Templar Baloney Every Bit
I am obliged to follow up on my previous Templar posts (category), regarding the events surrounding the release of the Chinon Parchment. As it turns out, the reports released by the secular press, which included interviews with Templar pretenders, gave the impression that the absolution of the Templars, recorded in the Chinon document, was an effective rehabilitation, that is, an acknowledgment that the Templars were unjustly accused. This is in no way the case. The rough translation of the Chinon Parchment, which until now, remains unchallenged, makes it clear that the Templars were guilty of grave sin, confessed their sin and were mercifully absolved by the Church.
To briefly review, in my first post on the subject of October 8, 2007, I noted that something sounded fishy when the press claimed that the Chinon Parchment cleared the Templars of the charges of blasphemy, because the Church concluded that denouncing Christ and spitting on the Cross was not truly sinful (?!). Here is what the Telegraph had to say:
The Templars explained to Pope Clement that the initiation mimicked the humiliation that knights could suffer if they fell into the hands of the Saracens, while the kissing ceremony was a sign of their total obedience.
The Pope concluded that the entrance ritual was not truly blasphemous, as alleged by King Philip when he had the knights arrested. However, he was forced to dissolve the Order to keep peace with France and prevent a schism in the church.
A certain Professor Barbara Frale was the one who found the misfiled parchment in the Vatican Archives, and is the author of the book on the subject, published recently by the Vatican archives. She is quoted in the the Telegraph article:
“This is proof that the Templars were not heretics,” said Prof Frale. “The Pope was obliged to ask pardon from the knights.
“For 700 years we have believed that the Templars died as cursed men, and this absolves them.”
In the light of the rough translation, which, by the way, is commented on in a wikepedia entry, and remains unchallenged, Professor Frale’s conclusions are incomprehensible to me. The Chinon Parchment, in fact, finds the accused to be guilty of heresy and repentant of their sin. Furthermore, there is no apology of the Pope to the Templars expressed in the document.
I am willing to eat crow if I have gone down the wrong path, but I have to conclude that my original hunch was correct. This story is a baloney sandwich! A lot of garbage between two thin slices of facts.
The Times Online took the misinformation a step further by giving the preposterous story of the Acheson brothers a totally unwarranted level of credibility. Ben Acheson claims to be both a real Templar and as such the recipient of a letter from Pope Benedict XVI, promising a public apology for the unjust suppression of the Knights Templar.
As it turns out not only has the anticipated apology never been released (big surprise), but, again, the rough translation reveals that, in fact, the Templars confessed to heresy and were absolved. They were never found to be innocent of the charges leveled against them.
Futhermore, according to the Chinon Parchment, even the legendary hero of the Freemasons and all Templar pretenders, the Grandmaster himself, Jaques de Molay confessed to heresy and repented:
Concerning the way of his initiation into the Order, he said that having given him the cloak the receptor showed to him <the cross> and told him that he should denounce the God whose image was depicted on that cross, and that he should spit on the cross. Which he did, although he did not spit on the cross, by near it, according to his words. He also said that performed this denunciation in words, not in spirit. Regarding the sin of sodomy, the worshiped head and the practice of illicit kisses, he, diligently questioned, said that he knew nothing of that.
When he was asked whether he had confessed to these things due to a request, reward, gratitude, favor, fear, hatred or persuasion by someone else, or the use of force, or fear of impending torture, he replied that he did not. When he was asked whether he, after being apprehended, was submitted to any questioning or torture, he replied that he did not.
After this, we concluded to extend the mercy of absolution for these acts to brother Jaques de Molay, the grandmaster of the said order, who in the form and manner described above had denounced in our presence the described and any other heresy, and swore in person on the Lord’s Holy Gospel, and humbly asked for the mercy of absolution, restoring him to unity with the Church and reinstating him to communion of the faithful and sacraments of the Church.
It also seems that the charges of sodomy against the Order were not entirely unfounded. Though most of the brothers in question denied knowledge of any such activity within the Order, Brother Hugo de Pérraud admitted having counseled initiates to abstain from relations with women, but in the event that they were unable to restrain their lusts, they were to “join themselves with the brothers of the Order.” He further claimed that he never engaged in sodomy, nor did he know of anyone else who did so, save three brothers who had been incarcerated for that behavior. Yet the document makes it clear that the Church did not just make up the charges out of thin air.
Of course, none of this answers the question as to what happened in 1314, whether Jaques de Molay and his brothers relapsed, or whether it was more political chicanery of Clement V. I am not a Templar hater. I am just sick of the anti-Catholic pseudo history, which Freemasons and other opportunists continually foist on the unsuspecting public.
January 8, 2008 at 4:11 pm
My Brother,
Thank you for your website and your posting. I throughly enjoy your point of view. I agree with your assessment of the Chinon Parchment…when I read through the English translation (reprinted by permission of the author at http://www.templarfellowship.com/article.cfm?id=283) I had the same thoughts as you–”this doesn’t say ANYTHING like what the popular press is relaying to us!” The points that you make are right on target.
I would , however, offer one questioning observation and correct you on one statement. You state that “…the Grandmaster himself, Jaques de Molay confessed to heresy and repented…” The research that I have read on the subject demonstrates that this is true, but a variety of sources point out that just before his death de Molay anounced that he had been forced to confess under duress and recanted that he had committed any of the heresies he was accused of and held to his innocence. I think that this is pretty well documented.
Finally I find objection with your statment “I am just sick of the anti-Catholic pseudo history, which Freemasons and other opportunists continually foist on the unsuspecting public.” I think that you paint the Freemasons with too broad a brush. Are their anti-catholic Masons? Sure. Are there bigotted, racist Masons? Sure. Are there Catholic Masons? I know of a few. Are there Jewish Masons? I know a few of those too. The point being, the statement “…which Freemasons and other opportunists continually foist on the unsuspecting public” is too broad a statement. The Freemasons as a corporate entity CERTAINLY do not fit this category of “all”, and most Freemasons that I know don’t either. Certainly there are exceptions to the good within every organization, but I think a better statement to conclude with would be “I am just sick of the anti-Catholic pseudo history continually foist on the unsuspecting public.”
Thank you my brother.
January 9, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Chris,
Thank you for your kind words.
I have pointed out in other posts that for years many Catholic historians have questioned the ultimate justice of the proceedings against the Templars. The point of this post was, as you have already acknowledged, to show how the conclusions reached by the media and certain Templar organizations from the Chinon text are completely off the mark.
It is not my purpose to pass judgment on any individual, or to disparage the charitable works of any organization, but Freemasonry, as such, is a secret society whose purpose is diametrically opposed to the Catholic Faith. Freemasonic organizations have long perpetuated the absurd conspiracy theory that the Templars were guardians of the ancient mysteries which the Church was out to suppress. Whether or not this or that Mason subscribes to such theories is immaterial to the orientation of the organization. See for example, one Mason who does not subscribe to the theory, but who defends Mythraism.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, the real virtues and vices of the Templars have been lost in this capricious myth making.
I print here in full the Declaration on Masonic Associations, promulgated by the Sacred Congregation for the doctrine of the faith in 1983:
January 12, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Fr. Angelo
Yes, I agree that MANY of the “popular Templars” have “swung the pendulum” so far from the “historic Templar” brethren as to be 180 degrees from where they originated, or from the indended mission.
I accept and understand your assertion that judgement is not the purpose of your reply and; I acknowledge the Catholic Church’s position on Freemasonry and certainly accept its right to take such a position. I believe I also understand the motivation resulting in such position statement.
Further, I understand why most think that Freemasonry is a “secret organization”, and Freemasonry itself certainly has ONLY itself to blame for this misunderstanding. It is certainly NOT a secret organization in THIS era, but rather another corporation conducting private business among its members, much as all organizations do. But this is not to the point I wish to address in this reply.
The statement “…whose purpose is diametrically opposed to the Catholic Faith” confuses me. I have heard this statement before and each time it causes me confusion. In ALL seriousness my brother, is it possible to explain in a simple manner to one who is ignorant of the answer, just what the “Catholic Faith” is? I seldom read that Freemasonry is a society “diametrically opposed to the Christian Faith”, because it is not, and can not be.
You state that”Freemasonic organizations have long perpetuated the absurd conspiracy theory that the Templars were guardians of the ancient mysteries which the church was out to suppress.” So is it because of “absurd conspiracy theories”, or the perceived “promotion of ancient mysteries”, or the accusation of “church suppression” of an idea, or is it some other reason(s) for the Catholic Church to perceive Freemasonry as “diametrically opposed”?
In exploring the meaining of “diametrically” I find that, as expected, it refers to something that is “completely opposite” and stems from 1387 Old French -*diametre*, which is from Latin *diametrus*, originally from Greek *diametros* meaning “diagonal of a circle,” from *dia-* “across, through” + *metron* “a measure”.
I know that Freemasons, as an organization, are not opposed to the Catholic Church. It confuses me then that the Catholic Church percieves them as such.
