From: ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan,alt.magick
Subject: Re: Masonic Practices??
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:16:34 GMT
Followup-To: alt.pagan
Organization: The MITRE Corporation


In articles:
<1993Jan24.215455.11774@fuug.fi> (alt.magick) and 
<1993Jan24.215526.11908@fuug.fi> (alt.pagan), an4484@anon.penet.fi writees:

>My understanding (as much I guess as an outsider could have) of Masonic
>practices would be that they descend from the Knights Templar of around
>the time of the middle ages. Their purpose in being was to be the 
>guardians of the Holy Grail.

>Funny though....I was talking to a Witch whose grandfather was a Mason and
>it seems their beliefs are a little more elaborate than that. It seems that
>the whole idea behind Masonry is that Christ as a man was married or at
>least had sexual relations with Mary Magdelan which produced offspring.
>The Masons then have one purpose....to defend these descendants of Christ
>down through the ages.

>And the reason for the secrecy is that the whole premise of the Christian
>religion is the fact that Jesus was the Son of God....hence the need for
>secrecy. The Witch (who had evidently gleaned this info from her grandfathers
>diaries seemed to resent this, in that this means the Masons are basically
>defending a lie...namely, Christ as the celibate Son of God who never married
>as that might make certain Christian practices/beliefs untenable.

>Any comments on this?

> Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

Well, yes.

    OK, we're discussing this hypothesis:

(a) Christ survived the crucifixion.  
(b) He had children by Mary Magdelene, a bloodline which still survives 
    in the British and French Royal Families.
(c) The Masons have been keeping this secret all along.

    As far as I know, this notion was originated by Baigent, Leigh,
and Powell, in their book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail", around
1974.  If your witch friend's grandfather's diary (how's that for a
FOAF type link :-) predates that period I would VERY MUCH LIKE TO HEAR
ABOUT IT!  Seriously, I would appreciate it if you could follow up on
this.

    Baigent and Leigh have produced a series of popular books on
historical subjects, and can be shown to have played *very* fast &
loose with their sources, and ignored countervailing evidence. They
are not taken seriously by academic historians.

    Frankly, I can't see how this would do much violence to
Christianity even if it were true. All it would do is postpone the
Ascension. It would not neccesarily affect the Passion or
Resurrection.

   BTW, the phrase "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" refers to one of the
"pieces of evidence" they offer:

In (old?) French:

	Sang Real = Royal Blood
	San Greal = Holy Grail

    This convenient bit of punnery means that they can take any
reference to the Holy Grail, and make it a reference to Christ's
bloodline, when it suits their purpose. 

    Just out of curiousity, why the anon post? You're not saying
anything likely to get people's dander up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
In <1jvbniINN8j4@titan.ucs.umass.edu> (alt.magick) locklin@titan.ucs.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN) writes:

[deleted]

     Scott suggested that the witch's gdad may have got the idea from
Robert Anton Wilson. However, RAW got it from Baigent & Leigh.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
In  <g9ywXB4w165w@tweekco.uucp> (alt.pagan) alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
writes:

>Sounds like the basic theme of Holy Blood, Holy Grail (Baigent, Leigh,
>and Powell) ... which, lacking specialist knowledge of the time period
>dealt with, I use as a working hypothesis until something better
>comes along.

>OOPS!!! I hate putting something on Usenet and suddenly remembering
>that I posted something that reads drastically differently from 
>what I intended to say.

>What I INTENDED to say is that the Christ married to Mary Magdalene
>scenario presented in Holy Blood, Holy Grail is what I use as a working
>hypothesis, along with the idea that Masonry has its roots in 
>an organization devoted to the purpose of protecting the "Holy Blood",
>not that modern Masonry has that purpose today. (or has had that
>purpose for the last few hundred years) ... if I only could get people
>to read what I MEANT, not what I said.

    A "working hypothesis"? For what? Anyway, as I think I've made
clear, my reading suggests that this notion is about as probable as
Velikovsky's (sp?).

----------------------------------------------------------------------
In <w03wXB1w165w@status.gen.nz> (alt.pagan) jonc@status.gen.nz (Jon Clarke)
writes:

>Various non-masonic orders based in the Catholic religion do indeed
>practise what you have mentioned here and have no grounding in any
>masonic related orders.
 
     Could you give us some more details? What groups are you talking
about?  Knights of Columbus? Knights of Malta? Opus Dei? The Order of
the Water Buffalos?

>The reading of Temple and the Holy Grail my enligten you to the French
>Templars around the time of the refermation (late 1500's). While the
>Knights Templar were supposed to be the orginal Guards of the first
>temple they were infact an order founded in Malta and members of the
>Knights hospitalier and founded at the time of the first crusades.
 
    I think you have your history screwed up. The Templars (The Order
of Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon). originated in the Holy land
in the 1110's.  Their original brief was to protect pilgrims on the
road from Jaffa to Jerusalem. Their first leader was Hugues de Payns,
a French nobleman. They gained official Church recognition from the
Council of Troyes in 1128. The Knights Hospitaliers (later the Knights
of Malta) were a different, and rival, order.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

						W.'. Peter Trei
						ptrei@mitre.org
		
						Presiding Master,
						Wilder Lodge AF&AM
						Leominster, MA

						Editor: Masonic Digest

Disclaimer: I am not speaking for my employer.
Newsgroups: alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism