Has anyone witnessed a blatant Satanic ritual within a Freemasonry Lodge/Temple?

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Originally posted by MrNECROS

The York Rite seems to be a dead offshoot, even in Pike and McClenechan's time it appears to be on the wane, both of these authors write of it as if it was just a bit of a flash in the pan, only really practiced in America to any great extent and then it appears to be completely swallowed by it's parent rite.

Not at all.

I've passed the degrees of a York Rite Mason, a Knight Templar.

You've actually got it backwards. It is much more popular outside of America than within it. Especially in English Speaking Nations and the Mediterranean.

If your ever in Dallas, TX, visit the Scottish Rite Temple on Young and Harwood. Then go across the street to the York Rite. Tell me again that York is insignigicant or dead or whatever. In Dallas, the membership overlaps by about 60% or so.


.

York Rite (often referred to as "The American Rite") is all but completely non-existant in the UK and Australia and all of Europe actually - the fact that you are an American and have undertaken the rite seems to underline my point and disqualify yours really, but this is way off topic and irrelevent because York Rite uses the first 3 Degrees of the Scottish Rite in any case, even if they don't realise it.
That includes the openly Satanic 1st Degree.

[deleted]

[edit on 30-1-2006 by dr_strangecraft]

Deleted - was being diverted off topic.

[edit on 30-1-2006 by MrNECROS]

Originally posted by MrNECROSThat includes the openly Satanic 1st Degree.

Please stop telling people about our infernal Dark Lord.

It's a lot harder for us to kidnap babies for our Black Mass barbecues when people are on their guard against hooded, chanting maniacs.

I have read a lot of views on this topic since the initial post and its interesting reading both sides of the coin.

From my research of satanic rituals within Masonry i have found a lot of interesting stuff and one quote that always sticks in my head goes a little something like this:
"Majority of masons when asked about rituals reply that they are just some ancient traditional rituals, dont know what it fully means but its just some ritual someone once came up with for different stages."

I believe that this is true, that majority of masons dont know there true origins and true meanings and i dont claim to know them for i am not a mason and have not done any of these rituals. But i do know that once taking off the blind fold you are being reborn as a new person and being born into the brotherhood and your name goes down in the book as a new member of satans family.

There may be no blood shed, no sacrifices, but how do masons know that the rituals dont have satanic backgrowns? Thats why i never understood Christians being freemasons.
I have been in freemason halls and ritual rooms with the big "G" hanging from the roof. G standing for Gnosticism "possessing intellectual or secret spiritual knowledge". As a Christian i am not one for judging someone's christianity... But how can you justify being a Christian, a religion willing to accept anyone through the name of Jesus Christ, and be a Freemason, a man who is enlightened through secret knowledge and possession.

"a man who seeks power and fits the mould recieves power and moves up quickly. A man who doesnt fit the mould will only ever know so much"

I recomend the video "Exposing the Illuminati - By Bill Shnoebelen"

shouldnt that be "exposing the freemasons" ? illuninati, freemasons, why do people mix those words up.

he was a freemason and he talks about freemasonry in the video.
he was a 90th degree freemason, he was a member of the illuminati and is a converted christian and he exposes all the occult practises within freemasonry. So technically the video should be called "exposing freemasons" but it just happens to be called "exposing the illuminati from within"
That is why...but i definately didnt get the words mixed up.



[edit on 31-1-2006 by xxxfootyxxx]

Originally posted by MrNECROS

York Rite (often referred to as "The American Rite") is all but completely non-existant in the UK and Australia and all of Europe actually - the fact that you are an American and have undertaken the rite seems to underline my point and disqualify yours really, but this is way off topic and irrelevent because York Rite uses the first 3 Degrees of the Scottish Rite in any case, even if they don't realise it.

The exact opposite is true, as has already been mentioned. Strangely, practically everything Necros writes is the exact opposite of the truth of the matter. Interesting, no?

Originally posted by MrNECROS
York Rite (often referred to as "The American Rite") is all but completely non-existant in the UK and Australia and all of Europe actually

Just to clarify this point... The York Rite in the US is a series of degrees taken in a specific sequence. In the UK all those degrees exist but are all independent of each other (this varies between different constitutions), and have their own governing bodies. Consequently the York Rite as such does not exist in the UK but its constituent elements do.

Hope that makes sense.

Originally posted by xxxfootyxxx
I have been in freemason halls and ritual rooms with the big "G" hanging from the roof. G standing for Gnosticism "possessing intellectual or secret spiritual knowledge".

The G stands for God (or sometimes geometry as an allusion to Gods Works) but not Gnosticism. You have been misinformed on this point.

