bloody oaths are not taken lightly

"I do promise and swear upon the Holy Bible never to reveal where I have received this degree . . . and in failure of this I consent to have my body opened perpendicularly and to be exposed for eight hours in the open air, so that the venomous flies may eat my entrails, my head to be cut off and put on the highest pinnacle of the world, and I will always be ready to inflict the same punishment on those who shall disclose this degree and break this obligation. So may God help and maintain me. Amen. "

Disobedience and want of respect to Masonic superiors is an offense for which the transgressor subjects himself to punishment."

Mackey's Masonic Jurisprudence , p. 511

"The first duty of the reader of this Synopsis is to obey the edicts of his Grand Lodge. Right or wrong, his very existence as a Mason hangs upon obedience to the powers immediately set above him. Failure in this must infallibly bring down expulsion, which, as a Masonic death, ends all. The one unpardonable crime in a Mason is contumacy, or disobedience."

Webb's Freemasons' Monitor, p. 196


Masonic Light,

I would dearly love to reply but everytime I try to post a reply the screen just rolls back.. Won't let me post.. How odd! Nor will it let me read Trinityman's post....

Am I giving away too many secrets and have been censored?

I wonder...

Originally posted by Edelweiss Pirate



Am I giving away too many secrets and have been censored?

I wonder...

Don't. I haven't seen you reveal any "secrets". After all, if they were secrets only for Masons, you wouldn't even know them, right?

Originally posted by Edelweiss Pirate

"I do promise and swear upon the Holy Bible never to reveal where I have received this degree . . . and in failure of this I consent to have my body opened perpendicularly and to be exposed for eight hours in the open air, so that the venomous flies may eat my entrails, my head to be cut off and put on the highest pinnacle of the world, and I will always be ready to inflict the same punishment on those who shall disclose this degree and break this obligation. So may God help and maintain me. Amen. "

Disobedience and want of respect to Masonic superiors is an offense for which the transgressor subjects himself to punishment."

Mackey's Masonic Jurisprudence , p. 511

Lets suppose all you've quoted is correct. And seeing as its from Mackey's...

"those who shall disclose this degree and break this obligation"

Kinda the key sentence there no?

Disobedience, want of respect to Masonic superiors, ie Grand Lodge or the Master of your Lodge is potentially punishable. By being kicked out of the Masons. Not by the colorful language you have quoted.

Helios

Did you see my other posting, which I actually did before you started this thread?

The traditional penalties (which in many jurisdictions have been phased out) were symbolic, and never intended to be implemented. The evidence of this is that there is no known deaths that follow the quite specific penalties outlined in the ritual. Have you ever heard of the phrase 'cross my heart and hope to die'? This playground promise is similarly not intended to be literally carried out, but just underlines the importance of the promise given.

The real penalty for revealing masonic secrets is to be...

External source: Emulation ritual
branded a willfully perjured individual, void of all moral worth, and totally unfit to be received into this worshipful Lodge, or any other warranted Lodge, or society of men who prize honour and virtue above the external advantages of rank and fortune.

You might also be interested in the following snippet, after the traditional (symbolic) penalties are outlined the Worshipful Master says

External source: Emulation ritual
The inclusion of such a penalty is unnecessary, for the Obligation you have taken this evening is binding on you for so long as you shall live.

So you can see it's clear that there are no promises made in freemasonry that require horrible mutilation if they were broken.

Or at least that's what happens in my jurisdiction.

Originally posted by Trinityman
Helios

Did you see my other posting, which I actually did before you started this thread?

Nope, but I'm aware that the traditional penalties, and the ones that have replaced them, are symbolic and not literal. I'd have had some trouble taking them if I thought they were literal.

Helios

I'm so sorry, but I've got confused, and I meant to address my last post to Edelweiss Pirate who initiated the thread.

Thanks for replying though

Originally posted by Helios Barca

Nope, but I'm aware that the traditional penalties, and the ones that have replaced them, are symbolic and not literal. I'd have had some trouble taking them if I thought they were literal.

Likewise. In most of the US, the traditional penalties remain in the ceremonies of the Blue Lodge and York Rite, with the addendum that they are only symbolic, the actual penalty being expulsion. Albert Pike eliminated all such penalties from the Scottish Rite rituals during his second revision in the mid 1870's.

It is rather silly to make those kinds of oaths, symbolic or not. Plus, what good is a person's word if they aren't taking it seriously?

Originally posted by Nygdan
It is rather silly to make those kinds of oaths, symbolic or not. Plus, what good is a person's word if they aren't taking it seriously?

I don't think that it's the case that Masons don't take it seriously; we just don't take it literally, which is different.

