ANTIENTS vs MODERNS

Discussion in 'History and Research' started by Bloke, Jan 18, 2018.

?

Good article below ?

  1. Yes

    6 vote(s)
    60.0%
  2. No

    1 vote(s)
    10.0%
  3. Unsure

    3 vote(s)
    30.0%
  1. Bloke

    Bloke Premium Member

    4,307
    3,035
    133
    This is an interesting article. What do others think of it ?

    *************

    As any Masonic traveler can attest, there are differences in how Masonic Lodges throughout the United States conduct their ceremonies. This is attributable to two primary reasons. First, Freemasonry in the U.S. has its foundation in two different Masonic traditions, the “Ancients” and the “Moderns”. Secondly, there is no “Grand Lodge of America”. In the United States each state has its own Grand Lodge that presides over the subordinate lodges in that state. Each state Grand Lodge is its own jurisdiction; answerable only to its own constitution. Therefore, differences may arise due to the underlying Masonic tradition as well as how various practices and procedures have evolved from state to state.

    ANCIENT TRADITION, F. & A.M. (Free and Accepted Mason) states are: AL, AK, AR, AZ, CA, FL, GA, HI, IN, KY, LA, MI, MS, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OH, PA, RI, TN, UT, VT, WA & WI. All Prince Hall lodges also follow this tradition.

    Note however, that due to the unique history of Freemasonry in Pennsylvania, it is the ONLY Masonic jurisdiction in the United States that retains a 100% ANCIENT YORK TRADITION!

    MODERN TRADITION, A.F. & A.M. (Ancient Free and Accepted Mason) states are: CO, CT, DE, ID, IL, IA, KS, ME, MD, MA, MN, MO, MT, NE, NM, NC, ND, OK, OR, SD, TX, VA, WV & WY.

    South Carolina refers to itself as “AFM” (Ancient Free Masons) and the District of Columbia goes by “FAAM” (Free And Accepted Masons).

    It is very important to point out that these differences are largely those of form. The underlying tenets of the fraternity remain the same. A Pennsylvania freemason is welcome in any lodge throughout the world that recognizes the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania.

    Pennsylvania did play a very formative role in the establishment of Freemasonry in the United States. What follows is a brief history of how Freemasonry came to be in Pennsylvania and how the two Masonic traditions evolved.

    Freemasonry's origins (as it currently exists) can be traced to the formation of the first Grand Lodge of England (and in the world) in 1717. It was formed in London by four lodges which had been meeting in different taverns throughout the city. Eight years later, the Grand Lodge of Ireland began work and was immediately recognized by the Grand Lodge of England. During the years 1749 and 1750, a number of English and some Irish Masons could neither affiliate with nor visit Lodges under the Grand Lodge of 1717, because they belonged to "the laboring class."

    On July 17, 1751, these Masons formed a second Grand Lodge of England, known as the "Most Ancient and Honorable Society of Free and Accepted Masons according to the old Constitution." Its Masonic attitude was more progressive than the older Grand Lodge and more appealing to men interested in Freemasonry. The members of this organization, contending that their ritual alone preserved the ancient customs and usages of the Craft, styled themselves "Ancient York Masons". They dubbed the 1717 Grand Lodge "the Modern Grand Lodge," because they felt that the older body had modernized its ritual, thus straying from the ancient usages and landmarks. The Constitution of the 1751 or "Ancient" Grand Lodge is the "Ahiman Rezon" compiled by Bro. Lawrence Dermott, Grand Secretary, and printed in 1756. The English Grand Lodges, "Moderns" and "Ancients," and their subordinate lodges continued their separate ways, as rivals and competitors. The lodges eventually united in 1813, but members from both groups were represented in the early American colonies.

    Bro. Allen was then elected Grand Master (Moderns) on St. John the Baptist's Day in 1732, as recorded in the Pennsylvania Gazette of that same year. As Grand Master, Bro. Allen appointed William Pringle as Deputy Grand Master, and Thomas Boude and Benjamin Franklin, as Wardens. Bro. Franklin would become Grand Master in 1734, the same year he published "Anderson's Constitutions," the first Masonic book printed in America.

    Philadelphia became the Mother City of Freemasonry in America for both the Ancients and the Moderns. According to records from 1732, the first meeting place of the Pennsylvania Masonic Lodges was Philadelphia's Tun Tavern. Built in 1685, Tun Tavern was one of the very first breweries in the country. Located on Philadelphia's thriving Delaware River waterfront, it quickly became a meeting place for several groups, including the Masons in St. John's Lodge No. 1, which was constituted by Bro. Daniel Coxe in 1730.

