It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stuart Masonry

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   
IAlbert Mackey's The History of Freemasonry Its Legenday Origins is concerned with the legends surrounding the origns of Freemasonry, whether it teh Hiram Abif episode or that Adam was the first mason.


In one chapter he addresses the question, was masonry 'hijacked' by the deposed Stuart dynasty, and politicised, as part of a plot to restore the King to his throne??


Maceky notes that the 'higher' (and he uses that term) degrees in masonry, beyond the 3rd degree that is, are largey attributed to the Chevalier Ramsay, a Scot and the Tutor of the children of one of the Stuarts in exile. He notes that these degrees do have symbolic representations that can be interpreted as refering to the deposed king, his flight from the throne, his exile, and other episodes and characters in his life. He seems to imply, if I understand correctly, that the Scottish Rite system infact could very well be thought of as this, as being concerned with the catholic (and thus, apparently, popular with teh Scots) Stuart monarchy.

What he does reject however, is that the 2nd and 3rd degrees were part of any such Stuart invention. The claim there is that the myth in the 3rd degree was hijacked and reinterpreted by the Stuarts and their supporters, and that these higher degrees were added onto this newly interpreted base. The idea is that Hiram Abif is the king, that his murder represents either his actual decapitation or his dynastys flight from the throne, and that his rebirth reprsents, rather than the resurrection, the Restoration of the dynasty to the throne. Mackey rejects this idea, stating that the 2nd and 3rd degrees simply didn't exist at the time 'and thus there was no base to subvert and build new higher degrees upon'.


However, I fail to understand exactly why this Master degree and the myth it ritualizes couldn't have simply been re-interpreted by this Chevalier Ramsay, and why the lac of a master degree and speculative masonry at the start of the Stuarts problems means that the degrees of the Scottish Rite can't have been politicized.

Anyone familiar with this subject?




posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Not at all, around what time period did this happen?

I DO know that the Scottish Rite degrees do not actually have Scottish origins, but rather French.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Lets be frank, without the higher degrees of "The Scottish Rite" the 3rd degree makes no sense whatsoever.
It is the first "significant" degree of the Scottish Rite and clearly belongs to this rite.

The first two degrees likewise tie into the higher degrees as well, I have not read any comprehensive text that suggests otherwise, although they have always been intended to appear as though they *could* stand alone so long as the membership of a lodge was either Christian or Jewish.

Consider how poorly these "regular" rituals would go down in a lodge populated by Hindus or Muslems, who have their own varients that better tie in to their particular backgrounds.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
There have been stories for years about how freemasonry, particularly in Scotland, may have been used as a cover for the Jacobite rebellions, particularly the '45. A large number of masonic documents that were confiscated from Berlin at the end of WWII were recently released to the Grand Orient of France by the Russian authorities, and masonic scholars are hopeful that clues to this might come to light through their study.

The fact is that no-one really knows whether Jacobite (Stuart) sympathies were rife in 18th century masonic lodges or not. The only pointer we have is that in 1738 (seven years before the rebellion of the New Pretender, Bonnie Prince Charlie) James Anderson wrote his Book of Constitutions, where it was clearly outlined that discussion of politics in lodge is entirely forbidden. A previous English Grand Master, The Duke of Wharton, had turned out to be a Jacobite (and therefore by definition a traitor) and this rule may have been a (successful) attempt by Anderson to stop freemasonry tearing itself apart over the political hot-potato of the day.


A Mason is a peaceable Subject to the Civil Powers, wherever he resides or works, and is never to be concern'd in Plots an Conspiracies against the Peace and Welfare of the Nation, nor to behave himself undutifully to inferior Magistrates; for as Masonry hath been always injured by War, Bloodshed, and Confusion, so ancient Kings and Princes have been much dispos'd to encourage the Craftsmen, because of their Peaceableness and Loyalty, whereby they practically answer’d the Cavils of their Adversaries, and promoted the Honour of the Fraternity, who ever flourish’d in Time of Peace. So that if a Brother should be a Rebel against the State he is not to be countenanced in his Rebellion, however he may be pitied as any unhappy Man; and, if convicted of no other Crime though the Loyal Brotherhood must and ought to disown hi Rebellion, and give no Umbrage or Ground of political Jealousy to the Government for the time being, they cannot expel him from the Lodge, and his Relation to it remains indefeasible.


