Grand Lodge of France
Does the Grand lodge of
France place the Bible on their altar?....Yes.
Do they believe in the
Who formed them?...
the Grand Lodge of England in 1728.
Do they hold communion
with the Grand Orient of France?....No.
Do they hold communion
with female Masons?...No.
Have they ever be
recognized before?...Yes [prior to WWII]
Are they the senior G.L.
Then, is the G. L.
National of France in violation of the American
Doctrine of Exclusive Jurisdiction?...Yes.
When did they recognize
Afro-American Prince Hall Masons?...1952.
Do other Countries have
multiple Grand Lodges?...Yes.
Who are they?
Naming only a few, they include: Mexico, Brazil, and Germany.
Do all USA Grand Lodge
recognize the same Foreign Lodges?...No.
Can you be regular but
Do Foreign Grand Lodges
operate on US soil?...Yes
For a more documented and in-depth
report, The Grand Lodge of France –White Paper is reprinted below.
Grand Lodge of France - White Paper
Masonic Recognition and The Grand Lodge of
A Report to the Grand Lodge of Minnesota
Abstract: The purpose of the Grand Lodge of
Minnesota in producing this position paper is to state in a brief and easy to
read form, the most pertinent reasons why the Grand Lodge of Minnesota chose to
and stands by its decision to recognize the Grand Lodge of France as a regular
and recognizable grand lodge. With the exception of eyewitness
verification, the foundation listed is concurrent with the time we achieved
amity with the Grand Lodge of France on March 30, 2001. Because reliable
researchers have assembled so much good and up to date data, the purpose of this
paper will not be to restate everything in its entirety that prompted our
convictions. Each statement herein is referenced to a resource that the
reader can access to satisfy his need for greater detail,
and in most cases for further resource links.
As the term grand lodge or grand lodges are frequently
used, we ask the readers' forbearance by shortening this to GL or GLs.
Other frequently used terms will likewise be shortened once explained.
Recognition of The Grand Lodge of France.
At the Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge of
Minnesota on March 30, 2001, the standing committee
on External Relations gave its annual report and recommended that two foreign
grand lodges had applied in the
usual manner to the GL of MN within that past year for recognition; the Grand
Lodge of Morocco for first time recognition and the Grand Lodge of France for
recognition and restoration of Masonic relations. The Committee had
researched both, found that they met the requirements of the GL of MN, and
recommended recognition; both passed the ballot nearly unanimously.
Synopsis of this White Paper Report:
Of first and foremost importance, it must be emphasized
that the Grand Lodge of Minnesota is a sovereign, regular and independent grand
lodge, and as such reserves its right to act in its own best interests and on
the principles it considers important. The ability to recognize another
grand lodge that the Grand Lodge of Minnesota is satisfied as having met all
questions of regularity is one of those rights, and to defend that action
against boycott and politics is another. We expect no more or less respect in
this situation than should be afforded one Mason to another,
or one Masonic grand lodge to another.
This brief paper addresses the issues involved in the
Grand Lodge of Minnesota's (re-) recognition of the Grand Lodge of France (GLdF).
Reading through it will acquaint the reader with the basic issues faced in
determining the regularity of this or any Masonic grand lodge. Great
vigilance was exercised in the search for Masonic `light' - `truth' and reliable
information. Briefly, the procedure was as follows.
Standards of regularity, as outlined by reliable sources
were reviewed and conformity of the applicant grand lodge was compared. Of
the three standards, only two of them invited serious question - these were
Territorial Exclusivity and adherence to the Ancient Landmarks.
As the GL of Minnesota
and the GLdF had not formally severed relations
that had existed since at least 1919, the issue of recognizing another grand
lodge in a country was moot. However, the fact remains that the GLdF
was the `senior' GL in France and recognized by at least 23 US GLs
before the Grande Loge Nationale Française
(GLNF), which came much later, sought recognition from these US GLs.
