Of course we Europeans are naive. I, however, like to think that I am different. This is because I have had explained to me by very erudite American friends that their Constitution is gravely and radically flawed; and that their 'Founding Fathers' were a shocking and vastly unpleasant gang of men.
(Was the Confederacy any better?)
So I was highly intrigued to receive my 2019 copy of The Coat of Arms, the academic journal of the Heraldry Society. It includes a paper by Paul A Fox, FSA, AIH (what does the latter abbreviation denote?) entitulated George Washington and the Origin of the Arms and Flag of the United States. In this context, the latter phrase clearly means the United States of North America.
Fox, a revisonist, attempts (plausibly, in my judgement) to re-establish the old story that the design of the Stars and Stripes was influenced by Washington's own inherited armorial achievement. OK. But what particularly interested me was that in his discussion it comes out how strongly the iconography of the Revolution was influenced by 'Free Masonry'; and how many of those who set up the US of A were rabid 'Masons' . There is an interesting discussion of the Summons Plate of the new Philadelphia Lodge in 1759.
(Incidentally, Fox does not discuss the significance of the Triangle with the Tetragrammaton inside it ... which was not, I believe, confined to 'Masonry' but occurs also in Catholic Baroque religious iconography.)
Apparently, Washington was accompanied on his military rampages by a 'Command Flag' looking exactly like our European flag, except that, instead of the Twelve Stars of our blessed Lady's Crown, it has thirteen stars. Fox explains that 'Masonic' lodges have lots of stars painted on their ceilings.
I commend this article to mah fellow Europeans. It will help them better to understand that mysterious superpower which lurks just over the horizon from County Kerry.
Dear Father. Most of The POTUS have been Masons and thus, religious liberty/private faith/no public worship of God as Catholic Doctrine teaches there must be (Pope Leo XIII) and the interesting thing about that is the Masonic Principles of America are not so different than the praxis of the modern shadow church.
ReplyDeleteThat is, both America and the modern shadow church think most men are good and possess the liberty to think of the great architect of existence as they desire and to worship the architect as they see fit but have no right to demand others think about the architect or worship the architect in any particular way. Masonry and the shadow church think men can be improved via natural means and they can cooperate together to make the world a better place to live and cooperate to bring peace to the world.
But when the fullness of time was come, God sent His son, made of a woman, made under the law, that He might redeem them who were under the law: that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because you are sons, God hath sent the spirit of His son into your hearts, crying; Abba, Father. Therefore now he is not a servant but a son. And if a son, an heir also through God. (Gal 4: 4-7).
ReplyDeleteOne becomes a child of God via Baptism. This is Catholic truth whereas what Francis claims is masonic heresy.
The meaning of Masonry:
Now, therefore, why is Jesus Christ not mentioned in the Masonic Ritual of the first three degrees?
Those who ask this question should remember that Masonry has been, and is now attempting to promote the idea of a universal brotherhood, a dwelling together of all peoples on earth in harmony and peace. Through Avatars have come to all people at different times with the same essential message, nevertheless the Christian Avatar is still not acceptable to some peoples. The brotherhood of man, however, can be established upon the Fatherhood of God, which could and should be a universal unifying synthesis of sufficient power to draw all men together. Masonry proclaims the universal sovereignty of the All-Father, for is is He, the I am That I am, who has sent every divine messenger into the world of humanity to teach men the way, the Truth and the Light. The ancient teachings were projected on the earth plane by the great teachers - Avatars, divine messengers, messiahs, way-showers, exemplars, elder Brothers, who at the behest of the Great Architect came into flesh from the Celestial Lodge at different times and to different and to different races. Jesus of Nazareth was sent to be a light to the world to some branches of the human race, but other branches have had, and do now have, their Buddah, their Krishnas, their Zoraoster, their Confucius, their Mohammed. Masonry declares that all these peoples, of whatever religion or creed, are children of God born into a particular race, religion, or creed to derive whatever benefits and self-development they need, or are capable of, on their long journey back to the Celestial Lodge. As all men live and have their being in the Creator, all men are potential Brothers. Hence Masonry emphasizes no Avatar in its Ritual more than another; and all over the world express their first allegiance to God, as Universal Father...
