Freemason Knights Templar meeting here in Italy 2 days ago, changed my life...

reply to post by SimultaneousFinal


Brother, it is not my intent to argue or to call you a liar. I am just surprised if any mainstream Freemasonic Lodge in the USA would accept you after affirming your affiliations. If it is so, I am very pleased indeed because you live in a state with very liberal "regular" Lodges. Perhaps I was hasty in my disbelief because it is possible that you are visiting "Blue" Lodges (Anglo-American) that aren't considered regular by the mainstream Masons because BL, R and T is the motto of mainstream Freemasonry.

BTW I was I, P and R in a Blue Lodge but I am now a member of a Lodge from the adogmatic Continental European tradition and I also regard all who have been I, P and R in a Lodge of known Obedience as my Brother (or Sister).

I am pretty skeptical of the OP's claims. Sounds to me like just another attention seeker. Is it possible to get a mod to look into the IP address when he posted the thread. If it shows the thread was created from a computer in Italy, it will give it more credibility. Anywhere else debunks the claim.

This all sounds like a lot like joining a motorcycle club, but without the parties.

Line two.

Originally posted by no1smootha
reply to post by SimultaneousFinal

 

Brother, it is not my intent to argue or to call you a liar. I am just surprised if any mainstream Freemasonic Lodge in the USA would accept you after affirming your affiliations. If it is so, I am very pleased indeed because you live in a state with very liberal "regular" Lodges. Perhaps I was hasty in my disbelief because it is possible that you are visiting "Blue" Lodges (Anglo-American) that aren't considered regular by the mainstream Masons because BL, R and T is the motto of mainstream Freemasonry.

BTW I was I, P and R in a Blue Lodge but I am now a member of a Lodge from the adogmatic Continental European tradition and I also regard all who have been I, P and R in a Lodge of known Obedience as my Brother (or Sister).

In Israel, women are not permitted but, yes, here in the USA, women are considered Masons. This was some surprise, as you can imagine.

The Blue Lodges that I have visited here are indeed AF&AM Lodges in the state of WV. Hermon #6 and St John #24 immediately come to mind. I have sat in a PA Lodge as well, name and # elude me. Please understand that I didn't simply show up on Friday, but rather I have friends/colleagues in these Lodges who are aware of my history.

So you are A&PRM&M as well? Then you probably understand what I mean about the differences in respective membership (women aside) betwixt Red & Blue Lodges. I only hope that you have not suffered because of the deceivers that I mentioned. Of course, M.W.Ford has given us all grief and I'm sure you will agree with that.

reply to post by SimultaneousFinal


My Order is A&ASR, but we have Amity with a few French A&PR of M&M GL in France and Canada. The Degrees of our Symbolic Lodge are "Red Degrees" as are the Ineffable Degrees of the Lodge of Perfection that are degrees up to the 14th, the Chapter of Rose Croix are sometimes called "Black degrees" to 18th, "White Degrees" of the Council of Kadosh up to the 30th, Then the Consistitory degrees of the 31st and 32nd. The 33rd being an Honorary Degree.

Not all "Red Lodges" are A&PR of M&M, technically even the "Regular" A&ASR of mainstream Freemasonry has "Red Degrees". The difference between Continental and Anglo-American Craft Lodge is that our Symbolic degrees are also "Red", we use Chamber of Reflection and don't learn the fate of the Ruffians until the 9th degree which explains why it is somewhat different than in the 3rd of "Blue Lodge".

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by LUXUS
All the older secret society's were based on Knighthood including the Knights templars.

Knights Templar were not older than Freemasonry. Knights Templar were founded in 1118 A.D. The oldest Masonic document, the Regius Msss., describes a Masonic gathering in 930 A.D.

