|
Post by hollandr on Dec 20, 2007 4:15:39 GMT
On some other fora there have been some heated discussions about regularity and clandestine Masonry. As one of the posts pointed out, clandestine means hidden And I was contemplating that and posted something that may be of interest here as well: "I suspect that much of Masonry was conducted in secret before the 1717 reformation. And the speech by Chevalier Ramsay in 1737 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Michael_Ramsay announcing the existence of higher degrees seemed to trigger a flood of higher degrees over the following decades. I conjecture that at least some of those higher degrees were not fakes to meet a market demand but were brought out into public gaze by the (family) groups that had custody of them I therefore conjecture that the common GL position against clandestine (hidden) Masonry is as much a defence against bloodline (family) Masonry as against the groups that splinter from existing GL" Thus my proposition is that there may well be Masonic traditions still hidden in families (such as the Montgomery Clan) and I wonder if GL have some concern that those groups - possibly with provable lineage back to KT days - might come to center stage and claim precedence This would be analogous to the argument in Holy Blood Holy Grail that the Christian Church still fears the bloodline reputed to descend from Jesus Any thoughts? cheers Russell
|
|
|
Post by tws on Dec 20, 2007 4:25:55 GMT
On some other fora there have been some heated discussions about regularity and clandestine Masonry. As one of the posts pointed out, clandestine means hidden And I was contemplating that and posted something that may be of interest here as well: "I suspect that much of Masonry was conducted in secret before the 1717 reformation. And the speech by Chevalier Ramsay in 1737 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Michael_Ramsay announcing the existence of higher degrees seemed to trigger a flood of higher degrees over the following decades. I conjecture that at least some of those higher degrees were not fakes to meet a market demand but were brought out into public gaze by the (family) groups that had custody of them I therefore conjecture that the common GL position against clandestine (hidden) Masonry is as much a defence against bloodline (family) Masonry as against the groups that splinter from existing GL" Thus my proposition is that there may well be Masonic traditions still hidden in families (such as the Montgomery Clan) and I wonder if GL have some concern that those groups - possibly with provable lineage back to KT days - might come to center stage and claim precedence This would be analogous to the argument in Holy Blood Holy Grail that the Christian Church still fears the bloodline reputed to descend from Jesus Any thoughts? cheers Russell I'll give the same answer here as there. The good Chevalier Ramsey never, according to what I have been able to find, actually gave that fomous speech. It seems to have been disseminated in written form. The "higher degrees" were tacked on in continental maonry only after Ramsey made the connection between Masonry and Knighthood, which did not exist in Craft Masonry before. We must realise that Ramsey was part of the Jacobite contingent that was in exile in the wake of the failure to regain the Crown. The claims of Noble origin of the Craft was most likely an attemt on Ramseys part to appeal to his Noble Freanch benifactors, to entice them to become Masons. In ancient Craft Masonry, these "higer" degrees did not exist. There was only the 'Entrant" and the "Fellow Craft." I'll add that Freemasonry was secret in the beginning because of the danger of being hauled before an ecclesiastical court on charges of heresy, for believing in science and freedom of thought, rather than Church dogma. The Knights Templar connection is, I'm sorry to say (as it bursts many bubbles) so much BS. It is nothing but fantasy by men who wanted to play at being Knights, who were not of the nobility. All of which is diametrically opposed to the egalitarian principles that Freemasonry is supposed to expouse. I seriously doubt that anyone is worried about a non-existant "bloodline" taking control of Freemasonry.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Dec 20, 2007 5:28:17 GMT
>Ramsey was part of the Jacobite contingent that was in exile in the wake of the failure to regain the Crown.
Perhaps the Jacobites were supporting a bloodline.
Could their form of Masonry have been related to that royal bloodline?
>The Knights Templar connection is, I'm sorry to say (as it bursts many bubbles) so much BS.
Given the amazing rise of the KT and their remarkable skills in architecture and banking and politics, it may be that they did not appear from nowhere and perhaps they did not disintegrate on suppression.
