+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Piazza (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Other Religions (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=20)
+--- Thread: beginnings of Freemasonry (/showthread.php?tid=48076)
Re: beginnings of Freemasonry - drummerboy - 10-12-2011
(10-12-2011, 12:17 AM)LoneWolfRadTrad Wrote:(10-12-2011, 12:05 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:(10-11-2011, 11:58 PM)LoneWolfRadTrad Wrote: Lies they told. Like I said, maybe some of their founding members were DESCENDANTS of Templars, but to say the Templars were Masons is an outright lie, given that the Templar Order was disbanded.
Actually, if you read the history of the Order, it's true that they were disbanded, but how it was done varied from country to country and a lot of Templars 'disappeared'. There is no historical impossibility with the idea that the remnants of the order were instrumental in the formation of modern Masonry.
I know.
But what I'm saying is: The Order of the Templars did not become Freemasonry, because the order was disbanded. The Knights themselves probably went off and formed MANY organizations of varying types, but you don't see those organizations claiming to be Templars or that the Templars were really the organization they are a part of.
The time gap between the Templars being disbanded in 1312 and Freemasonry being founded in the 1500's leaves room for DESCENDANTS of the Knights, not the Knights themselves.
The Freemasons claim the two organizations are one in the same, but this isn't possible given that one of them didn't exist anymore, even if it's members did exist.
What I'm saying: one organization does not get to claim it is another organization because it scooped up some of it's membership.
I don't know if I'm coming across clearly.
To quote Def Leperd: You got it , but are you getting it? :pazzo:
Just kidding around. Yes I understand what you're saying, I just thought my comment was interesting.
Re: beginnings of Freemasonry - DeWayne - 10-12-2011
Again, the book is “Dissipation of the Darkness – The Origin of Masonry.” Here is a direct link to the book for those interested.
http://heygeorge5.tripod.com/index.html (entire book by G.S. Lawrence)
Re: beginnings of Freemasonry - Parmandur - 10-28-2011
Dr. William Tighe shared this on Father Z's blog once:
"As a pedantic footnote, or aside, may I recommend the best scholarly book on the history of Freemasonry? It is David Stevenson’s *The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland’s Century, 1590-1710* which was published by Cambridge University Press in 1988, with paperback reprints in 1990 and 2005. It demonstrates that “masonry,” as anything other than an association of masons, developled at the Scottish Royal Court in the 1590s under the aegis of James VI’s Master Mason, James Shaw; and that until the 1640s, after James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne in 1603, it functioned as a kind of “Scotsman’s Club” at and around the Royal Court in London." http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/01/quaeritur-masons-in-the-sanctuary-aiyeeee/
The book is here: http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Freemasonry-Scotlands-Century-1590/dp/0521396549
Re: beginnings of Freemasonry - Parmandur - 10-28-2011
So, basically, bored Presbyterians making up ceremonies to make up for their lackluster religious life, the Templar stuff was pretty much Hospitlar envy (The Knights of Malta absorbed most of the Templars after they were disbanded, and are still around. A much older society, indeed.). The occultism they picked up where they could. Certainly it is not a thousands of years old anti-Church.