Now if Francis fancies his own self as the Grand High Exalted Head Potentate of the Ahab-Bektash Temple rather that Pope, let him proclaim that and he can wear a Fez, get liquored-up and ride around in parades in a go-cart.
AIH (what does the latter abbreviation denote?)
ReplyDeleteIf Wikipedia is to be believed (which cannot be assumed), the acronym is for "Académie Internationale d'Héraldique" (or, in English, International Academy of Heraldry). Evidently Dr Fox's expertise in heraldry is not trivial.
There was apparently a lot of difference in praxis and principles between 17th century US/English/Scottish "freemasonry" and the European variety. (Not that I study that stuff closely, or at all.) It seems to have been more of a nondenominational hangout in the US, so the whole Jacobin thing in France was shocking to Americans.
ReplyDeleteIn general, the US founding fathers were a pretty good bunch. They all had their sins and follies, but Franklin was probably the loosest in his living. (And that really wasn't much, on the scale usually kept by world leaders; and they did send the guy to France with time on his hands.)
A lot of the foundations of US political thought came from St. Robert Bellarmine, by way of the Carrolls of Maryland, or by way of Burke and Locke.
Other bits came from the Iroquois Confederacy (who weren't fun or trustworthy neighbors, but did have a lot of political genius). People forget that Hiawatha was a real person, who is famous because he came up with a system (helped in authorship by one of the old ladies and one of the shamans) for unifying tribes and governing by federation and representative councils. And then he got his arch-enemy in the other most powerful tribe to sign onto it, by promising that the enemy would be the first chief of the whole coalition. The results were far from perfect (the arch-enemy's foreign policies were not nice), but they helped the tribes survive in a changing world.
The reason that the Betsy Ross flag (and the command flag) had a circle of stars was that none of the former colonies wanted to cede primacy to any other. Nobody could tell which star represented which state, and no star was outside of the circle of belonging. All the stars were the same size, so there was to be no big state/little state dominance war. And so on.
ReplyDeleteSigh. What do they teach them in these schools?
Thank you for the tutorial ABS.
ReplyDeleteFr. Hunwicke, you should know that in the world today, Europe as well as the United States, one of our biggest problems is the vast number of people who believe they are eminently superior to the men on who's shoulders we now stand, who can be rightly judged by such contemporary people and as we too often see, usually found sorely lacking in all departments. Maybe that's just in comparison to the morally superior human beings that now inhabit the earth, the kind we see everyday, ourselves even!. It should surprise us that despite all these lofty beings, the ones who are vastly more moral and righteous than men like President George Washington, who prayed earnestly to God at every opportunity and who helped create a nation despite all odds against it, that our world manages to be in such horrible shape in all directions. Why do we all not benefit more directly from these elevated men? Why is our world not just lovely and sweet and full of all good things with such demi-gods as these "Founder judges" we have in every corner of the West? Could it be that these men are nothing but liberal traitors, who find hindsight so attractive and hating their own ancestors, the ones who brought mankind out of darkness and into civilization, so easy and appealing? And oh, the virtue signaling!
And now, having benefited from all the things that easy living could possibly provide, rather than acknowledge the inventions and intelligence it took to create such an amazing document as the American Constitution, they would rather judge these men by mere contemporary politically correct values and mores, and finding them sorely lacking, not up to their standards. And so they emit foul noises about these great men, who often risked life and limb and out of pretty much nothing created the foundation for the world's greatest societies, which have provided the best standard of living for it's citizens than virtually any other societies thus far, and the greatest protections against threats both foreign and domestic.
