Still Running Off at the Keyboard

1738 AFFECTING 2006 ?

Anyone who has researched Freemasonry knows that it is not popssible to track the Craft any further back into history than 1717. That is the foundation year, the year when four lodges came together to form the first Grand Lodge. 1717 was the beginning of what we know today as English Freemasonry. Just as 1717 is the foundation year, the foundation documents of Freemasonry are Anderson's Constitution--the first in 1723 and the second in 1738. They are frequently referred to as the "Old Charges."

John Hamill, Librarian and Curator of the United Grand Lodge of England, in his book THE CRAFT: A HISTORY OF ENGLISH FREEMASONRY, writes:

The first history of the Craft appeared, with official sanction, as part of the first Constitutions, compiled and published on behalf of the premier Grand Lodge by the Revd Dr. James Anderson in 1723. Anderson's work is largely a legendary history of the builder's craft from Adam in the Garden of Eden down to the formation of the premier Grand Lodge of England in 1717. Anderson makes no distinction between operative and speculative Masonry, implying that the one was a continuation of the other. ...He did not even claim to have written an original work but, as he explained in the second edition (1738) of the Constitutions, had simply digested the old Gothic Constitutions. It was from these that he derived the traditions of Freemasons' lodges having existed from ancient times; of various biblical, historical, and purely legendary personalities having been patrons, promoters, or Grand Masters of the Craft; and of a Prince Edwin having called a great assembly of masons at York in AD 926 at which he granted them a Constitution and ordered them to meet in Quarterly Communication to regulate their lodges. ...

For the 1738 edition Anderson appears, unfortunately, to have given full reign to his imagination, constructing a detailed 'history' of English Masonry from the supposed Assembly at York down to the revival of the Grand Lodge in 1717 and continuing it from thence to 1738. ...

Because Anderson's history was published with the sanction of the Grand Lodge it took on the guise of holy writ, the more so as its contents were not challenged by those who had taken part in the events of 1717. So acceptable did his work prove that it continued to be reprinted without alteration, simply being brought up to date, in all subsequent editions of the premier Grand Lodge's Constitutions down to the final edition of 1784. (pp 16-17)

Given the importance of Anderson's Constitutions, what is written in them is significant. At the Thomas Smith Webb Chapter of Research, No. 1798 there is a paper online titled "Masonic References to Noah As the Master Builder," where you can read:

The story of Noah (or Nauch), of the Flood and of the two pillars upon which the entire knowledge of Man is to be found, appears in a majority of the old Manuscript Constitutions. Even the term "Noachida," alluding to Noah, is a frequent reference in eighteenth century Masonic literature to the name for Freemasons. (p. 3)

The website for the Grande Lodge De France, in a statement titled "Getting to know the Grand Lodge of France", confirms this:

The Chevalier Ramsay used to declare: "Freemasonry is indeed the resurrection of the noachide religion, that of the Patriarch Noah, that religion prior to any dogma, which allows us to go beyond the differences and oppositions of the various faiths." Thus could always be found in Masonic Lodges men who call each other "brother" even though often dissimilar in their origins, denominations, faiths, convictions and customs, but convinced of Freemasonry's fundamental principles, the law of Brotherly love.

THE DOUBLE EAGLE, a publication of the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite, Valley of Indianapolis, Volume 51, Number 5, Nov. 2001 adds additional evidence in an article titled "What's a 'Noachite'?":

The earliest known reference is in a 1735 letter from the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England to the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Calcutta. It is the fourth paragraph of the letter that is pertinent to this discussion. "Providence has fixed your Lodge near the learn'd Indians that affect to be called Noachidae..."

The earliest wide usage of Noachite, or in this case Noachida, is found in the first charge of the second or 1738 edition of the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England written by the Rev. James Anderson.

"A Mason is obliged by his Tenure to observe the Moral Law, as a true Noachida..." The second paragraph has the following sentence, "...For they all agree in the 3 great Articles of Noah, enough to preserve the Cement of the Lodge."...

But, there are seven Noachide Laws and Anderson alludes to only three. Which three did he mean? The good Reverend did not elaborate, but several Masonic scholars have speculated what he meant. One theory is Anderson meant the Masonic triad of Brotherly Love, Relief, and Truth." (p. 4)

1738 is important for another reason. It is the year of the first papal denouncement of Freemasonry.

In Eminenti On Freemasonry, the Papal Bull of Pope Clement XII, issued April 28, 1738:

We therefore, having taken counsel of some of Our Venerable Brothers among the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, and also of Our own accord and with certain knowledge and mature deliberations, with the plenitude of the Apostolic power do hereby determine and have decreed that these same Societies, Companies, Assemblies, Meetings, Congregations, or Conventicles of Liberi Muratori or Francs Massons, or whatever other name they may go by, are to be condemned and prohibited, and by Our present Constitution, valid for ever, We do condemn and prohibit them.

Those are strong words, and the following paragraph in the Encyclical is even stronger. At the very time when the Lodge was casting Anderson's Constitutions in stone, the Shepherd of the Roman Catholic Church was condemning the Lodge. The statement is Ex Cathedra, and thus infallible according to CCC 891. It was the first of many condemnations.

Those Noachide Laws that are part of the Masonic Old Charges are the laws that were the subject of disagreement between St. Paul and St. Peter as is recounted in Scripture. There is one specific aspect of Jewish law that caused the controversy--circumcision. Specifically, St. Peter and St. Paul disagreed about the need for circumcision among the Gentile converts. The controversy is described in detail in the old Catholic Encyclopedia under the heading "Judaizers:"

This incident has been made much of...showing the existence of two primitive forms of Christianity, Petrinism and Paulinism, at war with each other. But anyone, who will look at the facts without preconceived theory, must see that between Peter and Paul there was no difference in principles, but merely a difference as to the practical conduct to be followed under the circumstances....That Peter's principles were the same as those of Paul, is shown by his conduct at the time of Cornelius's conversion, by the position he took at the council of Jerusalem, and by his manner of living prior to the arrival of the Judaizers. Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1 Corinthians 9:20).

