Talk:York Rite

Contrived structure

I don't think the article reads well at the moment, it gives the impression that YR is the default model, whilst concentrating on the differences in 'England'. I'm going to have a hack at reworking slightly. Need to make clear that the orders are conflated in the US but not elsewhere. That probably means discussing the US structure, then adding further discussion to make clear the different structures elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALR (talk • contribs) 18:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Structure

Agreed. There's quite a bit of difference in the York Rite between the US and UK, so much so that separate articles may be in order. Thoughts? --Faustus37 20:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Inasmuch as the York Rite doesn't exist, all the orders represented in the YR have different administrative structures and hierarchies. I've added some material with respect to the structures outside the US, and even differences within UK. HRA has differences in Scotland and England as does the Mark. MEmbership requirements vary for the various orders as well.ALR 21:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that the York Rite is a "conflation" of a number of different degrees into a system that includes a combination of several governing bodies, but I'm not sure that I would agree that "it does not exist," it obviously does. What you may mean is that the combination of degrees that we call "the York Rite" is not a "Rite" using the same definition that we use to describe the Ancient & Accepted (Scottish) Rite. But, the lack of a single governing body does not necessarily mean that it is not a "Rite," or that "it does not exist."

This article is not about the various degrees that comprise the York Rite. Rather, the article is "about" "The York Rite." (period) The York Rite, is a specific "combination" (or "conflation", if you will) of degrees that come together to form a particular and peculiar system of Freemasonry (albeit with several administrative hierarchies). This system (or Rite) is not peculiar to the United States, but is to be found on just about every continent of the world. If some of the degrees of the York Rite, as they are worked within the York Rite, are somewhat different from other versions of those degrees in the UK, then perhaps we should consider starting other articles about some of those more important degrees and discussing their different versions there.PGNormand 06:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that it's five months ago when I wrote the above, and the whole prtfolio of FM related articles has moved on a lot, I'll try to reflect back on my thinking at the time. I'll also point out that I'm not a member of the Crypt or KT; just Mark and HRA. The YR is in itself little more than an administrative convenience. The various orders now included in the structure are of limited consistency and emerged largely independently, although I recognise that historically they may have been worked in, or closely associated with, craft lodges. Its clear that both Mark and HRA were split out from craft at the Union with the Mark having likely heritage back to the operative and the HRA being the early influence of gentrification, with the Cryptic and the KT degrees being later innovations. These each emerged independently, and continue to be independent. I would suggest that your characterisation of the YR being in most continents is a little disingenuous; the various orders are present but they operate discretely.

Unfortunately the article has become rather clumsy in attempting to deal with the organisational convenience, a reflection of the fact that this article was here first and edits have been an effort to mitigate for the US-centricity. A more accurate reflection of the situation may be a very short article on the YR, The YR is an administrative convenience bringing a number of Masonic orders into a sequential hierarchy, the orders concerned are A, B, C... with links to other articles on the orders themselves. You might already have noticed that there is already an article on the Mark Degree which was created with a very English focus and I recently attempted to broaden that (I was advanced in Scotland and don't belong to an English Mark lodge). The main differences globally are in terms of pre-requisites and administration rather than anything else.ALR 07:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the article may be a short one. The history can go rather in depth. As in who used it, which parts were used, what was added, and in which country or state. Mackey claims it to be the mother of all rites from which schisms arose. I think with enough sources, the article could get rather long. Zos 17:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That would make it a History of the York Rite article, although a discussion of Mackeys' fantasies might be interesting. Given the age of Mackey as a source and the emergence of the Quatuor Coronati school of Masonic research in the interim it would be more useful to substantiate the assertions with something more recent. PGN probably has easier access to some of the more recent material than you or I have, given his position.ALR 07:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Spurious 19th Century assertions of naming protocol

You gave no citation, only used my own, It was a direct quote, sorry. So I reverted. Zos 07:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I note you ddon't deal with the substantive point of the edit, it would be unreasonable of me to suggest that remaining reliant on citation might be considered as wiki-lawyering, so I won't. However I would suggest that Mackey probably fails to reach the standards required of WP:RS given its' age and the subsequent emergence of a more historically disciplined school of Masonic research. Given that there is no corroboration or other collateral which supports Mackey then might I suggest that rather than be included in the opening summary there might be value in a sub-section which highlights Mackeys etymology claim and its lack of substance.ALR 09:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a contextual citation for the statement, to assure me that your claim is an accurate representation of Mackey.TIA ALR 09:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

From the fifth edition of Mackey's A Lexicon of Freemasonry, 1866, pgs. 522-523 -

York. A city in the north of England, memorable for being the place where Freemasonry was officially re-established in that kingdom, and the first Grand Lodge formed in 926, by Prince Edwin, the brother of King Athelstane, from whom he purchased a free charter for that purpose.

