Posts
Reading the book, one can not stop thinking about the irony about our work and think that "luckily Masons are dedicated to reflection and foresight," because it does not leave us in good standing in terms of the history of our mutual encounters and our tendency to absolutize Masonic issues in an effort to limit who may claim Masonic identity or making it universal, confusing both terms and concepts.
Dachez also highlights the paradox of confusing and assimilating terms such as "regular" and "tradition" when the term "fair" simply distinguishes normal Masons under a status of recognized official authority and therefore make administrative and disciplinary, away from other issues that are often assimilated, as for example in the eighteenth century in England a regular Mason is not a dogmatic Mason as opposed to even liberal mason as is so often claimed today, without losing sight of the fact that the founders of the First English Grand Lodge in 1717 did not even know when, how and where Masons were initiated.
This book provides some very interesting historical references, and should be considered a high priority for translation and be made a required presence in all lodges, for better understanding of the Masonic membership. In reading it, one realizes where we are as a result of the confusion of concepts and Roger Dachez develops this with documented historical support and a summary that can be defined as follows:
Regularity, is a notion introduced by the British in a Masonic vocabulary and adopted in France in the eighteenth century. Initially It designated in the natural sense, only the compliance with the administrative duties of a Brother and his lodge, and in the case of a Grand Lodge recognition and authority for the benefit of work and mutual aid.
In the late nineteenth century, the original Masonic power of the First Empire, which had Lodges in the four corners of the world in reaction to the decision of the GOdF 1877, given its importance to the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLA ) chose to emphasize as its primary landmark, a belief in God.
For the first time in 1913 the UGLE signs an agreement with the Grand Lodge of France, and recognizes the Great National Lodge Independent and Regular (future GLNF) from which point the UGLE replaces the term 'recognized' Freemasonry with "regular Freemasonry ".
Since several major independent lodges appear the first UGLE establishes a precise doctrine about what it called “Basic Principles of Recognition of 1929,” according to its own conventions to require: Belief in a Supreme Being and the Volume of the Sacred Law. In 1952 the Conference of Grand Masters of North America states: Standards of Recognition where the most important is the belief in God.
This doctrine is taken from a 1949 text Amity and relationsships of the Craft partly repeating the above Basic Principles. After the war many grand lodges decide to accept this doctrine to gain recognition from London who will understood to represent what was from then on identified as "regular Freemasonry."
6. “Recognition" is not "regularity", despite the heavy use by the Grand Lodges of the appellation of "regular" or assumption of it, by those lodges which do not have relationships with any lodge held by England to irregular, by relationship or visitation.
The brash and provocative concept of 'regularity' which has a double character that is not very accurate should be condemned, and if in a more rigorous and supportive, serene manner, the Grand Lodges recognized by London, should rate their masonry by the spirit in which they perform their work: traditional, spiritual, initiatory or humanist, liberal, adogmatic or secular, etc.
Therefore outside the Basic Principles of Recognition 1929 the idea of "regularity" is not a value in itself, it does not ennoble those by whom it is claimed, it is a descriptive and technical issue that indicates nothing beyond it being recognized by a body in London or that body's friends, tit is in fact an error to think of a "regular Freemasonry" as existing, it “allows” no deviation and claims itself to be entirely initiatory, traditional and spiritual, and opposing a "social Freemasonry" like the army of Pancho Villa, forgetting what was said in 1726 that the three principles of Freemasonry were brotherly love, charity and truth, issues that in the nineteenth century did not seem to have been understood very well.
Thanks to Victor Guerra.
http://www.victorguerra.net/2015/06/todos-somos-regulares.html