But it was not designed for an immoral people, as the founders clearly stated, so it's no wonder the world has gone off the rails. And as Ben Franklin said when asked what kind of a government had been formed "A Republic, if you can keep it", it relies on a moral populace and will be useless without it. So we see the American Democrat party not referring to the Republic, but to the "democracy", which they believe they can manipulate by the influx of great numbers of foreign permanent dependents, something you there in Europe may be beginning to comprehend. What a plan, happiness for all. And with men so quick to criticize and denounce all that we believe and are, the very origins of the West, it will be a miracle if we can keep it, any of it. And then what brilliant plan have the men at that point, socialism? Communism? These have not provided anything but misery around the world, responsible for more deaths than any other ideologies, but these brilliant lights seem determined to try it once again, always believing they themselves will manage to be at the top, where the view is better. Or they are so ignorant, they don't even consider where they themselves will end up, likely at the bottom with the rest of us.
These people have managed to take beautiful America, and trash it, turning it into more and more every day into a Thunderdome, which Europe increasingly looks like as well. They are immoral and traitorous men hurling insults at long-dead men who were vastly more moral and made of much better stuff than they.
Please excuse my rant, but one gets fed up with slights against one's beloved country, fortunately for the world thus far, the benevolent giant.
Slights are insufferable from outsiders, but intolerable by insiders.
"Apparently, Washington was accompanied on his military rampages by a 'Command Flag' looking exactly like our European flag, except that, instead of the Twelve Stars of our blessed Lady's Crown, it has thirteen stars."
ReplyDeleteInteresting. When Archbishop Carroll reigned as first bishop of Baltimore, he used as his official seal an image of Our Lady and the Christ Child--surrounded by 13 stars.
I think that it stands for Associate of the Institute of Heraldry.
ReplyDeleteThat the what you say is true Father is known by any Catholic whose ancestry in America pre-dates the revolution. of 1776. North America, like South America was under the Spanish Crown, except for those colonies established by the Dutch and English in the East. From Florida along the Gulf to Louisiana, Texas, Arizona to California were under the Spanish and then French Crowns and therefore Catholic. Virginia and the Carolinas were firmly in the hands of C of E and Scottish episcopalians. Virginia in its governing elite had a large immigrations of people who were settled by the then royal governor who was by no means happy with the accession of William & Mary to the throne, it seems. However, Massachusetts the home of the revolution and Pennsylvania, given a charter under the Catholic King James II was largely Quaker. The latter sect had no defense against those like the Quaker Benjamin Franklin who were devout masons. True enough, James II also issued a royal charter to the Catholic Lord Baltimore and his company. But by the time of the Revolution masonry has reared its head, even in Maryland. John Carroll, a signer of the Declaration of Independence from the British Crown is also said to have been a freemason. On the other hand, the ugliness of this movement led to the awful events of 1789, whose effect issued in the Louisiana purchase and the influence of the Masonic US government in Catholic lands in North America. In France resistance to Freemasonry continued. One such 19th century resistance, called the La Pétite Église, ended up in Canada but its descendants soon succumbed to Episcopalian predations being tricked by Utrecht-based succession. But earlier noble French families had sought refuge from the horrors of !789 and Napoleon in Louisiana. To my mind the disaster that is the Catholic Church today has its origin in Free masonry and its child the French Revolution. Pope Benedict XVI endorsed the American Revolution in his address before the Curia as late as December, 2005. Earlier, Cardinal Suenens late primate of Bruxelles-Malines described Vatican Council II as the Church's "revolution." Until Prince Charles, the British Crown had a firm alliance with the Lodge, since it had supported the Guelf-based and therefore anti-Papal succession of the House of Hanover after Queen Anne betrayed her Catholic father James II. Much of modern Roman Catholic history is explicable when we understand the firm hold that masonry has had over many priests and bishops.
ReplyDeleteFather
ReplyDeleteYour comments reminded me of a story that Abrama Lincoln used to tell
"The original story—among Lincoln’s most irreverent—went something like this: Ethan Allen (1738-1789) was a Revolutionary War hero who “had occasion to visit England” shortly after peace was declared. During this trip, Allen’s British hosts pelted him with jokes about “Americans and General Washington in particular and one day they got a picture of General Washington” which was conspicuously hung up in an outhouse. Though he couldn’t have missed this painting, Allen never mentioned it. Eventually, the Brits asked if he’d spotted Washington’s likeness in the privy. Allen had, and added, “it was a very appropriate [place] for an Englishman to keep it … there is nothing that will make an Englishman sh*t so quick as the sight of Genl. Washington.”
