|
Post by hollandr on Apr 10, 2008 5:39:37 GMT
This area for opposing threads is a bit slow. Where are the opponents?
Any way I seem to recall Blavatsky saying that some Jesuits penetrated Masonry (presumably in the 18th century) and generated a lot of spurious degrees.
She asserts that this was done to distract Masons from doing useful spiritual work.
Is she correct?
How would we know?
Cheers
Russell
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Apr 10, 2008 6:20:49 GMT
I'd need to see the evidence As for where the antis are . . . my experience with the antiMasonic crowd is that they prefer forums in which they are in full control. This forum is far too level for them, so they don't come here. They're certainly welcome to come prove me wrong but, so far, I've not seen it.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Apr 10, 2008 6:29:30 GMT
This area for opposing threads is a bit slow. Where are the opponents? Any way I seem to recall Blavatsky saying that some Jesuits penetrated Masonry (presumably in the 18th century) and generated a lot of spurious degrees. She asserts that this was done to distract Masons from doing useful spiritual work. Is she correct? How would we know? Cheers Russell Lots of non Jesuit generated degrees distract Masons from doing useful work...
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 10, 2008 6:50:02 GMT
Any way I seem to recall Blavatsky saying that some Jesuits penetrated Masonry (presumably in the 18th century) and generated a lot of spurious degrees. I'm not sure of a Jesuit connection. There is an AQC article about Freemasonry (Chartered from England) being so popular within the Catholic Knights of Malta that, even the appointment of an Inquisitor to address the 'problem' failed to eradicate it, until the knights were relocated following Napoleon's conquest.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 10, 2008 7:08:36 GMT
Lots of non Jesuit generated degrees distract Masons from doing useful work... Indeed. As I have recently written in preparation for a further unfolding of my Desaguliers Code: Royal Arch:After the creation of the third degree and its Hiramic Legend, Freemasonry soon spread to the Continent, with the Grand Orient of France (GOdF) being establish only a couple of years later in 1728. Bearing in mind that Desaguliers and disproportionate number of other members of the premier grand lodge were from France (Huguenots), we note that the proliferation of degrees on the Continent (which exasperated many conservative English Freemasons) in many cases developed the general theme established by Desaguliers. Meanwhile, English Freemasons were diverted from that theme by another, which also purported to repair that which was lost, revealing the genuine secrets of a Master Mason. In 1751 the grand lodge styling itself (at first) The Most Ancient and Honble Society of Free and Accepted Masons (sic) was established, claiming to have been begun several years earlier and also claiming to perpetuate a more ancient or rather ‘antient’ tradition than that of the premier grand lodge, the Grand Lodge of England, (which they justly accused of introducing many innovations). They claimed to be ‘Antient’ Freemasons and, by default, the premier grand lodge, although established before that of the Antients came to be known as the ‘Moderns.’ According to Bernard Jones: For upward of a century the formation of the rival Grand Lodge was referred to as a schism, and the men who formed it as seceders. ‘Schism’ is literally a splitting,’ or ‘cleavage’; a ‘seceder’ is one who formally withdraws from membership of a body. We have plenty of evidence now to prove that the event was not a schism, for while there may have been, and probably were, a number of Brethren who went over to the rival body, for the main part that body came into existence as the result of the determined efforts of Irish and Scottish masons residing in England, helped by English masons, who for the most part had never owed allegiance to the first Grand Lodge. Their rivalry continued until 1813 when they merged, establishing the United Grand Lodge of England. A major difference between the two had been the standing of the Royal Arch degree. The 'Moderns' had no place and indeed no patience for it, whereas for the 'Antients' it was the crux, core and completion of Freemasonry. Jones tells us: In the early years of the conflict between the ‘Moderns’ and ‘Antients’ no one thing more clearly differentiated one side from the other than the former’s official ignorance of Royal Arch Masonry and the latter’s eager adoption and encouragement of it. Whereas the ‘Antients’ regarded it as the “Root, Heart and Marrow of Free Masonry,: the Grand Secretary of the ‘Moderns’ in 1759, in answer to an ‘Antient’ Brother who had requested his charity, said, “we are neither Arch, Royal Arch, nor Antient.” In course of time, it is true, the ‘Moderns’ founded the Grand Chapter, the first Grand Chapter in the world, but this was an official move on the part of the Grand Master, and did not kill their natural hostility to Royal Arch masonry. Even as late as 1792 an official utterance of the Grand Lodge of England was to the effect that it had “nothing to do with proceedings of the Society of Royal Arch Masons.” It is a curious anomaly that, while the ‘Antients’ claimed to practice only the ancient rites but encouraged the Royal Arch, the ‘Moderns,’ whom the Masonic world at home and abroad accused of ‘innovation,’ officially frowned on the Royal Arch, which, so far as the consensus of opinion goes, was itself an innovation wholly or in part. Elsewhere, Jones described how the ‘Moderns’’ innovation of the third degree prepared the way for the ‘Antients’’ innovation of the Royal Arch degree, saying: The general adoption of the Hiramic Degree throughout English freemasonry by the middle of the eighteenth century should be emphasized because it means much