/NY 1972
Just for the record, Rev. Stoddard was a congregationalist. He got nicknamed “the pope” by his opponents, but that was just rhetoric. And, as far as I know, he didn’t really do anything that terrible. He’s best known for liberalizing rules for church membership in colonial Boston. Humprey Gilbert was an Episcopalian who was pretty anti-Catholic (he’s known for atrocities against Irish Catholics), so I don’t know why you’re including him either. Fulcher of Chartres was Catholic, but he’s best known for his chronicles of the First Crusade, but I’m not aware of any atrocities he’s responsible for.
They were all christians. If not for catholics, the first major organization of christians, they would not have existed.
So the Catholic church is responsible, not just for any bad actions committed by any Catholic at any time, but by any Christian, generally, at any time? I think that argument is a kind of unreasonable one. And, btw, you never told me what Stoddard or the Crusader chronicler did that was so terrible.
Well, yes I think so, but I think this is getting off track for the thread. I will start a thread pitting the catholic church.
Here it is. Catholic Church I pit you. (not catholic dopers, however.)
Don’t tell that to the Orthodox.
Damn, you’re right!
I became a freemason a little over a year ago. I’m willing to answer some questions based upon my experience.
Ironically while I am answering I was just handed some mail from my lodge.
Masonry is basically syncretic. It is made up of Blue Lodge masonry, which is “Basic” masonry, and concordant bodies which are subordinate to Blue Lodge masonry. Sectarian religious discussion is forbidden, not religious discussion as a whole. Not everyone in “Blue Lodge” masonry is part of it’s concordant bodies, and thus have a very different experience from other masons.
Masonry was formed in the early 1700s, at least in the form that we know it today. If you want to trace it back to ancient Mystery Schools or the Knights Templar or any of that, feel free. As you know, the early 1700s was an age when Newton and Liebniz were publishing their theories, modern banking systems were being established, and the power of the Catholic church was being called into question.
American ideals are inherently masonic. Take the “Bill of Rights” for example. The Masonic viewpoint on religion can be easily extrapolated from the first amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That pretty much sums up the masonic view on religion.
Me personally, I believe in god and would have no problem declaring so publically. I also believe that the Catholic church is the natural progression of the Roman Empire, and encourages complete unquestioning fealty to the state and that what we know as “The bible” was Roman propaganda designed to maintain their hegemony when Constantine saw that the Empire was crumbling.
This however does not shake my faith in Christ that I was brought up with. Gnostic Christianity is to me a reincarnation of the Mithraic cults.
I have in my time as a mason seen things that make me understand why a religious fundamentalist might have a problem with masonry, but to me Masonry is a teaching of discipline based upon the fundamentals of stonemasonry and architecture.
The paradox of masonry that I find is that it is difficult to help people’s ignorance when you are sworn to secrecy, and I think that might be why Christ warns against taking oaths, but I think that the Catholic church violates christ’s teachings in the same ways that Masonry does, and in some ways that it doesn’t.
I’d say the issue with the Catholic church is entirely political, but not without good reason as the American and French Revolutions were both very masonic in character.
Mostly I see the secrecy as a way of protecting ones brother’s from a bigoted populace. I have since becoming a mason encountered friendly interest, enthusiasm, as well as deep distrust and superstition.
The secrets I am not allowed to divulge are my brother’s personal business, and the makeup of the rituals. For the most part, I find it easy to maintain those. I already wouldn’t dish on my friends, and I wouldn’t explain the rituals to someone who just simply wouldn’t understand them due to lack of the experience. It’s like explaining a painting and expecting the person you are explaining it to have the same emotional experience that you had. It’s not until you have the communal shared experience that any conversation of it really makes sense.
Erek
Back to the Subject: It is apparent that indeed, many religions have tended to at some point in their history conclude that “thou shalt have no other gods besides Me” extends into a sort of “thou shalt have no spiritual/moral/social justice pursuit unless it is Gospel[/Qur’an]-based”. To me it’s quite obvious that “back when”, the idea of an organization that would endeavor into intellectual/moral/social pursuits in complete independence from the clergy, would be seen as a serious threat to the stability of The System. Lather, rinse, repeat for a few generations and it becomes ingrained. Toss in a role for the Lodge in the upsetting of the actual political power of the Papacy and its annointed Kings, and you got a fight in your hands with the RCC.
Though we have seen that much of (small-o)rthodox Christianity either is hostile or at least wants to keep an arm’s length away, Catholicism had the “advantage” of an efficiently centralized organization, with a clearly identified sole spokesman, so that the message was transmitted with more effect and the ground-floor held the line for longer, thus it’s the RCC that is the most obvious about it.
“Can there be peace”? I think the current state of look-the-other-way “Cold Peace” is about as good as it’ll get for a while. Neither institution NEEDS or HAS to come to terms with the other. Anyway, nothing short of Freemasonry just dropping the Secrets and letting the public see with their own eyes all that goes on could start to shut up the arch-conservatives, and even then they probably WILL “find” something “nefarious” to point at. Freemasonry was cast, during the height of the Catholic anti-masonic pitch, as the poster-child for the nefarious forces of “Modernism and Liberalism”. And one thing we should not lose sight of, is that many religious leaders or members may have accepted they have to live with “M&L” as a matter of reality, but yet believe it was a mistake and nothing good will come of it in the long run.
How do you come by knowledge of your brothers’ personal business - just through normal conversation in the course of a meeting, or is there some sort of confession ritual?
Are you expected/required to give your brothers preference in things like hiring, etc., and would you tell me if you were? 
A man joining the Masonic Fraternity swears that he is not motivated by any consideration of business advantage. So, the answer to your question is: No
But that was my question. Does the post-Vatican-II Church still frown on Freemasonry? Has John Paul II ever said a word against it?