My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Ancient "Freemasonry"?

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
The formation of a "Grand" Lodge presupposes the prior existence of more than one Lodge. It makes zero sense to me that this new Grand Lodge would suddenly come up with a totally new form of working. It may have amalgamated practices of the several existent Lodges and even added some elements, but it doesn't add up to me that they fundamentally changed what was going on previously. Therefor I think the essentials of what takes place was already established prior to 1717. What that date may be I have no opinion.
Valid point.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
... It makes zero sense to me that this new Grand Lodge would suddenly come up with a totally new form of working.
Unless everything that was done before was used to create the illusion of continuance. Then all the disjointed lore and nonsensical claims make perfect sense!
...It may have amalgamated practices of the several existent Lodges and even added some elements, ...
It was an amalgamation in this aspect: All the Freemasonic scripts that were put together were for theatrical effect - to provide each patron with an authentic feel in the hopes that one day each would get the message that the theatrical performance was intended to convey - improve yourself!
...but it doesn't add up to me that they fundamentally changed what was going on previously. ...
But they DID fundamentally CHANGE from what was going on previously! All one has to do is examine Operative versus Freemasonic practices - they are worlds apart, even when you make every effort to claim the latter is a speculative form of the former. Things simple do not add up.
 

MarkR

Premium Member
The compound word was only used after 1717; that is a fact. To claim it was used before 1717 is fabricating history.
And I still contend that the difference between free-mason and freemason is no more significant (as words) than the difference between base-ball and baseball. A lot of compound words evolved through a hyphenated stage. And I wasn't discussing the meanings assigned to free-mason and freemason; I was only addressing your contention that the word didn't exist until they removed the hyphen.

But you feel free to continue to laugh at and mock anyone who disagrees with anything you say.
 
Last edited:

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
And I still contend that the difference between free-mason and freemason is no more significant (as words) than the difference between base-ball and baseball.
As is you right to do. I disagree and my disagreement is based upon careful examination of the words used within context over the years, not the disputed terms as they compare to other terms used throughout the years.
A lot of compound words evolved through a hyphenated stage.
Yes, however you are comparing how other terms evolved with how these words were used within context over the years. Context and case specific! You're generalizing and saying your generalization is valid. It is not in this case.
And I wasn't discussing the meanings assigned to free-mason and freemason; I was only addressing your contention that the word didn't exist until they removed the hyphen.
You have every right to ignore the details. You have every right to come up with a conclusion based upon that ignoring of details. I shall not dismiss the evidence and conclude anything that fits a narrative that doesn't support the evidence. There's more going on behind the curtain than meets the eyes!
But you feel free to continue to laugh at and mock anyone who disagrees with anything you say.
Good Lordy Mark, you know darn well that my laughter was at the metaphor you used, not you. Stop acting like a victim seeking a persecutor.

Details Mark! Taking laughter out of context and reframing in to suit a victim narrative is just sad! If you're feeling frustrated, perhaps your energies would be better suited looking at the details! They are there and in abundance! All you have to do is train your mind to recognize patterns and not assume the dogma you were gleefully and ignorantly handed is the actual story that unfolded.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
All you have to do is train your mind to recognize patterns and not assume the dogma you were gleefully and ignorantly handed is the actual story that unfolded.
The Craft can do without this kind of condescending attitude.
The Craft could do with a healthy dose of reality and far fewer encouragers of fantasy.

That being said, you're virtue signaling with your comment. A very old tactic to take focus off the substance of the topic and redirect it like a smelly red herring to avoid facing serious discourse about our Craft's shortcomings. By virtue signaling, you've taken focus off the topic and redirected it upon me. Rather than look at what I wrote and take it as a prescription for success, one that is tried and true, you've painted it in a offensive light - and me as well - one that is of your own making, and taken it as an insult and responded in kind. You are your own victim here.

Fortunately, your comment has more to do with your nature when faced with such prescriptions than the substance offered.

We'll have to disagree on your attacking comment as well.
slander.jpg
 
Last edited:

LK600

Premium Member
And I still contend that the difference between free-mason and freemason is no more significant (as words) than the difference between base-ball and baseball.

I can not speak to this exact issue, but historically spelling was not standardized. There was no dictionary or anything similar in nature throughout the years (specifically speaking about Europe). The spelling of a word could take numerous forms, so basing anything (for or against) should be done with a grain of salt.
 

texanmason

Registered User
The Craft could do with a healthy dose of reality and far fewer encouragers of fantasy.

