Wherefore clad in the sacred vestments of epitrachilion and omophorion, we say, If any man preach unto you any other gospel than that which we have preached unto you, even though an angel from heaven, let him be anathema (Galatians I8:9). As many as are befitting, that pursue after such a diabolical and lawless employment of Freemasonry, and all they that follow unto their infatuation and unto their error, let them be excommuicated and accursed by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. After death, they shall be unpardoned, indissoluble, and bloated. Groaning and trembling, as Cain, shall they be upon the earth (Genesis 4:14). The earth shall cleave and swallow them up, as Dathan and Abiram (Numbers 16:31-32). The wrath of God shall be upon their heads, and their portion together with Judas the betrayer. An angel of the Lord will prosecute them with a flaming sword and, unto their life’s termination, they will not know of progress. Let their works and toil be unblessed and let them become a cloud of dust, as of a summer threshing-floor. And all they indeed that shall abide still unto their wickedness will have such a recompense. But as many as shall go out from the midst of them and shall be separated, and having spat out their abominable heresy, and shall go afar off from their accursed infatuation, such kind shall receive the wagers of the zealot Phineas; rather let them be blesed and forgiven by the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Only unconfused and undivided Trinity, the One God in nature, and by us His servants.” – The Aphorism Against Freemasonry – St. Cyprian, Archbishop of Cyprus, Martyred in defense against the Turks 1821.
It occasionally bears repeating, that Orthodox are forbidden to be freemasons. Period. No, ifs, ands, buts. Not if we understand it in a certain way. Not if it is this or isn’t that. It’s verboten. Among the various acts condemning participation in masonry are:
- THE ACT OF THE CHURCH OF CYPRUS (1815) – contained in the Rudder
- THE ACT OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH ABROAD (1932) – contained in the Rudder
- THE ACT OF THE CHURCH OF GREECE (1933)
- THE ACT OF THE TRUE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF GREECE (1949) – Contained in the Rudder
- THE ACT OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX GREEK CATHOLIC METROPOLIS OF AMERICA (1960) – Now the OCA.
- HOCNA’s PASTORAL ENCYCLICAL
We also know that Patriarch of Constantinople Meletios IV, as well as Athenagoras of unhappy memory were freemasons who brought in truckloads of heresy and apostasy of a kind that fits perfectly into masonry, polluting the communities of orthodox faithful. Subsequent patriarchs in Constantinople and elsewhere would refuse to answer on whether they were masons, but the same heresies and apostasy continues.
Those who persist in masonry and try to claim we misunderstand it, and that it’s compatible with Holy Orthodoxy, fall generally into three categories:
1. First, there are those of lower rank who aren’t familiar with the classic masonic technique of blinds. A blind means that you are told, upon joining, that a certain set of symbols, acts, etc. means a certain thing. At a much higher level, it is explained to you that this was to conceal the truth from the innocent and those who would exploit it, and are given the “true” meaning of the symbols and acts. Then again, at a much higher level (e.g. 33rd degree), you are told again that both the second and first meanings are not the actual meanings, and are given the “real” meanings. This process continues.
2. Second, there are those of higher rank who know it’s incompatible, but view their masonic mission as transcending the requirements of Holy Orthodoxy, or the need to be honest. By the 33rd degree, it is really impossible to escape this category, except by the last method.
3. Lastly, there are those who separate in their minds, the things in which they participate, assent, agree, and perform from what they regard as the self. They can say a creed and not really be involved. They can perform a ritual and not really be engaged. For these people, nothing is truly real or matters deeply. All things are afar off. They are stunted men, semi-men, who do not hold anything as truly sacred, for all their sacred rites.
Masonry is an abomination and anathema to Orthodox Christians. It’s not a subject even open for debate.
Likewise, nationalism is a religion – in form, attitude, and substance. So is ethnocentrism.
Thank you for repeating this. And thanks for citing source material.
A number of years ago I was doing some research on a topic which touched on Freemasonry. So I contacted the webmaster of a Freemasonry site to get an answer from the source.
In so doing, I mentioned that I didn’t know much about Freemasonry as my religion was opposed to it. In his reply, the webmaster asked me to what religion I adhered. When I said “Orthodox” he wrote the following:
“And I should tell you too that I’ve been a guest on a couple of occasions at a lodge in Massachusetts where almost all of the members are Greek Orthodox. Their annual ‘feast’ after their installation of officers is some of the best Greek food I’ve ever eaten. My mouth waters just thinking of it!”