Perhaps it is “opposed to” that I am misunderstanding. I read that the meaning of the word is “contrary to”, and I find the word is from 1386, likewise from Old French *opposer*, and *poser* meaning “to place, lay down”, and blended with Latin *opponere* meaning “oppose, object to, set against”
Am I misunderstanding the intent of the statement? When I read that “a purpose is diametrically opposed to” I tend to think “actively working against”. Is the intented idea rather “when compared with, is contrary to…”?
I see that perhaps I may have answered my own question with my opening statement: “I agree that MANY of the “popular Templars” have “swung the pendulum” so far from the “historic Templar” brethren as to be 180 degrees from where they originated, or from the indended mission.” This could be stated “…many of the ‘populrar Templars’ have ’swung the pendulum’ so far from the ‘historic Templar’ brethren as to be diametrically opposed from where they originated or from the intended mission.”
As I’ve said, I can respect the authority of the Catholic Church and its opinion. I also understand that you certainly do not presume to “speak for” the Catholic Church, but I would like to come to better understand this perception. If such discussion needs to shift to a more private communication, you have my e-mail address. If such discussion is not desired I can respect that decision as well. I just wish to explore and undrestand.
Chris
January 15, 2008 at 12:32 am
Chris,
I will get to you very soon. Thanks for your patience.
January 15, 2008 at 9:17 am
Acknowledged. Thank you for your thoughtfulness and consideration of the subject.
January 15, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Chris,
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this with you and clarify my answer. Bear with me please. Your comment can only be addressed at some length.
I would be happy to do it.
The Catholic Faith is the deposit of divine revelation, consisting in everything men need to know and do in order to save their souls and enter into heaven. This deposit was begun in the Law and the Prophets of the Old Testament and fulfilled in the teaching of Jesus Christ. It was entrusted by him to the twelve apostles and their successors who preserved it through apostolic tradition and in the written Word of the New Testament. It was entrusted in a particular way, by Christ with the promise of His protection, to Peter and his successors, so that under a single visible head, the pope, the deposit of faith would be handed on, complete and unadulterated, until the end of time.
That being answered, I should say that perhaps I would have stated myself better had I wrote: “Freemasonry, as such, is a secret society whose purpose is diametrically opposed to the Catholic Church.” In any case, Freemasonry is diametrically opposed to both the Catholic Faith and the Catholic Church.
So what is the Church? It is the Mystical Body of Christ. Christ is the Head and the faithful are the Body, who are united to their Head and to one another by supernatural grace. In this sense the Church is a spiritual invisible reality. However, invisible grace is communicated to the faithful by means of visible temporal realities, just as the Divine Nature of Christ is made visible, so to speak, through His Human Nature. Thus the Church is the instrument of divine grace through its institution, established by Christ Himself: the visible head of the Church, Christ’s vicar is the Pope, and the bishops in union with him, whose office is to teach, govern and sanctify.
By saying that Freemasonary is “diametrically opposed” to the Catholic Faith, I mean both “radically incompatible with” and “actively at war with.”
Radically Incompatible
Freemasonry is a form of naturalism and syncretism. Freemasons claim that their fraternity is not a religion and, alternatively, require or do not require (depending on the sect) belief in the Universal Architect. In any case, Masonic literature is rife with theological, philosophical, ethical and religious beliefs from what they call the “Ancient Mysteries,” a veritable continuum of pagan and Judeo-Christian beliefs spanning all the ages of the world.
On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that authentic divine revelation was given in the Old Testament by way of prophecy and prefigurement, and completed in the fulness of time through Jesus Christ and His gospel, that deposit of faith, being perfected and sealed with the death of the last Apostle. Ultimately the message of that teaching is that Jesus Christ is the one salvation of all, and without our incorporation into His sacrificial death and resurrection through the Church, we cannot be saved.
The radical incompatibility arises from the fact that Freemasonic formation is a pursuit of hidden or mystical learning (Gnosticism), by means of the wisdom of all times and cultures, and denies the possibility of objective divine revelation and dogma. It should not be hard to see, then, why Freemasons would be opposed to the Church and papacy as to a widespread superstition, contrary to the ideals of modern man. As a Catholic expert on Freemasonr, Professor Zbigniew Suchecki, has said:
Both Roman Catholics and Freemasons advocate a measure of tolerance. The difference is that Roman Catholics believe in respect for the human person, no matter what their beliefs, but not to the point of believing that the search for true wisdom is to be found in a synthesis of all ideas. Freemasons, on the other hand, believe in tolerance for ideas, no matter how radically incompatible they are with faith in Jesus Christ.
Actively at War With
Prescinding from the wild yarns of conspiracy theorists and hoaxers, I think it fair to say that the historical facts establishing the active opposition of Freemasonry to the Roman Catholic Church have been well documented. Let me summarize by quoting Paul Fisher. The Freemasons
Roman Catholicism and Freemasonry are, in fact, diametrically opposed ideas, the former affirming the possibility, necessity and fact of objective divine revelation and the divine/human institution with the authority necessary to hand it on and preserve it. The latter, on the other hand, is inherently opposed to the idea of both dogma and religious authority, especially in terms of the influence they may have in the public square. Thus the historical enmity of Roman Catholicism and Freemasonry is a logical consequence of diametrically opposed “faiths.”
While I will grant that not every Freemason, and perhaps not every lodge, subscribe to the same explicit anti-Catholicism, the naturalistic and syncretistic philosophy of Freemasonry remains the same wherever the lodge is found. I am, quite frankly, most sceptical that the standard claim that Freemasonry is not a religion, and therefore, should never be perceived to be inimical with any particular faith is really believed by a well educated Mason.
All of the above are certainly illustrations of that diametric opposition, but yes it is the “some other reason” of false doctrine (naturalism and religious syncretism) that is at the heart of the opposition.
That I should take special exception to the way in which the Chinon Parchment has been used falsely to prop up the claims, legitimate or otherwise, of the Freemasons and Templar societies, is because it betrays the kind of bad faith ploy that is typical of active opposition to the Church. Whether the historical Templars were innocent or not, is not the point here. The point is that Freemasonic ideas have been so well disseminated and assimilated that people will believe anything derogatory about the Church, no matter how baseless.
I do not intend here, to minimize our own hand in the lack of confidence that is shown the Catholic Church in these days, as has been caused, for example, by the sex abuse scandal. On the other hand, neither would it be accurate to minimize the concerted effort on the part of Freemasonry to utilize the tactic of disinformation.
One might say I go too far in attributing the bogus reporting on the Chinon Parchment to the Freemasons. At least I do not think it unreasonable to point out its consistency with the Freemasonic canon concerning the Templars and Jacques de Molay. In spite of the readily available translation of the document, which I see has been reposted on your site, I have seen no Templar related or Masonic organization to date denounce the use of the document to support their claims.
Chris, Perhaps there is also here some question as to what might constitute words or actions that are anti-Christian or anti-Catholic. For example, much discussion went on in years past relative to Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code. Many Templar and Masonic organizations have commented on the book. I am not suggesting that these organizations have taken the turgid novel as gospel, but neither did I ever see them acknowledge it as an anti-Catholic work, and certainly not an anti-Christian work. I would be interested in knowing your view of the matter.
I hope my answer has been enlightening.
January 18, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I haven’t run away…computer issues, time constraints and LOTS of scheduling conflicts make my response slow. I hope that in a day or three to have it completed.
Chris
January 20, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Chris,
I will wait patiently.
January 23, 2008 at 8:33 am
Thanks. computers are at times such a blessing, and at times such a … something else. I hope to be able to be able to access the response I was working on today.
Chris
January 26, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Fr. Angelo,
Sorry for the delay in responding, but life, illness, computer woes, and other “fun” stuff hindered my response. My response has become a “dissertation”. I will begin with what I perceive to be errors, or errors in perception regarding Freemasonry.
ERRORS OF PERCEPTION
I believe the current “conflict” under discussion stems from error in perception and miscommunication. In your responses you seem to promote that “Freemasonry” is a synonym for a specific “branch of philosophy”—as if it were pantheism, or agnosticism, or atheism, or any of the other number of “’isms” that permeate “that branch of science comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.” I don’t think that there is a “Freemasonryism” in Philosophy, and I don’t believe that such a broad categorization is accurate—Freemasonry is not that scientific. Certainly my perspective of Freemasonry is not that of a branch of (scientific) philosophy, but rather from a social group of men who are interested in (literal) philosophy—“the love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.”
You note that Freemasonry and the Catholic Faith is “radically incompatible” because “Freemasonry is a form of naturalism and syncretism.” I believe this erroneous. My dictionary defines naturalism as:
“conformity to nature; factual or realistic representation, especially in art and literature; philosophy: the system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws, without attributing moral, spiritual, or supernatural significance to them; theology: the doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation.”
I doubt that we are both referencing the “artistic” reference of the first section, but are more concerned with the philosophical and theologically related definitions. My dictionary points out that one of the definitions of philosophy is “in archaic and historical use, the investigation of natural phenomena and its systematization in theory and experiment, as in alchemy, astrology, or astronomy…” hence the reference to philosophy within the definition of “naturalism”. I would, however, point out the phrase “archaic and historical”. While naturalism may have been the “fashion” of bygone eras within society in which the men who identified themselves as Freemasons found themselves, I know of no “official” precept, tenet, or teaching within Freemasonry that espouses naturalism. Indeed, quite the opposite, it seems that Freemasonry encourages a moral, spiritual or supernatural significance to nature. Hence, from my perspective, Freemasonry is not, according to definition, a form of naturalism.