That the GLNF had not
sought permission from GLdF to be recognized by
US GLs sets a precedent if one needed to be
established. (See Appendix A for brief discussion of territorial
Careful inspection of the
Constitutions of the GLdF reveal that they meet
each requirement as detailed by The Commission on Information for
Recognition of the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America, a
standard generally accepted by most grand lodges. Eyewitnesses from
Minnesota and Prince Hall Masonry have confirmed conformity.
End of synopsis -
please read on for more detailed report.
Recognition Standards of Grand Lodges
Although most grand lodges and
advisory bodies have somewhat different standards, they all agree on several
crucial points. The following are the Standards adopted for use by The
Commission on Information for Recognition of the Conference of Grand Masters of
Masons in North America (or Conference of Grand Masters of North
America - COGMNA). This commission was
established in 1952 to provide information to
constituent GLs as to whether or not it considers
that the GL in question meets the requirements of regularity, but it has no
authority to recommend or advise. The
Commission consists of six members who each serve six years; one new member,
usually a DGM, is elected each year. Their list of standards includes most of
those generally considered important to regulating the Craft:
I. Legitimacy of Origin:
That the Grand Lodge requesting recognition has been
lawfully formed by at least three just and duly constituted Lodges, or that it
has been legally recognized by a Grand Lodge in fraternal relation with the
Grand Lodge from whom recognition has been requested.
That such Grand Lodge must be
"under the tongue of good repute" for an adequate number of years
before such fraternal recognition is extended. An existence for
such a period as satisfies the Grand Lodge whose recognition is sought, during
which time the highest standards of the Craft have been practiced
[sic] by the applicant Grand Lodge, may cure what would otherwise be considered
illegitimacy of origin.
II. Territorial Sovereignty
That it is an independent,
self-governing organization, having Masonic authority within the governmental
territory over which it assumes jurisdiction -- whether Country, Province, State
or other political subdivision; or else shares such exclusive territorial
jurisdiction with another Grand Lodge by mutual consent and/or treaty.
III. Ancient Landmarks (as listed in annual proceedings)
That it subscribes fundamentally, ritualistically and in
all its relations to the Ancient Landmarks, Customs and Usages of the Craft.
This requires adherence to the following:
Monotheism -- An
unalterable and continuing belief in God.
The Volume of The Sacred
Law -- an essential part of the furniture of the Lodge.
Prohibition of the
discussion of Religion and Politics.
In addition to the standards on the Commission's list,
most grand lodges also insist:
That its membership is
composed of men only.
That lodge communications
be opened to the Glory of the Grand Architect of the Universe
That women or any members
of co-masonic organizations may not visit tiled
That it requires the
presence of the Three Great Lights of Masonry in the lodges while at work,
and that obligations are taken on the VSL
That the Grand Lodge
shall have sovereign jurisdiction over the Lodges under its control and have
undisputed authority over the Craft of Symbolic Degrees (Entered Apprentice,
Fellowcraft and Master Mason) within its
jurisdiction; and shall not in any way be subject to or divide such
authority with any other power claiming any control or supervision over
COGMNA Standards of Regularity As Applied to the Grand
Lodge Of France
I. Legitimacy of Origin
The Grand Lodge of France was chartered by the Grand Lodge
of England in 1728 in full accord with the latter's requirements
<#_ftn4>. French Freemasonry, like that of England, underwent
splits and mergers during the 18th & 19th centuries, but to our knowledge,
no question has ever been raised about the GLdF's
legitimacy of origin.
II. Territorial Sovereignty
The GL of MN officially recognized the Grand Lodge of
France at its January 21-22, 1919 Grand Communication. It is unclear
if relations existed prior to WWI. Annual proceedings indicate that amity
continued and representatives were appointed until the 1940 Grand Communication
of the GL of MN, when there was no mention of any French GL and GM Nordby's
address contains the ominous statement, ". . .in view of the banishment of
Masonic Lodges in certain parts of Europe . . ." . All disciplines of
Freemasonry were outlawed and virtually ceased to exist in areas controlled by
the Axis powers until 1945-46.