While I am glad he has an appreciation for good food, I was distressed to hear that so many Orthodox do not follow the canons, do not heed the anathemas. Even more distressing is the realization that the errors of these few can lead to the erring of many more – indeed, the webmaster’s aim was to show that there was no barrier to my becoming a Mason.
– V.
.
Yes, the GOA is rife with it, unfortunately. Especially unfortunate since there are plenty of excellent Greek Orthodox who know better and get reflected on badly by it. I suspect it began with Patriarch Meletios IV, a notorious freemason, when he came to the US in exile to organize the GOA out of a mishmash of scattered communities and then when he is suddenly elected Patriarch of Constantinople, he does something never before seen in Orthodoxy; he writes a tomos taking his new jurisdiction, so that the GOA is only ethnically Greek, but actually a Constantinopolitan church to this day. Remember, freemasonry is a universal society w/o concern for boundaries. If you had been a parishioner in those days and the one who came to help you and yours were an avid freemason and drawing upon precisely those resources to help you, you might convert in droves too. May God deliver them from their heresy, and me from mine, and save me by their prayers.
Yes. I have heard also that Meletios IV Mataxakis (reigned 1921-1923) was a Freemason; Athenagoras I (reigned 1948-1972) also.
Unfortunately, I don’t know whether or not to believe these claims. The closest I have come to credible citation was the finding of a comment that a grandmaster had written that Athenagoras was a Mason (Giulano di Bernardo, “Filosofia Della Massoneria”, 1987). No page number was cited. No further substantiation of this claim has been found.
As for Meletios IV, I have found no credible citation of this claim as yet. The notoriety seems to be by rumour only.
While it certainly appears that in philosophy they were more inclusive than exclusive, the former being a Masonic trait and the latter Orthodox, I just feel unhappy about labelling these patriarchs as heretics without proof of the heresy.
Perhaps you can help settle this for me?
– V.
Of course, we distinguish being in heresy from being a heretic – or else, perhaps we fail to distinguish it anymore. 🙂 But Meletius and Athenagoras are often referred to as “of sorry memory” or “unhappy memory” because of their numerous infamous actions, which aren’t a matter of rumor and, as I understand it, they were acknowledged freemasons – they agreed that they were (a question later Patriarchs of Constantinople would cease answering), but perhaps these citations will help:
Orthodox Wiki says: According to a listing of famous Greek Freemasons on the official website of the Grand Lodge of Greece1 (Megali Stoas Tis Ellados), Meletius Metaxakis is listed as a Freemason in the Lodge: “ΑΡΜΟΝΙΑ” (HARMONY):
* “Μελέτιος Β’ (Εμμ. Μεταξάκης) – Αλεξανδρείας και Οικουμενικός Πατριάρχης – ΑΡΜΟΝΙΑ”
(transl. Meletios II (E. Metaxakis) – Alexandria and Ecumenical Patriarch – HARMONY)
In the book of Alexander Zervoudakis entitled “Famous Freemasons” he writes that in the year 1909 when Metaxakis and two other clergymen were visiting Cyprus, (One of these clergymen was metropolitan Basil of Anchialos, an official representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate) all three of them were initiated into the Masonic Lodge.
– “Famous Freemasons,” by Alexander I. Zervoudakis, in the official publication Masonic Bulletin, Number 71, January – February, 1967.
As for Athenagoras:
See the official Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, No 2, where we find full details of his masonic career. Other particulars of his masonry can be found in the masonic journal Pythagore-Equerre, Vol. 4, Part 7, 1935, where his obituary was published. It seems that he was the first Orthodox bishop in history to call for an end to missionary work by the Orthodox Church (Point 10 of his encyclical of 1920).
You may also want to look at the photos here: here. I seem to remember seeing a different photo of Meletius IV in a masonic environment. If I come across it, I’ll post it here.
Hope this helps.
Update to this:
From the Guidelines for Clergy, Compiled under the guidance of the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America:
D. Members of Masonic and Other Secret Fraternal Societies
1. If a parish priest is aware that a member of his flock is a Freemason, he should make it a pastoral
concern to speak privately with the person, showing the incompatibility of Orthodoxy with
Freemasonry.
