FREE MASONRY - the Principles

[Jacks]

---

"I didn't introduce the term. It was part of that statement that you think was VERY CLEAR. But if it's so clear, I wonder why you should be asking what the term means! Hmmm... perhaps you can see why it's so vague now?"

um, a 2 year old can define bad... i was asking for your definition of bad person to make things less vague for you... no need to question my capacity to understand things really... and you still didn't say which part of that was vague anyway...

"also, given i'd like to be enlightened about these things, it would follow that if i am not that knowledgeable about these things... and since you seem to be well-informed about freemasons -- and catholic rules--, it may be best to ask you that question, a freemason related question..."

i do understand you are able to comprehend that...

"I don't have any issues with Spot's post, so there's nothing to comment on. Do you have issues with it? He hasn't become a freemason, and I'm happy for him. Neither has he raised any serious objections to Church teaching as far as I can recall. So perhaps now you can provide us with your comments on his post."

oh, i do remember him saying he is a demolay... also i remember him saying his grandfather --and was it his father also-- were masons... also, i remember you saying freemasonry and the catholic church can not co-exis, yet you say you have no issues with his post...

LOL... i think i went to the wrong person for enlightenment then...

also, about me answering my question... well, here's something that says my position... as long as the person does good to others he is not a bad person... since a yes/no won't suffice your reasoning, there it is...

anyway, i believe with the recent posts here, i believe issues concerning credibility may also have been made clearer... and perhaps the consistency of some of the ideas being endorsed have also been made clearer...

thanks for answering my questions manny... i think i have nothing more to ask from you... perhaps i could just dig up articles myself, since those are the answers i get... thanks for the efforts anyway...
===CLOSED======================

question to freemasons/demolays:

kana bitaw mga demolay, kana sad ila papa freemason gyud na or dili gyud necessarily gimean nga freemason ila papa ngan nga demolay sila?...

[blackwidow]

Hello Jacks,
Ang DeMOLAY's not necessary nga FreeMasons ilang papa. Dili sya exclusively for young men who are related to a FreeMason. Anybody can join at a certain age.

I'm sure Bros. Spot and Archer_sensation can add more to that.

[abay roduel]

As what I've read on the book, NEW WORLD ORDER, the FreeMasons where infiltrated by the Illuminati which was founded by an AntiChrist. Â*The Illuminati used the resources and members of the Freemasons inorder to achieve a One Government World headed of course by the Illuminati. Â*They control the majority of the money on Earth including the Federal Reserve and World Bank. Â*Because if you control the money you can control the future of the country. Â*This is taking place right on your very eye. Â*They also control the United Nations. Â*

New World Order is starting now in Europe, the European Union. Â*Look at their currency the Euro which is now used on majority of the European Countries.

World War III is in the making before the New World Order will be achieved by the Antichrist. Â*The bible has already foretold this upcoming Apocalypse. Â*Iran will start WWIII. Â*And after WWIII their will be false peace through the New World Order. Â*Lucifer will rule the earth before the Messiah will defeat him.

Hoax or Truth, only the Creator knows everything.

God bless us all.

[mannyamador]

um, a 2 year old can define bad... i was asking for your definition of bad person to make things less vague for you.

Uh... since I didn't introduce the term, and you are asking whether I agree with the statement where it was used, it follows that we must understand and use the term as it is used in the statement. My definition is irrelevant. I was hoping you would be able to notice that this part was vague. Fortunately, you eventually did.

i do understand you are able to comprehend that...

Is there any question about it?

oh, i do remember him saying he is a demolay... also i remember him saying his grandfather --and was it his father also-- were masons... also, i remember you saying freemasonry and the catholic church can not co-exis, yet you say you have no issues with his post..

True. But he did not attack any doctrine of the Church, did he? And I have clearly -- and repeatedly -- stated the Church's position on that. I also quoted Pope Leo XIII concerning considerations for Catholics who may be in Masonic organizations. Do you want me to post it again? My position does not differ in any way with that of the Church.

To make things clear, I will AGAIN post the quote from Pope Leo XIII in 1884. I suppose it is relevant to Spot's post (emphasis added):

• What we say, must be understood of the Masonic sect in the universal acceptation of the term, as it comprises all kindred and
  associated societies, but not of their single members. There may be persons amongst these, and not a few, who, although not
  free from the guilt of having entangled themselves in such associations, yet are neither themselves partners in their criminal
  acts nor aware of the ultimate object which these associations are endeavouring to attain. Similarly some of the several bodies
  of the association may perhaps by no means approve of certain extreme conclusions, which they would consistently accept as
  necessarily following from the general principles common to all, were they not deterred by the vicious character of the conclusions.

also, about me answering my question... well, here's something that says my position... as long as the person does good to others he is not a bad person... since a yes/no won't suffice your reasoning, there it is...

There you go. The fact that you had to qualify your answer clearly shows that the question could not be intelligently answered with a simple yes or no.

anyway, i believe with the recent posts here, i believe issues concerning credibility may also have been made clearer... and perhaps the consistency of some of the ideas being endorsed have also been made clearer...

Most definitely. I'm just disappointed that getting an answer from you on a question that YOU insisted was very clear was like pulling teeth. I maintain that the statement was vague, however, hence my not answering it in the "yes or no" manner you demanded. And your own answer -- which needed qualification -- proved my claim quite well.

