Lodge Perla del Oriente No. 1034, S.C.

The Three Sisters 

Does Age Really Matter?

(Or Why Lodge Perla del Oriente No. 1034, S.C., is Peculiar)

By:  Bro. Senen A.S. de Santos, PM

Every so often, a debate is sparked among members of the three sisters (i.e., the United Grand Lodge of England [UGLE], the Grand Lodge of Ireland [GLI], and the Grand Lodge of Antient Free and Accepted Masons of Scotland [GLOS]) as to the origins of freemasonry, that is, where it really started.

While the UGLE itself acknowledges this subject as being of a great debate, and somehow buttresses its claim to having its original roots by relating it to the medieval operative stone masons, it is an accepted fact that the first English Freemason, in the person of Elias Ashmole, was made one only in 16 October 1646 (as opposed to the first Royal Freemason, Frederik Lewis, Prince of Wales, son of King George II, in 1737). Nonetheless, it is equally accepted that the premier Grand Lodge of England was established on 24 June 1717 (incidentally, the feast day of St. John, the Baptist).

On the other hand, the GLI, while certain of the recorded date of the installation of a new grandmaster (i.e., the First Earl of Rosse) on 24 June 1725 (again incidentally the feast day of St. John, the Baptist), is uncertain as to the exact date of its foundation, though claiming that it had been in existence for at least a couple of years prior thereto. While it accepts its being the second oldest grand lodge, it nonetheless jumps into the “great debate” with its reference to the fact that there are discoveries such as the Baal's Bridge Square, discovered in Limerick in the mid nineteenth century, which purportedly dates to the early sixteenth century, or the story of the "Lady Freemason", Elizabeth St. Leger, which supposedly also dates to a time prior to the existence of the GLI.

The GLOS, while considered the youngest sister of the three having been founded after those of England and Ireland in 1736. “The reason for this might have been the much wider scope of Scottish Freemasonry, which had many more independent lodges from which to obtain agreement. Of the 100 lodges invited to the foundation meeting, representatives from only 33 attended. The two-thirds did not see the point of a central regulatory body. By virtue of this, the Edinburgh-based Grand Lodge could not exert its authority in the same way as the London group and so the lodges were permitted to retain their own procedures, regalia and ritual. Subsequently, as new lodges were formed after 1736, it was necessary to afford them the same privilege. The situation remains the same today and, although lodges in Scotland are chartered by Grand Lodge, they retain their individual modes of operation, and there is no rigidly standard ritual. The GLOS is keen to assert that theirs is the only nation capable of proving a direct documented connection between operative stonemasonry and speculative Freemasonry.” (The Shadow of Solomon. Laurence Gardner, 2006, at pp. 95-96). Certainly, the GLOS is the custodian of the oldest lodge records in the world being those of Aitchison's Haven. The first entry in the Minute Books of that Lodge is dated 9th January 1598. It must be said immediately that this Lodge no longer exists. The oldest records of a Lodge which is in existence still are those belonging to The Lodge of Edinburgh (Mary's Chapel), No.1. The existing minutes of that Lodge commence on 31st July 1599.

As of the present (i. e., 2007), there are over 1800 lodges constituted under the Scottish Constitution, the latest of which was chartered on 21 October 2005 is Lodge Ratanakosin (Middle East) No. 1833, which meets every Third Wednesday of May, September and November at Freemasons Hall in Bangkok, Thailand. Of these total number of lodges under the jurisdiction of the GLOS, there are – as of 2007 – 654 (659 in 2005) lodges under supervision of Provincial Grand Lodges, 428 (438 in 2005) lodges under District Grand Lodges, 7 (13 in 2005) lodges under Grand Superintendents, and 23 (25 in 2005) lodges directly under GLOS direct supervision.

Of those under direct supervision by GLOS, Lodge Perla del Oriente No. 1034 (LPDO) chartered on 7 November 1907 is the lone Scottish Lodge under such direct supervision in Asia (there are 2 in Belgium, 3 in Chile, 1 in Fiji, 1 in Jordan, 6 in Lebanon, 1 in Malta, 1 in Mauritius, 2 in Panama, 2 in Sri Lanka, 1 in Togo, and 1 in West India Islands). Incidentally, aside from LPDO, there are two (2) other lodges chartered on 7 November 2007, namely: Lodge Thaba ‘Nchu (Central South Africa) No. 1032 and Lodge Britannia (Chile) No. 1033, while it seems that the lodge which was granted charter and numbered No. 1035 had apparently surrendered its charter. It must be noted that aside from LPDO, there was another Scottish Lodge, that is: Cebu Lodge No. 1106, who just like LPDO chose not to surrender its charter and join the Grand Lodge of the Philippines (GLP) in 1912, but, unlike LPDO, its charter was voluntarily surrendered subsequently by its members in 1917. It would be worthy to note that during the traditional informal breakfast at the Manila Hotel on 24 February 2002 with the Grand Master of Masons and the Grand Secretary, during the term of Bro. Francis C. Fernandez, PM, on the query put forth by a brother on whether it was possible to still constitute a lodge under the jurisdiction of the GLOS, the Grand Secretary replied that this was no longer possible given the agreement with the GLP at the time of its formation and recognition by the GLOS. A further query was put forth on whether the charter of Cebu Lodge No. 1106 may still be restored, to which the Grand Secretary responded by saying that it would be possible only if there would be a petition signed by a surviving member of the lodge (which even at that time was already physically impossible as it would require the petition by a 111-year old brother from Cebu Lodge No. 1106; note: pursuant to Law 123 of the Constitution & Laws of the GLOS).

