Justin Welby, the Church of England’s Archbishop of Canterbury, is allowing a full Masonic service to be conducted in Canterbury cathedral on the same day that Cardinal Nichols reconsecrates England and Wales to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Westminster cathedral on the18th February 2017.
Canterbury cathedral was the Mother-Church of All England from 597 till the death of the last Catholic Archbishop, Cardinal Pole, in 1558. It was the heart of the Catholic Church in England and one of the major shrines of Christendom because it housed the shrine of St Thomas a Becket.
The Masonic service in Canterbury cathedral marks the 300th anniversary of the foundation of Freemasonry with the establishment of the first Grand Lodge in London. It is reported that the Masonic service will last three hours, but the published order of service appears much shorter. It remains unclear whether Justin Welby has given his permission for the Masons to participate in full regalia in Canterbury cathedral. The Dean of Canterbury Cathedral, the Very Reverend Robert Willis, will preside at the Masonic Service. The Duke of Kent, who is the Grand Master of the Freemasons, will also be in attendance along with other High Rulers in the Craft.
Virtue online: The Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism reports that Justin Welby made his controversial decision to allow the Masonic service in Canterbury cathedral because of a large donation, “Canterbury Cathedral agreed to hold the service of thanksgiving to celebrate 300 years of Freemasonry after receiving a donation of £300,000 ($374,520) from the Masons for the restoration of the North-West Transept in the Cathedral.”
Justin Welby’s and Canterbury Cathedrals decision to allow a Masonic service is controversial among certain groups of Anglicans in light of the 1987 summary of the deliberations by the General Synod of the Church of England, Freemasonry and Christianity: Are they compatible?:
It was “clear that some Christians have found the impact of Masonic rituals disturbing and a few perceive them as positively evil.” Some believed that Masonic rituals were “blasphemous” because God’s name “must not be taken in vain, nor can it be replaced by an amalgam of the names of pagan deities.” It noted that Christians had withdrawn from Masonic lodges “precisely because they perceive their membership of it as being in conflict with their Christian witness and belief. The Synod’s primary theological objection centred upon Freemasonry’s use of the word “Jahbulon,” which is the name used for the Supreme Being in Masonic rituals, and is an amalgamation of Semitic, Hebrew and Egyptian titles for God.”
Cardinal Nichols’ reconsecration of England and Wales to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Westminster cathedral on the 18th of February 2017 inaugurates the celebrations of the centenary of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima. The Mass at Westminster cathedral includes the crowning of a specially commissioned statue of Our Lady of Fatima.
There is a violent history of Masonic hostility to Our Lady of Fatima since the original apparitions in 1917 in Portugal. Father John de Marchi’s account of the miraculous events at Fatima, personally verified by Sr. Lucia, recounts the hostility of local freemasons towards Our Lady and the three visionaries at Fatima. Arthur Santos, the mayor of Vila Nova de Ourem who persecuted and psychologically tortured the three children, was a member of the Masonic Lodge of Leiria, and founded a new lodge in his native Vila Nova de Ourem. The Masonic Lodge at Santarem, a neighbouring town to Fatima, became the rallying point to atheistic opposition to Our Lady of Fatima. In September 1917, men from Santarem joined up with men from Vila Nova de Ourem to attack the makeshift shrine at the site of the apparitions.
In view of this history of masonic anti-Catholicism, is it more than an unhappy coincidence that a major Masonic service is being conducted in the ancient mother Church of the Catholic faith in these lands on the very same day that England is reconsecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in honour of Our Lady of Fatima? Even if it is coincidence, it is a conjunction of events that is profoundly significant and meaningful.
Originally published at EWTN Great Britain. Reprinted with permission.
Deacon Nick Donnelly is an author based in the diocese of Lancaster, England. He is the online news editor for EWTN Great Britain. You can follow him on Twitter at @protectthepope.
A brace of stiffies for the same date!? Jorge must have been gutted!
A sheep and goats moment.
Occasionally Providence allows us a glimpse. (And then rightly removes it from our sight since judgement belongs to the Lord.)
Guess who’s head is going to be crushed.
Trump has instigated the Arrest of over a 1000 paedophiles and Child Porn addicts in the last month.
A tide is turning, and the masons have long been into child abuse, just llok at how long savile was allowed to get away with it, because he was a Mason.
Umm – and the Roman Catholic Church has perpetrated and harboured paedophiles in its ranks for generations. Cardinal Pell is just one example – with the Royal Commission in Australia into the 1000’s of children Catholic priests systemically abused.
If Savile ever was a Mason, for which no evidence or proof has been offered just mere conjecture, then he immediately lost all rights when he broke the laws of the land. Masonry holds immediate excommunication for the breaking of any law of the land you live in.
Freemasonry is a secret society. It’s membership lists and criminal acts are kept from the public while they worship Satan as their god. I believe Henry Makow, a Canadian Jew, has the best understanding of this judeo-masonic conspiracy. The following is his article on Jimmy Savile and the British establishment:
No its not, you know where every Lodge is. You can query the membership lists at any time.
There are no secrets, not since the rituals were published 275 years ago. Be weary, alternative media is the media. And just as there are Catholic Priests that did disgusting things, please do not make the mistake of assuming because on Freemason was a horrible person, that the other 6 000 000 members must be as well.
Otherwise based on all the court cases brought against Priests, it might be said that all Catholics molest children. You know it’s not true, so why claim it of Freemasonry?
When the police force and the judiciary make up the major part of the Freemasons we know that they can and do keep the proof to themselves and out of the public domain. That’s the reason why Ted Heath, the Prime Minister, was allowed to get away with his paedophile proclivities.
I hope they don’t start using St Peter’s anytime soon.
It would not surprise me in the least. In the nme of “accompaniment” many strange things can and do happen.
St. Peter’s is being used by them for decades now. Just not openly. Don’t think that’s news to anyone.
Indeed it is! Ven. Fulton Sheen did say we live in extraordinary times. It’s the best time to become a saint. Just be faithful to the grace of God. The rest is irrelevant.
There but for the grace of God go I.
Here, Father, is an official use of St. Peter’s for Anglican Evensong.
‘The Anglican Centre said: “The gesture reflects the deepening bonds of affection and trust between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church.”’ Really!? They refer to themselves as a communion and call us Church. Something must be wrong. Most of our prelates don’t talk like this. It’s usually the Anglican Church, Lutheran Church, all kind of churches. I take it as a sign from them that they want to come back in full communion with the Bride of Christ.
They are at least indirectly if Anglicans are allowed to use St Peters…
Yup. That’s what I was referring to.
It falls in line with the fawning over the lesbian-led Lutherans, too.
I see the equivalent of 30 pieces of silver, for the Anglicans is now 300,000 pounds.
Well played, freemasons! I see what you did there!
What they bought was very cheap at the price. Just shows the Anglican Church’s disrespect for Our Blessed Lady & these are the sort of people PF esteems.
It’s our 300 year celebration, and we have been giving towards the upkeep of the Abby for a long time. So it is symbolic, it’s just not the symbol you attitude to it.
By these ‘events’ could it possibly be more obvious of the final battle that is going on between Our Lady and Satan? And Christian is correct………She will crush his head!
It is not a coincidence. Freemasonry is the anti-church, established to destroy the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Anyone who believes they are benign actors opens themselves to eternal damnation. I assure you, that is freemasonries designs on as many souls as they can corrupt. They labor to build the Kingdom of Hell, for their true Master Mason – Lucifer.
It’s clear that you don’t know what your talking about.
Oh goody, the Masonic Batsignal is working and the apologists have appeared.
Would it be better to be stuck in an echo chamber where patently false ideas may circulate unchallenged?
Hi Ridley – If you have a counter argument, make it, Ridley. That’s how a discussion works best. Don’t you agree?
I do agree. My comment was just how silly it was to complain about dissenting views by people on whom the article is directed.
But sure, it’s folly to call Freemasonry anti-church, or anti-anything. It makes zero comment on any religion, instead only demanding that a man follow his own and be true to it. The Craft would not, and could not interfere with that. By extension regarding souls, Freemasonry also makes no comment, and is thus up to the individual to decide how they feel on matters (which is probably why many Churches dislike it).
And whilst I’m not sure where you got the idea of some “kingdom of hell” (most likely an Alex Jones approved tautological website), you’re also mistaken on what “Lucifer” means. Worth digging out your Bible (I prefer Orthodox or Catholic translations over the NIV or KJV) and giving it a read, where you’ll discover that Lucifer is not a name, but an adjective. One primarily used with another name you might be more familiar with: Jesus Christ.
I am sure you can point to the Biblical passage where Christ is referred to as Lucifer
Yup. Rev 22:16 , Nu 24:17 , Mt 2:2 , Mt 2:7-10 , Lu 1:76-79 , John 1:7-9 , Isa 9:2 , Mt 4:16 , Isa 60:1-2 , and probably most importantly, John 8:12
Hi Ridley – Really? John8:12 – Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.” – You get Lucifer out of that? Jesus is the Light, Lucifer is a creature. Time to go to Adoration, I will check back with you later. I am sure by the time I return your incorrect understandings will have been challenged, That’s the nice thing about this website, correction comes quickly.
You realise you’re quoting the Bible in English, right? As in, not the language it was originally written in. If you have a look at a different translation, or an older Latin/Koine edition, you’ll see your mistake.
But hey, if you can find anywhere stated where Lucifer is a name, feel free to post it. Bonus points for where it’s used instead of Samael, which you seem to be thinking of.
