Knights of Columbus

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

What exactly is this organization? Is it a secret society?

I have seen some of their charitable work and I think that is pretty good.

How many men join and why? Or why not? Can women join?

-- susan (susanlatte@aol.com), October 29, 2003

Answers

http://www.kofc.org/index.cfm

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), October 29, 2003.


susan

The Catholic Church has no secret societies and you know that. You have read the thread on the Masons recently. You and I had a chat. What is your real reason for being on this forum? Are you here just to create tension?

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 29, 2003.


No actually not. Just wanted to get a clear answer.

-- susan (susanlatte@aol.com), October 29, 2003.

What is your reason to be here?

-- susan (susanlatte@aol.com), October 29, 2003.

If anyone still thinks the Masons are a "secret society" they're living under a rock....

Susan, the Knights are not a secret society, although if you're not Catholic you may not have heard of them. It is a men's organization, although there may be a ladies' auxiliary with it as there is with the Masons.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 29, 2003.



John,

Thank you for the link appreciate it.

I have read over this site.

Sounds like the Knights do a lot of good and not a secret society.

How many Catholic men actually belong? Why would someone not want to join the group?

Seems like alot of benefits to having membership.

-- susan (susanlatte@aol.com), October 29, 2003.


susan

Thank You for your polite reply. In response, I am here for my salvation through two means, one by learning more about the Catholic Church of which I am a member and two by helping others become stronger in the faith. I find that most of the posters here are more well read than I am so I feel I get more out of it than others get from me.

I guess I was not real comfortable with your wording of statements a couple times, in order to "get clear answers". We get a lot of posters here who are just here to make trouble. I was just trying to to see where you stood, no offense intended. Welcome

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 29, 2003.


You are welcome.

I am not Catholic and many practices of the Church I find difficult to understand.

I have always understood the Knights to be a secret group but have read on their web site alot of the good things they do and according to you and others they are not secret.

You and I may not agree but no point in being rude or insulting each others belief systems.

This should be a positive and open forum for all to learn.

-- susan (susanlatte@aol.com), October 29, 2003.


Agreed, rude and insulting is certainly not Christian love.

We have the Knights at our parish as they are found at most parishes. I never joined. They seemed to be mostly married men older than myself and I am single. However, the distance I feel may be my own human weakness keeping me from a good experience. They do many good things. They have regular meetings. At out parish they just sold tootsie rolls for charity. They sponsor lots of parish social gatherings such as breakfasts and seasonal meals. Proceeds go to various charitable causes. I know several of the Knights at our parish, they are very helpful. One of them goes to daily mass often and he also built the altar and lectern for our new Church out of hardwood trees from the property when it was built. They are very giving.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 29, 2003.


Hey Susan youve certainly been open and honest with us which is a refreshing change . Im sure I speak for all when I say we welcome sincere and honest people of all faiths who wish to respectfully inquire about The Catholic Church, and like wise we would like to learn from yo so Id like to repeat Mikes very warm welcome!There are many mistruths out there about the Catholic Church and we would love to point you in the right direction to read what the Church really teaches and let you make up your own mind. Just rememeber this is a public forum and while we have a resident Churchman (and walking encyclopedia Paul M) who is a Deacon some of us are just average Joes and a little rough round the edges(ie not very holy!).

Now for the warning, this forum is "under attack" from a strange Taliban like extremest fundamnentalist hardline splinter group of so called "tradtionalist" catholics(think David Koresh and Wacco). Of course they are not either traditonlist nor Catholic but rather certiifiably insane in the main, or just plain evil. They also represent perhaps 0.01% of the Church, a tiny minority who sadly represent our "lunatic fringe". IMHO theyre deeply disturbed people. (Note to moderator: I believe they are spamming my responses to their posts and destroying threads intentionally) Anyway Im a bit rude to them soemtimes but Im not a great catholic example despite loving the Church .

If after you get hold of the basics of what the Church is about on the net ,I suggest you find a copy of "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" By Pope John Paul II. This wonderful little book explains some of the more difficult teachings that people most often today misuderstand about the Church. I cannot express how insightful uplifitng and intresting this book is. In parts its a bit hard going but generally its very readable for even a beginner to theology and should be avialable in your local library. Its also online. Im not trying the hard sell on you at all but at the very least if you wanted to make an informed decision on the value of the Catholic Church its the ideal book IMHO.

Peace and Love Susan!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 30, 2003.



if you stick around youll even get used to my spelling or lack therof

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 30, 2003.