Was this a reaction to the Jacobite issue? We may never know.

As an interesting side note, the whole concept of 'rebellion' was thrown into relief 40 years later when the American colonies rebelled. It is interesting to speculate how the freemasons of the time will have squared their actions with the exhortation from the widely distributed Anderson's Constitutions.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by sebatwerk
Not at all, around what time period did this happen?

Seems to be middle of the 1700's, i don't have the book on me now tho.


I DO know that the Scottish Rite degrees do not actually have Scottish origins, but rather French.

Thats the thing. This book is stating that the Scottish Rite degrees were invented by the Chevalier Ramsay, a Scotsman who was a tutor to the Stuart Children, while in exile in France. The idea being that he made it Scottish, with Scottish Knights, etc etc, because of his pride in being scottish, and also because the Stuarts were Catholic and the Scots were favourable to that.

I would also note that, I think that this book is written by a freemason, so if there is any concern over discussing the rituals, that the author of the book talks about a bit, and even discusses some things in details, but I'd think that there needn't be a need to break any oaths.

Wouldn't want your throat slit! (j/k, well, j/k that that would happen, not kidding that I wouldn't want it to happen!)


mrnecros
without the higher degrees of "The Scottish Rite" the 3rd degree makes no sense whatsoever

How so? I am not familiar enough with the specifics to state such. Do you mean this 'Hiram Abif murder' bit? Why wouldn' t Muslims be down with that? Solomon has no place for them? I thought that they were cool with stuff like that??

Also, are you stating that at least the third degree was invented along with the 'other' degrees in the Scottish Rite? The author of this book seems to explicitly reject that idea tho, stating that the 3rd degree is started after the first Stuart Sucessor is in exile, but before the rest of the events protrayed in the Scottish Rite.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrNECROS
Lets be frank, without the higher degrees of "The Scottish Rite" the 3rd degree makes no sense whatsoever.

Well quite frankly, I don't agree. Extrapolations of the 3rd degree can be found in what is known as the York Rite in the US, and in England the Holy Royal Arch is billed as 'the completion of Craft Masonry'. However that is not the same as 'makes no sense' - although I do think quite a bit of masonic ritual could 'make no sense' when taken out of context


It is the first "significant" degree of the Scottish Rite and clearly belongs to this rite.

Oh reeeaaalllyyyy. You're quite the scholar. Pray how have you reached this conclusion?


The first two degrees likewise tie into the higher degrees as well

It would be more accurate to say that the appendent (side) degrees (not higher) tie into Craft masonry rather than the reverse


I have not read any comprehensive text that suggests otherwise, although they have always been intended to appear as though they *could* stand alone so long as the membership of a lodge was either Christian or Jewish.

Whatever do you mean?


Consider how poorly these "regular" rituals would go down in a lodge populated by Hindus or Muslems, who have their own varients that better tie in to their particular backgrounds.

So poorly, in fact, that we have a hindu as a member, with possibilities of more to follow.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
The York Rite doesn't continue the story of Hiram Abif, it's now an appendant body (has been since before Pike's time) and is seldom if ever confired without the Scottish Rite.
As far as the significance of the 3rd degree, it's listed in the 32nd Degree as such by McClenechan and Pike is quite up front about this matter as well.

Heh heh - side degrees...this is a bit like saying that General is a "side rank" in the army.
Well I guess you could "say it" ...it just wouldn't be true.

Anyway, it the usual links, Pikes Morals and Dogma and this...book.
www.freemasonry101.org.uk...



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Wow you have 1 Hindu member, sounds like it works a treat to me!
errrmmm ...no chance for a Muslem in there too?

The zeal of you guys cracks me up sometimes when you pretty well endorse something I say just by trying to deny it.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrNECROS
The York Rite doesn't continue the story of Hiram Abif, it's now an appendant body (has been since before Pike's time) and is seldom if ever confired without the Scottish Rite.


ARE YOU KIDDING!?!?!? THAT IS 100% WRONG!!! The York Rite is COMPLETELY separate from the Scottish Rite! They are two separate appendant bodies which have to be petitioned for and taken separately! They are governed separately by separate Grand Lodges. Get your facts straight.