The Vulgate does not render “bright morning star” in Rev 22:16 as lucifer but rather as “stella splendida et matutina”
Figured that would be brought up. http://religiousreading.bestmoodle.net/blog/2007/12/vulgate-verse-stella-matutina-morning.html This should clear it up.
Was someone feeding you verses because if you are going to make a case via 2 Peter 1:19, how come you did not include that citation above. After all that is the only time that the term lucifer is use for start in the east.
I think St Jerome was trying to make a kind of pun there. In Isaish he describes the fallen angel as lucifer and this time the Salvation of the fallen is the lucifer that rises. One a light going dark, the other a light shining brightly.
No, just going off the ones I recall. And again, Isaiah didn’t describe an actual fallen angel. Please read up on the context of the book (the Israelitish exile).
Obviously you don’t recall too well because if you are going to make a case that is about the only one you can reasonably use and that is absent from the list.
So obviously you are parroting. Because guess what, the article you linked to was not clear as to what the 2 Peter citation was and you did not bother to find out.
I’m more surprised you’d want to bring up another one which proves me right.
2Peter 1:18-19 “We also have the message of the prophets, which has been confirmed beyond doubt. And you will do well to pay attention to this message, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts”
So yea, what exactly is the concern here?
Well I’m surprised that you think I am brining that up when that is the exact citation from the article you linked to. Did you not read your own link before you posted it?
Like I said, you are parroting some apologetics tactic. You thought you could fire these things without bothering to read them.
And that my dear is the concern or rather should be your concern because you are not much in the habit of reading your citations.
I’m just not understanding what your concern about it is. Nothing about it harms my point.
It harms you for it shows
1: that you do not know what you are talking about
2: you are pretentious strutting around as if you know Latin and Koine
3: you give citations which you obviously have not read which probably someone passsed on to you
4: because of the above, your point is null.
1. Just because i missed one, doesn’t negate the rest.
2. Being pretentious never hurt anyone, and your concern would only apply if i were fallaciously making an appeal to authority, which i wasn’t.
3. I did read them, and apparently we were in agreement, so i’m not sure why the argument is continuing.
4. Even if those were true, it wouldn’t change the truths of the matter, so my point is still valid, and this upsets you for some reason?
1) You missed many because you gave many citations.
2) Being pretentious does hurt people because we called to live the truth.
3) You did not or you would not have been surprised at the mention of 2 Peter 1:19
4) You have no point. You argument is basically hinged on the name Lucifer and we have just agreed that Lucifer as we know that name applies to Satan. Regardless of whether it is a product of tradition, Lucifer has become a name for Satan.
You argued that lucifer as an adjective was given to Christ and gave several citations which did not do what you claimed it was supposed to do.
As I have already pointed out, it was only a chance mention of 2 Peter 1:19 that saved your case from collapsing completely. A fact that you did not pick up on because you obviously did not read your own citation properly.
But even that is lame at best because as I have already pointed out Lucifer is so called for having been an angel of light.
1. Not really a big deal. Just shows that there are many citations.
2. Being pretentious doesn’t prevent the truth. Just makes me an arse.
3. I wasn’t surprised. I was just curious why you were so obsessed with it.
4. We agreed the opposite of that, though. We agreed it HAS BECOME that in tradition (not fact), but that doesn’t make it a reality. It’s like saying that Marion Mitchell Morrison isn’t his name just because now most people know him as John Wayne.
So no, Lucifer/Helel is not a name for Satan/Adversary, and it makes no sense for it to be so.
1) Many citations that were wrong.
2) It prevents the truth because you are not supposed to be an arse.
3) Oh yes you were suprised. You were surpised that I brought it up because you did not even know it even though your link referenced it.
4) If it HAS BECOME that in tradition, it is now that. When we speak of Lucifer now, we speak of the devil. That is fact. And John Wayne may have been born Marion Mitchell Morrison but the simple fact is that when we speak of Marion Mitchell Morrison we talk of John Wayne.
So yes, Lucifer is a name for Satan because of his origin. And that is a fact.
1. Except they weren’t.
2. Where is that in the rulebook? Because it isn’t hurting anyone.
3. At what point did it even look like i was surprised. I was surprised that you’d work against your own ends, perhaps.
4. And YOU might speak of Satan by that word [Lucifer], but that doesn’t make it correct to do so. It’s like people who say “irregardless.” It’s not a word, just because enough people are wrong enough to use it.
If you’re talking about Biblical terms, you should probably go by what the Bible actually says. Not later made fanfiction.
1) They were. You gave that to my request for Biblical citation where Jesus was called lucifer and you mentioned “in Latin”. As the citations showed, none of them mentioned lucifer. You thought that the vulgate translated all text with “star” or “morning star” into lucifer. If you had bothered to actually check them before you gave them, you would not have fallen flat on that.
2) It’s hurting you more than you know. It is corrupting you. It is like a cancer that slowly eats at you.
3) Because you said you were.
4) Well possum, Lucifer is Satan. The name referred to him in the same way that John Wayne referred to Marion Morrison.
Now you may say there are other John Waynes. But common usage referst o John Wayne, the actor originally known as Miarion Morrison.
1. I didn’t say ALL text, but the reference is there, as you yourself pointed out. We must look at greater context, after all. Otherwise misinterpretations happen.
2. Meh, we both seem to be fine.
3. Where? I said i was surprised YOU brought it up.
4. Dude, we just established that that is not the case. It only began to refer to the concept of the devil much later. Again, remember there is a Catholic Saint by the name of Lucifer. And if nothing else, just think about the word. Your mental gymnastics are a disservice to try and attribute something pure to something evil.
1) None of the citations you gave proved your point.
2) A pretentious man is not fine. He deludes himself.
3) Precisely. You were surprised I brought it up. Why would you be if you knew?
4)No we didn’t. You said that it has become so in tradtion. If IT HAS BECOME SO, THEN IT HAS BECOME SO.
1. Except they did. See; Context. If nothing else, i mentioned Isaiah. And it’s used in the Book of Job correctly (twice, thanks to St. Jerome), but in a non applicable context.
2. Says you, pretentiously.
3. You’re misapplying the surprise. I was surprised YOU brought it up, not that you brought IT up. This is basic grammar.
4. Just because people have started doing something wrong, doesn’t make it right. Again, it’s like people “accepting” that the Vatican said the Earth was flat. Do you believe that’s the truth, just because it’s tradition now? Even though it’s a later invention?
1) Naah. You said if I read it in Latin it would prove your point. I gave you the vulgate and it rubbed your face in the ground.
2)I was merely stating a fact. If you want to remain pretentious because you see nothing wrong with it go right ahead.
3) You were surprised at both (the you and the it)
5) True. But calling Satan Lucifer was not wrong. In fact the name merely points to his origin.
And it is very different to the flat earth assertion. Once it was proved that the earth was not flat everyone now believes that fact. But the fact is people still call Satan Lucifer because he was angel of light. There was no mis-application of the name. Both Satan and Lucifer are descriptive of the devil.
1. But you yourself showed examples of it?
2. Indeed we shall, it seems.
3. Blimey this has gotten childish. “Nuh-uh, you were totally surprised even though you didn’t show it!”
4. You seem to have misinterpreted the analogy. The earth was always (post Classical era) known to be spherical. It was a 19th century author who made people think that it was considered flat more recently, despite it not actually being the case. So no, lucifer is not descriptive of the devil, nor is it correct to say it was ever considered such until very recently, when it was falsely ascribed. Just like the flat earth belief accusation.
1) I showed examples of HOW YOU GOT IT WRONG.
2) You’re free to do so.
3) Because you showed it and said so.
4) Yes, Lucifer is descriptive of the origin of the devil. In fact, that is why he was called that. Like you said, BECAME SO. In this instance became so because he was so.
Your flat earth analogy was far off tangent because it was a fact that can be ascertained empirically. But the matter of Lucifer is the domain of the spiritual where the Church gets the say.
1. 2 Peter 1:19 ?
3. Again, you’re missing the point. I was surprised that you would willingly harm your argument.
4. And another case of missing the point.
To once again explain in more words: Prior to Washington Irving’s book, no one thought the world was flat. Irving used the Vatican as the antagonists in his book about Columbus. Doing so, he fabricated claims about it. People then took those fabricated claims as truth.
The same thing happened with the lucifer usage. Prior to the KJV, no one used lucifer to refer to the devil. The KJV had a mistranslation (many, actually), and then people started using the word wrongly. So it was never descriptive of such an origin, the ignorant merely adopted it against all logic.
1) Well that was not in your list was it? I pointed that out and you were SURPRISED. I practically had t piece your argument for you.
2) I was nor harming my argument. I asked you to give me biblical citations. Every single one you gave did not make your case. You were to pretentious about your Latin knowledge that you did not even bother to check. That citation came from one of the links you gave which you did not read (or failed to understand) so I pointed out to you that there is only one that supports your case and it is not one that you gave because you do not even know it exists.
4) Like I said, the flat earth comparison does not work because that is something verifiable empirically. The name of Lucifer is a matter of the Church. So in this instance it is the Church who determines whether it is applicable or not.
No one before used it to describe the devil.
And here’s the problem with your argument, you use the KJV. But when the KJV used the term Lucifer, it was because of the translation of Isa 14:12 which as you pointed out does not refer to the devil but to the King of Babylon.
So ergo, it could not have been because of the KJV that we refer to the devil as Lucifer.