That being said, you're virtue signaling with your comment. A very old tactic to take focus off the substance of the topic and redirect it like a smelly red herring to avoid facing serious discourse about our Craft's shortcomings. By virtue signaling, you've taken focus off the topic and redirected it upon me. Rather than look at what I wrote and take it as a prescription for success, one that is tried and true, you've painted it in a offensive light - and me as well - one that is of your own making, and taken it as an insult and responded in kind. You are your own victim here.

Fortunately, your comment has more to do with your nature when faced with such prescriptions than the substance offered.

We'll have to disagree on your attacking comment as well.
View attachment 6331

Sorry John, calling out your conduct towards other brothers isn't "virtue signaling." No-one is encouraging fantasy, or dismissing reality. In fact, we're trying to encourage realistic understandings of history. Your condescending remarks don't help anyone, and they don't foster learning.
 
Last edited:

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Sorry John,...
No, you are not.
...calling out your conduct towards other brothers isn't "virtue signaling."
Actually, it is "virtue signaling". You're framing this as an attitude and moral issue. It is neither. However, you'll continue to frame it that way so that you can continue to make it sound like conduct unbecoming toward others when what it actually is: Sound advice that upsets you enough to attack me rather than address the issues the statement points toward.
No-one is encouraging fantasy, or dismissing reality.
Your words don't reflect reality. And I am not the only one seeing the encouragement of fantasy and the dismissal of reality within the Craft! Here's another Brother's comment upon the subject:

“Masonic authors have been known to abandon all reason in their reveries upon Masonic symbolism. Their flights of fancy have produced such ludicrous outrages as the theory that Freemasonry originated with Adam in the Garden of Eden, or perhaps in ancient Egypt, or possibly even fabled Atlantis. The latter notion is especially appealing to these dreamers as there is no evidence of the existence of that legendary continent, and, more importantly, there is no evidence to contradict their hypothesis. ”

“I am not from Missouri, but I do firmly subscribe to that state's motto in regard to Masonic research: "Show me!" There is more than enough antiquity and honor connected with our Craft to make references to unfounded claims and fanciful digressions unnecessary (and downright embarrassing!). Nonetheless, such speculations have had a profound effect upon the history of the Craft.”
-- Bro. S. Brent Morris

He is not alone. He echoes what Bro. Mackey said years ago:

“How is the history of Freemasonry to be written, so that the narrative shall win the respect of its enemies, and secure the assent and approbation of its friends? In the first place, we must begin by a strict definition of the word Masonry. If we make it synonymous with Freemasonry, then must we confine ourselves closely to the events that are connected with the Institution in its present form and organization. …

“… No greater honor could accrue to any man than that of having been the founder of a new school of Masonic history, in which the fictions and loose statements of former writers would be rejected, and in which the rule would be adopted that has been laid down as a vital maxim of all inductive science, — in words that have been chosen as his motto by a recent powerful investigator of historical truth:

'Not to exceed and not to fall short of facts — not to add and not to take away. To state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.'" – Bro. Albert C. Mackey 33° (History of Freemasonry; Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, 1917 edition)



In fact, we're trying to encourage realistic understandings of history.
If that were true, especially of you, you would not find the prescription I said condescending. Yet, here you are once again saying...
Your condescending remarks don't help anyone, and they don't foster learning.
A prescription for learning ...
All you have to do is train your mind to recognize patterns and not assume the dogma you were gleefully and ignorantly handed is the actual story that unfolded...
not fostering learning? It sounds like you have a lot more going on here than the surface issues in this thread.
 

Bevan Jones

Registered User
I believe the below is the clearest explanation of the emergence of Speculative Freemasonry from the Operatives....

In December 1583, James I of England appointed William Schaw as principal Maister o' Wark (“Master of Works”) to the Crown of Scotland for life, responsible for all royal castles and palaces. Schaw, a loyal Catholic, replaced the Protestant Robert Drummond, most likely as a direct result of the Gowrie Regime. Around the time of Schaw’s installation as master, the 7th Lord Seton was sent as ambassador to France, accompanied by his son Alexander Seton and William Schaw, known to be friends due to their shared interest in architecture. Returning the following year, Schaw was intimately involved in building the Seton Collegiate Church and Seton Palace. George Seton remained in France, not liking the pro-Protestant turn of events in Scotland.

