Did the Free Masons actually infiltrate the Catholic church? Is there any evidence for this?
>>384215
Well there was the case of the Vatican Banker Roberto Calvi who was hung from Black Friars bridge. Did you need any more proof than that?
>>384215
This guy seems to think so. Also bring back Latin Masses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW7VwFb6Uzo
>>384215
Ever heard of Licio Gelli and P2?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Due
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Calvi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licio_Gelli
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q54xeCVFg8I
>>384499
Starts getting good about a half hour in, right on the mark, on the RAW lecture.
>>384499
>>384514
>Pope John Paul I ... read this stuff that Pecarelli sent him and he was so incensed electrified galvanized and pissed off in general he ordered Cardinal Vio to do an extensive investigation to the extent that P2 was using the Vatican Bank for criminal purposes. The night he ordered the investigation he was taken suddenly dead. There have been numerous claims he was poisoned by the Council of Cardinals. None of these claims have been substantiated in court.
41 minutes in.
>>384215
No. It's just an excuse used by malcontent Catholics.
>I can't be us! It *HAS* to have been someone else causing it!
>>384443
Yes, actually. Since that was obviously the mafia, and some fascist remnants wresting power.
>>384782
There is no denying however that it was a Freemasonic ritual murder. If the freemasons are bothering to kill an important member of the Vatican banking staff it stands to reason that they are also involved at some level within the vatican. How could it be otherwise?
>>386648
>it was a Freemasonic ritual murder
uhuh
.hey guys, we are gonna get rumbled, lets off the guy, but in a fashion which will tie it to us because muh spoop
>>384776
There is no distinction between 'us' and 'them' from a moralistic point of view in that sentence therefore it is logically invalid. Also do you even know what it is the Freemasons are 'causing' in the church? You're idiocy is showing.
>>386655
Eh, why wouldn't they? What's the point in being a super secret organisation with occult roots if you don't stretch them once in a while? If you are sending a message you want the people who get the message to know where its coming from. Mafia have their own calling cards and they are not afraid to use them. Do you think that the high ranking Freemasons are less powerful than the mafia?
>>386648
>There is no denying however that it was a Freemasonic ritual murder
Sure there is.
>If the freemasons are bothering to kill
Except that's not how it went down. Calvi ripped off the Mafia and the Vatican, but you think it was some Masons who did him in?
>>386687
>Do you think that the high ranking Freemasons are less powerful than the mafia?
Kinda, yea. I mean, HRH The Duke of Kent is pretty chill.
>>386757
How can you deny that it was a Freemasonic ritual murder? It bears all the hallmarks of one, dips into their lore, customs and symbols. Even if you don't believe the Freemasons were behind it, you still can't deny that it was a Freemasonic ritual murder.
>Calvi ripped off the Mafia and the Vatican
Well of course they are going to pin it on the mafia. They are the fall guys. You don't think the Freemasons are in bed with the mafia? You think that there is any real difference between P2 and the mafia in Italy at the end of the day?
Keep believing believing the horseshit they print in the press...
>>386796
>Even if you don't believe the Freemasons were behind it, you still can't deny that it was a Freemasonic ritual murder.
>But you can.How can you deny that it was a Freemasonic ritual murder? It bears all the hallmarks of one, dips into their lore, customs and symbols
But it doesn't. Partially because those aren't real things, and partially because it has no connexion to Freemasonry with the "symbols."
>You think that there is any real difference between P2 and the mafia in Italy at the end of the day?
No, i don't. That was my point.
>>386810
>Partially because those aren't real things, and partially because it has no connexion to Freemasonry with the "symbols."
What do you mean those aren't real things? Are you denying that the Freemasons have a lore? that they have traditions? The entire tradition of Freemasonry is communicated through symbolism. Calvi's death is mired in this symbolism.
P2 is an illegal Freemasonic group, so then we are in agreement.
>>386669
>Also do you even know what it is the Freemasons are 'causing' in the church?
Yea, nothing. Catholic persecution complex is self caused.
>>386840
>Are you denying that the Freemasons have a lore? that they have traditions?
I most certainly am not. It's the ritual murder horseshite i'm denying.
>P2 is an illegal Freemasonic group, so then we are in agreement.