Thus, the peculiarity of LPDO is its being (and for that matter any and all lodges) under the Scottish Constitution, which by itself must be stressed is laden with much meaning, other than what most brethren perceive as just being under a different jurisdiction (from the perspective of those in the Philippines) with colourful aprons and distinctive addresses. Being a Scottish Lodge means understanding the peculiarity of Freemasonry itself as it flourished in Scotland prior to the inception of the GLOS. As aforesaid, Freemasonry in Scotland was more widespread in Scotland and prevalent even before the creation and establishment of the GLOS (as seen from more than a hundred lodges predating the GLOS, while there are existing records and minutes of lodges under the Scottish Constitution which predate it). Aside from this, it must be stressed that prior to and even immediately after the creation of the GLOS, there were actually Scottish lodges which were still issuing warrants for the creation of other lodges (e.g. Lodge Mother Kilwinning No. 0, which initially issued the charters of Lodge Canongate Kilwinning No. 2, Lodge Old Inverness Kilwinning St. John’s No. 6, and Lodge Torphichen Kilwinning No. 13, and others). As a matter of fact, the existence of lodges under the Scottish Constitution which is numbered “0”, “1” (there are 3), “3” (there are 2) sustains the legitimacy, effectivity and efficacy of unwritten laws or laws which may not be found in the Constitution & Laws of the GLOS or Bye-Laws of a lodge. In other words, the policy of allowing lodges to have peculiar practices limited to them alone and dissimilar with other lodges predating the creation of the GLOS has been followed and extended to those lodges which were created subsequently under the GLOS. Thus, to a degree, Scottish lodges now still exhibit the same characteristic of the earlier lodges predating the GLOS: a sense of independence and divergence from the outright strict application of the Laws.

Further to this is the mistaken notion that – at this point caution must be invited in understanding the next paragraphs hereof – lodges under the Scottish Constitution are “democratic” in the modern understanding of the word. Again, attention must be invited to the peculiar mechanics and internal operations of a Scottish lodge, in particular LPDO. While a brother is entitled to speak out during a lodge meeting (provided he is a qualified member, please see Law 284), the proceedings during the meeting proper itself is under the control of the presiding brother, who is in most cases supposed to be the Right Worshipful Master (Law 158). However, management of Lodge affairs is under the General Committee (Law 149). This authority lodged with the General Committee borders on being absolute, as transactions entered into under such authority being are merely to be reported for the information of the members, unless those specific instances which require approval by the lodge (Law 151), which mirrors the administration of all the GLOS affairs by the Grand Committee (Law 72). In other words, Lodge management and internal operations are what may be referred to as a “seminal representative system of democracy”, from where – after centuries of refinement – present democratic paradigms may have evolved from, but nonetheless still not fully democratic in present day terms.

But more importantly, as the foregoing is simply a matter of form, the very philosophy, behind Scottish Freemasonry must be applied to such a structure, which recognizes inferiors, equals, and superiors, and how one should properly deal with them. Clearly, a system where there are such recognized classifications is not fully democratic in contemporaneous context, much less a product of any political process or dialectical dynamism. It is a rather an acceptance of the various material levels of circumstances of each individual from the next individual, as there are various stages of consciousness, being and spirituality as opposed to a categorization of sects, cults and religions, which it is not.  The foregoing being said, let us illustrate concretely how it works, in particular in LPDO.

A number of years ago, the Lodge was plagued by irrational, if not playful, blackballing of not only applicants, but even of petitions for affiliations. While there were straight cut provisions in the Constitution & Laws and the Bye-Laws dealing with such situations, the nature and character of Scottish Freemasonry was made to bear upon the situation. The problem was traced to mis-information about the petitioner or candidate for affiliation, as well as a resentment apparently harboured by some regarding a perceived wholesale acceptance of individuals into the Craft. This was remedied by ensuring that the Brethren had the opportunity to get acquainted with the individual and vice-a-versa. The period before petitions for degrees and affiliations were even given out was prolonged. Actual home visits were made, aside from the usual committee inquiries made at the Temple. Thus, by the time the applicant could be issued a petition form, he would have been tested whether he was intent on his desire to be a member, while the Brethren had more opportunity to scrutinize the applicant. However, the defining moment for such an application of principles of Scottish Freemasonry came when – upon the admonition to the brethren prior to balloting of the applicant that should there be any objection thereto, that it be made known to any of the 3 lights or office-bearers of the lodge – a brother whispered such apprehension, which forthwith caused the cancellation of the balloting for a later date. The beauty here was that a degree of maturity was attained preventing the embarrassment of the applicant, as well as his proposer or seconder, by Second black ball or cube being cast. At all events, with such advice immediately given to the proposer and seconder of such apprehension, there was no resentment fostered, as in fact it became constructive because the proposer and seconder recommended to the applicant to spend more time with the Brethren and get to know them. Ultimately, the applicant was favourably balloted upon and now is one of the more active members of the Lodge.