I am reminded of Sumer and Egypt - remarkable civilisations that supposedly appeared from nowhere in a couple of generations.
If find it more comforting to think that human endeavour is built upon the achievements of ancestors - even if hidden from us
>I'll add that Freemasonry was secret in the beginning because of the danger of being hauled before an ecclesiastical court on charges of heresy,
I am left then with the question as to how we know that none of Freemasonry is now secret. Perhaps some remained hidden to avoid casting pearls/
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by tws on Dec 20, 2007 5:40:21 GMT
Sure, and when you reach the 33rd dregree, you get to meet the alien overlords.
Perhaps, just maybe things really are as simple as they appear to be.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Dec 20, 2007 6:43:06 GMT
You may well have a point there Bro Russell. It is often held that the Antients in English Freemasonry were aligned to the Stuart and Jacobite cause whereas the Moderns supported the Hanoverians who had supplanted them. Indeed the Duke of Wharton one of their Grand Masters was charged with Treason for supporting the Jacobites. www.answers.com/topic/philip-wharton-1st-duke-of-whartonWhen UGLE was born in 1813 its first Grand Master, The Duke of Sussex-a Prince of the House of Hanover-suppressed many of the Higher Degrees, which were revived in England after his death. Perhaps some of the Ritual and Pageantry of those Degrees arises to an extent from the Roman Catholic Religion of the Stuart claimants to the Throne compared to the more austere Protestantism of the Hanoverians?
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Dec 21, 2007 6:09:15 GMT
It's about the money trail. For every Mason in the mainstream system joins appendant bodies like the AASR and YR he spends more money. If he joins another system, his money goes somewhere else.
For all of the talk about regular this and clandestine that it really is not that romantic. It boils down to the most common denominator; economics.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Dec 21, 2007 7:28:23 GMT
The Pro GM states -
We firmly believe that it is not Freemasonry but the individual who can have a positive influence on society.
This statement causes me much anguish. The ideals on which FM is based are indeed worthy and I can accept and understand the need for some pretty strict controls but the Pro GM words sound more like doctrine than good advice.
In the above statement if 'Freemasonry' is replace with 'Taliban' (and the Taliban may argue that they are working to positively influence society) would that then allow the Taliban off the hook? I would not care to raise that as a defense in court and expect the judges to agree. It's a bit like saying Hitler might have been obnoxious but you can't blame that on the Nazi Party. I would argue the organisation is the individual. In other words, I could not leave Lodge and relinguish those worthy principles on which FM stand at the door on the way out.
So I get an idea that perhaps there is an aspect of a cladestine Masonic cover story operating.
|
|
|
Post by niggs13 on Dec 21, 2007 11:51:00 GMT
Whilst not fully signing up to the Templar/mason direct link theories, we have a group of warrior monks, linked to the Cistercians who built much of the great temples in Europe along the lines of sacred architecture. They had a sub-group of builder monks called the Tironensians, some of who must have been familiar with the sacred aspects of temple building. The whole Templar thing refuse to go away as far as I'me concerned with further study needed on the Druze, Mandaens and sufism generally to get a better picture of what they were all about. As for the bloodline theory, Hugh Montgomery ,non-mason as far as I know,of the Belgrade Uni has written a most academic book tracing this bloodline using access to records of the European Royal houses. He contends there is a Royal bloodline from the Davidic kings traceable in Europe and merging with Norse/Norman stock ie de Payen, bernard of Clairviaux et al. Whether Jehoshua/John were priest kings of that line or not is, though possible, irrelevant. Montgomery expreses no interest in Templar/masonic matters so this book was not intended to enter the fray and clearly has no opinion on this hot topic. The only mention is one short sentence that states his work could lead to further study in this area. From my own point of view the Jehoshua/Jesus bloodline only remains an outrageous claim if viewed from a Christian point of view. No offence intended as I respect everyones opinion, but once you view Christ as an ordinary man, it just becomes genetics and family trees. As a final point when I typed genetics I remembered research done by Jewish academics on the genes of Cohens which showed this temple caste must have preserved ,through careful manipulation, their hereditary bloodline through centuries. Makes you think, maybe dna may be the answer. Nigel
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Dec 21, 2007 12:15:51 GMT
Bro Nigel, much of what you mention accords with my own reading over the years and I am at ease with it.