From a review of all subsequent Annual Proceedings it
appears that the Grand Lodge of Minnesota was not in communication with any
French GL during the time of restoration of Freemasonry in post WWII France.
In other words, the GL of MN had never officially severed relations with the
Grand Lodge of France when French Freemasonry was devastated by the Germans in
WWII, and it simply did not pick up relations at the
conclusion of hostilities. This was apparently not uncommon as other
USGrand Lodges seem to have behaved similarly
Based on recommendation of the Commission for Information
of the Conference of Grand Masters of North America <#_ftn6>, the GL of
MN officially recognized the National Grand Lodge of France (GLNF) in 1954, as
did many other US jurisdictions. This was at a time when many
US GLs also were simultaneously in amity with the
Grand Lodge of France (GLdF)
<#_ftn7>. When action to discontinue relations with the GLdF
was recommended by COGMNA in 1964-65, all US jurisdictions then in active
amity with GLdF did so. There were,
however, a few US GLs who had lost touch with GLdF
in 1940-41 and had neither restored nor broken relations with them at the end of
hostilities, and which took no action of any kind - Minnesota among them.
This is not to say that the GL of MN relies on this
technicality to rationalize its position. The decision, based on careful
research, to recommend recognition of GLdF would
have been affirmative in any event. Nor does the GL of MN have any
interest in choosing one grand lodge over another - it merely exerts its right,
in this case, to
recognize two legitimate GLs that happen to be in
the same country. The recognition of only one GL in a country being the
exception, not the rule in global Freemasonry (see Appendix B)
III. Conformity with Ancient Landmarks (see also
To address most of the issues involved with established
conditions of regularity, it may be enlightening for the reader to compare the
list of Ancient Landmarks set down by the COGMNA and other GLs
with the exact wording of the "Declaration of Principles" as stated in
the constitution of the Grand Lodge of France:
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES (December 5, 1955)
The Grand Lodge of France
works to the Glory 0f The Grand Architect Of The Universe.
In conformity with the
traditions of the Order, three Great Lights are placed on the altar of the
Lodges: the Square, the Compass and a Volume of the Sacred Law.
Masons take their Obligations on these three Lights
The Grand Lodge of France
proclaims its unfailing loyalty and total devotion to our Country.
Neither the Grand Lodge of
France nor its constituent Lodges shall meddle in matters of political or
Concerning principles other
than those defined above, the Grand Lodge of France refers to the Old
Charges, especially with regard to the respect of the traditions of
Freemasonry and to the scrupulous and strict practice of Ritual and
Symbolism as means of access to the initiatic
content of the Order.
One condition not specifically addressed in the
"Principles" is that membership is composed of men only, and that is
specified in Article I of the Constitution:
"It is an alliance of free men of good repute, of
any race, nationality and creed."
The reader will also note in V (above) that principles not
specifically defined are covered in "The Old Charges", which
emphatically states that Freemasonry is an organization of men only. All
of the Constitutions and referenced materials can be read and verified in French
or English language on the Grand Lodge of France website at http://www.gldf.org
Additionally, strict adherence to the above listed
landmarks has been verified by at least one member of the Grand Lodge of
Minnesota who attended a number of lodge communications <#_ftn12>, and
also by a large number of North American Prince Hall Affiliated Masons,
including at least 3 Grand Masters. It should be noted that in 1952 the
Grand Lodge of France declared unilateral recognition of all Prince Hall
Affiliated Brethren, largely based on relations established with PHA lodges of
black US servicemen stationed in post WWII France.
A lot of misinformation exists on this subject.
There are allegations of irregularity (see Appendix D). How do you know if
the information being distributed by the Grand Lodge of Minnesota is accurate,
when others are saying different things? The answer is this: The Grand
Lodge of Minnesota has evidence to prove every statement in this paper. We would
be delighted to provide detailed, precise citations to prove all our statements,
and encourage everyone who hears anything different to ask for similar citations
and proof of any contrary allegations they might hear.