Indeed. Though it wasn't always illegal. They were just under the radar for a while, but they had the banhammer come slamming down from the Grand Orient of Italy when shit became known.
>>384215
i found some fascinating reading on this topic:
>After listening to a speech given by Bella Dodd at Fordham University, a monk wrote in the “Christian Order:”
I listened to that woman for four hours and she had my hair standing on end. Everything she said has been fulfilled to the letter. You would think she was the world’s greatest prophet, but she was no prophet. She was merely exposing the step-by-step battle plan of Communist subversion of the Catholic Church. She explained that of all the world’s religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent. The whole idea was to destroy, not the institution of the Church, but rather the Faith of the people, and even use the institution of the Church, if possible, to destroy the Faith through the promotion of a pseudo-religion: something that resembled Catholicism but was not the real thing. Once the Faith was destroyed, she explained that there would be a guilt complex introduced into the Church…. to label the ‘Church of the past’ as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries. This would be necessary in order to shame Church leaders into an ‘openness to the world,’ and to a more flexible attitude toward all religions and philosophies. The Communists would then exploit this openness in order to undermine the Church.
https://justifiedtype.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/the-subversion-of-the-catholic-church-by-the-nwo/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bella_Dodd
>>386859
more related reading:
http://www.brizek.com/endtimes/altavend.htm
and a background history of sorts:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f004ht_Liberal_Modernist_Progressive.htm
>>386842
Why would the leaders of the Catholic church mess with the foundations of their own church, suffer the consequences and then blame someone else for it? And why do they insist on perpetuating the problem after the fact when they are aware of the damage it causes to the church?
>>386851
>It's the ritual murder horseshite i'm denying.
Well, you're not making a very good case against it.
>>386869
>Well, you're not making a very good case against it.
And you've yet to actually make any case FOR it. Bit hard for me to refute the absence of anything.
>>386869
>Why would the leaders of the Catholic church mess with the foundations of their own church, suffer the consequences and then blame someone else for it?
They're not. It's mostly keyboard warriors who think they know better than the Vatican who make that case.
>>386874
Forgive me, I thought you were somewhat educated on the subject of Calvi's death. All the information that posits the notion that his death was a ritual murder is on Google. After you have taken a moment to read it, then you can come back and refute it.
>>386879
Explain
>>386897
Oh, no no, I'm fully aware of the particulars. I just want to laugh at what you think is Masonic symbolism in it.
>>386900
You don't hear about Il Papa, or other people in the church complaining about the church changes.
It's only lay Catholics who think the church doesn't live up to their personal expectations.
>>386905
I'm fully aware that you are fully aware. I'm being strategic, because you being so coy and dancing around the subject. If you are itching to refute it go ahead and do so. If you make a convincing argument I will concede that you are right. Otherwise, I will assume that you're full of horseshit.
>>386929
>because you being so coy and dancing around the subject
Projecting? Because dude, you're the one making the argument. So go make an argument.
>>384499
>Licio Gelli
>P2
I'm Italian and every time I start thinking about this stuff my head starts to ache. The period of Italian history that goes from the end of WWII to 1992 it's so fucking dark and yet the average pleb knows nothing or next to nothing about it.
Freemasons, fascists, mafia members, Gladio organization, "Red" gladio organization, Brigate Rosse, anarchists, church people. All of these parties intermixed, schemed, fighting amongst themselves, meanwhile foreign powers (USA and USSR) intervened and funded them.
No fuck this I'm hungover.
>>386962
>I see, so you are saying that you are full of horseshit then. Interesting tactic. Not.
Still trying to avoid stating your case? Do you or do you not think it was a "Masonic ritual murder", and why?
>>387025
Yeah Italy was pretty well fucked by conspiracy.
America isn't much better desu
>>387046
I don't know much about American history in the last half of the brief century, but quite frankly I think Italy was WAY more dark.
I mean. During the cold war there used to be an american base on top of a moutain near where I live. There's still a base there, or something, since my uncle sometimes goes up there and comes back with american whiskey. Supposedly there are, or were, no murrican nukes in Italy. But one day I was hiking in the mountain and I reached an area I had never before reached and it was fucking filled with random barrells, signs saying "Be wary of radiation" and weird stuff. I fucking fled the area.
Oh well.
