Is freemasonry acceptable for Orthodox?

[Alonso_Castillo]

I have read a orthodox devote posting saints lifes and anticatholic articles as expectd in a site. But one thing disturbed me when reading that he was defending Free Masonry, ¿Is there a kind of excomunication for orthodox members of freemasonry?

 

[RobNJ]

From the OCA site:

Masonic Fraternity
Question

Is it forbidden for a member of the Orthodox Church in America to be a member of the Masonic Fraternity, and if so why?

Answer

It is forbidden for an Orthodox Christian to be a member of the Masonic Fraternity because many of its teachings stand in direct conflict with those of Orthodox Christianity.

Q &amp A - Masonic Fraternity - Orthodox Church in America

 

[buzuxi02]

Free Masonry is condemned. Its history of recruiting elites into a secret society alone is enough to condemn them.

 

[ArmyMatt]

freemasonry is uber wrong.

 

[Simpleman25]

Most of what people think they know about freemasonry is wrong. It's the retelling of stories and false info on the internet that has hurt freemasonry the most.

For starters it has nothing to do with recruiting at all, let alone whatever someone who is elite. I've met masons from all walks of life. Young, old, rich and poor.

We also don't openly recruit. With minor exceptions that is. A few states have changed their rules to allow for recruiting. That's happened in the last decade or so.

Orthodox Christianity, primarily the RCC, has openly condemned masonry for decades. Centuries really.

Lots of reasons why honestly. You have to consider the time period we are talking about. Late 1600's at the earliest in my opinion. At that time the RCC considered themselves the only true religion. The fact that masons were open to men of all faiths angered the church. Basically that's the biggest reason masonry was outlawed in the beginning. Freemasonry was born and based on Christianity. It just wasn't based on the the theory of the Catholic church.

There are tens of thousands of Catholics that are active freemasons.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Catholics who are active Masons are excomunicated ipso facto, and even when taking the Holy Sacraments, they are voided, they are nule, un less they reject freemasonry and renounce to it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

there is a painting of St Seraphim of Sarov turning a Mason away. we don't do Masonry because there is to much pagan junk intertwined with it, even if at a local level people are just doing it for charity and fraternity.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

there is a painting of St Seraphim of Sarov turning a Mason away. we don't do Masonry because there is to much pagan junk intertwined with it, even if at a local level people are just doing it for charity and fraternity.

But as I have been saying before, Is it a Dogma to Orthodox that those who enter freemasonry are excomunicated? in the case of the Catholic Church it is an Infalible teaching from the popes, We relay the truthfulness of this excomunication in the authority of the Bishop of Rome that is the authority of The Apostle Peter. That is a catholic understanding. But since Orthodoxy has not infallible standings, out from the seven councils of the first millenium, How can you say that the forbiden of masonry in orthodoxy is an infallible teaching if no council has condemned it? since the principle of infalibility in orthodoxy is the council an not any particular bishop.

From the catholic standing if the Pope says that is Wrong and he says it from the Chair of Peter or calling to his role as Succesor of Peter, then we must take it as an infalible teaching. but you can't say that an orthodox joining to the masonry is out of the church since there is no council stating it.

From this prospective the Orthodox christian has no reference with enough authority unless a council happens and edicts new rules or guidances on regard the new heresies which may harm the faith of christians. And there has not happened any new council (recognized by Eastern Orthodox) since 1000 years.

Something sounds wrong with it. We use to be very critics on Infalibility, but some times there is a lack of recognition of the necesity of an Authoritative Voice to give certitude and guidance to the rest of the Bishops and through them to the catholics.

 

[ArmyMatt]

From the catholic standing if the Pope says that is Wrong and he says it from the Chair of Peter or calling to his role as Succesor of Peter, then we must take it as an infalible teaching. but you can't say that an orthodox joining to the masonry is out of the church since there is no council stating it.

that is not what the councils did. the councils never speculated but only defined dogma when heresy became a problem. since there is no issue with masonry, and the consensus of the Orthodox Church is that it is wrong, no council is needed. using that line of reasoning, Arianism was permissible only until Nicaea when it was defined clearly as heresy. sorry, that just is not history.

