It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The role of Protestantism in the creation of Fraternaties

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Looking back on history the beginnings of all this secret society stuff ties in with the birth of "free thinking" and rationality. This of course is widely attributed to the Gutenberg printing press and the home-made literacy it brought with it.
This is when we see Luther standing up to the church wirh his 98 whatsits nailed to the church door, the french revolution and of course the declaration of independance (same year as the Ancient Illuminated Seers of Bavaria kicked off). So in effect it was a time when people were breaking off the long established loyalties to the vatican and were becoming "their own bosses".
Before i get labled a "mason hater" I was wondering how much people think this influenced the orders themselves that were starting to form at this time. I assume the intellectual environment was the creative force behind these events.
This is also why I can't believe that masons will accept a Catholic into their ranks, due to this vatican loyalty thing.

Again before you start, I know i can't really know 'coz i'm not a mason and you (the fella complaining) are, but then again that also means i have no clue if what's coming out of your mouth has any truth to it either. So there!




posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corinthas
This is also why I can't believe that masons will accept a Catholic into their ranks, due to this vatican loyalty thing.


Freemasonry has always welcomed Roman Catholics into the fraternity. It was the Church, not the Lodge, that forbade Roman Catholics from becoming Masons.

In recent years, the Vatican's anti-Masonic stance has been more or less ignored in the U.S.
American Catholics feel they can make up their own minds about such things, and my Lodge has a couple of Roman Catholic members.

Fiat Lvx.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 10:27 AM
link   
[o

Oh in that case.. I might just...

Kidding!

Not a joiner me, but thanks for clearing that up.
Nevertheless the beginnig of these societies started in that age of reason, and was lagely fulled by the sam intellectual rebellion that broke the stranglehold of the vatican, do you agree?

Hence from a cirtain point of view Catholics have misplaced loyalties and well, put it lik this, I'd be suspicious of them joining MY club!

Hey a Joiner.. its a craft... a bit like a Mason except with wood...

[/ Hmmm.....



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corinthas
Hence from a cirtain point of view Catholics have misplaced loyalties and well, put it lik this, I'd be suspicious of them joining MY club!


Unless, of course, one were to have the utterly WILD point of view that the modern Catholic church is, you know, somehow different from the medieval Cathloic church. But, no... that would be craziness!

Seriously, now, this "joiner" stuff is also quite insulting. I didn't join Freemasonry because I'm a "joiner." In fact, if you were to characterise my life up to my initiation, you'd probably call me a "leaver." There are, of course, members of the Craft you might call "joiners," just as there are members of many other different personality types. You belittle our organistation and its members when you charaterise us all as "joiners..." Oh! But of course, that's what you're trying to do. Congratulations on being such a big man.

[edit on 11-8-2004 by AlexKennedy]



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlexKennedy

Originally posted by Corinthas
Hence from a cirtain point of view Catholics have misplaced loyalties and well, put it lik this, I'd be suspicious of them joining MY club!


Unless, of course, one were to have the utterly WILD point of view that the modern Catholic church is, you know, somehow different from the medieval Cathloic church. But, no... that would be craziness!

Seriously, now, this "joiner" stuff is also quite insulting. I didn't join Freemasonry because I'm a "joiner." In fact, if you were to characterise my life up to my initiation, you'd probably call me a "leaver." There are, of course, members of the Craft you might call "joiners," just as there are members of many other different personality types. You belittle our organistation and its members when you charaterise us all as "joiners..." Oh! But of course, that's what you're trying to do. Congratulations on being such a big man.

[edit on 11-8-2004 by AlexKennedy]


Firstly I didn't caracterize ANYONE ELSE BUT MYSELF as being not a joiner!

Secondly if you join a club you do seem to be"joining" something, and joining makes you a "joiner" BY DEFINITION!

Unless you define a joiner by his trade.


Not everything is an attack on your club mates!

Get real!

Its exacly these kind of replis that make me doubt... oh never mind I wont bother going there again. ][



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 05:13 AM
link   
There is some evidence that Freemasonry actually started out in it's present form with the vast majority of it's adherents being Catholics.

I follow the line that Freemasonry began in Scotland, well before it crossed the border into Protestant England. There is evidence to back this claim up.

www.lj1256.freeserve.co.uk...

www.stbryde.co.uk...