As a Christian i am not one for judging someone's christianity... But how can you justify being a Christian, a religion willing to accept anyone through the name of Jesus Christ, and be a Freemason, a man who is enlightened through secret knowledge and possession.

As a Christian I see no incompatibility between my religion, which teaches Love and offers me salvation; and a fraternity which teaches the Christian virtues and requires me to study my religion.

"a man who seeks power and fits the mould recieves power and moves up quickly. A man who doesnt fit the mould will only ever know so much"

What is this... a quote from the video? One of the tricks of the anti-mason is to create imaginary 'higher' and 'lower' levels within freemasonry and discredit those they describe as 'lower', typically anyone below the 33rd degree. This analysis betrays a staggering ignorance of the structure of freemasonry and the journey that any given freemason will take. Please don't be taken in.

I recomend the video "Exposing the Illuminati - By Bill Shnoebelen"

By all means - its available for $40 from Bills website, but visit
here for some more information on this fascinating author before parting with any money.

Originally posted by Trinityman
Consequently the York Rite as such does not exist in the UK but its constituent elements do.

Hope that makes sense.

By "York Rite", I refer to the three degrees of Ancient Craft Masonry, including the Royal Arch. The other degrees in the system as worked in the US were called "American Rite" by Mackey, which seems appropriate.

However, Necros has once again stuck his proverbial foot in his mouth. He claims that the first three degrees are actually Scottish Rite (!). That would be to say, in England, you guys were practicing the Ancient and Accepted Rite from the beginning, ignoring the fact that pure Masonry is York Rite, i.e., having originated from the Regius Mss.

Necros is unable to comprehend that Freemasonry, which in its origin is York Rite, has existed centuries before the Scottish Rite (which is a modern invention) was organized. Or, rather, he does understand it, but has no regard for fact or truth.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Necros is unable to comprehend that Freemasonry, which in its origin is York Rite, has existed centuries before the Scottish Rite (which is a modern invention) was organized.

I am afraid that in that particular view, I am more aligned with Messr. Death. It is documented as showing what you say, York came first. That is a reasonable reason to assert that York came first. I am not convinced though, since alot of the symbolism and iconography that is associated with masonry can be found in Scotland as early as the 14th century. If it was not masonry back then, I can believe that, but there was something going on there long before the nobility of the UK officially instituted it as York Rite. It is too bad that a requirement of being a secret society is secrecy, or I might have a clearer view of this. I am not a member, so I defer to your qualifications, though that does not change my personal views.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

I am afraid that in that particular view, I am more aligned with Messr. Death. It is documented as showing what you say, York came first. That is a reasonable reason to assert that York came first. I am not convinced though, since alot of the symbolism and iconography that is associated with masonry can be found in Scotland as early as the 14th century. If it was not masonry back then, I can believe that, but there was something going on there long before the nobility of the UK officially instituted it as York Rite. It is too bad that a requirement of being a secret society is secrecy, or I might have a clearer view of this. I am not a member, so I defer to your qualifications, though that does not change my personal views.

I would say that, in general, you are correct. But Scotland also practices York Rite. What we call "Scottish Rite" actually has no ties to Scotland, but was instead founded in the United States in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1801. The degrees of the Scottish Rite are revised versions of those taken from two French Rites, which were themselves based on the York Rite.

Your mention of Masonry in 14th century Scotland is correct. However, the Regius Mss. is a century older, and the convention at York it describes takes place during the reign of Athelstan, in the early 900's. It is possible that some sort of guild existed in Scotland as well at this time, but technically it would not have been "Scottish Rite".

Luckily, the fcat that Freemasonry is often classified as a "secret society" will not be a bar to your research. If you're interested in the subject, the highest authorities in Masonic history from an academic perspective are usually considered to be Henry Wilson Coil and Robert Freke Gould, both of whom have written excellent books on the subject.

When I reviewed my notes, I found that you have told me this once before, but I guess old habits die hard. I had always assumed that the Craft had not existed before the Templars. In your previous post to me, you gave me details on the US founding of the Scottish Rite. Now I have added the Athelstan era information and the names of the authors you recommended. My sincere gratitude to you for your openness.

Originally posted by xxxfootyxxx
he was a freemason and he talks about freemasonry in the video.
he was a 90th degree freemason, he was a member of the illuminati and is a converted christian and he exposes all the occult practises within freemasonry. So technically the video should be called "exposing freemasons" but it just happens to be called "exposing the illuminati from within"
That is why...but i definately didnt get the words mixed up.



