....."Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known". Matthew 10:26 (KJV)

Monday, March 18, 2013

Johann August von Starck - Lutheran Freemason

>

This one and the previous post are drafts of the previous year. There are intersting information on the infiltration of Masonry in the Protestant field and evidences of a underground secret connection between Roma and part of the "heretic" world

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

Was the myth of "Templars" as founders of (Free)masonry built in order to pre-date the founding of an organization,  created and/or wanted (and by third parts created), in an age where the questions of the Reform was not only unknown, but inconceivable?


Masonry, free or not, as first attempt of "ecumenism" of the Vatican and of the Jesuit order trying to embark the 'heretics' on a Titanic where they would have lowered the guard against the infiltrations of Rome?


Johann August von Starck - Lutheran Freemason:

English Wikipedia: 

Johann August Starck also Stark (October 24, 1741 – March 3, 1816) was a prolific author and controversial Königsberg theologian, as well as a widely-read political writer now best remembered for arguing that an Illuminati-led conspiracy brought about the French revolution. Immanuel Kant and Johann Georg Hamann were among his acquaintances in Königsberg. His broadly deistic approach emphasized natural religion and smoothed over doctrinal differences among the various faiths.

 German Wikipedia: 

Johann August Starck (born October 28, 1741 in Schwerin, † March 3, 1816 in Darmstadt) was a German writer, Masonic, Lutheran theologian and General Superintendent of Königsberg in Prussia (1776-1777). Intermittently, as a leading figure of Freemasonry, the latter stood, beside his work on the history of the church, at  the center of his literary career.

 

Johann August Starck, after being a warm Freemason [initiation in the same 1761 of the Miracle at the Court of Brandenburg], with the years openly revisited his views and turned against the "secret societies" and the Freemasonry. But a letter from 1809  reveals that he could have secretely remained a brother:

 


"......„Es sind seit jener Zeit wie in der politischen Welt also auch im Orden, allerlei grosse Veränderungen vorgefallen: eine Szene hat mit der anderen abgewechselt, und es sind nun schon 32 Jahre, dass ich mich von allem ganz zurückgezogen habe, und an allem, was vorgenommen wird und noch werden wird, keinen andern Anteil nahm, als dass ich zusehe, wie man das ausgeblasene Ei bald so, bald anders färbt und damit spielt, es auch wohl dazu braucht, wozu es am wenigsten gebraucht werden sollte. Bei dem allem sind aber meine Überzeugungen von der Sache selbst dieselbigen, die sie damals waren und werden es auch immer bleiben. Die Wahrheit, mein verehrtester Freund und Bruder, ist nur eine und unveränderlich, und dass diese da existiert wo wir ihre Existenz zu glauben berechtigt waren, davon bin ich nach reiflicher Prüfung... vollkommen überzeugt.“....."


.....where he explains how many changing occured both in the politic as well in the Order [of Freemasonry]. He says that there are 32 years [therefore since 1777] since when he leaved [the Order] as a sort of delusion for the continue manipulations of the organizations. But he remarks that his belief about the matter remained the same, and that the truth remains always the same and unchanged.

 

