Recognition

 rmolano

1Oct2011

… in my research, IGLPI has been found to be regular in origin and practice. how do you think can it best get recognition from other Grand Lodges—Bro CarlosS

First allow me to thank you for throwing a very interesting inquiry which without a doubt some our Masonic scholars in Masonic jurisprudence are certainly grappling for the answers. Far from possessing in-depth knowledge of intricacies of the Grand Lodge policies, my opinion in your inquest is only one of million views available out there in the galaxy of thought of those who care about the subject.

Each Grand Lodge is sovereign entity and can declare blue as black or yellow as orange. Once approved by membership, no other Grand Lodge can change that decision and the only option is to “withdraw” their “recognition.” That is the nature of being sovereign. Many Grand Lodges took years to be recognized by other Grand Lodges, the Grand Lodge of Japan took a “beating” before GLP finally recognized its “own” daughter. We heard the word “Time and patience will take care of things” from one of our lectures. For those who can’t wait--- the quickest way is the hardest option. This is for GLP to let go the mentality that GLP is the sole “authority” of all Masons in the Philippines. For GLP to consider that “territorial exclusivity” is as always a political tool to gain control of claimed territory. Many countries do have multiple Grand Lodges in their country and they all co-exist in harmony e.g. US with fifty Grand Lodges, Canada, Germany, Australia, etc. If GLP extend its right hand to IGLPI and as well as to GLNF, it’ll be a downhill run from then on.

From what I gathered, IGLPI is expanding as new Lodges are being consecrated. Although creating more Lodges under IGLPI has certainly had a positive trend, the quality of IGPI membership will make the difference between the Masonic Bodies. Let us remind ourselves that Freemasonry is not intended to be a large organization, there are requirements to be satisfied---mental aptitude, financial ability, and upright character. The credibility of the organization in terms of moral and ethical doings of its officers and members are visible to the public especially to those who want to follow the footsteps of “those who have gone that way before.” There is no need to neither produce fancy slogans nor toot their own horn; good men will be attracted to same caliber of men they want to be associated with. Freemasonry is not about networking, rings, dues card, car decals or “my gang is better than yours.” It is an ideal within a group of good men who strive to be a better man, men with morals, and employs ethical values in their daily life will be always be recognized --- if not on this earth, it will in a place where the ultimate Truth would bestow him his place in an Ark anchored within the peaceful harbor where at last we can unload our human baggage and be at peace at last.  

...

Why Not

by RmOlano
23April2007

In 1908's book Lexicon of Freemasonry by Brother Albert Mackey, part of his definition of demit is the phrase "once a Mason and always a Mason" because unless expelled by his Lodge and the sentence was confirmed by the Grand Lodge, any Mason is still subjected to "his masonic obligations" nor be excused to "moral conduct" expected to a member of the Order. Brother Mackey also wrote that expulsion is the equivalent of Masonic death penalty and only with those guilty of gross immoral conduct by a properly conducted trial will be receive this sentence. The concept is to have individual Lodges hands out the expulsion after a fair trial of an alleged grossly immoral conduct and only be carried out with concurrence of the Grand Lodge. The recent Grand Lodge of the Philippines' expulsion was the other way around. The Grand Lodge declaration of expulsion without trial was not because of grossly immoral conduct but due to individual Mason’s choice to go along with their Lodge’s decision to form their own Grand Lodge.

Which brings us back to the topic of discussion. Why only one Grand Lodge can exist in the Phil. Why not? Removing the prejudicial thinking of the motive, be it may imagine or reality, Freemasonry spread around the world not because a Grand Lodge “authorized” the creation of another Grand Lodge but because three or more Lodges banded together and formed their own. Neither Modern nor Ancient Grand Lodges of England authorizes the creation of Grand Lodge of New York or Pennsylvania or California to form Nevada. Individual Lodges warranted by either Grand Lodge of England formed their own Grand Lodge due to their own reasons. Even Spain at one time had two Grand Lodges until both sides settled their differences and merged into one. Needless to say the result of union of Ancients and Modern to become United Grand Lodge of England. If we look back to the history of Grand Lodge of Japan, GLP’s reaction was not something we could be proud of. Now how about if the three Lodges in Guam decided to form the Grand Lodge of Micronesia or Guam, would GLP declare our Brethren from Guam clandestine too? Or should GLP be a proud parent of a new born GL and instead of putting roadblocks, GLP could be an example of how a good and caring parent would act watching his offspring takes it's baby step toward maturity?

The GLP Constitution is supposed to have a provision for regional Grand Lodges. The idea was created for more efficient governance of the Fraternity. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the logistical problem involve in running the administrative matters in the whole archipelago. The VW Manuel Carranza noted the perennial attendance problem which plagued during ANCOM. Transportation and accommodations for many delegates plays a major role on not only quantity but also quality of representatives which determine the end product of this important event.

So why not?

...

Division Among Brethren

by RmOlano

22Mar09

Before we indulged ourselves with ever familiar self-flagellation, let us consider that division among Brethren especially in Grand Lodge level political arena is not confined to the Philippines and undoubtedly not a Filipino invention. What can be noted is that the political environment of certain Grand Lodge is a reflection of the existing governmental apparatus where political connection is the name of the game. An environment that espouses manipulation by few elite to advance the welfare of anointed padrinos and squashing those who dared to raise their voices or cry for justice is a preordained eventuality. This scenario is not a new issue. As my grandmother used to say, “lumang tugtugin na iyan” i.e. it’s an old song.

I concurred with the idea of multiple Grand Lodges co-existing and truly practicing the tenets of our Craft. If multiple Lodges can exists in one building, why it is so hard to practice tolerance at “higher” Grand Lodge level? Fear of losing power, prestige, and for some, access to annual dues is a worldwide issue not just to certain locality.