This means that Lucifer would have been used precisely to describe the fact that satan is a fallen angel. So it goes more to the reality of who he was before the fall.
1. Don’t know how many times i have to say it. Surprised you were arguing against yourself. I just rattled off a list. The list still brought up the usage of morning star and similar terms. Context.
4. We’re not talking about verifying that the earth is spherical or not. That is entirely beside the point. The crux is the belief, based on false information fabricated after the fact.
And yes, Isaiah doesn’t refer to the devil, but because of the mistranslation (or rather, not translating it), it became misinterpreted. So yes, it was indeed because of the KJV (unless you can find an older example of the misusage?), and because enough lay people were able to propagate false information due to not understanding what they were reading. Which is exactly why translations were often prohibited by the Vatican.
1) I’m not. It was not an argument against myself but to point out the fact that your were too stupid to check first if your citations actually make your point.
I am pointing out that instead you providing me the citation I found that myself.
I asked you to tell me where Christ was referred to as Lucifer and you couldn’t. But even this citation is not a name but a translation of an adjective.
4)Goodness are you really too stupid to realize that an empirically verifiable fact is different from a spiritual one. The reason why your earth analogy does not work is because it can be proved that that saying the earth is flat is false.
But with regards Lucifer being rightly called Lucifer, you cannot disprove the tradition made that happen. Do you at least get that bit?
And then you go: “And yes, Isaiah doesn’t refer to the devil”.
Well then, that makes your argument the KJV even more bunkum because as I pointed out, because the KJV use of Lucifer refers to that text.
But I doubt that simple fact will pierce through.
1. The translation of an adjective was my core point, though.
4. How are you still missing this point? Monkeys learn faster. The empirical fact of the earth’s shape is not in question. I was bringing up the belief in a false retcon. What part are you struggling with here?
And one can disprove the spirit of darkness being called bringer of light by prior tradition, and really just the words used.
Yes the KJV use of lucifer refers to that text, but that doesn’t mean it was interpreted correctly. They failed to translate an adjective, so people mistook it for a name.
Are you perhaps a Biblical Literalist?
1. And as I have pointed out, you were not able to make it.
4. So basically you are a monkey? I wouldn’t go that far.
But for your failure to comprehend I explain again (with serious doubts as to whether you will get it).
Your comparison with flat/round earth understanding with the Satan as Lucifer fails because we can ascertain with certitude that the earth is round. So we can disprove the old notion (flat earth) and say it is false, with the new (round earth) which we say is true.
But you cannot do that with with the use of the word Lucifer for Satan. You cannot say that it is wrong because you have no way of determining that it is wrong. How do you know that Satan was not previously an angel? How do you know that Lucifer is not an apt name for him? You have no way of proving that.
Then you said: yes the KJV use of lucifer refers to that text, but that doesn’t mean it was interpreted correctly.
But as I have pointed it, we are talking about Lucifer in reference to Satan. You are using the KJV to support your claim and the use of Lucifer in this instance does not even refer to Satan. So how is your argument even comparable to the debunking of the flat earth theory?
Do process that a while and maybe, just maybe, you will get up to monkey speed.
1. Except the point has been made?
4. Oh clever. On the level of rubber vs. glue there.
And seriously my comparison had nothing to do with the shape of the earth. It had nothing to do with being able to prove for thousands of years the shape and size. The point was that modern misconceptions can colour our understanding of the past. The “Luke I am your father” / “No, I am your father” or “Beam me up Scotty” / “Scotty, beam us up.” are other examples.
And we can prove that the word is not a suitable fit, as it was not previously used canonically, and it goes against what was said elsewhere in correct context.
As for using the KJV for the lucifer/Satan link, yes, it wasn’t referring to Satan, and that’s contributory to the argument. It spread as the result of misinterpretation. That’s the entire point. Only people who hadn’t read the Bible, and didn’t understand the context were able to spread the misinformation.
But hey, you’ve begun to resort to Ad Hominem, so I guess you’re pretty close to capitulating.
1) Has it? My request for citation was for Lucifer as a name for Christ.
Sigh! You are so right about the monkey part.
My response was not about the shape of the earth either but obviously was beyond you.
So let me try again (One has to learn patience when dealing with kids)
You said: The point was that modern misconceptions can colour our understanding of the past.
Well blossom, that was not the point you were making when you first raised the issue. Your point then was if we got it wrong about the earth, then we got it wrong about Lucifer. Like I showed you, that does not work.
So let’s address this new spin of yours.
You say “modern misconception”. Is calling Satan Lucifer a modern misconception? Hardly.
As for “colours our understanding of the past” – how does referring to Satan as Lucife colour our understanding of the past.
Me thinks you are trying to impress with that bs but let me tell you now, it is not working.
Then you said: “As for using the KJV for the lucifer/Satan link, yes, it wasn’t referring to Satan, and that’s contributory to the argument ”
Well duh, that is exactly my point. You said that it was the KJV that started the reference to Satan as Lucifer. But as you pointed out, the one text in the KJV that used the word Lucifer did not even refer to Satan. So your argument is bunkum from the beginning.
Try thinking out your arguments before you post so that it is clearer.
And now you accuse me of committing the fallacy of Ad Hominem.
Do you even know what Ad Hominem means? Here’s a tip: google it and understand well the explanation. That will be lesson 101 in logic.
Hi Ridley – I trust the translation of the Bible the True Church endorses. After all, they were the one’s who preserved the validity of the message spoken by the early evangelists, the Gospels, which became the recorded testaments of those who witnessed the teachings of Jesus, along with the Old Testament, the Epistles and the Book of Revelation., from Apostolic times to the time the cannon of the Bible was established, and then translated that bible into Latin, in order to assure conformity to the original text in the universal language of the Church, and now we have the translation into English, all of these translations which respond to practical concerns, and overseen by the One sent to assure us the accurate translations would be found in the Church He guides and preserves from error. You might not have heard about Him since He is the enemy of the spirit which has persuaded you to skepticism – you know, the unholy spirit. Ridley, you have swallowed the bait. Spit out the hook and if possible look into these issues objectively.
Yea, okay that’s all great, but it still doesn’t address my question.
Hi Ridley – I thought I did. The English translation of the Bible, used by the Roman Catholic Church is accurate, and is so because the Holy Sprit guides the Church. Was that what you asked about?
No, i asked for passages within it which use lucifer as a name. Much more, where it’s used where Samael should be.
Hi Ridley – Though the Bible is a revelation of God to His creation, and is absolutely accurate and True, it is not the full Revelation. The reality of the fallen angels is referenced by Jesus, the story behind the fall is left to other Sources, which provide an understanding which is just as accurate and True as the Scriptures found in the Holy Bible. I am not sure who Samael is but I can guess that the -el partname means that they were once in the service of God.
That’s fine. But the argument was about usage in the Bible.
And yes, Samael was considered to be pretty evil as far as Angels go, being an Arch-Angel, but also the serpent who tempted Eve, and in later scripture considered to be consort to Lilith. The last part I’d take with salt.
Hi Ridley – Where did you learn about Samael?
From the Old Testament (Book of Judith, i think?) and the Talmud, as well as the Mosaic Qabbalah texts.
Hi Ridley – It’s a shame that the Church Jesus established and the Apostles and their successors built isn’t as impressed with Samael as you are.
Meh. I’m just going off all appropriate texts. Jesus didn’t write the Bible, after all. I’d have to wonder how He’d feel about books and contextual items being pruned for no good reason.
Hi Ridley – Indeed. I am pretty sure the Holy Spirit isn’t too happy about people trying to change the unchanging teachings and divinely authenticated Scriptures found in the Church He guides. But I might point out the pruning is being done with a very specific purpose by those who attack the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I deal with this sad reality in this way – Jesus returns for a reason. Thy will be Done on earth as it is in Heaven.
The only that approximates is Rev 22:16. The others are a stretch.
And the only reason you equate Lucifer with Jesus is both of them being referred to as the morning star.
But Lucifer as name was never ascribed to Jesus. I think even in the Vulgate which translated the Greek word into Lucifer
Lucifer isn’t referred to as the morning star, as Lucifer IS morning star. It’s a Latin word.
And you’re right, Lucifer as a name wasn’t ascribed to Jesus, it was ascribed as an adjective. And it most certainly is in the Vulgate. Look up those passages in your copy, which would of course be in Latin.
Okay here it is: (I’ve already given the translation for Rev 22:16 before)
Matt 2:2 2 dicentes: Ubi est qui natus est rex Judæorum? vidimus enim stellam ejus in oriente, et venimus adorare eum.
Num 24:17 videbo eum sed non modo intuebor illum sed non prope orietur stella ex Iacob et consurget virga de Israhel et percutiet duces Moab vastabitque omnes filios Seth
Matt 2:7 tunc Herodes clam vocatis magis diligenter didicit ab eis tempus stellae quae apparuit eis
Isa 9L2 opulus qui ambulabat in tenebris vidit lucem magnam habitantibus in regione umbrae mortis lux orta est eis
And Luke 1:76-79??? Really? That’s about John the Baptist. Or did you not know that?
Interestingly the only time lucifer was used was in reference to Satan in Isa 14:12 quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes
Hhmm, were you reading from a standard Freemasons apologetics book? LOL LOL LOL
You really ought to check things out before you start parroting.
Pretentions to knowledge of Latin and Koine is just laughable.
Thanks for proving my point, I suppose? Lots of Star in the East and so on references.