2. When a communicating member of a parish falls asleep in the Lord and that person is also a
member of one of these societies, the priest will show love and concern for the deceased. In his
counseling of the bereaved family he must not be hostile, but must inform the family that only the
Funeral Service for an Orthodox Christian will be served.
3. Patiently and tactfully, and with discretion, he will state that no words or symbols other than
those of the Orthodox faith can be introduced into the church or the funeral home.
The Church does not intend to control or prohibit others from executing particular rites after the
Funeral Service which may take place after the priest leaves the burial site after committing the
body to the ground.
Well, what can I say to all of this…..Jozef Goebbels was right: if you repeat lies often enough, they become ‘truth’ in the minds of those who cling to them. More ‘expert’ opinions from people who have absolutely no idea about what they are talking about.
Before you go on condemning Freemasonry maybe you should consider a few points. I realize that the subject is not for debate among Orthodox, so I hope that someone who has the maturity and ability to think for themselves will at least consider what I have to say.
I am a 10th degree Freemason in the York Rite, which makes me equal to a 32nd in the Scottish Rite. The reason I chose the York Rite is because the chivalric degrees (8, 9 and 10) are open to those who profess the Christian failth, only. I have always been attracted to the fraternity for reasons of making new friends and for fellowship.
1) As a Greek Orthodox, the final decision came when I discovered that not only the above mentioned Patriarchs were in the Craft, but also the founders of the modern Greek nation: Kolokotronis, Karaiskakis, the Ypsilantis Brothers, Mavrokorthatos and others. In fact, these men bravely stood against, and fought against Ottoman rule when the Orthodox church was urging its followers to remain peaceful and subject themselved to remaining slaves under Ottoman rule and Islamic Law (dhimmitude). Also, the Filiki Eteria was a body largely compsed of Freemasons who were able to secure support from Britain, France and Russia for the Independence of Greece by utterly destroying the Turkish navy. Nice of them Huh? And don’t forget guys such as Lord Byron and Samuel Howe, foreigners who fought along side the true Greek patriots who were – you guessed it – diabolical freemasons.
2) What ever happened to judging people by the fruits of their labors? I am in no way saying that Masonry is perfect, but I find whenever those opposed to it for one reason or another state their usual accusations never seem to recognize the beneficial aims and contributions to society: educations grants, charities, and let’s not forget those diabolical Shriners and their hospitals who treat children for serious burns and orthopedic difficulties without chargin a penny to their parents – free medical trreatment, satan must be alive and well!!!
3) Before you pounce on this post and tell me how uninformed and ignorant I am, you should know that I have moved pretty high in the ranks and can confirm that all this talk about only the higher-ups knowing ther true goals of the organization is a load of nonsense. But I don’t expect you to take my word for it.
The funny thing in any organization who congregates with honorable goals and a true and honest mission to make the world a better place in thier own small way, will always be attacked by mediocrity and treachery. I don’t expect this to change any time soon. I know in my heart who I am and what I believe and this is between myself and God. Besides, didn’t Christ come to Earth to show man the way to Salvation? What did we do? We crucified Him. So who are we, as mere freemasons, to expect any better treatment.
Straw man. What your post doesn’t really account for is that freemasonry is not only forbidden but contrary to our faith. You’re issue-shifting – the assertion was merely the fact that Orthodoxy forbids this. This is not altered by who violated the consensus on this, or what nice things they’ve done.
There are some wonderfully charitable Muslims out there, and a host of very pious and socially conscious Protestants. But they are not what we are, and it is forbidden to pray with them, to commune with them, to admit them to commune, and so on. The fact that these are among the acts of various Freemasons who were Orthodox does not change the fact.
Well, my point is this. I have been raised an Orthodox Christian and as a Freemason I have found absolutely no reason to believe that Freemasonry has in it anything that conflicts with or contradicts anything in Christianity. If this had been the case, I would have abandoned Freemasonry a long time ago. I will say it again, this accusation that Freemasonry and Christianity are incompatible is, at least for me, a nonsensical argument. Freemasonry does not teach any kind of doctrine of salvation nor does it give instruction on how and whom to worship. The whole incompatability issue is nonsensical, because Freemasonry does not seek to supplant an individuals faith. In fact, one of its ancient landmarks is to venerate the right, the freedom of each individual to observe the faith of his choice.
