Tradition
Mar 12, 2013 10:52:16 GMT 9.5
Post by stepnwolf on Mar 12, 2013 10:52:16 GMT 9.5
You may well wonder how the Pope found his way into a discussion on Freemasonry. But both the new Pope, whoever he may be, and Freemasonry find themselves in similar predicaments: to maintain the traditions handed down to us, and at the same time to strike off into new areas that answer the needs of the 21st century.
Both the Pope and the Grand Lodges wield the same kind of absolute power, in spite of the lesson taught in one of the higher degrees.
Of late Paul has been trying to get us to define essential Freemasonry with little success. The other side of the coin is what in Masonry can we get rid of without ceasing to be Freemasonry. The Church attempted more or less the same thing in Vatican II, with as little success. In the Church the traditionalists reversed many of the findings of the Council and we are not much further ahead than we were in 1962.
In Freemasonry the opposite seems to be true and that without a Vatican II. We are gradually loosing our traditions to become just another fraternal organization. To give the devil his due, some many may look upon admission of women as one of the lost traditions of an all-male brotherhood.
In which direction do we wish to go? A federation of loosely grouped Lodges without omnipotent grand lodges? Do we break up Scottish Rite and York Rite bodies into independent chapters? Do we stop insisting on the onerous duty of memorization so that more brothers can go up the line? There are many ways to go in a liberalized Freemasonry, but do we want to go there?
Both the Pope and the Grand Lodges wield the same kind of absolute power, in spite of the lesson taught in one of the higher degrees.
Of late Paul has been trying to get us to define essential Freemasonry with little success. The other side of the coin is what in Masonry can we get rid of without ceasing to be Freemasonry. The Church attempted more or less the same thing in Vatican II, with as little success. In the Church the traditionalists reversed many of the findings of the Council and we are not much further ahead than we were in 1962.
In Freemasonry the opposite seems to be true and that without a Vatican II. We are gradually loosing our traditions to become just another fraternal organization. To give the devil his due, some many may look upon admission of women as one of the lost traditions of an all-male brotherhood.
In which direction do we wish to go? A federation of loosely grouped Lodges without omnipotent grand lodges? Do we break up Scottish Rite and York Rite bodies into independent chapters? Do we stop insisting on the onerous duty of memorization so that more brothers can go up the line? There are many ways to go in a liberalized Freemasonry, but do we want to go there?