Respectfully & Fraternally
MW Bro. The Honorable David Bouschor
MW Bro. Ralph Hultquist
MW Bro. Rodney Larson
Bro. Anthony Cicchese
Bro. Dexter Pehle
Bro. John Worlein, Chairman
End of Position Paper
Appendices & References Follow
Appendix A - A Brief Overview of Some Inconsistencies
in Masonic Recognition
The only rule that seemingly exists in international
Masonic recognition is that there is no universal rule. If one Grand Lodge (US
or international) could only be in amity with other Grand Lodges which
recognized the exact same list of GLs, there
virtually would be no recognition factor whatsoever. Every Grand Lodge in
the world, and in the U.S., recognizes Grand Lodges that in turn recognize other
Grand Lodges that are not recognized by the first one.
To belabor this point, the following inconsistencies
between US Grand Lodges are noted, but be aware that these are by no means all
differences, only a small sampling:
Mexico has at least 26 Grand Lodges with no uniformity of
recognition whatsoever; 23 of them are recognized by at least one US GL, but
only one of them is recognized by all US GLs (York
Grand Lodge - which claims all of Mexico as its jurisdiction). While four
US GLs recognize 23 or more Mexican GLs,
four other US GLs recognize only 4 or 5 of the
Mexican GLs and Puebla
Grand Lodge is recognized only by one (GL of Michigan).
We do not even agree on the grand lodges of our Canadian
neighbors, of the 10 provincial Grand Lodges, US grand Lodges agree on
recognition of only 9 of them. At this time, 28 US GLs
believe that the Grand Lodge of Newfoundland & Labrador is recognizable,
while 23 do not.
In the Caribbean, all US GLs
agree on only one - the GL of Puerto Rico. Central and South American
countries have multiple grand lodges, such as Brazil which has 29 Grand Lodges,
28 of them recognized to one extent or another by US GLs,
and only two of these by all US jurisdictions. The GL of Vermont is alone
in recognizing 27 of the 28. The `territories' of these may overlap
extensively and they may not necessarily be in accord with each other either.
Central and South America GLs seem quite different
from other jurisdictions in that territory is not as defined and disputed as it
is in US, Canadian and European Grand Lodges' jurisdictions.
Of the 31 European Grand Lodges that are recognized by any
US GL, amazingly only 10 are recognized by all 51 US GLs.
Of 12 African GLs only one is
recognized by all 51 US GLs - South Africa - and no
US GL recognizes them all. The remaining 11 are all in amity with some US GLs,
but this may be as few as only 2 or 3. The Grand lodge of Michigan has
taken the chance and has recognized most African grand lodges, sometimes alone
in that opinion.
In one of the most interesting examples of international
Masonic recognition, you will find that every U.S. Grand Lodge recognizes the
United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE), even though the UGLE recognizes "The
Regular Grand Lodge of Italy", a grand lodge that every U.S. Grand Lodge
considers clandestine and irregular. Still, no one accuses the UGLE of being
irregular for doing this.
Conditions in a jurisdiction may change as well. A
dozen US GLs recognized the GL of Morocco in 2000
& 2001, which had been recently formed by the requisite three lodges.
At least one of these lodges has reportedly withdrawn to join another grand
lodge being chartered in Morocco by a third party, thereby leaving only two very
small lodges remaining in this GL. Nonetheless, this `Grand Lodge' of
Morocco will continue to be the only one to `officially' exist in that country.
There are, of course, many, many more world wide grand
lodges that are not recognized by any US jurisdiction - and a sizeable portion
of these may be found `regular' in practice (see Appendix D for discussion on
regularity), but would never be recognized if a policy of exclusive territorial
jurisdiction is applied.
In almost all Eastern European countries, there has been
almost a `gold rush' to charter new Grand Lodges, some of which had existing and
very probably regular Grand Lodges or Grand Lodges in "exile".