What I have encountered as opinions from the Orthodox side regarding Freemasonry are simply wrong and untrue. I guess I am a little upset because I usually hear such rants from Protestant Evangelicals and I expected a bit more intellectual integrity from Orthodoxy.
Oh, your point was understood the first time. It just doesn’t leave much room for comment, since of course in Holy Orthodoxy it really doesn’t matter what you or I have found in our experience to be ok or not ok. If we were Protestant, such things would be worth considering. It’s like when someone says, “Well I’m Orthodox and I just feel… or I just think… (fill in whatever aspect of the dominant culture he or she is advocating), Orthodox people can have no response to this. The question for a Protestant is “is such and such true”; the question for Orthodox is “what has the Church said?” Very different spiritual psychology. It is worth noting that the same heterodox spiritual psychology is widely attributed to freemasonry; perhaps that’s what you’re experiencing internally.
As far as calling things nonsensical, your argument is not with me but with the holy hierarchs of the Church, including fathers and saints, indeed with the consensus of all fathers who have commented on this. In short, your argument is not with me at all, but with the Church. I refer you to them. I will ask you to be a bit more circumspect about what you say about their thinking and words, since it is not their thinking and words alone, but the very mind of Christ. Without this, one may be “Orthodox” canonically, but certainly not psychologically, intellectually, or rhetorically. Keep in mind, that one who speaks against the holy and venerable canons speaks against salvation itself, and comes close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
First of all, I am not arguing with you or anyone else. I am trying to have an intelligent conversation… I assume that people are free to expres their opinions as long as they do so respectfully. Again, my assumption.
Secondly, refering me to the Church, as in the institution, seems a bit of a cop out to me. Didn’t Christ Himself teach that all believers compose His Body, His Church?
Thirdly, as per your previous comment, would you please refer me to which of the Saints, specifically, spoke specifically regarding Freemasonry?
Finally: this is where you and especially I diverge in opinion. I cannot agree with the notion that a mere mortal man, even clergy, with the very same faults, weaknesses and struggles we all have can for a moment assume that his mind is equal to the Mind of Christ. That to me this is arrogant and blasphemy. I have never encountered any such sentiments in the writings of the desert fathers in the Philokalia. In fact, their writings are replete with their frailties, struggles and inadequacies before God, continually humbling themselves in an ascetic way of life. I have no problem respecting the authority of Church leaders and officers as community and spiritual leaders. But when people begin to equate these individuals with God, this becomes problematic and dangerous. We are all equal before God, because we are all created by Him as we will each answer to Him individually when we give an account of our lives. If I kiss a priest’s hand, I do so out of respect, not veneration.
I apologize if anything I have written has offended any of you. This is not my intention. I am also not trying to attack or undermine your faith. I would like to congratulate you on your answers and that you didn’t become vulgar towards me as I have encountered by evangelicals in the past. I am very proud of my Orthodox heritage and will forever remain committed so. Let mortal men condemn me all they want. God knows where my heart is.
I wish you all good health, prosperity in your affairs, a Happy Easter and a joyous Ressurection Feast.
XPICTOC ANECTI
refering me to the Church, as in the institution, seems a bit of a cop out to me. Didn’t Christ Himself teach that all believers compose His Body, His Church?
No. But I’m not here to debate ecclesiology with you. Again, I can clarify Orthodox ecclesiology, if you need, but you’re suggesting that you and I decide on or agree on or theorize about an ecclesiology, based on a personal reading of scriptures apart from the context of those who wrote them, namely the Orthodox, and that is a Protestant enterprise and not an Orthodox one. Orthodox teaching on this is quite clear. There is one Church, and it is the Orthodox Church; there is no other.
You seem not to have understood when I told you that it is appropriate for the Orthodox not so much to be coy with questions of “Is the Church correct?” but rather to ask “What has the Church said?” We are not building a modular Faith out of our various opinions, we are understanding the Faith delivered to the Saints once for all. You seem to be confusing Holy Orthodoxy with some brand of Protestantism. You keep inviting me to cease to be Orthodox in epistemic method by entering into some kind of defense of or justification of the Church, rather than simply clarifying her teaching for you, and this invites a firmness in response. The Church needs no justification or external defense. There is no external criteria by which to judge Her. Truth is its own justification and defense, and so I must refuse to engage you in a debate over whether we are correct, as though there were an external frame of reference, in clear denial of our own epistemic doctrines; I have no need of such a line of inquiry; if you need clarification of what the Church says, I will endeavour to provide it, but that is all I will be able to do for you.
would you please refer me to which of the Saints, specifically, spoke specifically regarding Freemasonry?
