My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

why are Catholics "excommunicated"

BryanMaloney

Premium Member
So, the Church's historic condemnation of Freemasonry is based primarily on the fact that the fraternity admits men of all faiths, supports freedom of religion, public schools, democratic and representative government, the ability of nations of men to determine their own destinies and their own government, and all the other noble ideals that were embraced by the great revolutionary leaders of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

And what is your point? At one time Leo XIII denounced the idea of separation of church and state on the American model and made it quite plain that Catholics were not to participate in American government. His successors have quietly forgotten Testem Benevolentiae. Does that mean the USA now has become an arm of the Papacy and runs its government according to the dictates of the Curia? Does a more recent Pope's reversal of the decision against Galileo mean that astronomers have all become geocentrists? For the Catholic Church to lift its objections against Freemasonry to mean that Freemasonry has abandoned its principles is as absurd and outlandish as claiming that astronomers all now Ptolomaics because of John Paul II siding with Galileo!

You did not answer my question. You merely spouted a smokescreen.

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.

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.

Then, the American Revolution proved that educated men could create their own government, elect their own representatives, pass their own laws, and govern themselves with no need for a king, the Pope realized that the monopoly over temporal matters was lost as well. What part did Freemasonry play in all of this? There is plenty written that attempts to answer that question.

And so what? How specifically would it mean that for Rome to recognize its errors that Freemasonry has abandoned its principles?

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 need to learn to throw off that "yoke of obedience" that old Pope Leo talked about.

Then I demand you make every effort to have me expelled specifically on those grounds. I'm with Rockport Lodge #323. Call them up. Explain to them how I am "no Freemason" for that specific reason. Bring it up at the next GL meeting, if needs be. Demand the expulsion of all who do not share your anti-clerical form of religious views. After all, if each of us is "no Freemason", then we should be expelled, should we not?

You never answered my question. You merely blew smoke and outlined how the Catholic Church, IN THE PAST, opposed Freemasonry, not how it reversing that opposition would mean that Freemasonry had changed. As I already said, this would be identical to claiming that Galileo had become a geocentrist because John Paul II reversed the Church's decision on him.
 

Ecossais

Registered User
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.
 

BryanMaloney

Premium Member
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."

That wasn't my question. My question was how could the reversal of such a position by the Roman Catholic Church mean that Freemasons had become nothing but Rotary with Rituals. All you have done is blow smoke.

Likewise, if you truly believe that I am unworthy of being a Mason, then you must seek my expulsion if you have any moral fiber, whatsoever. You will never convince me to abandon my religion, no matter how much you wish to use Freemasonry as a vehicle for your personal religious beliefs.

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.)

And Mr. Coil has a thoroughly unbiased view of Roman Catholic doctrines? Sounds to me like he has a religious axe to grind, too, and is just using Freemasonry as his whetstone.

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.)

Then you had better tell my sponsors and committee of how they intentionally violated fundamental Freemasonic doctrine. They were all aware of my situation.

"MAN IS SUPREME OVER INSTITUTIONS, AND NOT THEY OVER HIM."

Freemasonry is an institution. Does that make me supreme over Freemasonry?
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
Bro. Bryan, While I am NOT "trolling" and have no wish to become embroiled in y'all's argument, I have a question for you- the reason for which I'll provide after you answer, if you so choose. I do not know if you sought your priest's blessing to join our Fraternity, and, quite frankly, it's really none of my business but let's say, for the sake of my question, that you did. If he had disapproved, would that have kept you from petitioning? Again, I don't intend to put you on the spot here, it's just that we have a situation in our Lodge that your answer might help me solve.

Thanks, Bill
 

Ecossais

Registered User
Brother Lins: I hope you weren't referring to me when you said Brother Maloney was having an argument with someone. Of course, I guess it depends on what you mean by "argument." I previously made a comment that Brother Maloney either did not understand or took exception to. Since then, I have been at pains to explain my comment to him, and the background behind it. I don't feel that I've been arguing, but again, semantics, I suppose.

Brother Maloney: You wrote: "My question was how could the reversal of such a position by the Roman Catholic Church mean that Freemasons had become nothing but Rotary with Rituals."