Further, my dictionary defines syncretism as:
The attempt or tendency to combine or reconcile differing beliefs, as in philosophy or religion.
I will agree that attempts to combine beliefs in one’s philosophy or religion in order to create something new can lead to error and confusion. Using the definition of reconcile meaning: to re-establish friendship between, to settle or resolve, to make compatible or consistent, however, I certainly do not see a problem with reconciling differing beliefs. While some belief systems and religions will never be “settled” or “made compatible” TO one another (capable of orderly, efficient integration and operation with other elements in a system), I certainly believe that they may be “made compatible” WITH one another (capable of living or performing in harmonious agreeable or congenial combination with another or others).
I use Paul as an illustration. We are commanded to “go and make disciples…” According to my dictionary a disciple ranges anywhere from “any active adherent; to a person who subscribes to the teachings of a master and assists in spreading them; culminating as one of the Companions of Christ.” I see this paraphrased as ranging from a “follower” to a “student of” to an “intimate of”. In Athens, Paul did not tell the Athenians why THEY were wrong; he taught them why HE was right. To briefly paraphrase him “I see that you are worshipers. Great. I see that you worship the unknown god. Let me tell you who he is and what he has done….” As a result of Paul’s approach in Athens many became disciples—some followed, some learned, and so forth. Sure, there was incompatibility of faiths. But Paul did not seek it as part of his teaching. It was caused by the dogma of others. “You said God is A, we say God is B”. It seems to me that Paul was saying “God is God, let me tell you what I know.” This, in my experience, has been the objective of those who participate in Freemasonry—“We ALL believe in God; HOW we believe in him is the business of each individual.” In this sense I see “syncretism” as an opportunity to testify as to one’s beliefs, and not as a plan to create “new beliefs”. Harmonizing the beliefs of other belief systems to one’s own belief system is not a negative—AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE ONE’S OWN BELIEF SYSTEM. Freemasonry seeks to illustrate, not alter, belief systems of individuals.
You state “Freemasons claim that their fraternity is not a religion…Masonic literature is rife with theological, philosophical, ethical and religious beliefs from what they call the “Ancient Mysteries,” a veritable continuum of pagan and Judeo-Christian beliefs spanning all the ages of the world.” A religion, according to http://www.dictionary.com, is:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices…
4. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
5. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
Freemasonry’s only “required set of beliefs” is “there is one God and I place my trust in him”. Freemasonry does not attempt to explain the cause, nature, creation, or purpose of the universe. It does not even denote moral code, though it exemplifies moral excellence through its various degrees. Says the Masonic Information Center in Vol 14, Issue 4, Dec 2007 issue of FOCUS “Masonic Degrees are concerned primarily with communicating the importance of honor and integrity, teaching that each person must take responsibility for his own life and actions.” Any beliefs promoted in “Masonic literature”, even that of the Masonic Information Center, are merely the opinion of the individual author. It is with the individual author one should take exception, not necessarily the organization of Freemasonry. Certainly Freemasonry is not the “practice of religious beliefs, or the ritual observance of faith” because Freemasonry espouses no statement of faith.
Now I suppose that you might say that definition number 3 qualifies Freemasonry as a religion, but then so does every occupation, every civic group, and every group of every kind. BUT, I did find in my dictionary from 1976 this definition for “religion”:
“The expression of man’s belief in and reverence for a superhuman power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe. Any particular integrated system of this expression; obsolete: sacred rites or practices.”
Ah, OK. NOW I get it. Using a definition such as this, Freemasonry would fall under the definition of “religion”. In my mind, however, I tend to equate “Faith” or “Faith system” with “Religion”. A “Faith” is a confident belief in the truth, value or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing; Loyalty to a person or thing; a system of religious beliefs. Freemasonry has no SYSTEM of religious beliefs and is therefore not a “faith system”. This, I believe, is what most are intending when stating that “Freemasonry is not a religion.” This intention is corroborated by the current definitions of “religion.”
Freemasonry has no integrated system of beliefs other than “there is one God and the Freemason places his trust in him”. There is no “how to”, or “what to” believe about God promoted by Freemasonry. Freemasonry merely starts where Paul found himself in the forum of Athens—“Gentlemen, I see that you are worshipers—good. I see that you believe in God—good.” It goes no further than that—the rest is left up to the individual Mason and his individual “faith tradition” while Freemasonry illustrates various fictional portrayals of history. And here is what makes Freemasonry confusing to others. Because each individual is free to write about HIS PERSONAL beliefs as stimulated by the Freemasonic experience, people assume that those PERSONAL beliefs are held as the dogma of Freemasonry. Even this dissertation on Freemasonry is but one man’s opinion and not condoned by any organization.
DISAGREEMENTS AND AGREEMENTS
I will disagree with your assertion that “Freemasonry…denies the possibility of objective divine revelation and dogma.” No Masonic degree that I have experienced contains such a denial. I will also disagree with the quote from Professor Zbigniew Suchecki: “The Freemason rejects all faith in dogmas… He is required to be a free man without submission to dogma or passion.” It is my experience that this interpretation is incorrect. The requirement to become a Freemason in our jurisdiction is to be “a man, freeborn….” There is absolutely nothing contained in the ritual of Freemasonry that suggests the rejection of dogma. In fact, the Professor’s own acknowledgment that Freemasonry “…does not admit any even in his own Lodge” bears this out, for the rejection of dogma (an assertion held as absolute truth) IS a dogma (an assertion of absolute truth) in itself!
I do, however, wholeheartedly agree with the professor when he states “The representation of a Universal Architect who dominates, remote from man, undermines the foundations of the Catholic idea of God who encounters man as a Father and Lord.” Anyone’s perception of God as “some distant bearded entity controlling the planet by remote control from somewhere past Pluto” has an unhappy perception indeed. Freemasonry does NOT suggest within its presentations any specific interpretation of God. THIS IS WHY THE FREEMASON IS ENCOURAGED TO ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE WITHIN THE FAITH SYSTEM OF HIS CHOOSING.
Regarding the statement “Both Roman Catholics and Freemasons advocate a measure of tolerance”—I can agree with this. “The difference is that Roman Catholics believe in respect for the human person, no matter what their beliefs…”—I will agree with this, “…but not to the point of believing that the search for true wisdom is to be found in a synthesis of all ideas.” This statement is in error, for neither does Freemasonry call for a synthesis of all beliefs, but rather toleration and respect for each individual, just as the church.
“Freemasons, on the other hand, believe in tolerance for ideas, no matter how radically incompatible they are with faith in Jesus Christ.” This is correct only insofar as it is toleration for the holder of the idea. As a social/service/fraternal organization Freemasonry seeks to promote the toleration for the human person, AND their beliefs—even if the individual Freemason believes them to be wrong. Just as Paul did with the Athenians, the Freemasonic lodge is merely the forum. While Freemasonry does not allow dogmatic debate within the private confines of the meeting hall when all are gathered together, it does NOT preclude such “debate” during personal time when an individual is free to terminate such debate at their pleasure. In other words, dogmatic debate is not permitted within the Freemasonic meeting because anyone not wishing to partake in such debate would have to leave the meeting to escape it—which would infringe upon the rights of the individual member. But outside of the meeting hall one is free to discuss whatever one wills, AND one is free to reject, or avoid such discussion as well. The point is, it is not the toleration of ideas for the purpose of synthesis, rather it is toleration for the purpose of HARMONY within the meeting. Such a purpose IS suitable for a worldwide social/service/fraternal organization.
To address the issue of Freemasonry being “actively at war” with the Catholic Church, from my perspective it seems rather to be that the Catholic Church is at war with Freemasonry. You state, “the historical enmity of Roman Catholicism and Freemasonry is a logical consequence of diametrically opposed ‘faiths.’” I would, instead, assert that it is not a consequence of diametrically opposed “faiths” that is causing the historical enmity, but rather miscommunication, semantics, and fear. The social/service/fraternal organization known has Freemasonry has nothing to fear from the Catholic Church. It is my assertion that the Catholic Church has nothing to fear from Freemasonry. I can’t speak for the actions of historical Masons. I can’t control the actions of other Freemasonic organizations outside of my own jurisdiction. I can only speak for my perceptions, my experience, and myself; and to some extent those people that I know. I hope that I have shared some of these perceptions well enough that, if not persuasive, they are at least illustrative that not all Freemasons are anti-catholic; not all Freemasonic organizations are anti-catholic; and that anti-Masonic sentiments made with a broad brush are as equally painful as anti-catholic sentiments made with a broad brush. Both are usually incorrect as most prejudice and bigotry is.
