bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on May 31, 2007 11:42:02 GMT
On another thread we got into a discussion of degrees past that of MM, my personal take is that they are additional degree's, not necessarily higher degree's, altho they do take one deeper into masonic lore and knowledge can we really consider them to be 'higher'?
|
|
|
Post by Guy on May 31, 2007 12:01:16 GMT
I'm with you on this - I have always considered them 'side' degrees not higher degrees and as you say, while they introduce you to more I still feel the fundamental lessons of Freemasonry are contained in the EA, FC and MM degrees.
Likewise, I have found that in all the side degrees I have taken, I wouldn't be able to fully appreciate their teachings without the solid grounding of the three degrees (RAM being a slight 'anomaly'). I also find myself repeatedly going back to the three degrees rituals to help me with the side degrees. Hope that makes sense!
Guy
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on May 31, 2007 14:18:10 GMT
ya see one of my problems with seeing the additional degree's as 'higher' or 'better' is that the degree systems we have outside of the craft are all fairly recent innovations, within the last couple of centuries that is, and I don't believe they were originally created with a 'ladder' system in mind
|
|
|
Post by Bettendorf on May 31, 2007 17:25:23 GMT
IMO, the only degree that can be considered higher may be the Royal Arch. I think the most substantial evidence for this can be found in the fact that before the Royal Arch was recorded in any minutes or newspaper advertisements, John Coustus, when he was an unfortunate victim of the Inquisition, confessed particulars of the MM degree known to him from London workings, which contained part of the legend of the now RA degree, suggesting that part of the MM degree of the 1730's was extracted and placed into the RA.
|
|
|
Post by Bettendorf on May 31, 2007 17:30:04 GMT
But, such talk of higher or additional degrees is confusing to a non-mason. Technically, they are higher degrees, but philosophically, they are additional. Masons of today have inherited more from the brothers who crafted the Articles of Union than we think
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on May 31, 2007 17:40:40 GMT
Eh? inquisition? wasn't that 15th century? Scott, take a look at this article that was posted up by Philip - explains a lot and well worth a read: A Pragmatic Masonic History
|
|
|
Post by Bettendorf on May 31, 2007 17:49:42 GMT
Eh? inquisition? wasn't that 15th century? Scott, take a look at this article that was posted up by Philip - explains a lot and well worth a read: A Pragmatic Masonic HistoryYes, but he was a victim of the Spanish Inquisition I believe, which lasted into the 19th century. I forgot his occupation, but after John Coustus had received his degrees his occupation called him from London to where he was victimized by the Church. My apologies for not remembering all the exact particulars, but a reading through of the "John Coustus" section of Bernard E Jones 'Freemasons book of the Royal Arch' will probably prove more rewarding than listening to my stumbling recounting of it Thanks for the link
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on May 31, 2007 18:09:24 GMT
Eh? inquisition? wasn't that 15th century? The Inquisition was active in the phase for which it gained infamy up until the mid 19th Century (the last famous case involved the 1858 abduction of a Jewish child, Edgardo Mortara). It exists today under another name and, under that new name, had been headed by Cardinal Ratzinger, who in that capacity had expressed his opposition to Freemasonry (his was at the time part of a minority opinion). He is now Pope Benedict XVI. John Coustos (1703 - 1746) had indeed been among the Inquisition's victims.
|
|
|
Post by Bettendorf on May 31, 2007 18:50:56 GMT
From 'Freemasons book of the Royal Arch', pg 43 "John Coustos and his Sworn Evidence",
"...Later, in October 1742, a member of Lisbon's Protestant Lodge, John Coustos, about thirty-nine years of age, was denounced by an informer of the Inquisition as being the chief of the "sect" called "Free Masons" that had four years before been condemned by the Pope. Coustos had learned his masonry in London. He was a swiss by birth but naturalized an Englishman, by trade a master diamond-cutter, by religion a Protestant, and at the time residing in Lisbon; he had been initiated apparently in a London lodge before 1732.
In the hands of the Inquisition, Coustos gave evidence under solemn oath on a number of occasions, and on April 25, 1744, was tortured on the rack in Lisbon for more "than a quarter of an hour," being afterwards sentenced to serve four years in the galleys. On the intervention of the British Minister at Lisbon he was liberated in October 1744, and reached England on December 15 of the same year. Hitherto we have had, in a book which he wrote and published in England in 1746, a not quite reliable account of his tribulations (he can be forgiven much, poor fellow!), but, fortunately for masonic history, the original documents from the Archives of the Inquisition have been discovered, have been translated by a member of the Lisbon Brand of the Historical Association and reproduced by John R. Dashwood in A.Q.C. (vol. lxvi, pp. 107-123). These documents show that Coustos made a "confession" on two days of March 1743, and in this he gave a fascinating account of the Craft masonry known to him, a tiny portion of this account being here reproduced:
didnt feel comfortable posting this in an untyled area, but just PM me and Ill send it to you.
John Coustos declared this and many other things under oath on March 26, 1743, and it will be particularly noted that the legend or ritual revealed by him, including St John's reference to the 'Word,' must have been that of one or two lodges under the Premier Grand Lodge during the 1730's. As the authenticity of the quoted passage does not admit of any doubt, it is beyond question that in the 1730's a Craft ritual--that is, the ritual of one or more London lodges, not necessarily all, by any means--contained elements which now are unknown to the Craft, but which, in an elaborated form, are present in todays RA ritual.
The Coustos documents (which, we must insist, to be read are to be believed) afford proof that some of the bare essentials of the RA legend were certainly known to a few English lodges-- lodges of the 'Moderns,' remember--at an early date, a fact that must necessarily affect hitherto accepted views on the early history of the RA."
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on May 31, 2007 22:35:04 GMT
Thank you for that info Scott and Philip, until recently UGLE held the position that the RA was the completion of the third, which could be read as implying its not higher than that of MM.
|
|