    By Sept. 5, 1749, discontent was stirring among some Brethren of the Pennsylvania Grand Lodge. They worried that their self-constituted Grand Lodge lacked the authority it formerly possessed and made an appeal to the Masonic authorities in London for the second appointment of a Provincial Grand Master of Pennsylvania. The Grand Master of England (Moderns), William Lord Baron of Rochdale, appointed William Allen, who had been Grand Master in Pennsylvania in 1731. This marked the end of the independent Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania and its inception as a Provincial Grand Lodge affiliated with and deriving its authority from the Grand Lodge of England (Moderns). It was composed of three Philadelphia Lodges: St. John's, No. 2 and No. 3. In 1755, the first American Masonic Lodge house was dedicated in Philadelphia by the Grand Lodge of Moderns.

    On Feb. 13, 1760, the Members of Lodge No. 1 (Ancients) in Philadelphia balloted for their own Provincial Grand Master. William Ball, a wealthy landowner, was elected. Following the election of Bro. Ball, an application was made by the Members of Lodge No. 1 to the Grand Lodge (Ancients) in London for a Provincial Grand Warrant for Pennsylvania. They were successful in their efforts, and a warrant for the Provincial Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania (Ancients) was issued on July 15, 1761. This venerable document is in the archives of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania.

    Whereas the original Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania (Moderns) had been very conservative and relatively inactive, the new Grand Lodge of the Ancients was progressive and alert to all opportunities. During its entire career, the Modern Grand Lodge never supported more than four constituent lodges, even in its most prosperous years. On the other hand, from the date of its establishment up to the beginning of the Revolutionary War, the Ancient Grand Lodge granted warrants to 16 lodges and during the Revolution warranted seven more.

    Indeed, the war only intensified the rivalry and considerable friction between Ancients and Moderns in Pennsylvania, because the Modern lodges, to a great extent, were composed of conservatives who were inclined to be Loyalists, while a large majority of the Ancients espoused the cause of independence. As the American Revolution stirred strong opposition to Great Britain's rule within the colonies, the liberality of the Ancients became contagious in America. The influence of the Moderns waned and was ultimately extinguished as the last record of these beliefs was written in 1793.

    By 1813, Modern and Ancients worldwide began to be reconciled and united. But no reconciliation was necessary in Pennsylvania where the Moderns had ceased to exist. Therefore, the ritualistic changes and compromises resulting from the reconciliation of 1813 did not affect the ritual in this Commonwealth, and Pennsylvania Masons continued to work in the pure "Ancient" way, as "Ancient York Masons."

    This appellation was changed to "Free and Accepted Masons" in 1872. No written record of this change has been discovered, except that at about this time, the general return forms issued by Grand Lodge for the use of the subordinate lodges began to be printed with the "F. & A.M." designation. During the 1800’s, the Grand Lodge concentrated on building stability and uniformity among the lodges in Pennsylvania, and during the 20th century continued to strengthen the membership.

    Source http://www.lowthermanorlodge781.org/index_files/Antients_vs_Moderns.htm
     
    Warrior1256 likes this.
  2. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    2,928
    3,366
    183
    Simply designating F&AM as descending from one tradition or another is error. Some GLs were amalgamations of Englis, Scottish and Irish lodges.

    Some GLs, 150 years later, with no immediate descent from the Home GLs simply picked the designation.

    Others, such as Utah, changed their designation from AF to F. Thus, Utah’s inclusion is under F&AM as a means to determine its descent would be clear error.

    I have no idea where the claim to an independent GL arising before the PrGL comes from.

    I am unaware of the liberality of the Ancients becoming contagious.

    It is my understanding that Allen was a PrGM.

    Really, this isn’t well done.
     
    Mindovermatter Ace and dfreybur like this.
  3. LK600

    LK600 Premium Member

    654
    711
    113
    Well, it definitely is an interesting paper, though I can not speak to it's entire accuracy. I would be interested in seeing citations for further exploration but I do not think they were given.
     
  4. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,935
    2,388
    133
    The history of the Antients and Moderns is excellent. The history of Pennsylvania is excellent, as is its explanation of why Pennsylvania is more different than most.

    The explanation of why any one US GL is AF&AM versus F&AM appears to work on the east coast states. Moving west from the east coast, it's just a table of what names were chosen when each GL organized itself. So the part that claims the names are the result of lineage should have been left out, or at least explained as being in name only.

    At lodge there's a map of the US showing the founding lodges of each state with arrows as to where those lodges had been chartered. Many states had founding lodges from more than one other state. They are mostly hybrids. That map would be the next step in showing how the Antient and Modern traditions merged in the US. It would be a larger article.
     
    Bloke likes this.
  5. Keith C

    Keith C Registered User

    838
    962
    93
    I will agree with the above on the Ancient vs Modern history and the history here in PA.

    Just to point out one small thing, we still have "Ancient" in the official name of the Grand Lodge, it just comes before the F&AM part. The full official name of the Grand Lodge of PA is:

    The Right Worshipful Grand Lodge of the Most Ancient and Honorable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons of Pennsylvania and Masonic Jurisdictions Thereunto Belonging
     
    Bloke, dfreybur and Warrior1256 like this.
  6. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 Site Benefactor

    7,335
    3,330
    183
    Wow! Talk about a mouthful! Lol.
     