York Rite. The Ancient York rite is that practised by all English and American lodges, though it has deviated somewhat from its original purity. It derives its name from the city of York, where the first Grand Lodge of England was held. The Ancient York rite originally consisted of but the three primitive degree of Ancint Craft Masonry, but in this country four others have been added to it; and its degrees, as it is at present practised, are as follows: 1, Entered Apprentice; 2, Fellow-Craft; 3, Master Mason; 4, Mark Master; 5, Past Master; 6, Most Excellent Master; 7, Holy Royal Arch. In some of the United States, two other degrees are also given, in this rite, those of Royal and Select Master. The order of High Priesthood is also given, as an honorary degree appertaining to the presiding officer of a Royal Arch Chapter. The York Rite is the mother of all the other rites; from it, they have separated as so many schisms: it is the most ancient, the most simple, and most scientific, and so far as my knowledge of the other rites extends, with the principal of which I am sufficiently acquainted, I may be permitted to say, that it is the only one in which the true system of symbolic instruction has been preserved.

The problem is, Mackey's Lexicon was never peer reviewed before publication, and consists of Mackey's understanding of history, and does not reflect the fact that the Grand Lodge was NOT formed at York in 926.--Vidkun 14:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. Whilst it's all printed in Mackeys, it's also predominantly wrong; I'm sure there must be some review of it out there which highlights that. Anyway, thanks for posting that anyway.ALR 16:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

First. Please do not move my comments to another header.

The article lacked an origin point to begin with. The statement stands as it is "a" source. If it is to be disputed, you'd need a source for this, and would be a controversy. Why must I keep asking for sources, and no one is providing me with any?

The whole defintion was typed out, and prooves it was quoted properly. There is no mention of him saying "where one author states ". This is another point of view, which is not cited, and no sources are given. So it's going to be removed.

The problem is, claims need to be cited. Thank you. Zos 17:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no mention of him saying "where one author states ". This is another point of view, which is not cited, and no sources are given. So it's going to be removed. The hell it is. There is no need for Mackey to have said "one author states," as HE IS THE AUTHOR STATING IT. You show me another source for the claim that the GL of England was formed at York in 926. I gave a source for the statement but not for the factuality of the claim. As the standards on wikipedia are verifiability, not truth, I have provided sourcing for Mackey's statement.--Vidkun 17:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The legend that meetings of Masons from various parts of England for the purposes of self-regulation started in the reign of King Athelstan and at York predates Mackey by some centuries; it is mentioned in the Grand Lodge MS of about 1590. The Athelstan legend is even older. (see both the Cooke MS and Regius poem) At the same time, nobody is seriously contending, I hope, that even if there is some truth to these legends, these meetings were anything like Grand Lodges in the modern sense. What is important here is that York, by virtue of the legend, has a special Masonic significance which explains the naming of this group of degrees. I have amended accordingly and removed the Mackey reference but I would appreciate it if someone could add a citation to an online copy of the Manuscripts I referred to. --Bolognaking 06:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The new article

I like the new layout, though I did add a new top heading to move the TOC to a better place, and make the intro a little more self-contained. I believe that the Sovereign College entry is inaccurate, though. I yhave always been told it is the York equivalent to the 33rd, and is therefore for service, not proficiency (though they are related). We also need an entry on KYCH. MSJapan 20:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I too have "heard" or "been told" that this or that part of the York Rite is the equivalent of the 33rd Degree of the Scottish Rite. All of this is nonsense, of course. I asked for, and quickly received, an application form for the York Rite College long before I was even a PM of my local lodge, and a decade and a half before I was a Past Presiding Officer in ANY York Rite Body. I applied for the YR College and was accepted immediately. So much for its equivalence to the 33rd Degree. PGNormand 16:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Red Cross of Constantine: Not a "York Rite" Body

I take issue with the idea that the Red Cross of Constantine is a York Rite Body, and therefore believe that it should not be included in this article. I'm not certain as to why some believe that it is. It may simply be that because the RA Degree (a YR Degree) is a prerequisite for membership in the RCC, that some make a giant step to assume that this makes the RCC a YR Body. Following that logic, then the Shrine was once "a part of both the YR and SR" as they were once prerequisites for the Shrine. If anyone can provide any other logical reason why the RCC is considered a "part" of the YR, I'd like to be enlightened (before I finish my year as Sov. of my Conclave). PGNormand 16:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't know who added that, though you are correct, and I'm personally very leery of adding invitational bodies to these articles. I've removed it. MSJapan 16:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Got sidetracked by another edit and forgot to remove it. PG got it. MSJapan 00:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see the hesitation of the RCC being a part of the York Rite degrees. However, it is Concordant to the Royal Arch and thereby makes it a part of the collective degrees. Just like the York Rite itself is Concordant to the Symbolic Degrees of the "Blue" Craft Lodge. I can see how it could be mistake for Appendant, since the York Rite Sovereign College is Appendant. The difference is the YRC is sovereign unto itself, while the RCC is an extension of the Royal Arch.

Maolcholm (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Splitting the article

Looking at the sections on KT and HRA I would think it best to remove them from the York Rite page as they are not necessarily just York Rite. It happens that in the US they are part of what is known as York Rite, but else where they are not considered part of it. Boooooom (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, they can't be removed. They are part of the York Rite where the York Rite exists. KT has already got its own article. We also clearly have a section that lists the equivalent bodies outside the US. So I'm not entirely sure what the issue is. MSJapan (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

From looking at it, the HRA article is exactly what was here already. I don't see a need to maintain the same information in two places, and the section isn't so long as to be unwieldy, so I've redirected the other article space to here. MSJapan (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Red Lodge?

