Talk:York Rite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a project to improve all Freemasonry-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Freemasonry-related articles, please join the project.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Freemasonry To-do: edit purge Freemasonry COTW Improve to Featured status Freemasonry Improve Order of Quetzalcoatl More... Review Requests All regular Grand Lodges Listed for deletion Grammar corrections Need images Scottish Rite York Rite Sovereign Grand Lodge of Malta Wikify Mystic Order of Veiled Prophets of the Enchanted Realm Watch this list — Edit this list

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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)