The Regius Manuscript is a document pertaining to Operative Freemasonry, not Speculative Freemasonry. The latter merely (selectively) adopted the code of conducts of the practical crafts, much in the same way as the Brethren of Free Spirit and the 'Men of Understanding' had on the mainland in the 14th and 15th centuries.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


and there you have the big delema. We teach that our for-fathers practiced both operative and speculative. But we don't "know" that for sure. Among masonic scholars there is a huge array of theories and supposed proof , but it will always be challenged. Maybe it's supposed to be that way to keep us searching, I don't know. But for every person claiming it began in the 1700s, there is another claiming earlier.

I put this in the tootsie pop category. The world may never know.

Originally posted by network dude
and there you have the big delema. We teach that our for-fathers practiced both operative and speculative. But we don't "know" that for sure. Among masonic scholars there is a huge array of theories and supposed proof , but it will always be challenged. Maybe it's supposed to be that way to keep us searching, I don't know. But for every person claiming it began in the 1700s, there is another claiming earlier.

There seem to be a few lodges that make quite wild claims, blatantly bending history to make a continuous historical line seem plausible. As the Regius Manuscript indicates though, is that despite a lack of 'official' records, or minutes, that there was a body of operative freemasons known to others in that time, although they are not apparently documented otherwise. Given that up until the middle of the Mediaeval period that the only buildings built in stone would have been defensive or ecclesiatical, and that their employers would have been Priests and Kings, it stands to reason that they would have had a priviledged and protected place within society. By the late Middle-Ages they are slightly better documented, and become a feature of the town social structure, but still no rolls, no records of meetings or membership, other than occasional reference to the Grand Master in town proceedings and activities, and their contributions to town pagaents, there is no mention of individuals. Which is in itself very interesting. They clearly represent a standard, and they take an active role in overseeing building work in the cities and towns that they take the freedom of, but any monies received goes to the 'lodge', not a named individual. I would, personally, estimate that it is around this time that there is a divergence, and an increase in those who are able to enter the craft without actually first learning the orthopraxy of stonemasonry. Such a caveat must always have existed, to allow for the employers to participate in architectural design and planning, but as the demand for masonry structures increased and expanded into the lower social stratas, the need to meet that demand must have inevitably led to a rapid expansion of the craft.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


I think that at different times in history, there have been a few areas where openly being a freemason was a very bad idea, so I can understand how a large part of history for different eras could go missing. I would think that somewhere there would be records of those times hidden by the active freemasons but then again, maybe there are and we just haven't looked for them in the right places.

But getting away from being a stone mason before you get to be a freemason, I am glad it opened up to other walks of life. The diversity of men who are drawn to the group is what makes it such an interesting thing to be a part of. And the fact that all meet on the level, makes it possible to form friendships that would have never happened otherwise.

There has never been any document showing a connection between Speculative Freemasonry, and actual operative masonry guilds. This has not been for a lack of effort, as the majority of Masonry beleived in this view and tried desperately to find such evidence. The manuscript you mention was written when masonry was a secret society, anything in print about them, especially by them would be in allegory. Even then I doubt more then 10 stone workers in all of England would have been literate and able to read or write it when it was written....be sort of hard to create a national network of hidden lodges with 10 people.

More damning to the theory of operative masonic origin, is they simply did not exist. There is no record of traveling masons, or any masonry guilds in England. The buildings such as you mention churches etc took generations to build and used largely local workers, they lived and died on the project and had no leave to travel by their lords. English records show that prices etc were set by local governing authorities, there were no trade guilds for that art at the time. Yet we see Freemasonry birthed in England. However in France there are plenty of records of such trade guilds. and yet Freemasonry does not land in France until after it goes public in England, and long after operative masonry could be a founder.

The language used in masonry again is not based on terms and issues important to trade guilds or their level of education. However it is completely in line with language and ideas known to Regular clergy. Whether it was Templars, or Dissidents within the church, Cathars etc... the language and ideals, and terms all show a founding by learned educated men, in a time when labor was simply not that educated. It has no traditions or rituals linked to trade, and it's oaths seem to be soley aimed at protecting a group who was in hiding from Church and Government authorities.....

