Church of England

Freemasons at Canterbury Cathedral: the hidden Masonic ritual in the Order of Service

Further to considerations of simony, syncretism and sacred service in the Tercentenary of English Freemasonry to be hosted by Canterbury Cathedral on Saturday 18th February, published below is the Order of Service for that celebration. It is secret (or was). It arrived by magic (not black), but is being made public in the interests of openness and transparency: there’s nothing worse for feeding occultic hysteria than the mystery and secrecy of “Cathedral closed.. for a private service”, when the means of that ‘private’ and the content of that ‘service’ are causes of spiritual tension, if not theological contention.

Since we know (courtesy of the West Kent Masons) that:

The Service has been prepared in conjunction with the Dean of Canterbury Cathedral, the Very Reverend Dr Robert Willis, who has kindly agreed to deliver the Sermon on this occasion. We shall be joined by several of the High Rulers in the Craft and the Holy Royal Arch Chapter together with Brethren from the Provinces of East Kent, West Kent, Surrey and Sussex.

..it will come as a relief to note that there no invocation of Jahbulon, no perambulation around the points of a compass toward enlightenment, and nowhere is the congregation asked to sing ‘Praise, my soul, the King of heaven’ with a rolled-up trouser leg and a noose around their necks. Indeed (for those who quantify these things), Jesus is mentioned eight times, Christ 10 times; the Holy Trinity is lauded “To Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”, and God is “our rock and salvation”.

Freemasons1Freemasons2Freemasons3Freemasons4Freemasons5Freemasons6Freemasons7Freemasons8Freemasons9Freemasons10

We can’t know what the Dean will say in his sermon (which is unlikely to be made public) but, on the face of it, this is a wholesome Anglican service of orthodox Christian liturgy.

But here’s the interesting thing..

The scriptures chosen have greater significance (and a very different meaning) to Freemasons than they do to (other) Christians. Indeed, they are used at the highest degree of Masonic initiation in their rituals of exaltation.

Psalm 48

Note the reference to the north-side of Sion, which is the dwelling place of God (cf Ezek 1:4; Isa 14:12-14). According to William Schnoebelen (Masonry: Beyond the Light) the North side of a Grand Lodge is the place of darkness, or “benightedness and ignorance“. It is whence a new recruit enters (see Masonic Temple layout), blindfolded. The second section of the University of Bradford’s ‘Web of Hiram‘ (cf 2Chron 2:1-9) observes that he is introduced as one who is in darkness:

Mr A.B., a poor Candidate in a state of darkness who has been well and worthily recommended, regularly proposed and approved in open Lodge, and now comes of his own free will and accord, properly prepared, humbly soliciting to be admitted to the mysteries and privileges of Free­masonry .

He is then perambulated in a clockwise direction around the Temple, from the darkness of the North toward the light. The psalmist’s ‘Walk about Sion‘ is linked to this rotation. Thus is the north-side, the city of the great King, presented as the place of darkness, from which the candidate moves toward true enlightenment about the nature of the “Almighty Father and Supreme Governor of the Universe” (and note the third prayer led by the Archdeacon begins ‘O Lord our Governor’, a very particular translation of Psalm 8 drawn from the BCP 1689).

2 Chronicles 2:1-9

King Solomon and King Huram are highly significant figures in Freemasonry: they are the original Grand Masters, along with Hiram Abiff, the Master Mason whose skills were dedicated to the construction of Solomon’s Temple (and so the continuing ‘enlightenment’ aspects of Masonic ritual). Again, from the University of Bradford’s ‘Web of Hiram‘ (fourth section):

..The three great pillars supporting a Freemason’s Lodge are emblematic of those Divine attributes, and further represent Solomon King of Israel, Hiram, King of Tyre and Hiram Abif.

Q – Why those three great personages?

A – Solomon King of Israel for his wisdom in building, completing, and dedicating the Temple at Jerusalem to God’s service; Hiram King of Tyre for his strength in supporting him with men and materials; and Hiram Abif for his curious and masterly workmanship in beautifying and adorning the same.

A possible etymology of the name Hiram Abif has been observed:

The characters, King Solomon, Hiram – the King of Tyre and Hiram Abiff are all taken from the Scriptural account of the temple building. King Solomon and Hiram King of Tyre are mentioned many times in the Scriptures, such as in 1 Kings 5. About the closest the Scriptures come to Hiram Abiff is Huram-Abi which is found in 2 Chronicles 2:13 in the NAS and NIV translations. Huram is a variant of Hiram. In the KJV translation of the verse, the name Hiram is found. The KJV uses both Huram (2 Chron 2:3) and Hiram (1 Kings 5) to identify Hiram the King of Tyre. The KJV translation of 2 Chron 2:13 does not contain -abi, but rather “Huram my father’s.” The Hebrew word from which the KJV “father’s” was translated is “‘ab,” according to the Hebrew Dictionary found in Strong’s Concordance. Strong’s entry for the word ‘ab (H1) indicates that it can also mean father-less, as the son of a widow would be. The entry for H1 also mentions “Abi-.” Studying the various translations along with a Hebrew dictionary allows us to see how Freemasonry may have settled on the name Hiram Abi-ff, also sometimes spelled Abif.

There’s a lot of other stuff all over the internet on the legend and drama of Hirem Abif(f), but the provenance isn’t always clear. It is sufficient for the purposes of this post to note that the inclusion of the 2 Chronicles account is an allusion to the “Divine attributes” of the Solomon-Huram-Hiram trinity, who represent  “Wisdom, Strength, and Beauty”, represented and celebrated in the classical orders: Ionic, Doric, and Corinthian (hence the Freemasons’ sponsorship of apprentice stonemasons).

1 Corinthians 3:10-17

Note the reference to the skilled master builder who laid the foundation of God’s temple. Masonic ritual refers to the cornerstone in the North-East corner of the Temple. Again, from the ‘Web of Hiram‘ (third section):

It is customary at the erection of all stately and superb edifices to lay the first or foundation stone at the North East corner of the building; you, being newly admitted into Masonry, are placed at the North East part of the Lodge, figuratively to represent that stone: and from the foundation laid this evening may you raise a superstructure perfect in its parts and honourable to the builder.

The Christian cornerstone (Christ) is supplanted by the Masonic cornerstone of enlightenment. It is further stated that the Lodge stands on “Holy Ground”, so consecrated “On account of three grand offerings thereon made, which met with Divine approbation”:

First, the ready compliance of Abraham with the will of God in not refusing to offer up his son Isaac as a burnt sacrifice, when it pleased the Almighty to substitute a more agreeable victim in his stead. Secondly, the many pious prayers and ejaculations of King David, which actually appeased the wrath of God, and stayed a pestilence which then raged among his people, owing to his inadvertently having had them numbered. And thirdly, the many thanksgivings, oblations. burnt sacrifices, and costly offerings which Solomon, King of Israel, made at the completion, dedication, and consecration of the Temple at Jerusalem to God’s service. Those three did then, do now, and I trust ever will render the ground of Freemasonry holy.

There is much to be found about the North-East corner also being the place of the grave where (at the third level) the Mason dies and is then resurrected. This Masonic ritual supplants the Resurrection of Christ with a spiritual resurrection of enlightenment that happens where the cornerstone is, replacing one cornerstone (Jesus) with another (Masonic enlightenment). From the seventh section of the ‘Web of Hiram’:

Q – What do you learn by being a Free and Accepted Mason?

A – Secrecy, Morality, and Good Fellowship.

There’s nothing wrong with morality and good fellowship: these are virtuous Christian pursuits. But we might well ask the Dean of Canterbury Cathedral why so much of this Order of Service is steeped in covert references to Masonic ritual, with twisted scriptural interpretations known only (now not quite) to the initiated? Why the secret syncretism?

  • Maalaistollo

    Nice music, though.

  • Shadrach Fire

    Your Grace,
    I am sorry for you that you went to so much effort and research for what? Banality and fruitless words of wisdom I fear. There must be other more worthy subjects to research and write about!

    • Anton

      The more that the true light is shone on the false light the better. There is no room for freemasonry in the church of Jesus Christ. Remember who is subtle as a serpent.

      • Dominic Stockford

        When the minarets and steeples of falsehood are torn down we will be left with only the truth to cast our eyes upon.

  • Vox Populi

    Do I sense a note of desperation? Welby’s PR brigade coming to his rescue? A thoughtful response from the Revd Dr Gavin Ashenden on Anglican Unscripted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CQNyswdZZQ

  • ChaucerChronicle

    Your Grace

    This second article has not moved the debate from its critics’ moorings.

    The elite are no longer the gatekeepers of knowledge.

    It began with Guttenberg and the printing press and moved on to free public libraries, post, phone, fax and email.

    We seem to have arrived at a moment in time where the layman in the pew has more resolute commitment to defending God’s word than the clerical elite. Throwing a few more morsels to feed the sharks will not cut it. Michael Gove advised you all: we have ceased to believe what the experts tell us – our reference-points are God’s word and orthodox doctrine (without those we are like Jonah tossed overboard in the sea of opinion).

    Many of us love the Church of England through Jesus, not through the winding meditations of via media. We long for our clerics to return to the Faith; our pastors to shepherd us to green pastures and still quiet waters; our bishops to rebuke and encourage us in the Faith. We ask for bread, manna from Heaven, and all we get is stones thrown through stained-glass windows showering us with fragments of what is left of the Faith.

  • This Masonic ritual supplants the Resurrection of Christ with a spiritual resurrection of enlightenment

    The website Ex-Masons for Jesus comments that ‘Masonic ritual substitutes imitation for faith and Hiram Abiff for Jesus Christ.’

    BTW, impressive detective work, Your Grace.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Good site that, explains things simply and well.

  • The Explorer

    The Enlightenment saw itself as freeing the world from the darkness of religious belief. Masonry was a child of the Enlightenment, that in freeing itself from traditional religion shrouded itself in new religious symbolism in order to do so.

    I was interested in HG’s examples of how, in this order of service, Christ is superseded/supplanted by Masonic Enlightenment: north, cornerstone, resurrection. I had completely missed all these in my own initial reading.