Credibility and consistency... yes... they are virtues I value. I trust you will too.

[pork belly]

Oh! this is an interesting thread.
Kinda like the first few posts about Free Masonry...but it seems the discussion has shifted to "you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours" thing.

Why don't we go back to mainstream and spark the topic, say for example:

Have you guys seen the National Geographic's Bible Week Episodes?
"Knights Templar, is it real or a myth?"

I noted that Freemasonry and Demolays in particular were highlighted in the story.

If you are a Mason or a DeMolay or somebody in association, how would you feel after seeing it?
Proud of its rich history?, Did the documentary give justice or injustice to the order?

If you are not, what would you think then of freemasons and demolays. Keepers of the Holy Grail? Guardians of the royalty?

Personally, I like the documentary. super informative and very well supported.

My apology, I maybe OT. cheers, no fighting.

Ride on people.

[Jacks]

"There you go. The fact that you had to qualify your answer clearly shows that the question could not be intelligently answered with a simple yes or no."

perhaps you didn't notice any sarcasm in my answer... also, to make that answer of mine short... my answer is yes... it does not make them a bad person... now i wonder what you will throw at me after saying yes... *ponders*... lol... people can't see a something even if it's right there in front of them...

my answer need qualification?... like what kind?... like, since i didn't post articles, dogmas, papal bulls, internet sites, books to support my idea, it's not acceptable?... LOL... i do wonder what articles those articles you're basing from are based... LOL...

".........But he did not attack any doctrine of the Church, did he?.........."

lol... it would have been nice trying to "discuss" things with you... and like, discuss that qouted answer of yours also... but meh, i'll just waste my time on you... no offense though...

and oh, about the last statement... hehe... i just had to smile... especially the last sentence... ... also, again i do hope you won't take offense in this, but i might not answer your posts that may be directed to me... after the post you made before the one above this, i understood i was asking the wrong person to enlighten me, especially after the post about commenting on spot's post... "freemasonry and catholic church can not co-exist": he has a bishop uncle, and a mason father, and a mason grandfather, that should not be since they should not co-exist... especially with a bishop uncle, but they got no problem with that... so they CAN co-exist... see what i mean now?...

again, thank you thank you thank you for the info sharedl...
============================================

unsa may difference sa demolay og freemason?... naa ko kaila demolay siya, niya chaplain daw siya... naa gyud nay chaplain?... unsa buhat ana?... like mura pari or something?...

[Jacks]

haha, kuyaw sad pangan da, desidido muhabal... hehehe... bitaw bay, mura nadetour no?... haha... naa ta madownload anang imong mention nga documentary bay?... or sa salida sa cable ra siya matan-aw?...

[mannyamador]

Perhaps you didn't notice any sarcasm in my answer... also, to make that answer of mine short... my answer is yes... it does not make them a bad person...

Let's be accurate. You did NOT actually answer the question with your first "answer". You negatively defined "bad person" by saying what it was not. But you didn't answer the question, which was whether you agreed with the statement. Now you are. Very slick, reversing gears like that. I expected it though.

But let's take this new post as the final answer. Would you then say that if a person, by joining a masonic lodge and as a result, then carried out freemasonry's historical objectives by attacking the Church and plotting against it, would it not be accurate to say that his action of joining DID cause him to do something bad? Wouldn't that make him a bad person?

I think you should have QUALIFIED your statement. You should have said, "I agree with the statement that joining a masonic lodge does not ABSOLUTELY and NECESSARILY result in someone becoming a bad person who will henceforh consistently do very bad things as a result, although I also acknowledge the fact that the act of joining is in itself wrong." Now that would have been more accurate and something with which I could agree.

As you can see, a simplistic, unqualified answer leads to all sorts of problems. After all, you claim others can't see things that are right in front of them (without offense, of course), so you ought to be so richly endowed with such capability.

my answer need qualification?

Yes. You had to redefine "bad person". And you really didn't answer the question then either.

lol... it would have been nice trying to "discuss" things with you... and like, discuss that qouted answer of yours also... but meh, i'll just waste my time on you... no offense though...

Very slick I must say! Of course, without offense.

"freemasonry and catholic church can not co-exist": he has a bishop uncle, and a mason father, and a mason grandfather, that should not be since they should not co-exist... especially with a bishop uncle, but they got no problem with that... so they CAN co-exist... see what i mean now?...

I'm smiling even more. This is a clear example of the logical fallacy called equivocation. A term is used inconsistently, in this case the term "co-exist", and is used with two meanings in this particular logical exercise.

Co-exist can mean two seemingly contrary entities simply existing beside each other, perhaps tolerating or ignoring the other's contrary nature. But it can also mean existing in the same physical or intellectual space, in the latter meaning without contradiction.

If I ever say freemasonry and the Catholic Church cannot co-exist, I use the second meaning. Their teachings CONTRADICT each other, and therefore one cannot be truly faithful to both masonic teaching and Catholic doctrine. You, on the other hand, are using the first meaning. And you have CONFUSED the two.

Credibility and consistency, my friend. You will take no offense, of course.

[sirk]

Divide and Conquer!

[Sanosuke]

Kill the Anti-Christs!!!