On a different level of application is another concrete example of the peculiarity of Scottish Freemasonry as expressed through the portals of LPDO: the matter of recommendations for office-bearers made by the Past Masters’ Council. Unbeknownst to a number of brethren, some of whom may even be considered senior members of the Lodge, the dynamics of the process of such recommendations presume on the one hand that the Past Masters’ Council actually review the records of the Lodge regarding the participation and involvement of the Brethren under consideration for a position. On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that the Brethren who are to vote for the office-bearers are expected to express to the individual members of the Past masters’ Council their perceptions and preferences regarding who should be recommended, while the individual members of the Past Masters’ Council should, prior to their meeting, on their own, seek out from the Brethren any sentiments or information which may have a bearing on the recommendations of the Council. When all of these inputs are taken in, the Past Masters sitting as a collegial body deliberates on the merits and de-merits of each individual Brethren considered for positions. This sifting through process, as may be expected only in a Scottish Lodge, is conducted totally on the level among and between the Past Masters present.

While the foregoing process has been questioned on occasion wrongly or rightly, the same may actually be attributed to an incorrect perception as to how the entire process works. Thus, any perception that the process is single-handedly controlled by a sole individual is certainly misplaced, as present are Past Masters of the Lodge who at one point or another held the gavel in the East and certainly would not allow himself to be cowered into submission, especially when any assertions are factually and masonically baseless. The wisdom of this process may be summed up in the realization that there is nothing in the 100 year history of LPDO that would indicate anyone having bothered to stand-up and nominate another, other than those recommended by the Past Masters’ Council, or if ever there be any nominated, for such Brother to have accepted such further nomination to contest any position already recommended for by the Past Masters’ Council. Incidentally, there were four years of darkness experienced by LPDO (i.e., 1941 to 1944), while in its 100 years it has had a total of thirteen brethren, who served twice as Right Worshipful Master (RWM), with one of them serving thrice, and only six of them serving two successive terms, the last of which was for the years 2004 and 2005.     

A last sample concretization of Scottish Freemasonry as expressed through the annals of LPDO is its peculiar manner of treating the festive board, especially during the installation of office-bearers. Many a story abounds about other lodges where the master and his wardens are placed in near destituteness after being made to bear the costs of their installation dinner festivities. Worse, otherwise worthy Brethren who would have made good masters of lodges shy away from the Oriental Chair due to the perception that it requires a degree of financial capability (with some even taking this to mean being financially well-off to assume the helm of the Lodge). This is not so in LPDO.

Costs for the festive board of LPDO have always been shared by the Brethren. While a minimum amount has – as a practice – been set for each of the Brethren to contribute to defray costs for such events, especially during installation dinners, the Brethren have always contributed what they can afford to so contribute. The reasoning behind this is that the amounts so set is always well in advance made known to the Brethren such that they are able to ensure availability of funds come the once a month meeting. The regularity of advice, amounts and payment, thus allow the Brethren to make the necessary adjustments and calculations to ensure their participation. On the other hand, there are instances nonetheless that some of the Brethren are unable to meet the minimum, due to causes not of their own choice. During these occasions, other Brethren of the Lodge have always come to the aid of these distressed, but worthy Brethren. So, too, especially during installations nights or other major events of the Lodge, when more than the usual number of visiting Brethren and guests attend, and the costs for which are always solely still for the account of the Brethren of LPDO.

A collective will; strength in numbers; aid to those distressed, and worthy: these are key concepts which make LPDO peculiarly a Scottish Lodge in nature, aside from being under the jurisdiction of the GLOS and the outright application of the provisions of the Constitution & Laws and its Bye-Laws. These are the principles, which have allowed LPDO to exist – with 83 Right Worshipful Masters (RWM) at its helm – for the past one hundred years. These are the very principles which will ensure and enable it to advance into its 101st year, under the guidance of its 84th RWM and Office-Bearers for MY 2007-2008, and certainly well into its bi-centennary.

Thus, does age really matter? In the case of LPDO (and even the GLOS), it seems it does not, as what really matters is its adherence to the age-old principles espoused by and adhered to in Scottish Freemasonry.