From this prospective the Orthodox christian has no reference with enough authority unless a council happens and edicts new rules or guidances on regard the new heresies which may harm the faith of christians. And there has not happened any new council since 1000 years.

yes we do, the consensus of the Church. one of the reasons no new council has occurred (although there are some who put the Council that healed the Photian Schism, the Palamite Council, the Council in Jerusalem that addressed Protestantism at that level) is that no new heresy has sprung up to threaten the Church. the Ecumenical Councils were never deemed as unchanging until AFTER time had gone by. it did not take Constantinople's approval of Nicaea to make Nicaea true, Nicaea always was true. just like it Nicaea did not make Arianism wrong, it always was. our model might not be fast and effective, but it is how the Church has always operated. the Roman model is not.

Something sounds wrong with it. We use to be very critics on Infalibility, but some times there is a lack of recognition of the necesity of a Authoritative Voice.

the authoritative Voice is the Word of God, Who promised to guide all of His successors, not just one See. there is nothing in Scripture that shows that the successors of St Peter ONLY IN ROME would have any special grace, especially considering he founded Antioch (and there is historic evidence he functioned as a bishop in Antioch, not so much with Rome)

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

The concensus of the church has to be stated in an infalible document, consensus sounds to most accepted, but not infalible.

It is true that Peter was also bishop of Antioch, but he didn't died there and the mved to Rome, from where he wrote his first Letter. But it would be more acceptable if the Orthodoxy would take the edicts of The bishop of Antioch as infalible, as catholics take the edicts of the Bishop of Rome, from the See of Peter. But the truth is that you do not have such authoritative voice, and thus you are left to your own criteria.

As I said Consensus has to be stated in infalible document, or consensus would only mean "most accepted", but not infalible.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The concensus of the church has to be stated in an infalible document, consensus sounds to most accepted, but not infalible.

wrong, the consensus is what is infallible as defined by St Irenaeus of Lyons.

It is true that Peter was also bishop of Antioch, but he didn't died there and the mved to Rome, from where he wrote his first Letter.

yes moved there, was never bishop there.

But it would be more acceptable if the Orthodoxy would take the edicts of The bishop of Antioch as infalible, as catholics take the edicts of the Bishop of Rome, from the See of Peter.

that would go against the Ecumenical Councils, so we don't. the councils clearly define the authority of the bishops, and NONE say any infallible authority.

But the truth is that you do not have such authoritative voice, and thus you are left to your own criteria.

well we do, it's just that ours is actually in the Councils.

As I said Consensus has to be stated in infalible document, or consensus would only mean "most accepted", but not infalible.

so using your logic, Arianism is only infallibly wrong because Arius was condemned. the idea of the Son of God being a creature would not have been heresy during St Ignatius of Antioch's time or only would have been if someone put pen to paper. that kind of legalism is also not historic.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Peter ¿Never Bishop of Rome? what are you talking? The first leter or Peter Makes Clear that he is Speaking from Rome and sends regards in the name of the Church of Rome as head of it, We have more evidence of Peter being head of the church of Rome than of Antioch.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

wrong, the consensus is what is infallible as defined by St Irenaeus of Lyons.



yes moved there, was never bishop there.


that would go against the Ecumenical Councils, so we don't. the councils clearly define the authority of the bishops, and NONE say any infallible authority.


well we do, it's just that ours is actually in the Councils.



so using your logic, Arianism is only infallibly wrong because Arius was condemned. the idea of the Son of God being a creature would not have been heresy during St Ignatius of Antioch's time or only would have been if someone put pen to paper. that kind of legalism is also not historic.

In the time of Saint Ignacius of anticho and the condemnation of Arius , The Pope did spoke from the Chair.

The thing is, that you think that before the first council of nicea there was no authoritative papal voice, and that is wrong, As Saint ignatius of Antioch says, Rome Presided in Love since then.

The thing also is that You don't want to accept that Orthodoxy in not in communion with the church of the Fathers, who were in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and who accepted his authority Presiding the Church. As we keep doing since the times of Saint Ignatious of Antioch.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Peter ¿Never Bishop of Rome? what are you talking? The first leter or Peter Makes Clear that he is Speaking from Rome and sends regards in the name of the Church of Rome as head of it, We have more evidence of Peter being head of the church of Rome than of Antioch.

yeah, he was in Rome, and I am pretty sure the earliest lists back to St Linus as the first, who was ordained by St Peter in 67. but I would love to see where it shows him in a functionary way as bishop of Rome, and where him speaking on behalf of Rome means directly that he was the functioning bishop, and not an Apostle who ordained one.

In the time of Saint Ignacius of anticho and the condemnation of Arius , The Pope did spoke from the Chair.

please show us where he spoke as defined by Vatican I, which, as Vatican I states is above any Church counsel. I would love to read any Father that verifies that.

