Warrior1256
Site Benefactor
Not a bad idea for all GLs and lodges.
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!
Clandestine Freemasonry
- Thread starter flameburns623
- Start date
MarkR
Premium Member
There's a new app for iPhone and Android, called "Amity." It's free, and while still under development, it's pretty good at identifying the legitimate Grand Lodges, which ones are recognized by which, and the lodges under them. I've got it on my Android tablet and my Android phone.
MarkR
Premium Member
I've got a presentation on Clandestine Masonry that I've given in a few lodges.
Warrior1256
Site Benefactor
Cool!
Mark, would you be willing to share? I'd be interested to see how you frame it.
My understanding at the moment:
- Clandestine: refers to a Grand Lodge that cannot trace its charter back to UGLE
- Regular: refers to the landmarks, work/ritual, etc. used by a given Grand Lodge
- Recognized: refers to the (wholly political) status of amity/fraternal relations between two Grand Lodges
MarkR
Premium Member
Your first point refers to legitimacy of origin. You should know that it's not just UGLE or one of its progenitors (the Premier Grand Lodge (Moderns) or Antients) but any of the Grand Lodges of England, Ireland, or Scotland that a Grand Lodge must trace its lineage to. The rest seems correct. There are Grand Lodges that are regular but unrecognized. A noted example is Italy. UGLE recognizes the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy, while most American Grand Lodges recognize the Grand Orient of Italy.
My presentation needs perhaps a little updating and adjusting for your own jurisdiction, but otherwise I'd be happy to send you the PowerPoint.
Last edited:
Warrior1256
Site Benefactor
Thank you for this clarifying info Brother.
Yes, thanks for the clarification! That makes a lot of sense as the British were certainly not the only Freemasons when it all started.
I had the opportunity to go to London last summer for one of their Tercentenary celebrations, and joined some friends on a Masonic tour of Scotland before arriving in England. We had the distinct pleasure of visiting Mother Kilwinning Lodge, whose members got a chuckle out of our excitement about UGLE's 300th... MKL has minutes dating back to 1642 and traces its history to 1140, so all the fuss about "300 years of Freemasonry" was a bit lost on them.
I had the opportunity to go to London last summer for one of their Tercentenary celebrations, and joined some friends on a Masonic tour of Scotland before arriving in England. We had the distinct pleasure of visiting Mother Kilwinning Lodge, whose members got a chuckle out of our excitement about UGLE's 300th... MKL has minutes dating back to 1642 and traces its history to 1140, so all the fuss about "300 years of Freemasonry" was a bit lost on them.
LK600
Premium Member
We had the distinct pleasure of visiting Mother Kilwinning Lodge, whose members got a chuckle out of our excitement about UGLE's 300th... MKL has minutes dating back to 1642 and traces its history to 1140, so all the fuss about "300 years of Freemasonry" was a bit lost on them.
That is awesome. Must have been a great experience.
Br. Mark made other corrections, but it is not a wholly political decision. In many cases it is one of applying Masonic law. The Stamdards of recognition used by CGMNA are seen here:http://www.recognitioncommission.org/publish/2004/06/10/the-standards-of-recognition/index.html
Each GL makes their own determination. For instance, Utah recognised four of the Brazillian Grand Orients this week. I don’t know that your GL has done or that it will do so.
The UGLE list is here: http://www.ugle.org.uk/about/foreign-grand-lodges
Last edited:
Those are standards, yes. But "recognition" in and of itself is an action for a Grand Lodge to take, which can only be done through a process that entails voting as a Grand Lodge, at a Grand Communication. So... technically, it actually IS a wholly political process.
To be fair, though, I was actually referring to the process of proposing that one Grand Lodge recognize another in the first place. Given that there are so many options out there of who to recognize, picking "the right one" out of all of the ones that are both regular and not clandestine is politics at its best. "Mainstream" Freemasonry's historic refusal (primarily in America, interestingly) to acknowledge Grand Lodges composed of non-whites and females is proof that the standards you reference have very little to do with the actual question of who gets recognized. I note with interest that not a single Prince Hall Grand Lodge is part of the CGMNA, regardless of how many of the Conference's members recognize their local (non-clandestine, regular) PH counterpart.
@MarkR, is there a single term for "not clandestine"? Most people say "regular", but as we've defined above that's not actually correct.
Not that I'm aware of. Part of the problem is that any "list" has to be written ~400*~400 times, as recognition, while typically discussed as bilateral, is actually the product of two Grand Lodges taking unilateral (albeit well-timed) action to recognize each other. That's what allows things like the current one-way recognition between NY and Scotland to exist... NY got mad and pulled recognition, but the Scots shrugged their shoulders and basically said "whatever, we still like you".
Amity is the closest thing I know of (and to be fair, I'm helping build it) to a digital roster, but I gotta tell you, all of the politics involved has made it a real pain to actually get everything 100% correct.
Those are standards, yes. But "recognition" in and of itself is an action for a Grand Lodge to take, which can only be done through a process that entails voting as a Grand Lodge, at a Grand Communication. So... technically, it actually IS a wholly political process.
.
not all GLs vote.
dfreybur
Premium Member
California publishes its list in the annual Proceedings of the Annual Communication. I download a copy most years to make it easy to look up.
So far I haven't found the Texas list.
I've got an attitude about how easy or hard it is to find the list with respect to where I would visit should I find myself on international travel. I'll use an easily found list. I'll make a best guess if the list is not easily found, but I will NOT automatically guess a jurisdiction isn't recognized. Generosity after all.
In my work travels this has mostly applied to looking up MWPHGL lodges in various states that have local recognition. If any state has local recognition and I can't tell from all of my jurisdictions I go with the California one I can tell easily. If one of my jurisdictions didn't want me to visit a regular and recognized lodge they would have made it easy for me to look them up. I promised to follow the rules but not to be afraid of fellowship in cases where the rules aren't visible. I only promised to follow the rules I can actually look up.
Well, it is difficult, isn’t it? Not everyone carries Pantagraph’s List of Lodges Masonic with them, and it’s not always correct. Amity’s developers are making a credible effort, but it isn’t there yet, and it will similarly always be subject to updates.
dfreybur
Premium Member
I've been to lodges whose Pantagraph copy was many years old. For inaccuracy that's far worse than just looking up on the UGLE web site. My combination method of UGLE plus Conferences of Grand Masters plus the California list in whatever Proceedings I've downloaded beats an 8 old old copy of Pantagraph by a huge margin.
It wasn't difficult for me to decide that if one of my my jurisdictions doesn't bother to make its recognition list easily visible that gives me open season to decide for myself. "Silence affirms assent" - The fact that there is no recognition list on my GL's web site is assent for me to present myself to tilers based on a generous best guess when I'm out of town for work.