Heh heh - side degrees...this is a bit like saying that General is a "side rank" in the army.
Well I guess you could "say it" ...it just wouldn't be true.


So then what about the York Rite degrees? Do those have no significance, or "rank"? Is a Knight Templar in the York Rite just as "high-ranking" as a 32nd degree mason? The fact of th matter is that the degrees for BOTH bodies are insignificant, and don't make ANY mason higher-ranking than a 3rd degree Master Mason.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrNECROS
The York Rite doesn't continue the story of Hiram Abif, it's now an appendant body (has been since before Pike's time) and is seldom if ever confired without the Scottish Rite.


I am a York Rite mason, but not scottish rite. Most of the men in my encampment under the age of 50 are York but not Scottish.

My friends and I want to MASTER the degrees we've achieved, and sort of "specialize" in one or the other.

As far as 'not continuing the story of Hiram Abiff,' is concerned. You are correct in my view. York is much more interested in the Temple in Jerusalem and the worship of the LORD, than in a particular person. I believe the lessons conferred in the 3rd degree are continued and intensified in the York Rite, perhaps moreso than in Scottish. But then I don't know, having only completed the 17th deg in the Scottish rite.

I believe that York seriously antedates the Scottish Rite, and definitely dates from the Union of the Lodges.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrNECROS
Wow you have 1 Hindu member, sounds like it works a treat to me!
errrmmm ...no chance for a Muslem in there too?

The zeal of you guys cracks me up sometimes when you pretty well endorse something I say just by trying to deny it.


I struggle to follow you sometimes, with that 'explosive' humour of yours... I've no idea what you are on about, which makes two of us.


And yes, a Muslim would be very welcome in our lodge.

Perhaps you'd like to try again with whatever point it is you are trying to make, but perhaps this time s p e l l i n g it out for the slowcoaches amongst us.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Actually, don't bother 'cos all you're really trying to do is derail the thread. As usual.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
The only thing that will derail any threads is being arguing back and forth about each other, rather than the topic.


believe that York seriously antedates the Scottish Rite

This is where I am a bit confused. The Macekey book seems to indicate that, prior to the mid 1700s, there were no higher degrees and Masonry was primarily Operative, a collection of actual stone masons who had admited honourary members. The Honourary Members are the ones who start modern Speculative Masonry. The 3rd degree or just Master Mason degree starts around this middle of the 1700s period, short after the Catholic Stuarts fall (I suppose while still under Cromwell's Commonwealth). Then, after that, and sepearately he seems to state, other higher degrees/rites start appearing, such as Ramsay's Scottish Rite. No specific mention of the York Rite at the point I am at tho.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   

from the other thread
The Stuarts objectives were not very different to those of the other Masonic schisms of the time (arguably even today) and they were willing accomplices of the Illuminati.
Freemasonry provided a means to destabilize the reigning monarchy and church which they gleefully took to.

Ths is something I don't understand too. Why would the illuminati restore the monarchy? Wouldn't the be backers of Cromwell, or at least the destruction of the monarchy??

The only real contention amongst the seminal works is as to whether or not both rights were coined by The Chevalier Ramsey, on the other hand if he did not then there is no one else that can be identified as a possible author.

But do you think Ramsay invented the Master Mason rite or the Hiram Abif story??



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Take about 100 years off all your dates and you are about right. Cromwells Commonwealth was 1649-1660. The 'Glorious Revolution' which marked the end of the Stuart period was in 1688. The first Grand Lodge was founded in 1717. By the mid-1700s speculative freemasonry was a hugely popular and growing fraternity. The York Rite is an American term for a collection of appendent degrees and was never practiced in Britain as far as I know.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Maceky notes that the 'higher' (and he uses that term) degrees in masonry, beyond the 3rd degree that is, are largey attributed to the Chevalier Ramsay, a Scot and the Tutor of the children of one of the Stuarts in exile. He notes that these degrees do have symbolic representations that can be interpreted as refering to the deposed king, his flight from the throne, his exile, and other episodes and characters in his life. He seems to imply, if I understand correctly, that the Scottish Rite system infact could very well be thought of as this, as being concerned with the catholic (and thus, apparently, popular with teh Scots) Stuart monarchy.