And yes, Luke 1:76 is about John, but 1:78 is referring to Christ.
And Isa: 14:12 isn’t about Satan, it’s about the fall of a Babylonian king. Saying he was high, but fell from grace. What was that you were saying about being wary of parroting?
So yes, I suppose it was a standard Masonic apologetic book: the Bible.
And how is it unreasonable for an expectation of some Latin/Koine/Hebrew knowledge when someone is arguing about words from those languages?
Except that I didn’t.
You gave a lot of citations which never proved your point. I was actually the one who gave the verse that used the word Lucifer which referred to Satan. And interestingly the passage in Isaiah points to the fact that lucifer was an angel – a bright one. And guess what: it explains the fall of this bright star.
So lucifer is a bright start that falls, Christ is the bright star that rises.
Because you do not know them. You pretend to know them. That is why you gave those citations that were not even rendered as “lucifer” by the vugate because you don’t know what you are talking about.
You probably read it in some Freemasonic apologetics book and you fired away thinking you have a “gotcha” and it turns out your fall flat on your face.
You think you will cow us by your:”supposed” knowledge of Koine and Latin – knowledge that has been exposed to be non – existent.
Isaiah was using metaphor for the king of Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar), because he was the one who conquered Jerusalem, and was in turn conquered and cast down.
And no, i’m not hoping to cow anyone by my knowledge. I’m hoping that otherwise will in turn increase their own knowledge, rather than just parroting ignorance.
But yes, the term lucifer itself is not used every time, but the equivalence is.
I the Catholic bet St Lucifer of Cagliari would be quite surprised about modern difficulties about the use of his name.
How can you hope to do that when in giving the citations you proved that you know zilch
My, my you love proving my point.
If Isa 14:12 has got nothing to do with Satan, then even more so your argument crumbles.
This makes then the that the one instance of use of “lucifer” in 2Peterr 1:18 is attributable only to Christ in which case there is no attribution to the evil one.
So ergo, Lucifer is only a traditional name for the devil with no reference to the Bible. LOL again.
And yes, a saint with an unfortunate name.
I suppose I will call you Lucifer (and all the diabolic connotation) and you would not have a problem with that.
You’ve lost me entirely here. Did you mean to acknowledge that the only usages of it are in reference to Nebuchadnezzar and Christ?
But the term Lucifer as a name that we know refers to neither.
Wait, so we’re in agreement (except that Lucifer isn’t a name)? Lucifer is just the Latin term for bringer of light (which best applies to Christ in Christian terms), and not the name of Samael or Adversary/Satan?
Lucifer has become the name for Satan. No it was not used in the Vulgate for Satan but tradition has ascribed the name to him being previously a bright angel.
So when we talk of Lucifer, we mean him.
Absolutely. Has become, yes. But that doesn’t make it so, just because it was used on the show Supernatural thanks to a KJV mistranslation.
Much like how when we talk about the Catholic church, they’re supposed to have told Columbus the world was flat, but that wasn’t the case either. Just another retcon in later history.
But it does make him so being a fallen angel. That is why he was called so.
So Lucifer is Satan not so much for being evil but describes his initial state before the fall.
In fact his name is quite cautionary.
Hi Ridley – Lucifer is the leader of the Fallen Angels, the Archangel who began the revolt in heaven by refusing to serve God, he is not an adjective, he is a very unfortunate noun. My formation as to the Demonic and Angelic realm was based on the presentation of Father John Harden. He knew what he was talking about and was in full conformity to the teachings of the Church. I gained further insight through listening to Father Malachi Martin, who, as an exorcist, was very familiar with the demons that serve Lucifer in hell, he dealt with them many times. As to the claim that freemasonry is some benign boy’s club, and the fact that membership in the Masons was forbidden by the Church speaks for itself. I have listened to Alex Jones a few times, and find him very entertaining, but less than a trustworthy source of information. Jesus is the source on the existence of hell, and that it is both a place of eternal suffering and the final destination for the fallen angels and those souls they can deceive into unrepentant sin. For instance those who claim that the enemies of the Church are benign entities.
You seem to be mistaking the term (Latin, no less) “Lucifer” for the name “Samael.” Either way, what sources did the good Father’s use to come to these conclusions? Because other clergy have also spoken to the contrary using primary sources (Revd. Dr. George Oliver, and Revd. Neville Barker-Cryer being two prominent ones).
The Vatican issuing a taboo on it’s followers joining the Craft doesn’t speak for itself. One must look at why they did this, and based on what. They try to use scriptural arguments, but they rapidly fall apart. They also have had to invent things for Masons to allegedly do, rather than just relying on truth. Basically, the Vatican mistakenly thought the Craft was a rival for theology, rather than a handmaid to religion, and panic bit at it.
Your description of hell is also more Dante Alighieri styled than Biblical, which is a common mistake.
Hi Ridley – Buy the lie, Ridley. Both Father Harden and Father Martin referenced the teachings of the Church. I can give you another source, though, who is even more credible, this what she revealed to the children of Fatima –
“She opened Her hands once more, as She had done the two previous months. The rays [of light] appeared to penetrate the earth, and we saw, as it were, a vast sea of fire. Plunged in this fire, we saw the demons and the souls [of the damned]. The latter were like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, having human forms. They were floating about in that conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames which issued from within themselves, together with great clouds of smoke. Now they fell back on every side like sparks in huge fires, without weight or equilibrium, amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fright (it must have been this sight which caused me to cry out, as people say they heard me). The demons were distinguished [from the souls of the damned] by their terrifying and repellent likeness to frightful and unknown animals, black and transparent like burning coals. That vision only lasted for a moment, thanks to our good Heavenly Mother, Who at the first apparition had promised to take us to Heaven. Without that, I think that we would have died of terror and fear.”
You can deny that the Freemasons were founded to worship Lucifer, if that suits you, but, in the end you will not be able to deny the existence of hell.
I deny it because that’s the truth.
And I wouldn’t deny the existence of hell. Only question those who think it’s like a 13th century poet described it, rather than as the Bible says.
Hi Ridley – I would never claim Dante is the equivalent of a writer of the Gospels. He does give an interesting take on the after life, though.
He does at that. Such an interesting one that most people ignore the Canonical descriptors of hell in favour of his fire and brimstone approach.
Hi Ridley – Luke16:19-31 confirms the torture and the flames of hell. I think I already mentioned the vision of hell Our Lady of Fatima revealed to the world.
Mark and Luke make mention of it like that, but only Luke has it as a place of punishment. Mark has it similar to Mathew, where it’s just a place for body and soul to be destroyed.
Other terms used are Sheol (Jewish conception of hell), Hades, and Tartarus (Hell for fallen Angels).
They all share the common theme of hell: Being separated from God.
Hi Ridley – Matthew25:41&46. You might have missed those descriptions of hell, which include eternal fire and eternal punishment. Hell isn’t simply a place of separation from God for eternity, it is a place of eternal flames and eternal punishment.
41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
I mentioned Matthew (the term used is Gehenna), and how it covers the greatest punishment of all; separation from God.
Hi Ridley – Jesus doesn’t mention that the greatest punishment is separation from God. He does reference eternal flames and eternal punishment. Yours is the invention, Ridley. I have seen this modern view of hell before, why has it sprung up?
It comes from James 1:17, 2 Thess. 1:8 , John 1:5 + 4:8 , Matthew 25:23 , Eph 2:14 , and developed from Romans 8:29
Hi Ridley – I have one simple rule in these matters – resolve all issues first to the Words of Christ. Nevertheless, Please make your case using your citations. Remember, you claim that these verses definitively support the claim that the greatest punishment is separation from God.
A good rule, which is why i provided those verses. But you’d do well to remember they’re the Words of Christ as recorded by others, edited and compiled by others still, and then later translated and edited by more others.
Hi Ridley – I referenced the Words of Jesus Christ recorded in the 25th Chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. He spoke those Words and they have been accurately and diligently passed from one generation of His Followers to the next. If they were changed His Followers would have noted that they had been changed. That has not occurred. I am sure you know that words of James and Paul must first be reconciled to the Words spoken by Christ. “John 1:5 + 4:8 , Matthew 25:23, please explain how these verses establish that the worst punishment is separation from God. What Jesus actually says is that there are eternal flames and that that punishment is eternal. Matthew25:41&46. As I said, the trustworthiness of the Scriptures and there various authentic translations are validated by the continuity that has always existed in the Church as the Truth is preserved and passed to the next generation of Believers. Unlike the Protestant Churches, the Catholic Church can trace itself back to the Apostles. We didn’t just pop up, like they did, with their own new interpretations and understandings which contradict the teachings that preceded them. Rule number two – Avoid the novelties when considering that which the Holy Spirit guides. He will never contradict that which He guides with a novel understanding.
Those passages largely cover God as being the source of all that is good, and when combined with the Thess. passage, “They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might” it’s revealed.
And technically the Protestant churches trace the same lineage, obviously going through the Catholic or Orthodox (which is certainly older) churches. And it’s not like the Vatican hasn’t had their own new interpretations and contradictions which have changed over the years.