The Operative masonry theory has died among masonic historians some time ago, not all agree that Templars are the true founders....and we may never know who was....however whoever they were they had access to the Bible before it was legal for the general population to own one. Every aspect of it seems to have the purpose of protecting religious dissident, and seems likely to have been the network used for all sort of early protestant movements of varying beliefs

1717 was not the start of Masonry....it was the end in fact of secret freemasonry, and an end to it being a "Secret Society" and based on documents at that time, lodges all over england could not agree on a common original ritual, it points to a much older founding as the various lodges had similar work, but had all evolved or "devolved" with slightly different rituals and practicies. The only unmodified commonality seemed to be the oaths for protection.

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
There has never been any document showing a connection between Speculative Freemasonry, and actual operative masonry guilds. This has not been for a lack of effort, as the majority of Masonry beleived in this view and tried desperately to find such evidence. The manuscript you mention was written when masonry was a secret society, anything in print about them, especially by them would be in allegory. Even then I doubt more then 10 stone workers in all of England would have been literate and able to read or write it when it was written....be sort of hard to create a national network of hidden lodges with 10 people.

But surely, as you should know, the craft, even, initially, speculative Freemasonry was taught by mouth to ear, through mnemonic learning. In the Operative craft this would have been further implanted kinetically, through practice and application. Literacy is irrelevent, all required learning to be a craftsmen is incorporated into the apprenticeship, both intellectually and practically. Hence it's 'truth'.

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
More damning to the theory of operative masonic origin, is they simply did not exist. There is no record of traveling masons, or any masonry guilds in England. The buildings such as you mention churches etc took generations to build and used largely local workers, they lived and died on the project and had no leave to travel by their lords.

Beginning in the middle-ages, throughout central and some northern areas of Europe, you have the development of the 'Town'. These towns, as often as not, were guild formations. Permanent residences formed around market places. The towns needs, in terms of labour, were met by offering 'Freeman' status to men and women who came to the town and took up residence for a year and a day without being claimed by their master. Later, as towns prospered, citizenship became more exclusive and conditions stringent, but either way, from the 10th century onwards we have town records, from all across Europe that clearly show that there were indeed travelling Masons, and other building crafts represented, and there are equally, a number who take up residence and become Freemen of those towns.

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
English records show that prices etc were set by local governing authorities, there were no trade guilds for that art at the time. Yet we see Freemasonry birthed in England. However in France there are plenty of records of such trade guilds. and yet Freemasonry does not land in France until after it goes public in England, and long after operative masonry could be a founder.

According to civic records in York, it was the lodge that set wages for the allied trades. Both the Civic and the records at York Minster make reference to a Grand Master of the Guild of Freemasons during the 15th and 16th centuries. They are referenced also as providing a pageant when Henry the Eighth visited the city, and in providing one during the Mystery plays. They are referenced as involved in the inspection of buildings where there is dispute in standards, and where there is any debt by a third party involved in the building of a property and dispute arose. Otherwise, they are conspicuous simply by their absence.

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
The language used in masonry again is not based on terms and issues important to trade guilds or their level of education. However it is completely in line with language and ideas known to Regular clergy. Whether it was Templars, or Dissidents within the church, Cathars etc... the language and ideals, and terms all show a founding by learned educated men, in a time when labor was simply not that educated. It has no traditions or rituals linked to trade, and it's oaths seem to be soley aimed at protecting a group who was in hiding from Church and Government authorities.....

Knowledge has many more dimensions than those that you seem able to perceive at this time. Speculative Freemasonry is a bit flowery admittedly, or seemingly so, but there is also an underlying potency mnemonically in the way the sounds are weighed and measured in some of the later texts, an attempt to imitate perhaps. I read yesterday that the Etruscan word for ‘fire’ was verse, phonetically speaking, and for thousands of years we communicated skills and information, quite effectively, over generations in this way, and skills were passed on and developed, by applying the same rhythms to the practical work.

