Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Yes of course, but it seems there are very few that don't study enough to figure out that in some cases irregular and regular doesn't naturally exist when figuring out the first lodge, NOT THE CRAFT. And that's on both mainstream and prince hall.
The craft already establish the rules. The lodges came in with other rules.
Yes, my brother. The original question or thought was the upcoming of the grand two lodges that created the UGLE. Who charter those lodges and so forth. Only speaking of speculative masonry.
We have already discuss this link above. Yes I know these three lodges came together to make up UGLA. Neither of these lodges was warranted making them irregular but due to the fact it wasn't necessary then and they was considered, "time immemorial" which is a made up word. Then UGLE or any lodge should be using the word regular or irregular if we are going off the ancient time. And when I say craft I mean the work, the character, the making of the man, which can be found in the early days of Egypt.
You might want to click on that link again UGLE came together by four lodges in 1717-1723. My argument is No one should be protesting regular and irregular when it wasn't did back then. Usually in 1717 in today's time is considered somewhat ancient.
No. Not UGLE. That occurred later. This was the Premier Grand Lodge or Grand Lodge of London and Westminster.
Your right my regards, I read it wrong. But that doesn't regard the fact that those first four lodges wasn't chartered.
Of course I did and it refers to every regular Mason concerning clandestine. But that doesn't mean I can't think of something like this. Like its ban. We have agreed those four lodges didn't care for regular or irregular because they are "time immemorial" which means in today's time they can be considered clandestine lodges that later in 1813 came to form UGLE. My point is to get a universal brotherhood to become one and stop throwing around terms like regular and irregular hopefully in the future.
Yes the London lodge. The link you provided states in the 1660's that's when non-operative lodges was existing without a charter or warrant.
Question : Do you not consider anyone clandestine or irregular ?
Yes I do. I will not go against my obligation. I will not share the secrets with those clandestine or irregular. This is only a thought or debate I considered interesting. Hopefully can be establish in the future because from this debate it want happen universal or as a unity too many Egos. And that's from both sides. PHA and Mainstream.
The rabbit hole just goes deeper and deeper turn after turn