THE CATHOLIC FAITH
Thank you for the definition of the “Catholic Faith” (briefly recapsulated)— the deposit of divine revelation, consisting in everything men need to know and do in order to save their souls and enter into heaven; begun in the Law and the Prophets of the Old Testament; fulfilled in the teaching of Jesus Christ; entrusted by him to the twelve apostles and their successors; preserved it through apostolic tradition and in the written Word of the New Testament; entrusted to Peter and his successors; so that under a single visible head, the pope, the deposit of faith would be handed on, complete and unadulterated, until the end of time. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. Christ is the Head and the faithful are the Body, who are united to their Head and to one another by supernatural grace; the instrument of divine grace through its institution, established by Christ Himself: the visible head of the Church, Christ’s vicar is the Pope, and the bishops in union with him, whose office is to teach, govern and sanctify, the message being that Jesus Christ is the salvation of all, and without our incorporation into His sacrificial death and resurrection through the Church, we cannot be saved.
This does not differ significantly from my Faith (briefly excerpted here)—
The Holy Bible is God’s revelation of Himself to man. God as Father reigns with providential care over His universe, His creatures, and the flow of the stream of human history according to the purposes of His grace. In His incarnation as Jesus Christ He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary, taking upon Himself human nature with its demands and necessities and identifying Himself completely with mankind yet without sin. With His substitutionary death on the cross He made provision for the redemption of men from sin. He was raised from the dead. He now dwells in all believers as the living Holy Spirit. Each church operates under the Lordship of Christ, each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. The church is the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation. The Kingdom of God includes both His general sovereignty over the universe and His particular kingship over men who willfully acknowledge Him as King.
Christianity is the faith of enlightenment and intelligence. In Jesus Christ abide all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. All sound learning is, therefore, a part of our Christian heritage. The new birth opens all human faculties and creates a thirst for knowledge. Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation for common ends by various groups of Christ’s people. Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament. Christians should be ready to work with all men of good will in any good cause, always being careful to act in the spirit of love without compromising their loyalty to Christ and His truth. It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. (The Baptist Faith and Message, of the Southern Baptist Convention)
As a Christian, as a Freemason, as a member of a minority healing arts profession licensed by state and federal governments, even as merely an American, I am no stranger to prejudice and bigotry. Lest one thinks these words are too harsh, I use them with these meanings “Prejudice: An averse judgment or opinion formed beforehand without knowledge or examination of the facts” and “Bigotry: the attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a person of strong conviction or prejudice… who is intolerant of those who differ with him.” It seems, that it is human nature to prejudge because it takes less energy and effort than to fully analyze and make individual determinations. We come across it in everyday life, in professions, commerce, religion, schooling, ideas, philosophies, cultures and more. It is much easier to assume than to think—and we ALL do it; it is how our bodies and minds are “hardwired”.
Statements such as “The point is that Freemasonic ideas have been so well disseminated and assimilated that people will believe anything derogatory about the Church, no matter how baseless” and “neither would it be accurate to minimize the concerted effort on the part of Freemasonry to utilize the tactic of disinformation” are indicators of prejudging an entire social/service/fraternal organization and expressing intolerance of that organization based upon bias. Am I saying that your arguments are baseless—NO! Am I saying that you are wrong to hold anti-Masonic ideas—NO, for you get to choose your beliefs. I am merely offering my perspective based upon my personal experience and knowledge.
The Freemasonic jurisdiction in which I participate certainly is not anti-catholic. Not all Freemasons are anti-catholic. Not all Freemasons are pro-catholic either as there are (presumably) not many catholic Freemasons. Not all minority healing arts providers are “quacks”. Not all Christians are “mindless drones”. Not all evangelical Christians are “Holy rollers”. Not all Catholics are “papal puppets.” Part of the enlightenment that I believe that Christ was calling us to was to be AWARE of the needs around us. To WORK to meet, or address, those needs. To share with others WHY we do so. To help others to follow, to learn, and to become mature in that faith that Christ taught us. It is my hope that in “standing my ground” and in your “standing your ground” for our beliefs that we have been illustrative to others, and ourselves, that “awareness” is superior to “prejudice”.
I’ll conclude with Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code. You note “many Templar and Masonic organizations have commented on the book. I am not suggesting that these organizations have taken the turgid novel as gospel, but neither did I ever see them acknowledge it as an anti-Catholic work, and certainly not an anti-Christian work. I would be interested in knowing your view of the matter.”
The reason why you will not usually see Freemasonry taking such a stand as a corporate entity is precisely what I have been working to illustrate—Freemasonry is not in the “business” of telling men what to think, or how to think it. Secondly, without the participation of Catholic men within the Freemasonic organization, resulting in ignorance of the Catholic Church organization, for what reason would Freemasonry comment on portrayals that Catholics would deem insensitive? Freemasons are ignorant of such perceptions because there are few, if any, Catholic participants to educate them as to the reality of the situation. And note, it is NOT by Freemasonry’s action that this circumstance has come about. I believe that at one point Catholics were very involved in Freemasonry. I seem to recall from my Texas history that in old Mexico the Catholic Church was very involved within Freemasonry, but I may be incorrect on this point and will leave that for another time.
As for what I think of Dan Brown’s work, I did not read the book—I had heard of its “anti-Christian” and controversial nature and chose not to spend money on it. I DID, however, watch the movie from Netflix, and found it to be an entertaining piece of well-acted FICTION. I find the assertions made by this fictional story interesting to contemplate, but have seen no convincing evidence of their veracity—in fact I have found most evidence regarding Mr. Brown’s assertion of “fact” to be to the contrary. Hence I think the Da Vinci Code a “story” knitted together in a wholly fictional manner. I find it interesting to mentally cogitate on the “what ifs” suggested by the story, as mental exercise, but his beliefs finds no place in MY personal faith. And most of the Masons with whom I’ve conversed held similar views.
I have MY faith I think it best described by Paul’s logical argument of Acts 17:22: There is ONE God. God created all things and is the authority over ALL things. He gives LIFE to the living. He is never far from us even though we feel we must go “looking” for him. We are WITHIN him. We ARE his offspring—he is our parent; and just as we should not think of our parents as an “object” so we should not view God. God wishes humans to return to his authority—to NEED him. At one point in time God will judge man by the standard of his exemplar—God’s spirit in human form—and remove everything that is not of the same Spirit.
I also like, as a motto, 1 Peter 1:13 “So make your minds ready, and keep on the watch, hoping with all your power for the grace which is to come to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” Or as our Masonic Knights Templar ritual puts it “hoping ever and praying always for the advent of that glorious day when ‘the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains’; when ‘swords shall be beaten into ploughshares and spears into pruning hooks’; when ‘nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more’; when the reign of the Blessed Emmanuel, the Prince of Peace, the Great Captain of Our Salvation, shall become universal and eternal.”
My apologies if this “apology” and response is too lengthy. I have learned much from our discussion and have enjoyed them immensely!
Chris
January 26, 2008 at 8:24 pm
I love to see knowledgeable individuals “waxing eloquent” with higher levels of intellectual thinking, reasoning and analysis.
I am sure that it takes a tough skin to volley such important perspectives. But let me ask this — if it were given that throughout history up to this exact moment, each individual was completely accurate with the perceptions that contribute to their disposition, what would be the value if it exercised negative energy?
Is the underlying value of one’s beliefs and faith that which would offer anything less than an effort to gain a higher spiritual understanding and to become more alike in one family of knowledge that creates an upward spiral rather than a downward one?
From my less experienced perspective (not being Catholic or a Mason) — what is the value of a fixed position?
There are times when I wonder what the role is of belief and faith? I am personally glad that, in what I perceive as a value of Templarism, I can appreciate all the fixed points of all religions. I enjoy an opportunity to seek undefined points in knowledge while respecting the commitment of another’s faith.
Perhaps it is the opportunity to exercise the executive functions of brain processes whose role is to guide thought and behavior in accordance with internally generated goals or plans that are developed within rather than predetermined by anyone else under the physical and social constraints of any other time.
It is easy to speak with authority of the Templars in the past — but the only true reality is that we are only capable of flexing our own limited perspective unless we are open to join, with an open spirit, and seek the perspectives of others. Just as we would be confident in our own perspective as we stand around any given physical object, we would only be fooling ourselves to think that it is the only perspective.
The beauty of communication takes place when we share our perspectives in a productive way (as I see the above dialogue) — but we should remember that a firm stance from any fixed point contributes accuracy, but lacks completeness.
I truly look to the fellowship that I have with Templars carrying the same light to sincerely interact in a productive and enlightening manner. Ironically, it is the fixed positions of any given religion that would make this difficult…
January 29, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Chris,
Thanks for your thorough response. For the sake of brevity I will synthesize my response as much as possible.
Perhaps I was not clear, but I really made no attempt to prove that Freemasonry is a religion in any formal sense. My point is that the religious implications of membership in the organization are far-reaching, whether Freemasonry is a religion or not.
I see no problem with fraternal organizations that are open to all regardless of religious affiliation. But, quite honestly, to require belief in a higher power as a condition for membership and then leave the whole question as to who or what he/she/it is open to each individual is by definition syncretism and implies a very definite philosophical and religious orientation.