I answered that. Go back and read paragraphs three and four of my last post. If Freemasonry stops being the advocate of religious and political freedom, then it will be nothing more than Rotary with ritual.

You may not LIKE my answer, but there it is. Please don't ask me to repeat it. If you are going to challenge me on what I've said and not said, then at least read my posts, don't just skim over them.

You wrote: "If you truly believe that I am unworthy of being a Mason, then you must seek my expulsion if you have any moral fiber, whatsoever."

I never said that you were "unworthy of being a Mason." (You may well be, but that's for you and your other lodge Brothers to decide. Freemasonry is running amok with members that are unworthy of membership.) Again, please read my posts, and don't put words in them that aren't there. I implied that you did not meet the "qualifications" set out for petitioners, because you did not petition of "your own free will and accord." You may aver that you did indeed petition "of your own free will and accord," but then I'd ask (again) then why did you feel the need to "ask permission" of another. And I'd ask, what you would have done if he had said "No, you may not petition Freemasonry"? But, I've already asked you all those questions. (It appears that you don't mind ignoring my questions.)

You wrote: "Sounds to me like he [Henry W. Coil] has a religious axe to grind, too, and is just using Freemasonry as his whetstone."

I don't know that he has a "religious axe to grind." After all, he wouldn't have much to write about if eight (8) Popes hadn't written and issued a total of seventeen (OMG - SEVENTEEN, LOL) - ahem - seventeen Papal Bulls condemning the fraternity. I mean, the RC Church wouldn't even be mentioned in the article on Anti-Masonry, and it certainly wouldn't warrant a separate article about it if it had never taken an anti-Masonic position. So, anyway, Coil, in writing his Masonic encyclopedia devotes a bit of space to reporting and commenting on the Church's ongoing condemnations of Freemasonry, and YOU declare that Coil has "a religious axe to grind." (Too funny.)

Now, this next part is just silliness. You responded to the quote from Albert Pike, where Pike says that "Man is supreme over institutions, and not they over him." You wrote:

"Freemasonry is an institution. Does that make me supreme over Freemasonry?"

You know what? I'm going to ignore that. That is what is called being "obtuse," or "thick." Don't make me explain to you what Pike meant by the term "Man." Don't make me explain that he did not mean that Bryan Maloney was supreme over the Grand Lodge of Texas. Come on, Bryan. Now, take a deep breath, and, for your homework assignment, I want you to sit down and think about what Brother Pike meant? Okay?

Lastly, you wrote: "You will never convince me to abandon my religion, no matter how much you wish to use Freemasonry as a vehicle for your personal religious beliefs."

Bryan. I never asked you to abandon your religion. Your losing it, Brother. Calm down. And by the way, you aren't even a Roman Catholic! You're Greek Orthodox. You said so yourself in a previous post. That's two different denominations.

Look. Here's the bottom line. The Roman Catholic Church has condemned the Masonic fraternity numerous times, and been very clear as to WHY the Church has condemned it. In light of the fact that this condemnation had a lot to do with the fact that the Popes didn't like individual men throwing off "the yoke of obedience" (I just love that quote from Pope Leo), and enjoying freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom to elect their own representative government, etc., it is now a little embarrassing for a lot of American Catholics when they hear what was in those condemnations. But, the point is that either the Church was right or it was wrong. And if it still stands by those condemnations, you have to choose between the Church or the fraternity. In my opinion ... okay?

You may not like my opinion, but its the result of a lot of time spent thinking about this issue, and reading what other, greater Masonic writers have said about it. I don't owe the RC Church anything. I'm not a member of it. But, I do owe my fraternity all the support that I can muster for its philosophical tenets, and I think I'm doing that. Are you?
 
Last edited:

Michael Hatley

Premium Member
So are there any known cases of an American Freemason being excommunicated from the Catholic Church because of their membership in Freemasonry in the last 20 years? A documented instance.

If not, then Occam's razor probably would give a man a good close shave.
 

otherstar

Registered User
A few observations:

First, the excommunications formerly incurred by Catholics who joined the Mason's was latae sententiae (immediate--no formal action required by a Bishop)

Second, as I said in POST #6 (though admittedly not very clearly) the penalty for a Caholic who joined the Mason's was changed from latae sententiae excommunication to being unable to receive communion because they are in a condition of grave sin:

"Precisely by considering all these elements, the Declaration of the Sacred Congregation affirms that membership in Masonic associations «remains forbidden by the Church», and the faithful who enrolls in them «are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion».

