Scottish Rite as original freemasonry

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 04:50 AM
link   
BlackGuardXIII raised an interesting question.


Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
You do realize Mr. Pike was a notorious practical joker, especially among the Freemasons (he was a member of the Scottish Rite an appendant body).
Winston Smith.

The research I have done points to Scottish Rite as being the original Freemasons. They were around centuries before their presence was known. They date back in one form or another, through family trees, nobility, and knighthood, all the way to the crusades. They were the remnants of the knights who helped Bruce beat Edward at Bannockburn, and win Scotland its independence for a while.

I am curious what information source claims the Scottish Rite is an appendant body? Have they been surpassed in authority? That may be, but they were first, and therefore I fail to see how they could be 'appendant'.


I'm tootling off to do some research on the matter, but in the meantime if anyone else would like to chip in on this I'd be very interested.




posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   
And by dawn Friday 13th, 1307, Jolly Roger, and the Templar fleet departed La Rochelle, France never to be seen again...... well maybe a few times, there is quite a history of sightings of the Templar fleets flag, the black background with a skull and bones on it. They even named it after Roger. Well, the rumour is that they sailed to the only country that they knew would not persecute them, Scotland. And ancient Scottish headstones, etc. are quite suggestive evidence that some settled there. Others apparently headed west..... way west, to Oak Island Nova Scotia, where they stashed whatever it was that they spirited out of Jerusalem, then out of Paris, then out of Rosslyn Chapel, and hid on Oak Island, Canada. But, whether it was ever removed from there and moved elsewhere is hard to say...



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trinityman


I'm tootling off to do some research on the matter, but in the meantime if anyone else would like to chip in on this I'd be very interested.


The Scottish Rite was actually founded in Charleston, South Carolina, USA in 1801 by 11 York Rite Masons who had received Patents of a number of degrees in various French Rites. These eleven Brethren met at the old Sheapherd's Tavern in Charleston, where they founded the Supreme Council of the 33°, and elected Brother John Mitchell, a revolutionary war hero, as the first Grand Commander.

The degrees of the Scottish Rite consist of the 25 degrees of the French Rite of Perfection, along with 8 additional degrees taken from the French Philosophical Rite and Rite of the East and West. The Scottish Rite is purely speculative in nature, and derives from the York Rite, which had an operative ancestry.

I think Black Guard's confusion is a common one, though, stemming from the use of the word "Scottish". The Scottish Rite actually has nothing to do with Scotland; it was named "Scottish Rite" because the title of the 29° was "Grand Scottish Knight of St. Andrew", not because it originated in Scotland.

It is possible that the Fraternity in Scotland has been around longer than in England. But Scottish Lodges work in variations of the York Rite, and always have.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   
The very nature of being secret implies that your presence is not very well known, and is privileged information only discussed with a select few trusted mates. The numerous symbolic links between the Templars and the Freemasons are unlikely to be chance, and point to a connection, and the headstones in the 14th century Scottish graveyards sometimes bear the skull and bones, which is a very clear Templar/Scotland link. The engineering skill that was employed in the design and completion of the Oak Island treasure pit can very quickly be narrowed down to a few possible candidates who possibly could do it. It required a lot of manpower, and knowledge of hydraulics, tunnelling, tides, and it stumped any who tried to get to the bottom and see what was there.
In the pre-Columbus new world, it is probable that the Templars were behind it. Who else could have done it? Some say pirates....well that flag is quite a clue as to who they were too. But not just any coastal brigands could engineer such a precision masterpiece of a treasure pit as that. The Rosslynn chapel contains New World plant carvings, and was completed 50 years before Columbus. Prince Henry Sinclair employed a Genoan named Zeno, who wrote of their 1395 Nova Scotia trip in enough detail to be believed. Far more detail than John Cabot wrote of his trip.....his account is far more suspect. And the MicMaq Natives of Nova Scotia recorded his visits in their oral traditions. Sinclair was a Templar family from the very start, nearly 3 centuries earlier. Etc., etc., etc., and so I feel that although 'officially' Scottish Rite was est. where and when you say it was, but off the record, it was around long, long before.


ps., I am just giving my opinion, and am no expert.

[edit on 03 22 2005 by BlackGuardXIII]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 07:57 AM
link   
I would say that you are possibly correct about a Templar/Scottish connection to Freemasonry in Scotland. What I would disagree with is that the Scottish Rite was involved.

According to legend, fugitive Templars assisted Robert the Bruce at the Battle of Bannockburn. Afterward, they were given sanctuary in the country, and worked as stonemasons. If they had joined the guilds, as tradition has it, they would have joined Lodges of the York Rite, as this was the only Rite in existence before the 1700's.

