Several readers have sent this in to me at Ecclesiastical Freemasonry. Many thanks go to them. I post it here without comment – except to say that in a case such as this, the buck stops with the Archbishop.
After a Ghanian MP publicly stated that he was a Catholic and a Freemason, Bishop Joseph Osei-Bonsu went public to clarify the Church’s stance.
The MP, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, said that he hadn’t been sanctioned by the Church and that the President of Ghana is also a Catholic and a Mason. said “Freemasonry is a fraternal society that believes in God Almighty, and follows certain principles that guide a man’s life, and it does not run counter with my beliefs as a Catholic.”
In response, Bishop Osei-Bonsu told the Catholic Standard that it was unfortunate Afenyo-Markin “does not know the teaching of his Church on this matter.” God bless this man!
INTRODUCTION
Many people regard Freemasonry as a benevolent and charitable organization, somehow similar to the Rotary and Lions Clubs, the Knights of Marshall, the Knights of St. John International or the Knights of Columbus. Undoubtedly, it is for this reason that some Catholics join this fraternity.
In recent times, the Member of Parliament for Effutu in the Central Region, Hon. Alexander Afenyo-Markin, on a live radio interview stated that he is a proud member of the Lodge, and his church, the Catholic Church, does not frown on its members joining the Brotherhood. He added, “I am a mason and I have not been sanctioned by the Catholic Church. Freemasonry is a fraternal society that believes in God Almighty and follows certain principles that guide a man’s life and it does not run counter with my beliefs as a Catholic” (https://newsghana.com.gh/is-afenyo-markin-a-true-catholic/)
It is unfortunate that the Honourable Member of Parliament does not know the teaching of his Church on this matter. Contrary to what Honourable Alexander Afenyo Markin believes, Freemasonry is not approved by the Catholic Church. Indeed, Catholics are forbidden to become Freemasons.FREEMASONRY AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
EXCERPTS FROM CAN A CATHOLIC BE A FREEMASON BY MOST REV. JOSEPH OSEI-BONSU BISHOP OF KONONGO-MAMPONG
The Catholic Church has opposed the Lodge nearly since the birth of modern
Freemasonry in 1717. Since the founding of the Grand Lodge of England, eleven
popes have explicitly condemned Freemasonry or Masonic principles. These popes are: Pope Clement XII (28 April 1738); Pope Benedict XIV (18 May, 1751); Pius VII (13 September 1821); Pope Leo XII (13 March 1825); Pope Pius VIII (24 May 1829); Pope Gregory XVI (15 August 1832); Pius IX (between 1846 and 1873); Leo XIII (15 February 1882; 20 April 1884; 1887; 15 October 1890; 18 December 1892; 20 June 1894); Pope Pius IX (1907); Pope Pius X (1907); Pope Pius XI (1924).
A recent condemnation of Freemasonry is contained in the “Declaration on
Masonic Associations” issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 26 November 1983, declared that Masonic principles are irreconcilable with the doctrine of Church, and that Catholic membership in Freemasonry remains forbidden.
The Church’s position is that Freemasonry is a religion in its own right with its own doctrines, which are not compatible with Christian beliefs. For this reason, one
cannot simultaneously be a Christian and be a Freemason. What it teaches about the following cannot be reconciled with Christian beliefs, i.e., God, Christ, the denial of the role of grace and Christ in salvation, morality, its attitude towards the Bible, eschatology, the masonic oaths and the notion of rebirth and enlightenment. For this reason, one cannot simultaneously be a Catholic and a Freemason, just as one cannot be a Catholic and be Muslim, a Hindu, a Shintoist or a practitioner of African Traditional Religion. One will have to make a choice between Catholicism and Freemasonry.
CONCLUSION
Let me conclude by drawing attention to the DECLARATION OF THE GHANA CATHOLIC BISHOPS’ CONFERENCE ON SANCTIONS FOR CATHOLICS WHO JOIN MASONIC ASSOCIATIONS, issued on 7 May 2009. Among other things, it says:
1) Any Catholic who is a member of any Masonic Association and participates in its programmes, or promotes its views, or holds any office therein, and refuses to renounce such membership despite at least one warning (cf. Canon 1347) is to be punished with an interdict (cf. Canon 1347), that is:
a. He is not allowed to receive Holy Communion and other sacraments (cf. Canon 1332).
b. He is prohibited to act as sponsor in Baptism and Confirmation.
c. He is not to be admitted as a member of parish or diocesan structures.
