Which religions and denominations forbid Freemason membership, and why?

The Catholic Church forbids it and so do the Eastern Orthodox Churches. I don’t know about the Oriental Orthodox Churches but I suspect they ban it too.

I read that the Duke of Kent, an Anglican, is a freemason. Presumably the very liberal Church of England has no prohibition.

I understand that the Mormons is largely based on freemasonry and their garments, procedures and teachings reflect a lot of freemason beliefs. Its founder was a Freemason.

What are the stances of other religions and denominations, and of the ones which do ban them, why?

I have to admit, I find the reasoning of the Catholic Church’s ban to be extremely vague. I follow the directive simply because I trust then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s reasoning, whatever it is. However I watched an exprcist give a talk on the occult and he says that the 32nd and 33rd degree freemasons in reality worship the devil. I generally ignored the conspiracy theories until then (I mean, the people who claim that also believe that the Pope and the Jesuits are like that too, so I pretty much just dismiss it off, as do most of you). Now based on that exorcist’s talk, I believe that the conspiracy theory at least on the freemasons is actually true.

I do wonder if the Catholic Church bans membership in freemasonry because our leaders are aware of its evil roots and leadership rather than the very vague reasoning we read on apologetic sites. I mean if we go by that, the freemasons contradict Catholicism as much as the republican and democratic parties each do, yet there is no ban on those.

Anyway who else bans them and why?

Freemasons are a type of Babylonian Mystery Religion, insider Gnostic gnow-it-all’s who have MORE info than the Bible, like the fact that “Mary Magdalene” was secretly married to “Jesus” and gave us the Merovingian line of elites that will one day rule the world for “Jesus.” That’s racial Christianity, folks. Babylonian Mystery Religions say and do the opposite of what is revealed in the word of God. If God says tell the whole world the Good News, the Gnostics have secrecy. If God says He choses the elect, the Gnostics assert the self-appointed elite are the cat’s meow. If God says all are equal before Him, the Gnostics have a caste system, 33rd degree or a parallel of the Temple Mormons being “more” Mormon. Sorry, all you really nice, civic-minded Freemasons.

My Church, prohibits membership in Freemasonry. It’s a bit of a conundrum, as I took my vow as a Mason to “frequent my house of worship” seriously and it made me a Christian.

My opinion: In America, Masonry is a bunch of old men in silly outfit enacting morality plays and doing charity. Masonry in Canada, the UK and other commonwealth nations are the same.

Masonry on the continent of Europe can be just plain nuts - and that where you see the various churches rightfully condemn it.

Freemasonry in catholic countries is very anti catholic and secular/bad. Its also called continental freemasonry and it wouldn’t make sense for the church not to ban membership from those sinister groups. The grand orient de France is one of the oldest enemies of Catholicism in France and remains so today, they continue to work to undermine the church. in society and they are very powerful.

Actually the position is more ambiguous than I though after some looking into it . After Vatican 2 the letter of the law said that only groups that plot against the church are banned (didn’t mention freemasonry) which can be interpreted in many ways and a lot of catholics interpreted that as an allowance to join. Several priests and Bishops including Benedict spoke against it but nothing is concrete it seems. I hope that it is still banned but I’m no longer exactly sure on the current situation of the ban.

WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) does.
I am a WELS Lutheran and the official position of the WELS is that it is incompatible with Biblical Christianity. I’m assuming the LCMS does? But not absolutely sure.

Apparently the laws have changed to where now you can be a practicisng Catholic and a Freemason, but you can not maintain Freemasonry membership if you become part of the Vatican.

-]/-]

I don’t believe this is so. Do you happen to have a source on hand?

boar2roar:
It seems that the reiteration in the early 80s is definitive. As it was issued by the CDF prefect with the authorisation of the Pope, it is essentially a Papal ban.

Thanks for your responses. Specifically how and why is Freemasonry incompatible with Christianity? As I understand it, the masons say you need to be a part of any religion apparently says its members are free to believe what religion they wish to, while the masons won’t make any preference for any religion over another. It’s as good as having a Theists club – something I doubt any denomination would object to.

The official reasoning, even for the Catholic Church, comes off as too hazy and vague, too disputable by the masons who can readily point to their own statutes to rebut the official reasoning.