Please scroll up to the top of this post and read the quotation you find there. For others, I’m afraid you’ll have to rely on your own research.
Finally: this is where you and especially I diverge in opinion. I cannot agree with the notion that a mere mortal man, even clergy, with the very same faults, weaknesses and struggles we all have can for a moment assume that his mind is equal to the Mind of Christ. That to me this is arrogant and blasphemy.
Again, you and I are not disagreeing, and I am not offering you any of my opinions on the subject. Rather, you are disagreeing with the Church, and I have provided you with her already quite clear judgments on the matter.
You seem to have walked into a place without realizing what it is you were walking into. I’m Orthodox; I’m not here to enter into some kind of process with you of deciding what’s true, and it’s inappropriate of you to ask me to. You and I have no bearing on these matters. It’s like you’ve gone to a gathering of Mormons and just can’t seem to understand why no one will try your coffee. This is not a home of evangelical thought which, though you presume to critique, you evidence more than Orthodox thinking. I’m sure any number of their blogs will jump on a discussion like you want, but again, did you not know what you were walking into here? This is not that, I am not them, and this discussion will simply not be able to be reshaped into that kind of conversation.
Let me try to give you another example. If you said, “I’ve been practicing astrology for some years, and I just don’t see anything wrong with it.” I would respond with silence. After all, what does your seeing or not seeing have to do with it; you already are aware of what Orthodoxy says about it. If you began then trying to debate the Church’s statements on the subject, I would un-invite myself. After all, your argument is not with me, but with Her. If you were to insist then that I am somehow involved and my opinion is demanded, needed, integral, or what have you, I would quite firmly repudiate this thought, and try to explain to you that I’m not Protestant, that Orthodoxy is most certainly not Protestantism, and you seem to want the impossible. Then I would try politely to suggest that you take the discussion elsewhere and leave me be, since I desire to keep the True Faith, and these other things are only pointlessly distracting, and benefit neither of us.
I have never encountered any such sentiments in the writings of the desert fathers in the Philokalia. In fact, their writings are replete with their frailties, struggles and inadequacies before God, continually humbling themselves in an ascetic way of life.
All Orthodox hold that the seven councils are infallible, including the desert fathers and all ascetics of our Faith. In fact, the moment any among us would think otherwise, he has excommunicated himself and, if he is clergy, deposed himself. We also hold that the truth is in the consensus patrum, that the Holy Spirit was promised to us in exactly this way, and that doctrine does not develop, but is only illumined, after having been given to the Apostles whole and undefiled. We were not promised that the Church would be led into all truth if it consults you or I. I’m sorry your research hasn’t led you to realize this is Orthodox teaching: For example:
It is actually quite easy to find these references, but of course one must be reading with an Orthodox mind and an Orthodox hermeneutic or such reading is pointless in the first place. We are certainly not interested in novel interpretations of such things. And likewise, we do not, as did Marcion, decide we will choose which fathers to listen to based on the fact they didn’t say something we don’t want to here. Such things are beneath men with a modicum of intelligence and integrity. Not to mention perception, since that is to construct an idol, even if it’s not made of wood. We do no treat the fathers the way scholastics treat philosophers. Again, this is not that.
I have no problem respecting the authority of Church leaders and officers as community and spiritual leaders. But when people begin to equate these individuals with God, this becomes problematic and dangerous.
Straw man fallacy. I’m not going to play that game. You’ve done it more than once, and I let it go. While it may work on other people, you seem to have a habit of underestimating intellectual opponents, which likewise I’ve let go more than once.
We are all equal before God, because we are all created by Him as we will each answer to Him individually when we give an account of our lives. If I kiss a priest’s hand, I do so out of respect, not veneration.
These are not Orthodox ideas, but Protestant and masonic ideas. The Orthodox venerate all priests, just as we venerate all Orthodox Churches, icons, the Orthodox reposed, the holy items, and so on – and we do not believe that any person can be equal to another – that is based on heterodox anthropology, namely, again, Protestant and masonic thinking. You seem to have failed to considered that your hermeneutic begs the question, so that you argue, actually, with yourself. You begin with premises and assumptions that are masonic, and by means of them you come to conclusions that support freemasonry.