Hi Ridley – Jesus established that hell was a place of eternal flames and eternal punishment, Luke16:19-31 confirms that hell is a place of flames and torment. Why should anyone feel compelled to diminish the description of hell established by Christ as part of His Mission on Earth to establish the Truth, not through prophets, but with the Words of God Himself? You have a hard case to make when you claim the protestants can claim lineage to the Church they could not remain faithful to. Fidelity is the Hallmark of True Faith. An objective study of the actual History of the Church leads to a tree with only one root and one fruit. As to the teachings of the Church on matters of the Faith changing over the years, you are free to identify one Foundational Teaching of the True Church that has changed. Indeed, the fact that the teachings of the Church are unchanging is the very problem all heretics have faced. Including the most prominent heretic in the history of the Church who faces this very dilemma this very day. Poor Francis.
I would argue that having it just being a place of fire and brimstone is far more diminishing. Especially considering what it’s meant to represent. As in, why would we have such a physical and worldly punishment for a spiritual effect?
And the Protestants tried to remain more faithful. Remember, it was the changing and corruption of the [Roman Catholic] church which sparked Luther. Orthodox is certainly the most faithful of all, though.
I’m sorry, but are you calling His Holiness Pope Francis a heretic?
Hi Ridley – Protestants tried to stay more faithful? I guess that more faithful thing is why the protestant tree is so splintered. Before I answer your question about Pope Francis, please share with me your thoughts on divorce and remarriage while the original spouses are still living – is it adultery?
I don’t see how my views on that should affect your answer.
Hi Ridley – Here, let me explain. Your answer, to that question of whether that is adultery or not, establishes whether you are a follower of Jesus Christ, and trust what He made clear. Just as it does for Francis. That should make it an easy question to answer, for any follower of Christ. Please establish your actual relationship to the Word. I think they call this a “when the rubber meets the road moment”.
It is easy to answer, but my beliefs should have zero bearing on YOUR answer.
Hi Ridley – If your answer had no bearing on the topic, you wouldn’t dodge answering my question. Be brave Ridley, if you, or one of your children is in this situation it shouldn’t keep you from answering the question. Is it adultery, Ridley.
No one i know is in the situation. I only refrain from answering now, because i know my answer in either affirmative/negative will colour your answer to the original question. Obviously you intend to weasel out either way, rather than being true to your convictions, lest you would have answered by now.
Hi Ridley – I already established my position on Francis. Now all that remains is for me to explain that position to you. That requires that you answer my question, and I said one that should be very easy to answer for a follower of Christ. Answer the question. As I said, your answer will not change mine, but it will tell me whether you are a Christian or not. If you claim to be and also claim that someone who divorces their spouse and remarries another person while the first spouse lives is or is not committing adultery. Pretty straightforward question, what say you?
It in no way requires my answering that question, or my being a Christian or not. Presumably you had established your position independent of my religious beliefs, yes? I, or anybody else could be Hindu, Jedi, Druid, or Orthodox, and it should have no bearing on you being able to voice your concerns about His Holiness.
Hi Ridley – I am posting with you Ridley. It was you who posed this question – ” I’m sorry, but are you calling His Holiness Pope Francis a heretic? ” To which I responded that I would be happy to answer your question if you would first answer my question, and I made it clear that your response to that question was necessary in giving my response, I will answer the question I asked you – Yes, if a man or woman divorces their spouse and remarries someone else while the original spouse is living, that man or woman is committing adultery. And since adultery is a mortal sin, unless the adulterer repents of that sin and resolves to end the adulterous relationship, they will go to hell. Now your turn, what say you, I will answer your question as to whether Francis is a heretic or is not a heretic without delay as soon as you answer my question. Why not answer, Ridley?
How could my response possibly be necessary, unless you were planning on twisting your words to suit my reply? I elect not to answer that first, because I was wanting a real answer regarding your belief. Why not for the moment pretend that I’m not Christian? Or that you’re simply answering for the sake of your own convictions, instead of trying to be deceitful?
Hi Ridley – When you elect to answer let me know. Until then let your imagination take you where it will.
My imagination is taking me all places. The evidence is showing me someone who is afraid to stand for his convictions before God, yet dares to call someone else a heretic for no good reason.
Hi Ridley – If you want to know the reason, answer my question. Then you can decide for yourself whether is a good reason or not. I have run into other protestants who refused to answer my question. You are not the first.
I never said i was Protestant. I just have little patience for Sedevacantists pretending to be Catholic, whilst they’re just being deceitful. Such as in this case. And you never said why my response was necessary, ergo logic dictates that you’re waiting to alter it per my answer.
Hi Ridley – I am not a sedevacantist. I am a cradle Catholic, so I guess this falls under imagination taking you where it will.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, senselessly degrades His Holiness like a duck, and is too ashamed of his beliefs to explain them like a duck…
Hi Ridley – Define holiness in the context of Francis.
If you were Catholic you would understand the Holiness of the position of Pope, rather than picking and choosing like a Protestant.
Hi Ridley – I am asking for your definition of holiness since it is you who used the term.
Primarily the title ascribed to the position of Pope in that context.
Hi Ridley – In otherwords it has no correlation to actual holiness, it is simply a title. In Francis’ case, you are correct. Perhaps you don’t know what real holiness is when it is based on one’s title rather than the amount of God’s Grace they reflect. Obviously you prefer the shallow end of the pool.
Seems like a perfect example of “Respect the office, not the man.” Especially when it causes you to doubt the Church.
Hi Ridley – Respect can be lost due to one’s actions. Do you think the Apostles respected Judas Iscariot after he betrayed Jesus? Because I believe in the Words of Jesus Christ and the teachings of His Church, I feel I owe Francis the same degree of respect I have for Judas Iscariot. Actions have consequence. Are you one of those blind faith kind of guys who follows the leader over the cliff? I’m not.
Not a fan of blind faith, but i’m less of a fan of people calling themselves one thing whilst picking and choosing aspects of that thing to suit themselves.
Hi Ridley – Make the case I am picking and choosing aspects of the Roman Catholic Faith. People who do that end up contradicting the Words of Jesus, just like Francis has.
By dissing the head of the Faith, obviously. Unless perhaps you know better than He who has been chosen by God.
Hi Ridley – Make the case that Francis has been chosen by God to contradict His Son.
The Church has always had the authority to make changes and declarations as it sees fit, when acting Ex Cathedra.
Hi Ridley – When was the last time a Pope spoke ex cathedra? If Francis would do so, advancing his understanding of divorce and remarriage he would be instantly declared a heretic, and be removed from the papacy. The process that officially establishes that he is a heretic absent an ex cathedra declaration takes some time, but it is moving forward. The fact that he is a heretic was established when he contradicted the Words of Christ and attempted to undermine the Sacraments. He will not escape the trap of his own design unless he recants of his heresy, and even if he did that he would have disqualified himself from the papacy.
1950s, I think? Or was there one a lot more recently? The point being that the facility is there for it.
As well as the office of Pope acting as the Vicar of God on Earth. Certainly carries a lot more weight than those who deny the Church and refuse to evolve with the times.
Hi Ridley – None post Vatican II, making claims of being more pastorally sensitive is about as brave as they have been. Vicar of Christ, Ridley, keep it straight, that is why Francis is in hot water, because he is clearly not the Vicar of Christ when he contradicts the Words of Christ. The Words of Christ carry the most weight, for His Followers. You can give a higher weight to the words which contradict Him . Like I said, let’s see where that gets you and your brother Masons, Ridley. I have no doubt you will be able to discuss it with Francis when you share his fate in eternity.
For one who holds the Words of Christ in such esteem, you have quite a lot of doubt about the salvation He has given (plus the keepers of those Words, we’ve established). Curious.
Hi Ridley – My God is God. Those who prefer mystery can have all they can gather to themselves.
Too true because you are not Christian. So I suppose you can make up your own rules.
Didn’t realise I was conversing with the Almighty, who might be able to dictate the faith of others.
At the last judgment we get our bodies back.
Ridley , did you Know Jimmy Savile was a free Mason,
and Free Masons are forbidden from helping to prosecute a brother ?
That’s why Savile got away with child rape and corpse fornication for so long,
Because he was a Mason.
The masons were basically Corrupted starting about the 17th century.
The church in those days was very corrupt, in fact with certain papal Bulls , suh as the cest Que Vie, the church claimed ownership of every material thing on Earth.
Some believe that these papal Bulls are Still in effect.
I’d heard he was a member, but never saw any proof. But it’s untrue that Masons are forbidden to prosecute a brother. In fact, it’s required that any member guilty of breaching the moral or civic law MUST be punished, and is typically expelled from the fraternity (as has recently happened, with a past Grand Officer no less, for homosexuality and pederasty).
Freemasonry promotes morality in men, so it has no room for those who would inhibit that. This is discussed in virtually every degree. I suggest you read the 1st degree ceremony again, as the SW charge encourages grassing on a brother who has done wrong.
You seem to carry a great deal of venom. It spills over.
“[I]t’s folly to call Freemasonry anti-church, or anti-anything. It makes zero comment on any religion, instead only demanding that a man follow his own and be true to it.”
You do realize that this DEMAND is inherently anti-thetical to the Catholic religion, which teaches dogmatically that a man must repent of “his own” (whatever that may be) and convert to the faith entrusted by Christ to His Church? See the conflict there?
UPDATE: Also, you do understand that Catholics do not hold to sola scriptura? So even if you are correct re: Lucifer being employed only adjectivally in Scripture that is only one source of revelation on the matter. The other is Sacred Tradition which teaches infallibly that Lucifier is, in fact, a person; namely, a fallen angel.
No? Like, not at all? The demand is that a man be true. That could only ever be of his own free will and accord. Lead a horse to water, and such.