If this is the case, Protestantism did not have a major role in creating Freemasonry. Scotland back then was a staunchly Catholic country.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Ok if you want to go that far back the Templars (which after the death of De Molay and the treachrey of the church changed into Masonry, as it has been suggested ) HAD to be catholic as an alternative had not been invented yet. I don't deny there was life in these groups before the reformaton.

So the time line here really is important, and I still maintain that the big push to join these groups came when a) education and literacy could trickle down to the home and b) the intellectual climate allowed for dissedence and disobedience to higher powers.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 07:49 AM
link   
No. There is no verifiable link between Templarism and Freemasonry.

This thread is about the involvement of Protestantism in the creation of Freemasonry. Freemasonry was verifiably existent in something like it's present form in Catholic Scotland before it was recorded in England.

Are you trying to say that as time progressed, Freemasonry became more Protestant so it must have been created by Protestants? This is clearly not the case.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 08:11 AM
link   
No verifyable link means what exacly?

Nothing just that its not verifiable. Dosen't give a YES OR a NO answer to anything.


by Leveller
Freemasonry was verifiably existent in something like it's present form in Catholic Scotland before it was recorded in England


What are you referring to here, can you tell me where i can find this info for myself?

Something like it's present form?
An apple is "something like" a pear to a cirtain extent..



My point was before the reformation EVERYBODY was catholic and I have never denied the existance of secret groups before the reformation.

Its just that during/after the reformation the secret groups seem to proliferate.

What I am "trying to say" is in my posts above and not in yours!



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 09:04 AM
link   
If you had bothered to look at the links that I provided, you would see the evidence that the earliest recorded Lodge was in Scotland.

Modern Freemasonry probably began in Scotland. Scotland was a Catholic country.

What point are you trying to make exactly? If you're saying that Freemasonry sprang up because of the Reformation then you are wrong.

I don't see a single link or one iota of evidence to link Freemasonry being a product of the Reformation. Provide it and then we may go further. Until then, refuting my evidence when you have none to supply in return rather weakens your argument.

www.lepg.org...

By the way. Your argument that Secret Groups only proliferated after the Reformation is a very strange one. How do you know that there weren't any around before? They were "secret" weren't they? By their very nature of secrecy and the history of the time, I would have thought that there would have actually been just as much of a "proliferation" of secret groups before the Reformation as after.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Sorry i didn't spot the earlier links.


Again I am NOT SAYING THESE DID NOT EXIST BEFORE THE REFORMATION, just that they became more popular and widespread.

Also the first steps to sever the vatican control over the masses of europe were 1517 (luther) and yes there is a gap of 200 yer between this and say the French revoluton, but nevertheless this gets the whole thing in to gear, loosening the grip of the vatican.

The french revolution, was partly made possible by the changes in thinking that the reformation brought with it. The revolution saw peasants rise up and deny the "divine providence of kings" to quote Nietzsche "gott ist tot". I am trying to say that this new way of thinking allowed these groups to flourish into a golden age.
Later we see the daclaration of independance in 1776 THE SAME YEAR AS THE FOUNDING OF THE "Alten Erleuchteten Seher Bayerns" (Bavarian Illuminati).
This fact seems to show, to me at least, how the change in mentality helped the these groups attract members and proliferate.



[edit on 13/8/2004 by Corinthas]



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corinthas
Again I am NOT SAYING THESE DID NOT EXIST BEFORE THE REFORMATION, just that they became more popular and widespread.



Where is your evidence!!!!
We're talking about so-called Secret Societies. Before the Reformation there would be no record of them because they had to remain in hiding. I reckon there would have actually been more underground societies prior to the Reformation. Contact between different groups would have been very dangerous, so there would have been many more isolated factions which would have sprung up. Afterwards, it's more likely that they merged and so the number actually reduced.
In all probability, there was no proliferation. They just became visible.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 04:54 AM
link   
OK now were down to arguing about terms! PROGRESS!


From an outsiders point of view, becoming visible is in effect the same as newly emerging, beacause the outsider can't tell if they have just been formed or just became visible. He observes the same phenomenon but can not tell the difference without prior knowledge.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corinthas
From an outsiders point of view, becoming visible is in effect the same as newly emerging, beacause the outsider can't tell if they have just been formed or just became visible. He observes the same phenomenon but can not tell the difference without prior knowledge.