There is a connection to the Templars, but I suspect it was more a recognition of similarity that led to fraternity, than of either one directly influencing the other. They held similar, non-conformist, beliefs. The Templars is York were completely assimilated and supported by the local church community, as they were in most of the cathedral cities in England.

I would like to know where you found a record showing that any group by the name of "freemasons" even in the 15th and 16th centuries set wages or prices or inspected any building, or did it simply say “Masons”.....that there may be a records of a "masonry guild" at that time I do not doubt, but I have not seen them go by our name. The record most people use is the Regius Manuscript which to me is more proof that it was NOT operative. For one it speaks to an era of King Athelstan from 924 to 939. At that point stone buildings are all but none existent and crude in England. It would be like a guild of metal workers among the Native Americans. Also this King's reign was not a domestic one, he was not a builder of cities, or castles, rather her was a warrior King uniting England, what he "BUILT" was a common nation. Placing him in myth as a leader of “builders” can only be seen in his role as a conqueror. The Idea that any King that far back would have interest in being the leader of common labor for a craft all but non practiced in England, is more of an incredible leap then even Dan Brown's fancies. It is clearly meant as symbolism and allegory, that they choose a King who was a nation builder says it all.

As for the traveling guilds and towns...yes there's plenty of records.....in continental Europe. However in England the villages are the property of the local lord, and every villager belongs to him, even tradesmen. England is still a backwater in Europe culturally, if you can show a record of traveling masons in England during the 1300-1500 period please site the source as I would love to read it. If anyone can show or site at ANY point of time a group known as Free Masons that had both an operative and speculative component, I would love to read your source, and see from what record they found it. I have looked for a very long time and never seen such original source material. I would love to do so as it would put many arguments to bed.

Knowledge can be passed word of mouth it is true. However if the traditions started this way one would expect the language of masons and laborers, not using French vocabulary, or creating rituals and traditions of a more introspective and religious bent. Culturally it just does not match..... It does match royal families as French is still the language of blood and aristocracy. It matches the clergy. I might be able to be convinced that it would even match operative stone masons from France newly arrived (though that would not explain subject matter) however if that were the case one would expect the rituals also to have been brought FROM France, and yet there is no trace of a tradition on the continent.

You have a tradition that seems to start in England, uses the vocabulary of royals and and/or educated clergy, in a time when the common people of England even in villages or villians are owned by their local lord and have little in the way of permission to travel, and wer'e supposed to be believe that day laborers spread this in almost every corner of England? It just does not fly.

The flowery imagery and subject matter we have in ritual now is almost all originated in the 1700-1800's...to look back at Secret Freemasonry before then you have to cut that out and look at the earliest ritual still free of the universalist ideals of the enlightenment that came only after the opening of world trade, and relaxation of Domican fires, then look at the language, and ideas....and who they relate to. Ideas are like fingerprints.

I agree in that likely Freemasonry has MANY fathers.....as it developed into a underground society that was haven for those fleeing the Church it would likely have collected all sorts, that it created a tradition of religious tolerance tells us they had men of widely varying ideals....the common ground is they all are dissidents of the Church...it starts as a soundly Anti-Papal society....and with good reason. The Church of Rome, in the Dark Ages has not been surpassed by even the Nazi's or Stalin's butchery in brutality. England is an island, and filled with what are considered to be a more "wild" people. It’s to Europe what the wild west was to early America. It is all but the edge of the earth but still safe from infidels.... If you wished to get away from the reach of the Church it seems an excellent place to do so.

