Brother Maloney: You asked: "And what is your point?"
My point was simply to answer the question: "Why are Catholics excommunicated if they join Freemasonry?" (Sorry that got passed you. I thought it was obvious. I felt that rather than tell you what is in the mind of those that run the RC Church, I could better answer that question by quoting Pope Leo XIII. So, I gave you his words.
You said: "You did not answer my question."
Well, I thought I had. Let me make it simple for you. If the RC Church condemned us multiple times during the 18th & 19th centuries, and if that condemnation is still in place, and it has not reversed its position, like it has with other positions it has held, then it means that the RC Church still holds the same position it held in Pope Leo XIII's Papal Bull condemning Freemasonry, in which he stated his objections quite clearly (and I have quoted extensively it).
Ergo, if the RC Church ever changes its position on Freemasonry – which it has not – but if it does, it will be because either the Church or Freemasonry has changed – one or the other. My comment was to indicate that it will likely be, in my humble opinion, because Freemasonry stops being the staunch advocate of religious and political freedom. I don't see the RC Church changing its position any time soon. It doesn't seem to have budged much since 1738.
BTW, you accused me of "spouting." Sorry if I "spouted." I'll try not to do that.
In response to my comment, "The church ceded temporal power to the kings of Europe, but only insofar as the kings were anointed and crowned by the Archbishop of that jurisdiction," you responded by writing: "That's certainly not Orthodox Church doctrine. Emperors and kings had their own magistracy, not bestowed by any hierarch. The Tsars' claims to legitimacy did not rest upon Patriarchical approval."
You seem to want to defend the Eastern Orthodox Church, and/or the Russian Orthodox Church. But, my comments were about the Roman Catholic Church and its Papal condemnations of Freemasonry. What am I missing here?
Further, I'd recommend you read about the coronation of Charlemagne, king of the Franks, as emperor of the "Holy Roman Empire." This was a controversial and illegal proceeding, concocted by the Papacy as a political move to make Rome the seat of the newly created "Holy Roman Empire," which had the ultimate effect of separating east from west, and furthermore to place the Church, through the Pope and bishops, in the position of crowning and anointing kings. (To read more, see articles on Charlemagne, Coronation, and Holy Roman Empire in Encyclopedia Britannica, which is my most handy source, among others.)
You state that the successors of Pope Leo XIII "have quietly forgotten" his denunciation of "the idea of separation of church and state on the American model." It may be that they haven't been as outspoken as he was, but I don't know that they've "forgotten" it. Let me quote from the article on Roman Catholicism that appears in Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia:
"Many Roman Catholics in the United States ... have become so Americanized that they ignore and assume the nonexistence of some of the more questionable of their Church's hierarchical theories and policies. Some ... refuse to hear or read anything critical of the Church, and even rise to its defense when others challenge some Catholic act or statement." (Henry Wilson Coil, "Roman Catholicism," Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia; Rev. Ed. 1995, Macoy Publ. Co. Inc., Richmond VA, 1961; pp. 570-572.)
You called me "anti-clerical." I guess you feel that way because I quoted from a Papal condemnation of Freemasonry. I'm not sure how that makes me "anti-clerical." Rather, those condemnations makes the Church "anti-Masonic" – condemnations that they've never felt ashamed of. And the condemnation against their members joining our fraternity remains in place. Freemasonry does not forbid Catholics to petition the fraternity, its the other way 'round. BTW, I am not "anti-clerical." I am simply against the abuse of religious authority by those in religious garb. It makes no difference to me whether that garb is a Papal robe or a powder blue suit worn by a preacher at a mega-church out on the highway. And I'm not anti-clerical when it comes to the ministers of my own denomination, or any other, for that matter, except when they presume to tell me what organizations I may or may not join.
I said, "Any member of this fraternity, who feels that, in order to become a Freemason, he must first get permission from his priest (or any other man, for that matter), is no Freemason."
You seem to take grave exception to that.
Again, let me quote from Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia, from the article on "Qualifications of Petitioners," which says that petitioners are required "to seek the degrees of their own Free-Will and Accord...." This article also states that, in fact, it has often been the case in times past that "domestic servants" were disqualified "because their positions were deemed to effect a menial and servile attitude of mind." ("Qualifications of Petitioners," Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia, 1995, pp. 493-498.)
This speaks directly to my previous comment. How can a man, who felt he needed "permission" of another man (a priest, employer or otherwise) to petition our fraternity, turn around and say that he is petitioning the lodge "of his own free will and accord?" Its fine that the priest gave his "permission," but what if that priest should die or move away, and then be replaced by another priest who then withdraws that "permission"? If your petition was dependent upon your local pastor's "permission," what do you do when you get a new pastor with a different opinion? How can a man claim to be "free" to make his own decisions, and act "of his own free will and accord," when his decisions are dependent on the decisions of another man? Do we want our members voting in our lodges, and in our grand lodge, if they are not free to act "of their own free will and accord"?
I don't.
Let me provide a few gems about freedom and free will from Albert Pike's Morals & Dogma of the Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, which appear in the chapter on the Fellowcraft Degree:
"MAN IS SUPREME OVER INSTITUTIONS, AND NOT THEY OVER HIM." (The capitalization is his, not mine.) He continues to state that, this "Truth," once revealed, "imposed new duties on men. Man owed it to himself to be free." And, "It created a general outlawry of Despots and Despotism, temporal and spiritual." (Take note of his reference to spiritual despots.)
"Masonry felt that this Truth had the Omnipotence of God on its side; and that neither Pope nor Potentate could overcome it."
"The wiser a man becomes, the less will he be inclined to submit tamely to the imposition of fetters or a yoke, on his conscience or his person." (That is the "yoke" for which Pope Leo was such a proponent.
"A man's Faith is as much his own as his Reason is. His Freedom consists as much in his faith being free as in his will being being uncontrolled by power."
(Albert Pike, Morals & Dogma of the Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry; Annotated Edition, 2011, Supreme Council, 33°, Washington DC; pp. 95-132.)
Lastly, you demanded that I make every effort to have you expelled. Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not going to do that. I'd prefer to enlighten you, and share with you the thoughts and opinions of those great luminaries of our fraternity that have given much thought to these questions. Go and read some of these articles and others. I hope that I can change your mind, and make you less defensive. These are not new issues and questions, but were the grist for the mill that gave us the "Age of Reason," the "Age of Enlightement," and ... Freemasonry. These issues are the very bedrock the foundation of our fraternity is built upon.
Fraternally.