  7. Mindovermatter Ace

    Mindovermatter Ace Registered User

    95
    32
    18
    One error I noticed alleges that the moniker of "AF&AM" is attributed to the Moderns, and vice versa. It is not. Moreover, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Grand Lodge of North Carolina was founded by either Scotland or Ireland- I can't remember which. I would also like to add that every Grand Lodge in America is inherently "Ancient" in practice and form, whereas much of what the "Moderns" changed upon the formation of the Grand Lodge of England was either diminished or repealed altogether. There is not one jurisdiction in America that has preserved any "Modern" practice, and as far as ritual, there are less than a handful of jurisdictions in the United States that have ever governed lodges that worked a modern ritual. Namely, New York, Louisiana, etc. What's practiced in America is the result of the 1813 merger, and I believe that it would be an error to consider any Grand Lodge founded after 1813 to have a lineage to the former two bodies of England. Furthermore, a modern lodge is triangle in form not square and that, to my knowledge has NEVER been used in America, aside from the rare and few lodges of the Moderns derived from France, which after 1813 was one of, if not the only jurisdiction (GOdF) to preserve modern practices, form, and ritual. In sum, monikers don't matter and interpreting them is prone to error.
     
  8. goomba

    goomba Neo-Antient Site Benefactor

    670
    689
    143
    Alabama was originally AF&AM but later changed to F&AM. Maryland was originally F&AM and changed to AF&AM. I think the article does as good of a job as something brief can at explaining the differences. Cause as you can see we each know a bit about our GL's that can change simple things.
     
  9. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    2,928
    3,366
    183
    See this link for the Lodges which formed NC. There was a lodge warranted by Scotland, but I do no show evidence it even founded a provincial Grand Lodge. https://www.grandlodge-nc.org/storage/wysiwyg/lodge_history_v2017.pdf

    Pennsylvania certainly had lodges working in modern ritual. Price’s successors in Massachusetts were appointed by the Moderns.

    Isn't it using a rather broad brush to say there are no surviving practices of the moderns? What do you identify as a moderns practice, other than using a triangle?

    Do you have a source indicating the use of the triangle as a practice of the moderns and what precisely do you mean by that?

    I think there is some confusion as to the relevance of dates. 1813 was when UGLE was formed. It warranted no lodges in the United States. The grand Lodge of North Carolina, for instance, was formed in 1787, well before the merger of the ancient and moderns in England. GL NC reported it had Montfort as a PrGM, appointed by the Duke of Beaufort. See https://www.grandlodge-nc.org/about-freemasonry
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2018
    Bloke likes this.
  10. Bloke

    Bloke Premium Member

    4,307
    3,035
    133
    I think the appeal of an article like the above is it seems to wrap everything up nicely - as i said, appealing... the dissadvantage is it does not do that by using completely accurate information..
     
    coachn and Glen Cook like this.
  11. Ben_Zanaatkar

    Ben_Zanaatkar Banned

    44
    0
    6
    Sup, folks!
    What was the "reason" of schism?
    Thanks!
     
  12. coachn

    coachn Coach John S. Nagy Premium Member

    2,083
    2,075
    133
    What schism?
     
  13. Ben_Zanaatkar

    Ben_Zanaatkar Banned

    44
    0
    6
    What was the problem between Laurence Dermot & others? What misunderstanding?
    P.S. Please, don't say "rituals".
     
  14. coachn

    coachn Coach John S. Nagy Premium Member

    2,083
    2,075
    133
    Control
     
  15. Ben_Zanaatkar

    Ben_Zanaatkar Banned

    44
    0
    6
    What "control"?
    Explain, please.
     
  16. coachn

    coachn Coach John S. Nagy Premium Member

    2,083
    2,075
    133
    The whole of the schism was about who controlled who doing what, where, how and when.
     
  17. Ben_Zanaatkar

    Ben_Zanaatkar Banned

    44
    0
    6
    So.
    What? Where? How?
    What was the problem between brothers?
     
  18. coachn

    coachn Coach John S. Nagy Premium Member

    2,083
    2,075
    133
    Control was the problem.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2019
  19. Ben_Zanaatkar

    Ben_Zanaatkar Banned

    44
    0
    6
    *Sigh*
    Coach ended, probably.
     
  20. Winter

    Winter Premium Member

    755
    887
    113
    Sorry Ben. But you seem to making a lot of posts looking for arguments without actually doing some basic research so you can have a stance. I might suggest actually looking up the schism between the Antients and Moderns and them come back to debate it. I can guarantee that thread would be much more interesting than just asking vague questions.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
     
    coachn likes this.

Share My Freemasonry