Is clandestine Masonry a cover story? Dec 20, 2007 4:15:39 GMT
Post by 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