The First Schaw Statutes, written in December 1598, were rooted in the “Old Charges” of stonemasonry, typically describing the duties, charges and regulations of a mason’s lodge. However, many also included a prayer and description of the Seven Liberal Arts, followed by a romantic history of the operative craft. Schaw included additional material to describe a hierarchy of wardens, deacons and masters. Apprentices joining a guild would be bound to their masters for seven years. Within Freemasonry, an initiate symbolically rolls up his trouser leg to show that he is not bound with chain irons, and is coming to the lodge of his own free will and accord.

Schaw spent more time in Edinburgh than Glasgow and his earlier trip to France with Lord Seton had been funded by the town of Edinburgh, considering the kings lack of funds at the time. This loyalty, and the fact that his great friend, Alexander Seton, had now become Provost of Edinburgh, goes a long way to explaining why Schaw favoured the Operative Lodge of Edinburgh (“Mary’s Chapel Lodge No. 1”) over Mother Kilwinning Lodge No. 0 near Glasgow, in his Statutes. Mary’s Chapel Lodge is in possession of the oldest known operative masonic lodge records, dating back to July 1599, shortly before the publication of Schaw’s Second Statute.

In his Second Statute, Schaw attempted to make up to Kilwinning by declaring it the “head” lodge for the operative craft and giving it regional authority for west Scotland, whilst confirming all its previous practices. Interestingly the officials of the lodge were recommended to ensure that all fellows and apprentices "take trial of the art of memorie". Having placated operative lodges in the West of Scotland, Schaw now also encountered problems from the St. Clair Family. Over 100 years prior, William St. Clair, the builder of Rosslyn Chapel, had been a great employer of stonemasons, notably the Tironesian experts in gothic architecture. The St. Clair descendants thus felt they had some say in the matter of how operative masonic lodges should be run, even though the surviving male line of the family had fallen out of favour with the ruling elite of the time.

However, the Setons and St. Clairs were still close and Dunfermline Lodge was supported by both the St. Clairs and Alexander Seton, Earl of Dunfermline. Schaw now placated them as well, by confirming the role of the Lairds of Rosslyn as “patrons and protectors of the Craft”, in his St. Clair Statutes of 1600 and 1601. Schaw died in 1602 and his tomb inscription, written by his great friend Alexander Seton, begins as follows:
This humble structure of stones covers a man of excellent skill, notable probity, singular integrity of life, adorned with the greatest of virtues – William Schaw, Master of the King's Works, President of the Sacred Ceremonies, and the Queen's Chamberlain.

As well as having the oldest operative lodge minutes, Mary’s Chapel Lodge No. 1 also records the admission of Lord Alexander into the lodge in 1634. Was this Lord Seton? And did Schaw, Seton and Dickson introduce the Art of Memory into masonic ritual? It’s certainly a strong possibility. We thus know that speculative masonry must have emerged sometime between the 1599 operative minutes and the 1634 initiation of a Lord into the lodge, who clearly would not have been an operative stonemason.

Although baptised as a Roman Catholic, James I of England was brought up Presbyterian and, following the Union of the Crowns, he leaned towards Anglican practise. James had great trouble with both Protestants and Catholics in Scotland. Anglicanism seemed like a reasonable compromise. Speculative Freemasonry may have emerged from Scots Protestant and Anglican families, such as Hamilton and Murray, splitting from the traditional Templar / Catholic families of Seton and St. Clair. The rift between David Seton (Catholic aligned and allegedly the last Scots Templar) and Sandilands (Protestant and the last Prior of the Hospitallers before surrending the Order to the Catholic Queen at the time) is well documented. The current Queen is Church of England and still head of the Order, under new brand and management of course.

Certainly, Robery Moray (direct descendant of the Tullibardine Murrays) was a prominent Scots Mason and founder of the Royal College, whilst several Hamiltons and Murrays are later recorded in Scots Masonic minutes. HRH The Queen, Duke of Lancaster is also directly descended from the Tullibardine Murray's but that's another story...

The Protestant / Catholic debate was raging, around the same time that Rosicrucianism (hermetic mystery schools) and Francis Bacon was defining his New Atlantis and scientific empiricism. It must have been a fascinating time to be alive and equipped with a brain and a soul. As Freemasonry tried to provide a united platform for reconciling science with spirit, it may have tried to reconcile the many differing religious views, with a united reference to the “Great Architect of the Universe”.

