Re: Free Masons history

IEJ posted:

>
> "Thomas Zahr" <ThomasZahr0506@xxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i
> meddelandet
> news:Xns9669651604F64ThomasZahrfreenetde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> berlin.de...
>> IEJ posted:
>>
>>> Seppo,
>>> Grey Friars did exist from 1120's. Not very well known
>>> but that's an other thing.
>>>
>>> Inger E
>>>
>>
>> That seems unlikely, as this would pre-date St. Francis
>> birth. http://tinyurl.com/cv5sc
>> The Catholic Encyclopedia is of course not infallible, but
>> they are unlikely to get the birth of one of the major
>> founders of orders wrong ...
>
> the group that came to be call the Grey Friars existed from
> late 1120's and then they were closer linked to the Knights
> Templar according to a Papal decret.

And what group was that supposed to be?

> As you probably know the Fransiscaner Order, and a few
> others, came as a reaction on the Cistercienser Order's
> views and life at the monestries. The Fransiscans in many
> ways lived according to the origin Benedictiner Order
> rules.
>

Wouldn't that be the other way round? Cistercensians and
Franciscans being (different) reactions to the wholesale
abandonment of the Benedictine Rule?

> Normally there were a closer relation between the
> Cistercienser Order and the Knight's Templar. That is true.
> But there were opposition at an early stage among the
> Catholics in 'power' and there was a group acting from the
> early days of the Knight Templars who hundred years later
> came to enter the Fransiscans.

And who is that group?

> That group was the one that
> "made" the Grey Friars connection with the Templars.
> It's also from this group the Mason's history origin.
> But that's an other story.
>

That sounds fairly circular. Even if members of a
pre-existing group enter a new group, that does not make the
new group older!

--
Ciao

Thomas =:-)
<out of sig error>
.