THE RECTIFIED GRAND LODGE OF FRANCE: OSWALD WIRTH.

AMERICAN FREEMASON, OCTOBER 1914

The writer of the following lines is editor of "Le Sgmbolisme" of Paris, a
brother well known to many American Masons for his superior knowledge
of the Craft, his breadth of view, and for his vigorous defense of the French
Craft as against the attacks of open enemies or those who assail it because
of ignorance.  What he has to say of the new Grand Lodge of France will
prove of interest. 
-EDITOR FREEMASON.

I WISH, should the proposed foreign tour of American brothers and their
families bring the party to Paris, that some of the visitors may be able to
participate in the work of our Lodges.  Thus they will be able to gain some
understanding of the character of French Masonry, which indeed has
almost nothing in common with that of the Anglo-Saxon countries.  It also
occurs to me to say, like Brother Pitts, that recognition of our bodies on
part of the Grand Lodges of the United States is something beyond
ambition, and that it is useless to urge any such action.  We must be
content to leave to the masses their national prejudices, and seek to appeal
only to the universality of the thinking elite of Freemasonry.  This elite is the
clientele of the independent periodicals.  These readers, at the present
time, are alone able to constitute the intellectual cosmopolitanism of the
Order.  It pertains to us, then, to spread the light, with the object of
cementing union by reciprocal comprehension.  All that which is merely
administration, or government, is but a source of division in the body of
Masonry.  I am a partisan of less discipline, and of a more complete
autonomy of the Lodges, whose initiative nothing shall be then able to
hinder.  I am glad to state that in this I am in perfect accord with the
leaders of the Grand Lodge of France.  Contrary to other analogous
institutions this one endeavors to govern only in the slightest possible
degree.

We are reproached for this democratic virtue by the Grand Lodge of
England, which finds it detestable that our Lodges are not tyrannized over. 
It is proper to say that the Grand Orient of France is of much the same
opinion as the English body.  Had the Grand Orient respected the liberty
of the Lodge "Les Centre des Amis" the schism, from which was born the
new Grand Lodge, would never have occurred.  This Lodge, in our opinion,
was within its undoubted rights in withdrawing from the federation of the
Grand Orient, if it was no longer satisfied to remain therein.  Among us, in
the Grand Lodge of France, the Lodges are bound to the central authority
by no more than their own will.  They create themselves without outside
assistance, then join with the federation of their own choice.  They can also
quit this latter to join another of their choice, should a majority of the
members at any time so decide.

There is, therefore, nothing shocking to us, or savouring of irregularity, in
the fact that two dissident French Lodges have erected themselves in a
Grand Lodge, and this of their own authority, and that they have been
recognized by the Grand Lodge of England.  The procedure is subject to
criticism from the Anglo-Saxon point of view, but not from the French
standpoint.  So we have no desire to reproach anyone, neither the English
Masons, nor the Frenchmen who have desired to become Masons in the
English fashion.  We merely find annoying the epithets that have been
uttered by the new Grand Lodge, and are somewhat amused by its
self-assumed title.  It is assuredly as little "National" as it is possible to be. 
It is "Independent" of the rest of French Masonry, without doubt, but not of
the Grand Lodge of England, of which it is, in fact, the very humble vassal.

I have discussed these various matters in Le Symbolisme for February,
when I had the pleasure to quote your own opinions.  The matter was
mentioned again in the April number.  The number for May, again, shows
appreciation for THE AMERICAN FREEMASON by extracting from its pages. 
And in the number for July, which at this writing is upon the press, you will
find a translation in extenso of the article contributed to your valued pages
by Brother T. M. Andrews.

