Post by corab on Oct 12, 2007 19:51:05 GMT
Brn:.,
Pardon the tardiness of my response, but I had to make sure I got my facts straight.
Whistler wrote:-
As a matter of fact, there only ever was one edict and this came from our Supreme Council, not the "man from Iceland". The edict required the immediate cessation of the practice in a few lodges of having a portrait of Rakoczy/the Count St Germain displayed in the north of the Lodge. The reasoning in these few lodges was that he is the head of all true Freemasons throughout the world. (This might be their view, but it is not the view elsewhere in the masonic world.)
This edict was entirely in line with our International Constitution - a total absence of dogma. Nevertheless a largely Theosophical contingent of our Order's membership objected against the ban.
The edict concerned only one particular ritual, known as Lauderdale in the British Federation, and known under various different names elsewhere. Other rituals in use in our Order make no reference to portraits.
The position remains to this day that portraits, whomever they may portray, have no place in a lodge under our Obedience.
The particular ritual concerned never was under any threat, nor were any other rituals in use in our Order. The only thing that changed following the edict was an adjustment to the rubric of that ritual, not the ritual, namely the words "The portrait of the Head of all true Freemasons (if used) is placed in the North, and if possible, it should be illuminated by a special light so arranged as to shine only upon the picture" were struck from the section "Preliminary Ceremonies", which gives some guidance as to the atmosphere of the Temple and proceedings immediately preceding the Procession. In short, this ritual was not changed, nor were any others, and no ritual was ever under any 'threat' of being changed in any respect whatseoever.
The wording Whistler cites from his edition occurs in my copy as well. Furthermore, the fact remains that as identified in the same passage and in accordance with the International Constitution, any lodge of our Order is free to work any of the rituals approved by the Supreme Council. As a matter of fact, one of our lodges here in the UK has just changed its choice of ritual by decision of the Brn:.
Sadly these unfortunate schisms seem to arise from misunderstandings or misinformation, often unintentional. Thankfully here, on these forums, we have an opportunity to hear the other side of the story.
With h.g.w.,
Cora
Pardon the tardiness of my response, but I had to make sure I got my facts straight.
Whistler wrote:-
No we are not part of LDH now- we certainly were when I started - about 5 years ago when LDH was ruled by a man From Iceland - some edicts came from "Head Office" that were unacceptable to many including threatening our ritual: There was a Break away in Many parts of the World and "The Eastern Order of International Co-Freemasonry" was born. - The Politics of all this has never intruded on my Freemasonry Little has changed for us - I still use my old tattered ritual book - As I type this have to chuckle at the ritual page headed " Note to the fifth edition" amongst other things
it says The Lodges of The Craft are allowed a choice between the sanctioned Rituals some preferring the more ornate, Others plainer Rituals ..etc etc Then .... The Lodges should observe towards each other the old rule; :In things essential, Unity; in non-essentials, Liberty; in all things Charity"
it says The Lodges of The Craft are allowed a choice between the sanctioned Rituals some preferring the more ornate, Others plainer Rituals ..etc etc Then .... The Lodges should observe towards each other the old rule; :In things essential, Unity; in non-essentials, Liberty; in all things Charity"
As a matter of fact, there only ever was one edict and this came from our Supreme Council, not the "man from Iceland". The edict required the immediate cessation of the practice in a few lodges of having a portrait of Rakoczy/the Count St Germain displayed in the north of the Lodge. The reasoning in these few lodges was that he is the head of all true Freemasons throughout the world. (This might be their view, but it is not the view elsewhere in the masonic world.)
This edict was entirely in line with our International Constitution - a total absence of dogma. Nevertheless a largely Theosophical contingent of our Order's membership objected against the ban.
The edict concerned only one particular ritual, known as Lauderdale in the British Federation, and known under various different names elsewhere. Other rituals in use in our Order make no reference to portraits.
The position remains to this day that portraits, whomever they may portray, have no place in a lodge under our Obedience.
The particular ritual concerned never was under any threat, nor were any other rituals in use in our Order. The only thing that changed following the edict was an adjustment to the rubric of that ritual, not the ritual, namely the words "The portrait of the Head of all true Freemasons (if used) is placed in the North, and if possible, it should be illuminated by a special light so arranged as to shine only upon the picture" were struck from the section "Preliminary Ceremonies", which gives some guidance as to the atmosphere of the Temple and proceedings immediately preceding the Procession. In short, this ritual was not changed, nor were any others, and no ritual was ever under any 'threat' of being changed in any respect whatseoever.
The wording Whistler cites from his edition occurs in my copy as well. Furthermore, the fact remains that as identified in the same passage and in accordance with the International Constitution, any lodge of our Order is free to work any of the rituals approved by the Supreme Council. As a matter of fact, one of our lodges here in the UK has just changed its choice of ritual by decision of the Brn:.
Sadly these unfortunate schisms seem to arise from misunderstandings or misinformation, often unintentional. Thankfully here, on these forums, we have an opportunity to hear the other side of the story.
With h.g.w.,
Cora