One clue can possibly be found in the infamous "penalties" for the obligations. These are of a militaristic nature, and would seem out of place in a craftsman's guild. They are very similar, if not identical, to oaths that would have been taken by military Crusaders.

Secondly, it is also interesting to note that the highest Order that can be attained in the York Rite today is the Order of Knights Templar.

As a disclaimer, I do not personally believe that there is any historical Templar/Masonic connection, and I believe that the legends originated with Ramsay in the early 18th century. However, I cannot deny the remote possibility. Nevertheless, the Scottish Rite is American in origin and actually did not make it to Scotland until nearly the beginning the 20th century.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Okay, the skull and bones shows up on Bruce's doorstep in the early 1300's, then some Templars settle there, and their headstones mark their Templar membership. Then, if what you say is technically true, the Templars disbanded and went away. Then a couple centuries later, Freemasonry starts up, allegedly stonemasons, yet, as you say, with militaristic oaths. And the skull and bones is associated with them, as is Hiram Abiff, Solomon's Architect for the Jerusalem Temple, where Templars excavated in the 1100's. They call the posted guard at the door of the meeting hall a 'tyler', same as the Templars, and the fraternal order that their sons can join is called De Molay, the last name of the last Grand Master of the Templars. The Templars were skilled stoneworkers and sappers (tunnellers) from their long stint in the Holy Land. They were more powerful than most countries when they were crushed that Friday the 13th. Therefore, since their main treasure vault in their main castle in Paris was empty, and the whole fleet escaped, I doubt they would have disbanded. They just buried the loot across the pond till it was safe to 'come out', many centuries later. They were only able to announce their existence in the 1700's because to do so before that would likely have meant death for whomever did so.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I don't have it in front of me but if I recall correctly Mackey in his tome on the legends of the origins of masonry does deal with the subject of the scottish rite and also the general idea that masonry is a chivalric order, and he seems to reject this idea in its entirety. The earliest masonic charters that he notes are from the city of York, and the early consitutions/charters have none of the higher degrees or even the 'weird' esotericism of the higher degrees.
I may be recalling correctly but he does deal with the idea that the scottish rite was developed by Chevalier Ramsay, a scot, who was the tutor of the children of the overthrown King Charles, and that the scottish rite was developed in this time, not in any time preceding.

I'd be interested to hear anyone's results.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   
DeMolay
This apparently was done purposely by masons to associate themselves with the templars.

Skull and Bones

Seems a rather basic symbol tho no?

Names of various degrees

Why is this relevant? ie, what degrees specifically are held in common??


the Tyler

This, i feel, is rather interesting, since a tyler is an occupation on a stonemasonry job, a guy who lays tiles. BUT, why would the templars have a tyler as their position in the first place? We can explain it in the masons, but we are wanting here to say that the connection shows that the templars and mason are connected, but the templars precede the masons, so the templars can't have gotten it thru the masons. What is wanted to show a connection thru the templars is for something that makes no sense in masonry, but makes perfect sense amoung the templars, with a confounding factor of 'anything that is all knightly and cool' can be put into masonry, simply because its cool to say 'i'm a knight errant', etc etc.




the name itself, 'Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite'

Why is this relevant? because of the scottish connection? Chevalier ramsay was scottish, and the crown saw stronger support in scotland than elsewhere. Or, as pointed out, its associated with St Andrew, who's traditionally associated with scotland.

the mystery of what ever happened to the missing Templars.

I think that they'd be more likely to disband altoghether, or at least stay as knights, especially in places like scotland, where the papal and french prohibitions have no effect.


the RCC's ruling that no Catholic could be a Mason...why not?

Masonry is secular, the church is antisecular, certainly when this stuff was going on.

[edit on 28-9-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I don't have it in front of me but if I recall correctly Mackey in his tome on the legends of the origins of masonry does deal with the subject of the scottish rite and also the general idea that masonry is a chivalric order, and he seems to reject this idea in its entirety. The earliest masonic charters that he notes are from the city of York, and the early consitutions/charters have none of the higher degrees or even the 'weird' esotericism of the higher degrees.
I may be recalling correctly but he does deal with the idea that the scottish rite was developed by Chevalier Ramsay, a scot, who was the tutor of the children of the overthrown King Charles, and that the scottish rite was developed in this time, not in any time preceding.

I'd be interested to hear anyone's results.


I think that is basically correct, and that the higher degrees of the French, obsessed with chivalric orders and secret crypts, are much more influenced by the followers Prince Charles Edward Stuart, than a supposed templar connection.