“Why only one Grand Lodge can exist in the Philippines? Why not? Removing the prejudicial thinking of the motive, be it may imagine or reality, Freemasonry spread around the world not because a Grand Lodge “authorized” the creation of another Grand Lodge but because three or more Lodges banded together and formed their own. Neither Modern nor Ancient Grand Lodges of England authorizes the creation of Grand Lodge of New York or Pennsylvania or California to form Nevada.” Why Not.

For Brethren who are interested in history of Philippine Masonry, it is fitting to suggest and give consideration to the point of view of the Brethren who don’t believe in Andrew Jackson’s “To the victors belong the spoils” in regards to Masonic history of the Philippines. History of Supremo Consejo del Grado 33 Para Filipinas.

Serious student of history will discern that an American-sponsored Grand Lodge in the Philippines has many advantages in the aftermath of pacification campaign during "Philippine Insurrection." Not only that the American Grand Master could keep tab on subordinate Lodges but can expect members loyalty to American influenced/brand of Freemasonry. One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the threat (imagined or real) of groups of former "insurrectionists" which includes "rebel" General Emilio Aguinaldo meeting regularly in secured venues. General Douglas MacArthur was quoted that Freemasonry is a useful tool to pacify Japan by adopting Freemasonry for Japanese men. One should not have to guess who was "patron" General/Viceroy/saint of Grand Lodge of Japan.

Geo-political issues aside, it is a fact that in large cities, multiple Lodges does exist and meet in the same building. It is a fact that if there is truly harmony within, multiple Masonic Lodges are not needed nor justified. Lodges that meets members expectations will flourish and Lodges that don’t will and indeed slowly fade away. This scenario is also applicable to Grand Lodges. Those with substance will endure hardship and tribulation regardless of how rough and rugged road the travel offers while buildings not made from "good, true, and square work" will not last for so long. “Time, patience, and perseverance will accomplish all things.”

There are those who define Freemasonry as a Fraternity of select few hence, embrace the concept of them or us while there are those who view the Craft as a moral system reserved only for male gender. And there are some who are trying to reach into the darkness of their own soul to seek a glimmer of hope that the Order is path toward illumination to immortality. The Brethren will define and see Freemasonry through the filters of each own choosing therefore, division among men and Brothers are expected among mortals. One could hope that there is enough sand in the hourglass to realize the fallacy of vanity and embrace the joy of tolerance among creatures --- big or small.

...

Masonic Clubs

by RmOlano
Hanford Lodge No. 279 (CA)
12Feb06 (Snow Storm Charles)

With the exception of Masonic Clubs in places where there are no Masonic Lodges exists such as in Diego Garcia, Bahrain, UAE and other places, possibly drawn by something lacking in their own Lodge, the brethrens often finds Masonic Clubs attractive for many reasons. Non masons such as wife, girl friends, co-workers can attend, semi-formal gathering, lunch break activity, etc.. are some of the unique atmosphere that makes it appealing. However, for brethren who cannot find time to attend the stated meeting or degree works, it seems strange to find one’s availability of spending time in Masonic Club. We all heard the complaints about boring meetings, long monotonous degree works, but yet brethren found moment to attend and enjoy their Masonic Clubs. The question we could then ask is what makes our brethren forgo the regular Lodge and choose Masonic Clubs instead? What makes physicians, carpenters, police, firefighters, college friends or brethren with same nationality form their own group and separate themselves from the rest? Is this a human reaction to circle the wagon for mutual defense or a tint of elitist corporeal and mental faculty to flaunt around?

No one, especially this writer contends that Masonic Clubs should be banned. No one in their right mind living in a democratic system of government would ever come close of proposing that idea. As it was said before with the exception of places where regular Masonic Lodges are not established, Masonic Clubs does offer a competition for the most valuable commodities of man--- time. And here lies the challenge to our regular Lodges, the leadership must offer something that would attract their membership back. Every man is unique and prudently must be treated individually. However, given that multitude of reasons can be given as an excuse for dropping off, human beings looks for the appreciation for the contribution of his particular skill(s). The honest acceptance in a voluntary group might be the key for holding his interest.

Do we really believe that because the District Inspector mandated that all Lodge Officers must attend the School of Instruction was the reason why brethren attend such events? Brethren showed up because they like to be there. They enjoy the company and looks forward to the evening of camaraderie. Masonry is a voluntary activity, no rules nor do solemn obligations make its members stay active other than him. No implied or direct threats from anybody even from Grand Lodge itself will make individual Mason to “like” to participate and “enjoy” in Masonic activities.

In the context of brethren participation to both, one can draw a notion that the proliferation of Masonic Clubs is an indication of something is eroding and vanishing from the local Lodges. The time honored rituals and its accompanying lessons in Freemasonry are not obviously being work in Masonic Clubs. Therefore, it could be argued that many other Craft illustrations and Masonic etiquette were not given emphasis thus were not practiced. We are living in a time of fast-foods, ATM, cell phones where time, distances were non-issue and human-machine interactions were just part of normal way of life. The Lodge is a rare place where civilities are expected during its transaction of business. When properly done, time stand still during opening and closing rituals. The actions and words spoken in the rituals within the Lodge convey Mysteries in Freemasonry---Lessons in Life. Masonic Clubs conduct its business like other organizations such as Lions, Rotary Clubs and the likes. While they have worthy causes and aims, the Craft encompass more than they could offer.