"From my own point of view the Jehoshua/Jesus bloodline only remains an outrageous claim if viewed from a Christian point of view. No offence intended as I respect everyone's opinion, but once you view Christ as an ordinary man, it just becomes genetics and family trees." (My emphasis).
I have no real problem here as a Free-thinking Christian. Jesus Christ was both an aspect of God being the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, and Man "The Word made Flesh" as many of us will commemorate this coming Tuesday. This is called the "Hypostatic Union". As a Man, Jesus Christ would experience all the pains and pleasures of the human state and may well have taken a wife and had issue. Hence the "Bloodline".
Bro Nigel, may I wish you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy and Enlightening New Year.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Dec 21, 2007 12:20:48 GMT
For me the Jesus thing is a bit of a red herring
I was really wanting to say that if the sons of any particular widow banded together to make a lodge then it would be a bloodline lodge
And a bloodline lodge would quite probably not be in the public domain
Hence it would be clandestine
Thus a clandestine lodge could theoretically be "time immemorial" thereby predating any of the GL set up since the 17th century
If such a situation existed and was known to GL then they might attempt to ward off any claim to primacy by plenty of propaganda about clandestine lodges
The only such lodge I have seen referred to is supposedly in the Montgomery clan but Scottish Masonry may yet have some surprises for us
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by niggs13 on Dec 21, 2007 15:53:00 GMT
Bro Lauderdale, I thank you for festive salutation and good wishes at this special time and return the sentiment to you and all our forumites.
Nigel
|
|
|
Post by willied77 on Dec 31, 2007 13:02:25 GMT
Brothers,
IMO 'Bloodlines' are materialistic objects and whilst some strive to protect them, others seek a more enlightened spiritual path. And in that lies a 'secret' of The Craft.....
Look at the E.A, F.C and then the M.M. It's all there for those who seek it. One path leads to the left, one to the right.
WE all get to make our own minds up which path we take and I'd say 75% take the right side of the path towards the Materialistic Nature. The rest take the left, towards a Spiritual Path.
To find our way on the 'true' path, no-one can show us or even tell us how to do it. All we need is placed within our Souls, and it is this we must build upon and change it from rough to smooth.
Willied
|
|
|
Post by boreades on Apr 24, 2016 22:12:40 GMT
Dear Brothers Russell and Nigel I have to confess I have only just heard of the Tironensians. Via this article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tironensian_Order"The first house of the order in Wales was St Dogmaels, Pembrokeshire, which was founded c. 1113. Soon therafter it established two daughter-houses in Pembrokeshire, namely, Pill and Caldy.The order's first house in Wales, St Dogmaels, Pembrokeshire, which was established on the site of a clas (early Celtic church), which dated back to at least 600 AD.
In Scotland, the Tironensians were the monks and master craftsmen who built and occupied (until the Reformation) the abbeys of Selkirk (later re-located to Kelso (1128), Arbroath (1178), and Kilwinning (1140+).
The abbey (Tiron in France) owned at least one ship that traded in Scotland and Northumberland."Besides being a monastic order quite different from the usual sorts (Benedictine, Cistercian, etc), the Tironensian order seems to have had an astonishing rate of growth. Was this in parallel to the Templar expansion? Or part of the same? Did the Tironensian monks from France establish a precedent of French folk coming over here and taking the best engineering jobs (like Isambard Kingdom Brunel trained in France)? (Not to be confused with Normans coming over here and taking the best properties) Or were they just following in the footsteps of the Celtic Saints from 1,000 years earlier? S&F Keith Of an 'umble provincial lodge in Wiltshire.
