|
Post by corab on Oct 11, 2008 23:07:37 GMT
Nothing is really in amity with anything else anywhere. Says who? Last time I checked there was an Alliance of 9 or 10 French Obediences, a fair few of them operating internationally, which work in close proximity and mutual amity with one another. To name but a few: LDH, GOdF, GLFdF, GLdF, GLTSO and GLFdMM. More specifically, LDH, GOdF and GLFdF have entered into dual membership treaties. Apart from this Alliance, French masonry has close and friendly connections with a whole range of other Obediences, so pardon my French, friend, but what on earth are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by corab on Oct 11, 2008 23:08:45 GMT
If the mess is being atheist and working emulation, if the mess is to visit LDH UK on saturday and rectified male only lodge on monday : It's ok for me ! ;D I've seen it myself. It is not a "mess" as that word is generally understood. It is, in fact, a Masonic paradise. Amen to that, Bro:. Karen. Amen to that.
|
|
|
Post by corab on Oct 12, 2008 1:30:18 GMT
Again Co-Masonry itself has a very different history in France to the male variety. It seems to me that Freemasonry in France is attempting to be all things to all people. This approach will fail imo. Do you know any other country that also has politics invoved in so much of its modern day Masonic matters. Belgium, Chile, Ecuador ... although strictly speaking it is the other way round: to have freemasonry involved in so many political matters. I'm bemused about your issue with French masonry. What Obedience do you hail from, and of what immediate concern is French -- or in the wider scope francophone -- masonry to you?
|
|
|
Post by corab on Oct 12, 2008 12:21:00 GMT
Don't you find that it always seems to be those that style themselves as a Gd. Orient (and not a GL) that are the groups that concern theselves with politics? Erm... no. Grand Loge Feminine de France. Grande Loge Traditionelle et Symbolique Opera. Grande Loge Mixte Universelle. Grande Loge de France. Grande Loge de Memphis Misraim. Grande Loge Nationale Francaise (Bineau). Plus such other "non-Grand Orient" obediences as Loge Nationale Francaise, Ordre Initiatique et Traditionnel de l'Art Royal and l'Ordre Maconnique Mixte International "Le Droit Humain". I think that bit of mis-information has been sufficiently settled. Which Obedience -- or Jurisdiction, as you're more likely to know it as? And again: what is your problem with francophone masonry? What is your problem with answering direct questions? Except when it comes to Grand Orients being more likely to be concerned with politics than Grand Lodges, it seems.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Oct 12, 2008 14:12:28 GMT
There is a undeniable fact that in the UK the Home Grand Lodges have created a calm which does not seem to permeate through Europe. The principles have more or less been kept as , (1) Supreme being , (2) one GL per Geographic area, (3) male only Freemasonry.
Now you can debate the Virtues of UGLE, GLoS and GLoI or lack thereof, but you cannot deny it works.
We have already discussed France 30 Plus GL's, Italy 52, Portugal and Spain have about 10 each. Then there are the co Masonic Grand Lodges and Feminine Grand Lodges in each Country.
Now is it the Freedom of the individual that creates these multitude og GL's and does it matter.
I would argue that there are some clear definitive policies that when they broken down or cease to be, cause the disunity. The most obvious is the belief in God, or a God. So we have a clear marker between those who believe and those who do not, that I think can be accepted by both sides. Politics is the next and the addition of Females into craft Lodges the next.
So this gives us three main causes for disagreement. And three main causes of Unity.
|
|
|
Post by corab on Oct 12, 2008 15:00:12 GMT
With respect, Bill, I think this distracts from the key issue at hand, this being the formalisation of relations between the GOdF and the GOUSA. It would make an interesting new thread, though ...
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Oct 12, 2008 16:15:56 GMT
A thread meandering from it's original course? Heaven forbid! Without authoritve statements from each GO there is going to be speculation from all sides of the debate - and we don't appear to have had those clear statements from each side - yet
|
|
|
Post by corab on Oct 12, 2008 16:26:33 GMT
A thread meandering from it's original course? Heaven forbid! Well, there are places where you'd get seriously slapped for it ... It would be useful to see Brandt return and represent his GO, but doubtlessly he has his hands full with all things Grand Secretarial, and he has my sympathies for it. As for an official representative from GOdF ... I think they have their hands full with internal matters, at the moment!
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Oct 12, 2008 18:19:45 GMT
Bro. Cora,
depends how your mind works. I was under the impression we were examining the reasons and the intent of the patent given to the Newly Formed GOUSA by GOdF.
My point was, do you think it is a good idea to have so many differing ways of approaching the recognition issue and is this the correct way of expanding Freemasonry.
Let me place this before you then.
I start a New Lodge tomorrow, Co Masonic, I pledge allegiance to all the principles of 'Le Droit Humaine', if I apply to the GL Secretary of Le Doit Humaine, would I be granted permission to operate under your official banner?
Would this be a good thing or would you think , dam cheek what the hell is he up to.
Exactly the same position as we are discussing. What would you say and do.