It would seem logical to me for an organization whose purpose is not specifically religious to make no religious conditions on its membership. Why should it? Freemasonry, on the other hand, has a religious condition, namely belief in God–any god–because, I believe, it has a religious purpose, and a very definite religious orientation, which I described correctly as syncretism and naturalism.
Syncretism
There are entities within many religious denominations that are constituted to promote religious dialogue and I have no problem with them as long as they are plain spoken about both their respective common ground and their real objective differences. I believe the cliché “what unites us is more important than what divides us,” is a half truth. Making that cliché a guiding principle is like a renter arguing with a landlord over the rent and saying, “What unites us is more important than what divides us. We both agree that I owe you money. We just disagree on the amount. Lighten up and be happy with what I am giving you.”
If Freemasonry were an organization formed for the purpose of religious dialogue and was frank about it, that would be one thing. But that is not the case. As the Masonic Information Center to which you refer states, Freemasonry
And further:
The net effect of reducing the essentials of religion to belief in a generic god, without defining who or what he/she or it is is religious indifferentism. Freemasonry is a fraternal organization with a religious dimension and content that is ostensibly generic. It may not be a religion or promote a specific creed, but it does promote a generic religion, call it what you like.
This is repugnant to anyone who actually believes in the Hebrews Scriptures, the New Testament or the Koran. Jews do not believe the Messiah has yet come. Christians do, and also believe that after the death of the last apostle revelation is closed. Both Jewish and Christian belief imply that the “prophecy” of Mohamed did not come from God, an idea which, of course is blasphemous to devout Muslims. Authentic religious dialog will try to bring into focus common ground between these different faiths in order to promote harmony and cooperation among members of these religions; it will not promote indifferentism by minimizing essentially contradictory differences.
But not only does Freemasonry minimize the differences of mainstream religion, Masonic traditions and literature encourage research into the “Ancient Mysteries,” which makes the corpus of Masonic literature look like a muddle of all things Judeo-Chrisitan, Islamic, pagan, esoteric, occult, gnostic and you name it. It is not only the beliefs of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that are within the conditions of Freemasonic membership, but also paganism and the occult. I am glad that some lodges have jettisoned most of this, if that is indeed the case, but no where have I ever seen this repudiated by Freemasonry as such. On the contrary, the traditions of Freemasonry are clear and continuous.
Freemasonry insists on belief in God, insists that he/she/it remains undefined, insists that a Volume of the Sacred Law be used, that it be any Volume desired, insists on prayers, whatever they may be, but also insists that religious belief not be discussed at the meetings. So who is the Grand Architect of the Universe? As a Roman Catholic, I would be more at ease knowing that the Masonic Temple was a mosque than the temple of the “unknown God.”
Which brings me to the Areopagus of Athens and the preaching of St. Paul. Some context would be helpful.
The Athenian Epicureans and Stoics were pagans who had never heard the gospel because it had never been preached there before. St. Paul acted as an apologist and began with what they knew, and with what they knew generically through no fault of their own. Far from reducing the dialog to common ground, or forbidding anyone from talking religion, his whole point was to teach them about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which in no way was comprehensible on the basis of their generic understanding of God, nor was it provable by philosophy. In fact, their only response to St. Paul’s presentation was: “We will hear you again about this.” They blew him off.
In fact, St. Paul did not try this again. Subsequently, to the Corinthians, a people of a similar background to the Athenians he wrote:
This is anything but the preaching of a generic religion or philosophy, nor is it a common ground exposure to the wisdom of all times and places.
Naturalism
According to the definition of theological naturalism which you supplied, we are to understand that it is “the doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation.” From a Catholic perspective this definition needs to be clarified by pointing out that “revelation” means “objective divine revelation.” “Objective,” meaning transcendent and supernatural, and not subjective, as matter of personal experience. By “divine” we are to understand that the cause is the one true God, personally active in history, and revealing Himself as He is. And “revelation,” meaning that the information contained is objectively true, that at least some of the information could not be known without it, and that it is accompanied by a cause of certainty.
While you personally and this or that Freemason or lodge may reject theological naturalism, Freemasonry, as such, subscribes to it, even if it does not use the word or even if it rejects the word. Belief in the existence of God is a truth which can be arrived at by reason, the answer to who He is cannot. That requires objective divine revelation.
If Freemasonry were engaged in apologetics for one of the “revealed” religions and began by asserting those things which all theistic religions hold in common, then I would admit that it might not be naturalistic. But that is not the case. Freemasonry, as you assure us, is not at all engaged in religious apologetics. In fact any religious belief at all is acceptable in Freemasonry, as long as one believes in a god. On the other hand, if there is a True God, and He has revealed Himself in a supernatural way, then in no way is that revelation merely ancillary to belief in His existence. On the contrary, it is at the heart of everything. For Catholics, divine revelation, which comes to us in the form of our creed, is not about a what, but about a Who.
Of course, you have a right to believe what you do, and to argue any way you wish in defense of your beliefs and also to tell me that I have completely misrepresented what you believe. Fine by me. However, the Masonic tenets of belief in God with its open-endedness about everything else in the context of an organization which claims to be religious, but not a religion or an organization whose purpose is religious dialog, must either be muddled or disingenuous. I will not suggest the latter of yourself or of individuals I do not know, but I will assert it of the origin and history and traditions of Freemasonry.
Finally, in regard to The Da Vinci Code, you state:
You seem to think that my question about TDVC and some of my other comments were posited to prove that Freemasonry represents a formally defined philosophy and set of rules. That is not at all the case, as I hope, my response thus far has illustrated.
Specifically in regard to TDVC, I pointed out that while many Masonic organizations commented on the book, none of them pointed out its anti-Catholic content. I never said I expected a corporate condemnation, I just noted Masonic chatter about the book, largely favorable, and the simultaneous absence of any condemnation of TDVC’s anti-Catholicism.
You have not read the book. The book is much worse than the movie. I will not burden you with an argument for my disgust with the book. The reasons for that have been well documented elsewhere for anyone to discover.
I will say this: Dan Brown is not merely a writer of fiction, he is a producer of black propaganda, that is, propaganda that’s camouflaged as something other than propaganda. Brown blurs fact and fiction with his fictitious “fact page,” and with his frequent misrepresentations of historical persons, events, places, doctrines, etc. Furthermore, his focal historical misrepresentation of the Church as being responsible for obscuring the true doctrine of Christ is a blasphemy beyond comprehension. And I am not speaking principally about his Mary Magdalen marriage myth, bad enough in itself, but of even worse contentions which I would prefer not to mention here.
I raised the question as to what you thought about TDVC and your own perspective on anti-Catholicism, because I perceive a parallel between the way Dan Brown represents The Da Vinci Code and the way Freemasonry represents its attitude toward religion, specifically Catholicism.
So my question is: are the Ancient Mysteries, the preoccupation with the Templars and Jacques de Molay, the Chinon Parchment farce played along with, the religious ceremony rife with symbolism but void on religious dogma, the esoteric ambiance, the wink at Dan Brown and all the rest just part of the fictional fun, or is it something more serious?
January 29, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Thomas,
Thank you for your comment. I will try to answer your question.
The value of a fixed position is, I think, the progress of having reached a goal, a conclusion, an “accuracy,” as you say, whether complete or not. I must say, though, that at least some fixed points of thought are complete, otherwise nothing would get done and no organization would be possible. If all conclusions are arbitrary, then nothing but anarchy is possible.
And if it is possible to arrive at fixed points of thought, both accurate and complete, then why not fixed points of thought on the matters of the most consequence, such as immortality, the happiness for which we all yearn, morality and personal responsibility. Indeed, the value of a fixed position is the possibility and assurance that there are answers to these questions.
I recommend reading G.K. Chesterton. Here is an excerpt from the last chapter of Heretics, entitled “Concluding Remarks on the Importance of Orthodoxy.”
January 30, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Fr. Angelo,
I believe that you are incorrect in your assessment that “Freemasonry, on the other hand, has a religious condition, namely belief in God–any god–because, I believe, it has a religious purpose, and a very definite religious orientation…” As a participant WITHIN the organization rather than as a student ABOUT the organization, I disagree with this assessment and have tried to share my perspective. It is my belief that Freemasonry espouses no religious purposes, but is a society of like-minded individuals forming a society for the purposes of living out brotherly love and affection, relief of distress, and truth. My preferred definition of “Truth” in this instance is “conformity to reality or actuality” and rather than “the quality of being accurate and without error”, or “a fact that has been verified.” It is my assertion that this is what the religious faith systems are for–the assertion of Truth as “verified”, and “accurate without error.” Freemasonry allows for each individual choose their own Faith system and I see no problem with this.
You assert that “I believe the cliché “what unites us is more important than what divides us,” is a half truth. Making that cliché a guiding principle is like a renter arguing with a landlord over the rent and saying, “What unites us is more important than what divides us. We both agree that I owe you money. We just disagree on the amount. Lighten up and be happy with what I am giving you.” This argument, however, presumes that the renter and the landlord are at odds to begin with–that there is inherent disagreement where there once was agreement. HOWEVER, if the cliché is modified from “more important” to “as important” one creates an atmosphere of toleration where men may focus for a time upon what unites them rather than what divides them–a refreshing oasis in this world of separation.