Some Western Grand Lodges may even be seen to be in the Masonic charter
"franchise" business. At the most recent meeting of the
Conference of Grand Masters Commission on Recognition Information, almost all of
the lodges which had been approved as "regular" had been chartered
very recently by one Western European grand lodge.
If the policy of exclusive jurisdiction is applied, these
new `franchise' grand lodges will be the only recognizable one in that region or
country - older established grand lodges or "grand lodges in exile"
will not even be considered on their merits or on precedent.
In summary (Doctrine in North America)
Exclusive jurisdiction seems to be a doctrine that has
been developed and best applied in North America, where a small unit such as a
state or province makes up the jurisdiction. The doctrine may even have
served a useful purpose in the earliest stages of Masonic expansion, but in the
20th & 21st centuries has only contributed to discrimination, isolation and
political dilemma. Some of this has only recently been addressed by the
co-recognition of several Prince Hall Affiliated Grand Lodges with their
`mainstream' counterpart grand lodges. This, of course, results
in multiple grand lodges existing in the same jurisdiction - effectively
negating the thrust of the doctrine.
The doctrine of exclusive jurisdiction may even have had a
very adverse consequence on North American Grand Lodges over the last 50 or more
years. Many Masons believe that in the wake of the meteoric increase of
Masonic membership during the period 1940 to 1962, and subsequent `glide slope'
decline, that the distinction of fraternity and exercise of the qualities &
tenets of The Craft have ceased to be fundamental in the philosophy of many
grand lodges - that Masonic obligation & integrity have been replaced by
mediocrity and that the pursuit of `light' has been replaced by politics &
The theory further broadens to speculate that isolation
from diverse Masonic philosophy and the richness of international fraternalism
has resulted in US Masonry operating "in a vacuum". The
richness and depth that attracted the great men of history to Masonry still
exist in our time - often in Lodges we "cannot" visit - but the
boundaries we erect may well prevent us from again discovering them.
Appendix B. The
American Doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction
In 1969 in its report on Brazil the Commission on
Information for Recognition stated:
"Perhaps it is well to face the fact right here that
exclusive jurisdiction does not mean absolutely
exclusive territorial jurisdiction. That more than one Grand Lodge may have
jurisdiction within a political domain is not intrinsically repugnant to
Freemasonry, for there are too many places on the
globe where such a condition exists, and with complete harmony. Exclusive
jurisdiction as an absolute condition applies only to the exclusive role of a
Grand Lodge over its members and Lodges and does not share that authority with
any other Masonic authority."
In 1979 in its report on the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of
Wisconsin the Commission stated:
"3. The doctrine of
exclusive territorial jurisdiction should not be used to challenge the
legitimacy of Masonic establishments which were in existence long before the
doctrine obtained respectable sanction."
In the 1992 Transactions of the Virginia Research Lodge
No. 1777; Stewart W. Miner, Past Grand Master of Virginia described thirteen
instances when American Grand Lodges ignored the doctrine of Exclusive
Territorial Jurisdiction. He made the following observations about the
doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction: "(a) that the Doctrine,
as originally conceived, no longer exists; (b) that the historic
application of the Doctrine, especially in the 19th Century, has been selective;
(c) that inconsistent applications of the Doctrine have encouraged challenge,
and (d) that when it has seemed prudent, American grand lodges have modified
their interpretations of the Doctrine to satisfy challenges at hand. This
process, I believe, is irreversible, and despite the
attempts of a few grand lodges to stem the tide by punitive action, their
efforts will fail, in the long run, and change will unquestionably
In its definition of Exclusive Jurisdiction, the
Commission on Information for Recognition of the Conference of Grand Masters
states "It is a basic principle that a Grand Lodge must be autonomous and
have sole and undisputed authority over its constituent lodges. This
cannot be shared with any other Masonic council or power." This must
be interpreted as saying that the American Doctrine can only be applied to those
Grand Lodges that have chosen it as a ruling principle and that it cannot be
applied to Grand Lodges in other parts of the world where custom and usage
At the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North
America in 1961 Past Grand Master N. Dean Rowe of Vermont said, "We should
yield to many of the customs and usages of the country where each [Grand Lodge]
is located. We base our decisions on legitimacy rather than injecting our own
theories of 'exclusive jurisdiction' into the picture, which we feel is of minor
The American Doctrine of Exclusive Jurisdiction is not an
Ancient Landmark. It is a widely misunderstood, often ignored North American
rule that repeatedly has been used to simply justify a position. Many U.S.