More over, think about the mere plausibility of it all. Masonry is most active arguably, and most politically revolutionary in the 14-1600 period, where we do see snippits of Masonic ideals and and wording among the varied leaders of the reformation, and separatists .....clearly it has a connection to the individuals the church feels are most dangerous and worth of a fiery death. Yet these ideals would be embraced by a class of workers whose number one employer bar none is the catholic Church? Really? I mean why would Stone masons risk pissing off the group most likely to keep bread and their tummies? Merely the idea of such resistance to all but those of royal, or religious background is far fetched. It’s hard in modern times for people to understand the mental barrier for people back then. The clergy, and knights etc were like Gods…..you did NOT question them and live long usually. The oaths themselves speak to how dangerous a game it was.

Most that speak of the Operative ancestry do so quoting sources from the 1700's who are talking of an earlier time, and the in this period the majority of masons are new members to a recently made public craft. They are trying to make sense of an old tradition already mostly forgotten. It is here in that age of enlightenment Freemasonry is first watered down, and changed from it original intent in order to be more mysterious, and interesting to "enlightened" aristocracy, and growingly wealthy merchant class..... It is not the origins of the Order, it is the origin of the first decadence of the fraternity. It is in this period the ranks of Freemasonry swelled with men full of themselves, full of sudden new knowledge about the larger world and other cultures, pop culture is first born in London at this time it is an exciting time to live, but perhaps the worst period to find truth in the writings, as every navel gazer seems to want to connect his club to the pharaohs.

Lastly one only needs to consider the visions of Hermas to understand the origin of the idea of Stone work as allegory to Christian principles. One of the Earliest books of the Christian faith, and yet so overlooked by masonic scholars because their too busy looking under rocks for Pharoahs, Kabbalists, Druids and Rosicrucians then to look at the ACTUAL monolithic theology in which Freemasonry was born.......Only Clergy of some sort would likely be familiar with the Apocryphal Christian texts in the 12-1300's. When I say clergy that includes the Templars (not so much the knights as their clerics) as well as any other monastic orders like the Franciscans etc, or even the Cathars. Read the parable about the tower....it fits masonic philosophy like a tap and die created screw. Or rather more likely Freemasonry fits it....yet I have seen very few masonic scholars who even have spent time reading the Shepherd of Hermas. It seems logical that whomever founded the order was VERY familiar with it.

Follow that idea.....and look at the various monastic orders in Europe, and their values and traditions......

When we have a lack of "written record" the only way to track movements in history is by the ideas....but they are very clear, and leave their prints.

reply to post by ForkandSpoon


I can only assume that none of your brethren has ever been to York, or certainly none of the ones who have so far investigated the subject. I do not read Latin, or rather cannot, so I am entirely reliant on the translations of others. The fabric rolls of York Minster and the Civic records of the city, have not been translated in their entirety, records of those taking out the freedom start in 1290 and masons are particularly well represented at specific periods. There is a significant quantity of unpublished doctoral research in the archives of the University of York, as well as those thesis overviews that are produced by the Borthwick Institute. 'Building Craftsmen in late Medieval York' by Heather Swanson (University of York, Borthwick Paper No 63, 1983), should get you started off nicely and is my source for wage information and role in building disputes...the rest is more fragmentary, source wise.

There is very little direct mention, and even then it is in passing, of an organised body of Masons, free or otherwise, as I have already stated. That such a body existed is only clear from the documentation that shows that they served a civic function. They are mentioned in records of Henry the 8th's visit to York, and other significant events...this one is quite well documented, I have seen it online and in published books about York. They are responsible for collecting contributions of 4d from each of the 'other' trade guilds for the Corpus Christi. So while there is no concrete or consistent evidence there is some presence felt. Other guilds are well documented in their proceedings and ordnances, and yet performed less civic duties.

While England may have been a backwater as a whole during much of the 'dark ages' and early medieval period, that is not to say that there were not pockets of culture, and some trade did persists, though on a small scale, with the rest of Europe. Additionally, the ecclesiastical population thrived, and as a result, England did nurture some important scholars during that time, Wilfrid and Alcuin to name but two. The 'medieval literacy drive' took a while to reach England for numerous reasons, mostly because it wasn't needed, literacy is only relevent to 'citizenship' and did not involve teaching commoners the language of the law and church, latin, but of formalising local dialects into written languages in order to communicate laws and provide basic, uniform knowledge, to facilitate the smooth running of the town or city. There was very limited need in England prior to the Norman conquest.