What you believe (or not), observe, practice, accept, or think really has no bearing on Holy Orthodoxy, no real relevance; otherwise, frankly, we’d have to have carried you around with us for millenia, asking you what you think, consulting your ideas, considering your assumptions, mulling over your perceptions. Ironically, you claim not to elevate an individual to god-like status, but here you are playing holy spirit. Like all Protestant religious psychologies, yours is based on claiming no one person is infallible but still treating your own ideas as if they must be taken into account. Again, this is not the Orthodox way.
I can only say to you what the Orthodox Patriarchs said to the Non-Jurors, when they wrote wishing to wrangle about their various ideas. Please do not trouble us any longer with these opinions. How could they possibly be of interest to us? If we were Protestant, we would be forming various opinions, trying to decide what to think, debating various conclusions, etc. Because we are Orthodox, we have only to understand what our fathers teach, and we have no need of these deliberations. Certainly we could not join in them.
Orthodox teaching on freemasonry is clear. Even if I adopted your views, which is quite impossible, you and I would have no effect on Orthodox teaching. The only effect would be on my own mind, as it ceased to be Orthodox. And since I do not wish anything else than the venerable Faith – the one True Faith, the Only Faith, you certainly won’t find any fellowship in masonry here.
I am well aware of various people who while members of Orthodox Churches are engaged in illicit fraternal associations, illicit affairs, illicit financial behavior, and any number of other things. Certainly even an elementary grasp of logic will not try to translate this into the claim that some x do y, therefore y is x behavior. That would yield: Some lawmakers steal, therefore stealing is legal, and a host of other amusing claims (though you see the point).
Don’t confuse the firmness with which I must respond to have anything to do with feelings about you personally, and so on. Naturally, this isn’t about that. The same is true when you’re implementing fallacies which, though you may not mean them to be, are dishonest. A fallacy is always a form of dishonesty, and either (if it was intentional) it needs to be exposed or (if it was unintentional), it needs to be exposed to you, so you can think more clearly. Being nice to it is not going to help.
As it is, you’ve made it clear that your goal is not the same as ours, so we can see no profit in conversation.
Fair enough. No profit in this conversation at all, not that I was seeking any ‘profit’ in the first place. And please don’t make any assumptions about what my intentions are with regard to my wanting to convert your thought or turn you towards my way of thinking. I never asked any such thing of you in any way.
So much for dialogue.
Take care.
To the Fathers of the Church, Greek meant pagan. The Christians called themselves Romans, not Greeks. Socrates and Aristotle were not the ancestors of the Orthodox–no, it was the Cappadocian Fathers and other Christian philosophers.
The Freemasons like Korais who tried to recreate “Ancient Greece” and succeeded in making people believe they had something in common with “Ancient Greece” and were not actually Orthodox Romans fought against the Turks and as a result created a secular humanist country where less than 10% of people go to Church, pornography is rampant, and abortion rates are much higher than the USA. Great job, Masons. Right.
I was surprised with the answers and questions posted by Bill. It seems that like most of my fellow Greeks, True Orthodoxy has been lost, and mixed with protestantic ideas. It is almost impossible to converse with one who believes has been raised orthodox while in reality has not. Believe me I know. I thought the same. But realized that this was not the case which was not easy (it could be the old sin of Greek pride). In the end, who does not listen to the Church and the teaching of the Fathers, is simply not Orthodox, not matter what he says. As far as Massons, it is what it is. Orthodox simply follow the teachings of the Church and we cannot be part into this eucoumenical organization.
Yes, I think by “raised Orthodox” he simply means he had some childhood experiences with the Orthodox Church and assumes, because he’s Greek, that he was “raised Orthodox”. And likewise, if he was once received he can, in today’s laughably lax environment, show up and receive the Mysteries by virtue of those things alone. He seems to have no cognition of what the Orthodox Church actually teaches about raising one in the Orthodox Faith, let alone continuing to exist within it. He seems unaware that the Lord says many who are within the Church will perish utterly.