|
|
|
Post by boreades on Apr 26, 2016 22:25:23 GMT
On the subject of the Tironensians, may I recommend that all brethren read this article from the Masonic Trowel website? The Great Architects of Tiron www.themasonictrowel.com/ebooks/fm_freemasonry/Bernier_-_The_Great_Architects_of_Tiron.pdfIt suggests that the Tironensians were the prototypes for Scottish Lodges, well before UGLE, with a link to Kilwinning lodge. I'm not saying it's a definitive link, but it certainly joins a lot of dots together. (Note of caution: the idea that lodges started in France might not be good for the blood pressure of some ultra-traditional brethren) To progress further, may I suggest further research into the hidden mysteries of Pelagius? e.g. "The great German theologian Karl Barth a few years ago described British Christianity as "incurably Pelagian." The rugged individualism of the Celtic monk, his conviction that each person is free to choose between good and evil. And his insistence that faith must be practical as well as spiritual remain hallmarks of Christians in Britain. An the British imagination has remained rooted in nature, witnessed by the pastoral poetry and landscape painting in which Britain excels, indeed that peculiar British obsession with gardening is Celtic in origin. Visitors to the British Isles are often shocked at how few people attend church each Sunday. Yet to the Britons, church-goers as well as absentees, the primary test of faith is not religious observance, but daily behavour towards our neighbours—and towards one’s pets, livestock and plants." (Alan G. Hefner)
|
|
|
Post by boreades on Apr 26, 2016 22:38:57 GMT
This resonates with the words of another great man. Gandhi.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
|
|
|
Post by peter2 on Apr 27, 2016 5:06:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by boreades on May 6, 2016 22:20:27 GMT
Besides the Tironensians being the prototypes for Scottish Lodges (well before UGLE), there's a fascinating possibility that the whole business of monasteries as centres of learning began in Ireland and Scotland, and spread throughout Europe via the Hiberno-Scottish Mission. The Hiberno-Scottish mission was a mission initiated by Gaelic monks from Ireland and the western coast of modern-day Scotland, which spread Christianity and established monasteries in Great Britain and continental Europe during the Middle Ages. The mission originated in 563 with the foundation of Iona by the Irish monk Saint Columba, and was initially concerned with ministering to the Gaels of Dál Riada and converting the northern Pictish kingdoms. Over the next centuries the mission grew in power and influence and spread through Anglo-Saxon England and the Frankish Empire. The early mission is often associated with the Christian practice known as Celtic Christianity, which was distinguished by its organizations around monasteries rather than dioceses and certain idiosyncratic traditions, but the desire to maintain a relationship with the Holy See saw their missions take on a more Roman character.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-Scottish_mission"certain idiosyncratic traditions" might be a bit of a euphemism for not being the same as the Roman church, and the Celtic Christianity was certainly at the heart of the Tironensians, with their unusual emphasis on building things.
|
|
|
Post by peter2 on May 6, 2016 23:20:00 GMT
The Hiberno-Scottish mission was a mission initiated by Gaelic monks from Ireland... the desire to maintain a relationship with the Holy See saw their missions take on a more Roman character. This seems to be a euphemism for avoiding suppression (crusade) by the Roman church
|
|
|
Post by boreades on May 22, 2016 0:14:04 GMT
In "The History of St Dogmaels Abbey" by Emily Pritchard, she says that :
“They (the Tironensians) now worked night and day building their cloisters; they wore a monk's habit; but it was different to that of other orders, being made of sheep's skin, owing to their great poverty.”
If it was great poverty, it was a temporary one, as the Monks of Tiron soon accumulated great wealth. in any case, Brethren should take note of the mention of sheep's skin.
The choice of sheep's skin may have been a very practical one, as a sheep's skin, or a leather apron, provides much more protection to a stone worker than an ordinary monk's habit would or could. The Cistercian monks, who did not trouble themselves with manual labour like this, would have no need of sheep's skin habits.
As we now know, the leather apron later acquired a symbolism all of its own, as the Tironensians became the originators of operative and speculative freemasonry in Scotland.
|
|
|
Post by peter2 on May 22, 2016 22:22:41 GMT
Ritual aprons were also used in ancient Egypt.
|
|