From the 11th century onwards there is major building work going on all over Britain, by the 13th century experts are being specifically brought in, many from France, to work on ecclesiastical buildings. At this point, the skills associated with cathedral buildings, including freestone workers, were administered from York, we know this because the records at Coventry, Durham etc, indicate as much. All in latin of course, but I repeat, you would be surprised at how much research has been done in medieval builders that has not yet been published. And, the buildings themselves are often the best records, consistency in the use of some marks, styles or personal mason's marks show clear pathways. On the buildings produced by the builders who travelled with Templar groups, you often find the 'fish' for example, but this is seldom found in any of the great cathedrals, so they kept their masons strictly in house. As far as I can tell. Presumably. There seems to be a trainspotter-esq cult of keeping track of mason's marks, quite a lot of information available there.

I am not proposing that there is a single source that provides evidence of a body of Freemasons, but what I am suggesting is that there is sufficient evidence from a wide variety of sources to suggest that there should be a body of Freemasons documented. Not the same. At all, admittedly. But if you map out all the information there is a cluster where something should be but isn't.

A couple of interesting, yet random, links...

www2.warwick.ac.uk...

www.castlewales.com...

I think possibly, most historians of Freemasonry are looking with some expectation in mind rather than looking at the evidence that is available and analysing that in the societal context. Not sure.

If there was a connection to operative masons who were also clergy. I.E. "In house" as you said, that would very much make sense as well, and if that can be shown it would be incredibly interesting reading. What seems to me contrary is that basic tradesman unlikely to have had more then a basic education is any would have access to religious traditions often not even translated. There's serveral references in early masonic ritual to more then one apocryphal works that even most clergy would be unlike to have known. I feel both this and the early terms and language point to a clerical ancestry or even heretical group.

Beyond the romance, there's plenty of reason to suspect Templars. They have a reason certainly to be in need of an underground after thier fall. They have access to likely many relics and newly discovered materials of study from middle east. French would be their most common tongue. Yet they would have resources to further education as well.

We may never know the full story, but the traditional explanations I find lacking still.

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
If there was a connection to operative masons who were also clergy. I.E. "In house" as you said, that would very much make sense as well, and if that can be shown it would be incredibly interesting reading. What seems to me contrary is that basic tradesman unlikely to have had more then a basic education is any would have access to religious traditions often not even translated. There's serveral references in early masonic ritual to more then one apocryphal works that even most clergy would be unlike to have known. I feel both this and the early terms and language point to a clerical ancestry or even heretical group.

It's the buildings themselves that talk the loudest. If you take York Minster for example, it is phenomenal. Beautiful, magnificient, and most importantly awe inspiring. It, a building, humbles you. That is what it is/was supposed to do. The architect, of course, would have to have understood geometry, but so would have those that cut and set the stones. These were the craftsmen generally referred to as Master Masons. The setter though, unless working at heights, was paid less, he did still have to understand the language that was used to inform him where to place those cut stones. The more complex the building, the more complex the marks that were employed to instruct the setter. Already there is a heirarchy of skill forming, and one supported by a symbolic language, of increasing complexity, which in turn is supported by mnenomic rhymes to help remember the correct procedure, in it's correct sequence.

Whether or not these men could read and write a common spoken language or read or write at all is irrelevent, it is blatantly apparent that they shared a common symbolic language. The buildings that they created are sufficient evidence of that.