In all this matter the most dissatisfied brethren have been the members of
Anglo-Saxon Lodge No. 343.  This body, since 1899, while working under
the auspices of the Grand Lodge of France, has conformed strictly to the
ritual of the Grand Lodge of England.  These brethren have been urgently
invited to pass under the authority of this new "Regular" Grand Lodge.  The
latter has even attempted to seduce them from their present allegiance by
offering to them posts of honour, and the supreme degree of the "rectified"
regime, which would constitute them Beneficent Knights of the Holy City
(Chevaliers Bienfaisants de la Cite Sainte) and thus would assimilate them
with the thirty-third degree of the non-rectified Scottish Rite.  But the
brothers of Lodge No. 342 have not been shaken.  At no price do they wish
to show themselves ingrates to the Grand Lodge of France, which has
always allowed them the widest latitude in their actions.  They have been
free in their Lodge to address their prayers to the Grand Architect, to cause
their candidates to be obligated on the Bible, etc.  They prefer to remain
"irregular" in the eyes of their compatriots rather than join with an
organization suspected of not having acted in all things with perfect
candour.  The members of Anglo-Saxon Lodge are in fact convinced that
Lord Ampthill, the Pro Grand Master of England, has been misled by
negotiators who were too able.  They recognize, also, that the position of
the Grand Lodge of France is absolutely correct, from the point of view of
the primitive and universal principles of Freemasonry, as they were
formulated in 1723.

If the Grand Lodge of France does not exact from its candidates any
declaration of belief, it is because of respect for sincere conviction; for it
places sincerity above everything else in Freemasonry.  To present one's
self "with the heart uncovered" [our own ritualistic expression is far less
significant] as the ritual requires, signifies that to be received as a Mason
it is necessary to be sincere with one's self, as well as with others.  Now
the first condition of sincerity is liberty of thought - the privilege of seeking
the truth with absolute independence.

In these conditions, no one should be required to believe that which he can
grasp in part only.  The words, the formulas, the dogmas that are in
Masonry, should give place to the symbols, which, if rightly understood,
can be interpreted by each brother according to his own faculties of
comprehension. If the mentality of a Lodge is such that the Grand Architect
may be there invoked with sincerity, so much the better.  But if that symbol
of the Infinite be but poorly understood, it is misused, and there is fear that
all would not be permitted to remain sincere.  Is it not better, therefore, to
avoid, even from the religious point of view, this involving God with human
affairs to no purpose?

As to employment of the Bible in the Lodges, the Anglo-Saxons who live
in Paris, and above all those who are married to French wives, know that
the book has no prestige in France, and that to require a Frenchman to
swear upon it is a pure absurdity, in view of what he really thinks.

It results, then, either that Freemasonry is not universal, and that it is not a
practicable association except in Protestant countries, or that our
conception of it is the correct one.  The Anglo-Saxon sections insist on
dogmatic expressions, which we leave to the individual or to the Lodge,
believing that thus the broadest possible basis is provided for the fraternity. 
To those who have the intellectual perception we allow within Masonry the
utmost extension of intellectual activity.  To those who have the added
spiritual comprehension, we put nothing in the way that will prove an
obstacle to the utmost reach of their speculation or their faith.

Perhaps we are in error in being too polished; it might be to our advantage
to learn from our Anglo-Saxon brethren, to condemn all those who honestly
differ from us, and to say things it would not be agreeable for others to
hear.  If, changing our tactics, we were to take the offensive, as do so many
of the Craft in England and America, we might have to treat some Grand
Lodges as we do cats, whom we correct by rubbing their noses in filth.  But
we have better things to do, and we prefer not to be delayed in the work
that we regard as imperative for Masonry.

The "rectified" Grand Lodge will doubtless accomplish its mission; it may
serve, indirectly, the cause of progress more efficaciously than it intended. 
I am, however, convinced that it is the organization of Masonry - the official
showing - in the different countries, that sow the seeds of discord and
disunion between brethren.  I am also of opinion that it is outside of all
officialdom where it will be necessary to realize union and universality. 
Here, then, is the true role of the Masonic press of all the countries, and
this influence is destined to unite intellectually those whom the official
jurisdictions separate.

It is useless to repeat to you that no one appreciates more than myself the
courage and consistency of your own attitude.  It is an encouragement to
know that you have always sustained our common convictions, without
sacrificing to the powers of the day.  The most hearty sympathies of the
Masons of France are always with you, though they may be infrequently
expressed in words.  If you come to Paris, we will prove further that I am
not alone in knowing how to appreciate your efforts for an extension of
Freemasonry and real brotherhood, to embrace finally all sections of the
Craft.  We are divided now only on words; your own work is aiding, as I
believe, in bringing to general comprehension the ideas that are at the back
of our varying phrases, and which will be at last recognized and endorsed
by all the brotherhood.

 