This article is not about putting culpability on Masonic Clubs for “taking away” brethren’s time from the regular Lodge but rather provoking a thought for brethren members of the club. As a member of the Craft, what are we truly seeking which could be found in place beyond our regular Lodge? Of what are we in search of ?

...

Flawed But Good Men

by Rudy Olano4Jun06

The evolution of our fraternity from operative to speculative has been a subject of countless books, among the latest is the Les Origins de la Franc-Maconnerie: Le secre et le Mateir by Paul Naudon which was translated in English by John Graham in 2005 book titled The Secret of Freemasonry: Its Origins and Connection to the Knights Templar. The operative masons who traveled from places to places to build cathedrals, castles, mansions are obviously from working class. However, we can't dismiss the fact that the masters did enjoy special recognition from the Kings and/or benefactors. The names of the four Lodges which bonded together in 1717 to form a unifying body which, later called as Grand Lodge of London, might give us the indication of member's position or class. Names such as The Crown, The Apple Tree, The Runner and The Grapes, and The Goose and Gridiron were the names of the taverns where they held their meetings. Taverns not castle or mansions suggest that the assertion of a "higher class only" might be a subject of debate. The gradual take over of the non-operative members transformed the Craft into what we known as speculative Masonry. The transformation from physical building of operatives to creating an edifice "made not by hand eternal in Heaven" by speculative Masons comes with what the WBrother correctly described as the "social changes that flows with history."

The question of "having our own" is somewhat puzzling. Are we a part of a Fraternity with a regulatory body duly recognized by other regular Grand Lodges world-wide? If the question is about local spawned group as the "Sons of Lapu-lapu" suggests, I believe there are host of group like that such as Knights of Rizal, Barangay Tanod, etc. In our local/Philippine history, there was an organization patterned after Freemasonry. It is not surprising since the influential members and leaders were Freemasons themselves. Loosely translated in English it is called the Society of the Bravest, Greatest and Most Honorable Son of the Country which was commonly known as Katipunan. Various groups with countless mission statements are in existence, it only a matter of locating such interest. Membership in any organization is always a matter of personal comfort zone and it does not matter whether it is a local, national or international in scope.

The level of activities and members participation will always depend on each members feeling of being comfortable, at ease within that group. The result is directly proportional to what one has put into it. Being contented as a sideliner watching the things goes by is not as active and fulfilling as being a part of the process. Due to other contemporary living necessities, relatively speaking, most of the time things happened so quickly that there is not enough moment to invite fence-sitters to join in.

Our Craft is composed of multitude of flawed but good men trying to be a better man thus; it is not prefect as no Grand Lodge in this world can be. There is another Grand Lodge presided by the perfect Supreme Grand Master, it is relatively easy to enter but it will take almost super human effort to be accepted as the requirement is to have a spotless apron.

...

Political and Religious Discussion

by RmOlano
27Sep08

"i think the ban on religion and politics being discussed inside a lodge are only observed in anglo-saxon masonry unlike in the grand orient or franco-masonry where the lodge is a venue of debate and exchanging of ideas." --- a Brother commented


Very keen observation my Brother. An opinion is something we thought that could be true but not as important as belief or Faith. So my dear Brother, the thought that you believe to be true which you characterized as lowly and unimportant is in reality has a ring of truth.

If we are to take exception of the American Revolution, which was carried out by members of the so-called Anglo-Saxon “brand” of Freemasonry, many revolutions were initiated, led and carried out by members of French-based Scottish Rite “brand” of Freemasonry. Not that the English-speaking Freemasons were immune from political agenda and influence as English history is also a history of divided groups of Masons supporting either usurper or disposed royalty.

It is interesting to note that English Freemasonry is under the patronage of their royalty who would not mind to socialize with commoners thereby, keeping tab and ensuring the loyalty and harmony of their subjects. Compare this setup with French-invented Scottish Rite Masonry where the rebel leaders ensured that the King literally lost his head along with great numbers of royalty during French Revolution. In addition, there was a time in Spanish history that large number of Spanish men were executed just because they are members or thought to be members of the Craft. Mindful of what happened to their neighbors; Spanish royal families were not fans of Freemasonry. Let us not guess who were the players of revolutions in South America, Mexico, Cuba, and yes, the Philippines. Logia Revolucion in Barcelona and the all-Filipino Logia Solidaridad in Madrid were not created with intention to be politically correct to the Spanish ruling class. It is seems the pattern was that where more violent revolutions in countries where Scottish Rite is strong and popular than with countries dominated by English-speaking brand of Freemasonry. How much political discussions or level of passion to argue/debate/talk about this subject among Masons seems to depend on the orientation of the Craft i.e., with or without Royal Patronage.

An opinion is a tentative thinking that could be true and could change based from additional variables. A confirmed or proven opinion becomes fact. For those who do not end exchanging opinions with “Period,” allow me to use the fashionable “au contraire” as oppose to more egalitarian --- nope, you’re assumption is wrong again. The use of such fancy repertoire might have some value for some folks but 'just the same and if I could borrow Brother Author Stephen Defoe’s recent word--- “pretentious.” Someone implied that those who entered in political arena in national, international or local level are not members of the mainstream Grand Lodge. This opinion was based on the common belief that politics were not to be discussed within the Lodge therefore; those who disobeyed this mantra must be from non-mainstream Grand Lodge.

When a group of people decided to do something, --- my friends that is politics. When the Master of the Lodge approved a motion to participate in KidsID at City Park during 4th of July---my friends that is politics. When a Grand Lodge adopt and proclaim that a certain day of the month will be dedicated to celebrate the creation of U.S. Constitution--- again, my friends that is politics. And if we urged a newly made EA his duty as a citizen i.e. “ to be exemplary in the discharge of (his) civil duties…” we are dabbling in politics.