You have to take into consideration how far, as a species, we were able to progress, without a written language. We became skilled agriculturalists, ship builders, weavers, wine makers and brewers, generation after generation, for a good few thousand years before we ever thought to write down a recipe. Reading and writing, are essentially another branch of technology as a whole, something that was once 'magic', but is now taken for granted because we depend upon it so very, very much. We did though, previously, as I have already explained, learn and pass on information differently. So, although I agree that it was unlikely that operative Masons would have been literate, they must have possessed, or gained in the process of their apprenticeship, and based upon progress due to competency and aptitude, an education in geometry and mathematics that would have, in the dark ages, have been considered heretical, in of itself. That the skills survived to build structures with right angles and levels throughout that period is amazing taken in the wider societal context. And, at the same time suggestive that they were to at least some extent protected. They should have been burnt as witches in all fairness.

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
Beyond the romance, there's plenty of reason to suspect Templars. They have a reason certainly to be in need of an underground after thier fall. They have access to likely many relics and newly discovered materials of study from middle east. French would be their most common tongue. Yet they would have resources to further education as well.

Again education was different to the way we percieve it now and it would be incorrect to assume that a Templar, or any other person of noble birth would have received much more than a rudimentary education. I do believe though that those that had travelled to the East must have been touched by the experience, and certainly many great works of mathematics were rediscovered while we raped and pillaged our way East, that found their way back west, but the average crusader was far more interested in booty than books. Those that resided in York, at the time of Philip of France's vendetta against them, were very wealthy. Many pilgrims from England, travelled from York, and utilised the Bank of Templars. They also took a levy on all trade and collected taxes on behalf on the Church. They were considered fair, hence the respect that they recieved. Their financial expertise, and benevolence towards the city was valued and they became an accepted part of the city's commercial life. Those that participated in trade with mainland Europe depended upon the Templars. There was no need for the Templars therefore to hide in England, they simply changed shape and adpated.

I think you have successfully stated stonework originated with operative masons.

However I am discussing masonic ritual, which is NOT based on geometry, but rather Biblical writings, and deeper theological implications in their meaning. You're not explaining how those whose education was based soley on a tradeskill, even if more refined had access to Religious texts not available to those outside the church. Our terms and language in Speculative masonry are clearly connected to Biblical origin. Our ancient degrees do not give any secrets about cutting the better facing, or carving, or any trade skill useful to operative masons. The rituals have their own vernacular, their own symbols and those all point to French language , and biblical religious knowledge not available to the general public as even owning a bible was illegal during those dark times.

Perhaps what we now call "speculative masonry" even adopted operative masonry, but there is no rational argument I know of for why operative masons would create the original degrees or use the words and and language they do.

Whomever created our earliest degrees, had access to scripture, spoke french, and likely had a clerical education.

There were of course clergy masons.....The church had it's own architects in house. Perhaps the Templars had their own as well as other orders...perhaps that is a possible explanation for the link, however the trade guilds did not have access to that sort of religious training. The rituals it seems eventually lead back to clerical education of some sort....

I remain unconvinced that operative masonry in anyway formed speculative masonry.....given the English 4th degree especially.

I dont understand the bad connotations of if we are descended from the Templars OR if some of
(much of?) our work comes from the old Mystery schools.

how is any of this a bad thing?

The ancient quote from antiquity: MAN! KNOW THY SELF!

. not bad. Good advice.

Op, you need to realize that you may have stumbled into a "clandestine" lodge unawares.

Are there some bad people in the lodge? yep. Some folks join only to have connections. Sad but true.

opportunist's.

Are they indicative of the whole? Nope. Cant get a group of people together and not have a few bad apples.

Now, what happens when a person is found out to be "less than honorable"? He is removed, post haste. I've helped do this on a couple of instances. One was a woman beater. Another was a drunk that wouldnt take care of his responsibilities to his family.

The family WERE taken care of though.

What if the entire group is bad? That lodge can loose its charter and be separated from the rest.
Its happened before.