"Now for the warning, this forum is "under attack" from a strange Taliban like extremest fundamnentalist hardline splinter group of so called "tradtionalist" catholics(think David Koresh and Wacco). Of course they are not either traditonlist nor Catholic but rather certiifiably insane in the main, or just plain evil. They also represent perhaps 0.01% of the Church, a tiny minority who sadly represent our "lunatic fringe". IMHO theyre deeply disturbed people. (Note to moderator: I believe they are spamming my responses to their posts and destroying threads intentionally) Anyway Im a bit rude to them soemtimes but Im not a great catholic example despite loving the Church ."

Kiwi, this is getting more and more ridiculous as time passes. You should take a good honest look at what you are saying and how it looks and sounds.

Someone disagrees with you and look how react now. It's sounding more and more like someone else.

Btw, I tried to fix your thread by going to google and getting the cached version and pasting it to the your new thread, but unfortunately that seemed to ruin to make your situation worse, so I'll leave it well enough alone. Strange parallel in that I was only trying to help.

I'm telling you, it sure is frustrating sometimes to see such vitriol and mischaraterization resulting from disagreeing with somebody over the aspects of the Faith. I've never used these tactics on you, nor have any of the other tradtionalist Catholic regulars here. They are treat you and everyone else with respect, and stick to the topic. It might be the same dang topic, but at least they stick to it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 30, 2003.


emerald...

Someone disagrees with you and look how react now. It's sounding more and more like someone else

that is because the schismatic BS is getting more and more tiresome. you ruin every thread you can remotely trace back to your anti catholic ways.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 30, 2003.


paul h ...

Could you explain what you mean by Emerald's "schismatic" and "anti Catholic ways"? You and Kiwi are being extremely rude. Kiwi, those you describe as "a strange Taliban like extremest fundamnentalist hardline splinter group" are simply what every Catholic was just a few decades ago.

"We are what you once were. We believe what you once believed. We worship as you once worshipped. If you were right then, we are right now. If we are wrong now, you were wrong then."

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), October 30, 2003.


Nick,

On the contrary! A few decades ago Catholics accepted the authority of the Pope and the Magisterium, and exhibited a sense of profound respect toward the Most Holy Eucharist as presented in the Holy sacrifice of the Mass, as defined by the current authority of the Church. Real Catholics still do; but a handful of nostalgic, poorly-informed, self-proclaimed "traditionalists" reject the authority of the Pope and the Magisterium, and launch viscious diatribes against the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This clearly constitutes a schismatic act.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 30, 2003.



Paul, as moderator, it would be quite becoming of you to rid yourself of the dishonesty.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 30, 2003.

"Real Catholics still do; but a handful of nostalgic, poorly- informed, self-proclaimed "traditionalists" reject the authority of the Pope and the Magisterium, and launch viscious diatribes against the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This clearly constitutes a schismatic act."

">"Real Catholics still do;"

Be careful using this phrase, because if you ever try harder in the future to inform yourself of what the real nature of schism is, you might want to avoid taking into your own hands the job of cutting people off from the Mystical Body of Christ. When you do so without authority, you just may be participating in the very nature of what's so heinous about schism.

"...but a handful of nostalgic..."

This is dishonest because you know that it's not nostalgia, and that it has to do with Catholic doctrine. What this is here is an attempt to take the issue off a dogmatic footing and relegate the concerns to the arena of accidentals. If you want to take that course, believe or not, it's even easier to take down the construct of accidentals- proposed-as-binding-teachings angle that you are active in promoting. But as it is, it's not about accidentals but about belief, and belief in practice.

"...poorly-informed..."

Traditional Catholics constantly refer to resources... Catholic Church encyclicals, councils, pontiffs, saints, Doctors of the Church... that your camp has never heard of until the Trads bring them up. Then you guys scramble over to Armstrong and Matt1618 to figure out what to say. But then you don't go back and read any of these new-to-you documents Trads are citing.

And traditionalists are supposed to be poorly informed. Right little paul? lol.

"...self-proclaimed "traditionalists"..."

It's a cute self-styled phrase, and meaningless. Traditionalist do not self-anything; they refer to the head and the heart of the Church that Christ founded. Traditional Catholicism is Christ-styled. Trads adopt the Cross; that's one way you can tell; that is, if you have eyes to see it and ears to hear it.

"...(Trads) reject the authority of the Pope and the Magisterium..."

