Masons

[Ecclectic79]

The link given is pretty weak on Hall. There are at least a couple 9 hr videos on Youtube with a very old MP Hall talking new age metaphysics.

In so many ways though the OP's question is already answered as to why mainline 'You need Jesus to be saved' Christians would have a problem with said philosophies.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Well, they speak for the 33rd Degree of the Scottish Rite.

Anyone who points to Pike and Hall as primary sources for what "Masonry is all about" does not know Masonry at all. I've never really met a Mason who likes Pike, and probably even fewer who have read anything he wrote. The primary work most people criticize from him, Morals and Dogma, was written for Scottish Rite. Since most Masons never progress beyond the basic three Blue Degrees, a Scottish Rite publication cannot even be used as a wedge to tell them they shouldn't join Masonry, since it doesn't apply to them anyway.

As for Hall, his primary works on Masonry were written in the 1920's, and he did not become a Mason until 1954, and was not 33rd degree until 1973. So anything he had to say about Masonry in his primary works about it, were done as an outsider, and decades before he ever saw the inside of a lodge. That's hardly a basis for considering him to be any kind of authority on the subject.

Add to that the fact that both men entertained opinions that were proven spurious before they ever published. Pike had been involved in compiling the material for his magnum opus for years when Robert Gould published his history that forever debunked the myth of Freemasonry's imagined antiquity. Not willing to see all his work go down the drain, he published it, but with a disclaimer in the foreword acknowledging that the reader was free to accept or dismiss any of it he chose. For Hall, it was no difficulty at all, apparently he had little regard for the history of the fraternity at all, and simply chose to include Masonry in his broad-based net of "secret teachings of all ages." Did you know that Hall actually traces Freemasonry all the way back to the mythical island of Atlantis? He's hardly to be taken seriously by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Ecclectic79]

Anyone who points to Pike and Hall as primary sources for what "Masonry is all about" does not know Masonry at all. I've never really met a Mason who likes Pike, and probably even fewer who have read anything he wrote. The primary work most people criticize from him, Morals and Dogma, was written for Scottish Rite. Since most Masons never progress beyond the basic three Blue Degrees, a Scottish Rite publication cannot even be used as a wedge to tell them they shouldn't join Masonry, since it doesn't apply to them anyway.

As for Hall, his primary works on Masonry were written in the 1920's, and he did not become a Mason until 1954, and was not 33rd degree until 1973. So anything he had to say about Masonry in his primary works about it, were done as an outsider, and decades before he ever saw the inside of a lodge. That's hardly a basis for considering him to be any kind of authority on the subject.

Add to that the fact that both men entertained opinions that were proven spurious before they ever published. Pike had been involved in compiling the material for his magnum opus for years when Robert Gould published his history that forever debunked the myth of Freemasonry's imagined antiquity. Not willing to see all his work go down the drain, he published it, but with a disclaimer in the foreword acknowledging that the reader was free to accept or dismiss any of it he chose. For Hall, it was no difficulty at all, apparently he had little regard for the history of the fraternity at all, and simply chose to include Masonry in his broad-based net of "secret teachings of all ages." Did you know that Hall actually traces Freemasonry all the way back to the mythical island of Atlantis? He's hardly to be taken seriously by any stretch of the imagination.

The challenges in ethics, why one group tends to oppose another, etc. tends to have more to do with eschatological ethics than utilitarian ethics. It seems like utilitarian ethics is what everyone has, just that it fits the shape of the container based on what ever people believe reality to be. Transhumanists would be a great example of where I think a lot of people can see utilitiarian ethics going completely unhinged.

I bring up all of this because - in a reductive materialist world - this is a room full of good people with good intentions debating things that none of them should believe to begin with, in a nonmaterialist world we have that extra added component that we're stuck debating - eschatology. When it comes to that last part it seems like slight rearrangements of salience can create very different results.

The reason I can't just buy up the notion that Manley P Hall and Albert Pike were speaking completely for themselves is it that Washington DC, Rome, Paris, and London buried under so much sacred geometry. Clearly some people who were very well connected with city planning certainly believed in good luck charms and believed that drawing symbolism from Quabalah and Pythagorean theory would bode well for the particular cities they resided in.