The assertion that “the net effect of reducing the essentials of religion to belief in a generic god, without defining who or what he/she or it is is religious indifferentism” is erroneous. Freemasonry does NOT assert belief in a generic god, I assert that it promotes “believe in YOUR God” and let the other fellow believe in “HIS God” and look towards what you have in common–love for fellow man, relief of those in distress, and living one’s life truthfully.
You note that “Masonic traditions and literature encourage research into the “Ancient Mysteries,” which makes the corpus of Masonic literature look like a muddle of all things Judeo-Chrisitan, Islamic, pagan, esoteric, occult, Gnostic and you name it.” I say “Good for it!” Research is “exploration, attempting to find something out, a search for knowledge, and systematic investigation to establish facts.” I see this as a positive rather than a negative. While a library full of books seems to have contradictory teachings as well–there are books on pantheism, agnosticism, new age, occult and other contradictory ideas and ideals; yet we don’t dismiss a library as a hodge-podge of ideas. I see Freemasonry in the same light–a place, like a library, where one may explore ideas from many times, many cultures, and beliefs in a quiet atmosphere of toleration. As in a library, it is for each individual to seek his own books, so in Freemasonry each individual is encouraged to seek his own studies. At the same time Freemasonry encourages each individual mason to LEARN about his own faith system within the “library” of his own religion and from his own teachers. I like libraries. I like learning. I like understanding what others believe so that I may better respect them and their beliefs, even if don’t hold to them.
The statement “Freemasonry insists on belief in God, insists that he/she/it remains undefined” is false. Freemasonry insists on a belief in God, it allows the individual (within their own faith system) to define what, or who, that God is.
“So who is the Grand Architect of the Universe?” God, YHWH, Lord, Majesty, Great Captain of our Salvation, Jesus….it is just another way of referring to “God” as the individual perceives him or her with a non-charged terminology. The objective being the harmonious interaction of men of monotheistic faiths whom hold the one God to be the creator, the architect, of the universe.
You assert that “in fact, their only response to St. Paul’s presentation was: ‘We will hear you again about this.’ They blew him off. ” My reading of Acts 17:32 demonstrates that “some indeed mocked; and others said, We will hear you again concerning this….But certain men joined themselves to him and believed; among whom were (3 named individuals)…and others with them.” Paul certainly didn’t win “crowds” and perhaps at future times his efforts were spent elsewhere, but I doubt that Jesus would have counted the four or more disciples gained as wasted energy. Mostly I was referring to where Paul found his audience–the forum where the exploration of ideas took place. Paul took his message to where they explored ideas and he shared his ideas with them. As a result he gathered some who followed, learned, and became companions of Christ—he gathered disciples.
You noted “However, the Masonic tenets of belief in God with its open-endedness about everything else …must either be muddled or disingenuous.” And this is why Freemasonry is not for EVERY man and why the private society chooses who will be a member within with its society. Quite a few just don’t “get it.”
“So my question is: are the Ancient Mysteries, the preoccupation with the Templars and Jacques de Molay, the Chinon Parchment farce played along with, the religious ceremony rife with symbolism but void on religious dogma, the esoteric ambiance, the wink at Dan Brown and all the rest just part of the fictional fun, or is it something more serious?”
Uh oh. My soapbox is being pulled out! People love conspiracies, THIS is what makes Dan Brown so popular right now–fear of the unknown. As long as people have no knowledge of a thing there will be fear about it and where there is fear there is the fear of conspiracy. Where there are those who have knowledge and those who don’t have knowledge about a particular thing—be it politics, law, healing, religion—there will be those who look upon them as conspirators. So let me address some of these unknowns from my perspective of some 20 years of study and participation.
To answer your question “Are the following just part of the fictional fun, or is it something more serious”:
Ancient Mysteries? I see these “mysteries” as library material available for individuals to explore if they wish. Pike, apparently, loved the stuff (but I dislike reading Pike). From an historical perspective I find it fascinating to see what others believed. Some of it I can comprehend, or understand from their perspective, some of it seems like foolishness.
Preoccupation with the Templars and Jacques de Molay? The Scottish Rite of Freemasonry seems to lean more towards the “ancient mystery” stuff (I have not yet participated in the Scottish Rite, but only read about it) The York Rite—culminating with the order of the Knights Templar–is more Christian based. Indeed the Order of the Temple calls for the knight to “wield his sword in defense of defenseless widows, helpless orphans, and the Christian religion.” The preoccupation with the Templars from this perspective is as a place for Christian Masons to practice our particular belief system within the tenants of Freemasonry. And yes this causes consternation among anti-Christian masons. There are some who dogmatically hold that Freemasonry should not provide such a place as it is giving preference to a particular religion. I think, rather it serves to illustrate the Christian origins of this organization.
The York Rite, or “Ancient Free and Accepted Masonry” is not known as “Ancient” for nothing. It dates back to 1348 - 1390. The earliest known Masonic document is dated to 1390, and according to the Masonic degree work one can “deduce” that Masonry “must” have been in existence prior to 1348. So it is documented that the concept of Freemasonry is as old as the mid 1300s and documented as an existent organization to the early 1700’s with Irish Masonic traditions going back, according to tradition, to the 1500-1600s. For myself, it is easy to speculate that between the dissolution of the Templars in 1307-1312 time period, and the 1348-1390 time period, the brotherhood enjoyed by the Templars may have been transformed into a new organization. I don’t claim it as fact, but it seems reasonable based upon circumstantial evidence and personal belief.
Jacque de Molay? Most of the Masonic degrees are based upon an “exemplar” of some kind–that is, here is a story of an individual of good character. In some measure Jacque de Molay certainly falls into this category of an exemplar of good character. The man died for what he believed was the truth. He is merely another exemplar of “good character” as are the stories of “Hiram Abiff”, Zerabbubul, Athelstan, and nameless character examples of how one may live a life of character, choosing to die rather than yield one’s character. A knightly principle if there ever was one.
Chinon parchment farce? I would attribute the public response to this document to ignorance. MOST Masons are not historians. A most miniscule percentage of Freemasons I would wager, are church or medieval historians, or even comprehend the legalistic language of the document. Hence, one can easily understand how the quote from the Chinon parchment which reads:
“After this, we concluded to extend the mercy of absolution for these acts to brother Jaques de Molay, the grandmaster of the said order, who in the form and manner described above had denounced in our presence the described and any other heresy, and swore in person on the Lord’s Holy Gospel, and humbly asked for the mercy of absolution, restoring him to unity with the Church and reinstating him to communion of the faithful and sacraments of the Church.”
The “less than legally minded” have misunderstood the history behind this event because they know more “ABOUT” it than they “KNOW” it. The popular press merely wishes a sound bite and “…absolution for these acts to brother Jacques de Molay, the grandmaster of the said order…restoring him to unity with the Church…” fits that bill. Only the serious Templar understands that De Molay “confessed” under duress and later recanted. I’ll wager most assume he was just found guilty and burned.
Religious ceremony rife with symbolism but void on religious dogma? a morality play is merely a morality play. The “religious ceremonies” are merely morality plays catalogued in a way to illustrate that:
life leads to death and where one should store up one’s treasurers,
1) one is initiated into “something”,
2) one should learn as much about that “something” as one may,
3) one should develop such strong beliefs that they are not to be compromised for any reason.
4) In the York Rite the basic morality plays are illustrated with the Mason learning of the “key stone” of the Temple, its necessity, and that the first shall be last, and the last shall be first;
5) leadership ability is directly associated with divine revelation;
6) the Old Testament history of the completion of the Temple and the filling with the spirit of God;
7) Old Testament history–Zerabubbel returning to build the second Temple, and fictional characterizations illustrating that the Old Testament Law and Prophets were a treasure.
9) fidelity to duty is vital,
10) Loyalty to Faith is desired over compromise,
11) An introduction to the history of the crusader knights,
12) the journey of an individual to become a Knight Templar and the duties assumed.
And all of these interpretations are but MY opinion and description of what I saw demonstrated by these morality plays. Others have different perspectives of the same performance.
Esoteric ambiance? Esoteric is defined as “confined to and understandable by only an enlightened inner circle”. Well I see no difference here than what I see within the church–pick any church. Certainly the Catholic Church has its leadership group that believes it understands more than others, the protestant church likewise have similar groups–deacon bodies, councils of elders and the like who are perceived as “more understanding” than the rest. Or pick a profession. In health care, doctors certainly believe they are more enlightened than folk medicine. Why should men of like mind who study character in ways that others don’t be any different? “Confided to…only an enlightened inner circle” doesn’t apply to Freemasonry either. The lessons taught by Freemasonry are not reserved to “specialists” They are Bible history, Bible based fiction, historical fiction, and more often than not, pretty much readily available to anyone with the desire to find them. Major book stores sell books containing the entire plain language wording of the degrees.
