Sounds like a very highly-developed and refined Gnostic sentiment to me (although I personally doubt most, if any, Masons experientially understand its true meaning). I suppose its anti-Catholic in the sense of anti-Nicene --- but, by no means is it contrary to many of the teachings of most early Christian sects (which is what Masonry was originally based upon).
That's the theory. The Masons of today claim to be "the most ancient religion" and closer to early Christians then Catholics or Christians. They don't view Christ as a messiah, and they claim that their religion predates Christ. However, they neglect to mention that the Masons, from when they were first created in the 1300's or so (France, I believe) until the early 1700's, claimed Catholicism as their faith, and they claimed to be Catholic in their "Old Article" until 1738 when it changed. They changed it due to their more Gnostic viewpoint, and rejection of the Catholic church, which of course led to the Papel Decree's and such.
Splitting hairs, I'd dare say --- especially when we consider the Biblical and conventional Christian injunction considering the "saved" versus the "damned", and the "chosen" versus the "unclean".
Perhaps, but I don't take the view that I am "Saved" and everyone else who doesn't follow my belief system is not. I don't believe in elitism, and I think that it is contrary to Christs teachings. While people are alive on this earth, they have the opportunity to be "saved." And, since I am not God and I cannot determine who is saved or not, it is not my right to judge or damn anyone. I can judge someones actions, sure, but it is not my right to believe that "I am better then so-and-so because I am saved." Who am I to say who God loves?
I personally feel that not only is elitism contrary to my faith, but I also feel that it is one of the biggest problems in our society.
EVERY religion worth its salt is going to acknowledge development of some higher spiritual principle within its adherents (through whatever path: prayer, meditation, morality, etc.), and this necessarily denotes a "higher" consciousness (of sorts) compared to the common man. For example, in Buddhism, those whom have awakened Buddha Nature are regarded as "more enlightened" than those who have not --- at the same time, however, this is regarded as an "elitism" to which all are invited (as anyone can awaken to Buddhahood).
I don't see Freemasonry (at least in its original and symbolical context) as being fundamentally different.
I agree with you in the idea that "everyone is invited" in most religions. Since I take that idea a step further as I explained above, I feel that religions (at least Christianity) does not have to be (and shouldn't be) elitist.
I see Freemasonry as very differen't, though. First off, not everyone is invited to "see the light" as they say; women, children and other 'non-whites.' Unless something has changed, non-whites had to belong to their special lodge, and wasn't given all the info and perks. Then, within' the organization there is elitism. After the first 3 degree's you are told that you are a master mason, and that you are enlightened, but in reality the other higher degree's still believe that you are in the dark. In order to be privilaged to be truely enlightened, you have to be chosen special by other members of the higher degrees. Who is chosen and why are often related to your "status" in society as well as the order, and higher amounts of fee's are involved in the higher degree's. If you are not of appropriate status, and if you can't afford it, then you are not chosen to seek true enlightenment.
This is highly contrary to a religion that says "all are invited." Not all are invited and not all are chosen to be a freemason.
Dunno about that. The papal decree in question sounded pretty anti-democracy to me. I'm just glad the Church had changed its tune since then.
It does sound that way. Basically, democracy in a Christian culture was a new idea. Sure, Democracy had been done before, but not by Christians. Pope Pius IX, in my opinion, made a mistake in some parts of what he was saying. He is human, so he is allowed to make mistakes. His mistakes are the same mistakes that the Church tends to make now, IMHO.
Rich Parsons illustraited this to me once, which I had heard before in small doses, but I liked his categories. There are basically 4 types of beliefs:
1. Morals - Religious and Cultural Beliefs.
2. Values - Personal Beliefs, usually based on #1, but not always identical.
3. Ethics - What Society deems good or bad. Basically comes from the collection of the Morals and Values of the individuals in that society.
4. Laws - What the Government Regulates
In the Papel decree's, this idea of there being 4 different categories was not understood. The question was "how do you run a government without morals?" They could not see the difference between the 4, and they worried that society would lose it's morals if the government didn't address them. Plus, the Catholic religion as a whole was under attack by the masons, and by other secret societies. Those Papel Decree's were reactionary to this environment.
Now that the church authorities have a better understanding of the ideas of a seperate church and state, they recognize it's importance to a degree.
In my opinion, I believe that Church should be there to teach us morals, while giving us the choice (freewill) to define our values from those morals. If the Church is making the impact that it needs to make, then the ethics of the society will match those of the morals of the church, throught the freewill of the people, and everything will be fine. Government then should only regulate what is absolutely nessicary to allow this process to occur, basically keeping its hands off morals and values, and only defining ethics as much as is needed for our protection, and the protection of this process. In a perfect world, that is what should happened.
What instead has happened is that the Church (and traditional/cultural values) has not been having the positive impact that it should be having for sometime now. Therefore, the values of the people do not coincide with the Catholic or Christian church exactly, causing the ethics of society (by church standards)to deteriorate as well. To counter this, Church members/authority often decide to try to go to the Law to get the government to dictate morality, with the idea that the values and ultimatliy the ethics of society will change. I feel that this is the wrong approach, and that allowing the Government to basically attempt to force our morals will only succeed in deminishing our freedoms.
Very interesting sentiment, considering Christianity itself was clearly a Mystery School (y'know, with the "secret initiates" and "knowledge hidden from all but a few") at its inception.
I explain my view on that here:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13939
It's not the societies themselves, it goes back to the elitism that occurs within them.
:asian:
btw...before someone brings up the idea of "infallability," and "how can I say that a Pope may have not been perfect?" I'll explain what it is. "Infallability" from the church standpoint is the belief that because Jesus instituted the Church (as it is believed), the Church Doctrine/beliefs are correct. However, how people interprete these could be incorrect or correct. Also, the Pope is only "infallable" when he makes a statement "ex cathedra," otherwise it is not an infallable statement. An "ex cathedra" statement is rarely done.