to the R.A. mason. Failing its introduction, the R.A. might never have become a part of the Masonic Order. Let it be remembered that the mason of the early lodges was in general a religious and relatively simple soul. The story unfolded by the Hiramic legend prepared his mind for yet another story, this one serving to make good two things that were absent from the earlier degrees. The three-degree system, ending in what may appear to be disappointment and anticlimax, prepared the way for the introduction of a degree which new or otherwise, was accepted particularly by the opponents of the Premier Grand Lodge as part of an ancient system. The hostility between the ‘Moderns’ and ‘Antients’ over the Royal Arch degree may be quite significant regarding our study. Some hostility towards the degree was to be expected, partly because any major difference between their respective customs would inevitably have been latched on to as proof of the irregularity of the other; partly because in purporting to restore the ‘genuine secrets of a Master Mason,’ the degree diverted attention from Desaguliers’ Code; moreover, they suggested the ‘secrets’ were only to be found beyond the three Craft degrees (wherein Desaguliers had left his clues). Even more significantly, the ‘Moderns’ would have objected to the original context of the Royal Arch degree. Most Royal Arch Freemasons today are used to the degree being set in the context of Zerrubabel building the second temple and finding the ‘secrets’ in the ruins of the first. However, there has been a change in the degree every bit as radical as Desaguliers’ change from Noah to Solomon in the Craft degrees. The Royal Arch degree was originally set in the context of King Josiah finding the ‘secrets’ while repairing the first temple and those repairs are still the context in which the degree is set in Ireland. The context of Josiah’s discovery had the benefit of scripture but the disadvantage of its cult hero having been an intolerant and ruthless king who waged the fiercest pogrom against the devotees of Asherah (his purported ‘discovery’ conveniently endorsed the unpopular but politically expedient revolution he had already begun). In other words, in restoring the lost secrets, the examples used were on opposite sides of the same conflict and the credit given for the restoration represented wholly different values. Josiah’s attitude and actions would have been anathema to those aware of Desaguliers’ Code and its lessons of tolerance and inclusion. Therefore, the contextual change from Josiah to Zerrubabel may appear to have been a drastic move to make the degree more palatable to the ‘Moderns.’
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Apr 10, 2008 8:04:33 GMT
One person's spurious can be another's genuine.
In UK Malecraft in the last few years there have been two new Degrees and to be honest I have doubts about them. One was the Order of Athelstan based on the lore of that Anglo-Saxon King who summonsed a Grand Lodge at York. Now what struck me as a strange coincidence was that this new Order was formed not long after the establishment of the Grand Lodge of All England which claims its provenance for the same King and his historic Grand Lodge. Was UGLE's "Order of Athelstan" founded to steal GLAE's thunder? Although asked to join the "Order of Athelstan" when I was still in UGLE, I refused. Then there is a new side Degree of the Order of the Secret Monitor, I think it is called the "Order of the Scarlet Cord" which I understand was already in existence but had become dormant and has now been revitalised. I had left UGLE and OSM by the time this was revitalised but I doubt if I would have joined it.
If someone can show authenticity for a Masonic Order and resurrected it then that is fair enough, but I often wonder about some which spring up. Let's face it I could say that Hiram a Biff had a cat which accompanied him around King Solomon's Temple and on that basis found "The Order of Kizzy the Cat", but I doubt I would have many takers for membership.
There were some "Mock-Masons" orders such as the Gormagons and the Scald Miserables ion England in the 1700s. I suppose they died out.
BTW the Roman Catholics do have their Quasi Masonic Orders, not only the Knights of St Columba, (Columbus in the USA) and the Catenians, but also the Knights of St Gregory, the Knights of Malta etc. I understand that the latter two are very difficult to join, indeed are probably Invitation Only. then of course there is the infamous "Opus Dei"
As to the Jesuits. I don't know if this is still the case but originally they were instructed to pretend to be what they were not and to penetrate any organisation considered to be the enemy of the Church of Rome. Thus they may in the past have become Freemasons to disrupt Lodges etc . I shouldn't imagine they would tell us would they?
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Oct 21, 2008 4:06:42 GMT
I have my extreme doubts about both, especially the former, as it seemed too much of a coincidence that it appeared at the time when GLAE was reponing the Grand Lodge of King Athelstan at York. I was approached to join the UGLE Athelstan Order when I was in UGLE but politely declined. I was also in OSM but at that time I had not heard of the "Scarlet Cord". I would not have joined it anyway as from what I have heard progression is tied to the amount contributed, not the manner by which I personally believe that one should progress in a Masonic Order. We do not have OSM in the British Federation of LDH.
|
|
|
Post by waynecowley on Oct 21, 2008 7:27:24 GMT
Looks like the Masonic Order of Athelstan will be coming to Caerphilly early next year
Wayne
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Oct 21, 2008 8:04:38 GMT
But you do have to ask yourself Lauderdale, did the main protagonist of GLAE have involvement in the formation of Athelstan prior to taking his leave from UGLE?