Now I understand that there are a lot of those who like to pretend that the “32 degree Mason is more knowledgeable than others….” or a “higher rank” than other Masons. BALONEY! He has just been exposed to more morality plays. The Scottish Rite has a catalog of some 32 degrees of which, it is my understanding, they portray some half dozen or so actual plays. The York Rite has nine plays between the 3rd degree and the Order of the Temple and exemplify all of them. The “coveted” 33 degree “ranking” is merely an award provided within the Scottish Rite by an individual leader to a limited number of individuals each year for any reason of their choosing. I have seen deserving men be awarded 33 degree and I have seen political plums dispensed.
The REAL reason behind the esoteric feel is this: I can’t POSSIBLY DESCRIBE a play to you and generate the same feelings that experiencing the play does. And since describing a play to you might lessen the impact of the drama upon you, the Mason does not describe the degrees to non-masons. The old-timers wouldn’t even discuss about the degrees with anyone–hence the “secret” society tag. This is changing, as you can see with our postings.
Dan Brown? I don’t think many think about him much other than he is generating publicity for the craft. Most that I know of have only watched the movie, and have not read the book. Most that I know of dismiss it as mere entertaining fiction. As for Brown’s portrayal of the Catholic Church, as most Freemasons are NOT Catholics, and it is well known amongst Freemasons that the Catholic Church discourages membership in the Freemasons, I presume that there is a large measure of ignorance and standoffishness, just as the stance the church has taken with Freemasonry. One cannot expect an ally of one whom one “attacks”. Just as you feel that Freemasonry has historically attacked the Church, so many within Freemasonry feel that the Church has historically attacked Freemasonry. Those who learn, KNOW and come to understand the difference–THAT WAS THEN AND THIS IS NOW.
Freemasonry, as I have studied it, can’t possibly “take over the world” because there is no unified authority—only traditions and customs. The A. F. & A. M. Freemasonry alone has 51 separate authorities in the United States and recognizes some 120 other separate authorities in other countries. This does NOT take into account the “Freemasonic Lodges” NOT recognized as having a direct tie to the Ancient Lodge or the London Lodge from the early 1700s. There are hundreds more Prince Hall jurisdictions, and Lodges in countries all over the world, as well as people who have just appropriated the term Freemason, and make use of it for their own purposes. And none of these have direct authority over one another. The world conspiracies have nothing to fear. Except since they don’t know about the workings of Freemasonry because out of fear they don’t participate, so they MUST fear Freemasonry because they don’t know and understand. All I can do with anyone is share MY perspective and MY experience. The individual chooses to seek understanding and common ground or chooses to remain in fear. Dan Brown has made a fortune from exploiting this fear. Talk show hosts have made a fortune from exploiting this fear. Religions gain power and authority from exploiting this fear—and I am referencing the protestant as well as the liturgical religions. I was part of the Southern Baptist Convention debate over Freemasonry when they reached the conclusion “We understand why it can be confusing to some. We wish the terms used were more easily understood, but there is nothing inherently contrary with Freemasonry and Christianity.” [my paraphrase of the SBC conclusion].
Still enjoying the exchange of ideas!
Chris
January 31, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Chris,
1. Your own words prove my point about syncretism and religious indifferentism:
If Freemasonry were simply a philanthropic organization that would be one thing–common ground, fine by me. Its the first part of your statement that troubles me. Perhaps, it was just a slip of the keyboard; however, you state my point nicely. Freemasonry promotes “believe in YOUR God” and let the other fellow believe in “HIS God.” In fact this is what the vast majority of believers do already. They don’t need an separate organization to impose conditions on them to obtain this. Freemasonry promotes religious indifferentism, at least from a Catholic point of view, which is a dogmatic point of view. Please see my response to Thomas.
2. You are engaged in historical revisionism:
You reduce the historical controversy between Catholicism and Freemasonry to misunderstanding. The Church’s position on Masonry has been consistent and forthright. It is and always has been anti-Masonic, because its syncretism and naturalism is incompatible with Catholic doctrine, and because it has been actively engaged in undermining the dogmatism of the Catholic religion and has been anti-clerical from the outset.
Historical Use of the Ancient Mysteries
Specifically, relative to the question of the Ancient Mysteries you say:
You leave one with the impression that Freemasons have been merely students of comparative religion, but that is clearly not the case. Masons like Albert Pike, Manly Palmer Hall and Albert G. Mackey are not the historical exception but the rule, as Hall himself clearly states in Rosicrucian and Masonic Origins:
Further Mackey in his Encyclopedia of Freemasonry makes it clear that contrary to your assertions, Freemasonry is a religious institution:
Again, just to clarify, so we don’t go over old ground again, I am not suggesting that Freemasonry is an organized religion or a systematic philosophy or a centralized organization with one government and a mandated creed; however, I am saying that your representation of historical Freemasonry as a philanthropic ethical organization compatible with Christianity and friendly in attitude toward it is historical revisionism.
Historical Enmity with the Church
I will quote Paul Fisher once again in regard to the well known historical fact of Freemasonic anti-Catholicism. Freemasons
And Fr. William Saunders:
Furthermore, this anti-Catholic stance of the Masons is ongoing and significant. For instance, many “Catholic” Masons have chosen to be loyal to the Craft rather than the Faith. William A. Whalen points out the opposition of the Southern jurisdiction of the Scottish rite to the creation of Catholic parochial schools, and Tom Droleskey chronicles the flap in the Diocese of Lincoln Nebraska over the excommunication of “Catholic” Masons by Bishop Bruskewitz.
One Last Painful Mention of Chinon
I think you completely misread the Chinon controversy. The media presentation, eaten up by Templars and Masons, portrayed the document as proving that Church officials knew that the accused Templars were innocent of the charges and absolved them. This implies that subsequently, when they were arrested, charged and burned, Church officials acted with the knowledge that the Templars were falsely accused. The Chinon Parchment has been charged with proving this view, but any literate ninth grader could see that interpretation is false. How legally minded does one need to be to understand when someone has confessed to a crime they were accused of, and then mercifully absolved by the judges?
Furthermore, both the media and the wishful descendants of Jacques de Molay have regarded the Chinon document as reliable, looking to it as an authoritative piece of evidence for their position. But if that document has any reliability at all, then the only thing to be concluded is that the accused parties were guilty of at least some of the charges and then absolved. The question remains what as to what happened in 1314? We know that J. de Molay retracted his confession. Most scholars, including the Catholic ones regard the condemnation as unjust. But that is beside the point when considering the way the Chinon Parchment has been used as “evidence.”
With what evidence does the Chinon document provide us? The media hype has left the impression that the parchment is damning toward the Church, that it reveals duplicity, that it is a vindication of the Templars, and the modern Templars and Masons have eaten it up. Yet now you want to tell me that the confessions were obtained by torture? Then all those signatures of the judges on the Chinon Parchment are perjurious. The document is worthless. You can’t have it both ways.
All it takes to correct the error is to read the document everyone is making all a fuss about. The reason no effort has been made to do this, I must surmise, is that ant-Catholicism is alive and well among Jacque de Molay’s esoteric admirers.
February 1, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Fr. Angelo,
“…the first part of your statement that troubles me….Freemasonry promotes
“believe in YOUR God” and let the other fellow believe in “HIS God.”
Then, sir, I will agree to disagree with you. I see such a position in a social/service/fraternal society to be a positive rather than a negative. I see it as a cornerstone of human civilization—getting along with your neighbor.
“They don’t need a separate organization to impose conditions on them to obtain this.”
Fortunately that is up to the individual to decide. Some individuals DO like to fellowship with men of monotheistic mind and character, and find this organization a good way to do so.
“You are engaged in historical revisionism”
No sir. I am merely expressing MY perspective as I understand it, based upon MY experience and MY research and the drawing of MY conclusions. I was merely trying to share my perspective and learn of yours.
Based upon experience and study I believe that my perspective is a fair one. Based upon study and other experts you believe that my perspective is not. I will state again, I am not arguing about the PAST, I am trying to share PRESENT perspectives as I have experienced them. Accept them or reject them, the choice is yours; my purpose was merely to share my perspective, and learn.
“The Church’s position on Masonry has been consistent and forthright. It is and always has been anti-Masonic…”
Very well then, I will no longer share my perspectives on the matter of Freemasonry. I will remain focused on my responses.
“Masons like Albert Pike, Manly Palmer Hall and Albert G. Mackey are not the historical exception but the rule”
The limited number of authors does NOT necessarily represent the views of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Freemasons worldwide. There are a number of “esoteric” CATHOLIC authors as well, but they are not taken as representative of the whole Church.
“…I am saying that your representation of historical Freemasonry as a philanthropic ethical organization compatible with Christianity and friendly in attitude toward it is historical revisionism.”
I would correct your statement to describe only “Catholic Christianity”. I KNOW many Christians who participate in this social/service/fraternal society; I KNOW protestant Christian denominations that, while not promoting the organization do not condemn it. I KNOW that the organization itself has Christian-based organizations within its structure. I KNOW that Freemasonry IS a philanthropic, ethical organization that is compatible with Christianity. I will, however, agree to disagree with you on this point.