  • Why have a service in the Cathedral exclusively for Freemasons to honour their tercentenary?

    “But we might well ask the Dean of Canterbury Cathedral why so much of this Order of Service is steeped in covert references to Masonic ritual, with twisted scriptural interpretations known only (now not quite) to the initiated? Why the secret syncretism?”

    An interesting question. Perhaps some wag will record the sermon by the Dean, Dr Robert Willis.

    • Anton

      I look forward to it on YouTube next week.

  • The Explorer

    Maybe I’m being dense, but in Freemasons’ Hall the Masons have a purpose-built environment reflecting all their symbolism. Why not hold their tercentenary there?

  • Anton

    Well I remember the wave of nausea as I stood an initiate outside the masonic lodge and hear myself referred to as a poor candidate in a state of darkness who by God’s help was seeking the light. God’s grace had already shone in my heart to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ; this I knew, and as I stood there listening to the first utterance of masonic ritual I was aware of rampant evil. In vain I sought for some acknowledgement of the Light of the Word in the worship and ritual of the degrees that followed. There was nothing. The sense of blasphemy had become, by the middle of the Third Degree ceremony, so overwhelming that I was moved to protest and to leave the Temple – never to return.

    – Dr. D.R. Denman, from his review of Walton Hannah’s whistleblowing work on freemasonry.

    • Dominic Stockford

      “Freemasonry requires its members to believe in the existence of a Supreme Being and also to believe that there is only One God. Freemasonry refers to its god as the Great Architect of the Universe. It teaches that all men, of all the various religions, worship the one God, simply using a variety of different names. It is on that basis that Masons may be Hindus, Moslems, Buddhists, or men who profess to follow Jesus. Freemasonry requires a belief in the existence of A Supreme Being, but does not define that being.

      The Holy Bible however, reveals that the truth is somewhat different. The Bible does state that there is only one God:

      I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. (Isaiah 45:5)”

      Rather good, from the exmasons for Jesus website.

  • Albert

    Cathedral closed.. for a private service

    So let’s be clear: an anti-Christian organisation was permitted to shut faithful worshippers out of a Cathedral.

    • Dominic Stockford

      ‘will be’, not ‘was’. But that seems to be the thrust, yes.

    • ChaucerChronicle

      THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS.

    • Tickets only …. “for security reasons”.

      • Albert

        Will Donald Trump be attending or something?

  • ChaucerChronicle

    How has this happened?

    Why is shame upon shame heaped upon us? When did the Archbishop of Canterbury know?

    Why has this happened?

    First they ridiculed the orthodox; then they excluded us through the Doctrine of Inclusivity; then they discovered that the weekly tithes were diminishing; then they prostituted the ‘Throne of Canterbury’.

    • Albert

      In defence of Justin Welby, he will have next to no say about what goes on in his own Cathedral.

      • ChaucerChronicle

        Reproach has broken my heart and I am so sick. And I looked for sympathy, but there was none, And for comforters, but I found none.

        Psalm 69:20

      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        I believe the Dean and Chapter have the final say…

  • bluedog

    Strange times, Your Grace. First an Anglican cathedral is used by Islam to deny the divinity of Christ, now we see a pagan ritual glorified in Canterbury Cathedral itself. Where to next?

    • Albert

      Quite. Can we have our Cathedrals back now please?

      • Dominic Stockford

        They’re just buildings, haven’t you got enough of those? Do you really want the debt that will inevitably be incurred by the need to look after them for the few who will ever go into them?

        • Albert

          Our buildings look pretty full to me.

          • Dominic Stockford

            How, exactly, would you do it? Close all your churches in Exeter (for instance) and the surrounding area in order to fill the cathedral, and be able to pay for its upkeep? I think that would be a classic example of pride coming before a fall.

          • Anton

            Ignore this provocation, Dominic. Those buildings were built by English labour and paid for by English revenue. They belong rightfully to the church in England.

          • Albert

            And the chantry chapels? They were built by Protestants, were they?

          • Terry Mushroom

            And the Lady Chapels too.

          • Albert

            Apparently, for our Protestant friends, nation trumps faith. So they were English, not Catholic.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            The English Catholic Church just renounced its allegiance to Rome prior to undertaking reforms of doctrine and order. The corporate body continued in existence as a going concern and was not liquidated, and hence under any body of corporate law its assets and liabilities transferred in toto as if in a de-merger of a subsidiary. The RCC has no claim to its assets.

          • Albert

            That would be an argument from the Law would it not? The secular law, that is.

            The corporate body did not continue in existence, since bishops were suppressed and executed. Thus, whatever the CofE claims to be in English law, it cannot regard itself as the Catholic Church of this land. And it is that distinction that mattered to those who built our fabulous cathedrals.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Directors of companies get sacked, but the company continues under new ones. The company is not the board of directors. And the CoE regards itself as Catholic. After all the Archbishop of Canterbury, the great Cranmer himself was appointed in 1532 before the split with Rome and indeed his appointment was confirmed by Papal bull. Hence the Apostolic Succession which you so value transferred to the CoE after the split as did the chief executive and the corporate body.

            Your argument holds no water at all.

          • Albert

            I think there is something a little distasteful about suggesting an innocent man being put to death is much the same thing as a sacking. But see how secular your ecclesiology is. You have set up the CofE on the basis of national and secular law. Now you make the Church just like a company. And even if I accept the analogy, why should I accept that the king is the person who gets to do the sacking?

            After all the Archbishop of Canterbury, the great Cranmer himself was appointed in 1532 before the split with Rome and indeed his appointment was confirmed by Papal bull.

            Quite so. But only because Cranmer had hidden his marriage from both Henry and the Pope. So whatever ecclesiology one uses, it was fraudulent. In any case, the Pope later excommunicated Cranmer, so the authority with which he was made Archbishop later took it away.

            Hence the Apostolic Succession which you so value transferred to the CoE after the split as did the chief executive and the corporate body.

            This is so secular. Sorry, who is the chief exec? Cranmer or Henry? Actually, I incline to think it was Thomas Cromwell.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            You can’t sack someone who’s already left Albert. Besides, if the RCC were to claim ownership of the CoE’s pre-1530’s assets it would be decided under English Law which is why my analogies are accurate.

            As for chief executive, it is clearly Cranmer, with Henry as Non-exec Chairman, Cromwell as legal adviser, and the Lord Himself as sole beneficial owner.

          • Albert

            You can’t sack someone who’s already left Albert.

            So he has left and therefore your argument about continuity makes no sense.

            Besides, if the RCC were to claim ownership of the CoE’s pre-1530’s assets it would be decided under English Law which is why my analogies are accurate.

            I think I’ve answered that point already, but in any case, I was making a moral and theological point.

            As for chief executive, it is clearly Cranmer, with Henry as Non-exec Chairman, Cromwell as legal adviser

            If you really think that is the role of Cromwell, then I don’t think you know your history well enough. As for Henry as non-exec Chairman, who set him up as that? Does every secular ruler have that position over the Church in their land?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Certainly Constantine did and the Papacy was perfectly happy to use the fake ‘donation of Constantine’ to support its supremacist claims. You can’t have it both ways I’m afraid.

          • Albert

            But did the donation of Constantine have that effect? It rather suggested that Rome’s authority derived from the Emperor, which doesn’t seem to establish any kind of papal supremacy.

            But my question was not about an odd individual, it was about secular rulers per se. Is the local church always subordinate to them?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            That’s my point. Even one of Rome’s most cherished pieces of evidence for its authority conceded its subsidiarity to secular authority, so once the Empire broke down and the Papacy evaded the authority of the Eastern Emperor while the latter were weak, this subsidiarity passed to the national monarchs.

          • Albert

            Even one of Rome’s most cherished pieces of evidence for its authority conceded its subsidiarity to secular authority

            The idea that Rome rested its religious authority on such a document is really quite a claim.

            so once the Empire broke down and the Papacy evaded the authority of the Eastern Emperor

            Sorry, but theologically speaking, who subordinated the Church to the state? And while you’re on that one, I don’t suppose there’s any chance of you answering the question I have asked twice now: is the Church always subordinate to the secular ruler in matters of religion?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Errr Constantine the Great?

          • Albert

            Perhaps if I put it in italics: is the Church always subordinate to the secular ruler in matters of religion?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Not in normal times, but if the church falls into serious error and corruption, and will not reform, then it’s down to a Godly secular magistrate.

          • Albert

            You think Henry was a Godly magistrate? The man was a psychopath! So what about when it isn’t a Godly magistrate and who gets to decide?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Well the Pope did make him “Defender of the Faith”! Are you saying the Pope is not infallible?

          • Albert

            I am of course saying the Pope is not infallible in such utterances. However, I would point out that Henry’s madness was not so clear early on. He had not, by that point cut off any of his wives’ heads. The evidence for psychopathology comes to the fore around and after the break with Rome.

          • Anton

            The Vatican sets great store in being a country as well as a church. What other country, long a hostile power, has the right to locate its agents in every town in the nation? Only when the RCC ceases to be a kingdom of this world and voluntarily gives up nationhood has it the moral right even to raise the matter of historic church buildings in protestant lands.

          • Anton

            Perhaps you may have the cathedrals if you will take the bishops with them?

          • Albert

            What you mean, the way we took Cranmer with us in 1556?

          • Royinsouthwest

            No doubt some of them were Christians? Why call yourself a Catholic if you can call yourself a Christian?

          • Albert

            Because lots of people call themselves Christian and aren’t. Besides, Christ expected us to be part of his Church, so why should I not want to indicate I am part of it?

          • Royinsouthwest

            Do you think that all the people call themselves Catholic are Christians? Anyone who believes in Jesus and is a follower of him is part of the body of Christ and that is the only true church.

          • Albert

            Do you think that all the people call themselves Catholic are Christians?

            That would depend on whether they are baptized.

            Anyone who believes in Jesus and is a follower of him is part of the body of Christ and that is the only true church.