It is NOT the discussion of politics within the Lodge that is prohibited but rather it is the sectarian or the my-way-or-highway approach to civil discussion which often led to disharmony among Brethren. What is not allowed is the mentality that my opinion, my party, my religion and my God is right and all others are wrong. Politics and religion will always be in our thought, to "prohibit" its discussion is to say, I have provided all the argument and all available documentation therefore, the case is close---Period. This kind of mind-set ought to be prohibited not the content of the discussion whether its politics, religion, sports or the best watering hole in the area.

In a speech titled World Wide Masonry and Its Desirability delivered by the Senior Grand Warden Oliver D. Street, before Bessemer Lodge No. 458 on May 29, 1922, published in Little Masonic Library Volume I, Book 2 (1924) Southern Publishers. Kingsport, TN., he said,

“If we drew the line on those who, we think, engage in politics, let us imagine, if we can, what the Masonic Fraternity of the United States would do if some party were to arise in this country which openly declared against free speech, freedom of press, freedom of thought, freedom of conscience and in favor of domination of the state and church. If Masonry did not fight such propositions it should perish, yet these are precisely the propositions which confront Masonry in France, Belguim, Spain, Italy and in all South and Central American nations, not to mention Mexico and numerous other countries. There are certain great fundamental political questions which Masonry always and everywhere has professed and for which, if it is not willing to fight, it is not worthy to exist.” (Street, 1924, pg 118).

Civilized men agree to disagree. No one has the monopoly of the fountain of knowledge hence, has the last word on this exchange of ideas i.e. “Period.” When politicians run out of arguments, the common tactic is to divert the topic and talk about personal issues including grammar and spelling. This is the basis why civil discussion fails within the Lodge room. It is not the topic e.g. politics, religion, or best beer brand but the mentality that some people were already enlightened thus does not need to be challenge because what presented was the Truth. Freedom of speech is still guaranteed by U.S. Constitution and that should include discussion inside the Lodge. Moral person knows what is right and what is wrong, finding the balance between the two extremes is a lesson all Masons labours to find --- of searching that which was lost. Equilibrium is not just a word, it is an axiom not only reserved for Scottish Rite Masons but also applies to the entire human race.

...

Remarks

from Brother John L. Cooper III, PGS, GLofCA

28Sep08

There is some truth in what you are saying, but also some problems. Freemasonry has always taken the position that partisan politics and religion should not be discussed in a lodge. That is essentially an English-speaking Masonic tradition. It is not the tradition in much of European and Latin American Freemasonry (except for the GLNF). However, that being said, it is an exceedingly hard process to monitor. In theory every Freemason should accord to another the courtesy of respect for his opinion. But over the years I have seen how difficult it is for some to truly practice it. The problem, as I see it, is that each one of us has some fundamental principles which are difficult to reconcile with tolerance and understanding.

Let me offer but one example. Freemasons are patriotic. Often at Masonic gatherings I hear prayers offered for our troops overseas who are thought to be protecting our country from the enemy. Probably 100% of Masons in the room would agree – until we get into the details. I’ll stay away from current events (Iraq) and talk about Vietnam of a generation ago because that may be safer. Some Masons then were supporting and participating in the anti-war movement. Some firmly believed that our war in Vietnam was immoral, and that America should get out as quickly as possible. This outraged other Masons who saw this as treason. Neither side could talk about the other’s position in a dispassionate way. If you want to take this into today’s arena, try discussing the issue of the phrase “under God” in the pledge of allegiance. What do you think would happen at any Masonic gathering you know of if a Mason advanced the point of view that this phrase should not be in the pledge, and that the unsuccessful lawsuit against it in Elk Grove Unified School District a couple of years ago should have been otherwise decided. Do you truly think that most of the Masons you know could have treated a Mason who advocated this a with the civility you are advocating?

I don’t want to be pessimistic about the prospects, but I cannot be sanguine about its success in most Masonic groups. When it comes to religion, there is usually little problem with civil dialogue amongst adherents of recognized religious groups. Roman Catholic Freemasons and Episcopalian Freemasons are unlikely to come to blows over the Pope. But we have had some serious problems with “new” religions, such as the Gnostic Catholic Church, and its parent organization, the Ordo Templi Orientalis. In 1998 the Grand Master authorized the use of the VSL from this organization on our altars for members of this faith to use for the Obligations. In 2004 another Grand Master withdrew this permission. All this was perfectly legal, and within the prerogative of the Grand Master. But why was this group singled out? All you need to do is to take a look at the liturgy of this church and the contents of their “sacred law” and you can see how it pushed the limits of toleration.

I am personally in favor of discussing things of substance and importance in the lodge. I am also aware of how difficult it is to maintain respect, civility, and toleration amongst our members when the limits of our respect, civility and toleration are pushed too hard.

/s/ John

...

Response:

28Sep08

First, I thank you for time and commentary. If my estimation is correct, I would say that we are in agreement that discussion within the Lodge should not be limited to any subject as long as the topic is "of substance and importance in the lodge."

I readily concurred that politics and religion will always be a hot topic as well as Red Socks and Yankees or Forty-niners and Raiders. The prevailing principle that certain subjects should not be even discuss because of the difficulty or failure of presiding authority to moderate the discussion is an acknowledgement of weak leadership and adherence to the contemporary cliché---politically incorrect. Standing on the level pavement adorned with black and white squares signifies that the speaker and his issue are on same plain along with other speaker with the opposite view. Both deserved to be heard regardless of the color they representing. To regulate what to bring forth is to disregard the lesson of Mosaic Pavement. I submit that Justice---equality and fairness will bring harmony among the group not restraining views but those notions could be a utopian thinking along with spotless apron for a mortal man.