>>386962
Of course. Both sides àre opinion after all. But Catholics are always pretty set on the Vatican. Until they disagree with it.
>>386869
You haven't explained why anyone should believe it was a Masonic ritual murder.
>>386962
Are all Catholics as weak, and keen to avoid responsibility as you? No wonder there are so many Protestants.
>>387206
haven't been a participant in this thread so far (this is my first post), but my god are you a pathetic shit poster.
>>387025
It ain't really over, man...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_%27Ndrangheta
Oh cool, the occultism and magic guy is here bumping a thread about Masonic conspiracies in which not many sources are being posted by people making claims about these things that should be easy to back up with newspaper articles
Aren't Masons and Catholics ideologically opposed? Masonry was really fucking into humanism and modernism. They had a hand in the American Revolution and people like Voltaire in their ranks. Their occultism seems to be leaning towards Hermetic Gnosticism.
Also circumstances before V2 would not prove that they intended or succeeded in infiltrating the ranks. You'd need evidence directly from V2.
>>387226
Weird that the poster count didn't go up then. And that you were responding to the line of posts in a way which implied you were continuing.
So really, you're still just dodging the argument you started because you know it's wrong.
>>387244
http://www.societacivile.it/focus/articoli_focus/massoni/p2.html
http://www.philipwillan.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/19/newsid_3092000/3092625.stm
https://web.archive.org/web/20061015113807/http://www.americanatheist.org/pope99/calvi.html
http://www.threemonkeysonline.com/who-killed-roberto-calvi/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278675/
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/07/yellowcake200607?currentPage=1
https://books.google.nl/books?id=9g-UIMo1SaYC&hl=nl
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/170679.stm
Or you could verify the various Wiki citations. It ain't hard. Most of them are hotlinked.
>>387272
>Masonry was really fucking into humanism and modernism.
Absolutely not. Masonry is as traditionalist as you can physically get. Especially with it's staunch focus on faith. Really wouldn't call it humanist, either.
It's always been pro-science, and that's about it.
>>387329
>Staunch focus on faith
>As traditional as it's possible to get
M8 masonry involves a massive ritual element too, you're just too Protestant to recognize it
>>387341
>M8 masonry involves a massive ritual element too
Yea... Where did I deny that? Or how does it contradict the rest?
>>387341
I don't see a division between tradition and ritual & faith. But that's just me.
For what it's worth, there is no singular monolithic Freemasonic organization. UGLE tends to be more conservative while the various Grand Orients tend toward...well maybe not full blown liberalism, but certainly less conservative ritual.
>>387344
It doesnt doesn't, I took issue with your claim about it being the most traditional think posinble in general. Japan has many more widespread traditional practices that are older than Masonry. Asia in general does. Your claim just seems false. Could you back it up? I admit I'm not a Masonry expert.
>>387360
>took issue with your claim about it being the most traditional think posinble in general.
It was just hyperbole, bro.
Why did you bring the ritual into it?
>>387329
Humanism and faith are not incompatible. The biggest pushers for humanism were Deists which is pretty Masonic. The difference is that the humanist deist would believe that the creator God gives enormous freedom to humans rather than being a benevolent king. This goes with the mysticism of their beliefs.
I don't know if it's the true today but a few hundred years ago the Masons would have been arch enemies with the Catholics. The Catholics would have wanted a theistic monarchy with the king being under the pope. Meanwhile the Masons used their secret meetings to plot revolutions and put a secular government in place of the old ways.
>>387366
>Humanism and faith are not incompatible.
Didn't mean to imply they were.
>Deists which is pretty Masonic.
Not really. Yea, a lot of deists were/are Masons, and vice versa, but that doesn't mean there's the overlap there of institutional beliefs.
>I don't know if it's the true today but a few hundred years ago the Masons would have been arch enemies with the Catholics.
Nah. Catholics like to think that, but it's never been true. Masonry has nothing to do with any religion or church. It's like a manners class, but for the scientific and philosophical minded.
Apparently the Vatican ended up seeing this as a threat.
>The Catholics would have wanted a theistic monarchy
As did all loyal Masons.
>Meanwhile the Masons used their secret meetings to plot revolutions and put a secular government in place of the old ways.
