Freemasonry is today divided into rival obediences and international federations. They should not be confused with the different masonic rites.
by Massimo Introvigne
Article 6 of 8. Read article 1, article 2, article 3, article 4, and article 5.
There is no single Freemasonry. To avoid confusion in the archipelago of names and acronyms, it is first necessary to distinguish between obediences and rites, two realities that are often confused. Obediences are administrative federations of lodges or national groups of lodges, which accept the priority of an original lodge or at least agree to submit to some coordination. Rituals are systems of masonic degrees, the ceremonies of which they prescribe.
Within the same obedience, different rites may be practiced without resulting in schism. Conversely, the same rite can be found in different obediences. One can see here an analogy with the fact that within Catholicism the Latin rite, the Syriac rite, the Byzantine rite, and so on coexist, without departing from the one Catholic Church. The analogy, however, should not be taken literally. It applies especially to variations on the theme within the first three degrees. For the higher degrees, the rite is more than just a ceremonial variation. It is an initiatory path, with specific characteristics and teachings that are transmitted in the different degrees.
All this is clear in theory. In practice, questions of rite have often led to schisms even as far as obediences are concerned. Rites have their own leaders—distinct from those of obediences. It has happened that rivalries and conflicts have arisen between the two leadership groups, although in theory they should exercise their jurisdiction over different areas.
On the level of rival groups of obediences we can distinguish:
(a) The obedience of the United Grand Lodge of England, recognized by the majority of world Freemasons as the Mother Grand Lodge for the whole world. Two main texts, “Principles for Grand Lodge Recognition” of 1929 and “Aims and Relationships of the Craft” of 1938 (revised in 1949), set the criteria for recognition of Masonic “regularity” by the United Grand Lodge. According to these documents, “regularity” must be threefold. First, of origin: founding by a Grand Lodge already recognized as regular or three regular lodges is required. Second, of territory: only one Grand Lodge can be recognized as regular in any country. Third, of doctrine, including belief in God as the Great Architect of the Universe, the use of a “book of sacred law” —usually the Bible, but another traditional sacred book is permissible for lodges operating in countries other than the Christian West—, the exclusion of women, and the prohibition of political discussions in lodges.
This basis is asserted to be deduced from Anderson’s Constitutions, although there is no shortage of debate about their interpretation. The mainline Freemasonries of the most important Latin countries (France, Spain, Latin America) lost recognition of their “regularity” since the 19th century. They were accused of admitting atheists into their ranks, not using the Bible, and dealing with political issues.
In fact, Anderson’s Constitutions, discussed in the fourth installment of this series, excluded the “stupid Atheist.” In the 20th century, certain Belgian and French Freemasons argued that the admission of atheists would not have been forbidden by Anderson and his friends as long as they were not “stupid,” i.e., they were capable of arguing philosophically in favor of their atheism. But certainly Anderson’s intention was to exclude all atheists, and the Grand Lodge of London never seriously considered the argument.
The Freemasonry of the Grand Orient of Italy, widely in the majority in the country, had been readmitted in 1972 into communion with the United Grand Lodge of England. From that communion it was again excluded in 1993 following a controversial judicial investigations into the political and business activities of some lodges, and the resulting internal crisis. A “Regular Grand Lodge of Italy” separated from the Grand Orient and was recognized by London, but it remains a much smaller obedience compared with the Grand Orient.
(b) Since 1961, “liberal” obediences, including the Grand Orients of France, Belgium, and Germany (but in the latter country there is also a “regular” Grand Lodge of English obedience) and the Grand Lodge of Italy (the second largest Italian obedience after the Grand Orient) were united in the CLIPSAS (Centre de Liaison et d’Information des Puissances maçonniques signataires de l’Appel de Strasbourg, “Center of Liaison and Information of the Masonic Powers Signatories of the Strasbourg Appeal”). From CLIPSAS in 1996, however, the Grand Orient of France itself and other obediences separated due to various disputes to form the AMIL (Intercontinental Liberal Masonic Association), an entity itself troubled by dissensions. They prompted the Grand Orient of France to favor the birth of SIMPA (International Secretariat of Non-dogmatic Masonic Powers), which was also joined by the Grand Lodge of Italy and most of the European obediences of traditional liberal bent. The AMIL remained a predominantly African entity, while CLIPSAS was joined by numerous female obediences and others linked to “Egyptian rites,” to which we will return. However, the Grand Orient of France and most organizations that were part of SIMPA re-joined the CLIPSAS in the 21st century. The French Grand Orient left it again in 2019, and continues to work for some federation representing all international liberal obediences, which appears problematic at present.
Liberal obediences denounce “the dogmatism and social conservatism of Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry.” They admit atheists and agnostics—for the Grand Orient of France, from 1877, the date when the obligation to refer to the Great Architect of the Universe was suppressed, with consequent separation from the United Grand Lodge of England. Sometimes—but not always—they admit women too, as do the Grand Lodge of Italy and from 2010 the Grand Orient of France. And they do not renounce political action in favor of “human rights and democracy,” as stated the “Strasbourg Appeal.” Although not all adhere to the international associations mentioned, Spanish-speaking Freemasonries are generally on similar positions.
(c) The literature of the United Grand Lodge of England calls “fringe masonry” the set of obediences whose interests lie mainly on the side of occultism and esotericism. These interests since the 19th century are largely discouraged in “regular” Freemasonry and have therefore taken the path of “fringe” organizations. Some of these organizations are not simply “irregular” in that they claim to be concerned only with degrees above the third, recognizing the United Grand Lodge as having universal jurisdiction over the first three degrees, known as the “blue” degrees. However, their ideology departs considerably from the spirit and mentality of “regular” Freemasonry, so they often end up endowing themselves with their own blue degrees as well, thus becoming not only “fringe” but also “irregular.” The most widespread “fringe” obediences adopt ancient Egyptian-inspired symbolism and constitute the family—divided into numerous rival obediences—of “Egyptian” freemasonries, whose historical antecedent is represented by the Egyptian High Freemasonry created by Alessandro di Cagliostro (1743–1795).
(d) Certainly “irregular” (in the sense of being considered non-regular by the United Grand Lodge of England, faithful to Anderson’s Constitutions which, as we have seen, exclude women) —as well as “fringe” —are the female and mixed obediences born with the main purpose of recognizing women as full members of Freemasonry (as opposed to those who were born as male-only and admitted women later, such as the Grand Orient of France). The main one is the mixed order Le Droit Humain, founded in 1893 in France by the feminist Maria Deraismes (1828–1894) and Senator Georges Martin (1844–1916). From the female and mixed obediences should be distinguished the “adoption” lodges, mere auxiliaries of Freemasonry that organize the brides and daughters of Masons without the latter claiming actual membership in the order. The largest such organization is the Order of the Eastern Star, which today can also be joined by male Master Masons.
This outline is a map, not a judgment. It is not possible to solve all problems on the basis of the simple “regular”/“irregular” dichotomy or of international recognitions. Sometimes, the latter are granted by also taking into account reasons of political expediency. Rather, each obedience must be examined in its characteristics and history.