I suppose I'm a lot less bothered by Hermetic symbolism all over the place than people trying to claim it doesn't exist. OTOH Tahuti/Thoth/Hermes or Hermes Trismegistus is admittedly exotic to Christianity, much like Pythagorean and Neoplatonist theurgy would be considered exotic. Its 2013, no one's taking anyone to star chamber court over beliefs, open Hermeticism is perfectly allowed and protected by the law as much as anything, so I guess my confusion is why there's so much smoke blown around over it. A well kept secret is a well kept secret, the obvious is the obvious, but trying to keep the obvious a secret is like a commitment to insult people's intelligence.

 

[Drudgeon]

The reason I can't just buy up the notion that Manley P Hall and Albert Pike were speaking completely for themselves is it that Washington DC, Rome, Paris, and London buried under so much sacred geometry. Clearly some people who were very well connected with city planning certainly believed in good luck charms and believed that drawing symbolism from Quabalah and Pythagorean theory would bode well for the particular cities they resided in.

I've heard the idea that a certain set of streets in Washington, DC make a Square and Compass (a classic example of pareidolia). Is this an example of what you're referring to?

 

[Ecclectic79]

I've heard the idea that a certain set of streets in Washington, DC make a Square and Compass. Is this an example of what you're referring to?

To name a few: sephiroth, flower of life, cube, five-pointed star, and incomplete pyramid with the top portion having the current supreme council building in what would be the pupil of the eye of Horus/eye of providence. I don't know if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or Benjamin Franklin in specific had any such input on the layout of Washington DC but it stands to reason that the founding fathers or whoever immediately followed them in designing the capital city believed that doing so was worth something.

 

[Rev Wayne]

The reason I can't just buy up the notion that Manley P Hall and Albert Pike were speaking completely for themselves is it that Washington DC, Rome, Paris, and London buried under so much sacred geometry. Clearly some people who were very well connected with city planning certainly believed in good luck charms and believed that drawing symbolism from Quabalah and Pythagorean theory would bode well for the particular cities they resided in.

Dude, I don't think you even know what you just said. Basically, you can't accept the idea that Hall or Pike "were speaking completely for themselves" because "some people" who built those cities, some of them centuries before either of them was born, with some kind of intentional design.

Not only does that say nothing worth being said (not to mention totally unsupportable), it says nothing that has anything to do with anything that was just addressed to you.

Speaking for myself only, of course, I was merely pointing out that (1) Hall's writings about Masonry had no real connection with Masonry because they were written BEFORE he ever became a Mason; (2) Pike's work was written for Scottish Rite and therefore is of no value in criticizing the majority of Masons who never entered Scottish Rite; and (3) the spurious theories of BOTH these men concerning an imagined antiquity of Freemasonry, were debunked before either of them ever published.

"Speaking completely for themselves?" Where, pray tell, did you get that false inference? It wasn't stated, nor was it directly or indirectly implied in any way.

Please be a little more direct in your responses, because I freely acknowledge that you seem to be capable of shoveling smoke much faster than I can deploy the oxygen masks.

 

[Albion]

The link given is pretty weak on Hall. There are at least a couple 9 hr videos on Youtube with a very old MP Hall talking new age metaphysics.

In so many ways though the OP's question is already answered as to why mainline 'You need Jesus to be saved' Christians would have a problem with said philosophies.

OK then, here's how a Christian handles that, if anyone thinks it's a problem...

"That's what Masonry meant to Hall. It means something else to me. To the next man, it may mean something different from both of those."

Unlike a religion in which there are articles of faith that all members are expected to affirm, there's nothing in Masonry that anticipates or suggests that each member is supposed to agree with Hall.

 

[Ecclectic79]

OK then, here's how a Christian handles that, if anyone thinks it's a problem...

"That's what Masonry meant to Hall. It means something else to me. To the next man, it may mean something different from both of those."

Unlike a religion in which there are articles of faith that all members are expected to affirm, there's nothing in Masonry that anticipates or suggests that each member is supposed to agree with Hall.

TY.