I just get the feeling that many who say , Oh its OK the more Lodges the better are a bit like the people who do not want the Teenage Hostel next door. Its fine so long as its not on my patch.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Oct 12, 2008 18:25:05 GMT
He has not got that kind of money
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Oct 12, 2008 18:58:44 GMT
"There is a undeniable fact that in the UK the Home Grand Lodges have created a calm which does not seem to permeate through Europe. The principles have more or less been kept as , (1) Supreme being , (2) one GL per Geographic area, (3) male only Freemasonry
I have met this calm before, in an old folks home where the inmates are drugged up with Seranace or Haloperidol and sit placidly in their chairs or lie in bed smiling inanely and waiting to die. I personally want no part of such "calm".
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Oct 12, 2008 19:09:02 GMT
Every revolution comes to an end, every revolutionary ends up in an old folks home where the inmates are drugged up with Seranace or Haloperidol and sit placidly in their chairs or lie in bed smiling inanely and waiting to die.
Me I would want to help them. But that's what us suckers at UGLE do.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Oct 12, 2008 19:18:27 GMT
On the factual side I have helped the elderly mentally infirm off my own bat, nothing to do with Freemasonry, when my ex-wife was in charge of a home for such people.
On the analogy to Freemasonry I prefer the choice even if it means there are several GL or GOs in each country. An imposed "calm" does not appeal to me as I am not into "one size fits all" Freemasonry.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Oct 12, 2008 20:35:58 GMT
We are not talking about individuals. We are talking about this patent , I am trying to compare what is best for Freemasonry.
What GOdF have done with GOUSA or the way UGLE does things, its policy not your way or my way. you may like it or not like it, If not just say why you think either is wrong.
The choice of obedience as always is down to the individual, but what is the problem with discussing it?
|
|
|
Post by corab on Oct 12, 2008 21:36:22 GMT
Bro. Cora, depends how your mind works. I was under the impression we were examining the reasons and the intent of the patent given to the Newly Formed GOUSA by GOdF. Indeed we were. Hence my not seeing the relevance of making comparison to a completely different masonic, social and legal environment. If the participants in this tread truly have a wish to understand, then they must first unshackle themselves from their preconceptions, then proceed to investigate the masonic, social and legal environment in which the GOdF came about and currently operates. You will have to clarify that for me. As the Working Tools tell us "accuracy and precision are essential for the proper conduct of our lives" -- let's make sure everyone here knows precisely what it is that is on the table here. LDH is not the same as, and does not operate in the same way as GOdF -- you're comparing apples and pears. The position is not the same. Far from it. If however my Supreme Council were to recognise and enter into fraternal relations with another sovereign masonic body, then I would respect their decision. That is what I signed up for, n'est-ce pas? I share your concern, but from a perhaps somewhat unexpected angle. What I'm about to say next is not going to make me popular, but I can't remember the last time I cared about that, so here goes. The rapid expansion of the number of independent GLs bears me concern. It represents to me a diffusion of the necessary safeguards to ensure that the core principles remain inviolate. I have seen it happen before. I am a Wiccan initiate, and I have seen what happens when the final frontier -- the sanctity of the Oath -- is breached and thrown to the wind. What was once one single tradition ended up readily available on the shelves of WH Smiths and the likes, and now anyone who can read, can self-initiate, proclaim himself High Priest, and start his own tradition. And it happens all the time. Wicca is inherently weaker than freemasonry (freely as it has borrowed from it), because it doesn't have landmarks. It doesn't have lengthy Constitutions. It doesn't have a central organising and controlling body such as a Grand Lodge. The closest thing it has to a tenet is "Do what thou willt, but harm none" -- and this is a guideline at best; certainly not a law. So from that practical perspective I share your concerns. I don't think that packing your bags and setting up shop anew is by default the best solution. However, I am also reminded of the Declaration of Independence, which states that "... when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.", which may grant us outsiders an insight in why some of our American Brn:. are exercising their god-given rights to take action in the face of what they perceive to be a great wrong. Doing as you're told is not always the right answer. It is also worth seeking some understanding of the French as a nation, and how it is governed. This is where it began: the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen on 1793. This is how it stands today: the Constitution of 4 October 1958 and this gives an idea of how the state is organised and governed. Ultimately though, whatever we think or say is quite irrelevant. The fact is that Grand Orient de France has recognised the Grand Orient of the USA as a Sovereign Masonic Body, and that the latter has been granted permission to work the French Rite in accordance with the principles laid down by the body responsible for the governance and administration of the the French Rite with the GOdF. I would dearly like to hear from an official representative of the GOdF what motivated the action, but another fact of life is that that is a matter for it and it alone, and it owes no obligation to any of us, nor any other Obedience or body of Grand Lodges, to give chapter and verse. Frankly, I am far more interested in how its own internal complications surrounding the initiation of women pans out. I believe this will have a far greater and far more immediate impact than its entering into a Treaty of Amity with the GOUSA. S&F, Cora
|
|
|
Post by corab on Oct 12, 2008 22:28:01 GMT
... Frankly, I am far more interested in how its own internal complications surrounding the initiation of women pans out. I believe this will have a far greater and far more immediate impact than its entering into a Treaty of Amity with the GOUSA. You can follow this development concerning the GOdF on a separate thread that is here on this forum. Thank you. That is very helpful. Now, seeing how you're in a helpful mood, would you care to answer some of my questions which I have repeatedly posed to you ON said other thread?