Chicken and egg I guess, I know how long it takes to get something like Athelstan organised and set up, I would not be in the least bit surprised if PC was not more than a little 'influenced'
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Oct 21, 2008 16:45:22 GMT
Ah, I see Bro. Arch has found the cellar. Sweet Since we're already here, Bro. Ma'at's evil twin says we're to bring some merlot up with us when we, again, ascend toward the light.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Oct 21, 2008 20:53:57 GMT
Ditto here, too. Even more trouble getting into T3Ps just now. But ML and NOS seem just fine BTW, Bro. Arch, don't mind the backpack, K. Since it looks like we'll be down here longer than normal, Ma'at's evil twin would like some cases of Jack as well. I'm not sure how you're breathing down here without a mask but I'm admirin' ya
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Oct 22, 2008 4:07:57 GMT
"Based on historical research, any Grand Lodge and/or all of its subordinate bodies that cannot trace their Masonic origin of authority to the Grand Lodge of England [the Masonic revival group of 1717-Modern] is considered clandestine."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
By whom. UGLE and Amity, Malecraft, "Coventional" Freemasonry? By what authority?
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Oct 22, 2008 4:20:06 GMT
Indeed so, and I still have the same reservations about these two new Degrees as I had then, especially the Scarlet Cord which, from what I have read, seems to be a way of getting money out of members. OSM itself on the other hand had to me a useful lesson and purpose , especially the Visiting Deacons and their maintaining contact with and reporting at each meeting regarding members. My own criticism was a minor one in that the Sign/Salute was very awkward and ungainly to perform and was not really that realistic and could have been altered to make it more graceful and easier to perform without loss of its Symbolism.
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Oct 22, 2008 6:15:09 GMT
For whatever reason this site is still a problem. Far too long to load and access. Perhaps admin. can look into this matter and post an explanation on the forum. You appear to be in the dark about the operation of the forum, so a brief explanation, it is hosted by proBoards as a free forum, they make no service level definitions and as such we have no control or power over the operation of the forum beyond the content of the board. If anyone does notice performance issues then please feel free to wander over to the proBoards main support site and check out the status of the host server (server 37) - thats all we as admin/mods can do, also please remember that this is not a 'job' that we get paid for - all mods/admins give their time freely to maintain the boards, so their will be occasions when there is nobody in the "staff room" due to our private and public avocations Is this a direct quote from a publication? If so please supply the usual citation information
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Oct 22, 2008 15:11:57 GMT
Architekt wrote
UGLE. Authority of lineage.
So of no consequence whatsoever to those GLs and GOs etc not in Amity with UGLE.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Oct 22, 2008 16:48:04 GMT
However, we do reserve our right to decide who we regard as being regular and capable of recognition. This is true, UGLE has that right. However, UGLE has never, ever claimed authority over any other Masonic body; or that Her decisions have any weight, bearing or authority outside of UGLE. Which means UGLE is free to exercise Her right to decide who she deems to be "irregular". That does not one little itty bitty bit mean those others are, indeed, irregular. Or that they, or anyone else, is under any obligation to agree.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Oct 22, 2008 17:15:18 GMT
HER right? Bro Karen, HER?
I am sure that many members of the very Male-Only UGLE would choke at their Festive Boards to be given a female pronoun?
UGLE is an Institution and as such can be considered to be a "Legal Person" but as far as I am concerned in respect of such organisations I would use IT. Even LDH, so dear to my heart, is an "IT" in my vocabulary.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Oct 22, 2008 18:12:03 GMT
That being the case it is interesting that Grand Lodge of Scotland has a very good policy with regards to its members being involved with the Order of the Eastern Star yet UGLE bans its members from attending OES Meetings.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Oct 22, 2008 18:28:10 GMT
As is the GLoS's right to do so. Just because UGLE does not have a pleasant relationship with OES does not mean GLoS is barred from doing so. Neither GL claims any authority over the other; they just have an amity agreement.
And having an amity agreement doesn't mean they are alike in all ways. Just compare UGLE with the Malecraft Lodges in the US. There are marked differences between them and yet they get along.
As for GLs referring to themselves in the feminine . . . as Bro. Arch already pointed out (thank you Bro. Arch), the GLs have been doing that for centuries. Bro. Steve, with your 18 years experience in UGLE, and about two years in LDH, I'm surprised you don't know that.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Oct 22, 2008 18:36:09 GMT
" Bro. Steve, with your 18 years experience in UGLE, and about two years in LDH, I'm surprised you don't know that. "
Your usage is the first time I have heard it, and no offence to you but I find it a very "twee" custom and not at all likeable.
I would add that I only use He, She, His, Hers, etc in respect of human being's and animals with sexual characteristics, but not for inanimate objects, organisations or countries etc. Thus to me the UK, or USA would be "IT", so would a ship, car, steam loco etc.
Still, whatever floats your boat , but I will continue referring to Lodges, Grand or otherwise in an impersonal mode.
|
|