Grand Lodges recognized both the GLdF and the GLNF
for decades. However, when this policy became politically advantageous, several
of these Grand Lodges suddenly reversed their position, using the same policy to
insist that only one Grand Lodge could be recognized in a political subdivision.
This policy was ignored when the GLNF was formed in 1913 in the territory
occupied by the GLdF. Such inconsistencies certainly
challenge the validity of such a rule.
Appendix C - Elaboration of Regularity Issues Regarding
Very much confusion (accidental and intentional) seems to
exist regarding French Freemasonry. Henderson &
Pope in Freemasonry Universal state, "France has possibly the most complex
& diverse Masonic history of any country in the world".
Language and French political/religious history have undoubtedly had
considerable impact on this, as likely has centuries-long adversity with
The most common accusations regarding irregularity that
are leveled at the Grand Lodge of France are that they are atheists, have no
bible on the altar, allow women to sit in tiled sessions and that another grand
lodge is already recognized in France (the last issue of Exclusive Jurisdiction
has already been discussed elsewhere in this paper). The other
allegations are entirely a case of mistaken identity, and to adequately explain
how that happened requires a brief discussion of French Masonry and history.
French Masonry consists of a number of Grand Lodges:
men's, women's and co-Masonic. The three largest GLs
are all male only, they are The National Grand Lodge of France (GLNF) with
15-20,000 members, the Grand Lodge of France (GLdF)
with 28,000 members, and the Grand Orient of France (GOF or GOdF)
with 35-45,000 members 
All three came from the same source (the Grand Lodge of
England) but took very different directions. Much like what resulted in
the United Grand Lodges of England (UGLE), French Masonry also had splits and
consolidations in the 18th & 19th centuries, but the biggest departure
came in 1877 when the Grand Orient rewrote its constitution to allow "each
man to exercise his own conscience" with regard to belief in a supreme
being and whether the VSL would be on the altar of his lodge. In the context of
the time and situation of a church/state, with church usually siding with the
oppressor of private citizens, this may actually have been the correct Masonic
response - many North American GLs continued to
recognize GOF for many years after this event; even UGLE Lodges admitted GOF
brethren conditionally. To this day, possibly 1/3 of GOF lodges require a
belief in GAOTU and a Bible on their altars, even if
their Grand Lodge doesn't. To most world Masons, however,
GOF is labeled an "atheist" GL and seemingly has no interest in
associations with `regular' Freemasonry inside or outside of France.
Indeed, in recent years, GOF has begun to allow women masons from other obediences
to visit tiled communications, although it does not confer degrees on
This GL is the source of much confusion. Get the
initials straight: the Grand Orient of France (GOF) is sometimes confused with
the other French GLs but is the only French GL of
consequence to have abandoned the Old Charges and thus its regularity.