            If there is no possibility of schism and heresy amongst the followers of Jesus, why does scripture warn of both?

          • bluedog

            English and Christian.

          • Albert

            I have no trouble with that, but it is rather less than 1642 is arguing.

          • bluedog

            1642 seems to think a sort of Takeover Panel should adjudicate, which seems somewhat anachronistic. The churches belong to the CoE by virtue of a number of Acts of Parliament, and were not transferred for any valuable consideration. Of course, current members of the CoE cannot be held liable for the actions of their forbears.

          • Albert

            That seems a very fair and truthful point.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            No, not at all, but an Act of Parliament is not enough for Albert. My point is that if this is a legal dispute over property rights or corporate ownership as Albert claims, then the relevant areas of property or corporate law would be used to adjudicate it. On neither does the RCC have a case to make.

          • Albert

            I have no difficulty admitting that the CofE own these buildings according to law as established by Parliament. I simply point out that that makes little difference theologically and morally, and that the idea that the buildings could have been alienated in this way by parliament would have horrified those who built them.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            We can’t know that as they did not live to see why the CoE renounced its allegiance to Rome. Proto-Protestantism (Lollardy) was strong in England despite brutal persecution and suggests there was a vibrant national conception of the faith and scepticism about Rome.

          • Albert

            We can’t know that as they did not live to see why the CoE renounced its allegiance to Rome.

            So all those Catholics building the shrine of St Thomas a Becket for all those pilgrims, would have been happy with the same state that martyred Becket, breaking down the shrine they had built and proclaiming sola fide? Really? They were Lollards?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            What a pathetic argument. Of course they weren’t, but that there were sincere Roman Catholics doesn’t imply that there were no significant numbers of Lollards. There’s no point continuing this if that’s the sort of nonsense to which you are resorting.

          • Albert

            Your claim is that we cannot know whether those who built our medieval cathedrals would have accepted the renunciation of Rome by the CofE. But it’s pretty obvious from the very nature of the buildings, where their allegiance lay: a shrine for Thomas executed by the state for protecting the Church, a shrine for pilgrims to come as penance.

            Now how can it possibly be said that those people would have been happy having all that broken down and removed by the state?

            Doubtless there were those who were opposed to Catholicism but they weren’t the ones building the cathedral! So this isn’t a pathetic argument, it’s a total knockdown to your argument from silence.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Perhaps the ‘silence’ was because the authorities were on behalf of the RCC burning anyone suspected of Lollardy and their writings.

          • Albert

            Perhaps, but the issue is whether you have any evidence, that those who built and paid for shrines for pilgrimages to a pro-Roman bishop martyred by the state for defending the Church from the state, were actually anti-Rome, anti-shrines, anti-pilgrimages and proto-Protestant. I think the evidence we do have speaks for itself.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Perhaps they were misled by doctrinal error that by making such contributions they could speed their way out of a fictional Purgatory? Perhaps if they have benefited from the truth rediscovered at the Reformation they would have thought very differently?

          • Albert

            Or perhaps they just believed the Catholic faith – as their building work suggests. If you’ve got some evidence, let’s have it. Do remember that the English Reformation had to be achieved by force.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            I have no doubt they did in most cases, or at least conformed outwardly to it under peer pressure.

          • Albert

            In which case, we do know what they would have thought of the Protestant Reformation. As a matter of interest, have you read The Voices of Morebath?

          • Anton

            Not so! The schism with Rome was achieved by the threat of force but Reformed theology then came in *against* Henry VIII’s theological views. All that Henry wanted was to be Pope in England and leave Roman theology alone. Cranmer and others who educated his son in the new theology walked a narrow tightrope.

          • Albert

            When I said it was achieved by force, I wasn’t just thinking of Henry, but also of Edward VI. I had particularly in mind the Prayer Book Rebellion of 1549, but I could have added the unpleasantness under Elizabeth I.

          • bluedog

            Can I step in? The defining event of medieval society was the Black Death which killed so many at a time in which the Roman church was paramount. Clearly indulgences and good works were ineffective. Tithes and other imposts continued to be levied, many benefices were held by foreign prelates, so money was sucked out of England, and monastic orders fared better than the general population as they were able to limit exposure to disease. It was during this period that the Roman Church lost its popular following. It is naive to imagine that the dissolution of the monasteries did not have broad popular appeal.

          • Albert

            It is naive to imagine that the dissolution of the monasteries did not have broad popular appeal.

            They were sold off to the highest bidder which meant that those who relied on their charity went without.

          • Anton

            Molon Labe

          • Dominic Stockford

            I was interested at the appearance of such hubris. The Romans in England and Wales would go bankrupt in weeks trying to keep them running. Your point is correct, however.

          • Albert

            I’m still waiting for a defence of the accusation of “hubris/pride”, or do you join the ranks of those Protestants who think that an accusation against Catholic can stand by itself without evidence (cf. Deut.19.15)?

          • Dominic Stockford

            You’d be bankrupt in weeks, and the buildings would be empty.

          • Albert

            As I have said already, it may be folly, but is it pride?

          • Dominic Stockford

            Only pride would lead someone into such folly.

          • Albert

            Except that I have already given an alternative reason.

          • Albert

            Why must you interpret it as pride? It might be folly, but why pride? For me there is something wonderful about worshipping in a medieval building.

      • bluedog

        ‘…our Cathedrals’. No Albert, and one assumes you mean churches that you claim for Rome. You have made you choice, broken with Canterbury, now live with the consequences. You can’t have it all ways.

        • Albert

          The people who built the medieval churches of England did not expect them to be taken over by the state, and then used for services, by anti-Christian organisations that have done terrific damage to the Church those builders loved.

          • bluedog

            Of course not. But that’s not the point, is it? What will you say if St Peters in Rome becomes a mosque, as has happened to the Orthodox masterpiece, the Hagia Sophia in occupied Constantinople? We cannot predict what disasters may yet befall.

          • Albert

            In a way, I think you and I are arguing similar points. I think the example of St Peter’s and Hagia Sophia are instructive. The take over is about force. It does not indicate continuity of faith.

          • bluedog

            There is a difference. While the take over of the Church in England, as defined in the Magna Carta, was done without the consent of Rome, the CofE is Christian. The Orthodox Church is being progressively squeezed out of Turkey, which like all Islamic states tolerates no confessional competition.

          • Albert

            Yes, quite so. But by putting the principle to the extreme, one sees why it might be wrong in general.

          • bluedog

            Well, what’s done is done and its too late now to unwind nearly 500 years of historical precedent on a legalistic basis. The broader question in the view of this communicant is whether the CoE would survive on a dis-established basis. After all, Rome is dis-established and survives, yet the CoE is established and seems to be failing. Is it the establishment/dis-extablishment nexus that is critical or is the malaise deeper? If so, what is Welby doing to ensure that the CoE doesn’t go the way of the non-conformist churches? Can he step outside his office and look at the CoE from a detached perspective? What does the vicar’s daughter Mrs May think?

          • Albert

            Excellent questions BD. Although I recall that Runcie’s view was that the vocation of the CofE was to die – i.e. to be reabsorbed back into Roman Catholicism. That would save the CofE, but it’s not going to happen now (and probably never was very likely, unfortunately).

            If, as you fear, the CofE does slip away, what will happen to the buildings then?

          • bluedog

            The Saudis will buy them.

          • Albert

            What a thought!

          • Anton

            What do you mean by “what is Welby doing to ensure that the CoE doesn’t go the way of the non-conformist churches?” Nonconformism lives, and everybody in it is committed rather than nominal because unlike the institutional churches there is no social pressure to conform.

          • bluedog

            It sounds as though the non-conformists have become popular religious collectives.

          • Anton

            They’re a mixed bag, of course. You will find some very serious commitment to Christ there unpolluted by liberalism and that is where you can find me.

  • ecclesiaman

    I am not so disturbed now about HG following this post.
    David’s numbering of Israel was far from inadvertent. It was a deliberate act and incurred God’s anger.
    HG’s comments justify the phrase, “Hidden in plain sight”. Joshua and the Gibeonite’s come to mind.

  • Albert

    Looking at the service, I think there are one or two hidden messages the other way around. The hymn “Christ is made the sure foundation” and the reading from 1 Cor. seem particularly apposite (especially no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw — each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. )

    But may I suggest the following alterations to the service? Instead of Psalm 48, they should have:

    Psalm 79
    O GOD, the heathen are come into thine inheritance : thy holy temple have they defiled

    Then, I would have thought Mark 13.14 should be included somewhere:

    “But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

    For a hymn, I would have thought “The Church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord” would be good, particularly for the verse:

    Though with a scornful wonder
    Men see her sore oppressed,
    By schisms rent asunder,
    By heresies distressed:
    Yet saints their watch are keeping,
    Their cry goes up, “How long?”
    And soon the night of weeping
    Shall be the morn of song!

    Any other suggestions?

    • Bob the Builder.

      • Royinsouthwest

        Is Bob a saint? Does Bob Geldof have any interest in building?

      • writhledshrimp

        Robert the Construction Worker in Canterbury surely.

    • IanCad

      Here’s one:

      “Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it:—-“

      Psalm 127

      FWIW the last part of the same Psalm is the motto of the City of Edinburgh:

      “—except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.”

  • len

    Why is so much of this service steeped in masonic ritual?.Why are there so many false religions might one also ask?.
    Because Satan takes what God has created for good and corrupts it . This concept goes right through history since the Fall.

    • Dominic Stockford

      “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
      Ephesians 6:12

      • Merchantman

        This is messy in my opinion. If an ordained churchman is chaplain of this or that it should be openly declared. One has doubts whether this shindig should better be taking place in a private space. There are limits to what is acceptable in Christian terms and I’m not sure a secret society is necessarily one of them. Some things obviously are linked to the church. Masonic stuff seems multi-faith and because of this blurs and diminishes the uniqueness of Jesus Christ’s life saving mission through his victory in overcoming sin and death. As far as I can tell there aren’t supposed to be many Gods being worshipped in the C of E.