If I could ask the VW John's permission to publish/attach his response to the original posting for furtherance of Brethren and my Masonic Light, it is always an honor and privilege to elicit responses from you. I thank the Brother in advance for consideration.

F/
RmOlano

...

Permission granted. /s/ John
Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:00 AM

...

Constitutional Question

by RmOlano
05Sep08

“... you may be right that the resolution was passed by the marority of the brethren, but the grand lodge of the philippines did not acknowledge the resolution and find the action not legal. i believe that due process has been given to them.” --- a Brother wrote

When a duly constituted Lodge conducts its business such as passing resolutions by a majority vote unless there is a specific law that prohibits the Lodge from declaring independence from its Grand Lodge, what is the ground of finding this “action not legal?” Since when it became legal for Grand Lodge to overrule local decisions that they (Grand Lodge) did not like. From what authority did this obviously pompous display of arrogance did derived its legitimacy.

While we can cite the Article XII of Anderson’s Constitutions of 1723, which states, “The Grand Lodge consists of, and form’d by the Masters and Wardens of all the regular particular Lodges upon the Record…” where in the GLP’s Constitution states that no Lodge will be permitted to annul its covenant with Grand Lodge? Is there provision in current GLP’s Constitutions that can be referenced to back up our Brother's statement which, he “believe(d) that due process has been given to them.”

Individual Masons belongs to a Lodge first and foremost hence, any disciplinary action to be taken should come from the Lodge first not Grand Lodge. The expulsion of a number of individual Masons by the Grand Master and superseding the Lodge Master’s authority to his Lodge which he is called to preside, is not only anomalous but a clear cut overstepping the power invested to GM office. This would be another position but because ANCOM approved the Grand Master’s action, this point is now irrelevant. Which bring us to another point--- that under the jurisdiction of The Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of the Philippines, individual Masons can be expelled for any reason without Masonic trial or appeal and subject to the whim of the Grand Master.

Question that needs to be answered: Is there any provision in the current GLP's Constitution that prohibits the withdrawal of member Lodge(s) from the Grand Lodge? When some GLP Lodges formed the Grand Lodge of Japan, was there revision(s) of GLP's Constitution to address, discouraged or prevent the occurrence of same issue?

It is a matter of record that UGLE established Lodges in Cyprus since late 18th century. When the Grand Lodge of Cyprus was consecrated under the sponsorship of three Grand Lodges, the new Grand Lodge declared "exclusive territorial jurisdiction" of all Masonic Lodges on the island. UGLE cried foul and rejected the "exclusive territorial jurisdiction" assertion but that does not stop the CGMNA from proclaiming the new Grand Lodge as "regular" and "recognized." (2007 CIR Report) So, here is another example of a situation where Lodges remained loyal to its Mother Grand Lodge, notwithstanding its geographical location. Now we have another example of Lodges following the established standard stated in the Constitution of the "Mother Grand Lodge of the World"—UGLE and even the CIR admitted that the reasons might have validity, but the group was not "recognized" because of the "exclusive territorial jurisdiction" rule---that's what I call anomalous decision. Standard of Recognition.

We are in agreement that “jurisdiction” means a power, influence or control over Masonic bodies specifically, member Lodges. It is true that the physical location of such Lodges is irrelevant. One example is the case of Lodge Perla de Oriente No. 1034 in Manila, which is still under the jurisdiction of Grand Lodge of Scotland. Another example is the existence of Masonic Lodges under the control of Gran Logia National de Filipinas such as Magdalo Lodge No. 79. These Spanish-speaking Lodges obviously are not under the “jurisdiction” of English-speaking American sponsored Grand Lodge of the Philippines however, we could wrap ourselves around the axle so to speak if we are to argue about their “regularity.” The point is that it is preposterous to declare a group of regularly constituted Lodges to become “not regular” just because they elected among themselves, of their own freewill and accord to walk away from GLP due to reasons they publicly proclaimed. The breakaway Lodges is not under the jurisdiction of GLP therefore, any declarations or edicts to them are worthless and comical. To claim the real estate/physical properties of such Lodges as Grand Lodge assets is mind-boggling and borders to imperial covetousness. Deja vu --Grand Lodge of Japan.

During the formation of Grand Lodge of Japan, according to its webpage, although invited to join, the Rising Sun Lodge No. 151 choose to remain with Grand Lodge of the Philippines and continue to do so to this day. The McArthur Lodge No. 183 in Seoul, Republic of Korea, Emon Lodge No. 179 in Saipan, and three in Lodges in Guam under the jurisdiction/supervision of GLP are some local examples of the contention of the validity of so-called "exclusive territorial jurisdiction" concept. This is one of the basic requirements for "recognition" by Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America (CGMNA). The notion that only one Grand Lodge can exist in one state or country, unless agreed upon by both Grand Lodges is a modern invention, which obviously shows political stimulus of those who concocted this rule. Nowhere in Ancient Landmarks mentioned nor in Anderson's Constitution of 1723, was it cited.

In defense of Perlas Oriente Lodge in Manila, I would not use the word “anomalies” as the chosen word has a negative connotation. Before the creation of GLP, Perlas de Oriente Lodge decided to remain with Grand Lodge of Scotland, that is within the Lodge right --- their preference. There is/was not an iota of anomaly in casting vote and carrying out its desire whether or not to remain loyal to its Mother Grand Lodge. What is erroneous is to imply that no Lodges in the Philippines have an option but to be “owned” by GLP. But then again, only matured Mason will be able to see through the veiled allegories, illustrated symbols and infer that Freemasonry is about personal morality not exclusive territorial jurisdiction or About Them. My point is that Perlas Oriente Lodge Lodge situation is neither unique nor deviation from common rule (Webster Dictionary) as there is no such rule to deviate from. I do not concur that we have a case of "not being in normal situation."