[edit on 31-1-2006 by xxxfootyxxx]

from my research i havent seen proof of the illuminati, in this modern age with the the extent of control people believe. but i do beleive there is a control organisation, where can i get this video

Originally posted by Judgeofdarkness

Originally posted by xxxfootyxxx

he was a 90th degree freemason, he was a member of the illuminati and is a converted christian and he exposes all the occult practises within freemasonry. [edit on 31-1-2006 by xxxfootyxxx]

from my research i havent seen proof of the illuminati,

I have heard of degrees up to 33, but no higher. Where can I look to find out the theories on the alleged next 57 degrees? I too have seen no proof of this illuminati.
The one thing I wonder is if all of what this author claims is true, why is he not dead yet?

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I have heard of degrees up to 33, but no higher. Where can I look to find out the theories on the alleged next 57 degrees?

I think someone once worked out that there are over 200 masonic degrees across the various side orders, some of which are more regular than others. ML will no doubt know as he's such a smartiepants , but I think Memphis-Misraem goes up to 97 degrees. Of course many of these degrees are not practiced in any sequential order, which will frustrate the masonic-conspiracist who likes the idea of a single progression up to the 'higher degrees' etc.

The one thing I wonder is if all of what this author claims is true, why is he not dead yet?

Ah - you noticed... perhaps he's a zombie?

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

I have heard of degrees up to 33, but no higher. Where can I look to find out the theories on the alleged next 57 degrees? I too have seen no proof of this illuminati.
The one thing I wonder is if all of what this author claims is true, why is he not dead yet?

Trinityman's assessment is correct. The Scottish Rite of Masonry consists of 33 degrees. In the 19th century, it was in competition with the Oriental Rite of Memphis (which consisted of 97 degrees) and the Egyptian Rite of Mitzraim (which consisted of 90 degrees).

Memphis and Mitzraim experienced lots of trouble. They often found themselves declared irregular, and most of their higher degrees never had ceremonies written for them, the degrees themselves consisting only of a password. The Grand Orient of France assumed jurisdiction over them in the mid 1800's, and effectively tabled them. They were irregularly propagated by John Yarker, an irregular Scottish Rite Mason, in England in the late 1800's, and early 1900's. Yarker assumed the 97° of Memphis, which is Grand Hierophant (or chief) of the Rite, and named Aleister Crowley as his successor. Crowley, who had become an irregular 33° Cerneau Rite Mason in Mexico, first attempted to blend Cernaeu, Memphis, and Mitzraim, without much luck. Eventually, he gave up on it as a Masonic endeavor, and focused on building up the Ordo Templi Orientis, which he considered a "pure" form of the Rites of Memphis and Mitzraim.

In the US, unlike in the UK, these Rites were still populated by regular Masons. Brother Harold Van Buren Voorhis, a regular 33° Scottish Rite Mason, became nominally (and temporarily) the Grand Hierophant 97° of the Rite of Memphis, for the sole purpose of convening the Sovereign Sanctuary of the 96° in order to vote on tabling the Rite. The vote was unanimous, which led to the formation of the Grand College of Rites of the United States. Today, the Grand College still exists as the only regular Masonic body in the USA with jurisdiction over Memphis and Mitzraim, as well as other Rites that are not longer practiced, such as the Swedenbourgian, the Martinist, etc. The Grand College does not confer degrees in these Rites per se, but all members of the College hold all of the degrees ipso facto when approved for membership in the College. The primary purpose of the College is the study of such older degrees and Rites no longer practiced.

Footy's man who claimed to be a 90° is possible, but all such Rites are now irregular. Those Rites have always been occultic and hermetic in nature, so his statement that his organization was into occultism is certainly not surprising. However, his mention of the Illuminati shows much factual error. None of these Rites had any tie to the Illuminati, and the Illuminati itself consisted of only ten degrees.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by Masonic Light]

Question:

Why is it that the rituals of the Catholic church (for example) are not picked to pieces/dissected and harassed for their traditions/rituals in mass that date back centuries?

Why is it that the dark evil priests (who are so often busted for interfering with children, then the oh so perfect heirachy of religion 'cover it up') that practice rituals like pretending to drink BLOOD, are not endlessly having to defend their practices?

aaaahhhhh. I know. It's because they wear white not black.
SILLY ME! I should've known. Hipocrasy rules, obviously

Not trying to start yet another religious debate here - I'm merely trying to point out that what society says is 'ok' with regard to rituals...is acceptable.
What society says is not ok......is not. No reasoning behind it in my opinion.

Standing up for the dark. I appreciate that. Being that it is part of my handle. I have seen many more of those instances of the churches of God, acting, teaching, and symbolically worshipping, the same things that they condemn the Satanists for.