d. He is to be denied funeral rites, unless he shows some signs of repentance before death (Canon 1184 §1, no. 3).
e. Where funeral rites are allowed by the bishop, no Masonic service shall be allowed in the Church or cemetery immediately before or after the Church rites in order to avoid public scandal (cf. Canon 1184, §1, no. 3, and Canon 1374)
Any Catholic who is a convinced member of a Masonic Association and notoriously adheres to the Masonic vision is already considered to have incurred automatic excommunication (cf. Canon 1364). This means that the censures described in Canon 1331 automatically take full effect on this person. According to Canon 1331 §1, an excommunicated person is forbidden:
I. To have any ministerial participation in the celebration of the Eucharist or in any other ceremonies whatsoever of public worship.
II. To celebrate the sacraments and sacramentals and to receive the sacraments.
III. To discharge any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever, or to place acts of governance.
It is possible that some Catholics joined Freemasonry without knowing that it is forbidden to Catholics. Such people are advised to see their priests or their bishops who will assist them to renounce Freemasonry and avoid incurring the sanctions that will be imposed on them if they do not renounce Freemasonry.
Is good old Rome Reports providing some predictive programming?
Protocols surrounding papal resignations have been around since the time of John Paul II, and Pope Bergoglio has made no secret of the possibility that he could resign at some stage. Liberal Catholic media outlets love to throw the cat among the pigeons (usually on slow new weeks) by suggesting that such a resignation is imminent.
The eighty canon lawyers who have gotten together to discuss what a resignation protocol would look like, “theoretically” of course, might be enjoying their all-expense-paid confab, but it does raise the question how it was possible for Pope Benedict to do it all on his own. His resignation was not without controversy, but it was above board and not an eighty-lawyer-job.
Why on earth should anyone want to discuss resignations when it is obvious that an elderly and unwell Pope will not live forever? What DOES Francis have up his sleeve? Is he about to introduce fixed terms for the papacy, as with our political leaders? Is this another step closer to the One World Masonic Humanist religion?
Or is this just another distraction from the main event, like the “restructuring” or the Curia and “cleaning up” of the Vatican finances? Red herrings both, if you ask me.
Stay tuned for more apostasy. When whatever is about to happen happens, there will be no going back.
The Dicastery for the Causes of Saints is running a conference for theologians, scholars, and “communications experts” aimed at redefining what it means to be a saint. Apparently the world has changed so much that what made the saints of old will no longer make the saints of the future.
“Fame of sanctity,” and “heroic virtue” are the sticking points for Rome’s Modernists. So in other words, the defining features of sanctity are going to be excised from the canonisation process, leaving us with garden variety “good people” becoming “saints.”
Bishop Fabio Fabene, Secretary of the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints, tells us that “the challenge is to find ways in which the Church and the world can share a religious and ethical code of ideas and experiences.“
But, My Lord, such a collaboration already exists: I believe it’s called “Freemasonry”.
The banal Cardinal Marcello Semeraro, Prefect of the Dicastery asks, “What is fame today? If we measure it with “likes” then there are many people much more famous than any saint. What do we mean by being heroic in exercising virtue? Is sanctity something muscular?”
Sanctity isn’t measured with ‘likes”, Your Excellency. It is measured with perseverance on the narrow path already trod by Our Saviour.
And just why are today’s prelates so preoccupied with gyms and muscles? See the last sentence below for a clue.
Cardinal Semeraro continues: “Living in today’s world as Christians means responding, which has been the case before. For example, when St. Francis of Assisi sang brother sun, sister moon, sister water, there were not the same problems with pollution that we have today. So there is a different way of addressing the topic, it is not enough to love the water, love nature, birds, today we have different applications.” [Emphasis added. Eye-roll added, as well.]
And if you’d like to know a little more about Marcello Semeraro, a VERY interesting appraisal from a few years ago may be found here. It was around the time he took part in that little “Christian” LGBTI event.
#58. Sanctity of the Church. An Apologetical Principal.
That the Church is holy is a dogma of the Faith, included in the creed, but the theological definition of that holiness is a difficult business. We are not here concerned with canonized holiness, which has indeed varied in style with the centuries: the holiness of Emperor Henry II is markedly different to that of St. John Bosco, as is that of St. Joan of Arc from that of St. Therese of Lisieux. There is furthermore a gap between the heroic virtue of the canonized saint, and the holiness inherent in anybody who is merely in state of grace.
