Author Topic: Popes and Masons (Read 4082 times)

Baskerville · « **on:** August 24, 2011, 11:25:51 PM »

I have often heard that John XXIII and Paul VI were involved if not active freemasons is there any truth to this or docuмents describing their involvement?

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #1 on:** August 25, 2011, 12:35:25 AM »

Yes, Roncalli and Montini, before they were popes, were initiated into Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.

I believe it was Montini that put on the show of renouncing his membership before becoming a bishop (as part of a deal I understand)

There's no denying Montini, as his name was found on initiation rolls in Italy, I forget the details of which lodge etc, but he was definitely initiated, but I believe it was as a *priest* not even yet a bishop.

Roncalli I know less about, but an Italian paper published a list of initiated clargy they claimed (also!) Came from Masonic rolls, thus the accusations were substantiated...

I am, try as I might, completely unable to find where I read this.

I am under the impression Roncalli denied, but Montini never denied, but claimed he had renounced membership (again, I believe it was before becoming a bishop). So Montini at least, corroborated the membership.

Baskerville · « **Reply #2 on:** August 25, 2011, 04:38:16 AM »

Interesting. From what I have heard Roncalli wanted Montini to be his successor. A freemason wanting a fellow mason to follow him. Interesting. I have been following the thread about The Freemasons plot to destroy the Church so its begining to make sense. I feel Montini did the most damage what with the new "mass" etc and appointing fellow mason Bugnini to the liturgy council. Even if they were former Masons its still troubling. Not that one can't reject Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and be a perfectly fine Catholic afterwords but considering the "Fruits" of Bad Pope John and Paul its kinda telling that they were still working to "Freemasonize" the Church. :devil2:

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #3 on:** August 25, 2011, 09:06:57 AM »

If you look at this quote from Paul VI, it appears he was still a Mason:

Paul VI told the U.N. assembly in New York, Mar. 6, '67: "Your vocation is to bring not just some people, but all people together as brothers. [ ! ] Who can fail to see the need and importance of thus gradually coming to the establishment of a 'world authority' capable of taking effective action on the juridical and political plane. Delegates to international organization, public officials, gentlemen of the press, teachers and educators, all of you, must realize that you have your part to play in the construction of a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr."

Same can be said for John XXIII:

John XXIII in opening Vatican II: "The prophets of doom always talk as though the present in comparison to the past is becoming worse and worse. But I see mankind as entering upon a NEW ORDER, and perceive in this a Divine plan."

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #4 on:** August 25, 2011, 09:29:45 AM »

Quote from: Baskerville

Even if they were former Masons its still troubling. Not that one can't reject Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and be a perfectly fine Catholic afterwords but considering the "Fruits" of Bad Pope John and Paul its kinda telling that they were still working to "Freemasonize" the Church. :devil2:

Y'know, I'm not so sure I agree. When we think about it, a Catholic who becomes a Freemason has a pretty hollow rejection if you ask me.

I was a Mason before, but that was before I was Catholic and before I knew better.

Montini was a *priest.* I have a hard time seeing how he couldn't know better. His renunciation of masonry should have included a recapitulation of its errors, not just "I reject it so I can be made a bishop"

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #5 on:** August 25, 2011, 09:33:20 AM »

Iuvenalis is right. You can't be a good Catholic if you're involved in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.

Baskerville · « **Reply #6 on:** August 25, 2011, 10:50:33 AM »

Hmm you two are right. I retract. I would assume that to become a Mason one would not really be "fully in line" with Catholic thought. And Your right Iuvanalis it seems that he did his "renunciation" only so he could be a Bishop.

Baskerville · « **Reply #7 on:** August 25, 2011, 10:51:31 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

If you look at this quote from Paul VI, it appears he was still a Mason:

Paul VI told the U.N. assembly in New York, Mar. 6, '67: "Your vocation is to bring not just some people, but all people together as brothers. [ ! ] Who can fail to see the need and importance of thus gradually coming to the establishment of a 'world authority' capable of taking effective action on the juridical and political plane. Delegates to international organization, public officials, gentlemen of the press, teachers and educators, all of you, must realize that you have your part to play in the construction of a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr."

Same can be said for John XXIII:

John XXIII in opening Vatican II: "The prophets of doom always talk as though the present in comparison to the past is becoming worse and worse. But I see mankind as entering upon a NEW ORDER, and perceive in this a Divine plan."