With certain confidence and backed up with references, it is a fact that multiple regular and recognized Grand Lodges does exists in many countries e.g. Australia, Canada, Germany, and before I forget in the United States. What is the basis of the statement that, “only one Grand Lodge will be recognized in any jurisdiction” or the so-called “exclusive territorial jurisdiction concept?

Aside from United Grand Lodge of Germany, there are the Grand Lodge of British Freemasons in Germany, the American Canadian Grand Lodge, Grand Lodge of Freemasons of Germany, Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of Germany therefore, it is not true that "there is only one Grand Lodge in Germany." If "There are 6 Grand Lodges in Australia not 3 and they all exist together by mutual cooperation and have clearly defined areas that do not overlap" then we are in agreement on the existence of multiple Grand Lodges in Australia. Multiple regular and recognized Grand Lodges in Canada are based in Ontario, New Brunswick, Alberta, and Nova Scotia. There are multiple Grand Lodges in Mexico. "One source estimated there are or were some 130 Grand Lodges in Mexico. Of these, there appear to be only 30 state Grand Lodges and the York Grand Lodge that are considered to be practicing Regular Masonry and observing accepted and expected relationships among each other and with foreign Grand Lodges." Quoted from February 2004 Report Commission of Information for Recognition.

Even within each State in U.S., despite of some holdouts, many regular Grand Lodges are now recognizing the regularity of Prince Hall Grand Lodges and the Masonic Lodges under the its jurisdiction. Racial prejudice or bigotry is not an excuse for long overdue recognition of the fact---that Prince Hall Grand Lodges do exist and now being recognized by majority of Grand Lodges in U.S. within their own State or jurisdiction. The statement relative to bigotry was not meant nor intended to imply a personal conviction to such scandalous behavior as it was directed to about 10 Grand Lodges in U.S. that still wont extend their right hand to persons who doesn’t looked like them. So what we can we deduced to people of same color who also exclude their own kind? double bigot? If I may make it clear that my statement is about pointing out that regular Grand Lodges in United States acknowledged the regularity and accepted the co-existence of ANOTHER Grand Lodge in their own state. Again, this fact debunked the statement that only one Grand Lodge within a jurisdiction or state can be “recognized.” Not to beat a very dead horse, let us not discuss the fact that there are 50 Grand Lodges in a country known as United States.

As a part of last year’s (2007) version of Constitutions of United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE), nowhere in the eight (8) Basic Principles for Grand Lodge Recognition mentioned this limitation. If I may be allowed to quote the first principle, that is “Regularity of origin; i.e. each Grand Lodge shall have been established lawfully by a duly recognized Grand Lodge or by three or more regularly constituted Lodges.” The No. 5 principle is about authority over the Lodges under its control or jurisdiction and not about geographical or political boundaries.

So we are back to the same question, is there a provision in GLP’s current Constitution that prohibits member Lodges to separate, abrogate, divorce or withdraw from membership to Grand Lodge? The question does not require a Grand Historian nor Grand Secretary’s response. Anybody with access to GLP Constitution could answer such simple question. The silence indicates to me that (a) GLP’s Constitution is secret hence, difficult to access (b) nobody want to even bother to see what is in the GLP’s Constitution (d) the answer is simply “none.”

I respectfully disagree with the notion of my way or highway approach to this issue. There are always other ways or alternatives that is ---if we let Reasons be allowed to any discussions. But like anything else, we can only beat the dead horse so many times hence, we can let it go. Live and Let Live--- until next time when some enlightened soul would be audacious enough to display his wisdom and only to find out that Northeast corner is not a bad place to be.

It is known fact throughout this area of discipline that it is extremely hard to win litigation from violation of its own rule. The most common way to “win” this kind of argument is to stall to buy time and hope that intellectually challenged parties will get tired of discussing the issue. The other way is to buy the other side by any means and/or thru a truly tried and true method---divide and conquer tactic. Either way it is a sleazy way of doing business, very unMasonic and only those with interior motives would agree to participate with such antics. This is NOT Freemasonry. It is not about legal issues or even customs.

Freemasonry is about living in a moral or righteous way instead of within established law or customs. To those who think they found the secret of Freemasonry could take a hard look of what they have for our Craft taught us to see beyond what is obvious and understand what allegories, symbols and illustrations really meant. More often than not, literal words meant something else, colors, shape and stories might not be what they are but possibly a series of invitation to what human could be--- a way to Nirvana, to Holy Grail or simply ---enlightenment of one’s thought.

...

*** the above article is a composite from a series of exchanges of opinions and thoughts with Brothers of the Craft in West to East Yahoogroup moderated by VW Ben Apacible of Araw Lodge No. 18, Manila, Phil.

Election Grand Style

by RmOlano
11Dec06

Questions and Truth.
Instead of writing separate responses to offline emails with same topic, allow me to post my thoughts in regards to your inquiries through this medium of pinoymasons group.

I never meet nor heard of Bro Jimmy Gonzales until I saw his entry to the guestbook. Some of you vouched for his character and qualification which I don’t doubt to be true. I was taken back by the statement posted not only to a different jurisdiction (Arizona) but in Internet as well. We are talking about an election process here and for someone to openly say that one will be elected was a powerful statement of a very confident person. I guess I am expecting some resemblance of humility from those who will or aspiring be entrusted to wield power.