These Laws, were the subject of the council of Jerusalem (AD 50), and the reason the council was called...the first council of the Catholic Church. St. Paul believed that Gentile converts to Christianity were not required to observe the Jewish Law of circumcision. St. Peter and his followers believed they were because there was a need not to cause scandal among the Jewish Christians. St. Peter lost the argument and the Church continued through the Gentiles.

Roman Catholicism is built on the teachings of St. Paul to a very large degree. The followers of St. Peter, who were mainly Jews who had converted to Christianity, but who continued to follow Jewish law, objected to this new direction that Christianity took. They wanted converts to Christianity to observe the Noachide Laws while they believed they were required to observe the entire Mosaic Law.

Once the Temple at Jerusalem was destroyed (AD 67-70), those Jewish Christians who subscribed to Gentile observance of the Noachide Laws were scattered and presumed to be lost. According to the article in the Encyclopedia:

With the disappearance of the Jewish-Christian community of Jerusalem at the time of the rebellion (A.D. 67-70), the question about circumcision and the observance of the Law ceased to be of any importance in the Church, and soon became a dead issue. At the beginning of the second century St. Ignatius of Antioch, it is true, still warns against Judaizers (Magnes., x, 3; viii, 1; Philad., vi, 1), but the danger was probably more a memory than a reality. During the rebellion the mass of the Jewish Christians of Palestine retired beyond the Jordan, where they gradually lost touch with the Gentiles and in the course of time split up into several sects. St. Justin (about 140) distinguishes two kinds of Jewish Christians: those who observe the Law of Moses, but do not require its observance of others -- with these he would hold communion, though in this all his contemporaries did not agree with him -- and those who believe the Mosaic Law to be obligatory on all, whom he considers heretics (Dial. Cum Tryph., 47). If Justin is describing the Jewish Christians of his day, as he appears to do, they had changed little since Apostolic times. The accounts of later Fathers show them divided into three main sects: (a) the Nazarenes, who, while observing the Mosaic Law, seem to have been orthodox. They admitted the Divinity of Christ and the virginal birth; (b) the Ebionites, who denied the Divinity of Christ and virginal birth, and considered St. Paul as an apostate. It should be noted, however, that though the Fathers restrict the name Ebionite to the heretical Jewish Christians, the name was common to all; (c) an offshoot of the last infected with Gnosticism (cf. art. EBIONITES). After the middle of the fifth century the Jewish Christians disappear from history.

Did they in fact disappear, or were they present in the Cathar religion? Were they present in the formation of the Masonic Lodge when Anderson's Constitution cited the Noachide Laws in the foundation documents of Freemasonry? Are they present today in the Gnostic revival and in Martinism? Is the controversy still with us?

It would seem that it is, lodged in Grail Christianity according to grailchurch.org:

The Grail Church is Jewish in the sense that it believes Jesus Christ is the Messiah of Israel. He rules from Heaven in His resurrected body. The mediators of His Messianic Kingdom are not the leaders of Christianity but rather His kinsmen according to the flesh - called the Desposyni - and all those in fellowship with them. We accept the validity of the Mosaic Law as it was interpreted and applied by the New Testament Church which was led by James, the brother of Jesus. There are no longer any ritual or ceremonial laws from that law system which are still binding upon Israel, except for the Noahide laws as enunciated by James in Acts 15.

Is this controversy behind the push at Vatican II to reconcile our relationship with Judaism? Was it a factor in the creation of "Reflection on Covenant and Mission," written by the USCCB, which contained a reference to the Noahide Laws? Is the controversy behind the softening of opposition to Freemasonry in the 1983 Code of Canon Law--a softening that was revoked by Cardinal Ratzinger in a letter of correction after the Code was promulgated?

The controversy seems to be behind the activities of Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh in their book HOLY BLOOD HOLY GRAIL, and Dan Brown's subsequent DA VINCI CODE. Have the Jewish Christians converted enough disciples that today they believe it is possible to bring their doctrine out into the open? To create a New World Order subject to the Noachide Laws? A New Order that will deny the worship of Christ in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? The Noachide Laws permit worship of only one God. This is not expanded to permit the worship of the Trinity according to Answers.com:

Within Judaism it is a matter of debate whether or not all Christians should be considered Noahides. The strict view is that Christian theology is considered avodah zarah (loosely translated as "idolatry") for all people, both Jew and gentile, as it subscribes to the Trinity. Therefore most Christians could not be considered Noahides. However, Unitarian Christians and other followers of Jesus who do not believe that Jesus is God would still be considered Noahides.

The liberal orthodox view is that Christian theology is only considered avodah zarah for Jews, but it is permissible for gentiles. The Tosafist (early Talmud commentators) Rabbi Jacob Tam (Rashi's grandson), in Bekhorot 2b and Sanhedrin 63b, ruled that trinitarianism could be permitted to gentiles as a form of shittuf ("association"). This view was echoed by Rabbi Isaac ben Sheshet (Rivash, responsa 119) and accepted by Rabbi Moses Isserles (Rema, Orah Hayyim 156:1.). However, no Jewish source allows the worship through any form of shittuf; rather, all worship must be directed to the one and only Creator.

The view of Maimonides is difficult to ascertain due to text alterations in different editions of his Mishneh Torah (code of Jewish law), Ma'akhalot Asurot 11:7. In any case, in this view Christian theology is not forbidden to gentiles, and all Christians are Noahides. Today most of Reform and Conservative Judaism view all Christians as Noahides.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!