Probably one of the best books on the history of the Scottish Rite is "The Story of the Scottish Rite" by Bro. Harold Van Buren Voorhis, 33°. Bro. Voorhis puts the Stuart legend to rest, as does Coil in his books. The important thing about Voorhis' book is that he documents there that Charles Edward Stuart, the Young Pretender, was never made a Mason. Furthermore, in contrast to what Mackey believed at the time, Ramsey was not a Jacobite. His connection with the Stuarts came from his tutoring the Young Pretender for a few months in Paris while the latter was about 11 years old. Also, it is not believed that Ramsay himself ever authored any degrees, although he certainly inspired others to do so, including several degrees that would eventually make their way into the Scottish Rite.


What he does reject however, is that the 2nd and 3rd degrees were part of any such Stuart invention. The claim there is that the myth in the 3rd degree was hijacked and reinterpreted by the Stuarts and their supporters, and that these higher degrees were added onto this newly interpreted base.


To a certain extent, this is correct. The Jacobite Masons invented quite a few new degrees, the purpose which was to gather followers for their cause. In Stuart Masonry, the raising of Hiram represented the House of Stuart being restored to the British throne. The new degrees were even more in depth. By the time several of these degrees became consolidated under the banner of the Scottish Rite, the episode had already passed, and the degrees were revised to eliminate the political and religious sectarianism, and to replace them with general philosophy, science, and ethics.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrNECROS
The York Rite doesn't continue the story of Hiram Abif, it's now an appendant body (has been since before Pike's time) and is seldom if ever confired without the Scottish Rite.


The exact opposite is true (although we are now used to Necros of telling us the exact opposite of truth). In a word:

1. The York Rite includes the three degree of Ancient Craft Masonry as worked in English speaking countries. It is not an appendant body.

2. In the English speaking world, practically all Masons are members of Blue lodges of the York Rite. The Scottish Rite is therefore considered an appendant body.

3. The legend of Hiram is the very heart and soul of the York Rite. The legend is not as explicitly important in the Scottish Rite, at least after the 14° has been passed.

This just goes to show that, as shown in the past, Necros knows about as much about Masonry as he knows about Buddhism...and that ain't much.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Masonic Lite - I think you have your Rites mixed - it's the Scottish Rite that is the dominant form practiced in English speaking countries...well... at least it is in The UK, USA, Canada, Australia etc...I don't think you'll find many supporters for your little ruse to the contrary.

I'm under the impression that the Grand Lodge of Mexico is a York Rite body but that's about it really.

Anyway it's all in *that* book that you seem to have a great deal of trouble with....

Hiram Abif does not appear anywhere in the York Rite at all...full stop, yet he is in the next 11 degrees of the Scottish Rite.
And is "the lost word" recovered in the York Rite...errr no.
I could go on and on...but better that you actually acquaint yourself with the rite for yourself.

The point to be made about Jaccobin Freemasonry is that until it's arrival there is very little (if any) evidence to the existence of Freemasonry prior to this time.

The term is alluded to in gereral terms and is often (deliberately in my opinion) confused with old Stone Masonry guilds who have NO connection to the cult at all other than the sale of there excess property as the guild slowly faded into history along with the Thatchers and suchlike.

All Masonic authors I've read are quite upfront about this disception, it's just intended as allegory to the building of the 3rd Temple, made of men not stone by Jacque DeMolay.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   

The point to be made about Jaccobin Freemasonry is that until it's arrival there is very little (if any) evidence to the existence of Freemasonry prior to this time.

I thought it was understood that there were non-Operative Masons accepted into Operative Masonic Lodges? And that these Operative Lodges had, at least, an initiation and a legend of the Temple of Solomon and the death and return of Hiram Abif??



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I'm yet to find any record of the 3 craft rites of "Freemasonry" prior to 1713.
Does anyone have any actual earlier records anywhere?

From a lack of evidence to any other possibility one must assume that the whole cult sprung up at about this time in unison in Prussia, France and Scotland.
Considering the political nature of the relationships of these sovereign states the Chevalier Ramsey does look like the origin of it all.

Please try not to (deliberately) confuse this with the so-called "speculative" Masonry or other bodies involving stone workers guilds.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join