  • Will a Masonic edition of the King James Bible be used for the readings?

    • Albert

      Is there such a thing?

      • There certainly is.

        • Anton

          Does it actually muck around with the text or is it just masonic explanatory notes and introductory material?

          • It seems to be predominantly explanatory notes, explaining the beginnings of Freemasonry, with various masonic symbols. Some contain astrological charts.

          • Anton

            Thanks.

        • Albert

          How’s it different?

  • chefofsinners

    Would all communicants please roll up their trousers, exposing their left leg, which Archbishop Cranmer will then pull vigorously, occasioning a great jingling from the bells thereupon.
    You lot don’t know when you’re being had.

    • William Lewis

      So spill the beans, Chef.

      • chefofsinners

        What beans? The entire article is a carefully constructed hoax.

        • William Lewis

          Take your glasses off. Look into my eyes and tell me it’s a hoax.

        • CliveM

          How do you know?

        • How large a wager would you like to place that that isn’t the order of service to be used this weekend?

          • Inspector General

            Fighting talk! Box his nose, sir.

          • chefofsinners

            Gambling is a sin, Peter. I will pray for you.

        • ChaucerChronicle

          Well Chef, Ould’s called you out.

          He’s quick on the draw.

          Watcha ya gonna do?

        • ChaucerChronicle

          Chef?

          All this waitin’ around is making me nervous.

        • William Lewis

          Has your goose been cooked, chef?

        • Hello? Not got the wallet to support your claims?

    • ChaucerChronicle

      Are you on the level?

      • Anton

        Stop giving me third degree.

        • Guglielmo Marinaro

          I bet you’re on the square.

          • Anton

            You’re not a cautious man, anyway.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            So mote it be.

    • Albert

      That’s irrelevant. It’s the fact that it’s plausible that speaks volumes.

      • William Lewis

        How can it be irrelevant? It appears to be plausible to some more than others.

        • Albert

          It’s plausible for two reasons:

          1. Masons have weird symbols
          2. The CofE lets all sorts of stuff go on

          Now the real issue is not whether Dr C is pulling everyone’s leg, but why it is that 2 is so widely held.

    • 1642+5thMonarchy

      I suspect you may be right Mr CoS. The tenor of His Grace’s current article seems at variance with his last on the subject.

      I do wonder whether His Grace is having a subtle dig at some of his non-Anglican visitors who sadly abuse his hospitality by telling him his house is unsound and falling down, laugh at his worries. throw his victuals on the carpet and try to nick the choicer furnishings when his back is turned. He is ever a subtle and polite gentlemen, and perhaps his wit is not understood by some of his coarser guests who carry on regardless.

      • Albert

        By which you presumably mean the Catholics who were kicked out of our own buildings and executed if we complained.

        • 1642+5thMonarchy

          Their loyalties were to what was now a hostile foreign power once the CoE had renounced its links to Rome. I regret the callousness and indeed the loss of the better monasteries, but they were climactic times.

          • Albert

            That would be the hostile power that sent St Augustine to Canterbury – the reason the cathedral is there in the first place.

            Your idea of continuity seems to be state and secular law, but the very geography and architecture of England tells another story.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            That’s irrelevant as asset ownership is determined according to secular law. What the RCC did a thousand years previous is also not relevant.

            In any event there were plenty of Christians in Britain and England long before St Augustine turned up, most not owing any loyalty to Rome, and indeed there was almost certainly a continuing British church in Canterbury before St Augustine’s arrival.

          • Albert

            That’s irrelevant as asset ownership is determined according to secular law.

            I wouldn’t mind betting the secular law looks that way in order to enable the stealing of buildings from the Catholics. After all, it wasn’t that way in Roman times.

            In any event there were plenty of Christians in Britain and England long before St Augustine turned up

            That’s true, but the issue is to do why the headquarters cathedral is at Canterbury…

            and indeed there was almost certainly a continuing British church in Canterbury before St Augustine’s arrival

            …which is almost certainly not the reason!

            most not owing any loyalty to Rome

            Now that’s confused.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Celtic church? Not subject to the remit of Rome until after the Synod of Whitby, and even then some parts for generations afterwards.

            Canterbury was the principal centre of the Kingdom of Kent, perhaps the only surviving active church in the kingdom was based there, and indeed its very name means fort of the Cantii, the British tribesmen of the region whose kingdom seems to have been anglicised intact. As Augustine was invited to Kent by its king, it’s quite obvious why Augustine would base himself there.

          • Albert

            Celtic church? Not subject to the remit of Rome until after the Synod of Whitby, and even then some parts for generations afterwards.

            That’s not the same thing. You said “loyalty.”

            As Augustine was invited to Kent by its king, it’s quite obvious why Augustine would base himself there.

            Yes, but it is Augustine being sent from Rome that is establishing the HQ there. And with good reason – it remains near to Rome.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Yes, Rome had no remit over the Celtic church until the latter decided, at the behest of Edwin of Northumbria, to transfer their loyalty/allegiance to Rome.

            Augustine was sent by Rome in a response to a request from the king of Kent who had married a Christian Frankish Queen. From the first Rome’s involvement in British Christianity was at the invitation of the secular power. One can therefore argue that that invitation was later rescinded by a successor secular power. Once again there is no case to answer.

          • Albert

            I don’t think you can conflate loyalty/allegiance with remit, in that case. Rome has authority in many ways, as local bishop, as primate of Italy, as Western Patriarch and as universal pastor. The Eastern Church could submit to Rome as the latter, while remaining independent in all the former ways.

            One can therefore argue that that invitation was later rescinded by a successor secular power.

            That’s confused. The secular power invited Rome because the secular power lacked the spiritual authority. Thus if the secular power kicks Rome out, the secular power again lacks that authority.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Not at all. The secular power invited Rome because it lacked the resources to convert its people to Christianity and because it wanted to be seen as a modern European Kingdom and the king to be seen be seen as such by Charlemagne. The price was adopting Roman Christianity.

          • Albert

            lacked the resources to convert its people to Christianity

            Which resources were they lacking?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Missionaries, teachers, clergy? I would have thought it obvious.

          • Albert

            Exactly. The stuff of the Church.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            I wish they had asked Iona. It would have saved much trouble later.

          • Albert

            Why didn’t they? It’s hard to accept that you really don’t see that they saw the religious significance of Rome.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            The new Queen was an RC FRank and some historians suggest that the kingdom was effectively a client kingdom of Charlemagne. The decision was political as much as religious.

          • Anton

            Charlemagne was 200 years after Augustine of Canterbury. As I’m sure you know that, have I confused what you are saying?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Sorry, yes. The Merovingian Franks.

          • Albert

            If your theory correct, then,

            The decision was political as much as religious.

            In which case, it was still religious – which is my point.

          • CliveM

            Albert

            The RCC , in this case Pope Clement aided and abetted by Philip IV of France, used trumped up charges, murder and torture to asset strip the Templars. Will the current Pope arrange for the assets return?

            Going through historical grudges is all fine and dandy, and may gladden the heart, but I notice it’s all very partial. Not sure it achieves anything either.

            If we’re all going to demand restitution for historical wrongs where do we start and where do we end.

          • Albert

            Thank you Clive. I’m not really demanding the return of the buildings. But given that these buildings were not built by Protestants, I think their current custodians should be a little more careful what they do with them. The Masons are an anti-Christians organisation who have done terrible harm to Catholics and the Catholic Church in many countries. They should not be given special services in the CofE.

          • CliveM

            Well with regards the Masons and the CofE, I tend to agree. Although I perhaps see them as more silly then sinister. All those secret ceremonies and handshakes etc, very juvenile.

          • Albert

            I think you are right as far as English Masons are concerned.

          • Anton

            Silly AND sinister.

          • CliveM

            I’ve come across masons over the years, they didn’t appear particularly sinister to me.

            I think Alberts comment will be right. In the UK their influence has been mainly neutral, elsewhere not so.

            Although I notice with secretive groups they end up getting blamed for a lot more then they deserve, simply due to the absence of evidence identifying another group. Or to deflect blame.

            My sympathy is limited however, the secrecy is their own choice.

            In my line of work I have been on the receiving end of odd handshakes over the years. Irritates me massively and earns them no favours. Fortunately in recent years that’s all died away.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            My view entirely. Of course some of the Lodges on the continent may be much more sinister, e.g. the infamous P2 and its links with you know what.

          • CliveM

            Well as I said to Anton, sometimes it’s difficult to strip myth from reality. At the least, P2 does have a problematic history! However the Masons themselves would point out that they kicked them out.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Agreed, but clearly where people meet in secret and are bound by oath to keep their proceedings secret ,there is a greater risk of serious wrong-doing if the wrong people enter. P2 is believed by many to have had links to the mafia and the neo-fascists behind the Bologna bombings, as well as the Vatican.

          • Maalaistollo

            Wasn’t it the papal bull ‘Regnans in Excelsis’ (1570) that turned all good Roman Catholics into traitors, whether they actually wanted to be or not? Bit of an own goal, I would have thought, but that’s infallibility for you.
            Sorry – this was meant to be a reply to 1642 etc, not to Albert.

          • Albert

            Interesting. I think treachery is in the eyes of the beholder. Of course from a Catholic point of view, and from an Anglican point of view, Elizabeth wasn’t the rightful Queen (by virtue of the fact that both the Catholic Church and the CofE regarded the marriage of her parents as invalid), and so those who followed her were the real traitors.

            But yes, it didn’t help matters. Indeed, I gather the document was actually discussed during WWII when the question arose as to how to deal with the Nazis.

          • Albert

            It wasn’t infallible of course.

      • Dominic Stockford

        His FIRST article may well have been the wind-up….

        • 1642+5thMonarchy

          Might be, but less likely. His first article struck me as a man pondering aloud, the second as someone enjoying a silent joke (possibly) if not advancing his undecided thoughts in one particular direction. It is the ambiguity of his writing that is so intriguing.

          • Dominic Stockford

            A bit like much of Job – where we are not to believe that a lot of what he says is any more than his public musings, rather than his belief – his end position is where he stands before God.