 

[williamgramsmith]

4. It has been the special target of the Roman Catholic Church because of Masonry's support for democratic government and national independence. These forces in society, although not aimed specifically at the Church, did undermine the Papacy's historic ability to "make and break" kings. As a result, the members of the world largest church are forbidden by their own church to become Masons, although Masonry welcomes them just as it does the members of any other denomination.

This is an odd statement from my observation.
I've only seen anti-masonry coming from the counter-cult Evangelical/Protestant ministry's and adherents, not from the Catholic Church.

What you say may be true to some extent, possibly historically, but from what I've seen Anti-Masonry at least in the last 100 years have come from the anti-cult religions.

 

[Albion]

This is an odd statement from my observation.
I've only seen anti-masonry coming from the counter-cult Evangelical/Protestant ministry's and adherents, not from the Catholic Church.

If you're not familiar with the history, I can understand you being taken by surprise. Indeed, I doubt that most Americans care much about 18th and 19th century European history, but it casts a long shadow, you know.

But if you now (having been alerted to it) do a little reasearch, you will see for yourself. At least three different Papal statements have forbidden Catholics from belonging, under pain of excommunication, and any Catholic informational site will explain that the church's policy remains the same today.

In the USA, we are likely to read comments from Evangelicals, particularly conspiracy fans, but that's a more recent development and it's based on totally different considerations.

 

[Rev Wayne]

If you're not familiar with the history, I can understand you being taken by surprise. Indeed, I doubt that most Americans care much about 18th and 19th century European history, but it casts a long shadow, you know.

But if you now (having been alerted to it) do a little reasearch, you will see for yourself. At least three different Papal statements have forbidden Catholics from belonging, under pain of excommunication, and any Catholic informational site will explain that the church's policy remains the same today.

In the USA, we are likely to read comments from Evangelicals, particularly conspiracy fans, but that's a more recent development and it's based on totally different considerations.

A common error in recent times has been the charge by some Catholics that Freemasonry is anti-Catholic. This is simply not true, there are many Catholics who have become Freemasons. Can't help but wonder if the misinformation is being put out there intentionally as a deterrent to Catholics who might have otherwise considered joining.

Freemasonry actually had a Catholic and even a clerical flavor to it in its earliest documents, like the Regius and Cooke manuscripts. Masonry's lessons are very similar in dramatic form to the old "morality plays," and in fact, trade guilds were generally the ones who performed them. For a time, Catholic priests were also took part in morality plays, until the church forbid the practice. It has been suggested that the ban on priests' involvement in the moralities, coupled with the known involvement of the masonic trade guilds in them, was a factor in the Catholic bias against Freemasonry.

 

[Ecclectic79]

A common error in recent times has been the charge by some Catholics that Freemasonry is anti-Catholic. This is simply not true, there are many Catholics who have become Freemasons. Can't help but wonder if the misinformation is being put out there intentionally as a deterrent to Catholics who might have otherwise considered joining.

At a minimum the Alta Vendita document made a pretty good talking-point during the time period referenced. People like Malachai Martin also continued to swear by its accuracy as late as the 1960's and Vatican II.

 

[Albion]

At a minimum the Alta Vendita document made a pretty good talking-point during the time period referenced.

Yes, but that concerned the Carbonari, a revolutionary group seeking a united Italy. Freemasonry was not connected to it except that Masons generally supported national independence which, in itself, made them a target of the Papacy. And in the USA, where most of the talk about Masonry these days is focused, there is absolutely no connection, not even remotely.

 

[Ecclectic79]

I would understand the concerns of the Catholic Church perhaps from this angle. If, as many are claiming here, that Masonry is generally meant to be a place of intellectual freedom where power-brokers around the world can rub elbows away from prying eyes and where the ideas discussed are really a blank canvas, in Rome the greatest interest of any of the local power brokers would be what goes on at the Vatican and who gets elected to what posts. Hence it would double as an off-site political machine and any cardinals meeting at such lodges would be successfully undermining the process within the Catholic church via both collusion between cardinals and the expediency of having all kinds of high-bidders right there at hand who'd love to influence policy. Perhaps they saw it as an incredible lobbying concern tantamount to what we have in Washington DC today. In such a group I'm sure they'd also be rubbing elbows constantly with progressive thinkers, so a claim that the lodge was having an unwanted liberalizing or pastoralizing effect on doctrine over time doesn't sound quite as far-out as it might at first.

