|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Member
Last Login: 17/06/2011 12:20:27
Posts: 116,
Visits: 928
|
I strongly feel that all this politics about recognition and regularity is not doing freemasonry in general any good. Quite the opposite.
The esoteric tradition that is carried and nursed by us Freemasons is much greater than any Grand Lodge. And it is much older than any Grand Lodge still active today. (GOdF being the oldest one, theoreticaly).
The biggest cell in Freemasonry (from an initiatic point of view) is the individual lodge and each individual lodge should have the power to decide who gets in and who does not.
The TRADITION has always been evolving and changing. It is in its very nature to do so. It did so before 1717 and has done so after 1717.
I don't think there are many lodges that practice Masonry today in the way it was done in 1717 anyway. Within the UGLE or elsewhere.
Grand Lodges are good for administration and printing magazines. IMHO.
Humanity as a whole makes one big Lodge.
Janus
GLSA N°31
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Member
Last Login: 10/07/2011 06:43:06
Posts: 2,146,
Visits: 4,278
|
Bro Janus, I am inclinded to agree. The yoke of LDH as an Institution/Grand Lodge on its individual Lodges is quite a light one I have found and I am glad to say. To my mind a Grand Lodge and Provincial Grand Lodge or equivalent is an administrative/coordinating and not a regulatory body and should afford to each Lodge under its umbrella the maximum degree of autonomy possible. For example a Lodge should be able to change the Ritual it wishes to perform to another one that is accepted as an authentic Masonic Ritual, and to have its own little variations and customs thereto with the minimum of fuss or interference. Likewise it should be able to change its meeting place from say one Masonic Centre to another if there is an available meeting time and day or to a suitable hotel, hall etc with no more than a vote from the majority of the Lodge members and simply informing the Provincial Grand Lodge or the Grand Lodge as a matter of information and courtesy of that change. Only in the most serious of matters should the Provincial GL or the GL etc become involved. I have never been a fan of micro-management whether that is in my work life or in Freemasonry.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Member
Last Login: 29/01/2012 04:48:25
Posts: 412,
Visits: 1,041
|
Of course the Ritual as practised in 1717 is not that of today. There was no Third Degree then, nor was there any Hiramic Legend. The first evidence of that is in Prichard's exposure "Masonry Dissected" which was published in 1730
Might I suggest, Janus, that you read Bro Harry Carr's paper "600 Years of Craft Ritual" which you can find on the internet.
Keith
PM. Waimarino 175
Kaimanawa 426
Waikato Lodge of Research 445
Taupo, New Zealand
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Member
Last Login: 17/06/2011 12:20:27
Posts: 116,
Visits: 928
|
Hi brother Keith,
I have read the article you mention. It is very good. The Regius poem is rightly brought up but I don't agree with Carr when he says it all started there. According to the Regius poem Masonry was brought to England by Athelstan. But from where?
Janus
GLSA N°31
|