A. E. Waite once pointed out that early Masonic Templary was founded and constituted by the Jacobites, leading him to conclude that the Masonic - Templar connection was a myth generated by the followers of the Stuarts in order to gather support for their cause. Most other Masonic researchers have reached the same conclusion, including Voorhis, Pike, Coil, Gould, and those of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   
The findings of all of the Masonic researchers were basically what they would have hoped to find. It does not say explicitly in the post that they are all masons researching the non-link. I wonder, do you know if they are all masons? If so, and even if not, why does it appear to be so important for Masons to try to prove that despite appearances, they have no link to the Templars? It is a predictable finding if they are all Masons. But I wonder why they are so averse to accepting any connection. This is a time for, 'Methinks he doth protest too much.'
There is no Templar/Mason link historically...... that's the story, and from here on out I will try not to doubt that.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
The findings of all of the Masonic researchers were basically what they would have hoped to find. It does not say explicitly in the post that they are all masons researching the non-link. I wonder, do you know if they are all masons? If so, and even if not, why does it appear to be so important for Masons to try to prove that despite appearances, they have no link to the Templars? It is a predictable finding if they are all Masons.


The researchers that I mentioned above (Coil, Waite, the members of Quatuor Coronati Lodge, etc.) were all Masons. Non-Masons who have researched the subject from a historical and academic perspective have generally reached the same conclusion.


There is no Templar/Mason link historically...... that's the story


This conclusion was reached by examining the evidence at hand. It does not necessarily mean that it is impossible that there was a Templar/Masonic connection. It only means that there is no real evidence to support it. It is possible that one day, someone may discover evidence to support a Templar/Masonic link, but as of yet, the evidence given by Templar/Masonic proponents is either circumstantial or apocryphal.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
the headstones in the 14th century Scottish graveyards sometimes bear the skull and bones, which is a very clear Templar/Scotland link.

What is clear about that??


Prince Henry Sinclair employed a Genoan named Zeno, who wrote of their 1395 Nova Scotia trip in enough detail to be believed

This is certainly interesting, where'd you hear that??


that although 'officially' Scottish Rite was est. where and when you say it was, but off the record, it was around long, long before

Now, by saying so, are you saying that the sinclairs performed the rituals of the Scottish Rite and that there was a council of 33s over-seeing the rite?

Also, how do you see this scottish rite becoming involved with the operative stonemasons of north england?


masonic light
fugitive Templars assisted Robert the Bruce at the Battle of Bannockburn. Afterward, they were given sanctuary in the country, and worked as stonemasons

Seems rather odd that the Bruce would take crack templar squads and make them into labourers no? Wouldn't he be far more likely to have simply made them into, well, scottish knights? I have also heard that the templars, fleeing their destruction, snuck into scotland disguised as lowly and humble stonemasons, and thus kept that cover for all those years. Any such ideas though run into the massive problem of it being very difficult to be a master stonemason, the knights wouldn't have any training or education to do anything like that. Even if they were involved in making temporary fortifications while on crusade, they still wouldn't've built their actual fortresses there.
Often people state that the more advanced and arabesque fortifications in europe that popped up shortly after the crusades were the result of groups like the templars building them, bringing knowledge from the east, but even then its unlikely that the soldiering knights had anything to do with learning the methods and then being masters of work in europe. Perhaps european stonemasons went with their lords to police the holy land, and picked it up there and transfered it back, but not the knights.

[edit on 28-9-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trinityman
I'm tootling off to do some research on the matter, but in the meantime if anyone else would like to chip in on this I'd be very interested.

Well, it looks like I didn't have to go any further that this very thread to learn something new about the Scottish Rite.



Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
... why does it appear to be so important for Masons to try to prove that despite appearances, they have no link to the Templars?

I'm not sure that it is all that important. In terms of today's freemasonry it doesn't matter at all, and I would respectfully suggest that all the researchers (masonic and non-masonic) have no particular axe to grind and really are just trying to get to the bottom of things. It's not surprising that more has been done in masonic circles (and that work is quite considerable) rather than the wider community as that is where the interest lies.