I am not a Mason but I was told by a Mason that the York Rite is known as the "Red Lodge", the "Blue Lodge" being the first three degrees of Masonry. If this is true then perhaps someone with greater knowledge of this subject can confirm it and make the appropriate reference. If this is incorrect info, please send me the appropriate info. Thanks, LAWinans (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been informally called that, the symbolic color being red- but I've never heard or seen any official use of the term. The Cryptic Rite (Council) is not called the Purple Lodge despite it's use of that color. Saxophobia (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Blue or Red Lodge is dependent on the Concordant Body the degrees are performed in. The Scottish or "Red" Rite has its own first three degrees separate form the Symbolic Blue Lodge Degrees which are actually part of the York or "Blue" Rite. The confusion comes by a twofold issue, first the Chapter having reference to lodges in its work and secondly the Scottish Rites usage of the York Rites first 3 degrees in many Jurisdictions. Never-the-less, the "Blue", "Red", "Green", or any other color colloquialisms stem from the first three degrees of that particular Rite (collection of rituals).

Maolcholm (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite's first three degrees are the Blue Lodge, they're all the same. The Scottish Rite starts with the 4th degree, and finishes with the 33rd, an honorary degree. You must be a MM, 3rd degree, to become a member of the AASR, which you receive by taking the 4th to the 32nd.--Craxd (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

One problem with this nomenclature is that some Blue Lodges in Louisiana in the US are also called "red lodges" b/c they confer the first degrees in a unique way related to the SR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E24:D910:207F:F677:26E8:711A (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

that's now covered in the scottish rite article Jjazz76 (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

History?

We should probably include a section on the history and development of the York Rite. I realize that there is much that is not known (such as when the Royal Arch first developed), but there is a great deal that is known (For example, we do know where and when the Cryptic degrees were created). Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That's because they post-date the other bodies by a considerable margin. For the other bodies, I don't know that we could do anything that wouldn't be disputable. For example, I found a Chapter claiming a formation date of 1758, which Turnbull apparently found spurious, because he didn't mention it at all. Formation dates of the Commanderies in NY and MA that formed Grand Encampment are also subject to a bit of wrangling, and I know VA is around that same period (but did not join the group). In short, are we going to create something useful if we do this, or something that is either such a qualified statement that it is useless, or something that is always under dispute from somebody? MSJapan (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No matter the cause, some sort of history should be shown, as the Scottish Rite has a good article on it's history. A general quote from a historical book would be enough, to show an estimated date. Most estimate the founding date to be around 1770 to 1780. See; York Rite History--Craxd (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Misused Reference

In the Knights Templar section, it's claimed that the Templar Order's "affiliation with Masonry is based on texts that indicate persecuted Templars found refuge within the safety of Freemasonry." The source for this claim is given as http://www.knightstemplar.org/faq1.html#origin, but if you follow the link you'll see this is not at all what the site says. In fact, it states most emphatically: "THERE IS NO PROOF OF DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ANCIENT ORDER AND THE MODERN ORDER KNOWN TO DAY AS THE KNIGHTS TEMPLAR." Yonderboy (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarified. PeRshGo (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Logo

That's not the right logo, because the Sovereign College doesn't govern the Rite, and in fact, to join it, one has to have presided in all the YR bodies (IIRC). There is a combo logo that often gets used for pins. That would be much more appropriate. MSJapan (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Knights Templar and Christianity

The article claims that "the Knights Templar require members to be of the Christian faith". This is simply not true. I am a Master Mason, Royal Arch Mason, Cryptic Mason, Knight Templar, 32nd Degree Scottish Rite Mason, and Shriner. I am also Buddhist, and this fact is well-known among others in these organizations. There are a series of questions that are asked of each Knight Templar candidate, some of which ask about the candidate's faith, however one does not need to be a Christian to be accepted into the Knights Templar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.231.19 (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• This has come up time and time again but the reference is clear. Despite examples of the rule being bent or broken the Knights Templar is an organization that states it is open only to Christian Freemasons. PeRshGo (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Another way to look at it is that what a local Commandery does has no effect on what the Grand Encampment says, and the latter is really what is encyclopedic here. Sometimes theory and practice conflict, but that's out of our scope here. MSJapan (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Descriptions of degrees is copyrighted material

Unfortunately, the material describing the various degrees that was recently added (here) is copyrighted. The editor who added it acted in good faith (believing that it was public domain) but unfortunately he was mistaken... the text is taken directly from the York Rite webpage, who in turn copied it (with permission) from the webpage of the New Bern (NC) Chapter. THAT webpage was last copyrighted in 2012, which means it is not in the public domain. It is wonderful material, but unfortunately we can not use it. I have reverted. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on York Rite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090831070625/http://www.knightstemplar.org:80/faq1.html to http://www.knightstemplar.org/faq1.html#member
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090831070625/http://www.knightstemplar.org:80/faq1.html to http://www.knightstemplar.org/faq1.html#origin

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)