----------
From: 	owner-philalethes@pyx.net on behalf of Dr. Roger M. Firestone
Sent: 	Tuesday, May 13, 1997 7:24 PM
To: 	philalethes@pyx.net
Subject: 	RE: PSOC Can an irregular Mason...?


Bro. Kevin Tuck says:
>Recognition, on the other hand, is an objective term that refers solely
>to the state of amity that exits between two jurisdictions and says
>nothing about the regularity of either one.

>And don't *even* get me started on the term "clandestine"!<BFG>
Bro Roger Firestone says:
I would differ with Bro. Tuck and say that these are his own
definitions.  For sure, no Grand Lodge would ever define itself as
irregular, but that says nothing (or more precisely, is a tautology).
Whether another GL is regular by definition of a particular GL is a
matter not only of practice but also of continuity of transmission of
authority.  The whole PHA question has been one of the latter, not of
the former, at least for bodies like the UGLE and various US GLs.

Ken Gibala understands:

A Grand Lodge is concerned with recognition and relationships; where the
masons in a jurisdiction are members of more than one obedience or authority
the grand lodge agreeing to recognition must decide which one or ones of the
grand lodges it is willing to recognize. For years in Mexico our American
grand lodges have had quite a number of choices. A federal grand lodge working
in English and the Spanish speaking state grand lodges. Have any been more
regular than another? I don't think so. Yet the UGLE has found it convenient
to reserve its recognition to the single federal English speaking grand lodge.
Does that mean that an English brother beholden to the UGLE is forbidden to
sit in a Spanish speaking Mexican lodge if he chooses. I don't think so
because the UGLE does not consider the state grand lodges of Mexico to be
irregular. At least that is my understanding. And that understanding carries
over to Brazil where the federal grand jurisdiction known as the Grand Orient
of Brazil is the only body there recognized by the UGLE. Does that mean that
the state grand lodges in Brazil are irregular? No it does not; and that has
been confirmed by the British Brother Cyril Bathum in his last trip to our
annual Philalethes Feast.


Bro. Roger Firestone says:
So far as I have been taught and instructed by others and by my reading
unrecognized Lodges are in that state because they have either not been
found to be regular, or because they were once regular and committed
some irregularity.
Ken Gibala understands:

    Unrecognized to me simply means "It is not appropriate or convenient to
recognize" Nothing more, nothing less.

Bro. Firestone says:
  For the GLs I am familiar with, regularity and
recognition are synonymous.  Therefore, there can be no unrecognized but
regular Grand Lodge relative to those jurisdictions.
Ken Gibala believes:
 IMHO what our good brother Roger is saying is unfortunately believed by too
many well meaning members who have not fully understood the actuality of
recognitions. While Bro. Roger is undoubtedly correct in suggesting that many
individuals throughout many jurisdictions are believing that "regularity and
recognitions are synonymous" that fact alone does not make it so.

Bro. Firestone says:
Further, authorities like Carl Claudy define "clandestine" to mean
irregular, unrecognized.  People keep trying to restrict the denotation
of this word because they do not like its connotation, but it has a
specific meaning in Masonry that does not match its general use of
"secret, shadowy."  It simply means irregular and not recognized.
Ken Gibala understands:
  Carl Claudy, Past President of the Philalethes and a very well respected PGM
said a lot of things about a lot of subjects and this reference by Bro.
Firestone is at the moment unfamiliar to me. However it is known and IMHO
accepted that the concept of "Clandestine" is strictly an American concept and
exists nowhere else in the Masonic World. Maybe our great Brother Carl Claudy
invented the term and concept himself and for a good and specific reason. If
so I am not aware of that situation. Or the greater possibility is that in
reality our Brother Carl Claudy never defined the word but simply used it in
the standard American "colloquial" Masonic usage. The word clandestine clearly
means fraudulent and was first used to refer to those American adventurers who
found it so easy in the development of the West to travel from town to town
selling degrees to unknowing innocent citizens. Clandestine masonry is simply
mercenary masonry. Unfortunately the term was borrowed during the beginning of
this century to refer to PHA masonry by those that chose to belittle and
denigrate our black brethren. The term has thus been picked up and
unfortunately is used today unnecessarily. Unnecessarily because there is no
purpose or value to the word except possibly in the single instance when
referring to the World Federation of Freemasons out of Detroit, Michigan. I am
referring to that "commercial" activity that franchises grand lodges in third
world areas where for a long weekend and $25,000 one might be taken to a
Mediterranean island and receive all the degrees of Freemasonry up to the
33rd.

Bro. Firestone says:
I think a greater familiarity with the history of the creation of
irregular Masonic groups, especially during the 19th century in the US
might be instructive as to why the "mainstream" GLs don't "just do it,"
as one writer put it within the last couple of days, and recognize these
groups.  Not every body calling itself Masonic and using a purloined
ritual is regular or can ever be regular.
Kenneth Gibala absolutely agrees.

Bro. Firestone says:
 I call to mind the many mountebanks and charlatans who sold Masonic degrees
to the gullible in
the period I just mentioned.  The image and cachet of regular Masonry is
a valuable legacy of our forebears and ought not to be spread about with
abandon.
Ken Gibala believes:
  While everything said here may be true we should not distract ourselves when
considering the unfortunate situation and relationship between ourselves and
PH masonry. IMHO what has just been said is not too relevant today.

Bro. Firestone says:
  There are certain things that Masonry believes in and stands for
Ken Gibala believes:
  It is very dangerous to personify the Craft and I do take exception to any
reference that Freemasonry says anything!! Freemasonry teaches. Nothing more,
nothing less!  No one may speak for Freemasonry. No One! The membership itself
"stand" for the teachings of the Craft.


S&F,

Kenneth Gibala, MPS
.

