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!

Irregular Masonic Bodies Operating in Texas

Bloke

Premium Member
Your reasons for leaving are unclear. It appears you have joined a "clandestine" co-ed lodge. By definition to regular freemasons, it can be described no other way. Please elaborate on why you left so that we can better understand your reasoning.

Respectfully, why should Bro Ellis have to explain himself ? He is a PM of UGLE and although he has left and joined Co-Masonry, he owes us no explanation - I sense there will be no profit nor pleasure in getting into his reasons. He also has PM of "England" which should be a clear hint.

I would point out we are not in lodge with him and on an open public forum.

Over the years, I've learned a lot from such men and women...
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
Respectfully, why should Bro Ellis have to explain himself ? He is a PM of UGLE and although he has left and joined Co-Masonry, he owes us no explanation - I sense there will be no profit nor pleasure in getting into his reasons. He also has PM of "England" which should be a clear hint.

I would point out we are not in lodge with him and on an open public forum.

Over the years, I've learned a lot from such men and women...

Maybe you didn't notice it but he raised the issue. He doesn't have to explain if he doesn't want to.
 

Joe Ellis

https://UniqueFreemason.com
Premium Member
Your reasons for leaving are unclear. It appears you have joined a "clandestine" co-ed lodge. By definition to regular freemasons, it can be described no other way. Please elaborate on why you left so that we can better understand your reasoning.

I understand that, but I don't have an issue with it
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
Your reasons for leaving are unclear. It appears you have joined a "clandestine" co-ed lodge. By definition to regular freemasons, it can be described no other way. Please elaborate on why you left so that we can better understand your reasoning.

The word is "irregular" not "clandestine". CoMasonry traces its lineage to the meeting in 17171 and is thus not clandestine. CoMasonry started accepting women and as such exited regularity (among other differences in principle at the time).
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
The word is "irregular" not "clandestine". CoMasonry traces its lineage to the meeting in 17171 and is thus not clandestine. CoMasonry started accepting women and as such exited regularity (among other differences in principle at the time).

I doubt that the Grand Lodge of Texas considers them irregular. But you never know.
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
I have only been an MM for 19 months so maybe I am wrong but I would thing that all 51 regular GLs in the United States would view any co-masonic lodge irregular.
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
Clandestine=not having valid lineage vs irregular=not following ancient landmarks eg allowing women, athiests ect ect

Sent from my LG-D415 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app
I don't object to those definitions, but they are not universally accepted or consistently used. For some GLs, if they are not recognized, they are clandestine per se.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
Would you please explain the difference to me brother?

Clandestine - Not having a documented lineage to one of the founding jurisdictions.
Irregular - Not following the landmarks.
Jurisdictions can be either, both, neither.

The longer the chain of lineage the more fun it gets - A lodge chartered by an irregular jurisdiction, has it lost the "valid" part of its lineage and thus become clandestine? Going down that road erodes the usefulness of the words. That's why I used the word "documented" not the word "valid". That's why I prefer to be fussy about whether your list of "begats" goes back to 1+ of the founding jurisdictions (who were rebels) or if it stops at some (other) rebel who founded his own jurisdiction.

Bro Glenn points out that certain jurisdictions have decided not to use these terms as such. After all - Your jurisdiction, your rules.

I point out that global usage matters. When discussing terms *as applied among jurisdictions* it matters to know the more generally accepted meanings in addition to how your own particular jurisdiction uses the terms. Think of it as "Comparative Freemasonry", a desire to know enough about the Masonic world enough to know when/where your own jurisdiction diverges from a worldwide standard.

It's important to know your own jurisdiction's terminology so you can follow your own rules. It's also important to know the more general usage for discussions among jurisdictions.

Does your jurisdiction have a closing prayer for the benefit of all regular Masons? It appears at one point or another in all 3 of mine. Isn't it interesting if your jurisdiction uses the word clandestine for both meanings and you may well be praying for the benefit of brothers who are clandestine by your jurisdiction's wording yet the ritual dates from before that rule?
 

Travelling Man91

Registered User
While useful, Br Doug's definitions aren't universally accepted. Many of us simply use not regular or unrecognized and avoid the C word except for the clearly bogus, self founded groups. My rule? If it has the name King in it, the GL is bogus, clandestine, and their mothers wear Army boots
Exactly, so PHA is regular just not recognized by some GLS
 
Top