Father, your article reminds me that George Washington "had a vision of a beautiful and luminous lady. She foretold that the Americans would be victorious and that a new and great nation would be born." This appears n George Washington: His Legacy of Faith, Character and Courage, published by Ignatius Press, which was reviewed by Francis Phillips in The Catholic Herald on 16 March 2018.
ReplyDeleteThe review by Francis Phillips is entitled 'Did George Washington have a vision of Our Lady?' The author of the book has written books about Our Lady, St Francis and St Mother Teresa.
ReplyDeleteThe author "sees him as a devout Christian and man of deep faith. He was also friendly to local Catholics 'shown by his very large donation for the construction of the first Catholic church in Virginia.'"
Those who might appreciate a liberating recapitulation of the founding of America and the putative faith of its leaders would do well to read Christopher A Ferrara's, "Liberty The God that Failed," because it is in that excellent book that he reveals that Liberty is the religion of America and that religion is taught in the state seminaries - public schools.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading it, one may identify with Joe Sobran, who observed (paraphrase) It took me an embarrassingly long time to free myself from the lies of public education
Catholics in America - where our Bishops routinely celebrate, propagate, and religiously observe Religious Liberty - can use this book as an educational emetic to purge from their minds the pernicious poison forced upon their unsuspecting intellects by the political propagandists working in the state seminaries.
Unlike the European Union flag, the stars were arranged in rows:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.amrevmuseum.org/collection/washingtons-headquarters-flag
Each star represents a state, which is unlike the EU flag, which was shamelessly lifted from the Miraculous medal, simply because it looked good.
It is also very reminiscent of the "chief" of the Betsy Ross Flag.
Dear Father. FIY
ReplyDeletehttps://tinyurl.com/y2rc8qxa
beginning on page 53 is the place where ABS copied and pasted about the meaning of masonry
Point awarded to Claudio.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if DFlinn's anecdote made it into The Abraham Lincoln Joke Book. Perhaps it did, with some ... sanitation. If not, what a missed opportunity!
I think the last time I made any remarks on this blog was about the differences between continental and British isles masonry. On the continent it appears to consist of left-liberals constantly searching for any way of conspiring against all ideas of authority older than the Paris commune, or perhaps the tribunals of the Khmer Rouge, while over here, it usually seems to involve retired brush salesmen or estate agents in the harmless impersonation of obscure characters from the Old Testament. And sometimes also crusaders. (Pictures online: Google image search Knights Templars).
ReplyDeleteI have a friend, and so do you, Fr., (mentioning no names), who affects to think that mere membership in a freemasonic lodge removes the intention of bishops to ordain – not sure about saying mass or the other sacraments. This argument, quoted by others, usually sedevacantist, seems to have been invented for the first time in an attempt to question or denigrate the orders received by archbishop Lefebvre from cardinal Lienart, and therefore undermine the SSPX. Suggestion is Lienart was a mason – evidence: one priest once said he thought he was. – If that argument worked then everyone he ‘ordained’ in his diocese would not have been. And if he was, was he the only French bishop to be a member? Seems unlikely. And what about the rest of the continent? It has been explicitly claimed that half the Vatican bureaucracy was in P2 or other lodges. I have read no objections that any Roman clergy failed to receive orders because of freemasonic involvement. (My only objection to Lefebvre was that he did not pull Montini from his throne and propel him to the Tiber. Far too deferential imo. Sadly all too common: I didn’t even throw the contents of my glass over cardinal Murphy O’Connor on the only occasion I had the misfortune to talk to him. But, who could then have guessed anyone would ever have taken that man seriously? Our enemy seems very ill-served).