“I think you completely misread the Chinon controversy. The media presentation, eaten up by Templars and Masons, portrayed the document as proving that Church officials knew that the accused Templars were innocent of the charges and absolved them.”
And I have agreed with you that the public media portraying the documents as being some new fresh revelation of new testimony is a gross exaggeration of the facts. It should come as no surprise, however that the Chinon document would serve as a fresh stimulus to the investigation of Templar history.
“This implies that subsequently, when they were arrested, charged and burned, Church officials acted with the knowledge that the Templars were falsely accused….Yet now you want to tell me that the confessions were obtained by torture? Then all those signatures of the judges on the Chinon Parchment are perjurious. The document is worthless. You can’t have it both ways.”
Well, sir, all of the research that I have read about the historical Knights Templar indicates that this IS the case. While it was King Philip who was the instigator of the dissolution of the Templars, the Catholic Church was a participant. The Pope initially stopped the investigation and protested the arrest of the Templars, but when Philip presented coerced witnesses before him, the Pope not only reinstated the inquiry, he expanded it. And while the guilt of the ORDER was never proven and it was recommended that the order be favorably maintained, the Pope chose to dissolve the order. Lest you think I make this up, which is implied by the statement that “Yet you now want to tell me that the confessions were obtained by torture?” This paraphrase of these events comes DIRECTLY from the CATHOLIC Encyclopedia at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493a.htm.
[Extended quote deleted.]
FOR THE RECORD—Philip the Fair was the instigator and the administrator of the demise of the Templars. It was a POLITICAL enterprise—an enterprise exerted for power and control—by Philip. The Pope was NOT convinced of the Order’s guilt, and originally moved to stop the proceedings, but he was POLITICALLY pressured to reinstall the inquiry, and he even chose to expand it into other countries. THE INQUIRY, HOWEVER, WAS CARRIED OUT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH, and to now assert that the church was merely an unknowing and innocent dupe of secular political authority seems disingenuous to me.
As for the signatories to the document and whether or not they were perjurers, they never said that they did not torture the accused. They merely REPORTED that the VICTIM HAD SAID that he had not been tortured. There was no assertion of fact, merely the recording of events.
The mention of “torture” in the Chinon document, in every instance that I see, is that people confessed that they did not confess “due to a request, reward, gratitude, favor, fear, hatred or persuasion by someone else, or the use of force, or fear of impending torture…” YET it is the CATHOLIC Encyclopedia that notes “that to extort this confession, the use of torture was considered necessary and legitimate. Most of the accused declared themselves guilty of these secret crimes after being subjected to such ferocious torture that many of them succumbed. Some made similar confessions without the use of torture, it is true, but through fear of it…”
It doesn’t take, as you note, a ninth-grade education to see that according to the times in which these events occurred 1) torture was seen as necessary for confession where there were no witnesses, 2) the victim of torture perceives that confession stops the torture, 3) the victim perceives that to admit that one was tortured, or afraid of torture, nullified the confession, whereby 4) the torture continued. Commonly the victim would choose to become a liar rather than a martyr.
It is easy to see then that those who CHOSE to become martyrs are perceived as some type of hero—people of strong character and conviction who would die with their honor intact rather than live as a liar. This pattern of the torture and confession in the medieval histories that I have studied this was the standard method of operation. I am now to take it that the histories and the Catholic Encyclopedia are wrong? I think not. I’ll need evidence to overcome the research exhibited in the literature thus far.
“The reason no effort has been made to do this, I must surmise, is that ant-Catholicism is alive and well among Jacque de Molay’s esoteric admirers.”
IF this is true sir, it is only because anti-Templarism and anti-Masonry seems to be alive and well within the Catholic Church. One does NOT gain allies and friends by telling others that you “are against them”. It should come as no surprise, then, that there are comparatively few Freemasons or Templars (actual or fantasy) who wish to come to the defense of an organization that chooses to take such a position.
February 1, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Chris,
I have been clear–very clear–with regard to Chinon. I have deleted your extended quote of from Catholic Encyclopedia (leaving the link) because I included a link to it in my “More Templar Baloney” post a long time ago, and have throughout this discussion freely admitted that most Catholic scholars agree that the condemnations and executions of the Templars were a travesty. In my last comment I wrote:
My argument is, and always has been, a very limited one. The Chinon Parchment tells you nothing in support of the claims made regularly by Templars against Clement’s damnable behavior. Either you accept it as a reliable document and admit that the signatures of the judges means that the Templars were guilty, or you admit that the parchment tells you nothing about the facts it claims to document. Either way the document itself does nothing directly to support the claims made against Clement.
Say for the sake of argument one were to hold the Chinon Parchment to be reliable. The Templars confessed to an executable offense, and they were absolved. Lets say that the three notaries who signed the document were telling the truth when the signed their lives away to these words:
So the Templars get absolved for a crime of which they were actually guilty. Lets further say that when de Molay retracted his confession he did so falsely denying the crime he actually committed, and then in good faith, his judges had him and the others executed according to law.
That is the scenario the Chinon Parchment supports. You say the document is perjurious. Fine by me. The historical facts seem to support that interpretation. Then why do you Templars and Freemasons keep touting the act as having something to say in favor of the persecution? The authenticity of the document is not in dispute. None of the reports I have seen document any internal or external evidence to directly indicate that what the document claims is not true. So why the hullabaloo among the Templars, eating the whole thing up.
It is not the innocence of the Templars I dispute, but the perpetuation of the whole Templar myth, which must include by hook or by crook a perpetual bad faith persecution by the Church of the custodians of the Ancient Mysteries/Grail or whatever. You and I both know that is what is at issue here.
Go back and look at all my Templar posts in context with all I had to say about the reports and the claims made by the Achesons. What I had to say in those posts about the reporting and the enthusiasm from the Temple is true: Baloney, every bit of it.
I am sorry, the act is not that hard to read and understand. It doesn’t seem to matter that the facts concerning the parchment have been completely misrepresented and misconstrued.
February 3, 2008 at 3:44 am
sorry for the premature post…I’m having computer issues…
You hold 1) Templars were guilty; 2) were absolved when they confessed; 3) some Templars recanted their confessions; 4) they were then justly executed.
I hold, as taught by Catholic scholars: 1) Templars were made to (truthfully or untruthfully) confess under duress, or face continued torture; 2) some Templars perjured THEMSELVES in order to stop their torture; 3) some Templars recanted from their perjury and died “honorably”.
Nowhere did I state, or intend to state, that the Chinon was a perjured document. I attempted to demonstrate that the statements signed by the judges were “truth” as they saw it. I identified nothing that I could label perjury, except perhaps for the confession of the accused who may have lied to stop their torture–as the scholars have taught me was the case.
As I see it Chinon is merely consistent with what Catholic scholars, and others have been teaching us about medieval history. It tells us that Templars confessed. It tells us that the judges said “the Templars stated that they did not confess under duress.” It is the scholars, not Chinon, that tells us that torture to confession was viewed as necessary and that in the absence of witness the accused was often tortured into confession. Your arguement is with the scholars and the history. Please do not leave the implication that I am anti-Catholic, or have a “myth perpetuating agenda”. My only agenda is to stand my ground when I feel that I have been abused.
“Then why do you Templars and Freemasons keep touting the act as having something to say in favor of the persecution?”
Well, first of all I don’t, didn’t, haven’t and really don’t care about Chinon. My third sentence ever posted here was “I agree with your assessment on the Chinon parchment…” My fist paragraph ever posted makes the same point that you are making, yet now you claim that it is I that are making assertions otherwise. My view of Chinon is merely that it is a court “transcript”, and just about as exciting to read. BUT, if I had to draw a conclusion to answer your question, as it seems that I must, I would say that PEOPLE (and not just Templars or Freemasons–there go those broad generalizations again) find the document fascinating and “popular” because 1) it is consistent with what Catholic scholars have been teaching about history; 2) because it includes the absolution of Jaques de Molay, consistant with what history has told us; 3) BECAUSE it is a piece of history which just recently came to light — a fascinating story in itself. IN SHORT, BECAUSE IT IS NEWSWORTHY AND SUPPORTS, CONFIRMS, OR IS CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORICAL TEACHINGS.
Why do people “get it wrong?” Because the media is out to sell stories, and has YET to tell us the complete and acurate story on just about ANY subject that one can imagine. Sensationalism sells the media and the media sells sensationalism. Unfortunately the majority of the people in this country “learn” what they know from the media. It was the Vatican itself which released a press release that first came to my attention on October 8, 2007, that first created the sensationalism which included:
“The document conatins the ABSOLUTION Pope Clement V gave to the Grand Master of the Temple, friar Jaques de Molay and to the other heads of the Order, after they had shown to be repented and asked to be forgiven by the church….The document, which belongs to the first phase of the trial against the Templars, when Pope Clement V was still convinced to be able to gurantee the survival of the military-relegious Order, MEETS THE APOSTOLIC NEED TO REMOVE THE SHAME OF EXCOMMUNICATION FROM THE WARRIOR FRIARS, caused by their previous denial of Jesus Christ WHEN TOR