|
Post by taylorsman on Feb 28, 2006 12:58:44 GMT
Arising from "The Thread which dare not speak its name" was the matter of the Ancient Physical Penalties which were once part and parcel of the Obligations sworn by Candidates, and also of the second three syllable Word in the Royal Arch. I understand from the postings of VW Bro ***** ********* that **** intends to restore then as part of its Rituals.
Quite a few Brethren, myself included, regret these having been removed (whatever the good intentions behind this editing may have been), and would like to see them restored in full or at least Lodges and RA Chapters given the choice to use them or the current bowdlerised versions as their Brethren and Companions vote to do. I have in my possession older UGLE approved Ritual Books where BOTH versions were printed the Original and the Permissive (edited) and Lodges were allowed to chose which they used. Later unfortunately that option was removed and the to my mind watered down versions were the only ones permited for use.
How do others here feel about this? I understand that yet again the Scots and US Brethren are more fortunate in having the Original versions intact in their Rituals, so this is really a question for English Constitution Brethren.
|
|
phil
Member
Just me all at sea
Posts: 209
|
Post by phil on Feb 28, 2006 14:07:42 GMT
I was initiated with the old penalties, and I don't regret it. However, since virtually everybody is becoming a coffie-cup barrister, I can understand simply refering to the as "the old traditional penalties". The wording should not distract from the seriousness of the commitment made/sworn/pledged on the bible of your choice.
|
|
|
Post by mrmason on Feb 28, 2006 14:31:59 GMT
Many Scots lodges retain the Ancient Penalties in the Obligation. I would be interested to see an English Ob of any degree just to see what exactly is missing.
|
|
|
Post by Jumile on Mar 1, 2006 10:40:53 GMT
Is it just me who reads these kinds of topic and thinks of Garth in Wayne's World (i.e. "Live in the now!")?
Ignoring for the moment that we've all agreed (or sworn, for some of you) not to try to change Freemasonry, why is there so much wailing and gnashing of teeth about water that has already passed by under the bridge? This week I've read of recent grudges (as illustrated in this thread) and grudges held for 200 years (though I concede they could be weak justification for much more recent grudges).
Am I simply being naive when I ask why can't we just live with things as they are, rather than constantly complaining and bickering about what's already been done?
|
|
|
Post by mike on Mar 1, 2006 11:11:52 GMT
Many Scots lodges retain the Ancient Penalties in the Obligation. I would be interested to see an English Ob of any degree just to see what exactly is missing. This'll make you laugh. Nothing is really missing! By comparing 2 old Ritual books to my present one, there was a transitional phase of having the choice between "Traditional" and "Permissive" and now only the "Permissive" form is in the book. The difference between Trad and Perm is this: T = "under no less penalty, on the violation of them than that of having........." P = " ever bearing in mind the traditional penalty on the violation of any of them, that of having ......." M
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Mar 1, 2006 12:34:40 GMT
Mike, that doesn't answer the RA question though about the Second three part word on the Altar and given in parts by the Three Principals. It has been totally erased.
On Bro Matt (Jumile's) point that is what happened when the Penalties were altered, that was an change to the Ritual of Freemasonry, so if it can be changed then it can be changed back. There are also some of the longer serving Brethren who swore to the Traditional Penalities. The point is that this was an imposed change and it would have been better to have had the twp versions side by side and allowed Lodges the choice although personally I would have been more than happy with the the Traditional Versions.
|
|
|
Post by atarnaris on Mar 3, 2006 1:01:55 GMT
Reminds me of the traditional and permissive lectures in the RA these days ?!!!
Aaah Bro Taylorsman you should have attended my last RA chapter...
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Mar 4, 2006 19:19:12 GMT
A pity I could not be at Cheerybles Chapter for that Meeting. I am in favour of some of the changes in RA but feel they ought to have left version of the Lectures to each Chapter and its Companions to chose.
|
|
|
Post by george2807 on Mar 6, 2006 6:36:48 GMT
Traditional versions? Modern versions? What does it really matter? I took an Obligation and gave my word, that I would abide by the principles of Freemasonry - an Obligation that I will forever do my best to keep.
I was Initiated 30 years ago this month under the old, traditional wordings. I didn't for one second think that those terrible, blood curdling, things would happen to me if I failed in my promise. I had given my WORD and that was what counted to me. A large number of younger Freemasons who are driving this topic on, have only read about the Traditional wording anyway.
Do you honestly think, Brethren, that an IG would " .... remain firm and do his duty"? If this were the case Freemasonry would become a proscribed organisation - and then where would we be?
I, personally, did not like the change of the RA words, but only because I had to re-learn the new word.
The fact is, the words HAVE been changed. There's no real point in going on about it. To even consider going back is out of the question IMHO.
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on Mar 6, 2006 7:25:42 GMT
I did see an initiation where the candidate drew blood on his NLB by pushing too hard.