But considering the seriousness of the oath, it just seems out of sorts to brush it off as 'its tradtional and its understood that its not going to occur'. Afterall, why make an oath when you don't actually expect the punishments to be carried out? Seems good reason to change it anyways. Seems like it means even more to have no hint of punishment, other than the stain of having broken your word.

Originally posted by Nygdan
But considering the seriousness of the oath, it just seems out of sorts to brush it off as 'its tradtional and its understood that its not going to occur'. Afterall, why make an oath when you don't actually expect the punishments to be carried out? Seems good reason to change it anyways. Seems like it means even more to have no hint of punishment, other than the stain of having broken your word.

That was the reasoning used by the Grand Lodges who have eliminated references to the penalties, and you (like they) have a point.

On the other hand, I'm a traditionalist, and I would be opposed to seeing them go. They do teach a very important lesson, and hearken back to the times when we were persecuted. Judging by recent posts here, especially from Pirate and that non-Catholic Catholic who thinks the popes are heretics, if many had their way, we'd be persecuted again.

True enough, however masonry is small enough that not many really care about it. Also, from what I hear, dan brown's new novel is going to cast masons in a good light (and if you think about it, the davinci code does too). That means that the masses will be lead to accept masons, rather than reject them.

Besides, you allways have that prayer of your fellow-mason, Voltaire, to fall back upon!

Originally posted by Nygdan


Besides, you allways have that prayer of your fellow-mason, Voltaire, to fall back upon!

Hahaha, I've been doing that a lot today!

As for being cast in a good light, I think most people consider us a club that helps crippled kids, and whose members wear funny hats. The general public has always supported us in the USA, and we thank them for it.

I haven't read Brown's book, but will probably see the film. "National Treasure" was a pretty good one too.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Masonic Light]

Originally posted by Nygdan
But considering the seriousness of the oath, it just seems out of sorts to brush it off as 'its tradtional and its understood that its not going to occur'. Afterall, why make an oath when you don't actually expect the punishments to be carried out? Seems good reason to change it anyways. Seems like it means even more to have no hint of punishment, other than the stain of having broken your word.

The symbolic 'penalties' are used later in emblematic lessons... Their inclusion is therefore a portion of the masonic education where you are taught that men are all equal, and other important "horrible" secrets like being good and true and to remain true to your promises....

Truly 'horrific' a reason to include them even while explaining that they are symbolic.

But considering the seriousness of the oath, it just seems out of sorts to brush it off as 'its tradtional and its understood that its not going to occur'. Afterall, why make an oath when you don't actually expect the punishments to be carried out?

Perhaps as a remembrance of a time when membership or even the sugestion of membership
could cost the lives and property of a person.

IMO to say that The Masonic Order should remove all mention of this is equal to saying
that all further mention of any events related to the Holocaust should be forever buried
and never again mentioned.

Funny you should say that because Masonic Light just accused me of being a Nazi !

The extreme and emmotive rhetorical you people use to blind and dazzle people to the truth does not surprise me in the least...

anyway, moving on....

Is there any legal chance that taking such a blood oath, and then having someone take it out on you, that it'd be, 'legal', so to speak? You are making a verbal and perhaps written contract to have it done. Seems unlikely, but still, who knows what goes on in some parts of this whacky world.

Originally posted by Nygdan
anyway, moving on....

Is there any legal chance that taking such a blood oath, and then having someone take it out on you, that it'd be, 'legal', so to speak? You are making a verbal and perhaps written contract to have it done. Seems unlikely, but still, who knows what goes on in some parts of this whacky world.

lol, I doubt it (unless, of course, they used the O.J. lawyers).

The penalties that are used are explained in the ceremony of the Third Degree. According to legend, on being struck with guilt concerning their involvement in the murder of Hiram, the three ruffians each pronounced these penalties upon their heads. Unbeknownst to them, they were overheard by three Fellow Crafts, who rushed them, bound them, and brought them before King Solomon.

On hearing of this, Solomon ordered the ruffians be executed by the penalties they had imprecated upon themselves, in commemoration of which fact, he applied the penalties to the several degrees in a symbolic act of justice having been served.

Originally posted by Nygdan
anyway, moving on....

Is there any legal chance that taking such a blood oath, and then having someone take it out on you, that it'd be, 'legal', so to speak? You are making a verbal and perhaps written contract to have it done. Seems unlikely, but still, who knows what goes on in some parts of this whacky world.

Don't forget that in my jurisdiction, and many others, the penalty is that of being a 'wilfully perjured individual' and the traditional penalties are mentioned almost in passing.

Not that I think its a legal issue anyway.

Yep - ours too Trinityman.

In 1986 i think it was the Grand Lodge of England along with most other Grand Lodges under that one all changed the penalties.

Kinda boring really. I would have taken the original oath,