In the Summa Theologica, III,q.8,a.3 ad secundum, and in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, in the section on the creed, it is explained how the sins of the baptized do not prejudice the holiness of the Church, but this remains, nonetheless a complex notion which only a rigorous distinction can render clear. A definite distinction must be drawn between the natural element, and the supernatural element which produces the new creature, between the subjective and the objective element; between the historical element and the suprahistorical element which operates within it.
Firstly, the Church is holy because it is the body which has the God-Man as its head. In union with that head it becomes itself theandric (Relating to, or existing by, the union of divine and human operation in Christ): no profane body can be conceived as living in union with a holy head. Secondly, it is objectively holy because it possesses the Eucharist which is in its very essence the Sacred and the Sanctifier: all the Sacraments derive from the Eucharist. Thirdly, it is holy because it contains revealed truth in an indefectible and infallible way. The fundamental principle of Catholic apologetics must be located here: the Church cannot display, throughout its history, an uninterrupted sequence of activity in perfect conformity with the requirements of the Gospel, but it can point to an uninterrupted teaching of the truth: the holiness of the Church is to be located in the latter not the former.
It follows from this that those who belong to the Church will find themselves preaching a doctrine that is better than their own deeds. No man can preach himself, beset by weakness and failure; he can only re-preach the doctrine taught by the God-Man, or better, preach the person of the God-Man Himself. Thus, truth too is a constituent element in the holiness of the Church, and is forever attached to the Word and forever at odds with corruption, including one’s own.
The holiness of the Church is revealed in what could be called a subjective way in the holiness of its members, that is, in all those that live in grace as vital members of the mystical body. It appears in an obvious and outstanding way in its canonised members, whom grace and their own activity have pushed onwards to the highest levels of virtue. This holiness did not fail, be it noted once again, even in the periods of the greatest corruption of society and among the clergy; an age when the papacy was depraved by pagan influences saw the flourishing of Catherine of Bologna (+1464), Bernadino of Feltre (+1494), Catherine dei Fieschi (+1503), Francis of Paola (+1507), Jeanne de Valois (+1503) as well as many reformers such as Girolamo Savonarola (+1498).
Considerations and facts of this sort, however, do not clear the field of all objections. Paul VI conceded to the Church’s critics the fact that “the history of the Church has many long pages that are not all edifying” but he did not distinguish clearly enough between the objective holiness of the Church and the subjective holiness of its members. In another address, he put it in these terms: “The Church ought to be holy and good, it ought to be as Christ intended and designed it to be and we sometimes see that it is not worthy of the title.”
It would seem that the Pope is turning an objective note of the Church into a subjective one. It is indeed true that Christians ought to be holy, and they are inasmuch as they live in a state of grace, but the Church is holy. It is not Christians that make the Church holy, but the Church that makes them holy. It is also true that the biblical affirmation of the irreproachable holiness of the Church non habentem maculam aut rugam (Having neither spot nor wrinkle: Ephesians 5:27) is applicable to the Church in time only in an initial and partial way, despite the fact that it is indeed holy. All the Fathers take that flawlessness as connected with the final eschatological purification rather than with the Church’s pilgrim state in time.
The following is taken from the book, Trial, Tribulation and Triumph, by Desmond A. Birch, and draws only on Scripture, the saints and the early Church Fathers for its conclusions. In other words, the author doesn’t rely on any contemporary ‘private revelations’ in his book.
Many of you would have come across – or have been sent links by avid grandmothers with lots of time and little discernment – alternate timelines from modern day ‘prophets.’ (This might sound a bit harsh, but really, ladies! You are the matriarchs of your families and need to set a better example. You can’t believe everything you find on the ‘net, you know!) As far as these hypothetical timelines coincide with traditional ones, they can be cautiously accepted. But if they don’t line up with traditional concepts, then they should be rejected.
Note than when the book was written in 1996, the ‘Minor Chastisement’ was seen by the author as a conditional event of the future. Now, 26 years later, there is little doubt that we are on the threshold of that chastisement, and there is practically no doubt that it can be avoided.
…they come from various sources. Some are official teachings of the Church, things which one must absolutely believe as a Catholic. Others are those which are part of the traditional teaching of the Church – but which are not absolutely binding in Faith. Next come those which comprise the majority opinion of the Fathers, Doctors and theologians of the Church, but about which there are some Fathers who disagree. Finally there are items which come strictly from private Catholic prophecy from Church-approved sources.
At some time in the future, the corrupt faithless age we live in now will come to an end either through repentance (immediately followed by an age of peace) – or there will be a chastisement.
In brief:
Ecclesiastical Freemasonry 