This cannot be true, as to be a traditional Catholic, one must submit to the Roman pontiff, because submission to the Roman pontiff is and always has been the teaching of the Catholic Faith. You know full well that traditional Catholics do not reject the authority of the Pope. You know that it has to do with the fact that our pastors are by and large not always living and promoting the Catholic Faith, and that it has to do with the fact that obedience and submission does not, of it's very nature, require the Faithful to lend assent to what's contrary in letter or in spirit to the Faith that was, is, and always will be.

"...and launch viscious diatribes against the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass."

You know what, Paul? I don't know how you can claim to be knowledgable and informed if you can't make the simple distinction between a diatribe against inadequacies of a liturgy, either real or percieved, and a diatribe against the Holy Sacrific of the Mass. You know that the latter would be a grave sin on our part, and it's completely, totally unacceptable for you to make it look like the latter is the intention of thought on the part of traditionalists. Shame on you. It's dishonesty. You are using this on purpose to bolster your camp's failing credibility.

No one with any shred of honesty would attend the Mass of Trent, see traditional Catholics in assistance, and thereby presume them to somehow be of the kind that would diatribe against the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

This failure to make valid and important distinctions, a prerequisite in any intelligent and honest discussion seeking the truth of a matter, brings doubt to bear upon this conclusion:

"This clearly constitutes a schismatic act."

...and leads me to wonder, how would you know?

You would actually know if you spent time understanding a real schism like the Eastern Orthodox. They really do reject the Roman Pontiff. They'll tell you so.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 30, 2003.


Dear Emerald,

"if you ever try harder in the future to inform yourself of what the real nature of schism is"

A: The real nature of schism, as defined by the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church is: "The refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him". Pretty straightforward.

"This is dishonest because you know that it's not nostalgia, and that it has to do with Catholic doctrine."

A: I know it is not solely about nostalgia, though that clearly plays a major role with many older attendees of Old Rite Masses. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Catholic doctrine, as there have been NO doctrinal changes in the Catholic Church as a result of the Holy Council. Of course it may have something to do with personal interpretations of doctrinal issues - but Catholics avoid that, knowing that it causes only confusion and division - right?

"What this is here is an attempt to take the issue off a dogmatic footing and relegate the concerns to the arena of accidentals"

A: What this is here is an attempt to take the issue off an accidental footing, and desperately try to create the impression of a doctrinal dimension which does not exist. This futile effort, based again on self-interpretation of Church documents and teaching to their own ends, is a necessary tack by "traditionalists" since they know full well that the Church has complete authority to make any and all changes to liturgical accidentals that it wishes to make.

"Traditional Catholics constantly refer to resources... Catholic Church encyclicals, councils, pontiffs, saints, Doctors of the Church... that your camp has never heard of until the Trads bring them up"

A: I am well aware of the ancient sources which formed the initial basis for a living and evolving theology in an living and evolving Church. However, to quote only such primitive early sources while ignoring hundreds of years of subsequent enrichment and depth of understanding provided by the Holy Spirit through ongoing prayer and study is to be woefully uninformed.

"...self-proclaimed "traditionalists"..." It's a cute self-styled phrase, and meaningless."

A: It is not meaningless at all. It highlights the glaring incompatibility in claiming the name "traditional" while rejecting the most traditional and essential components of Catholicism - the authority of the Church, and the solemn obligation of ALL Catholics to submit to its teaching. As for the phrase "self-proclaimed", who selected the name "Traditionalists" if not so-called "Traditionalists" themselves? Was the name imposed upon you by someone else? If not, it was self-proclaimed.

"Traditional Catholicism is Christ-styled. Trads adopt the Cross; that's one way you can tell; that is, if you have eyes to see it and ears to hear it"

A: Yes, genuinely traditional Catholicism is indeed Christ-styled, for Christ Himself gave full authority to the Pope and the early Magisterial body of the Church, and required our submission to it. Note - he did NOT require our critiquing, judging, second-guessing, or condemning of it. Just our obedience. "He who hears you hears Me". Therefore, any movement which seeks to critique, judge, or condemn the God-given authority of the Church is NOT Christ-centered.

"...(Trads) reject the authority of the Pope and the Magisterium..."

"You know full well that traditional Catholics do not reject the authority of the Pope."

A: No you don't - except when you disagree with his teaching or his decisions. In saying that so-called Trads "reject the authority of the pope and the Magisterium", I am not suggesting that they totally reject everything the Pope or Magisterium has ever said. Even Protestants don't do that. Nor am I suggesting that they reject offhand the concept that the Pope and Magisterium can teach authoritatively. I am simply stating what has been clearly and repeatedly demonstrated on this forum - that they feel free to exempt themselves from Papal or Magisterial authority whenever teaching or disciplinary decisions do not conform to their personal preferences - preferences which are based largely on personal interpretation of things they have no authority to interpret. Like Protestants, they quote sources, but reserve the right to interpret those sources as they see fit, thereby placing themselves in the position of ultimate authority.