The Grand Lodge of France made no such changes to its
constitutions. It reorganized in 1894 and continued to practice the Craft
degrees as it had done previously. It does not permit women or men from
mixed gender lodges to visit, it requires a belief in the GAOTU of all members,
the Holy Bible (specifically) on the altar and obligations to be taken on that
Bible. It is also alleged that these conditions are not enforced - they
are. In one instance a lodge found with no Bible on its altar had its
Appendix D - 1
Regular, Irregular, Clandestine, and Recognized
First, there are questions about definitions. What is
regular versus irregular? What does clandestine mean, and who does the
[p. 226] Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia 
<#_ftn21>defines a regular lodge as one that has been legally constituted
and conforms to the laws of "a recognized" grand lodge. Every grand
lodge is recognized by some grand lodges, so does this mean every lodge that
complies with the rules of any grand lodge is "regular?" Almost
every attempt to find a clear definition of a "regular" lodge or grand
lodge leads to such complexity that the word confuses rather than clarifies
"Regular" might mean a grand lodge follows the
ancient landmarks of freemasonry, the ones said to be unchangeable. But what are
those ancient landmarks? Every grand lodge has a different answer. Some list
dozens of landmarks ( Kentucky has fifty-four, Nevada thirty-nine, Minnesota
twenty-six, Connecticut nineteen), some list just a few (Vermont has seven), and
some do not have any list but say that masons should observe the landmarks
without saying what they are (sometimes adding that they are unchangeable, while
at the same time considering and sometimes adopting changes in them). In some
grand lodges it is simply unclear, even to Grand Secretaries, what the policy of
that grand lodge is concerning the ancient landmarks.
If there is no agreement on what are the ancient landmarks
of freemasonry, and if "regular" means grand lodges that follow the
landmarks, there cannot be universal, or even close to universal agreement on
what constitutes regular masonry.
Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia defines
"clandestine" as a body that does not hold a charter from a superior
body having power to grant it, but makes it clear that this word is often
misleading and certainly unclear. The Freemasons' Guide and Compendium
says a clandestine lodge is one that has not been properly warranted or
chartered by any grand lodge. Thus, a lodge could be regular in its
workings, but clandestine because it was not chartered properly. Or, it could be
irregular because in someone's eyes it does not follow "proper" Masonic
practices, although it is not clandestine because it was properly chartered by a
grand lodge, even if it is a grand lodge that a particular other grand lodge
does not recognize.
There are no clear rules that allow anyone to decide which
grand lodges are regular or irregular, or clandestine, and use of these words
simply confuses reasonable discussions. Each grand lodge makes its own decisions
about which grand lodges it will recognize, based on various considerations. The
only useful terms are "grand lodges that are recognized by a particular
grand lodge at a particular time" and those which are not.
Appendix D - 2
Landmarks:  "What are
landmarks?" is a question often asked, but never determinately answered.
In ancient times, boundary stones were used as landmarks before title-deeds were
known, the removal of which was strictly forbidden by law. With respect to the
landmarks of Masonry, some restrict them to the O.B. signs, tokens and words.
Others include the ceremonies of initiation, passing and raising; and the form
dimensions and support; the ground, situation and covering; the ornaments,
furniture and jewels of a lodge, or their characteristic symbols. Some
think that the Order has no landmarks beyond its peculiar secrets. It is quite
clear, however, that the order against removing or altering the landmarks was
universally observed in all ages of the Craft.
Appendix E - BIBLIOGRAPHY
Elbert. The Landmarks of Freemasonry. New
York: Macoy Publishingand Masonic Supply Company,
Bessel, Paul M., "U.S.
Recognition of French Grand Lodges in the 1900s", HEREDOM, Vol. 5, 1996
Coil, Henry Wilson, et al. Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia.
Rev. ed. Revised by Allen E. Roberts. Richmond, Va.: Macoy
Publishing and Masonic Supply Company, 1996.
Commission on Information for
Recognition of the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North
America. Grand Lodge Recognition: A Symposium
on the Conditions of Grand Lodge Recognition. New York: Macoy
Publishing and Masonic Supply Company, 1956.
Conference of Grand Masters of Masons
in North America. "Reports
of the Commission on Information for Recognition." Annual
Henderson, Kent & Pope, Tony, Freemasonry
Universal - Volume 2 Williamstwon Victoria
Australia, Global Masonic Publications 2000
Jaunaux, Bro. Laurent, "A
Concise History of the French Regular Freemasonry" Harmonia
Lodge No. 1282, Versailles, France, posted to Philalethes
Society Email List
Kesteloot, Bro. Andre V. ,
"A Short Introduction to French Free?Masonry."