Ok let me simplify for you:
Freemasonry teaches X (i.e. that a man must be true to his own religion)
Catholicism teaches not-X (i.e. that a man must repudiate his own religion and convert to Catholicism)
Therefore, the teachings of Freemasonry and Catholicism are antithetical.
You’re assuming that one can be true without being Catholic. Remember, it was an organisation made by Catholics for Catholics.
Boy, did you know what you were talking about. It seems several lodges worldwide have sent out the troops to ‘refute’ us.
It happens every time. I imagine most of them are just useful idiots, with no real understanding of the historic and open conflict between Freemasonry and the Catholic Church.
How ironic. It’s been quite a one sided conflict anyway. And by acknowledging that it “happens every time”, perhaps you might question whether or not your ignorant biases are correct? Perhaps other people with more information know better?
Ignorant biases indeed:
We’ve addressed this here:
Freemasonry has been definitively condemned by multiple popes. Catholics are not permitted to be numbered among its members. There’s no debate here. It is a gnostic cult that is antithetical to true Christian life.
Ignorant indeed. I’m seeing a lot of accusations, but not a lot of proof. And plenty of misunderstandings in the Papal condemnations.
“Freemasonry has been definitively condemned by multiple popes.”
I will agree there is no debate there. That is true. I would disagree, however, with the multiple Popes’ rationale for the condemnations. I’ve read the Papal condemnations and I think they are, well, let’s just say “misguided.”
“[Freemasonry] is a gnostic cult that is antithetical to true Christian life.”
That statement is complete rubbish.
What’s ironic is that your profile, freshly minted on 02/18/17, was obviously created just to comment on this essay. In other words, you’re a batsignal boy, just as Steve described.
I created a new one because i didn’t want my regular Disqus associated with what was always going to be close minded zealots afraid to practice the gifts God has granted them. It has no impact on the validity of truth.
Why so despairing? Seems you’ve not much faith in the truth to win out after all.
Truth always wins against unbelievers. Doesn’t mean there won’t be a fight to discomfort them from their willful ignorance.
On that point we agree. See you at the Judgment! Sheep, goats, and all that.
Actually Steve, I do have an understanding of the Catholic Church’s position on Freemasonry and I think that position is misguided to say the least.
There is no “open conflict” against the Catholic Church by Freemasons. As I stated in my previous post, the Catholic Church may have a problem with Freemasons but the Freemasons have no issues with the Catholic Church.
Truth will out.
Hi Angus – Point out the things from my post that are incorrect, Angus. Please be specific. Take as much time as you need, I can wait.
Gee, guess who is going to win that battle. October 13,1917 – the masons 0; Our Lady of Fatima 1.
…and more to come in favour of Our Lady.
No coincidence. Our Lady’s triumph is at hand.
It is poignant that the enemy is being drawn out on this blessed occasion of reconsecration. That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.
Interestingly enough you quoted Luke with that. Brought to me the very first thing I’ve noticed between the Vulgate and the New Vulgate, how they switched the words around so these words (that the thoughts of many hearts would be revealed) to be attributed to our Lord instead of our Lady. Drove me to search for other differences between the two. Found some that change our view of the Faith. Question is: Why would you meddle with the inerrant Word of God?
Because the Vulgate got it wrong. Perhaps another error they attribute to St Jerome but more like due to error on the part of transcribers.
And that’s something which the Masons would (and will) never acknowledge. As Padre Pio said, “Do you think Satan thought he was beaten even under the feet of the Archangel? No! He boasts that he beat St. Michael.” (Note the use of the present tense…)
And she will crush his head with her heal..!
That is not correct. It is Jesus who crushed the head of the serpent. The Vulgate got that one wrong.
December 8th, 2015 – Laser show on the wall of St.Peter’s in Rome, depicting the world in spectacular blaze.
Very sad that day. I remember it well. And now this.
Rosary and reparations may not be enough anymore to assuage our Lord’s righteous anger, but for my soul and all souls, I will keep on.
Good work, Deacon Nick. Keep it up!
I read with great interest today Steve’s email with an exhortation by St. Athanasius of Alexandria. It’s not the loss of the buildings that bothers me (most of the parishes I’ve been to are horrible ugly 1970s monstrosities anyhow) but the potential loss of the Mass and the Sacraments that is scary. While I can still currently go to confession at any of the local parishes, there are so few available times for it, per population, that the lines are too long. I’m glad people are going to confession! I just hate missing out, and it worries me. Also, it’s just a dubious situation altogether. In exceptionally evil times, there is often a lot of ambiguity.
Freemasons will find out sooner or later who they made an enemy of and who their friend really is. It’s really sad for these poor souls, cause there is still hope of their conversion, but they walk the path of perdition. For me it’s baffling that you would willingly give eternal happiness for a worldly one. But a second of pleasure, power and honor for an eternity of damnation. It is unthinkable.
They do us harm, we repay them by doing good to them. Pray even for their conversion. While they walk this earth and draw breath there is still hope of salvation for each and everyone. Even for a staunch Freemason.
If you say I am not saved, then I should convert, as I am a Freemason. What would you have me convert to, as I am a staunch Christian. Islam?
No, not Islam. Catholicism.
But I am a devout Christian, and because I am not in your parish, does that mean you condemn me to hell because you insinuate I am not Christian because I am not a Catholic?
Would you argue, that everyone who is not Catholic, is not saved?
Would you argue, that everyone who is in your parish, is not saved?
Would you argue that your Jesus, is a different to the Jesus of the Bible, my Savior?
What’s wrong with you, and how dare you insinuate such blasphemy. Who made you so perfect and without sin, that you dare stand up and can cast the first stone. Dr.PD repent and stop spreading lies. You are the one hanging your head in pity, but it is us pitying you. I know who Jesus is, and thus we are not lost as you claim so ignorantly. There is no pleasure in Freemasonry, no sex, drugs, or Rock&Roll. Your picture is warped by perceived arrogance, and self righteousness. However caution my brother, for Jesus taught the the Pharisees got their reward on earth.
You would rather preach to the choir, and insist on being a fisher of fishers. Your task is to be a fisher of men.
Hello there, Mr. Freemason!
If those three questions are supposed to be a Dubia, let me answer them:
No doubt, and just clear answers.
Jesus was not a Catholic, neither was any of the other Apostles, except St. Peter whom can be argued as being the founder of the Catholic Church. The rock. Yet, the other Apostles went on, held Church, and so did all the other disciples of the first and second Century. The practice was the same, the message was the same.
But as they were not Catholic, I trust just like me they are supposed to be burning in hell for not being Catholic. So no matter how devout, I am just going to hell because I am not a Catholic?
Actually he is, since He’s the invisible head of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
But, for the moment I would encourage you to watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3XWFvjacvQ
If you have the will to watch it to the end, I’ll talk to you then. See you soon, Mr. Freemason!
You asked what should you do to be saved. I replied in an act of charity that you choose Catholicism. So what if Freemasonry can make you greater in the eyes of the world? Remember the words of St Thomas More, ‘it profits a man nothing to give his soul to the whole world…’ Call on our Mother Mary for help, she will listen to you and lovingly intercede to our Lord for you, she crushes the Serpent’s head. Stop standing in the doorway, go all the way in to the Church, the one True Apostolic Church.
Is it an act of charity to be a fisher of men? For surely that is our charge, whereas charity is something you do to uplift the poor.
You seem to misunderstand Freemasonry, because it makes you despised by the likes of bigots and the self righteous. Makes you persecuted, spat on, and called names. It makes you anything but great in the eyes of the world. As a Christian I have never been so insulted in my life by my fellow believers.
The fact that being a Devout Christian is not enough, and makes the whole world your lesser somehow for not being Catholic. The Holy Father is a kind and truly compassionate man, chosen by God to lead Christians, yet his devout followers it seems are pharisees in training, and instead of trying to win hearts and minds, and go out into the world to convert those that have strayed of the path, or those that know not our Lord – they rather insult fellow believers and choose to be fishers of fishers, condemning them to hell by personal judgement.
I am saddened, and will pray for your soul that our Lord that is in Heaven will open your eyes to the miscarriages of His Holy commandments you so blindly carry out in His Holy Name. Piece be with you, take care, and find your way back to God.
You’re a Christian living a life as good as you can, you are also a freemason. You’ve bumped into a bunch of Catholics who hold to the ageless teaching of the Catholic Church. We are warned strongly against freemasonry. Cardinal Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI, as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith back in 1983, in a document signed by Pope John Paul II stated… “The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.”
So when you tell us its all ok and makes you a better man etc don’t be surprised by a faithful Catholic reaction that you are reading here.
Anyway, thank you for your prayers and be assured I will pray for you too.
What I’ve noticed is that Christians, Catholic or otherwise, don’t going around calling themselves “devout”. And for good reason; those who recognize their offenses against God, however moral or pious they may be, are just plain uncomfortable self-identifying as “devout”.
Where that buzzword comes up a lot, however, is whenever the left needs to pass off an imposter (Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy) as an upstanding Catholic. Then they’re devout, always devout.
What I have noticed is that those with low morals gladly play the man. It’s easier to cast a shadow on someones integrity, than to just chat to him. Rather than discuss the subject, make him out to be as horrible as possible, veiled in piety. That works a charm to discredit him and what he says, and all is good, because then you can sleep sound at night.