Ben: Frankly I agree with you on the point of how silly it is. It looks like an adult version of a kid’s dress-up game. Except for the detail I learnt that the 33rd and 32nd degree masons are satanists, I did not understand why something that looks so ridiculous could be such a problem.

The problem with the 32nd and 33rd degree Masons is there praise for Lucifer, not Satan. There is actually some validity to their position that Lucifer and Satan are not the same being. Lucifer is simply the morning Star, or the Light Bringer, and Jesus himself is referred to the morning star in places in the NT. There is even a Saint Lucifer in the Catholic Church. This may be what leads to allegations of Satan worship.

As a Mason, I view this as a good thing - but the trouble as a Christian is that it’s close to the heresy of Indifferentism in that we can’t view all religions as being part of a larger whole.

The official reasoning, even for the Catholic Church, comes off as too hazy and vague, too disputable by the masons who can readily point to their own statutes to rebut the official reasoning.

I think the CC reasoning is quite valid for many of the Masonic groups it’s encountered around the word - for example, in Mexico, Masons uses to kill Catholics! :mad:

That said, my lodge has a several really good Catholics (otherwise) so the two aren’t entirely incompatible under all circumstances.

Ben: Frankly I agree with you on the point of how silly it is. It looks like an adult version of a kid’s dress-up game. Except for the detail I learnt that the 33rd and 32nd degree masons are satanists, I did not understand why something that looks so ridiculous could be such a problem.

I’ve been in York Rite for a while and haven’t caught a whiff of Satanic weirdness - in fact quite the opposite. But otherwise, you’re correct in that Freemasonry is a rather fun and silly fraternity that has done a bit of good - but that’s here in the US.

Lucifer was the name of the highest ranking angel that fell from Heaven.Satan is the title God gave to this fallen angel, and he is a demon along with the rest of the fallen angels.

Is there any truth to Freemasonry having ties to the Knights Templar from the Middle Ages? I heard that once on a TV program but don’t know if there is any validity to it. That claim seems a little far-fetched to me but I’ve always wanted to ask a mason about it but I never knew anyone who was a mason.

That is not actually true. This is based upon a faulty understanding of the King James Bible. This is not the Latin translation. The passage in Isiah is referring to a King of Babylon, not to any of God’s angels. This has been a common misunderstanding that has somewhat taken on a life of its own. Jesus is actually referred to as Lucifer in the Latin Vulgate and there are two Catholic Saints named St. Lucifer. Stupid King James Bible.

As an adjective, the Latin word lucifer meant “light-bringing” and was applied to the moon.[6] As a noun, it meant “morning star”, or, in Roman mythology, its divine personification as “the fabled son of Aurora[42] and Cephalus, and father of Ceyx”, or (in poetry) “day”.[6] The second of the meanings attached to the word when used as a noun corresponds to the image in Greek mythology of Eos, the goddess of dawn, giving birth to the morning star Phosphorus.[42]
Isaiah 14:12 is not the only place where the Vulgate uses the word lucifer. It uses the same word four more times, in contexts where it clearly has no reference to a fallen angel: 2 Peter 1:19 (meaning “morning star”), Job 11:17 (“the light of the morning”), Job 38:32 (“the signs of the zodiac”) and Psalms 110:3 (“the dawn”).[43] To speak of the morning star, lucifer is not the only expression that the Vulgate uses: three times it uses stella matutina: Sirach 50:6 (referring to the actual morning star), and Revelation 2:28 (of uncertain reference) and 22:16 (referring to Jesus).
Indications that in Christian tradition the Latin word Lucifer, unlike the English word, did not necessarily call a fallen angel to mind exist also outside the text of the Vulgate. Two bishops bore that name: Saint Lucifer of Cagliari, and Lucifer of Siena.
In Latin, the word is applied to John the Baptist and is used as a title of Christ himself in several early Christian hymns. The morning hymn Lucis largitor splendide of Hilary contains the line: “Tu verus mundi lucifer”.[44] Some interpreted the mention of the morning star (lucifer) in Ambrose’s hymn Aeterne rerum conditor as referring allegorically to Christ and the mention of the cock, the herald of the day (praeco) in the same hymn as referring to John the Baptist.[45] Likewise, in the medieval hymn Christe qui lux es et dies, some manuscripts have the line “Lucifer lucem proferens”.[46]
The Latin word lucifer is also used of Christ in the Easter Proclamation prayer to God regarding the paschal candle: 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 (May this flame be found still burning by the Morning Star: the one Morning Star who never sets, Christ your Son, who, coming back from death’s domain, has shed his peaceful light on humanity, and lives and reigns for ever and ever). In the works of Latin grammarians, Lucifer, like Daniel, was discussed as an example of a personal name.[47]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