With this last statement, the Sacred Congregation points out to the faithful that this membership objectively constitutes a grave sin and by specifying that the members of a Masonic association may not receive Holy Communion, it intends to enlighten the conscience of the faithful about a grave consequence which must derive from their belonging to a Masonic lodge." -- Source -- link is to a document from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

Being "in a condition and not able to receive communion" is much different that excommunication. One can merely quit the Mason's, confess, and receive communion again. When one has been excommunicated, one has to clear that with the Bishop.

This only applies to the Roman Catholic Church, and those Churches in union with Rome. I am not familiar with the laws that govern the Orthodox Churches.
 

Michael Hatley

Premium Member
Ah, so Bishops have the power to make rules/judgments on this matter for their jurisdiction? No wonder the situation is so confusing.
 

otherstar

Registered User
Ah, so Bishops have the power to make rules/judgments on this matter for their jurisdiction? No wonder the situation is so confusing.

They do have that power, as long as they are still within the norms established in Canon Law, by the different Vatican Congregations, and Bishops Conferences. Bishop Bruskewitz was well within his limits by doing that.
 

Ecossais

Registered User
Term of the Day: "Cognitive dissonance."

Freemasons who are members of the Roman Catholic Church, often experience cognitive dissonance when they find themselves in a discussion like this one. On the one hand, their church declares them to be in a state of "grave sin" and are unable to received communion. But, on the other hand, they enjoy their Masonic membership because they like the fellowship, the degree work, and so forth.

Then, one day, they find themselves in a discussion where they learn that the positions and teachings of their church are diametrically opposed to the age-old tenets of Freemasonry. That's got to be confusing. This is what we call "cognitive dissonance."

Cognitive dissonance is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology. The term was coined by the Social Psychologist Leon Festinger in 1956. One example of cognitive dissonance is the experience of the Seventh-Day Adventist, who whole-heartedly believes the world will end on a given night. He goes to bed that night, confident that he will be taken to heaven overnight in the great rapture, only to awaken the next morning and discover that everyone else in his town is going about their usual morning routines without any knowledge of the impending doom that just never materialized.

The confused Adventist then experiences "cognitive dissonance," which is the distressing mental state people feel when they find themselves doing things that don't fit with what they know, or believe. (For example, learning that your church has condemned Freemasonry, when you are the Senior Warden of your lodge.) Festinger observed that people, when they find themselves in similar circumstances, simply reduce their feelings of dissonance by altering cognitions, adding new ones, or reducing the importance of the dissonant elements. In other words, they consciously concoct some excuse that minimizes the confusion and disappointment.

A key assumption is that people want their expectations to meet reality, creating a sense of equilibrium. (A man who is a Freemason would like to believe that his church does not disapprove of his membership in the fraternity. When he does find out that it condemns the fraternity, he creates a new reality for himself by rationalizing that the condemnation doesn't apply to him, or to his lodge, or some other form of alternate reality.)

Another assumption is that a person will avoid situations or information sources that give rise to feelings of uneasiness, or dissonance. (So, when a Catholic Freemason discovers what Albert Pike wrote about how Freemasonry's support of individual freedoms runs contrary to historical church teaching, or he reads what Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia says about the history of Church condemnations of the fraternity, the individual will probably stop reading the works of Albert Pike, and may choose to not join the Scottish Rite, and will avoid using Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia, for fear that he will be further confronted with information and evidence that Freemasonry is, indeed, contrary to Roman Catholic Church doctrine. He'd rather not know that.)
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
Being "in a condition and not able to receive communion" is much different that excommunication. One can merely quit the Mason's, confess, and receive communion again.

Yet one of my lodge goes annually to the Catholic church of one of our PMs for a St John Day observance. We are announced by the priest as visitors to the congregation and welcomed. When the communion is called our Catholic members go front to receive communion. Some of our non-Catholic members who go to churches that practice communion regularly go front to receive communion. Some of our members who view the Eucharist as something reserved for Catholics wait respectfully until all return to our seats. Each year I've gone and each year I've seen none object.