Other people, of course, have gone to Church on a more or less regular basis, were born in a formerly Orthodox nation (there just aren’t any left, in my opinion, that still are), and so consider themselves to have been “raised Orthdoox”. What they’ve failed to realize is that the “Orthodoxy” they’ve experienced is a post-Communist deconstructed one, a Westernized/Latinized/Protestantized one. It isn’t the ways of their grandfathers’ grandfathers.
And of course, compared to the hyper-Westernized/Latinized/Protestantized versions of “Orthodoxy” one sees in the US and much of the West, if not especially among their brethren here, one can see why they might assume their experience is the traditional one.
But of course, the deconstruction of Orthodox communities globally should be no surprise, nor that those participating in them are unaware of what’s been happening.
There’s nothing fundamentally different from an Orthodox person standing up and saying he’s a freemason and expecting to be accepted as Orthodox and an Episcopalian priest announcing he’s in a gay relationship and plans to continue serving. It’s really the same atmosphere, with just the details changed. Sure, they’re farther along in the slide down into the pit, but remember one of our sayings when we see our brother sinning: “him today, me tomorrow”.
We have one advantage. We have the True Faith, (where they do not). Our Faith can save us (where their Faith cannot save them). And so indeed, we have the bizarre phenomenon of people fleeing to us from their sinking ship, which was made to sink, while we poke holes in our ship, which was made to be unsinkable, apparently intending to drown ourselves along with all the new converts.
One is more a sickness; the other is more a massacre. God save us.
one more problem: Romania’s patriarch Daniel Ciobotea is believed to be a mason. He never declared that but he never denied it, even dough he knows that many believe that he is because of his deep implication in the ecumenism.
Good Tidings Everyone!
I suppose we must ask ourselves the fundamental question, as both human beings and Orthodox patrons. Why would a sect such as the masons if so harmless and in unity with Christ create degree’s of seperation furthermore level’s such Grand Master’s, 33 degree(high ranking Mason) and so forth. Why the lact of transparency? I know of people who have attempted to attend a Freemason’s meeting and were forcefully ushered away. Stating these meetings are private and not for “general public participation”.
I welcome open conversation for it is in free dialogue that we gain understanding. It is in learning that we grow and in hope that we flourish. But is from my own COPIOUS research of which I have continously uncovered the direct connection between Masonry and Luciferian worship. As to Bill I am unsure of what “rank” or level of a mason you are, so it very well be that you have yet to be exposed to the darker side of freemasonry. I encourage you to explore deeply the truth surrounding the answers–you seem like a very intelligent individual with a thirst for knowledge.
In regards to the lack of transparency in Freemasonry which is adimittedly true. I quote…
Matthew 10:27
“What I tell you in darkness, that speak you in light: and what you hear in the ear, that preach you on the housetops.”
Peace and hope by with you all!
Below are quotes written by varifiable high level Masons praising Lucifer,
‘The Mysteries Of Magic’ by Eliphas Levi
“What is more absurd and more impious than to attribute the name of Lucifer to the devil, that is, to personified evil. The intellectual Lucifer is the spirit of intelligence and love; it is the paraclete, it is the Holy Spirit, while the physical Lucifer is the great agent of universal magnetism.” page 428
‘The Book Of Black Magic’ by Arthur Edward Waite 33°
“First Conjuration Addressed to Emperor Lucifer. Emperor Lucifer, Master and Prince of Rebellious Spirits, I adjure thee to leave thine abode, in what-ever quarter of the world it may be situated and come hither to communicate with me. I command and I conjure thee in the Name of the Mighty Living God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, to appear without noise and without ….” page 244
‘The Secret Teaching Of All Ages’ by Manly Palmer Hall 33°
“I hereby promise the Great Spirit Lucifuge, Prince of Demons, that each year I will bring unto him a human soul to do with as as it may please him, and in return Lucifuge promises to bestow upon me the treasures of the earth and fulfil my every desire for the length of my natural life. If I fail to bring him each year the offering specified above, then my own soul shall be forfeit to him. Signed…..
{ Invocant signs pact with his own blood } ” page CIV
‘The Lost Keys Of Freemasonry’ by Manly Palmer Hall 33°
“When The Mason learns that the Key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the Mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply this energy.” page 48
Just an observation,
It is stated here that “the Church” says Freemasonry is incompatible with the Orthodox Faith. All I have read is that the Church of Greece, the Russian Church outside of Russia and a schismatic “Old Calender” Church have pronounced against it. When did they speak for the whole Orthodox Church? I thought that either an Ecumenical Council or the whole Church, ( GOA, Serb, Jerusalem, Antiochian, Georgian, Alexandrian, etc.) had to agree for the purposes of proclaiming dogma. A number of the Autocephelous churches have not recognized the OCA, does that mean that the OCA is not a self-governing church? Of course not. No single jurisdiction, nor several, can speak authoritativly for the whole Orthodox Church.