It’s a low tactic, and ironically form another Christian. The more I reply to direct comments the more I am starting to find that it seems there is a nasty subset of Christians, worse than the perceived threat of Islam. Not one Muslim has ever been as nasty to me as fellow Christians. Some here hiding behind Catholicism. By these very actions, not one of these Christina brothers will ever convert anyone to Christianity, for you cannot say one thing and yet do another.
Jesus taught to do unto each other, what you want done unto yourself. Just be a decent person, the internet does not give you the right to be horrible to other people. Lastly, I honestly say I do not care for your politics, as the world is not located in America.
I’d like to think that Cardinal Nichols, who invited Justin Welby to “preach” at the ceremony for the closing of the door of mercy in Westminster Cathedral last November, would fraternally correct the “archbishop” on the next occasion that he speaks to him. Something along the lines of ‘Not only was Leo XIII right to declare that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void”, but you’re now consorting with the enemies of the cross of Christ. Repent while you still can.’
The evil that men do truly does live on after them. Our Lady herself expressed her displeasure at their treatment at the hands of Santos when she appeared to the three children during the August 19th apparition and told them that the miracle intended for October would now be “less great”. So masonic mayor Arturo Santos’s wicked actions prevented the Miracle of the Sun being seen where? Over the whole of Portugal? Spain? Even as far as France? Who knows? As for Santos himself, he apparently named his three children Democracy, Liberty and Republic and was severely injured in 1918 when a bomb he was preparing in order to kill an opponent exploded prematurely.
As I remembered the Duchess of Kent becoming a Catholic after marrying the Duke I looked up about their family & am glad to say that their younger son, grandson & granddaughter have also become Catholic & their older son married a Catholic & his son is now in line to become the first Catholic Earl of Kent since the Reformation. Pity the Duke himself didn’t follow his wife’s lead. His family must feel great remorse at his honouring this event with his presence.
Ana, I think you will find that the Duke of Kent is the Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England. He is the top man in the UK. Therefore it is a great grace that his wife and offspring have converted to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Father Charles Roux (he of Me Gibson’s resident priest on set while shooting The Passion of Christ) was instrumental in her conversion. Father Roux was of aristocratic blood and a great traditional priest; he played an official role in the 1958 conclave where Roncali was mysteriously elected.
The Duke of Kent, Grand Master of the Freemasons of England and Wales since 1967 – there’s a picture of him in his regalia. That’s Edward, her husband.
Yes I know. Clinging to worldly titles that have nothing to do with the Truth inevitably leads to perdition.
Justin Welby is the same Archbishop who came out on live radio and said that he is not sure if God exists! The Church of England and its stupidity is the reason why I left. But of course, they are doing what the Gov’t tells them to do, since the C of E is state controlled. I really wish this consecration does something for England, and I pray that Our Lady, who has special care of England as Her dowry, will guide England back to the Catholic Faith.
St. Augustine of Canterbury and St. Thomas of Canterbury, pray for England and her Church!
All ye holy English Martyrs, intercede for us!
Our Lady of La Salette has said that England will come back to the faith, and because of the Anglican patrimony, will lead a great Anglican conversion worldwide.
One cannot serve both God and the devil at the same time…..
Who does that?
Yawn, you religious fruitcake fringe are truly pathetic, how many religious priests & chaplains are masons. Grow up idiots.
There are more Protestant ministers & chaplains that are masons but you or the media will never bring up
Since when do Roman Catholics start dictating to the Church of England what to do?
Ever since that Catholic terrorist Guy Fawlkes attempted assassination of the rightful King of England, we pay little attention to Catholic protestations. Please keep your Roman opinions, traditions, statue & idol worship to your own religious faith and dogma – and stop trying to meddle in the Church of England matters.
Maybe you could try meddling in the Islamic Mosques practices instead – see how far that will get you, but I bet you won’t do that
The CofE is unleashing a spiritual evil upon our country by conducting a masonic service on such a large scale. Thank God this attack will be countered with the reconsecration of England and Wales to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us, Scared Heart of Jesus have mercy on us.
I wonder if Katy Perry will be performing, along with the usual Masonic Symbolism.
These corrupt people are everywhere.
I pray a variation of this exorcism of Pope Leo XIII every time I go to Mass. Cardinal Burke recommended a Prayer of Exorcism by Pope Leo XIII
A beautiful prayer (a minor exorcism) that anyone can pray to ask Our Lord to drive the lingering influence of Satan away from a place. Recommended by His Eminence Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke for use by the laity, August 2, 2014.
EXORCISM OF SATAN AND THE FALLEN ANGELS
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel
ST. MICHAEL the Archangel, illustrious leader of the heavenly army, defend us in the battle against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of darkness and the spirit of wickedness in high places. Come to the rescue of mankind, whom God has made in His own image and likeness, and purchased from Satan’s tyranny at so great a price. Holy Church venerates you as her patron and guardian.The Lord has entrusted to you the task of leading souls of the redeemed to heavenly blessedness. Entreat the Lord of peace to cast Satan down under our feet, so as to keep him from further holding man captive and doing harm to the church.
Carry our prayers up to God’s throne, that the mercy of the Lord may quickly come and lay hold of the beast, the serpent of old, Satan and his demons, casting him in chains into the abyss, so that he can no longer seduce the nations.
IN THE name of Jesus Christ, Our Lord and God, by the intercession of Mary, spotless Virgin and Mother of God, of St. Michael the Archangel, of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and of all the saints, and by the authority residing in our holy ministry, we steadfastly proceed to combat the onslaught of the wily enemy.
P: God arises; His enemies are scattered, and those who hate Him flee before Him.
All: As smoke is driven away, so are they driven; as wax melts before the fire, so the wicked perish before God.
P. See the Cross of the Lord; begone, you hostile powers!
All. The stem of David, the Lion of Judah’s tribe hath conquered.
P. May Your mercy, Lord, remain with us always.
All. For we put our whole trust in You.
WE CAST you out, every unclean spirit, every satanic power, every onslaught of the infernal adversary, every legion, every diabolical group and sect, in the name and by the power of
Our Lord Jesus Christ. We command you, begone and fly far from the Church of God, from the souls made by God in His image and redeemed by the Precious Blood of the Divine Lamb. No longer dare, cunning serpent, to deceive the human race, to persecute God’s Church, to strike God’s elect and to sift them as wheat. For the Most High God commands you, He to Whom you once proudly presumed yourself equal; He Who wills all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth. God the Father commands you. God the Son commands you. God the Holy Spirit commands you. Christ, the eternal Word of God made flesh, commands you, Who humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, to save our race from the perdition wrought by your envy; Who founded His Church upon a firm rock, declaring that the gates of Hell should never prevail against her, and that He would remain with her all days, even to the end of the world. The sacred mystery of the Cross commands you, along with the power of all mysteries of Christian faith. The exalted Virgin Mary, Mother of God, commands you, who
in her lowliness crushed your proud head from the first moment of her Immaculate Conception. The faith of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul and the other Apostles commands you. The blood of martyrs and the devout prayers of all holy men and women command you.
Therefore, accursed dragon and every diabolical legion, we adjure you by the living God, by the true God, by the holy God, by God, Who so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him might not perish but have everlasting life; to cease deluding human creatures and filling them with the poison of everlasting damnation; to desist from harming the Church and hampering her freedom. Begone, Satan, father and master of lies, enemy of man’s welfare. Give place to Christ, in Whom you found none of your works. Give way to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, which Christ Himself purchased with His Blood. Bow down before God’s mighty hand, tremble and flee as we call on the holy and awesome name of Jesus, before Whom the denizens of Hell cower, to Whom the heavenly Virtues and Powers and Dominations are subject, Whom the Cherubim and Seraphim praise with unending cries as they sing: Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts.
P. Lord, heed my prayer.
All. And let my cry be heard by You.
P. The Lord be with you.
All. And with your spirit.
Let us pray.
GOD of Heaven and earth, God of the Angels and Archangels,God of the Patriarchs and prophets, God of the Apostles and martyrs, God of confessors and virgins, God Who have power
to bestow life after death and rest after toil; for there is no other God than You, nor can there be another true God beside You, the Creator of all things visible and invisible, Whose Kingdom is without end; we humbly entreat Your glorious Majesty to deliver us by Your might from every influence of the accursed spirits, from their every evil snare and deception, and to keep us from all harm; through Christ Our Lord.
P. From the snares of the devil.
All. Lord, deliver us.
P. That You help Your Church to serve You in security and freedom.
All. We beg You to hear us.
P. That You humble the enemies of holy Church.
All. We beg You to hear us.
The surroundings are sprinkled with holy water.
Taken from: Philip T. Weller, S.T.D., The Roman Ritual, Complete Edition, Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing company, 1964, pp. 659-662. (The crosses indicate a blessing to be given if a priest recites slightly different variation:
We don’t dictate to you, even while you ripped the heart out of the most catholic country in Europe with that megalomaniac dictator, Henry VIII. Interesting that he plundered the rightful catholic abbeys, monasteries and lands and gave them to his aristocratic mates to buy their loyalty, while thousands of good catholic men and women were persecuted with their lives for their faith. That very Pol Pot crushed that northern lay uprising called the Pilgrimage of Grace who didn’t want to see their religion taken away from them; and mercilessly butchered them. Interesting that on this day in Canterbury, where another Henry used his aristocratic mates to murder the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, the arch lay heretic has invited his mates – those oh so nice freemasons (who are the bedrock of the establishment of Blighty that keep the country in its heresy). Guy Fawkes was the last man to enter parliament with honest intentions. And, in revisionist history, it is said that actually the plotters were pawns in the hands of Robert Cecil who hated Catholics and created a false flag, in order to pursue greater persecution of Catholics.
