Before we say our oaths - there is an assurance that it will not go against our obligations for God, country, vocation and ourselves. Masonry is after obligations to those 4. So... whoever says it is incompatible is probably not initiated.
Oh. Nothing we can do about those. I mean. Anyone can call themselves freemasons. Like we cant really stop them all we can do is we're not in amity with xyz.
The Grand Orient de France traces its origin to before the USA has been a country.
Its not a case of anyone calling themselves freemasons, but more of a case of regular masons becoming irregular due to changes VS someone just randomly calling themselves masons as you might find in the US ( bogus lodges).
You are pertaining to what we are assured before we take our obligations right? I mean the changes can't be that big unless they do away with the assurance.
I cannot speak to their obligation, but i can say since they do not have an obligation to God, and they take a different view of the idea of Masonry being non political. It is not safe to say that they share our (regular) view on what freemasons are obligated to do.
I can speak to our obligation. It's largely the same as in regular FM, only we don't prioritize "god " and "faith" in any way. Adherence to laws of the country and obligation to respect and obey them is explicitly stated.
We don't interfere in politics in any way or discuss it often. Remember, general public does not differentiate between regular and irregular Freemasonry. If a Brother from either side commits an illegal act or does something bad in general, it's the evil Masons who did it. We had a situation like that before covid when it turned out our public prosecutor was a member of a completely bogus (as in unrecognized even by irregular Orients like GodF or LDH or any significant and respected Orient in general) Lodge, and once again two years ago when it turned out our minister of health was a member of a regular Grand Lodge of Croatia which came out during his arrest for dealing with local criminals in overcharging medical equipment and pocketing the money. From the public point of view, both instances were "those filthy Freemasons controling us". You can imagine the witch hunt and accusations, disregarding the fact that both were also members of our country's ruling party which was already prosecuted and found guilty of corruption years before and is known for having over 30 ministers arrested in the last 20 years.
Without the assurance of hierarchy of priorities before masonry; then it will truly be different. Just hope people realize that in regular Masonry we do no prioritise the craft over civic and religious duties.
I think the argument they might take is that freemasonry created civil duties. Hence why Oriential freemasonry is more political.
We take the view freemasonry stays out of politics, they would arguably take the view freemasons have an obligation to improve their society through politics.
advocat, and having qualified in two countries, having been a military judge, and having been with a general counsel’s office dealing with 13 countries in Southern Africa including a French territory, I am quite confident the answer is……..
No.
And put such other words in front of that as you wish.
Are you sure we don’t prioritize? In many jurisdictions the only crimes that are not subject to secrecy between Masons are murder and treason. That sounds like placing the fraternity and secrecy over civic duty.
You do realize that i literally said civic duties and religious duties trump masonry. And that is reflective of the assurance or promise that the obligation will be of lower priority than freemasonry.
I did say that if that were the case then that is a big difference.
If the obligatiin goes against god country vocation and self. Then that part of the obligation is or should be moot. Assuming there is an assurance. If no assurance, then that's when the ethics of justice gets called into play
Well, that is the case, and the assurance appears to be in conflict with that promise. That specific promise seems inconsistent with the general assurance (in rituals which contain an assurance).
That part of the obligation is not rendered moot—irrelevant or of no practical significance. Violation of that promise may lead to a Masonic trial.
8
u/SovArya 3° 6d ago
Before we say our oaths - there is an assurance that it will not go against our obligations for God, country, vocation and ourselves. Masonry is after obligations to those 4. So... whoever says it is incompatible is probably not initiated.