Address given March 1996.
List of Lodges Masonic -
2001 Edition Bloomington IL, Pantagraph Printing
& Stationery Co. 2001
Macoy, Robert, General
History, Cyclopedia and Dictionary of Freemasonry (1873), Reprinted, Montana
USA, Kessinger Publishing Co
Mackey, Albert G. Mackey's Revised Encyclopedia of
Freemasonry. 3 vols.Rev. and enlrg.
Revised by Robert I. Clegg, with supp. vol. by H.L. Haywood.
New York: Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Co.,
Masonic Service Association.
Ancient Landmarks of Freemasonry: As Adopted, Followed or Undecided by the Fifty
Grand Lodges of the United States. 6th ed. Silver Spring,Md: Masonic Service
Miner, Stewart W., "The American Doctrine: A Concept
Under Siege," 1992 Transactions of the Virginia Research Lodge No. 1777,
pp. 11-25 (paper delivered at that lodge on March 28, 1992
Parker, William E. "French Freemasonry, 1913, and the
Future," The Philalethes, Jun. 1996, pp. 57-59,
Worlein, John W., "A
Visit to the Grand Lodge of France", The Philalethes,
April 2002, vol. LV, no. 2 pp. 28-29, 44-46
Recognition of foreign jurisdictions - http://www.bessel.org/masrec
Grand Lodge of France - http://www.gldf.org
 Grand Lodge of Minnesota Proceedings - 2001
 Commission on Information for Recognition of the
Conference of Grand Masters of North America: A Symposium on the Conditions of
Grand Lodge Recognition
 Example of well stated requirement used: Grand Lodge
of Texas Code
 Henderson & Pope, Freemasonry Universal, p. 190.
Also see Kesteloot, Andre V.,
A Short Introduction to French FreeMasonry.
 Conversation with librarian of George Washington
Masonic National Memorial, which maintains one of the largest and most complete
collections of US GL annual proceedings
 Minnesota Proceedings 1954
 Bessel,, Paul M., U.S. Recognition of French
Grand Lodges in the 1900s, chart Pp.12-13
 At the Grand Lodge of France, the Great Architect Of
The Universe is seen as a Creator Principle.
 At the Grand Lodge of France, the Volume of the
Sacred Law is the Holy Bible.
 See also in that regard, Art. 23
of the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of France http://www.gldf.org/html/e-const.htm.
Art. 23 - It is strictly forbidden to provoke or start political or
religious discussions in Lodge.
 Worlein, John,
"A Visit to the Grand Lodge of France", The Philalethes,
April 2002, vol. LV, no. 2, p. 28
 Henderson & Pope, Freemasonry Universal Pp 191
 Source of data: List of Lodges Masonic - 2001
& communications with the webmaster
 Agenda of The Commission for Information for
Recognition, COGMNA, Milwaukee WI, February 17, 2002
 Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North
America. "Reports of the Commission on Information for
Recognition." 1979 Annual report.
 Stewart W. Miner, "The American Doctrine: A
Concept Under Siege," 1992 Transactions of the Virginia Research Lodge No.
1777, pp. 11-25
 Transactions of the Conference of Grand Masters of
Masons of North America 1961, pp. 43-44.
 A range of membership numbers is used because there
is considerable controversy about exactly how many members actually belong in
each of these bodies. Multiple memberships, dates used and several other
factors are the cause of this confusion.
 Coil, Henry Wilson, et al. Coils Masonic
Encyclopedia. Rev. Ed. By Allen Roberts 1996
 MSA, Ancient Landmarks of
Freemasonry. Also see Elbert Bede, Landmarks
 Macoy, Robert, General
History, Cyclopedia and Dictionary of Freemasonry (1873), Reprinted, Montaana
USA, Kessinger Publishing Co