Hate to say no true Scotsman, but... Revolutionaries taking over lodges and using them to plot in France, and oathbreakers in America don't really speak for Masonry.
>>387385
>As did all loyal Masons.
Hm, wonder where MasonicRC is, I'd love to ask him about that one.
>Hate to say no true Scotsman, but... Revolutionaries taking over lodges and using them to plot in France, and oathbreakers in America don't really speak for Masonry.
Just because you don't like their variety of Freemasonry doesn't mean they're not Freemasons. This is what blows my mind about the UGLE/GOdF split. Why is UGLE Freemasonry but GO not? Because UGLE says so? Why is GO Freemasonry but UGLE not? Because GO says so? It's fuckin' goofy.
>>387364
To emphasize how modern your claim was.
>>387403
Common analogy is that if a bunch of random people bought some land, set up a baseball diamond on it and called themselves the New York Mets, they're still not legit unless the real, original Mets agree with that.
Similarly, if a bunch of ex Mets players branch off, but start doing things differently, such as using basketballs to hit with, or taking out some of the bases, it's not really baseball, despite their heritage, and their insistence that it is still baseball.
>>387414
Yea, and I'm sorry, but I still don't see what ritual has to do with that. I feel like we're reading from different books here.
>>387421
>Common analogy is that if a bunch of random people bought some land, set up a baseball diamond on it and called themselves the New York Mets, they're still not legit unless the real, original Mets agree with that.
Here's the thing, the current GOdF constitution is OLDER than the current UGLE constitution. Moreover, GO claims succession via Lodge of Perfect Equality ca 1688/1698 (depending on when you mark the start), while UGLE claims succession via GL of London ca. 1717.
I'd refer folks again to the assertion I made about no singular monolithic Freemasonic entity. Various groups migrated from craft to speculation at different times and employed different teachings. UGLE got big enough to homogenize things in it's sphere of influence as did GOdF. Further, GOdF isn't calling itself the UGLE, so the whole 'NY Mets' thing doesn't really fly as they're not taking the name, just saying 'hey we do Freemasonry too, just separate from UGLE'.
>>387460
>Here's the thing, the current GOdF constitution is OLDER than the current UGLE constitution.
Meh. Still doesn't predate the two which formed that union, nor Ireland and Scotland, even some American states (even if you include the older French GL). Besides, the changes are the crucial part.
>Moreover, GO claims succession via Lodge of Perfect Equality ca 1688/1698,
If that's the game you want to play, then we certainly have records dating back earlier than than in England and especially in Scotland.
>Further, GOdF isn't calling itself the UGLE, so the whole 'NY Mets' thing doesn't really fly
Which is why i proceeded onto the analogy of them changing from baseball entirely, when there are a bunch of other teams who disagree with them (I'm disregarding whatever national baseball controlling body the USA might have here, mind).
The Mets, the Yankees, the Sox, and the Cubbies have a right of primacy to over the team which changed some of the fundamental aspects of the game, but still expects to be considered in the same league.
>>387490
>Meh. Still doesn't predate the two which formed that union, nor Ireland and Scotland, even some American states (even if you include the older French GL). Besides, the changes are the crucial part.
Granted; my overall point here, and in reply to the second bit as well, is that lineal fracture's part of the game here.
Vajrayana and Theravada have different rules but are still Buddhism.
GO and GL are have different rules, but are still Freemasonry.
The Caliphate OTO makes a big stink about Typonian Order, SOTO, French OTO, Swiss OTO, etc., not being the real OTO, but it doesn't change the fact that they're working OTO material some for longer than the Caliphate's been in existence.
Mind you, I'm not a Freemason, so I don't have a horse in this race. I just find a lot of the ULGE handwringing about badwrongFreemasonry to be the intellectual equivalent of the Caliphate shitting on the Swiss OTO.
I think a lot of Priests and high ranking officials were freemasons but the Church in of itself can't be infiltrated simply because the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Though the Church should do more to remove masonic influences (obviously the open borders view is clearly Masonic in nature)
>>387513
>Vajrayana and Theravada have different rules but are still Buddhism.
I would liken it more to Catholicism and Protestantism. Both claim to be Christianity, yet have different rules and rituals, and you can bet that the Vatican isn't giving the time of day to the Anglican church (yes, relations aren't that bad, but for argument sake) due to the changes they've made, and vice versa.
