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.
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'.
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.
Skull and Bones
Names of various degrees
the Tyler
the name itself, 'Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite'
the mystery of what ever happened to the missing Templars.
the RCC's ruling that no Catholic could be a Mason...why not?
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.
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.
There is no Templar/Mason link historically...... that's the story
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.
Prince Henry Sinclair employed a Genoan named Zeno, who wrote of their 1395 Nova Scotia trip in enough detail to be believed
that although 'officially' Scottish Rite was est. where and when you say it was, but off the record, it was around long, long before
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
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.
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?
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?