All I can say to those quotes Spiritus is "Creepy"

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #8 on:** August 25, 2011, 11:05:29 AM »

Quote from: Baskerville

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
If you look at this quote from Paul VI, it appears he was still a Mason:

Paul VI told the U.N. assembly in New York, Mar. 6, '67: "Your vocation is to bring not just some people, but all people together as brothers. [ ! ] Who can fail to see the need and importance of thus gradually coming to the establishment of a 'world authority' capable of taking effective action on the juridical and political plane. Delegates to international organization, public officials, gentlemen of the press, teachers and educators, all of you, must realize that you have your part to play in the construction of a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr."

Same can be said for John XXIII:

John XXIII in opening Vatican II: "The prophets of doom always talk as though the present in comparison to the past is becoming worse and worse. But I see mankind as entering upon a NEW ORDER, and perceive in this a Divine plan."

All I can say to those quotes Spiritus is "Creepy"

These two weren't the only ones to use this phrase. Go to 5:56 on this video and listen to this speech that was given at Ghandi's tomb by JPII, and at 6:41 you hear the same term... nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #9 on:** August 25, 2011, 11:12:58 AM »

Here, again, in 2005, you hear BXVI using that same phrase...

At 40 seconds into the video, you can hear him say "nuovo ordine mondiale."

Translate that from Italian into English, and you have, "nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr."

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #10 on:** August 25, 2011, 11:13:46 AM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Quote from: Baskerville
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
If you look at this quote from Paul VI, it appears he was still a Mason:

Paul VI told the U.N. assembly in New York, Mar. 6, '67: "Your vocation is to bring not just some people, but all people together as brothers. [ ! ] Who can fail to see the need and importance of thus gradually coming to the establishment of a 'world authority' capable of taking effective action on the juridical and political plane. Delegates to international organization, public officials, gentlemen of the press, teachers and educators, all of you, must realize that you have your part to play in the construction of a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr."

Same can be said for John XXIII:

John XXIII in opening Vatican II: "The prophets of doom always talk as though the present in comparison to the past is becoming worse and worse. But I see mankind as entering upon a NEW ORDER, and perceive in this a Divine plan."

All I can say to those quotes Spiritus is "Creepy"

These two weren't the only ones to use this phrase. Go to 5:56 on this video and listen to this speech that was given at Ghandi's tomb by JPII, and at 6:41 you hear the same term... nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.

Wow, I guess someone didn't like that I pointed out a video that actually showed that he said this. Sometimes, the truth hurts.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #11 on:** August 25, 2011, 11:28:05 AM »

Sorry if I make any of you vomit from this, but this is from his "encyclical letter" "Caritas in Veritate."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

67. In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights :stare:. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.

:barf:

Daegus · « **Reply #12 on:** August 25, 2011, 11:38:03 AM »

There is NO WAY Benedict can be Pope because a Papal encyclical cannot err in its teaching. How many encyclicals from true Popes teach error? None. Here's Pope Pius XII's opinion on the matter:

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950[/u]
"It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: “He who heareth you, heareth Me.” (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians."

As you can see, Pope Pius XII makes it unequivocally clear that that encyclical letters are not to be thought of as things that do not demand assent. If Benedict errs in any of his encyclicals in any way, he cannot be considered true Pope. It is impossible for a true Pope to teach error on faith & morals. Doing so would cause the immediate dissipation of his jurisdiction and the loss of his office.

Sigismund · « **Reply #13 on:** August 25, 2011, 09:17:35 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Iuvenalis is right. You can't be a good Catholic if you're involved in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.

At the very least, one would have to be a profoundly ignorant Catholic, who knew nothing of the history of Masonry or the teachings of the Church. If they were Masons, it could hardly be argued that either of them were ignorant of Church teaching or Masonic history.

Sigismund · « **Reply #14 on:** August 25, 2011, 09:20:17 PM »

Quote from: Daegus

There is NO WAY Benedict can be Pope because a Papal encyclical cannot err in its teaching. How many encyclicals from true Popes teach error? None. Here's Pope Pius XII's opinion on the matter:

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950[/u]
"It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: “He who heareth you, heareth Me.” (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians."

As you can see, Pope Pius XII makes it unequivocally clear that that encyclical letters are not to be thought of as things that do not demand assent. If Benedict errs in any of his encyclicals in any way, he cannot be considered true Pope. It is impossible for a true Pope to teach error on faith & morals. Doing so would cause the immediate dissipation of his jurisdiction and the loss of his office.

It seems to me that one could just as cogently argue that Pius XII is saying that something in an Encyclical demands assent because it is there, and that whatever is proclaimed in that manner must be true and be accepted as such.