Until its outright condemnation and probably for many after, membership of a lodge, even an extremely liberal and anticlerical one, was probably commonplace among clergy of all ranks who desired to have an intellectual conversation or just to drink in civilised company. (After its condemnation I believe the penalties are disciplinary rather than ritual or sacramental in any way: after all a bishop who commits adultery can still validly ordain after breaking divine law). One suspects that gentlemen in the New World found that the lodge provided a similarly welcome experience of convivial civilisation.
I read online that the emperor Stephen, Maria Theresa’s husband, was inducted into an English lodge by Lord Chestrefield in his embassy in Brussels or wherever. The duke of Orleans was master of the grand Orient: well; we know how that ended. But clearly, Catholic membership was once quite common. At some point in the past, it seems likely that many clerical lines of consecration would stagger through men with some period of membership in a secret society that would necessarily remain unknown. You have commented before on the problem of condemning the sacramental orders of those we happen to find distasteful.
I accuse myself of Laodicean luke-warmness after reading Paul-A Hardy’s remarks. I believe he is right in saying many clergy have joined lodges. I was considering the theological issue and historical evidence. He is of course right about the personal EFFECTS that the breach of Church law and the imbibing of the anticlerical atmosphere and ideology would have in diverting clergy from their calling. This is why the Church makes laws and why we should obey them.
Did this already take? It didnt say.. I think the last time I made any remarks on this blog was about the differences between continental and British isles masonry. On the continent it appears to consist of left-liberals constantly searching for any way of conspiring against all ideas of authority older than the Paris commune, or perhaps the tribunals of the Khmer Rouge, while over here, it usually seems to involve retired brush salesmen or estate agents in the harmless impersonation of obscure characters from the Old Testament. And sometimes also crusaders. (Pictures online: Google image search Knights Templars).
ReplyDeleteI have a friend, and so do you, Fr., (mentioning no names), who affects to think that mere membership in a freemasonic lodge removes the intention of bishops to ordain – not sure about saying mass or the other sacraments. This argument, quoted by others, usually sedevacantist, seems to have been invented for the first time in an attempt to question or denigrate the orders received by archbishop Lefebvre from cardinal Lienart, and therefore undermine the SSPX. Suggestion is Lienart was a mason – evidence: one priest once said he thought he was. – If that argument worked then everyone he ‘ordained’ in his diocese would not have been. And if he was, was he the only French bishop to be a member? Seems unlikely. And what about the rest of the continent? It has been explicitly claimed that half the Vatican bureaucracy was in P2 or other lodges. I have read no objections that any Roman clergy failed to receive orders because of freemasonic involvement. (My only objection to Lefebvre was that he did not pull Montini from his throne and propel him to the Tiber. Far too deferential imo. Sadly all too common: I didn’t even throw the contents of my glass over cardinal Murphy O’Connor on the only occasion I had the misfortune to talk to him. But, who could then have guessed anyone would ever have taken that man seriously? Our enemy seems very ill-served).
Until its outright condemnation and probably for many after, membership of a lodge, even an extremely liberal and anticlerical one, was probably commonplace among clergy of all ranks who desired to have an intellectual conversation or just to drink in civilised company. (After its condemnation I believe the penalties are disciplinary rather than ritual or sacramental in any way: a bishop who commits adultery can still ordain). One suspects that gentlemen in the New World found that the lodge provided a similarly welcome experience of convivial civilisation.
I read online that the emperor Stephen, Maria Theresa’s husband, was inducted into an English lodge by Lord Chestrefield in his embassy in Brussels or wherever. The duke of Orleans was master of the grand Orient: well; we know how that ended. But clearly, Catholic membership was once quite common. At some point in the past, it seems likely that many clerical lines of consecration would stagger through men with some period of membership in a secret society that would necessarily remain unknown. You have commented before on the problem of condemning the sacramental orders of those we happen to find distasteful.
I accuse myself of Laodicean luke-warmness after reading Paul-A Hardy’s remarks. I believe he is right in saying many clergy have joined lodges. I was considering the theological issue and historical evidence. He is of course right about the personal EFFECTS that the breach of Church law and the imbibing of the anticlerical atmosphere and ideology would have in diverting clergy from their calling. This is why the Church makes laws and why we should obey them.