MASONIC ORTHODOXY
So much has been written on the subject of Masonic regularity, and so many different and even contradictory definitions given, that far from being resolved, the problem has perhaps only become more confused. The question itself seems to have been badly framed, for regularity is always taken to be based on purely historical considerations, on the real or supposed proof of an uninterrupted transmission of authority from some more or less distant period. Now we would of course have to admit that from this point of view a degree of irregularity could easily be found in the origins of all the Rites practiced today, but we think this a far less important point than some have for various reasons wished to imagine, for we see true regularity as residing essentially in Masonic orthodoxy. And this orthodoxy consists above all in faithfully following tradition, in carefully preserving the symbols and ritual forms that express and as it were clothe it, and in resisting every innovation that smacks of modernism. We have intentionally used the word modernism here to designate a tendency-all too widespread within Masonry as well as everywhere else-characterized by a misuse of criticism, a rejection of symbolism, and a negation of everything that constitutes esoteric and traditional science.
We do not wish to say, however, that in order to remain orthodox Masonry must enclose itself in a narrow formalism, or that ritualism must be something absolutely immutable, to which nothing could either be added or taken away without this amounting to a sort of sacrilege; such would be proof of a dogmatism completely foreign and even contrary to the spirit of Masonry. By no means does tradition exclude evolution or progress; rituals therefore can and must be modified whenever necessary, in order that they might
be adapted to the varying conditions of time and place, but naturally only insofar as such modifications do not affect any essential point. Changes in details of ritual matter little, provided that the initiatic teaching which emerges suffers no distortion; and the multiplicity of rites need present no serious drawback-it could perhaps even offer certain advantages-however unfortunate it has in fact all too often proved itself to be, serving only as a pretext for dissension between rival Orders and thereby compromising the unity of universal Masonry, which though ideal, if one wishes, is nevertheless real.
It is especially regrettable that so many Masons display complete ignorance of symbolism and its esoteric interpretation, and forsake the initiatic studies without which ritualism becomes nothing more than a collection of ceremonies devoid of meaning, as in exoteric religions. From this point of view, there exist today certain truly unpardonable cases of negligence, particularly in France and Italy; we may cite as an example the Masters who have ceased to wear their apron, which is in reality the true Masonic garb, the cord merely being its ornament, as T.'. Ill.'. F.'. Dr Blatin recently showed so well in a paper that must still be fresh in the minds of the FF.'. Even more serious is the absence or oversimplification of the initiatic ordeals, and their replacement with the recitation of virtually insignificant formulas. In this regard we can do no better than reproduce the following lines, which also give an apt general definition of symbolism:
Masonic Symbolism is the sensible form of a philosophical synthesis of a transcendent or abstract order. Concepts represented by the Symbols of Masonry cannot lead to any dogmatic teaching; they escape concrete formulas of spoken language and cannot be translated into words. They are, as is most rightly said, Mysteries veiled from profane curiosity, Truths that the mind can only grasp after judicious preparation. This preparation for understanding of the Mysteries is staged allegorically in Masonic initiations by the ordeals of the three fundamental grades of the Order. Contrary to what one might imagine, these trials are in no way meant to draw forth the courage or moral qualities of the
newly elect; they represent a teaching the thinker must discern, then meditate upon throughout the course of his initiatic career. [1]
From this it will be seen that Masonic orthodoxy, as we have defined it, is linked to the entirety of its symbolism taken as a complete and harmonious whole, and not to such and such a particular symbol, or even to a formula such as A.'. L'. G.'. D.'. A.'. D.'. L'. U.'., which some have wished to make the distinguishing mark of Masonic regularity, as if this alone could constitute a necessary and sufficient condition; indeed, its suppression in French Masonry since 1877 has often been criticized. Here let us take this occasion to protest strongly against a campaign more ridiculous than odious that for some time now has been waged in France against French Masonry by people affecting rather dubious Masonic qualities, all on behalf of a so-called spiritualism that has nothing to do with this case; if these people, to whom we do not wish to give the honor of mentioning by name, believe that their methods will assure the success of the pseudo-Masonry which they vainly attempt to disseminate under various labels, they are strangely mistaken.
We do not wish to address here the question of the G.'. A.'. of the U.'. here, at least for the moment. In the last issue of L'Acacia this question was the subject of a most interesting discussion between FF.'. Oswald Wirth and Ch.-M. Limousin, but, unfortunately, the discussion was interrupted by the death of the latter, whose passing was a cause of mourning for all of Masonry. Be that as it may, we shall only remark that the symbol of the G.'. A.'. of the U.'. does not express a dogma, and that properly understood it can be accepted by all Masons regardless of philosophical opinion, without by any means requiring on their part the recognition of the existence of any God, as is all too often supposed. It is regrettable that French Masonry should be mistaken on this subject, but in all fairness it must be recognized that it has thereby only shared in a rather common error. Should this confusion be dispelled, all Masons would
understand that, instead of suppressing the G. A. A. of the U. ., a rational idea must be sought for it, and that in this regard it should be treated like any other initiatic symbol, as F. . Oswald Wirth has said, with whose conclusions we entirely agree.
We can only hope that the day will come, and that it is not far off, when agreement will be established once and for all on the fundamental principles of Masonry and the essential points of traditional doctrine. All branches of universal Masonry, certain of which have deviated, will then return to true orthodoxy, and all will unite together at last to labor toward the realization of the Great Work, which is the integral accomplishment of Progress in every domain of human activity.