Actually, your misconception is a heterodox one. It is not Orthodox thinking that one only speaks for the whole Church in ecumenical council. Did Christ speak for the whole Church? Did Moses? Did St. John Chrysostom in the liturgy? Did St. Seraphim when he said, “acquire a peaceful spirit and thousands will be saved”? Sometimes local churches speak for us all and sometimes they don’t. It’s not a categorical thing that you can simply put in this box or that. And if you ask, “then how do we know?” – I would say that you have to be Orthodox to know, and becoming Orthodox through and through. And then you know. And if you’re confused one way or another, you seek the guidance of your father confessor, but you don’t confuse subject and object as if the Faith waits for you or for I to know what it is in order for it to be what it is.
But to say that freemasonry is incompatible and forbidden is no different than to say sorcery or paganism is incompatible or forbidden. Did the Church ever have to pronounce against anger, formally? Did it need to? Your claim that no single jurisdiction (or by implication even a single individual) can speak authoritatively for the whole Church is one fundamentally at variance with reality. Remember St. Mark of Ephesus. Or many of the prophets, when they spoke alone. And they were not thought of so highly in their day. But the Church is the Church because they spoke, though alone.
When all the Churches spoke out against the war against Serbia, was it as if they had not spoken, because one or two bishops abstained, or because they did not convene a council?
If the OCA were to condemn torture, would that make torture less heinous because no other Church were so bold?
Frankly, your “observation” isn’t that – a mere observation, so let’s not play games. It’s a jibe against what you see as a weakness in an argument that you didn’t have the courage to explicitly approach. And frankly, this is likely in part because the argument, made explicit, cannot stand.
This thread has been here a long time. Do leave it in peace, untroubled by these attempts to make large points by making no points.
Thank you for your response. This was the first, and will be the last time that I post. Yes, I am a Freemason. and a Christian. I will happily leave this thread in peace. When someone has made up there mind, ” Period, no if’s ands or buts”, it seems to me there was no purpose in starting it in the first place. Why have an option available to leave comments if no discussion is tolerated?
Peace be with you
Discussion is tolerated. It’s simply a waste of time when it’s not honest discussion. And it’s a waste of time when it’s an attempt to “come to the truth” as if the Church didn’t already possess the truth. The Church is not “making up her mind” – her mind is the mind of Christ. It’s a fundamentally Protestant (and masonic) notion that, through discussion, we will somehow arrive at individual religious opinions and then follow them.
You did realize this blog is run by Orthodox persons? We don’t do that. Your opinion is of no consequence, and neither is mine. What have either to do with anything if they are at variance with the Church? Again, we are not Protestants.
And as for being Christian, there is a sense in which Orthodoxy isn’t Christian at all, if what is commonly meant by Christianity is Christian. Whatever we are, we are not that. And if what we are is Christian, there is a sense in which no other “Christians” may rightly be called Christians. Otherwise, they would follow Christ in his Church, which is One and inviolable.
On most lips, the word Christian is a synonym, in other words, for Protestant or for what Protestantism considers Christianity. It’s begging the question. Whatever that is, Christian or not, I am not that. So to say that you are a Freemason and Christian is, to me, to say you are two things that have nothing to do with me or with Orthodoxy.
There are many venues out there will people indulge in religious philosophy – arriving at “the truth” by discussion and personal opinion. This is just not one of them. Oh, you will find opinions here, but they are not opinions that presume to vary from our tradition.
The fundamental error you’ve made, besides these, is that you describe religious ideas in terms of propositions. As a child of mine has recently observed, Orthodox doctrine is a description of deification by those who are being deified. To see it as a set of philosophical principles, somehow detached from that, is to fail utterly to grasp the meaning of Christianity (and I use that term to mean Orthodoxy).
And if we are right about that, then all other “forms of Christianity” which presume to be what we are, are alien, foreign, and as far from being related to Orthodoxy as is Islam or Zoroastrianism or Mormonism.