The thing is, that you think that before the first council of nicea there was no authoritative papal voice, and that is wrong, As Saint ignatius of Antioch says, Rome Presided in Love since then.

not true. what you are missing is that I agree that the Pope had authority, I disagree with you on WHAT that authority was. St Irenaeus of Lyons corrected the Pope, and the Church sided with him and St Cyprian of Carthage OVER papal presumption. in both cases the Pope backed down from the Church. plus all of the canons of the early councils restrict the Pope's authority to Rome and the surrounding area.

The thing also is that You don't want to accept that Orthodoxy in not in communion with the church of the Fathers, who were in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and who accepted his authority Presiding the Church. As we keep doing since the times of Saint Ignatious of Antioch.

no, because the Pope never presided at any of the Ecumenical Councils, and Ephesus was acted upon before the Papal delegation arrived. St John Chrysostom spent most of his episcopate outside of being in communion with Rome, and not once did he feel his salvation was in jeopardy for it. you keep thinking headship as Rome defines it today is how it was always viewed.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

can you show us where Saint Irenaeus and Saint Cyprian rebel against the pope, the quotes please.

AS I have shown the pope signed the councils, Not the emperor. and the first seven councils were in the east, because there were the heresies. And yet, There was a council in Constantinople of the arrian greeks, that was held before the first Council of Constantinople that we hold as canonical, And though that council was signed by the emperor, and though there were many bishops of the east Constantinople and Antioch who also signed that council. That council was declared void, and fake by the Bishop of Rome, and thus never became ecumenical, and saint Athanasius writes about that, and gives credit to the popes in Rome as the ones who enforced orthodoxy to the heretic fathers of the current Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

So stay focus, Is masonry membership a cause of excomunion in an infalible way or is just a most commun understood thought?.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

About Saint Peter in Rome, well, it seams that your bishops think different to you:

 

[ArmyMatt]

can you show us where Saint Irenaeus and Saint Cyprian rebel against the pope, the quotes please.

AS I have shown the pope signed the councils, Not the emperor. and the first seven councils were in the east, because there were the heresies. And yet, There was a council in Constantinople of the arrian greeks, that was held before the first Council of Constantinople that we hold as canonical, And though that council was signed by the emperor, and though there were many bishops of the east Constantinople and Antioch who also signed that council. That council was declared void, and fake by the Bishop of Rome, and thus never became ecumenical, and saint Athanasius writes about that, and gives credit to the popes in Rome as the ones who enforced orthodoxy to the heretic fathers of the current Eastern Orthodox.

I told you the controversies. anyways in the ANF:

"I send you a copy of our brother Stephen's answer. When you read it you will become all the more cognizant of his error.........For among ARROGANT CLAIMS, IRRELEVANCIES, and INCONSISTENCIES - he is an inexpert and careless writer." St Cyprian's letter to Pompeius.

the bishops of Carthage as a whole including St Cyprian:

"None of us claims to be a bishop of bishops or resorts to tyranny to obtain the consent of his brethren. EACH BISHOP IN THE FULLNESS OF HIS FREEDOM AND HIS AUTHORITY retains the right to think for himself; he is NOT SUBJECT TO ANY OTHER AND HE IS NOT JUDGED BY ANY OTHERS."

from Eusebius' History of the Church concerning the Easter controversy:

"Thereupon Victor, head of the Roman church, attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all of the Asian dioceses, together with their neighboring churches, on the ground of heterodoxy.......We will posses the words of these men, who very sternly rebuked Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who wrote on behalf of the Christians for whom he was responsible for in Gaul...."

and you somehow think that the fact that there were correct believing Popes back then whom we were in communion with, that somehow adds to your argument. it doesn't, we trace our heritage through correct theology AND history. not merely geography.

I still have yet to see anything that shows Papal Infallibility as Vatican I defines it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

About Saint Peter in Rome, well, it seams that your bishops think different to you:

um, I never said St Peter was not in Rome, I said there is no evidence that he functioned as bishop in Rome. I said he was martyred there and that he ordained St Linus. all you are showing is the Liturgy where he was martyred...... so this proves only that the Orthodox venerate St Peter and we know where he was martyred.......

 

[ArmyMatt]

So stay focus, Is masonry membership a cause of excomunion in an infalible way or is just a most commun understood thought?.

yes, although I am sure there are some prominent Orthodox, even clergy, who were Masons. just because something is deemed dogmatic, sinful man doesn't always listen.