          • bluedog

            There was a clue on twitter as to HG’s real position; anti-masonic.

    • ChaucerChronicle

      ‘But here’s the interesting thing..’

      Following on from that quote – posters haven’t seriously considered the rest as its links are tenuous.

      So where is the hoax?

    • Anton

      The whole of freemasonry is a hoax.

  • Richard B
    • Royinsouthwest

      Those prophecies seem to be so vague that they could mean anything at all.

      • Richard B

        Point taken Roy. My intention was to draw my readers attention to this matter but without making it a ginormous issue – yet it is part of the on-going shaking that’s happening and exposure of corruption I’d already blogged about. (Hence rather quick blog so could deal with that day’s higher priority -apologies for delay responding but v busy week and I don’t live on phone)

  • Inspector General

    A church service flavoured a particular way? Whatever next…

    There used to be military church services before and during campaigns. When the lads were about to sail off. Very popular in Victorian times, you know. In fact, there must be many parish churches that still retain the colours of long merged regiments of horse or foot. Maybe a Zulu spear and shield on the wall too. No doubt the clergy then would invoke Almighty God to assist the soldiers of the Queen in vanquishing the fuzzy wuzzies with patriotic rhetoric and afterwards “Onward Christian Soldiers” naturally…

    All for the fuzzies own good, you understand. For being incorporated within the greatest empire the world has ever seen would be the making of them. It would civilise the wretches concerned. Bring them out of their savagery. And it did. Of course, many of these people have since relapsed, but only after asking us to leave. Do you know, keep this to yourselves, but some of the blighters went back to cannibalism. Some fellows are quite beyond hope.

    With the troops anointed and canon blessed, off they went to do God’s (necessary) work. The would use the Martini–Henry rifle, near half inch bullets, and the cold steel of the bayonet. The latter useful in finishing off a wounded enemy and save your ammo. It was in a way a mark of respect that this be done. To save your enemy the indignity of bleeding to death like a stuck pig as he whimpered his last.

    ♫ “It’s the Soldiers of the Queen, my lads
    Who’ve been my lads,
    Who’re seen my lads,
    In the fight for England’s glory, lads,
    When we’ve had to show them what we mean:
    And when we say we’ve always won,
    And when they ask us how it’s done,
    We’ll proudly point to ev’ry one
    of England’s soldiers of the Queen!
    It’s the Queen!”

    • 1642+5thMonarchy

      As recently as 1982 for the Falklands IG. remember them well. And (ssh, don’t tell any of the more snowflakey types on here), some of us deep dyed rustic traditionalist congregations still do when the higher clergy aren’t around….

      • Maalaistollo

        But if you were caught singing ‘O valiant hearts….’ you’d probably get the entire weight of the higher clergy falling upon you. You would, however, be thoroughly approved if you were to sing the well known hymn to Shiva (‘Lord of the Dance’) instead.

        • 1642+5thMonarchy

          We have our old non-pc hymn books which are put away when the Arch Deacon comes around and the ghastly PC ones taken out.

          • Maalaistollo

            I rescued about 100 BCPs and a similar number of Hymns A&M which were to be thrown out when our parish church replaced them with Mickey Mouse volumes. Still got them here, to await either the restoration of proper Anglicanism (when they can have them back) or my funeral, whichever comes first. Probably the latter, on current showings.

          • Albert

            Good for you – despite all my comments, I still think the BCP is beautiful.

          • Anton

            The Orthodox hold the record for unchanging liturgy, I think, with a regular service pretty much as written by John Chrysostom late in the 4th century.

          • Albert

            I think there is a Syriac rite which is still in Aramaic! However, it’s all a bit in the mists of time when we get into all that.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            We’ve got all our old BCPs too.

        • Dominic Stockford

          Very few people know the tune for Valiant Hearts, sadly, or we’d have sing it last November. Only one in my congregation, and i’d have learnt it – still only two 🙁

          • Anton

            I have some reservations about the words conflating WW1 with the Christian battle, but emotionally speaking what an absolute cracker it is. I first heard it one Remembrance Sunday at the Guards Chapel in London, and took pains to learn it subsquently.

        • Dominic Stockford

          I had a very conservative Roman Catholic Priest friend who rewrote the lyrics to that ditty – beginning “I danced on the altar when the mass was begun…”. He rewrote other stuff too, “Bind us together, with whips and with leather” was one of is best.

          He was a good friend, and a clever man, and I do hope, but not with certainty, that I shall meet him again in the hereafter.

          • Albert

            I think you’ll find the words are “Bind us in leather

          • Dominic Stockford

            No, definitely what I wrote. I am slightly disappointed not to remember more of it.

          • Albert

            That’s the version I was taught (in the CofE mind you).

          • You favour blasphemy, then?

          • Bind us together, Lord,
            bind us together
            with cords that cannot be broken;
            bind us together, Lord,
            bind us together,
            O bind us together with love.

            There is only one God,
            there is only one King,
            there is only one Body –
            that is why we sing:

            Bind us together….

            Made for the glory of God,
            purchased by His precious Son.
            Born with the right to be free:
            Jesus the victory has won.

            Bind us together….

            We are the family of God,
            we are His promise divine,
            we are His chosen desire,
            we are His glorious new wine.

            Bind us together….

          • Maalaistollo

            Don’t tell Avi, but when I visited Toronto a few years ago I looked to see what church services were advertised. I was a little surprised to see that one church, apparently of an Anglican nature, was celebrating the patron saint of leather-workers (I forget who it was) with a service that was designed to appeal to leather-fetishists. Always several steps ahead, those Canucks, eh?

          • Watching, always watching….

    • carl jacobs

      Praise to the Empire of our God
      That spans from mount to shore.
      In Glory shall its Flag be flown
      Upheld forever more.

      • carl jacobs

        “Right! Grab your Martinis, Lads! We’ve some baptizing to commence!”

  • carl jacobs

    The orthodoxy of the service is not important. The service places the imprimatur of the Anglican Church upon Freemasonry. It therefore teaches by example that Christianity and Freemasonry are compatible.

    • Albert

      They’ll be reading the Qur’an in church next. Oh no hang on…

    • 1642+5thMonarchy

      Of course one could take a different view which is that these particular Masons are compromising whatever heretical beliefs they are alleged to hold and being conformed to orthodox Christian teaching. The service, if genuine (I am an inclined to the view of CoS) is unrepentently and avowedly Christian and Trinitarian, and Christ is at its centre. If the role of the Trinity had been downplayed then I would agree heartily with you but it hasn’t on face value.

      Surely we want as many non-Christians to attend divine service as possible, as long as we do not compromise the teaching or theology in such services, to help call them to faith in Christ?

      • carl jacobs

        This isn’t a service for individuals. It is a service in recognition of an organization. You might as well have a service to celebrate the 200th Aniversary of Joseph Smith founding the Mormon church. Your argument would equally hold for that circumstance.

        • 1642+5thMonarchy

          I have expressed my misgivings on this service elsewhere. That said, I can see a different interpretation is possible and your analogy is not accurate as many of the attending Masons may be quite orthodox Christians of various denominations whereas no Mormon can be claimed to be thus.

  • Guglielmo Marinaro

    Why are people talking as though this is somehow a new development? Masonic services in Anglican churches and cathedrals, not to speak of Anglican bishops and clergy who are freemasons, are not even last century’s news. (There was even a masonic Archbishop of Canterbury within the memory of plenty of people still alive, Geoffrey Fisher.)

    • ChaucerChronicle

      Shouldn’t you be on the LGBTQWERTY site?

      We’re having a serious discussion.

      • carl jacobs

        He didn’t deserve that. He is a serious commenter. And he made a serious point.

        • ChaucerChronicle

          He gave it on Mercartornet; now he can take some lead.

          • bluedog

            You order, ‘Stay out of other people’s quarrels’ and yet you seem to transfer disputes on other sites here. Why should we suffer that?

          • ChaucerChronicle

            I am not in a position to order; I instructed.

          • bluedog

            In the context, the difference is merely semantic.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            You’re afraid of precision in use of language.

          • bluedog

            No. Your post was an order. Don’t argue or I shall become very cross.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            All right, bluedog.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            One other person is typing… wait

        • Maalaistollo

          Don’t worry, it’s only CC fulfilling his janitorial role of putting everything where he thinks it ought to be. He’s ticked me off before now.

      • Guglielmo Marinaro

        I think you’ll find, ChaucerChronicle, that people make their own decisions about which blogs they will comment on. They require no “nihil obstat” from any self-appointed arbiter.

        • ChaucerChronicle

          Your side only believes in fair play and reason when it suits you. I am using the same methodology.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            One other person is typing… wait for it

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I assume that you mean “your”, not “you’re”. And I don’t know what “side” that is, I’m sure.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Why it’s the LGBTQWERTY side. Careful on the use of the ‘And’ (a conjunction) to begin a sentence.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            There is no such thing as an “LGBTQWERTY side”, except perhaps in your imagination. Fowler (Modern English Usage) rightly classifies what he calls the “rule of thumb” that it is wrong to begin a sentence with a conjunction as a SUPERSTITION. Now, have you any thoughts worth expressing about freemasonry?

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Try this one from your Best Friends:

            LGBTQQIP2SAA –

            Two Q’s to cover both bases (queer and questioning);
            I for Intersex, people with two sets of genitalia or various chromosomal differences;
            P for Pansexual, people who refuse to be pinned down on the Kinsey scale;
            2S for Two-Spirit, a tradition in many First Nations that considers sexual minorities to have both male and female spirits;
            A for Asexual, people who do not identify with any orientation; and
            A for Allies, recognizing that the community thrives best with loving supporters, although they are not really part of the community itself.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            None of those have anything to do with me. Why they should have any fascination for you, and why you should want to bring them up on this thread, I can’t imagine. Now, have you any thoughts worth expressing about freemasonry, which looks quite sane when compared with such crankery?

          • ChaucerChronicle

            You’re in denial.

