www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Limits of Collegiality

Dear Dolly,

Yes, I understand the Church frowns on Catholics joining the Masons!

But I've known a lot, and still do, who are members.

When I worked for our Catholic school board, the Chaplain there told me that the local bishop can, and does, give permission to certain Catholics to join the Masons.

The people he pointed out to me certainly were wearing the classic Masonic ring.

I understand Masons frown on that practice if one doesn't belong to them . . .

All hail the Great Architect of the Universe!

Alex

All Catholics are forbidden from any participation in Freemasonry, and at least under the old Canons, under the pain of excommunication. There have also been numerous Orthodox bishops who have forbidden their faithful from participation.

Oriental freemasonry is very secular and anti-Church in its aims. American/Anglo freemasonry includes elements of naturalism and naturalistic religious thought as well as Deism in its rites. Finally, higher orders of Scottish Rite masonry require oaths that directly violate Christian moral teaching. Moreover, they include rites such as trampling the papal tiara saying "Down with imposture". I have a hard time seeing how any Catholic can take such oaths.

I refer you to the book "Christianity and American Freemasonry" by William Whalen.
Anyone who says that they are a Mason with their bishop's permission is either lying, or the bishop is in grave violation of canon law and Church teaching.
Justin

Dear Justin,

Well, that's what I was told and that's what I saw.

Working where I do, I am surrounded by Masons, Catholic and otherwise.

They work wonders with cement . . .

Alex

Justin is correct. Even under the New Code of Canon Law a Catholic is forbidden from joining any such group.
Canon 1374 "A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty: however, a person who promotes or directs an association of this kind is to be punihed with an interdict."

No Bishop can give permission, if he does in my opinion he should be removed from office.

Stephanos I

PS How did we get from the Limits of Collegiality to Freemasons anyway?

Teen,

Vladimir Soloviev did not convert to Catholicism. If you would study his writings, he makes it very clear that he believed there was already a unity between the Orthodox and Catholics, even if the political reality did not let us to normally see it. He took communion with the Catholics, because he was using it as a means to put his belief into practice.

This, however, got him in a great deal of trouble with the Orthodox. At the end, it was an Orthodox priest he called when he was near death.

SL Frank in the Solovyov Anthology discusses this point very well.

According to the priest Soloviev recanted his allegiance to the papacy, but one would seriously have to question the truthfulness of a priest who would break the seal of confession.

Dear Friends,

Sometimes there were those who really didn't see that much of a difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Fr. Lev Gillet is one case in point. I recently met an Eastern Catholic priest who met him in London and spoke to him at length about a number of matters.

When asked whether he was still "in communion with Rome," Fr. Gillet (the Monk of the Eastern Church who was Met. Andrew Sheptytsky's former assistant), told him that "I never formally separated myself from that communion."

This priest told me he believed Fr. Gillet was still an Eastern Catholic at that point, even though he had been received into Orthodoxy formally.

Fr. Gillet also spoke and wrote of Andrew Sheptytsky very highly throughout his life, as we know.

I don't think there is any doubt but that Fr. Lev was Orthodox, however. I've had conversations with at least one OCA bishop who said he knew of Orthodox priests in good standing who felt that there was no longer any separation between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, not since 1963.

Alex

First, the "seal of confession" is not always within the tradition of the Church.

Second, even if he did break some seal, that does not make his own statements false. It's really an ad hominem, if you must know.

Thirdly, Vladimir Solovyov made his own position quite clear many times. He saw a unity between the churches, and his taking of Catholic communion was read by some as him becoming Catholic, while all it meant is that he was following his own beliefs. Sergius Bulgakov, for example, followed suit in his theological writings -- suggesting intercommunion between churches, even when there is no "political" unity.

Fourthly, if there was some sort of repudiation, it was not be a "confessional one" per se, anyway. If, as you would suggest, the Orthodox priest thought Solovyov had converted into apostacy, and then recanted, the recanting would have to be _public_ especially in light of Solovyov's own public persona and the publicity of his writings. It isn't bound to "confessional" piety that you presuppose (wrongly) about confession.

Vladimir Solovyov really was like many Orthodox I know, who stay Orthodox, and yet recieve Catholic communion.

Posted by Stclare74,

"Hey Logos Teen,

Re the Novus Ordo mass, I have problems not only with the common abuses in it, I'm talking about the mass itself-- what it is in a nutshell is a banal, Protestantized, and theologically ambiguous rite that was pretty much written by a Freemason and several Protestants. Do some research on the history behind the Novus Ordo and compare it to the Tridentine Mass, and you'll see why I don't like it."

I read this with great interest and I don't want to renew a focus on the liturgy of the Latin Church. Suffice it to say that these opinions and charges has been discussed a number of times in a number of threads on this forum. A search of the forum on the topic of the novus ordo or the latin liturgy should draw up discussions which contain different perspectives.

I would simply ask that objective sources which support the charge that the Mass was constructed by Masons or Protestants be presented or the charges dropped. Any one has the right to like or dislike the liturgy of any Church as a matter of personal taste.

Defaming the good and holy liturgists and bishops who renewed the Liturgy of the Latin Church is another matter entirely. Vague comments about Masonic links do not qualify in my opinion.

I apologize if this seems to be abrupt or abrasive, but such cannards can do much damage to the understanding of what actually happened during the time of change and sully the reputations of good and able servants of the Church.

Thanks,

Steve

Well thanks for the data on Soloviev. I thought his conversion to the Catholic Faith was a well-established fact. Just goes to show...

Logos Teen

Teen,

It's no problem. At one time, until I looked into it deeper, I thought he was a convert too. However, afterwards, I have come to believe that what Solovyov indicates (as the Pope himself says) is something greater -- that of a true ecumenical spirit. That ecumenism was misread by Catholics in a time when Catholics were not too active in ecumenism. I think that really is the reason why in the early 20th century you have books like "Solovyov, The Russian Newman."

The Sophiologists in general are a group I study, and apply in my own theological research and writings. They can be controversial, but I have noticed they are slowly getting their proper respect. Slowly.