But Catholics have never sought the death of that bastard queen Elizabeth; she was rightfully excommunicated by the Saint Pius V. No we went to our deaths for our faith. We don’t dictate but we do pray for the conversion of England ( a prayer that was composed in the 19th century by a good archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Wiseman). I pray it every day. In the old rite in the UK we pray for the queen at the end of every Sunday sung Mass. But as I mentioned above, we know the outcome of history as our Blessed Mother has told us at La Salette. England will convert! Praise be to God. The blood of all those valiant martyrs is not in vain. Our Lady will have Her dowry back.
We fought the Muslims once in one of the greatest victories the world has ever known; the battle of Lepanto, while Albion persisted in her perfidy. Convert and save your soul.
Catholics don’t dictate to the ‘Church’ of England what to do…….and the trouble is neither does God.
Well said. They’ve effectively told the Lord to take a hike.
Enjoy cavorting with the Freemasons. Your Church is imploding anyway.
You sold long ago anyway. So what’s new. Plumbing depths.
What a load of absolute rubbish! Freemasonry is based on religion. The original master Hiram Abiff was the chief architect in the building of King Solomon’s Temple. The difference between Freemasons and the world of religious, dogmatic idiots is that we believe in one faith, one great architect and allow many religions to come together to make ourselves better people. We are not emotionally or mentally retarded like most religions who, clearly by reading some posts here, believe in segregating people or persecuting them for their beliefs. Nor do we have the sort sightedness or stupidity that you have that causes wars, hatred and anger. We are tolerant, benevolent, charitable, fraternal, loving and understanding which is more than I can say for most of the people posting their ill informed, archaic, nonsensical and preconceived claptrap here. Come back when you know what you’re talking about.
Freemasonry is a religion. It is a heresy.
Based on what?
GB, I must admit that you put forward a beautiful and powerfully persuasive case and I shall be making enquiries first thing Monday about how I can join up. One cavil though, about the “one great architect” bit – I’m sorry, but NO ONE tops Frank Lloyd Wright.
I know what I am talking about, and we are not a Religion.
Freemasonry does not and cannot, ever, provide a man with a path to salvation. It helps good men be great men, but for matters of faith it your responsibility to make sure you never stop growing your relationship with God. Your relationship is only strengthened by worshiping and fraternizing with fellow Christians, Jews, or Muslims at your Church, Synagogue or Mosque.
Freemasonry can, and never will be a substitute for this.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, authorized by the fraternal organization, the Knights of Columbus:
Curiously enough, the first sovereign to join and protect Freemasonry was the Catholic German Emperor Francis I, the founder of the actually reigning line of Austria, while the first measures against Freemasonry were taken by Protestant Governments: Holland, 1735; Sweden and Geneva, 1738; Zurich, 1740; Berne, 1745. In Spain, Portugal and Italy, measures against Masonry were taken after 1738. In Bavaria Freemasonry was prohibited 1784 and 1785; in Austria, 1795; in Baden 1813; in Russia, 1822. Since 1847 it has been tolerated in Baden, since 1850 in Bavaria, since 1868 in Hungary and Spain. In Austria Freemasonry is still prohibited because as the Superior Court of Administration, 23 January, 1905, rightly declared, a Masonic association, even though established in accordance with law, “would be a member of a large (international) organization (in reality ruled by the ‘Old Charges’, etc. according to general Masonic principles and aims), the true regulations of which would be kept secret from the civil authorities, so that the activity of the members could not be controlled”.
Bull, all information is publicly available and has been for 275 years.
If the Church of England wants to allow the Freemason Lodges a 300-year commemoration
ceremony in the walls of one of its large buildings (but not Westminster Abbey) as I see there is
a large donation involved of 300 pounds for repairs, what business is it of ours as Catholics ?
None. Our re-consecration is at Westminster Cathedral, which is a 2 hour drive away !
Many of those masons are parishoners of the Church of England. The ignorance and
presumptiveness of some “traditional Catholics” is embarassing. Please, grow up.
No, no no. Freemasonry is demonic. If someone started playing with a ouija board in your house, would you sit back and look away? This is just as bad and has everything to do with all of us. This exposes our country to spiritual evil. Shame on those in the Anglican community to allow this to happen, and all for money too. Mother Mary pray for us, and God bless England!
Good analogy. I came from Western NY. Millard Fillmore, who later became President, started an Anti-Masonic party based upon the fact that a mason was murdered at Fort Niagara in the 1830’s. His party spread the anti-masonic message and brought about a diminuation of the masons and their influence. I believe it necessary again to prohibit the masons.
He was actually not anti-mason. He merely had no idea, just like you, what they are when he was young. As the Thirteenth president of the United States (1850-53), he was an anti-mason in his youth, he later invited the Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia to lay the cornerstone for the extension of the Capitol in Washington, DC, on July 4, 1851. He also was present, September 1872, at the masonic cornerstone laying at the Buffalo State Asylum for the Insane. Although Millard Fillmore was not a freemason, his uncle, Jesse Millard, was a freemason in Michigan. So stop spreading lies and hate.
Thank you for the information. When I get back to the University of Bufffalo or the Buffalo Museum of Science I’ll corroborate this information. The facts of the case as they occurred in Batavia, NY are beyond dispute. That is the reason why the American public turned against freemasonry for some 20-30 years. I don’t retract a syllable, the freemasons should be banned worldwide as a criminal demonic puppet organizaiton for the reasons and others given in my next comment.
And just how are Freemasons demonic? Who made you Jesus and allowed you to cast the first stone. I have never heard such nonsense.
As masons rise higher in the degrees the initiation ceremonies and requirements become more associated with worship of the demons and Lucifer, specifically.
I am not sure what you are talking about. In the Highest Degrees, that of KT and Malta, you take vow before the cross to serve and protect Christianity. I see not how devoting your life to the broader fight for Christianity is satanic, demonic or luciferian. But go for gold. You seem to be sure you know what you are talking about.
Sorry, may be I shouldn’t have used the word ‘demonic’….’Satanic’ might have been more to the point.
Based on what, the account of Leo Taxil?
Look up stuff on Bishop Schneider and what he recently said about freemasonry. That would be a good start. He said freemasonry was an instrument of Satan, and I agree.
Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat:
ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum. Christus Filius tuus, qui, regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit, et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum
How selective the argument is.
Arguing what one does not know anything about borders on decided dissemination of ignorance. Maturity of mind demands that one finds out and confirms rumours, so that even when your own child or ward asks you for guidance and direction, you do not guide or direct him/her based on your decided ignorance..
Freemasonry is Free and accepts all into its fold provided one believes in God (which is usually called by various names by various religions and tribes and cultures all over the world), and one has not been convicted of any crime in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Freemasonry owes nobody any apology for addressing the Almighty God using a separate but very hallowed name acceptable to all religions from which the membership is drawn.
It is wholesome that one does a thorough finding out of the facts of the matter before going public. It is instructive that so many souls who lost their lives in the past was because they told the truth to a largely ignorant mass, a mass of people who held tenaciously to popular and certified untruth. We once held tenaciously to the ‘truth’ that the world was flat, until Galileo Galilei waltzed in with his telescope, and we got another ‘truth’ that the world is eliptical. Always verify your information. Please always verify. Namaste.
My good man, the freemasons will get you no where. While the facts of science must be accured through time by experimentation, the proving and disproving of theories, and the gathering of basic information through better measuring systems, the facts of theology are indisputable. Jesus Christ came, founded His Church, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, and to be with Him in paradise, requires belief in Him. The freemasons are a criminal cabal that will lead you to hell.
“provided one believes in God (which is usually called by various names by various religions and tribes and cultures all over the world)”
You’re getting sucked in very deep. Time to do an about turn. You see, freemasonry wants you to believe one god is as good as another, it demands no objective truths in this life, i.e. it wants to erode and eventually wipe out the teachings of the Catholic Church – the only institution that stands in its way. Freemasonry is Satanic.
A lot of Anglican clergy are Freemasons so why should it be a problem for Freemasons to hold a service in Canterbury Cathedral?
As for Freemasonry being anti-Catholic, that’s rubbish. The Catholic Church has a problem with Freemasons, not the other way around.
Freemasonry is not anti-Christian either. The list of significant historic figures who were Freemasons includes Mozart, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Winston Churchill and many, many, many more.
Do you people seriously believe Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Winston Churchill were pagans, blasphemers, Satanists and “anti-Christian”? Do you know how much credibility you lose when you make such accusations? Hint: a lot.
They subscribed to a false religion, not of the One True Church of Christ. So yes they danced with the devil, the satanic. If they didn’t confess their sins before they died then they are in hell. Populist history by fallen masonic men isn’t worth diddly squat when before the Judgement of Christ. Christ said, “My kingdom is not of this world”. You venerate your “saints” we will venerate ours. We don’t want nor need your credibility. Save that for your lodges.
Spoken like a true fanatic. Clearly, discussion is futile. I’ll leave you to your fanaticism.
And I will leave you to your heresy. Good Day, sir!
[…] Westminster Abbey wurde verdächtigerweise vom Erzbischof von Canterbury, Justin Welby, gehalten. Welby ist mit der Freimaurerei engstens verbunden und hier Dafur fliesst eine Menge geld von The Grand Lodge an die […]