Let us get the facts and avoid the hearsays and speculation as to what is the intent or reason of the message. Certainly, I will not even delve into "correctness" or otherwise, as some hypothesized from previous postings.

Fact 1: Whoever signed the guestbook declared with certain confidence that the election result is already preordained as in "will be."

Fact 2: There was no caveat in the statement as in "maybe," or "if." It is a done deal.

Fact 3: The statement was true since the Brother was elected and the current Deputy Grand Master of GLP.

Election is a process where a vote is to be caste by qualified individual. A motion could be made to have the Secretary cast a unanimous vote BUT anybody could dissent to such motion or have the option to leave and refuse to participate. We could argue that the motion is rather polished way of ensuring the continuity of those who are serving or on-line. I do not agree on this method as it defeats the meaning of the word "election" but that is acceptable and that's how our system works. Not all Junior Wardens automatically assumed the next higher chair due to various reasons, non-qualification, withdrawal, political moves, etc. which is normally manifested by being NOT elected.

Talking about politics, the same good old boys network is alive even within our Order and to deny this fact will never change an iota of reality. Our Order is still composed of men---though flawed but still striving to be a better man. This is a fact of life not borne of speculation which brings us to the topic of truth. Often time's truth hurts and normal people avoid pain, we rather pat ourselves in the back and sing kumbaya while praising each other how good we are. Pity for those who bring discomfort by asking relevant questions, nine lashes for those who bring pain by soliciting for changes, and brand them as not loyalist or even clandestine as if the judges themselves never had spots on their purple aprons.

Some of you asked pointed question such as change in the process, some of you boldly raised issues on electoral change, some wonders what will happen if the research contradicts the current practice, my Brothers there are group of Masons who asked the same questions and concerns, they are now branded as "clandestine."However, if you are just lambasting the powers that be, you'll just a received a copy of poem about don't question your boss or you can get hell out of Dodge because you are a pain in the ass.

...

Standard of Recognition

RmOlano
09Nov07

Few observations regarding The Commission on Information for Recognition (CIR) of the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons of North America (CGMMNA). The following was taken from their website.

“The Commission neither advises nor recommends that recognition be given to any Grand Lodges, but merely indicates whether or not it considers that a Grand Lodge in question satisfies the conditions of regularity.”

Aside from confusing the Independent Grand Lodge of the Philippine Islands (IGLPI) with Tacloban's United Grand Lodge of the Philippines (UGLP), the CIR 2007 Report cited interesting development in Cyprus. In mid January 2006, the Grand Lodge of Greece (GLG) installed the officers of Grand Lodge of Cyprus which was formed from six Lodges warranted by GLG. Alluding to the CGMMNA's Standards of Recognition No. 2, “Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction, except by mutual consent and/or treaty,” the new Grand Lodge was found by the Commission as “generally meets the standards of recognition.” The issue was that United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) has a District Grand Lodge, “has been present in Cyprus since 1888” and does not recognize the “Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction” over its warranted Lodges which apparently did not joined with the new Grand Lodge.

In 2006 CIR Report, in response to the letter from the Prince Hall Conference of Grand Masters, the Commission stated the following:

The issue of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction is one of the standards for recognition that has been strictly observed by this Conference. It is held that only one legitimate Grand Lodge will be recognized in a particular state or country, unless by treaty or mutual consent two Grand Lodges agree to share the same jurisdiction. This is the mechanism by which our Grand Lodges have established a fraternal relationship with Prince Hall Grand Lodges. The terms of such an agreement are usually negotiated and ratified by the two Grand Lodges in question and no change in that process is recommended.

Notwithstanding the identity issue whether its IGLPI or UGLP, the Commission found the recently formed Grand Lodge not meeting the standard while the Grand Lodge of Cyprus does, despite of the glaring violation of their “strictly observed” standard of recognition. The presence of another operating District Grand Lodge from another jurisdiction whether it may be from “Mother Grand Lodge of the World—UGLE” or some “lesser” known Grand Lodge/Orient shows the holes of this idea. Taking the Prince Hall Grand Lodges recognition issue, this Commission finds it agreeable to have two Grand Lodges within a state or country as long as both agree to share the jurisdiction. It is also the opinion of this Commission that a Grand Lodge can be established as “regular” even the there were no sharing agreement with existing Grand Lodge as in the case with Grand Lodge of Cyprus and UGLE. Likewise, it is the opinion of this confused writer that if it looks, walk and sounds like a duck, it must be a duck. It should not matter whatever is the color of the feather, white, black or brown.

It is noteworthy that the CGMMNA is distinct and separate from the World Conference of Masonic Grand Lodges which is obviously more international in scope than the North American version. The next conference is scheduled in May 2008 and to be hosted by the Grand Lodge of Washington DC. Let us see what will be their position regarding the notion of Brotherhood of Men under the Fatherhood of God.

...

Without Permission

A paper for Seqouia Council No. 228 (AMD)
by RmOlano
SC#228
6Aug07

The MW Jim Bantolo’s short history of Philippine Freemasonry was certainly illuminating especially the events that unfolded in Spain before the Philippine Revolution. The similarity of the schism between Grande Oriente Nacional de Espana and Gran Oriente Espanol, their principle and membership are somewhat striking relative to Masonic activities in pre-United States e.g. Moderns against Ancients. In one hand, a pro-establishment Grand Lodge and the other, a young upstart anti-establishment Grand Lodge.

In the recent published book by the author of Freemasons for Dummies, Bro Christopher Hodapp narrated that in the history of Freemasonry in U.S., Grand Lodges established itself in the same manner that the Grand Lodge of England created itself--- individual Lodges forming alliance among themselves. Even the late-comers known as “Ancients” from York formed their own Grand Lodge WITHOUT asking anybody.