Personally I think it would be great if freemasonry was directly proveably decended from the Templars. What a great romantic and historic backdrop to our gentle Craft!! I'm sure it would positively affect interest and perception of freemasonry, and I don't think there's any reason why numerous independent masonic scholars would engage in a conspiratorial cover-up about it, even if they were capable of doing so.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I am sure that it is not a premeditated plan to distance the two groups, but I have found that whenever I have listed the many commonalities Masons and Templars share, the reaction is most often a defensive posturing. It may not be that at all, but it appears that way. The other factor that I try to keep in mind is that even if the Lodges know full well that they are directly traceable straight back to Jacques DeMolay and Roger BelleChance, they may desire to keep that heritage on the down low. The reason they would does not matter to me, as I am certain it is not sinister, and is more likely modesty.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   
quote: Prince Henry Sinclair employed a Genoan named Zeno, who wrote of their 1395 Nova Scotia trip in enough detail to be believed
This is certainly interesting, where'd you hear that??
Nygdan

It is a very well documented and researched subject, and I have read numerous books that refer to it. In Zeno's letters to his brother, he described the coast of Nova Scotia in great detail, including an open tar pit that was on fire when they arrived. There is only one open tarpit on the east coast of the Americas, in Nova Scotia. The claim that Sinclair first visited Nova Scotia in 1395 has been very carefully examined and accepted as being true. The history of Europeans in that area go back centuries before that, though, and Sinclair was also a Norwegian Jarl, so he had access to Scandinavian documents that gave directions on how to get to the new world and back. The Sinclair expeditions were kept quiet, I don't know why, but I could guess. The reality of them is hard to dispute, though.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Perhaps european stonemasons went with their lords to police the holy land, and picked it up there and transfered it back, but not the knights.
Nygdan
Once they got to the Holy Land they had to lay siege to stone fortresses, which entailed digging tunnels under the corners to weaken the walls, then when the wall collapsed they would storm the breach. The job of the tunnellers was not envied. Then, when they had captured the castle, they had to make it back into a fortress, rebuilding the walls, turrets, etc.
So the returning Crusaders would have contained many adept stoneworkers among them.
The Gothic Cathedral explosion over the next two centuries is a very interesting subject in itself. The style was so radically different than anything before that researchers have had a hard time finding out what the source of the design was. It was a unique event in architectural history, and besides the design, the cathedrals still have many unexplained aspects to their building. The funding, designing, and planning is very poorly understood. But the geometry and algebra tests that were rediscovered by the Crusaders in the libraries of their foes were revolutionary for Europeans. The roman numerals were obsolete, and everyone had to try to wrap their head around the idea that 'nothing', ie. zero, was a number. That point was hotly contested and resisted. If it was nothing, how could it be a number. Of course, trying to calculate PI using Roman Numerals was a good way to show the value of the Hindu-Arabic number system, so they eventually gave in.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Seems rather odd that the Bruce would take crack templar squads and make them into labourers no? Wouldn't he be far more likely to have simply made them into, well, scottish knights?
Nygdan

Actually he did use them as knights, and the cutting edge warfare tactics that came fresh from the Holy Land were too much for the English forces.
Bruce kept his 'trump card' secret for as long as he dared, then to the English armies total surprise, a large contingent of battle-hardened knights bore down on them. The tactics Bruce used to win the battle are a very good piece of evidence supporting Templar involvement, for these were brand new tactics, virtually unknown in Britain at the time. bg13

quote: the Tyler
This, i feel, is rather interesting, since a tyler is an occupation on a stonemasonry job, a guy who lays tiles. BUT, why would the templars have a tyler as their position in the first place?
Nygdan
I looked for the text that had the exact definition of the 'tyler' in Templar times, but as yet can't find it. From memory, the tyler title referred to the Knights sword, and meant something like cutter, presumably the same origin of the word tailer, who cuts cloth. The guard posted at the entrance to the Mason lodge whenever meetings were held carried a sword, and that was why he was called the tyler. I am pretty sure that is reasonably accurate, though some details may be off. It was at least 15 years ago that I read it.



[edit on 03 22 2005 by BlackGuardXIII]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Where'd you hear this, I am interested



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   
I don't have a TV, and haven't for 8 years now. Even prior to this I read at least a book a week, and for many years the history of Europe, and in particular the history of the Templars and related mysteries was my focus. A book called, 'Robert the Bruce King of Scots', by Ronald McNair Scott is a good place to learn about the real William Wallace aka Mel Gibsons braveheart, and it also gives a good description of Bannockburn. 'Dungeon, Fire, and Sword' by John J. Robinson details the Templars and the Crusades. The complete list of books that I have read on related topics would number in the hundreds and covers many diverse subjects that all have some kind of link to the Templars.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Seems rather odd that the Bruce would take crack templar squads and make them into labourers no? Wouldn't he be far more likely to have simply made them into, well, scottish knights?


This is the so-called "legendary history", and forms the basis of the 29°, which is Scottish Knight of St. Andrew. But as Pike mentions in Morals and Dogma, we do not teach as literal history the legends we recite in the degrees.

Nevertheless, the Templars, or at least some of them, did indeed study architecture while in the Holy Land. If any did in fact make it to Scotland, it's possible that some of them went into the craft of Masonry. But, of course, this is only hypothetical speculation.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join