"You know that it has to do with the fact that our pastors are by and large not always living and promoting the Catholic Faith, and that it has to do with the fact that obedience and submission does not, of it's very nature, require the Faithful to lend assent to what's contrary in letter or in spirit to the Faith that was, is, and always will be"

A: There are some very poor pastors, but that's not what the "traditionalist" movement is about. They criticize the teaching authority of the Church at the highest levels, not at the local level. And, the discernment of what is "contrary in letter or in spirit to the Faith" is the divinely-ordained mission of the Magisterium ONLY, not of Paul-in-the pew! Again, here is that same audacity rearing its ugly head - the very notion that I or you have the authority or training or knowledge or mission to inform the Magisterium of God's Church that their teaching "is contrary to the Faith"! The mere suggestion shoud be enough to indicate that my understanding of the teaching is question is seriously flawed. And how could it be otherwise if it is based on nothing more than the shifting sands of personal interpretation?

"I don't know how you can claim to be knowledgable and informed if you can't make the simple distinction between a diatribe against inadequacies of a liturgy, either real or percieved, and a diatribe against the Holy Sacrific of the Mass."

A: I am keenly aware of the difference, and have seen obvious examples of each posted on this forum. Would you say that calling the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as celebrated by God's Church "fake", "counterfeit", "foolish", and "invalid" represents a rational discussion of inadequacies, or a hostile, brainless diatribe against the Mass and the Church?

"No one with any shred of honesty would attend the Mass of Trent, see traditional Catholics in assistance, and thereby presume them to somehow be of the kind that would diatribe against the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass"

A: I didn't level such charges based on their behavior at Mass, but their behavior on this forum.

"This clearly constitutes a schismatic act." ...and leads me to wonder, how would you know?"

A: I would know because I know the Church's definition of schism, as indicated above. Wear the shoe if it fits.



-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 30, 2003.


If and before saying anything else, allow me to isolate your first and last comments:

"The real nature of schism, as defined by the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church is: "The refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him". Pretty straightforward."

You're doing that to us traditionalists. If anything else, ask the Holy Ghost if this is not the case; it never hurts to check and double-check one's own mind and heart.

Then, ask yourself this question:

"I would know because I know the Church's definition of schism, as indicated above. Wear the shoe if it fits."

If it turns out you're in the wrong, welcome to the club. I've been wrong more times than I can possibly recount.

I have never pronounced you to be extra ecclesiam; return the favor.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 30, 2003.


"You're doing that to us traditionalists."

A: Excuse me? No-one has requested or demanded that "traditionalists" avoid communion with the Church at large. You are more than welcome. Any distance between "traditionalists" and the main body of the Holy Catholic Church is completely self-imposed.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 30, 2003.


No sir. Neither the pontiff, nor any one of the rest of what makes up the magisterium of the Catholic Church has placed an anathema on any item of Traditional Catholicism, or forced an abandonment of it under pain of being cast extra ecclesiam.

No way! This only comes from the direction of the the laity. They have, ironically, taken it upon themselves to foist upon us the self-styled interpretation that we are in fact extra ecclesiam, that is, outside the fold.

Only the laity make such proclamations. Nothing has been forthcoming from the magesterium that would place us definitively outside the Church.

In fact, Pope John Paul II is being disobeyed. He said he want us to be the recipients of a wide and generous application of the Mass of Trent.

We ain't gettin' it. That's a failure to submit to the Roman Pontiff. That's naughty.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 30, 2003.


No sir. Neither the pontiff, nor any one of the rest of what makes up the magisterium of the Catholic Church has placed an anathema on any item of Traditional Catholicism, or forced an abandonment of it under pain of being cast extra ecclesiam.

Oh dear. Carry on EMErald

Deacon Paul THANKYOU SIR

-- Just plain ol Catholic (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 31, 2003.


I dont think in all my time here Ive ever seen someone so comprehensively taken apart like Paul has just done to poor old Emerald. Of course he will attempt to try and rationalise and qualify his errors in a never ending diatribe of nonsensical jumbled "mystical" Californian surf beach poetry. ALl designed to cloud and confuse, yet he cant cloud what Paul has just written, hes served it up loud and clear!

I know Deacon Paul will take no great pleasure in having to waste his precious time dealing with people who should know better(in fact I imagine it will pain him to have to fight with supposed Catholics over such things).