Also as far as the above is concerned, when you'd claim that Masonry and many similar societies are largely a blank canvas which is for the local lodge to paint its image on it raises the issue of rights vs. responsibility. Just like most corporations know that its not wise to give an employee access to both assets and their journal entries its not wise to be laissez-faire and then when things go sour tell the public that no one's in charge, no one's held accountable for monitoring content, and hence any problems that hatch from within are purely representative of those individuals specific to the given issue. It isn't necessarily illegal but its understandable how that can be perceived not only as a double-standard to the broader world but as a pool of brewing problems veiled in smoke.

 

[Albion]

I would understand the concerns of the Catholic Church perhaps from this angle. If, as many are claiming here, that Masonry is generally meant to be a place of intellectual freedom where power-brokers around the world can rub elbows away from prying eyes and where the ideas discussed are really a blank canvas, in Rome the greatest interest of any of the local power brokers would be what goes on at the Vatican and who gets elected to what posts. Hence it would double as an off-site political machine and any cardinals meeting at such lodges would be successfully undermining the process within the Catholic church via both collusion between cardinals and the expediency of having all kinds of high-bidders right there at hand who'd love to influence policy. Perhaps they saw it as an incredible lobbying concern tantamount to what we have in Washington DC today. In such a group I'm sure they'd also be rubbing elbows constantly with progressive thinkers, so a claim that the lodge was having an unwanted liberalizing or pastoralizing effect on doctrine over time doesn't sound quite as far-out as it might at first.

Also as far as the above is concerned, when you'd claim that Masonry and many similar societies are largely a blank canvas which is for the local lodge to paint its image on it raises the issue of rights vs. responsibility. Just like most corporations know that its not wise to give an employee access to both assets and their journal entries its not wise to be laissez-faire and then when things go sour tell the public that no one's in charge, no one's held accountable for monitoring content, and hence any problems that hatch from within are purely representative of those individuals specific to the given issue. It isn't necessarily illegal but its understandable how that can be perceived not only as a double-standard to the broader world but as a pool of brewing problems veiled in smoke.

Did someone say that Masonry is a "blank canvas," that it's a place for financiers to rub shoulders with cardinals (!) or anyone else, or for most of the rest of that interesting speculation? I mean, how are we to reply to such a speculation based upon....what I don't know?

 

[Ecclectic79]

Did someone say that Masonry is a "blank canvas," that it's a place for financiers to rub shoulders with cardinals (!) or anyone else, or for most of the rest of that interesting speculation? I mean, how are we to reply to such a speculation based upon....what I don't know?

From a 19th century Catholic standpoint of worrying about there being some sort of off-board 'loop' and a place where church officials who aren't fully on the up and up would be made prone to bribery do to the quantity of rich and elite present - I can see the concern with having clergy as Masons. It would be more of a problem for Catholics than Protestants because of Catholicism having the hierarchical structure that it does.

As far as the conversation veering into speculation, what's left when anything brought up gets the response of 'We're not responsible for that!'? If that's how its going to be we're really stuck with discussing how the layout of the system might raise anti-Mason sentiment or concern really in our attempt to broach why it is that people tend to go that way.

 

[Albion]

From a 19th century Catholic standpoint of worrying about there being some sort of off-board 'loop' and a place where church officials who aren't fully on the up and up would be made prone to bribery do to the quantity of rich and elite present - I can see the concern with having clergy as Masons.

But where did that colorful speculation come from? The RCC had its reasons for opposing Masonry, but this ^ wasn't part of them!

There are two big reasons why Masonry was denounced by the Church:

1. Masonry favored national independence movements, which would, incidentally, have the effect of reducing or eliminating the Vatican's historic ability to name rulers, remove them in some cases, etc., going way back in history. Of course, other movements were pressuring on their own but in the same direction--Socialism, Secularism, Capitalism, etc. This all led to the proclamation of Papal Infallibility in 1871, which has more to do with political influence than theology.