Yes. But there is a major problem with this interpretation regarding the actual subject of the thread.
The topic is how Protestantism was involved with the creation of these societies. If these societies did exist well before the Reformation it would indicate that Protestantism was not a major player in their creation.
Just because something exists it doesn't mean that it was created by the first thing that you can link it with.

Maybe Protestantism was partially responsible for the new aura of freedom that enabled these societies to become visible, but that doesn't mean that it affected their doctrines, their creations or their raison d'etre.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Given.

However we now have the problem of knowing what groups existed before and merely came out, and which ones were created after, for an outsider its impossible to make that destinction.

So you can be right about masonry "an sich" as you can assure me that it existed before, but other groups?



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 06:47 AM
link   
One can only resort to logic in this circumstance.

The whole thing comes down to the word "secret". If these societies only came into being at the time of the Reformation, they would not have been secret as they were actually visible at this time - they would have been just like any other normal group of societies.
It's more logical though (if they were created before the Reformation) that they had remained underground and only surfaced when it was safe to do so - ie, when the Catholic Church's power was waining. They would probably be classed better as being philisophical societies rather than secret if this were the case.

The other thing you need to do is to specify which society you are looking at. There's normally a bit of evidence regarding it's creation to be uncovered if you dig around hard enough.

[edit on 16-8-2004 by Leveller]



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 07:18 AM
link   
I wasn't being specific, and deliberately so.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Its interesting, this concept, sort of the chicken and the egg thing, but it isn't necessarily so.

When it is time for a thing, it occurs. Scientific research is much the same, with "discoveries" often being made simultaneously in different places, and societies are much the same. Martin Luther didn't spring suddenly from the mass of society into being with his issues nailed to the church door. A careful study shows the gradual progression and change within society that allowed for questioning.

Pogroms are followed by times of growth, that are in turn slowed by pogroms and crack downs. Influxes due to trade and the importation of products as well as new thoughts and manners of thinking changed society. Masonry has, to the best of our knowledge (remember, it was a secret society, so minutes and lists were not kept...) been around since Athelstan's time, in the 10th century... or not.

But to think that Masonry, lovers of freedom that we are, sprang from the reformation is to ignore all the history and cultural climate surrounding the reformation. Fact is, when the lodges went public in 1717, they had been around for at least two hundred years and likely longer, but went public because the climate was right FOR them to go public and not fear arrest and imprisonment... and their decision proved correct.

One other thing to consider, and that is that as people became more educated, they started asking questions, and the church was never very good in dealing with questions, but societal pressures, and political pressures, on the church, and their decreasing temporal power due to both, made asking questions... Okay, and with questions comes change...

Europe was ready for Martin Luther. A hundred years earlier he would simply have been arrested and incarcerated by the church, or would never have thought to ask the questions, nor was he alone in ASKING those questions and condemning those practices of the church. The corruption IN the church guaranteed it would happen.

So, was Masonry responsible for the reformation? No. Was the reformation responsible for masonry? No.

Good question you asked though, Corinthas.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Let me just say it has been my understanding for some years now from several readings (some of which I may be able to locate) that Protestantism was a huge BOON for Freemasonry.

Again, it's just my understanding that several fraternal orders of Europe were predominantly focused on actual real MASONS invloved in building the Catholic Empire as through greater and greater Cathedrals.

What the Reformation did then was (not only put some glorified stone masons out of work) but render alot of these Unions dying on the vine as it were. Thus a SOCIAL aspect was enginnered opening up brotherhoods to anyone with a shilling for ale. Over time it got reinvented with the enlightenment aspects, duty to God and man, etc. I'm not really into all that, but I know it's the stated foundation now. But that Freemasons had to remarket themselves after the reformation is widely understood (I thought) by even the casual imparital historian. Note I omit Freemasons from that group, since who knows what they are told.

All that crap about "we built the pyramids" is marketing. Not reality. Okay, flame me now if you want to...but I believe 100% Freemasony is what it is today as a result of Protestantism forcing it to change and grow away from the Catholic Church for it's own survival.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Wow, not that's a breath of fresh air...

Why would you be flamed for posting a relatively informed opinion? I am sure that the "Reformation" had a lot to do with the growth of Freemasonry, as I am also sure the cultural and societal conditions at the time did as well.

The ability to ask questions and think for yourself without fear of arrest, torture and jailing certainly contributed to the growth of MANY groups interested in freedom, not the least of which was the United States itself.

Thanks for a thought provoking post!




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join