It's the same with Regular Masonry and GOdF. All the legit GLs don't really care too much about GOdF, or LDH, HOOWF, etc, and I don't believe they care too much about the others themselves.
It's just that each group has to set limits (landmarks, for the Regular GLs), and those other groups have violated those limits. The Regular GL landmarks are certainly the oldest and the largest, but they too have changed (admitting non-Christians). Just that they've all agreed. GOdF went too far with it.
>>387519
>(obviously the open borders view is clearly Masonic in nature)
Could you show me in the ritual scripts where Freemasonry advocates an open border policy?
>>387536
It does in his delusional fanatical head
>>387534
Sure.
I get the whole landmark thing, but to change things internally, then whine that GO changed things internally but you didn't like it and that means they're not REALLY Freemasons because they didn't ask "mother may I" to the affinity group I identify with just seems utterly fuckin' goofball type behavior. IMO, if you've been through I* Blue, no matter what your landmarks are, you're a Freemason. Just like if you've gone through 0* in cOTO or sOTO, you're OTO.
>>387539
I know, but someone earlier was complaining about a lack of citations. I'd like to keep the parts of the discussion I'm involved in, at least, partially historical and accurate.
>>387561
Also, for what it's worth, I'd probably get my panties way less in a twist if folks in GL were blunt enough to just say "I don't like the GO because the GL told me they're wrong" rather than "GL's not REAL Freemasonry" using easily undermined arguments via the vague maze of lineal succession' reality.
By the latter metric I could assert that speculative Freemasonry's not REAL Freemasonry as it's no longer operative, which is just as goofy.
>>387561
>and that means they're not REALLY Freemasons because they didn't ask "mother may I"
Freemasonry is pretty directly democratic, though. GOdF were within their sovereign right to make the changes, but then so were all the Regular GLs to say, "Nope. You're doing it wrong. Fix it or we won't play with you."
>IMO, if you've been through I* Blue, no matter what your landmarks are, you're a Freemason.
Even if doing so would bear no similarity to the original and vast majority of other Freemasons?
Again, this is the "baseball team" switching to golf clubs and basketball hoops, then being surprised when the other teams say, "You're really not playing baseball anymore."
>>387591
>using easily undermined arguments via the vague maze of lineal succession' reality.
That's not the argument, though. It's all about GOdF changing the rules, and messing up a lot of the teachings. Like, USA and UK have different rituals, but all the core stuff is still recognisable past the translation. GOdF doesn't have that.
>By the latter metric I could assert that speculative Freemasonry's not REAL Freemasonry as it's no longer operative,
Freemasonry says that itself, in a lecture explaining why it's Freemasonry, not masonry. The emphasis being that the former studies the latter, and is not actually part of it anymore.
>>387596
>Freemasonry is pretty directly democratic, though. GOdF were within their sovereign right to make the changes, but then so were all the Regular GLs to say, "Nope. You're doing it wrong. Fix it or we won't play with you."
That's a fairer argument than I usually hear from the varying sides of the split. By the same token, it's well within GO rights to tell GL the same thing.
>Again, this is the "baseball team" switching to golf clubs and basketball hoops, then being surprised when the other teams say, "You're really not playing baseball anymore."
I find these analogies to be a bit hyperbolic. It's more like "You're using an aluminum bat instead of a wooden one, so you're not baseball as per MLB rules" even though damn near every facet of the game is identical.
I don't have a problem with atheists in the lodge or blank Books of Sacred Law. Hell, I like the latter bit more. Gives me Thelema feels. "Write your own Sacred Law".
I'd be WAY more sympathetic to arguments if they used the division between OTO and Freemasonry, as OTO is literally unrecognizable to Freemasons and no longer makes Freemasons; they're what changing the game so much it's a different game looks like, at least it appears that way more than the GL/GO split.
>>387606
>By the same token, it's well within GO rights to tell GL the same thing.
And they do. But the Regular GLs don't care, because it's one upstart against many veterans.
>It's more like "You're using an aluminum bat instead of a wooden one, so you're not baseball as per MLB rules" even though damn near every facet of the game is identical.
Not really. Their ritual and degree system is pretty different.
