|
Post by Tamrin on May 31, 2009 14:42:08 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Gaslight on May 31, 2009 17:02:26 GMT 10
Thanks for opening a new thread, but the two quotations split across two topics are a little confusing. Care to lead off with a few comments indicating where your interest lies? I'll be happy to follow.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on May 31, 2009 21:13:58 GMT 10
Thanks for opening a new thread, but the two quotations split across two topics are a little confusing. Care to lead off with a few comments indicating where your interest lies?
I'll be happy to follow. I have yet to open the thread where I intend to discuss the possibility of links from Albigensianism to Calvinism to Freemasonry. These latest post were tangential to my preparations and thrown in as being of passing interest. Basically, my premise will be that, despite tempting correlations, even a tenuous connection between the Cathars and modern, speculative freemasonry is discounted because the former was said to have been wiped out long before the establishment of the latter. However, a remnant held on in the Piedmont valleys of northern Italy, as part of a milieu of other so-called, heretical groups, including the Waldenses. Modern apologists for the Waldenses often seek to drawn an absolute distinction between them and other groups, such as the Cathars, which does not, however, withstand scrutiny. Rightly or wrongly, they believed (and were believed) that their traditions derived from Apostolic times and included the gnostic mysteries of Primitive Christianity (they predated their one-time leader and alleged namesake, Peter Valdo). After centuries of persecution they earned the admiration of early Protestants, including Luther and they sheltered and inspired Calvin. With the Reformation came their victory. The Italian speakers among them remained in Italy, while their French speakers returned to France and were in the vanguard of the Huguenots (who, with other Calvinists, were disproportionately represented in the Premier Grand Lodge). Huguenot Cross
|
|
|
Post by Gaslight on Jun 1, 2009 0:57:44 GMT 10
I have yet to open the thread where I intend to discuss the possibility of links from Albigensianism to Calvinism to Freemasonry. These latest post were tangential to my preparations and thrown in as being of passing interest. I think I spoke too soon when I said I'd be happy to participate in this new thread. My knowledge of Reformation theology is truly sparse. I was raised a Roman Catholic in a school run by -- coincidence, coincidence -- a small Dominican abbey. I look forward to your development of this thread, but doubt I can contribute much.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 1, 2009 7:26:22 GMT 10
I look forward to your development of this thread, but doubt I can contribute much. I have been taught to be cautious and am hesitant to expound my more speculative conjectures without emphasising those ideas are seperate and distinct from my deductions concerning the presence of a "code" suggesting that, at one level, the key to the genuine secrets of a M.M., is a third named "P.", the import of which is "stability." And, indeed, proceeding from the porch, to the middle chamber, to the S.S., we find one described as such in the V.S.L., together with a lot of corroborating details in our rituals. One cannot be so confident in ascribing a purpose and the inspiration behind the early 18th century innovators and, as such, the theory of WHAT was concealed in plain sight is in no way dependent on speculations as to WHY it was introduced. Even so, with that caveat in mind, we may look at the early membership of the Premier Grand Lodge and consider their beliefs, to form a further theoretical layer. As previously posted, I suggest this may have related to notions of Primitive Christianity having gnostic mysteries of the Early Church, thought to have been suppressed following the election of Pope Sylvester and the Council of Nicea, but preserved among so-called heretical groups. We have, for instance, the story of Jesus raising the widow's son, Lazarus (akin to Elijah also supposed to have raised a widow's son). Another possibility is a link with contemporary beliefs concerning the Essenes: The Essenes[Excerpt - www.essortment.com - Linked Above] There is a credible theory that the figure of Jesus was depicted as having been an Essene, that the "mysteries" of the early church are derived from this sect and that these were preserved among the Albigensians until the Reformation. We read (link above) of the Essenes:Brass emblem inside a Waldensian temple
|
|
|
Post by Gaslight on Jun 1, 2009 12:07:15 GMT 10
As previously posted, I suggest this may have related to notions of Primitive Christianity having gnostic mysteries of the Early Church, thought to have been suppressed following the election of Pope Sylvester and the Council of Nicea, but preserved among so-called heretical groups. We have, for instance, the story of Jesus raising the widow's son, Lazarus (akin to Elijah also supposed to have raised a widow's son). Another possibility is a link with contemporary beliefs concerning the Essenes: I need some help with defining terms and clarifying our respective points of view. First, I'm not sure what "Primitive Christianity" is. Is this a technical term? As for the Gnostic mysteries of the Early Church, my superficial acquaintance with Celsus' criticism of the Early Church leads me to conclude that most of the early Christians were little different from the born-again fundamentalists of today. I think in one part of his essay (as quoted by Origen) Celsus notes that the early Christians made a point of avoiding intellectuals and focusing their proselytising on the less educated and more gullible classes. Wasn't the Gnostic tradition revived or developed in the freer intellectual and cosmopolitan atmosphere of Alexandria, and at a much later date? (An innocent question, as I don't have the time to follow the breadcrumb trail through books I read years ago.) About the Essenes: Not having done any research of my own, my opinion tends to reflect that of the most recent book I've read on the subject. At the moment, that opinion would be that the Essenes were a group of ultra-conservative Jews who took themselves into the wilderness to avoid the polluting influence of contemporary Judaism. I get the impression that recent scholarship is slowly marginalising their influence and significance. Now I need to go away and catch up on the Waldensians, Huguenots and other groups that figure in your hypothesis. With any luck, I may be able to keep you with you. (A little late to bring this up, but I take it you discount the Jacobite influence on early Masonry?)
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 1, 2009 18:59:56 GMT 10
I need some help with defining terms and clarifying our respective points of view. First, I'm not sure what "Primitive Christianity" is. Is this a technical term?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 1, 2009 19:31:31 GMT 10
As for the Gnostic mysteries of the Early Church, my superficial acquaintance with Celsus' criticism of the Early Church leads me to conclude that most of the early Christians were little different from the born-again fundamentalists of today. I think in one part of his essay (as quoted by Origen) Celsus notes that the early Christians made a point of avoiding intellectuals and focusing their proselytising on the less educated and more gullible classes. Wasn't the Gnostic tradition revived or developed in the freer intellectual and cosmopolitan atmosphere of Alexandria, and at a much later date? (An innocent question, as I don't have the time to follow the breadcrumb trail through books I read years ago.)
About the Essenes: Not having done any research of my own, my opinion tends to reflect that of the most recent book I've read on the subject. At the moment, that opinion would be that the Essenes were a group of ultra-conservative Jews who took themselves into the wilderness to avoid the polluting influence of contemporary Judaism. I get the impression that recent scholarship is slowly marginalising their influence and significance. I hold no brief for any of the sects, ancient or modern. My interest in this matter concerns the changes introduced to the Craft in the 1720's, in the context of which I have tried to consider the beliefs of the innovators. While modern scholarship may be of interest in its own right, that is not the point. Rightly or wrongly, what the principal players believed at the time is what is relevant in explaining their actions.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 1, 2009 20:03:11 GMT 10
(A little late to bring this up, but I take it you discount the Jacobite influence on early Masonry?) In the period on which I am focusing, the early 1720's, yes (I recommend Zanelli's, A Pragmatic Masonic History). I suspect the Jacobite influence only became an issue with the rise of the Antients when, by default, the generic loyalty of the Moderns was cast as a particular loyalty to the House of Hanover. I also suspect the issue of the Jacobite supporters of the house of Stuart became confused in the popular imagination with the Jacobine supporters of the French Revolution.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 5, 2009 7:13:17 GMT 10
|
|