My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

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!

Exact Standards of Regularity?

Michaelstedman81

Premium Member
Can anyone let me know the EXACT standards of what makes a lodge or GL "regular" with a source? If you don't have a source, I'll take the hearsay stuff. Wanting to compare it to the following that I found in an paper by Harry Bundy, who was a Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Colorado, titled "Determining Recognition":

"In October, 1921, a convention of the International Masonic ServiceAssociations was held in Geneva, Switzerland, at which a system of
determining regularity was adopted. Naturally the English system governed
and seven tests were set by which regularity could be measured. This has
become the measure of regularity the world over. These are:

1. That it was regularly established by three or more recognized Lodges or legalized by one or more recognized Grand Lodges;
2. That it is independent and self-governing and exercises supreme and exclusive jurisdiction;
3. That it limits membership to men, believing in a S.A.O.T.U., and obligated on the book of sacred law recognized by the initiate;
4. That it requires the display of the three great lights in every Lodge at work;
5. That it bars controversial, political, and religious questions from its Lodges;
6. That it is founded upon and adheres to the ancient landmarks, customs, and usages of the Craft;
7. That it does not maintain fraternal intercourse with bodies which violate these principles."

I was also tracking that there was something somewhere that said that a lodge/GL was supposed to be able to trace its roots back to the UGLE... Can someone pinpoint that for me as well?
 
Last edited:

towerbuilder7

Moderator
Premium Member
Sup Brother........Not sure if he will have the exact wording in print, but Paul M Bessel has done some good research, and put together a few sites which discuss Regularity and Recgonized bodies of Masonry............Google his name, check him out, and I will start looking myself.......Oh, and I havent forgotten about that PHA Lineage for MWPHGLoTX...........I just got the book back from a Brother that borrowed it..........will get you lineage and dates soon as I can............VINCE
 

towerbuilder7

Moderator
Premium Member
Sorry about the typo------I meant RECOGNIZED bodies of Masonry...........Since he discusses Regularity and Recognition, he may have prerequisites listed........check that, and let me know if he doesnt.....I will check a few sources I have in my library..............VINCE
 

chrmc

Registered User
Not to hijack the conversation, but as far as I understand the whole requirement of sovereign territory is a major part of the issue with GLOT recognizing their Prince Hall counterpart. The current laws simply does not allow there to be two Grand Lodges in Texas.
 

Benton

Premium Member
...except for the fact that the majority of other states have seem to have gotten over this issue. Further, does the compact not state that it recognizes that we share a common territory? I don't have a copy of it, but I could swear that's one of the statements in it...
 

Michaelstedman81

Premium Member
Sup Brother........Not sure if he will have the exact wording in print, but Paul M Bessel has done some good research, and put together a few sites which discuss Regularity and Recgonized bodies of Masonry............Google his name, check him out, and I will start looking myself.......Oh, and I havent forgotten about that PHA Lineage for MWPHGLoTX...........I just got the book back from a Brother that borrowed it..........will get you lineage and dates soon as I can............VINCE

What's up, Bro? No worries on the lineage thing. I haven't been too active on the site too much lately with other things going on. If and when you do post something about it, send me a PM letting me know that you posted on it. Just in case I don't see the thread get bumped. I do appreciate it. Can't wait to see what you have on it.

If the Lodge can trace it's Charter to the GLE/UGLE?

Here's the website Bro. Vince was mentioning....

Recognitions

Bro. Blake, thanks for the link, however, when I go to the page that has all the different links for Recognition, the one that is for "Standards of Recognition" is a broken link...lol Just my luck lol. All of the other ones work, but when clicking on that particular one it says the file does not exist on the server..lol

...except for the fact that the majority of other states have seem to have gotten over this issue. Further, does the compact not state that it recognizes that we share a common territory? I don't have a copy of it, but I could swear that's one of the statements in it...

Bro. Benton, I have a copy of the compact from 2007. I don't have it right in front of me right now, but if memory serves me well, I do believe that it does state something in there about sharing the common territory. I can email you a copy if you would like. PM your email address if you would like it.
 

BryanMaloney

Premium Member
Not to hijack the conversation, but as far as I understand the whole requirement of sovereign territory is a major part of the issue with GLOT recognizing their Prince Hall counterpart. The current laws simply does not allow there to be two Grand Lodges in Texas.

"Sovereign territory" is not an ancient Masonic principle.
 

chrmc

Registered User
"Sovereign territory" is not an ancient Masonic principle.

You and I can easily agree on that, but the 2010 version of the GLOT laws that I have, does read as follows in Title 1, chapter 5, art 9.
"Rights exclusive in Texas. This Grand Lodge does not recognize the right of any other Grand or Subordinate Lodge of another jurisdiction to exercise any rights, powers or privileges within the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge."

I don't know the "Compact" which Brother Benton mentions, but please enlighten me.

But back to the original posters question. I do believe that in addition to the good info provided by Brother Bowden, you should check The Masonic Committee on Recognition that has a lot to say in this matter as far as I understand. Commission on Information for Recognition
 

towerbuilder7

Moderator
Premium Member
Good Evening, Brethren.......To add some enlightenment, the reason why the Compact was drafted was to allow for the "Mutual Recognition" between GLoTx and MWPHGLoTx.....Both GL's are well steeped in History and Legacy, (1837 and 1873, respectively). Both GL's are indeed Sovereign within each State in which they exist, and I don't think I should have to go into reasons why there was even a NEED for a MWPHGL in each State. Black Men were not welcome to sit in Lodge with White Masons, as was the order of the day in every facet of social fabric in America. Sadly, that is STILL the sentiment among some Men today; they want "THEIR" MASONRY to remain segregated, on both sides. Separate But Equal may be the Status Quo, but not the
desire of young progressives in the Craft. My wish is to retain BOTH GL's, because of the History and Legacy attached to both; however, allow for Men who have the desire be able TO CHOOSE to LEARN about one another while IN LODGE. This is one way we can "improve ourselves in Masonry".


And, to address the 2010 Masonic Law which you quoted Brother, the Compact should allow for interpretation of the Law which allows for the recognition of the Texas Prince Hall Affiliated Jurisdiction, since MWPHGLoTX was already and has been here since 1873. Each Jurisdiction remains Mutually Exclusive in their own right and form of Masonry, and simply acknowledges one another as both REGULAR AND RECOGNIZED. The lack of Intervisitation between Lodges, and the agreement made to withhold Masonic Intercourse and discussion regarding Ritualistic Matter, were two of the points that made this Compact HOLLOW in my view.

Each Man is entitled to his opinion, as am I, but I got the feeling that this Compact was a formality to assist MWPHGLoTX in the acquisition of its recognition status as a Grand Jurisdiction with the UGLE. In order to possess recognition by the UGLE, a Prince Hall Affiliated GL had to have already possessed the status of Mutual Recognition in the State WITH the Mainstream Grand Body from which it hails. Connecticut was the first to blaze the trail in 1989, and all but 9 States have followed suit. Texas may be more progressive than some OTHER States in the South, but that's not really saying much when you consider the fact that States like Arkansas and Kentucky STILL consider PHA Masonry to be Clandestine. It's time to raise the bar in Texas. We could be that MUCH greater with an enhanced knowledge and understanding of one another. Just my thoughts, Brothers..........

Bro. Vincent C. Jones, Sr., Lodge Chaplain, Bayou City Lodge #228
Prince Hall Affiliation, Free and Accepted Masonry, Houston, Texas
Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas
 
Top