2. The claim (invalid, IMO) that Masonry promotes religious "indifferentism" because it admits men who are members of different churches, save only that they are monotheists. This has been called "indifferentism," suggesting that Masonry takes the POV that no particular way to God is better than any other, but that is incorrect. It merely does not take a stand. Instead, Masonry supports each man's own belief on that point. If a Catholic were to join--and there are Catholic Masons, as Rev. Wayne noted--and the member believes that the RCC is the only way to salvation, it is not Masonry's intent to dissuade him from that belief.

 

[Rev Wayne]

At a minimum the Alta Vendita document made a pretty good talking-point during the time period referenced. People like Malachai Martin also continued to swear by its accuracy as late as the 1960's and Vatican II.

Hardly worth mentioning. From the BC/Yukon GL website FAQ:

10. Doesn't the Alta Vendita prove that Freemasonry is anti-Catholic?

No.

The current interest in the Alta Vendita, mostly on the part of the extreme anti-Vatican II fringe of the Catholic church, was piqued by the 1998 publication of Alta Vendita, The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita by John Vennari, a writer for the Catholic Family News.

This little booklet reprints a collection of papers — reputedly from 1820s Alta Vendita correspondence — published by authority of Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) in 1859.

During the early 19th century the people of the Italian states were attempting to expel foreign troops, mostly French and Austrian, and to redefine their political relationship with the aristocracy and the Roman Catholic Church. One of several political and militant groups, the Carbonari promoted republicanism, liberalism and what the Catholic church condemns as "modernism". The Carbonari leadership was titled the Alta Vendita. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Just as the name "Carbonari" was adopted from the charcoal-burners, so also in their secret intercourse they made use of many expressions taken from the occupation of charcoal-burning. The place where the members assembled was called baracca (hut), its interior vendita (place of selling coal), and its surroundings foresta (forest). The members called one another buon cugino (good cousin); those not belonging to the society were pagani (heathens). The Carbonari were divided into two classes: apprentices and masters. No apprentice could rise to the grade of a master before the end of six months. The members made themselves known to one another by secret signs in shaking hands. These signs for masters and apprentices were unlike. One of the underlying principles of the society, it is true, was that the "good brotherhood" rested on religion and virtue; but by this was understood a purely natural conception of religion, and the mention of religion was absolutely forbidden. In reality the association was opposed to the Church. Nevertheless, it venerated St. Theobald as its patron saint. The members belonging to each separate district formed a vendita, called thus from the place of assembly. At the head was the alta vendita, to which deputies were chosen from the other vendite.
Whether the Carbonari was "opposed to the Church" or only opposed to the temporal and political power of the Church — and whether such a distinction is possible — is not the issue here. The important point is that after the fall of the Bourbons, its influence rapidly declined and, after 1841, nothing more was heard of it.

Interest in the Alt Venditi was kept alive by such discredited conspiracy theorists as Nesta Webster, Edith Starr Miller and William Guy Carr and further promoted by the John Birch Society.

There is nothing in Vennari’s booklet, or any other writings on the Alta Venditi, that proves that the group was associated in any fashion with regular Freemasonry, that it had any influence on Freemasonry, that it grew out of the Bavarian Illuminati, or that it continues to exist in any form.

 

[Rev Wayne]

As far as the conversation veering into speculation, what's left when anything brought up gets the response of 'We're not responsible for that!'?

More to the point: what's left for us to do, when continual misattributions are made against Masons, but to point out that Masons are not responsible? There's really nothing we can do to improve the accuracy of the accusations of anti-Masons.

 

[Albion]

As far as the conversation veering into speculation, what's left when anything brought up gets the response of 'We're not responsible for that!'?

I think it's fair to say you've gotten a calm and careful refutation of any charges that we know to be unfounded. Far from brushing off such charges, we've explained what they are all about. If we seem "set with an answer," it's only because we are familiar with the many myths and misconceptions that are out there.

We can almost anticipate them in the way you'd be prepared to answer things said about your church such as "Catholics worship the Pope," "Catholics don't believe in the Bible," or "Catholics think the rest of us aren't Christians."