Re: [sacredlandscapelist] Scottish Rite and Freemasonry
- In message <3919E496.65A4@...>, catherine yronwode
>Pam -- Co-Freemasonry in the USA is organized just like all-maleI have no problem with any of that :-)
>Masonry. There are 3 degrees: Entered Apprentice, Fellowcraft, Master
>Mason. Some members (but not all) also choose to join the Co-Freemasonic
>AASR (Scottish Rite) and/or Co-Freemasonic York Rite.
>Neil: I think we aere not coming to an understanding here because you
>are overlooking what i told you about the political in-fights that took
>place when the AASR tried to make a grab to take over Freemasonry. They
>had created their own first 3 degrees, imperfectly copied from
>Freemasonry. They were rebuffed by the UGLoE and told that they could
>operate their own 4th through 33rd degrees only. That is why their
>system now starts with the 4th degree. (Older AASR manuals, including
>Albert Pike's, give the first 3 plagiaristic degrees, copied and altered
>What you call Rose Croix, is in the USA the Royal Arch.I am not sure of that. If it's true, then it makes the differences
between the UK and US even more confusing than they already are.
I say this, because what is often known as the Rose Croix in the UK is
*different* from the Royal Arch in the UK.
The Rose Croix, or AAR, governs degrees that it numbers 4 to 33. 'Rose
Croix' is a 'colloquial' name based on the name of its 18th degree,
which is taken at the same time as the 4th to 17th degrees. The name of
the 18th degree is 'Knight of the Pelican and Eagle and Sovereign Prince
Rose Croix of Heredom'. The governing body is the Supreme Council on
Duke Street. You made an important point when you said that no
ascendancy is claimed over the craft; it is said indeed to recognise the
three degrees governed (in England) by the UGLE as constituting the
fundamental whole of freemasonry as such, thus it accepts in some sense
that the 4th to 33rd degrees are not 'higher'. There is surprisingly
little about the Supreme Council, Duke Street, London, on the web -
including on North American AASR sites. I may join the freemasonry
mailing list and ask if someone can tell me some more about it.
Initiation is open to those master masons selected by the Supreme
Council. Conferral of the 19th degree and those of higher number
(remembering that the 19th to 29th are conferred at the same time)
requires the unanimous agreement of the entire Supreme Council. The
members of the Supreme Council are the holders of the 33rd degree. There
is more dressing up than in craft lodges but not, I think, as much
dressing up as there is in the Scottish Rite in the US. Given the
unanimity rule and the location in St James's, I guess it has
similarities with the 'gentleman's clubs' of that locality.
The Royal Arch (in the UK) is something different. In England, all
master masons of four weeks' standing are eligible; in Scotland, master
masons to be eligible must also have taken two degrees of mark masonry.
In England, Royal Arch 'chapters' are attached to Craft lodges; in
Scotland, they are separate. Exacerbating scope for confusion: whilst
the Royal Arch claims that the three degrees administered by UGLE are a
sham, or wrong, the Supreme Grand Chapter of English Royal Arch Masons,
so far as I can tell, is administered by UGLE! A number of senior
officers in UGLE hold similar positions in the Supreme Grand Chapter.
Around a quarter of all members of English lodges are Royal Arch masons.
The Royal Arch degree is recognised - including by UGLE - as the
'completion' of the third degree (a formulation which sounds as though
it was arrived at by a committee or at least by negotiators). Masonic
Knights Templar in England (who do *not* parade through the streets as
their brethren do in the US) must also be Royal Arch masons.
Rough figures: freemasons in England and Wales: 600,000
- of which:
Royal Arch 'companions': 150,000
Rose Croix: 30,000
- of which: 32nd degree: 400
- 33rd degree: 75
>It was theAre you aware of any organisation in England or UK of the York rite?
>earliest of the appendant bodies to hit the USA -- George Washington
>joined it. You are correct that it gives instructions stating that what
>one learned in the 3rd degree of Freemasonry is "wrong." This is because
>it seeks, rather lamely in my opinion, to carry the
>stone-masons-at-Solomon's-Temple narrative onward in tim past their
>conclusion. Like most novelistic and cinematic sequels it is poorly
>written and in order to develop the post-denoument narrative, it must
>undo some of what was finished in the climax of the original narrative
>in order to leave what we editors call "plot-hooks" for further
>development. The Royal Arch is still practied in the USA, but is nowhere
>near as popular as the York Rite or Scottish Rite. You do not need to
>belong to it to join wither of the other two (or any of the other
>appendant bodies i mentioned in previous posts).