            As to thoughts about FM I refer you to my comments below.

          • Inspector General

            One agrees with you Gug, and will not bother you tonight. But you must understand, you pay the price here for what militant gay warriors have done to discourse. Biggoted it out the window…

        • He’s not a Roman Catholic.

        • ChaucerChronicle

          I’ll decide with whom I engage.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            And so will I.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Good for you.

          • carl jacobs

            You are free to receive this advice or not. But you are making yourself look like an ass.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Stay out of other people’s quarrels. You should know better.

          • carl jacobs

            To the extent you make me look bad by association, it is my quarrel. I have been on boards where I was unjustly attacked and no one spoke for me. I remember how that felt. I promised myself I would not stand idle if I saw it happen to someone else.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Look Jacobs. You need to get this straight. They are going to give you no quarter. They’ll show you no mercy. They’ll spit on you, the Faith and anything precious. They only believe in using the instrument of reason when it suits them.

            If you wish to defend them go ahead. Be my guest. Be warned they’re here to undermine. They may begin in a reasonable and objective manner – but they’ll end by urinating on you.

          • Inspector General

            My dear chap, you have them to a tee!

          • Albert

            You’re not helping, Inspector! 🙂

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Who the hell are “they”?

          • carl jacobs

            I do not care what they do. I care what I do. I will treat my opponent with respect. I will represent my Lord with integrity.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Jacobs. Advise me that’s not an invitation to get up front and personal?

          • ChaucerChronicle

            ‘I do not care what they do.’

            Yes. You do.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Yes, you do. You even care about what the RC chaps write. There my friend I believe in what CS Lewis and Francis A. Schaeffer taught: co-belligerence.

            We have enough enemies as it is.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            You are my brother – when necessary I shall come to your aid.

          • carl jacobs

            Faithful are the wounds of a friend

          • ChaucerChronicle

            ‘and deceitful are the kisses of an enemy’

          • Albert

            CC – I admire so many of your posts, but I have to agree with Carl on this one. I would add that he bows to no one when it comes to understanding the culture.

            As far as posting is concerned, there used to be a really annoying fellow down here who would be very abusive. As far as I can see, it stopped when Carl once came to my aid and exposed him as the fraud he was. I’m not suggesting you are anything like that, I’m just pointing out that Carl posts with integrity and wisdom and is prepared to defend anyone (even a papist).

          • carl jacobs

            there used to be a really annoying fellow down here who would be very abusive. As far as I can see, it stopped when Carl once came to my aid and exposed him as the fraud he was.

            Now, let’s be fair. I never thought Jack was a fraud. Annoying? OK. But a fraud? Naahh. 😀

            (I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, but thanks for the kind words.)

          • Albert

            DanJ0!

          • Whatever happened to DanJo?

          • Albert

            Well spotted!

          • Anton

            I think he experienced a Christian conversion. Given his life to that point, I can see why he might wish to disengage from this blog and ponder matters without pressure for instant responses and questions. We would do well to pray for him.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Guglielmo Marinaro – is aka Linus, aka Holger.

            When I provoked him he used a particular word in a style that is the hallmark of Linus and Holger.

            Like His Grace, he thinks you (including me) are ‘moronic legions’.

          • Inspector General

            Exemplary, sir!

      • Dreadnaught

        We’re having a serious discussion.
        Not the impression I get from what I have been reading.

      • bluedog

        Risible.

      • CliveM

        And he made a serious point.

        • ChaucerChronicle

          Marinaro – is aka Linus, aka Holger.

          When I provoked him he used a particular word in a style that is the hallmark of Linus and Holger.

          Like His Grace, he thinks you (including me) are ‘moronic legions’.

          • CliveM

            Linus has had many incarnations. None of them in any way similar in tone to Marinaro.

            Although I am frequently wrong, if I had to put money on it, I would say they were different people.

            Moronic! Me! An astute judge of character HG.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            1. You’d lose your bet.
            2. We must exercise our gifts – and identify the enemy.
            3. Aggression today may prevent retreat tomorrow.

          • CliveM

            1. We’ll see.
            2. You still haven’t given any compelling evidence for your accusation.
            3. We’re not fighting a land battle here. His posts were pertinent to the subject and reasonably put.

            Linus has never been reasonable!

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            You would be wise to stop trying to identify people from their literary style, since you have just shown that you’re no good at it.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            You need another dose of rear entry. How else can you authenticate yourself?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Thank you for that psychological self-exposure, which confirms the assessment that I had already made of your mentality.

            “Is it possible, that it should never come into people’s thoughts to suspect whether or no it be to their advantage to show so very much of themselves?” – Bishop JOSEPH BUTLER (1692-1752)

          • ChaucerChronicle

            There’s no need for further examination. I understand the need for Protestant humiliation. You should assess my posts of today.

            You’ll be pleased.

          • carl jacobs

            Guglielmo Marinaro is not Linus. Among other things, he was posting on this weblog before the first incarnation of Linus. There is no doubt out this. None. At all.

      • PaulBrownsey

        “LGBTQWERTY”

        Oh, how we laughed. Oh, giggle, giggle, giggle. Oh, you’re killing me.

    • It’s rare for Freemasonry and its infiltration of Anglicanism to be raised for discussion.

      • Guglielmo Marinaro

        It has been raised periodically. I agree that it’s right that it should be discussed.

        • It’s generally the Roman Catholic Church who condemns Freemasonry, its paganism and its enmity with Christianity.

          • carl jacobs

            Ahem!

          • The Catholic Church first prohibited Catholics from membership in Masonic organizations and other secret societies in 1738. Since then, at least eleven popes have made pronouncements about the incompatibility of Catholic doctrines and Freemasonry.[1] From 1738 until 1983, Catholics who publicly associated with, or publicly supported, Masonic organizations were censured with automatic excommunication.[2] Since 1983, the prohibition on membership exists in a different form.[3][2][4] Although there was some confusion about membership following the 1965 Second Vatican Council (Vatican II), the Church continues to prohibit membership in Freemasonry because it concluded that Masonic principles and rituals are irreconcilable with Catholic doctrines. The current norm, the 1983 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s (CDF) Declaration on Masonic associations, states that “faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion” and membership in Masonic associations is prohibited.[6] The most recent CDF document about the “incompatibility of Freemasonry with the Catholic faith” was issued in 1985.[7]

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_ban_of_Freemasonry

            Historically, one of Masonry’s primary objectives has been the destruction of the Catholic Church. This is especially true of Freemasonry as it has existed in European countries.

          • Albert

            Quite. So apart from anything else, this is another ecumenical disaster for the CofE. As it happens it makes no difference anyway, since unity is now further away than ever.

          • carl jacobs

            Am I a Roman Catholic?

          • Albert

            I do hope so! But what’s your logic (assuming you aren’t)?

          • carl jacobs

            Jack implied that opposition to FMry was a RC thing. That is not consistent with my knowledge. There have been three types of reactions on this board:

            1. The Inspector and his “Empire Uber Alles” paean.

            2. 1642 and his claim of “The Church of England, Right or Wrong.”

            3. Otherwise universal condemnation across the theological spectrum. This ain’t no RC thing.

          • Well, yes, it’s about time you laggards caught up.

          • Albert

            Sorry: I misread HJ’s post. I loved yours’ though – especially items 1 & 2!

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            That is a complete misstatement of my position and does you no credit. I have little sympathy for Masonry, see that it is probably incompatible with Christianity if taken seriously, but accept that some Christian Masons may see it differently.

          • carl jacobs

            You entered this discussion yesterday professing little knowledge of Masonry and yet possessed of a distinctive agenda. Here is what you said yesterday:

            I already told you I’m not [a Mason] and know no one who is. I’m just much less dogmatic than everyone else on here, and just get fed up with all the non-CoE posters on here using anything as another excuse to knock the CoE.

            Is that what has been going on? Non-CoE members bashing the CoE? I think very few would agree with you. It has been my perception for two days that you have made it your task to defend the CoE from charges of synchretism & compromise by finding ways to rationalize this worship service. What you haven’t yet grasped is that merely allowing Freemasonry into the building is a chargeable offense.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Motes and beams old boy.

            In the eyes of some the CoE is always guilty, now let’s find the charge?

            I can see, while not agreeing with them, why some Christians in the Masons may be able to reconcile membership of both and why the Cathedral authorities might assent to a service if no compromise on Christian doctrine or liturgy were involved. I would rather understand before leaping to condemnation.

          • Albert

            In the eyes of some the CoE is always guilty, now let’s find the charge?

            As you many of your posts have been directed at me, I assume I may be in the cross-hairs on that one. May I just point out that I defended Welby yesterday?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            No, you are by no means one of the worst in this respect.

          • Albert

            Thank you. I defend the CofE when it deserves to be defended. I don’t think this is one of those occasions.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            A very rare case and it still gave you an opportunity for another series of attacks on the CoE.

          • Albert

            Credit where credit’s due.

          • carl jacobs

            It was over twenty years ago when I was invited to join the Masons. I faced these questions years in the past. Those of us who understand the organization do not have to leap to condemnation. We have already made a discerning judgment. You have in fact “leaped to exoneration” by discounting the testimony of those who do understand Masonry. Consider the theological unity displayed on this board over this subject. That almost never happens. That isn’t just CoE bashers looking to extract a pound of flesh.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            I haven’t leaped to exoneration and said the Cathedral could end up looking foolish. All I am saying that I can see how how someone who is a Christian and a Mason might see the situation differently.

          • CliveM

            I all fairness and with the intention of providing balance it should be pointed out that the staunchest defender of Freemasonry on this blog has been the Inspector, a Communicant member of the RCC!

          • Anton

            And an adherent of the Arian heresy too.

          • Jack did say “generally” and one notes the absence of formal condemnations from the various Protestant churches.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I can’t give references offhand, but I think I’m right in saying that both the Methodist Church and the Salvation Army have formally declared that freemasonry and Christianity are incompatible.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Yesterday’s news.

          • Sarky

            Is the pope?

          • carl jacobs

            Bwahahahahaha!