Th WM withdrew the point from the flesh rather quickly when he realised.
|
|
phil
Member
Just me all at sea
Posts: 209
|
Post by phil on Mar 6, 2006 20:42:24 GMT
And ...... Did he feel anything? ?
|
|
|
Post by cheyham on Mar 6, 2006 20:54:52 GMT
Traditional versions? Modern versions? What does it really matter? I took an Obligation and gave my word, that I would abide by the principles of Freemasonry - an Obligation that I will forever do my best to keep. Totally agree George. The reality is that the nature of the traditional penalties are still communicated to the candidate in each degree ceremony. I was also initiated under the older wordings but I also gave my word and that is what counted then and what counts now (or should) for new candidates. I cannot see anything will be gained by a reversal apart from pouring another bucket of petrol on the bonfires lit by the antis. Of course that was the main reason that the wording was changed - it was deemed to be a "political" necessity but nothing is really missing IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by vfrrider on Mar 7, 2006 8:00:41 GMT
Just out when were the "Ancient Physical Penalties" removed and did the brethren vote on the change taking place. Probably a silly question but only being 6 Years into Masonry, it's a question I have never sort the answer to.
Franernal Regards
Chris
|
|
|
Post by cheyham on Mar 8, 2006 23:14:27 GMT
Chris
1986 or thereabouts was when it was. The penalities are still communicated to the Candidated - they have not been removed from the ritual. No there was no referendum amongst the members if that's what you mean by vote. It was a decision of Grand Lodge of which the master, wardens and PMs of every Lodge under UGLE are members. The decision would have been on the paper of business for the meeting. Those entitled to attend and vote could do so. Unfortunately many choose not to exercise that right.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by gladiator on Mar 14, 2006 4:08:30 GMT
I think they should be enforced personally. People would take it more seriously and many anti -masons would not have dared bad mouth the craft. I dislike waterering down tradition. I'm really belong to the 18th century. lol
Eric
|
|
|
Post by george2807 on Mar 14, 2006 7:24:35 GMT
I think they should be enforced personally. People would take it more seriously and many anti -masons would not have dared bad mouth the craft. I dislike watering down tradition. I'm really belong to the 18th century. lol Eric, I hope (and I think) you are joking. Just think: the Tyler 'being armed .....' etc, the IG 'doing his duty .....' etc., if that were the case Freemasonry would not be around today. If it were it would be so far 'underground', a proscribed organisation, with most of its (very few) members serving long terms of imprisonment. Is that a forward step?
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on Mar 14, 2006 8:33:13 GMT
I think they should be enforced personally. People would take it more seriously and many anti -masons would not have dared bad mouth the craft. I dislike watering down tradition. I'm really belong to the 18th century. lol Eric, I hope (and I think) you are joking. Just think: the Tyler 'being armed .....' etc, the IG 'doing his duty .....' etc., if that were the case Freemasonry would not be around today. If it were it would be so far 'underground', a proscribed organisation, with most of its (very few) members serving long terms of imprisonment. Is that a forward step? And the potential candidate whom had happened to stumble forward finding himself at the exhortation before he had even been initiated. I liken the ceremony to a well rehearsed play with values that we should learn from and every time you see it you learn a little more. There is much mor ethan that in the spiritual and esoteric of the play itself.
|
|
|
Post by corab on Mar 14, 2006 12:23:03 GMT
I think each Lodge should be entitled to decide for itself whether or not to use the Ancient Penalties, but obviously what I think is irrelevant to UGLE and the likes. ;D
LDH have maintained the Ancient Penalties and I'm glad for it. Not for one moment do I believe they would ever be carried out, but that's not the point. Most contracts (which is what I consider the Obligation to be) will contain clauses that will never in a million years be enforceable in Court, but then again that's not their purpose - their purpose is to act as a deterrent, to prevent the parties from breaching their obligations under the contract.
The Ancient Penalties, even if you know they would never be enforced, act as such a deterrent on the psychological level.
When I heard them I thought "Damn, these guys took their secrets seriously; I better do the same!". The very fact that I was initiated with the Ancient Charges willl act as an eternal reminder of what I took upon me, that day, and in a way made a much deeper impression than 'the more effective penalty'.
It is, as Granny Weatherwax is prone to say, "headology" ;D
Cora
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Mar 14, 2006 13:01:01 GMT
"I think each Lodge should be entitled to decide for itself "
Bro Cora, I would love to have that blazoned on the side of one of those mobile advert trailers one sees on the roads these days and have it driven slowly along Gt Queen Street and the surrounding roads on the days of the Quarterly Meetings of Grand Lodge.
I also do not think that Traditional Penalities were ever actually inflicited on any Freemason who broke the rules but that they were what would have happned at the hands of the Inquisition etc if anyone did betray the secrets of the Lodge and its Brethren.
Some of the anti Masonic websites DO believe that these Penalties were inflicted in some notrious cases and there is a school of thought that the methodology of the Jack The Ripper murders replicated the Masonic Penalties, this being part of their "Proof" that the Masons were involved in that series of murders.
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Mar 14, 2006 17:42:15 GMT
It is, as Granny Weatherwax is prone to say, "headology"
Hey, as Granny Weatherwax is prone to say, is for thee hors.
|
|