>I don't have a problem with atheists in the lodge
If you were a Freemason, though, you would, is the point. And you'd have to change a lot of Freemasonry to have it accommodate an atheist.
>or blank Books of Sacred Law.
Yea, I like that too. That's a lesser matter for private lodges, usually. Given the nature of the symbol, that is, as it still relates to the members' faith in the almighty.
>as OTO is literally unrecognizable to Freemasons and no longer makes Freemasons
Did they ever..? I mean, I know it was meant to be modeled after it, but it was never really Masonry.
>>387627
>Not really. Their ritual and degree system is pretty different.
Can you give me some solid examples? As far as I know the only real difference between GO's authorized LDH and UGLE's Scottish Rite is who they let in. Is it just translation fuckery or have entire chunks been revised?
>If you were a Freemason, though, you would, is the point. And you'd have to change a lot of Freemasonry to have it accommodate an atheist.
Which the GO did?
>Did they ever..? I mean, I know it was meant to be modeled after it, but it was never really Masonry.
Yeah, actually the first three degrees under Kellner/Reuss created Master Masons.
These days under AC's revision, a Perfect Initiate is essentially stripped of old (possible) Freemasonic connections. You're destroying the Temple of Freemasons in that degree.
AC inserted notes in the material when he started revising it that the OTO is no longer in the business of making Master Masons.
Also, I should note that I'd probably be griping at a GO asserting UGLE is not Freemasonry too, it's just that in the English speaking world I usually see UGLE digging into GO.
>>387645
>Can you give me some solid examples?
Eh, without consulting a ritual, which I'm too lazy to do, it's the absence and revision of the core theological points(to cater to atheists), and some of the operative lessons (to cater to women). Ancient and Accepted Rite stuff is secondary (but it too violates the Antient Landmarks about the degrees).
>Which the GO did?
Largely.
>Yeah, actually the first three degrees under Kellner/Reuss created Master Masons.
Huh, learn something new every day. Can't see that having gone down too well with the Austrian GL.
>Also, I should note that I'd probably be griping at a GO asserting UGLE is not Freemasonry too, it's just that in the English speaking world I usually see UGLE digging into GO.
I think GOdF know they don't have a leg to stand on. I should also point out that UGLE hasn't really said anything in years about the matter. American GLs are usually more vocal about it.
>>387678
>Eh, without consulting a ritual, which I'm too lazy to do, it's the absence and revision of the core theological points(to cater to atheists), and some of the operative lessons (to cater to women). Ancient and Accepted Rite stuff is secondary (but it too violates the Antient Landmarks about the degrees).
On your first point I though Amerifat Freemasons also bleached out some of the Theology/Gematria from the material, not to cater to Atheists but to cater to the dumb. The last time I saw a knowledge lecture on 888 and Christ was in the 50's, but again, I'm not a Freemason so I don't have intimate current knowledge of how they're doing things today.
Yeah, the GL and the GO didn't really like what Kellner/Reuss were up to. Oddly enough the Swiss GO/GL don't really have a problem with Swiss OTO, and they're even using Kellner/Reuss's old rituals.
It's weird out there, man.
>>387691
>not to cater to Atheists but to cater to the dumb.
Yea, never said it was perfect. Hell, i would have blackballed them for the one day classes and recruitment.
But a lot of the Theology is less prominent (even in the HRA). I wouldn't say bleached out, though. Frankly, it's a good thing, because this way it speaks more to the seekers.
It was this atmosphere which seems to have allowed for the MRF and EC lodges to form as bulwarks.
Ordo ab chao, niggas.
So are there any actual occult currents of masonry left, or is it all material that can be interpreted qabalistically but generally isn't?
The masons seem to have had a massive impact on the occult, but I can never quite figure out why, apart from the fact that Mathers & Co. were all masons
>>389275
Both on your first question, though I'd venture most Freemasons would quietly object to the Freemasonic modeled occult fraternities.
A good example of this NOT being the case is SRIA, the Rosicurcian arm of Freemasonry. GD in fact broke from SRIA to write bigger rituals and initiate women.
Did anyone here ever visit the Freemasons, have anything to do with them?
>>389514
I think the dude I was talking to was MasonicRC, a Freemason who'd frequent /pol/ and /x/; we'd often go 'round about the exact topic you saw earlier in the thread, the legitimacy of the GO.
