|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 14, 2011 6:01:10 GMT 10
HRA is considered to be Allied (YR), so we are not entitled to wear our HRA or Mark jewels in Craft meetings. Those brothers of the 18' or higher are entitled to wear there collarette in Craft meetings because we consider Craft to be the first 3 degrees of the AASR. Here, since the union of the "Moderns" and the "Antients", the Mark and HRA are included in the Craft Regulation's definition of pure and Ancient Masonry, a Mark jewel would be OK but since our Mark (along with the EM, Cryptic, RAM and Red Cross) is now administered by the one United Supreme Grand Council, the RA jewel covers both. Here, the A&AR is regarded with some exasperation by many as a prime example of the Continental, profligate proliferation of degrees. A number of years ago I was present at a Grand Lodge Communication where it was proposed that recognition be withdrawn from the GL of Greece because an officer was reported to have attended one of its meetings wearing a 33° sash (fortunately it was resolved to make further enquiries and to seek some assurances of future conduct).
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 14, 2011 17:25:23 GMT 10
Blackmail. If the other Orders don't toe-the-line, Craft members may be told they either can't join or must resign, if they wish to remain in the Craft. Hmmm. Name the Three Grand Pillars on which The Order was founded..? Some may not think of it as blackmail, but that's what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 15, 2011 5:33:18 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by corab on Mar 16, 2011 6:05:16 GMT 10
It seems to me that good place to start potential discussions between Grand Lodges / Orients (and, in the case of my Order: Supreme Councils) on Craft Level is terminology and the fact that different organisations use different terms in different ways.
The purpose of the such an exploratory discussion would be to identify potential areas of sensitivity, in order to 'defuse' any issues upfront by seeking mutual understanding.
Take the issue of "Higher Degrees". In the context of Initiatory Continuity -- the administration of the AASR as a single, naturally progressive system of degrees from 1-33 under one Sovereign Masonic Body -- the term "Higher Degrees" is used to refer to those Degrees beyond the degree of MM.
Mutual understanding is key.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 16, 2011 6:35:01 GMT 10
[a href="Basic Principles for Grand Lodge Recognition"]Basic Principles for Grand Lodge Recognition [/a][/size] by the United Grand Lodge of England: Accepted by Grand Lodge, 4th September 1929[/center] Dare I suggest that this relatively recent list is a somewhat contrived innovation? I dare! Rather than acting on these criteria as principles, UGLE appears to have proceeded ay the height of an especially bigoted age, in a context including the rise of Co-Masonry and on the basis of them having already chosen not to be in amity with certain Obediences and then seeking to justify their stance by selecting and shaping criteria which encompass themselves but exclude those whom they wish to exclude. As presumptive evidence, UGLE admits that, under these criteria, they would not now grant recognition to some Obediences previously recognised but that, having done so, these bodies would retain recognition as being regular!? Surely, if these so-called principles were indeed genuine, continuing recognition would be unmasonic. Our good Brother, W.Bro. Jean-Michel David ( Four Hares), offers his considerable insight on the subject in these linked comments.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 16, 2011 12:45:47 GMT 10
Mutual understanding is key. That assumes good will on both sides. I suspect some lack of political will and disingenuous excuses from UGLE amity GLs.
|
|
|
Post by corab on Mar 17, 2011 2:12:40 GMT 10
Mutual understanding is key. That assumes good will on both sides. I suspect some lack of political will and disingenuous excuses from UGLE amity GLs. If that is the case -- and judging by the Lausanne situation you may well be right -- how does one square such conduct with being a Freemason?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 17, 2011 6:12:08 GMT 10
If that is the case -- and judging by the Lausanne situation you may well be right -- how does one square such conduct with being a Freemason? Freemasonry as an organization is a human institution and should not be confused with Freemasonry as a philosophy. In any institution, grand lodge, church, government, crime gang, etc., once the founders have passed on and the suits (bureaucrats) take charge, preserving and expanding the institution's bailiwick is seen as the main measure of success, becoming confused with its original objects. The suits typically invoke or disregard any moral or philosophical underpinnings as they please to achieve that success.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 17, 2011 10:20:14 GMT 10
Regarding the Lausanne Congress, I offer the following observation from Bro. Shandalla:
"What started as an attempt by Albert Pike to standardise the SR, became a ploy by French Brothers to allow for atheism in the SR. The Scottish Brothers present saw it for what it was and walked out. Once he was brought up to speed on what happened, Albert Pike brought his full force against the declarations of the conference. All regular Supreme Councils followed suit and withdrew their names."
It was the attempt to introduce Atheism into the AASR that sabotaged the whole thing. Belief in Deity is a foundation of the Craft, in all of it's forms, save the French.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 17, 2011 12:43:40 GMT 10
Atheism, agnosticism or secularism ( laïcité)?
|
|