I've read about the various Papal Bulls. The most recent one seems to be that it is a matter of individual conscience. I have read that the decision can be made at the Bishop level. Giving clergy that sort of authority is beyond my kenn but I'm not Catholic so my reaction does not apply directly.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
Term of the Day: "Cognitive dissonance."

A key assumption is that people want their expectations to meet reality, creating a sense of equilibrium ...

Another assumption is that a person will avoid situations or information sources that give rise to feelings of uneasiness, or dissonance ...

Incidentally this is why we discuss neither religion nor politics in tiled meetings and have a tradition for those topics to be avoided at non-tiled meetings as well. We can go years working with a brother not knowing his religious or political affiliation and then one day we learn it and there is cognitive dissonance. But having known the man for years we know to be generous in our reaction. So we are supposed to resolve the cognitive dissonance by an expansion of our mind and heart to be more tolerant of differences. Without any need to agree or accept the stance we respect and stay at peace with him and his stance. Boom we become a better man.

I see this entire discussion as a quest for that boom. Which is the better reaction? To not give the clergy that much authority in our lives? To be obedient to our church? To work within our church to reform the stances? To observe that religions are human institutions and human institutions are not the ultimate authority? When observing as an outsider the issue becomes more difficult because it's about trying to convince others without having to face the choice ourselves.
 

BryanMaloney

Premium Member
I answered that. Go back and read paragraphs three and four of my last post. If Freemasonry stops being the advocate of religious and political freedom, then it will be nothing more than Rotary with ritual.

So? How does that prove that the only way the Roman Catholic church in the future could ever reverse its stance would be for Freemasonry to cease this advocacy? After all, Galileo didn't become a Ptolomaic astronomer for John Paul II to reverse his church's position. I did read your post. You assume a great deal about all possible futures.

I implied that you did not meet the "qualifications" set out for petitioners, because you did not petition of "your own free will and accord." You may aver that you did indeed petition "of your own free will and accord,"

If I do not meet qualifications, I would be, by definition, unworthy. It's that simple. Since you are infallible, by your tone, and anyone who would ask permission of his priest would not meet qualifications, and I have already admitted asking permission of my priest, you must demand that I be expelled as innately unworthy. You know my lodge.

Now, this next part is just silliness. You responded to the quote from Albert Pike, where Pike says that "Man is supreme over institutions, and not they over him." You wrote:

"Freemasonry is an institution. Does that make me supreme over Freemasonry?"

You know what? I'm going to ignore that. That is what is called being "obtuse," or "thick."

No, it is not. It is called "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". If "Man" is to be taken as "man" in the collective, then the institution of Freemasonry is still inferior to "Man". If it is always acceptable for this construction of "Man" to proclaim superiority over a church, it is equally so to claim it over a fraternity, thus rendering the decisions of church or fraternity to ultimately be on equal footing, neither one superior to the other.
 

JFS61

Premium Member
Sorry that my original (now edited) response was a bit flippant, good brother, but you and Ecossais have gotten yourselves into a negative feedback loop in regards to this matter. It would probably be best for both of you to take a breather and step back for a bit of perspective on the discussion, as no one likes to see two brothers become out of harmony with one another.
 
Last edited:

flaxgord

Registered User
TBH, I haven't heard of anyone in the United Kingdom get excommunicated, this a new one on me. Maybe this feed was based on some historical anecdotal quip, but hey what do I know.


Freemason Connect Mobile
 

fellow_of_the_craft

Registered User
I know im new here brothers but I have found ( and many of you may know of this book) a book called Born In Blood. I believe it answer the majority of the catholic question but the book also in my opinion give great non bias insight to what may be the origins of freemasonry. However if the thesis is correct (which we may never know) it opens room for more discussion as to why our rituals
And tool are what they are.

Freemason Connect Mobile
 

URSA

Registered User
I was recently given a book called Freemasonry: Beyond the Light... I only got a few chapters in because I found it to be typical Christian anti everything that isn't Christian rhetoric. I don't see why the Church comes against a Fraternity of brothers who as charitous to mankind in the name of God as Masons are.:confused:

Freemason Connect Mobile
 
Top