I'm only vaguely interested in Freemasonry, more properly some of their appendant but dead rites, like M&M. I'd considered getting a proper GO initiation but the groups near me had their charters revoked, so there goes that idea.
I'm way more interested in the contents of their rituals than the group in and of itself. I have a large amount of their material in my library, and you can read almost all of the Freemasonic rituals here:
www.stichtingargus.nl/vrijmetselarij/ritualen_en.html
>>389514
There are a few masons who float around /x/ (and occasionally /his/). MasonicRC is pretty knowledgeable on the subject, but there are others too
>>389563
Of the /x/ Freemasons, MasonicRC's about the only one I really trust to have level conversation with.
>>387403
>As did all loyal Masons.
Technically true. But you can bet that the traitors were able to justify their views.
Like, Masonic teachings are certainly in favour of a monarchy in a religious country, but being strictly opposed to a theocracy. Twin pillars, I know I don't have to tell you about. But given the hierarchy of loyalties it espouses, Washington & co could easily have said they were doing the right thing.
God -> Family -> neighbour -> nation/sovereign
It's the last bit which they would see as separate and say that they were being dutiful to their country by rebelling against the sovereign.
Sorry if that's rambling and disjointed. Early and all.
>>389514
>visit
>>389556
>I'm way more interested in the contents of their rituals than the group in and of itself.
Ayup. That's getting to be me at this point.
>>389275
>So are there any actual occult currents of masonry left
Yes, but you're average American Rite Mason would probably disagree because they don't see it that way.
>>389916
>but you're average
Ulgh, it's way to early for this.
>>389916
>It's the last bit which they would see as separate and say that they were being dutiful to their country by rebelling against the sovereign.
Interesting.
Historically speaking you think that could be a component of why UGLE got so spooped by GOdF? That shit must have been existentially terrifying to the folks looking in who still had hard monarchist sympathies.
>>389950
Nah, the bitchfight was well after that. UGLE was still on good terms with all the trait-- American Grand Lodges anyway.
But people seem to take the Yank side a bit by discounting the monarchist nature of the group, including a couple of rebellions regarding who was most loyal, as well as stuff like England actively supporting the Hanoverians (by inactivity, and institutionally swearing loyalty to the current sovereign, whomever that might be, for their own protection), and the Scots actively helping Charlie with funds and troops.
Hell, as it stands, if you go to any ROoS meeting, there are still kilt-wearers there sore about the whole matter.
>>390022
Yeah, I mean I'm not actually opposed to the Jacobite program myself, I just figured it being closer and more reactionary would have accounted for something.
Very interesting...the monarchism's not super overt in the ritual material I've read. There but rarely if ever explicated upon; knowledge lectures need to pack in too much info for idle chatter...at least in proper Freemasonry, most knowledge lectures in the OTO are designed by the initiator.
>>390074
Yea, but keeping the peace in society to logical ends is pretty important too.
>There but rarely if ever explicated upon
Yea, that covers it. Up to the member to do his own learning. Which again, is why so much of it has turned to shit, because so many wankers were let in who wouldn't even investigate their nose being at the front of their face, and then out of fear and disinterest made the more genuine members stop trying to learn.
Which is why I've been a curmudgeonly old past master, being way more selective in whom I let into the lodge. Sometimes things need fixing even if it's against their will.
>>387519
Is the church not man made? Humans are inherently fallible and corruptable.
>>390135
>Which is why I've been a curmudgeonly old past master, being way more selective in whom I let into the lodge. Sometimes things need fixing even if it's against their will.
Pls join OTO.
>>390139
No, not just man made. Churches are built with stone. You know who builds with stones? Why do you think protestant Churches were built with wood?
>>390154
Thanks, but nah. Not my speed.
>>390184
I was hoping the sarcasm was more obvious.
But on the other hand, yours is not the only institution that has it rough. Keep up with the discerning eyes. Its folks like you that keep these orgs remotely functional.
>>390194
>I was hoping the sarcasm was more obvious.
Oh right... uh... you too...
And yea, it seems pretty well across the board (with some exceptions) that organisations were terrified of the lack of joiners in recent generations, so they took steps to scare them off even more, and alienate the diehards.