|
|
|
Post by corab on Oct 12, 2008 22:40:20 GMT
All GOUSA has from the GOdF is a patent that provides permission to work their ritual and a treaty of amity. That's it! Actually, we need to be a little bit more precise this. The Treaty of Amity came from the Grand Orient of France. The patent was issued by a subsidiary body lower down in its hierarchy which is responsible for the adminstration and governance of the French Rite. Two quite different things. As as far as "That" being "it", a Treaty of Amity is a pretty serious masonic agreement. It establishes mutual recognition between two Sovereign Masonic Bodies, and enables both to work in fraternal relations. Essentially, it has established GOUSA as a Sovereign Masonic Body. They have indeed, but then again these are matters internal to the GOs concerned, and often they don't filter down to the lower echelons of the organisation much, much later. I think GOUSA's great mistake was its failure to (a) embargo the information and subsequently (b) fail to make an official communique immediately after the unauthorised dissemination of said information. My Order entered into Dual Membership Treaties with GOdF and GLFdF in May 2007. Had I not been present at the Convent International, I would not have known about it. This is the way these things go -- matters played out at top level do not always filter down to lodge levels, nor indeed do they need to. Critical mass to achieve what? What exactly is your fear of these francophone-inspired organisations?
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Oct 13, 2008 6:27:40 GMT
Bro. Cora your beginning to sound like a Lawyer, which I suppose is no surprise.
The comparison is between a constantly changing organisation and a calm and methodical one. Which is the best path ?
Lets just recognise that 95% plus of all the Grand Lodges in the World accept the UGLE as the Mother Grand Lodge of Freemasonry. Now I know for some that is not a happy thought but if you check the majority of the GL's you will see that it is a fact.
Le Droit Humaine refers back to : "Anderson is the author of the Constitution of Freemasons 1723 a fundamental work, based on masculine speculative Freemasonry".
So within this discussion I wanted to try to find out what the reason for this link up was, this patent being issued by French GL to create legitimacy for a Grand Lodge in the US to create new Lodges ?. Now some might feel that is irrelevant , but I see it as the core of what and why this has happened.
Jeff Peace I know well, he is a dedicated and honourable man, the fact that I don't agree with him does not matter. He has a Vision for Freemasonry which in many ways should be admired, it is not his principles I disagree with it is the methodology.
Jeff has tried so hard to create his Masonic Utopia, at no small cost to himself, from what I have observed he is totally unselfish with the results of his labours and will be just as likely to walk away when he thinks the job is done. But in his obsession to find this Masonic Utopia he has made many enemies, and bringing French Freemasonry into the heart of American Freemasonry will not do anything to lighten that load.
At the heart of this discussion must be the question,
Is it, was it right for this Patent to be given. ?
But when I try to move toward this basic question by offering a comparison I am told I am off topic. Well I don't think I am. It is, or should be a question of what is BEST for Freemasonry, not what is best for GOdF, GOUSA or UGLE or anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Oct 13, 2008 8:31:04 GMT
Bro. architekt, I am confident you will come to know I do research things before I say them.
GOUSA claim on the website that their lineage goes back through the GOdF to 1717, you yourself said it was not correct. So this link up is being used as a 'legitimacy for a Grand Lodge in the US to create new Lodges ?.' They will exercise their right to use the permission granted and with those rites to create new Lodges. Now you may not agree that it is right to do so, but that is what will happen.
|
|
|
Post by corab on Oct 13, 2008 12:24:31 GMT
Bro. Cora your beginning to sound like a Lawyer, which I suppose is no surprise. And us being taught that accuracy and precision are essential for the proper conduct of our lives, it should prove well within the compass of your attainment to rise to the challenge. That depends on the state of said organisations, the environments they exist and operate in, and the way their members perceive the current state of the organisation they belong to. What may seem "constantly changing" to one, may be "constantly evolving" to another. What may seem "calm and methodical" to one, may be "apathetic and rigid" to another. Whether people accept it as doesn't make it so, but that's a side issue, and I remain unconvinced as to its relevance to our current discussion. How does it relate to GOdF's Treaty of Amity with GOUSA? I think you are quite correct in that, and I, too, would dearly like to know what motivated GOdF to engage in this relationship, but the fact of the matter is that it is a matter for the respective Grand Orients, and we may never know. They are under no obligation to give us any explanation whatsoever. I expect you are right. I am not convinced we have the right to ask that question. We do not belong to either GO; what do you think gives us the right to call either to answer? Unless we are fully au fait with the facts surrounding the situation, the best we can do is speculate, and I'm not sure that is going to do anyone any good. And that's where the beast of recognition kicks in again. As long as we have this concept of recognition, there will be division, and there is no such thing as a single-entity by the name of freemasonry. As long as we support the principle of recognition, we have no right to challenge "in the name of freemasonry" any organisation which our own Order does not recognise.
|
|