In 1752 prelude to American Revolution as the book Solomon’s Builders stated that to the annoyance of established American Lodges under Grand Lodge of England (Moderns), a group of blue collar men mainly from north side of Boston, instituted their own Lodge WITHOUT asking anybody. To make matter “interesting,” they start issuing warrants to form other Lodges as the group formed in Green Dragon Tavern declared itself as a Grand Lodge! Later on the group called themselves St Andrews Lodge after they “got around applying a charter” to Grand Lodge of Scotland in 1756. This Lodge became the nucleus of AF&AM in the colonies where notable Masons like Dr Joseph Warren, John Hancock and John Otis were known members. Reluctantly accepting promotion to Major General of Continental Army due to limited military training, Bro Warren fought as regular infantryman at the Battle of Bunker Hill in 1773. He was the Grand Master of All Masons in Northern America (AF&AM) when his body was later identified through dental work by a Brother from St Andrews Lodge--Paul Revere.

Bro Hodapp continued on and wrote that the Prince Hall Grand Lodge was established when communication between African Lodge No.1 and GLE was lost. Prince Hall Grand Lodge was born without prior approval from ANYBODY. At the conclusion of Chapter 4 (War Among Brothers), the author wrote that due to schism between Ancients and Moderns in England and America, “… Masons in the United States had fallen into the pattern of founding their own individual Grand Lodges.”

The first Grand Master of Independent Grand Lodge of the Philippine Islands like those “who have gone that way before,” in many countries and jurisdiction believed in his vision and concluded that “What Masonic history teaches us is that the GRAND LODGES COULD BE CREATED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF ANYBODY…” One could argue that asking forgiveness could yield faster result than asking for permission. Many scholarly books were already written and published to hypostasized or attempted explain the cause of extension of an ideal or system called Freemasonry throughout the world. If I may be allowed to interject one--- daring leaders with vision did not sit around waiting for permission.

It is a universal or accepted law that each Grand Lodge reign supreme within its own jurisdiction, subordinate only to one Supreme Grand Lodge Above ruled and governed by the GAOTU. The definition and application of what constitute “jurisdiction” is a matter of human interpretation. When a true Mason understand what tolerance really means then maybe the authentic implication of the boundaries Brotherly Love could be applied not only to corporeal properties but also to moral and ethical aspect of Brotherhood of Man under the Fatherhood of God.

...

Masonic Urban Legend

A paper for Sequoia Council No. 228 (AMD)
By RmOlano
SC#228 (AMD)
07-07-07

The right of visitation quoted by many Brothers is the 14th Landmark in Albert Mackey's Twenty-five Ancient Landmarks. Let us remember that not all Grand Lodges universally accepted those Landmarks as some adopted portion thereof, while others adopted all. Albert Pike challenged Mackey’s assertion and pointed out that no one can visit a Lodge without being vouched for and without the permission of the Master of the Lodge.

Though this is hard to say but this is another example of Masonic urban legend along with no one was ever invited to join our Craft. With numerous volume of books written, one have to show that Bro General Douglas MacArthur asked to be made Mason-on-sight. The same could be said about the long line of UK Royal family who traditionally held the Grand Mastership of both "Moderns" and "Antients” of GLE in their initiative to petition for Degress in Masonry. Let us face it, the "privilege" was offered and accepted for the benefit of both parties. In recent book by Walther Isaacson, Benjamin Franklin, an American Life, our esteemed Brother had to be "creative" to be invited to join in 1730. Asking one to be one is an American tradition/invention. The Continental and until recently English Freemasonry was almost exclusively by invitation only.

In UGLE website, their membership pitch did not say anything about adopting 2B1ASK1 and for clarification I did not hinted either. Postings from various Grand Lodges, from Singapore, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and even Lodge in Wales consistently mentioned of stories of well to do gentlemen of being invited to join the Craft. And as I mentioned earlier of a recent book regarding Ben Franklin's desire to be invited to the Craft in 1730. As of 2002 UGLE website advised any interested person to contact a Brother who will invite him for a chat and if the Lodge is interested, he will get his petition and so on and so forth.

We know that at least in 1730 Freemasonry in States was by invitation and I could only speculate that probably after American Revolution that asking one to be one became practice. Let us be reminded that the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania or New York did not asked UGLE's permission to be a separate/independent Grand Lodge. One could postulate that the new republic wanted to be seen as different and more egalitarian than English brand of Freemasonry. Interesting trivia were that 33 or 46% of American forces Generals were Masons, some were from same Lodges, all State Governors were Masons when Washington laid the cornerstone of either White House or Capitol according to some writings I read sometime ago.

As to the question of Washington as a Grand Master, in The Temple and Lodge by Beigent and Leigh, the same author who wrote the Holy Blood Holy Grail which, was the basis of Dan Brown's DaVinci Code, mentioned that Washington was offered to be the Grand Master of all Grand Lodges in America but declined thus keeping the current structure of independent Grand Lodges in every State. One could speculate that if Washington agreed then probably he will also agree to be the crowned King of America as some writings revealed as sidelight of American Revolution. Our worthy Brother truly exemplified one of the traits of a Past Master---wisdom. Now there was prime example of Masonic wisdom.

It was not coincidence that Benjamin Franklin, PGM, vision of a young country bear the resemblance of Lodges which forms a larger body known as Grand Lodge. His notion of a system where a Grand Lodge exists to support the need of smaller Lodges bear witness to the striking similatiy of a federal institution supporting the state governments. At least that was the idea and NOT supposed to be the other way around. This my Brethren, is not a Masonic urban legend.

...