          • Anton

          • Ivan M

            The conspiratorial wing of the Masons did whatever damage they could to Catholic interests. But so long as it was directed at the Catholic Church, it was met with silent glee from the Proddies. That is not to say I think most Masons are conspirators. The couple of fellows I know seem to regard it as an alternate old boy’s club for those without prestigious connections.

        • ChaucerChronicle

          Then why your asinine repetition?

    • Richard B

      Agree it’s certainly not new, BUT in these days of increasing shaking and exposure of corruption we cannot expect ungodly elements of any denomination to keep ‘hoodwinking’ itself, in my opinion

  • HedgehogFive

    If you could help a rather troubled Huguenot Hedgehog, would you please tell me if this song, Orange and Blue, sounds to you disturbingly like the Masonic rituals revealed to us by Archbishop Cranmer and commentators?

    • Anton

      The Orange Order (check it on Wikipedia) in Norther Ireland has many parallels with freemasonry.

  • magnolia

    The penitential section of the service is sadly lacking. A renunciation of masonic vows has been missed out. There are various formats around to choose from.

    • Maalaistollo

      But if they repented, would the Cathedral have to give them their 300,000 pieces of silver back?

  • Dreadnaught

    Of all the on-going pressure to wipe out Christianity, the super conservative Freemasons get singled out as the bad-guys, because they stumped up big money to preserve iconic CoE buildings. Crazy.

    • The Trojan House looked appealing too.

      • Dreadnaught

        As did the Priesthood to the kiddie-fiddlers.

        • Sarky

          Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers.

          • IanCad

            If that’s an original Sarky, you have me in awe. Quite brilliant; right up there with CoS’s “Vlad the Emailer.”

          • Sarky

            Unfortunately not!! Saw it on a t-shirt!!

    • Inspector General

      Seems to be a case of mass hysteria, old man. Only way one can make any sense of it. But then again, this crowd would have been the very same 500 years ago if it was thought there was a Catholic priest hiding in the area. There’s only thee, me, and a few others still sane above this.

      • No one could ever accuse you of sanity, Inspector.

        • Inspector General

          An Inspector is appalled enough at the goings on to realise that a similar sized donation of laundered drug money from Jamaican Yardies would have been the greater appreciated. And the church would have burnt weed in the thurible for them too!

          • Royinsouthwest

            How on earth did the early Christians manage to worship God without thuribles?

          • As Jews, they did.

            The incense offering in Judaism was related to perfumed offerings on the altar of incense in the time of the Tabernacle and the First and Second Temple period, and was an important component of priestly liturgy in the Temple in Jerusalem.

            At the end of the Holy compartment of the tabernacle, next to the curtain dividing it off from the Most Holy, was located the incense altar. (Exodus 30:1; 37:25; 40:5, 26, 27) According to the Books of Chronicles, there was also a similar incense altar in Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 28:18 and 2 Chronicles 2:4). Every morning and evening the sacred incense was burned. (Ex 30:7, 8; 2Ch 13:11) Once a year on the Day of Atonement coals from the altar were taken in a censer, or fire holder, together with two handfuls of incense, into the Holy of Holies, where the incense was made to smoke before the mercy seat of the ark of the testimony. (Leviticus 16:12, 13.)

          • Royinsouthwest

            I would be surprised if the Gentile churches did.

          • Inspector General

            In an age when the average peasant washed his hide once a year, it is debatable whether Christianity could have survived without the sweet incense burner. Probably also explains the low birth rate of that age too.

          • Dominic Stockford

            They nicked them from the roman magistrates to cover up noxious niffs.

          • Ivan M

            The birth rate was always creditable. But the kids did not survive childhood. It is more accurate to speak of a survival rate.

          • Anton

            One trusts that you are not judging others by your own standards?

          • Albert

            What makes you think they did (see Revelation 8)?

          • Royinsouthwest

            Revelation 8 describes a vision. Thunder and lightning do not come from a censer.

            God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
            John 4:24

          • Albert

            Revelation 8 echoes OT writings about the nature of worship. The vision is of heavenly worship, which really ought to tell us something of what Christians approved of for worship down here. As for your second quotation, if you are suggesting that the use of incense is contrary to worship in spirit and in truth, then you are expounding John 4.24 contrary to scripture.

          • Royinsouthwest

            John 4:24 records the reply of Jesus to the Samaritan woman who was trying to embroil him in a discussion about the merits of the outward forms of Jewish and Samaritan worship. The outward forms only have any merit if they reflect something inward. Singing is used in worship because psalms and hymns reflect our feelings, emotions, need for God, and spiritual truths. What on earth does the pong of incense reflect?

          • Albert

            I think you have misunderstood the text. It’s not about physical forms versus non-physical things, as if Christianity is a kind of hellenistic dualism. It’s about whether one has the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit who inspired the scriptures that speak of incense.

            What on earth does the pong of incense reflect?

            Well scripture answers your question:

            Let my prayer rise before as the incense

            and

            He shall then bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests; and shall take from it his handful of its fine flour and of its oil with all of its frankincense And the priest shall offer it up in smoke as its memorial portion on the altar, an offering by fire of a soothing aroma to the LORD.

          • Anton

            Or cathedrals?

          • Albert

            Or modern worship songs.

          • Anton

      • Dreadnaught

        Quite so Iggy old lad.

  • dannybhoy

    If my more learned friends would have another look at the freemasonry symbol superimposed on the picture of the cathedral, is there something significant about the gradations from 45 to 60?

    • IanCad

      I’m no expert but would like to know quite how the ten degrees from sixty to seventy square with the fifteen degrees between thirty and forty five and from there up to sixty.

      • dannybhoy

        Me two,

    • Dominic Stockford

      I have found a page with this specific compass on it – http://theopenscroll.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/part-9-code-33-xx-square-compass-and.html

      It is the ‘Masonic Past Master Golden Bullion Emblem Patch’. Maybe the inaccurate numbering is something to do with the weakening of the mind in old age?

      • dannybhoy

        “Maybe the inaccurate numbering is something to do with the weakening of the mind in old age?”
        Oi! What are you trying to say?
        All I can say without wishing to apply my formidable intellect to this anomaly, is that masonic symbols always have a meaning…
        Where’s Tom Hanks when you need him?

      • dannybhoy

        From 30 to 70 degrees should give you 40 divisions, but it doesn’t
        Unless HG has taken a reject setsquare and compass, there is some significance to this that we are missing.
        Call for Anton….!

        • Anton

          I spotted this from your question above, “is there something significant about the gradations from 45 to 60?” I can say only that it’s a good job these freemasons didn’t build the cathedrals.

    • The Explorer

      No expert on Masonic symbols, but I’ve never seen pictures of this particular one before. Where there’s a sun it’s normally a G or an eye.

  • The Explorer

    In ‘Matthew’ 24, Christ quotes Daniel on “the abomination of desolation”.

    This is probably a threefold reference: looking back to the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanies, looking ahead to the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, and looking further ahead again to the end of the world.

    Each of the two exemplars involves the violation of the place of worship by a hostile force. The same, on a much larger scale, may be expected of the Last Days. These may not be the Last Days, but they point the way. Glasgow and Canterbury, magnified many times, are illustrative of what the Church of the future may anticipate.

    • Dominic Stockford

      And Gloucester, don’t forget Gloucester.

    • Ivan M

      The destruction of the Temple was prophesised by Jesus Himself. Therefore for biblical fundamentalists it is inconsistent to aid in its reconstruction. I myself give two hoots about it, but in a discussion with a Muslim about it, his was position that the Yahuds are digging the Temple Mount area to find some secret at the level of Dr Moriarty’s game plans to destroy the world, that Solomon had earlier buried there.

      • 1642+5thMonarchy

        They’re a bit late then as I thought the conspiracy theorists said the Templars excavated beneath Temple Mount thoroughly and whatever they found lies secreted in the Vatican?

        • Ivan M

          They obviously did not look at the right places.

      • The Explorer

        Yes. My point wasn’t about the rebuilding of the Temple. My point was about violation of the churches of the future. I was thinking in terms of the Antichrist, taking the place of God.

        • Ivan M

          I am compelled to agree with you.

        • Secret Pagan worshipping rituals and symbols are hidden in many Cathedral buildings’ geometry. From the positioning of the Cathedral to capture the light of the solstice sun at its strongest to the dual towers facing west representing the sun and the moon, to the devilish little Imps on the walls of Lincoln Cathedral created to trip the Bishops up and cause trouble.

          http://www.bilderberg.org/masons.htm

      • dannybhoy

        Excavations under and around the Temple Mount are ongoing. This interactive site allows you to see all the amazing things they have uncovered going right back to the original Zion that King David conquered..
        http://www.haaretz.com/st/c/prod/eng/2016/05/jeruz/01/
        Your Muslim friend might be interested?

        • Ivan M

          I don’t think so. Muslims would rather have keep their conspiracy theories.

          • dannybhoy

            Even more reason he should watch it!

          • Ivan M

            If only it were so easy.

        • 1642+5thMonarchy

          Fascinating. One wonders if they are secretly exploring under Temple Mount itself.

          • dannybhoy

            Of course there are two sides to every story.. I heard that the Palestinians had been digging around to remove all traces of ancient Judaica that they had found.
            It cannot be reasonably denied that the site goes back to Abraham, the Jebusites and then the Israelites and forever since it has been the centre of Jewish worship.

  • Anton

    Will the freemasons try the same thing at York Cathedral, which is the seat of another Archbishop? This Archbishop was brought up in Africa where there is plenty of witchcraft, and he saw instantly what freemasonry disguises. Here are his stinging words from the Synod debate about freemasonry of 13th July 1987:

    As an African who once worshipped in ritual ways and held traditional beliefs… was quite amazed to see the similarity between quite a number of these beliefs… the missionaries came round and said they were pagan; this report is better, it does not say that, but says that there are difficulties and questions posed.