Would Lords have associated with stone masons at this time? Very unlikely, considering the social structures prevailing. However, the operative lodges already had convenient meeting places and could have offered the perfect recluse for the gentry interested in discussing the emerging sciences, especially considering that stonemasons had always been open to the liberal arts, with maths and geometry being skills required for a master builder at the time.

James I would have had much insight into historical and emerging developments, being close to the major role-players at the time and having the benefit of the inheritance of Lord Sandiland’s Templar collection, via the Hospitallers. We will of course never know the exact course of events but the above is at least a reasonable guess, when considering the sequential timeline of events and interplay of the key characters at the time.
 
Last edited:

Bevan Jones

Registered User
What is a traditional templar catholic family as opposed to a catholic family?

A Catholic-aligned family that traditionally supported the Templar narrative, such as the St. Clairs and Setons. But of course the situation was very fluid and family members married into opposing families at the time, as well as changed their alliances as power shifted. However, it was clear that Sandilands, under pressure from the Setons, had to give up being Hospitaller Prior to the Catholic Queen, due to his Protestant allegiance. Up until this point, one can track clear lines of descent from Robert de Brus and several Flemish Templar families, to the Earls of Atholl and Argyll. These families then appear to split along Protestant / Catholic lines and almost all prominent Scots Freemasons, including the famous Dukes of Atholl (who head the Atholl lodges), as well as the Queen Mother's Scots ancestral lines, come from the Protestant / Anglican line. The Setons and St. Clairs fade into relative obscurity. One cannot unfortunately do justice to the massive amount of genealogical and historical research required in short quotes on a forum such as this. As an aside, the current (reluctant) Duke of Atholl now lives in South Africa and has little to no interest in his family's role in all of this. I know because he's told me so. Bah, history, what good is it huh? :)
 
Last edited:

Elexir

Registered User
>What is a traditional templar catholic family as opposed to a catholic family?

It may be that Templar Catholics followed John the Baptist rather than Jesus

Considering that the templars did not break away from traditional catholic dogma it is off.
 

Elexir

Registered User
>templars did not break away from traditional catholic dogma

So all those burnings were wasted.

Well Philiph the fair didnt have to worry about the money he owed them so I dont think he thought it was a waste of time.
Its not anything new really, the vatican published the complete documentention of the trials in 2007 if Im not misstaken where apperantly Clement V absolves them.
 

Bevan Jones

Registered User
King Philip had several reasons for his Templar witch-hunt (the "burnings") and he was finally freed to act immediately after Edward I's death, having ensured his daughter also married Edward's son. The writing was clearly on the wall for the Flemish Templars already by 1305 and the migration to Scotland had already started. Other Templar factions were moving to Portugal and the rest of Europe already. Around 1305 the following facts were becoming very clear to most Templars, following the loss of their man in Acre, Guillaime de Beaujeu, and the fall of the city in 1291:-

- Both Edward I and Philip IV were lusting after Templar wealth, not caring that funds held in the London and Paris Temples were held in trust on behalf of others.
- They were both also trying to secure Flanders for themselves, and gain control over lucrative taxes from the Scots / English / Flemish wool trade.
- The Angevin Dynasty was over and the key Flemish Templar leaders, Guy de Dampierre and Guillaume de Beaujou, were dead.
- Needing to assert royal power, Philip IV was seeking to undermine the common rule of law as enacted through charters such as Magna Carta, and he had a pliable Pope on his side, albeit having to be forced to carry out his actions.
- Guillaume’s successor as Grand Master, Thibaud Gaudin, had fled to Cyprus, and his successor, Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master, was not Flemish aligned, but was closer to Otto de Grandson, Edward I's best friend and the most likely Templar to lead the exodus to Switzerland. The country's banking prowess arose out of the Carthusian charterhouses, Otto's favoured charity.
- The Order was rebuilding and performing a largely administrative role from its base in Cyprus, having lost its military and financial raison détre, with the Italians now acting as the preferred bankers to the nobility and Papacy.
- The prevailing Scottish king, John de Balliol, who had enjoyed traditional Templar support from Balantrodoch on the East of Scotland, had effectively sided with Philip IV as part of the Auld Alliance, in defence against Edward I. This is one of the key reasons for the Scots Templars to support Robert de Brus, who up until that time was also toying with English loyalty.
- Edward I was becoming increasingly desperate to take Scotland, for both strategic military reasons and an increasing suspicion that Templar wealth and influence was being moved there.
 
Last edited:
Top