Thanks Tony.
THE BROTHER OF MY BROTHER:
the right to visit revisited
by M Remzi Sanver, IPGM, Grand Lodge of Turkey
On 11 May 2013, the Grand Lodge of Turkey decided to allow—subject to the approval of the Grand Master—visitation to Freemasons belonging to non-recognized constitutions, provided that their grand jurisdiction is regular and is recognized by at least one grand lodge which is recognized by the Grand Lodge of Turkey. With this decision, the Grand Lodge of Turkey officially accepts that the brother of a brother can be given the right to visit Turkish lodges—hence is a brother. This acceptance—which I refer to as the ‘brother of my brother’ policy—breaks the traditional equivalence between
right to visit and
recognition, by expanding the sphere of brethren who can possibly visit Turkish Lodges from
recognized jurisdictions to
regular ones.
At this point, it may be useful to recall that the regularity of a Grand Lodge is the satisfaction of a well-defined list of principles aiming to preserve the traditional values of Freemasonry, hence being an objective concept. On the other hand recognition, a privilege that two grand lodges may or may not grant each other, is subjective. During the last couple of decades, the world panorama of Freemasonry exhibits an ever growing disparity between regularity and recognition. While regularity is necessary for recognition, decisions of recognition typically include additional subjective criteria which mostly contain elements of Masonic or even profane politics. As a result, regular grand lodges who are not in mutual recognition abound.
It is indeed this observation that motivated the decision of the Grand Lodge of Turkey. The traditional equivalence between right to visit and recognition is the product of a world where decisions of recognition are (almost) solely based on regularity, hence the distance between recognition and regularity is (almost) nil. In such a world, setting right to visit equivalent to recognition unites (almost) all regular brothers, while successfully separating them from understandings of Freemasonry that are not compatible with the principles of regularity. On the other hand, setting right to visit equivalent to recognition in a world where there is a severe gap between recognition and regularity has the ill effect of separating regular brothers for reasons unrelated to the basic values of Freemasonry. To say even more, when the gap between recognition and regularity is somehow ‘political’, this implies a separation based on ‘politics’ which, let alone having nothing to do with regularity, is orthogonal to the basic values of regular Freemasonry. The decision of the Grand Lodge of Turkey which replaces the traditional equivalence between right to visit and recognition with an
almost1 equivalence between right to visit and regularity is a step towards removing the barriers between regular brethren and contribute to their mobility, while preserving the separation of regular Freemasonry from other non-traditional approaches to the Craft.
The main application of the ‘brother of my brother’ policy can occur when multiple regular grand lodges who are not in amity exist over the same territory. Italy (with the Grand Orient of Italy and the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy) and Greece (with the Grand Lodge of Greece and the National Grand Lodge of Greece) are two well-known cases in Europe. More historical cases can be found in North America with Prince Hall grand lodges. In such cases, the rule is to recognize only one of the many. With the ‘brother of my brother’ policy, a grand lodge can keep its lodges open to all regular brethren of that territory, without violating the rule.
2The ‘brother of my brother’ policy can also contribute to the rapprochement of brethren under two different grand lodges which are not amity due to reasons pertaining to the relationship between those two jurisdictions. As a case in point, the Grand Lodge of Turkey does not recognize the Grand Lodge of Cyprus and has lodges in North Cyprus. The ‘brother of my brother’ policy can support the mobility of brethren in Cyprus which can have a very positive effect on the relationship between the two grand lodges.
3The ‘brother of my brother’ policy reflects both a position closer to the values of Masonic brotherhood and an acceptance of today’s world reality. After all, Turkish brethren could anyway share ritual meetings with the non-recognized brethren covered by this policy. This typically occurred under the shelter of a third grand lodge which recognizes both the Grand Lodge of Turkey and the grand lodge of the brother who is not recognized by the Grand Lodge of Turkey.
4 With the possibility of membership in more than one grand lodge, there were even instances where the ‘non-recognized’ brother could visit Turkish lodges, wearing the hat of his other grand lodge that is recognized by the Grand Lodge of Turkey. For example, in Italy, the Grand Lodge of Turkey recognizes the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy (hence not the Grand Orient of Italy) but a Turkish brother could attend the meeting of a lodge under the United Grand Lodges of Germany (which recognizes the Grand Orient of Italy) where he would enjoy the company of his brother from the Grand Orient of Italy. Furthermore, if this Italian brother is also a member of the German constitution, he could also visit Turkish lodges in this capacity.
5 Previously, the official rule was that Turkish brethren could not share ritual meetings with brethren of the Grand Orient of Italy, whereas in reality they could. Now that is acknowledged officially.
The Grand Lodge of Turkey has adopted the ‘brother of my brother’ policy because the concepts about relations between grand lodges have lost their capability to efficiently shape today’s world. These concepts need to be revisited, and if necessary revised, to enable us—as Freemasons of the world—to approach our desired outcome more efficiently, which is ultimately the brotherhood of all mankind.
MWBro Prof M Remzi Sanver, IPGM, Grand Lodge of Turkey
1 The qualification ‘almost’ is needed, as Turkish Lodges are open to regular Freemasons subject to the fulfillment of certain additional conditions. But the qualification ‘almost’ also seems to be appropriate because these additional conditions are much weaker than recognition.
2 Of course, one can question this rule of recognizing in one territory only one of the multiple regular grand lodges who are not in amity. The discussion of this rule would be the subject of another article. However, the reader should know that the decision of the Grand Lodge of Turkey is taken, and this article is written,
assuming the existence of this rule.
3 The situation of Cyprus is a big story of its own. I would direct those who want to learn about it to the article ‘Freemasonry in Cyprus—a dysfunctional family’ in
Harashim #47 p.6 (July 2009).
4 ‘When in Rome, do as the Romans do’. So, accept the rules of the grand lodge which you are visiting. With a few notable exceptions, most grand lodges approach intervisitation through the ‘when in Rome’ rule.
5 To prevent such instances occuring would require drastic measures to be taken, such as not allowing Turkish brethren to visit a recognized jurisdiction when a visitor belonging to a non-recognized jurisdiction is present there, and asking visitors to Turkish lodges to declare all their Masonic affiliations. Not only do such measures not make sense but also they cannot be enforced.