From: http://www.freemason.com/library/evolu34.htm

".......(.....)......
This discussion of Scottish Rite Masonry would not be complete without reference to Frederick the Great of Prussia, who has been heralded as the Father of Scottish Rite Masonry. For the story of he initiation of Frederick as a Mason, the Masonic world is indebted to two sources, one an account by Campbell in his work on Frederick the Great and his times, and the other by Carlyle in his history of Fredcrick II. Both accounts, how ever, are merely translations of the original story as given by Baron Von Bielfeld, who was an intimate companion of the Prince, and was present at his initiation.
Bielfeld relates that in a conversation which took place on the 6th of August at Loo, in 1738 (but Carlyle corrects him as to time and place and says it probably occurred at Minden, on the 17th of July), the institution of Freemasonry had been enthusiastically lauded by the Count of Lippe Buckeburg.
The Crown Prince soon after privately expressed to the Count his wish to join the society. Of course, his every desire was to he gratified. The necessary furniture and assistance for conferring the degrees were obtained from the Lodge at Hamburg, Bielfeld gives an amusing account of the embarrass ment which was encountered in passing the chest containing the Masonic implements through the custom-house without detection. Campbell, quoting from Bielfeld, says: "The whole of the 14th (August) was spent in preparations for the Lodge, and at twelve at night, the Prince Royal arrived accompanied by Count Wartensleben, a captain in the King's regiment at Potsdam. The Prince introduced him to us as a candidate whom he very warmly recommended, and begged that he might be admitted immediately after himseIf. At the same time, he desired that he might be treated like any private individual and that none of the usual ceremonies should be altered on his account. Accordingly, he was admitted in the customary form, and I could not sufficiently admire his fearlessness, his composure, and his address. After the double reception a Lodge was held. All was over by four in the morning, and the Prince returned to the ducal palace, apparently as well pleased with us as we were charmed with him."
Concerning the truthfulness of the initiation of Frederick the Great as a Freemason, there has never been any question. He was without doubt made a Mason, but just how much activity he took in the affairs of the society will probably never be known. Carlyle, who was not a Freemason and who had a very blunt way of stating things, declared: "The Crown Prince prosecuted his Masonry at Reinsberg or elsewhere, occasionally for a year or two, but was never ardent in it, and very soon after his accession left off altogether . . . "Royal Arch was established at Berlin, of which the new king consented to be Patron; blit he never once entered the place, and only his portrait (a welcomely good one, still to be found there) presided over the mysteries of that establishment."
A careful study of the character of Frederick the Great, and an analysis of his many acts cannot help but leave the impartial investigator to believe that Carlyle's estimate of Frederick's activity in Freemasonry is correct. The only evidence whatsoever of the connection of the monarch with the organization of the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite is traceable to certain assertions made in the Grand Constitutions of 1786, which are alleged to have been promulgated by Frederick himself. This is the only basis for any assumption or belief that Frederick was a patron of the Scottish Rite and took it under his paternal care. Albert Pike who made a very thorough investigation of the whole matter, acknowledged that he was unable to throw any new light on the alleged connection of Frederick with the Scottish Rite or the fact that he signed the Grand Constitutions of 1786, but that he was forced to the following opinion: "There is no doubt that Frederick came to the conclusion that the great pretensions of Masonry in the blue degrees were merely imaginary and deceptive. He ridiculed the Order, and thought its ceremonies mere child's play; and some of his sayings to that effect have been preserved. But it does not at all follow that he might not at a later day have found it polite to put himself at the head of an Order that had become a power; and adopting such of the degrees as were not objectionable, to reject all that were of dangerous tendency, that had fallen into the hands of the Jesuits, or been engrafted on the Order by the Illuminati."
On the other hand, the impartial historian who is not carried off his feet by that enthusiasm which prompts him to accept as real that which he wants to believe, cannot help but agree with Carlyle, that the activity of Frederick as a Freemason was extremely limited, and that the story of his acceptance as the Father of Scottish Rite Masonry is simply due to a tendency which has ever been apparent in the evolution of Freemasonry, that of connecting with the fraternity eminent men regardless of the particular part they may have played in shaping the destinies of the society. The fact that each of the various Masonic systems has a Patron Saint, no doubt lead those who formulated the earliest Scottish Rite System to accept as their leader, Frederick of Prussia, relying upon the very meager information extant concerning his Masonic activity as a means of assuming that in the absence of contrary proof, they would be safe in making the claims which they have. It is of little consequence whether Frederick the Great promulgated the Grand Constitutions of 1786 or whether they were devised by the original founders of the Scottish Rite System. The fact remains that the v form the basis of Scottish Rite Freemasonry wherever it may exist and by them is judged its legitimacy and legally constituted authority.
....".







2 comments:

  1. събота, 11 октомври 2014 г.
    The thousand faces of Simon Magus - Jesuit Anti-Paulinism (pt 1)
    http://jesus-partisans-balkans.blogspot.it/2014/10/the-thousand-faces-of-simon-magus.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Magus#Anti-Paulinism



    SIMON MAGUS AS PAUL



    Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860), founder of the Tübingen School, drew attention to the anti-Pauline characteristic in the Pseudo-Clementines, and pointed out that in the disputations between Simon and Peter, some of the claims Simon is represented as making (e.g. that of having seen the Lord, though not in his lifetime, yet subsequently in vision) were really the claims of Paul; and urged that Peter's refutation of Simon was in some places intended as a polemic against Paul. The enmity between Peter and Simon is clearly shown. Simon's magical powers are juxtaposed with Peter's powers in order to express Peter's authority over Simon through the power of prayer, and in the 17th Homily, the identification of Paul with Simon Magus is effected. Simon is there made to maintain that he has a better knowledge of the mind of Jesus than the disciples, who had seen and conversed with Him in person. His reason for this strange assertion is that visions are superior to waking reality, as divine is superior to human


    Recently, Berlin pastor Hermann Detering (1995) has made the case that the veiled anti-Pauline stance of the Pseudo-Clementines has historical roots, that the Acts 8 encounter between Simon the magician and Peter is itself based on the conflict between Peter and Paul.

    ReplyDelete