If you think you may be in one of these, watch yourself. In italy, it could be mafia or anything. Keep your head down, your mouth shut and scoot as soon as is safe and inconspicuous.

this is provided that you are honest about this. One of the other brothers has (sort of) vouch safed you. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt.

reply to post by SimultaneousFinal


I've been educated tonight. I've never heard of the french lodges being called "red".

I'm of the opinion that (unless I know different), if brother passes "inspection", I'd be honored to learn about "how its done" in the old lodges. Always looking for more light and always looking to meet a new brother.

it is sad that the op was ran off. I hope he didnt leave the lodge as well.

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
I think you have successfully stated stonework originated with operative masons.

If that is all you can garner from my post then I presume that you're in it for the wining and dining.

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
However I am discussing masonic ritual, which is NOT based on geometry, but rather Biblical writings, and deeper theological implications in their meaning.

Or, [i[really both. And, the 'deeper theological implications' are proscribed, and therefore lack any real depth. If you've only dug as deep as the Biblical meanings, then your learning is very sadly lacking.

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
You're not explaining how those whose education was based soley on a tradeskill, even if more refined had access to Religious texts not available to those outside the church. Our terms and language in Speculative masonry are clearly connected to Biblical origin.

Do you not progress in life? On one level or another. Can a tradesman not hope to improve himself? I agree entirely that Speculative Freemasonry is structured around a Judeo-Christian model, what I disagree with is the notion that a highly skilled tradesman would be incapable of education. Speculative Freemasonry is very much of it's time and has not moved on, it's interpretations of symbology are stuck in a time warp. That is the single clearest indication of it's 'invention' in my opinion. It was designed for a specific group of people, at a particular moment in time, to serve a particular purpose. It was a narrow doorway, the door is shutting. Operative Freemasonry on the otherhand has developed and evolved.

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
Our ancient degrees do not give any secrets about cutting the better facing, or carving, or any trade skill useful to operative masons. The rituals have their own vernacular, their own symbols and those all point to French language , and biblical religious knowledge not available to the general public as even owning a bible was illegal during those dark times.

Your 'Ancient Degrees', are only a few hundred years old.

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
Perhaps what we now call "speculative masonry" even adopted operative masonry, but there is no rational argument I know of for why operative masons would create the original degrees or use the words and and language they do.

I believe the degrees were 'designed' by high-minded gentlemen, and fair play to them, I believe they borrowed the reputation of the Operative Freemasons more than anything, perhaps influenced by the Regius Manuscript, but as likely by word of mouth. The degrees use the basic structure of an 'apprenticeship', as would have existed for even the nobler trades and occupations. I don't believe that there is any connection between operative and speculative Freemasonry, other that what is borrowed for shape.

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
Whomever created our earliest degrees, had access to scripture, spoke french, and likely had a clerical education.

Which, at that time in England, would have been the majority of the middle-class. Have you read any Austen, or Fielding?

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
There were of course clergy masons.....The church had it's own architects in house. Perhaps the Templars had their own as well as other orders...perhaps that is a possible explanation for the link, however the trade guilds did not have access to that sort of religious training. The rituals it seems eventually lead back to clerical education of some sort....

The Priest or the Lord was generally designated the 'Architect'. The Builder carried out their wishes, or realised them. The builder therefore required greater knowledge, technically, than the Architect. Up until about the turn of the 1700s when it became a specific discipline.

The Templars would have had an 'Engineer/Carpenter' when on campaign, for the construction of siege machines and the such like, in urban areas, where their main purpose was tax collecting or monastic, it was likely that they would have served as 'Architect' in the above-sense and employed craftsmen or journeymen, though they may have had some lay-members from the trades, 'Knights' were of a different social class to the trades, as were monks. A tradesman could not become either, but he could join the order to serve them or become part of their congregation contributing to their monastic 'cause'.

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
I remain unconvinced that operative masonry in anyway formed speculative masonry.....given the English 4th degree especially.

I've only read up to three so I can't comment on the latter, but I agree with the former.