This is something I haven't managed to discover. I haven't heard the
term 'York rite' used in a modern UK context.
Nor is 'Scottish Rite' used. The English section of the scene of which
the North American (and other) sections are known as 'Scottish Rite', is
*not* itself called 'Scottish Rite'. It is called the Ancient and
Accepted Rite for England and Wales, or, colloquially, the Rose Croix.
>From the rest of your reply, i take it that you are NOT interested inAt the moment that's what I am trying to focus on, yes. Although I do
>Freemasonry or its Lodges, but rather in the Scottish Rite and its
>Temples and specifically, its 32nd and 33rd degree rituals.
insist on the point that in England it is not called the Scottish Rite.
(Not sure what it's called in Scotland :-) But there is a Supreme
Council in Scotland).
>The 32nd degree of the AASR is called "Sublime Prince of the RoyalOK.
>Secret" and it basically serves to rehash some of the symbolism taught
>in Freemasonry, but in a context of "nobilism.". (This is in keeping
>with the AASR's original role as a complete "alternative" degree system
>to Freemasonry built upon a narrative of Templarism instead of a
>narrative of craft-guild stone-masonry.)
>Pike's "Morals and Dogma of the Scottish Rite" (1874) gives a lengthyOK but Pike's writings and rituals have no place in the AAR in England.
>gloss on the 32 degree AASR rite in which the basic Freemasonic symbols
>are interpreted in terms of alchemical and Zoroastrian dualism and
>hermetic hermaphrodism, the compass representing the heaven or male
>principle and the square representing the earth or female principle.
>There is nothing in the 32nd degree AASR explanations of these symbols
>that would not be known to 3rd degree Freemasons.
>It is my opinion that any reference to the Order of the Garter in AASRI have heard that the AAR 3nd degree rite is on the contrary very
>rites is a rehash of the original Freemasonic introduction of the
>lambskin apron with its lecture about the apron of the working man being
>more noble than the kingly Order of the Garter.
positive about the Order of the Garter.
>(As you noted, the Order of the Garter dates to the 14th century.Not sure about that. If 'very early on' means prior to the entry of the
>Although there are passing mentions of the stone-mason's craft guild's
>existence in England dating back to the 13th century, the oldest
>preserved British Freemasonic documents and ritual fragments date to the
>very early 15th century. It can be assumed that references in the 3rd
>degree to the Order of the Garter were probably written into the rite
>very early on.)
aristos at the origin of 'speculative' freemasonry, it would have been
dangerous for stonemasons to have rites referring to the Order of the
Garter in negative fashion. Note too that Windsor was the site of a lot
of important building work. But that doesn't mean it's impossible - it
would certainly have added a frisson.
>The 33rd degree of the AASR is an honourary degreeWhat does 'honorary' mean?
>that is bestowed andThis is true of all degrees conferred by the AAR in England and Wales,
>cannot be applied for.
from 4th to 33rd.
>It is usually given to those who have risen highInteresting. How many holders are there? In England and Wales,
>in the ranks of "joinerism" and held many offices, usually men of the
>upper middle calsses who are retired from business.
membership is limited to 75 members only, and it is popular among the
military. Some were holders of high office in the UGLE.
>Furthermore, because of the expense,:-) Seems that in some areas the US has much more ceremonial than the
>an entire "class" of candidates is passed through each stage-play drama
>at a time, with one applicant (chosen by lot, usually) acting the part
>for the entire "class."
>Oh -- that reminds me -- you asked if Freemasons don't dress up. TheOK. Aprons are required at lodge occasions in England too.
>answer is no. They do not. In UK Lodges formal wear is required, but in
>most American lodges a plain black business suit is all that is
>required, with the addition of white gloves in some lodges as well -- in
>other words, typical male attire of the 19th and 20th centuries.
>n short, there's no costumed "dress-up" in
>Freemasonry -- except for the lambskin apron, it being both the worker's
>apron and the "badge" of the stone-mason.
>I still think that you might do well to join the freemasonry-list andYes, I think I'll do so (again insisting that AAR does not refer to
>inquire about the AASR degrees.
itself as AASR). The AAR doesn't get mentioned much in England, although
I guess it thinks a lot of itself, and certainly a building on Duke
Street would be an expensive piece of real estate :-)