  • len

    What is one to make of all the conspiracy theories about occultism infiltrating’ the church?.’
    Theories or fact?.
    I believe’ the veil’ between the material and the spiritual world was opened slightly to reveal spiritual realities in’ the Book of Job’. There is a contest between two spiritual beings regarding truth and integrity. God and Satan are light and darkness, truth and error ,honesty and deceit, love and hate ,which is able to overcome the other?.
    So how do we determine truth?.
    So who has the truth , the Jews, the Muslims, the Catholic Church,the myriad Protestant denominations?.
    All claim to have’ the truth’but how do we determine spiritual truth?.

    Gods Word could only have been revealed by a spiritual being who lives outside of time and space with complete knowledge of all things past, present, and future .Gods Word is a Testament to His integrity, and the Living Word is a Testament to his Love. (Of course most know this But Gods Word is His Bible, and the living Word is Jesus Christ who is the Truth.)

    When we examine false religion by the Light of the Word of God, Truth and error will be revealed.

  • Anton

    His Grace having uploaded the offending liturgy, here is another: the first two pages of the blasphemous Evening Service held in gay slang at Westcott House, an Anglican theological training college at Cambridge on January 31st:

    https://www.scribd.com/document/338361827/Polari-Evensong-Westcott-House-1

    https://www.scribd.com/document/338361885/Polari-Evensong-Westcott-House-2

    The rest of the service does not appear to be uploaded, although the uploader clearly has the entire Order of Service. The organisers should not be permitted to proceed to ordination, and the Principal of Westcott house must follow his apology with a statement that he knew nothing of it in advance, or be sacked.

    Gay marriage is to be debated in Synod yet again this week. What part of the Bible do some people not understand?

    • 1642+5thMonarchy

      Most of it Anton.

    • Dominic Stockford

      I believe the principal has already said he knew nothing of the nature of what was to happen, though I believe it is clear that some staff must have been aware. My experience of such colleges is that staff have to be involved at some point in the planning and preparation of a service – its their job!

  • chefofsinners

    Cranmer’s analysis draws heavily on a text published on Bradford University’s Web Of Hiram. This text, “Lectures of the Craft”, was published in 1801. The website describes all its material thus: “None of the rituals and statutes recorded in the data are currently in use. It is in effect a scrap heap of discarded ritual and belief.”
    Little wonder then that the links drawn are tenuous in the extreme. A somewhat less exact science than interpreting the book of Revelation, but equally appealing to those inclined towards conspiracy theory.
    Supposing that this order of service and the magic by which it arrived in Cranmer’s right hand are genuine. Would we not expect it to contain passages of scripture which are meaningful to that which it celebrates? Even as a funeral might incorporate favourite passages of the deceased, or a Remembrance Day service might include “greater love hath no man…”
    Surely there are far greater threats to the Church of England with which we should concern ourselves than this.

    • dannybhoy

      Chef we should be concerned about all threats to the Church, or more correctly the faith. I accept that one can go overboard on interpreting prophecy as much as freemasonry, but it is the future direction of the Church of England, and why it seems so far away from proclaiming the Gospel that should concentrate our minds.

      • dannybhoy

        Added to the above, should we not be concerned that within the Church are people who have made a specific oath to help fellow masons in their careers or vocation or priestly calling

        • CliveM

          Hmm I had heard that the oath was to help a fellow Mason in distress, And was not meant to give a general leg up.

          There are myths and facts and due to their secrecy it’s hard to know which this is.

          • dannybhoy

            Your last sentence highlights the problem Clive, but when you think about it, why join an organisation on the off chance you might be called to help a fellow member in distress?
            No no, they help each other in whatever way they can -and are expected to help each other..

          • CliveM

            It’s the context of when that help can be called on the confuses me.

            Anyway I think we both agree that the secrecy is wrong.

          • Dreadnaught

            I think you are reading into this exactly what you want to see. I’m sure the same is said of KSC. They are clubs with distinct characters and probably more accessible I guess than membership of the R&A St Andrews golf club or Whites of Pall Mall.
            https://www.grandcharity.org/

          • dannybhoy

            I refer you to http://www.ugle.org.uk/what-is-freemasonry/frequently-asked-questions

            “New members make solemn promises concerning their behaviour both in the Lodge and in society. Members also promise to keep confidential the way they recognise each other when visiting another Lodge. Freemasons also promise to support others in time of need but only so far as it does not conflict with their family and public obligations.”

            It’s how the promise ‘to support each other in times of need’ is interpreted surely?
            Look I am not saying all masons have ulterior motives, but I am saying that if you take an oath to behave in a certain way you are making a distinction in the way you respond to different people. If through a handshake for example, you are communicating that you are a mason, WHY? If you’re going to do good to all men, why make a distinction?
            Perhaps reading a book by a mason who became a Christian might help.

          • dannybhoy
          • CliveM

            Pretty much my understanding DB.

          • dannybhoy

            You are a man of integrity and kindly good sense. I am always comforted by your approbation… :0)

          • CliveM

            Thats very kind of you DB. It’s always a pleasure discussing things with you.

          • Dreadnaught

            By their actions you will know their words.
            It says ‘others’ not necessarily, other masons. Surely that has been demonstrated by the example of this donation?
            The link I posted demonstrates how they make use of the funds they collect. £190,000 to the Air Ambulance Service for instance. As for the handshake, and I quote from your quote:
            promise to keep confidential the way they recognise each other when visiting another Lodge In other words, within Masonic circles and not for introductions to strangers down at The Jolly Cripple.
            Whats the big mystery about that?

          • dannybhoy

            Drat!
            I have just finished a detailed answer to you, go to post it and Discus says “Oops an error has occurred”, and I’ve (sob) lost it…
            I’ll try for a summary before I forget it all…
            Doing kind things, making donations, helping others is fine but as you yourself know it ain’t necessarily Christian.
            The heart of Christianity is about how the Creator God who is also holy, just and compassionate found a way to legally forgive rebellious and sinful mankind, and to reconcile them to Himself and to give them eternal life.
            He did it through Christ Jesus who came and lived as a man and allowed himself to be put to death as the ultimate sacrifice for your wrongdoings and my wrongdoings.
            So whilst all men can perform acts of kindness, give to the poor etc etc. it is NOT the heart of the Christian gospel; and as a Christian I have to tell you that one day whether through an untimely death or old age, you will come before God and He will not ask you what good things you did in life, but how did you respond to His Son Jesus Christ and the fact that Jesus died so that you might be forgiven and reconciled to God the Father..
            So that is the real mission of the Church; to go out into all the world and make disciples. If the the Anglican Church has people within its ranks who are pushing the idea that all roads lead to God, and if you have taken an oath to help fellow masons and do good to others……………
            (catches breath)
            That is NOT the Christian gospel.
            There, that’s the gist of what I wrote. :0)

          • Dreadnaught

            I usually write responses on Note then cut n paste.
            I do not believe there is a God to whom I will be on trial after my death any more than I believe Mohammed flew to Heaven on a winged horse or for that matter the influence on our life’s fortunes lie with the multipe gods of the Hindus et al.
            I do believe in the complexities of human nature that we are all subject to, in ourselves and others.
            A person does not have to be a signed up Christian to do good deeds or be a Muslim to do bad deeds.
            The only obsticle for me in being accepted as a Mason is that I am atheist and do not believe in a Supreme Being.
            I suggest that most Masons if not practicing Christians, were baptised as infants or like myself align with the view that
            we cannot deny our nation’s Christian heritage and object to any revision of that now or in the future.
            I have been to several Ladies Evenings as a guest and found absolutely nothing in the characters of those people that gave me cause for concern: in fact they proclaim that ‘Rank is not the guinea stamp – the man himself the gold’; with which I completely agree.
            They were traditional patriotic Brits still proud to sing the National Anthem and drink a toast to the Duke of Lancaster.

          • dannybhoy

            That’s fine. I have told you what I believe because I believe it concerns your immortal soul,-even though you knew that anyway.

          • Dreadnaught

            And I accept your remarks in good faith coming from a jolly descent Chap.

          • dannybhoy

            Thank you Dreadders

          • Anton

            When you get that Disqus error message, hit the back-a-page option and your words might still be there. Or open the relevant dialogue on a new page and click “Reply” on whatever comment you were replying to, and you might get a pleasant surprise. Personally, I do a CTRL-C of any long post I’m about to upload.

          • dannybhoy

            Thanks Anton. Where’s the ‘back a page option’ located?
            I learnt to use a computer from a video tape supplied with a new Time machine (gone now) and the rest has been bits and pieces picked up along the way.I’ve bought books like windows for dummies, Apple for dummies, how to cope with failure etc.
            I learn by listening, talking and doing. Books or even videos don’t help much..

          • Anton

            The back-a-page onscreen button differs according to whether your are viewing using Chrome or Internet Explorer or whatever. Try googling for the answer.

    • 1642+5thMonarchy

      I confess Mr CoS that I lean towards your view of a prank, albeit the order of service may be or not be genuine, but it was the strained conspiratorial interpretation put upon it that leads me to believe you are correct. It reads like something out of a modern Gnostic fabrication or a Graham Hancock book.

    • Anton

      Read the stuff in the links some people have posted below regarding ex-masons who became Christians. His Grace did a pretty good job. Masonic liturgy is not the same today as 200 years ago but the basics are unchanged: just as with church liturgy.

    • Richard B

      The real issue is FM’s subservience to its unclean ruling spirit (see my testimony on previous). The teacher at last Saturday’s school of healing made a valid point when asking, “Why did Jesus forbid demonic testimony of his holy identity?” His answer, “Truth from a polluted source brings pollution!”

    • len

      The traitor ‘within the gates’ is the greatest threat.

  • len

    Satan works at his best when cloaked in secrecy and darkness and dislikes his schemes being brought into the light.
    Hence the cloak of secrecy over all the works of darkness.

  • Damian

    I wrote to the Dean and expressed my dismay. He hasn’t had the decency to reply

    • mollysdad

      If he were to reply, they’d tear his yongue out by the root and bury in the sands of the sea at low-water mark accouding to the prescribed Masonic punishment for an errant Entered Apprentice.