Read the entire section, it is very interesting and Lucifer as being the Fallen Angel is actually not Catholic Teaching. According to Catholic teaching Lucifer is not the name for satan, it just refers to the state from which Satan fell. Again, Jesus has also been referred to lucifer, or the morning star, it is a state, not an actual being.

I have actually seen sites where Protestants claim that Catholics are Satan worshippers by the use of the word Lucifer for Christ in the Easter proclamation prayer to God. :mad:

Exorcists say satan and lucifer are two different demons, actually.

I tell you what, I trust what’s in this… themostholyrosary.com/mystical-city.htm book to anything you have written about Lucifer, :slight_smile:

I would say it’s possible there is a connection - there’s a bunch of unexplained French words in Masonry that fit what we know about the Templars, and the notion that the Templars in England and Scotland became guild-Masons would make sense: It would help explain a lot of things and let them remain free to travel from town to town.

That said, even if there was a true direct link - anything of meaning has long past in the ensuing 700 years, and any tenuous link would only be a faint shadow at best.

From Catholic Encyclopedia:
catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=7252
Ask a priest who actually performs Latin Mass and can read the Latin Vulgate if Lucifer is the proper name for Satan. This conflation occurs all the time and is because of the King James version of the Bible. Please explain to me how both Jesus and John the Baptist are referred to as lucifer in the Latin Vulgate if Lucifer is the name for Satan? I am taking a guess here that you do not read Latin. Sorry I will trust the Latin Vulgate (The Catholic Bible) over the King James Bible any day.

The Latin word lucifer is also used of Christ in the Easter Proclamation prayer to God regarding the paschal candle: 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 (May this flame be found still burning by the Morning Star: the one Morning Star who never sets, Christ your Son, who, coming back from death’s domain, has shed his peaceful light on humanity, and lives and reigns for ever and ever). In the works of Latin grammarians, Lucifer, like Daniel, was discussed as an example of a personal name. Mark Amsler, Etymology and Grammatical Discourse in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (John Benjamins 1989 ISBN 978-9-02724527-4), p. 66

So what was the name of the devil, before he became the devil, and lived in Heaven ?

That is actually a really interesting question because the Hebrew Texts simply refer to him as satan which simply means “accuser” and in other places he is referred to as Ha-Satan. the article Ha is simply meant to refer to a Title bestowed upon a being so it tends to mean “the adversary.” Again not a proper name but a title. The most common English synonym for “Satan” is “Devil”, which descends from Middle English devel, from Old English dēofol, that in turn represents an early Germanic borrowing of Latin diabolus (also the source of “diabolical”). This in turn was borrowed from Greek diabolos “slanderer”, from diaballein “to slander”: dia- “across, through” + ballein “to hurl”.[30] In the New Testament, “Satan” occurs more than 30 times in passages alongside Diabolos (Greek for “the devil”), referring to the same person or thing as Satan.

So what we really have are synonyms for the same being who is never actually referred to be any proper name in the Bible itself. His actions went on to be attributed as his proper name but this is actually never identified. The closest thing we have for a proper name for the devil or satan is from the Book and Enoch which names him as SatanaEl. The text describes SatanaEl as being the prince of the Watchers who was cast out of heaven and an evil spirit who knew the difference between what was “righteous” and “sinful”. I personally think this is the closest we have for an actual proper name for the devil. I makes quite a bit of sense as you will undoubtedly notice that Angelic names always end with EL. Michael, Raphael, Uriel, Azrael, etc. All the high Angels have this ending on their name, so I think the Book of Enoch comes closest to giving us what the Devils real proper name was.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.