I only hope Emerald will pull his head in, we love you Emerald but man enough is enough, even for the likes of you. You little ripper Paul!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 31, 2003.


Kiwi,

Let me see if I have this straight. Susan asked a question about the Knights of Columbus. For no reason, completely out of the blue, you start attacking traditional Catholics, calling them the "lunatic fringe". Emerald responded politely. Then Paul attacks Emerald, referring to Emerald's "anti Catholic ways". You follow up with "we love you Emerald but enough is enough." You're the one who baited Emerald into posting. So, Kiwi, "enough is enough"! Can we get back to the question about the Knights of Columbus?

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), October 31, 2003.


Well...heck this didn't go where I wanted it to go...there is no more postings on the Knights here!

-- susan (susanlatte@aol.com), October 31, 2003.

Susan, the pope's book, "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" -- recommended to you by Kiwi, above -- is available for free reading on the Internet. Click here.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 02, 2003.


Jmj
Susan, you wrote (apparently disappointed), "Well ... heck this didn't go where I wanted it to go ... there is no more postings on the Knights here!"

I think that it's logical to conclude that none of the forum's regulars is a "Knight," and that the thread hasn't been read by a non-regular Knight since you started it about five days ago. This shouldn't be surprising, because the KofC has just 1,600,000 members in all of North and Central America, the Caribbean, and the Philippines -- an area wherein there may be 50,000,000 Catholic men. Why not more members? Some men belong to other Catholic organizations. Some men don't have free time to belong to any group. Some men are just not "joiners," but prefer to work alone.

You got a good lead in the URL of the KofC site (http://www.kofc.org/index.cfm), but you can find out a lot more by going to www.google.com and searching for "Knights of Columbus".

You asked, "Can women join" the KofC?
No, they cannot, but there are other organizations for Catholic women (or for both men and women). Of those for women only, the one I admire the most is Women for Faith and Family.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 02, 2003.


+JMJ

Well, Susan, I'm sorry this thread got hijacked...I hope to have your answer here.

I am a 4th Degree Knight Of Columbus. I am 28 years old, and married.

In response to your question about whether the Knights are a "secret society", they are not. The Knights do have secrets, but the secrets are only in the initiation rites. Also, I can in good conscience tell you, without revealing the rites themselves, that no "good" Catholic (nor any type of Christian) would have any moral objection to anything contained within any of the rites. The work of the Knights is absolutely not secret. We are happy to show Catholics and non-Catholics alike the goodness of our Faith through community work, evangelization, and patriotic representation.

There are four degrees in the Knights. The 1st degree is entered when someone first joins the Knights. They are not fully a Knight until they receive the 2nd and 3rd degrees (which they do on the same day). These degrees can be received anytime after receiving the 1st degree. Once one is "fully" a Knight (3rd degree or higher), one may become an officer in a Knight Council.

Once one has been a 1st degree Knight for one year or more, and has received 2nd and 3rd degrees, that person may join the 4th degree. 4th degree Knights meet in their regular Knights Councils, but also meet in a Knights Assembly that is separate from each Council. (Much like one must be a 32nd degree Mason to join the Shriners.) Each Assembly is made of members from several area Councils.

The Knights hope to embody Charity, Unity, Fraternity, and Patriotism. The first three qualities are taught in the first three degrees, and patriotism is emphasized in the fourth. It is the fourth degree Knights that one often thinks of because we wear the "uniform" of the Knights: the tuxedo, chapeau (hat), and cape with sword. Fourth degree Knights are usually present at Papal appearances, patriotic parades (such as 4th of July, etc.), and some other special events.

Overall, the Knights work for fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church (and are sometimes called the "strong right arm" of the Pope for this reason), pro-life causes, and devotion to the Rosary. We also try to raise money to help communities during times of natural (and unnatural, in the case of 9/11) disasters.

The Knights is a wonderful organization, of which I am proud to be a part.

You can find more info at http://www.kofc.org.

Hope this helps!

AMDG

-- John David Young (davidyoung@aggienetwork.com), November 05, 2003.


Glad to have the facts "from the horse's mouth," John D.Y.. Thanks!

You wrote: "We also try to raise money to help communities during times of natural (and unnatural, in the case of 9/11) disasters."

Is it true that most of this money (which amounts to millions of dollars) is raised through the fact that the KofC sells life insurance policies and invests the income? I believe that KofC has donated vast sums to papal projects and to the complete restoration of the facade of St. Peter's Basilica -- correct? Also, the members freely contribute millions of hours of volunteer work yearly -- correct?

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), November 06, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