Questions for visiting Grand Officers

Published on by Arturusrex


QUESTIONS FOR VISITING GRAND OFFICERS

Questions that a WM must put to a visiting Grand or Provincial Grand Officer from the GLNF.

Comment and translation: Arturusrex

A visiting Grand or Provincial Grand Officer from the GLNF can be allowed to attend our meetings as a Brother and sit in the North or the South. He should wear only his master mason’s regalia and cannot legally claim to represent the now non-existent Grand Master or his underling and equally defunct Provincial Grand Masters. Should such visitors display aggressive attitudes, they should be told to remain outside for being likely to disturb the harmony of the Lodge. No WM is allowed by his Obligation to let harmony in the Lodge be disrupted, or even the likelihood of such a thing to happen.

In the case of further insistence from them, the WM can refuse to open the Lodge, close it, or call it off, until they go away.

In any case, having a Grand or Provincial Grand officer to hand is, in a way, a good opportunity to ask him or them  the following questions. Refusal or inability to answer obviously disqualifies them for any possible admission to the meeting.

There are two sets of questions.

1                    The straightforward Questions and Answers in the three degrees up to Master Mason, that correspond to instruction in the Rite in question, and that all master masons are expected to know in order to prove their Masonic membership. Short of which ability to answer, they should not be acknowledged by a Lodge or allowed in. 

2                    The more specific questions we outline below, inability or refusal to answer which should also exclude.

From an item on Myososotis Neuilly Bineau  blog by Bro Sully and  Bro Charles.

Brethren

Grand and Provincial Grand officers are limbering up to visit the Lodges and backup their  call for dues , illegally claimed by the GLNF financial manager, Henry Sidery, and  the ad hoc Court Administrator.

Beyond reminding the WMs in their Chairs and leaders of the Craft that they can demand of Grand and Provincial Grand officers in order to preserve harmony in the Lodge that they enter wearing only master masons regalia and do not attempt to sit in the East, unless specifically invited to do so by the WM.

They should be reminded that they no longer have any legitimate status as grand officers.

The following questions may calm their ardour to dominate a meeting.                                             Sully

Working Document (1).

 For the use of WMs who have learned that a Grand or PG officer  is to attend a meeting.

A Grand or Pr.Gd.officer informs you he intends to visit your next meeting. He intends to put on the pressure to exact dues from you. We suggest the WM prepares himself and the following questions that he will put to his worthy visitor. A Past Master of the Lodge can also be asked to do this, which would put a buffer between the Provincial and the Lodge. The answers the Gd.or PG visitor gives will help the Brethren of the Lodge in deciding whether to admit him.

What has become of the GLNF funds and treasury?

What proof is there that the coffers are merely “empty”?

For how long has there been this disparity between the figures published and the real ones?

Are there any other matters (subjacent) that will call for action for abuse of confidence?

What problems are there which are still hidden at the moment and of which it would be better if we learned right away?

Why has the Province not heeded the warnings that it has been given?

Why has our female Administrator not heeded the warnings she has been given?

Why is the present call for dues in contradiction with the Law?

What concrete guarantees do we have that dues raised now would be given better protection than those that were supposed to be lying in the coffers?

Under what precise orders from his hierarchy is the Gd or PG officer acting?

Since when has he been aware of what he has declared?

Why has he not raised any questions earlier on?

Why has the Province not sounded the alarm?

What personal responsibilities for the present situation has the officer?

How do those responsible envisage reimbursing the missing monies?

Readers are asked to add other questions they consider necessary.

We suspect no G or PG officers knowing the questions that await them will abstain  Good riddance!

Charles.

Comment on this post

Arturusrex 03/07/2011 21:19


Bro Baldrick seems to know how things are in France and the GLNF from the inside. It is curious that he can say: "Those on the side of FMR will not be satisfied until they've brought the whole
edifice crashing to its foundations".
It is, and Bro Baldrick must have realised such from his visiting of our lodges and blogs, the ex GM and his crews, both national and provincial, that are doing all they can to do just that, bring
the GLNF to dissolution and total dilapidation of its constitutions, structures and real estate.
FMR, if any body of resistants, will try to save what can be saved.
The present spate of articles on the missing monies shows we are possibly moving in to the waters of the state prosecutor's.
FMR doesn't want things to go that a way. But Stifani's attitude is forcing it as an issue.
On a minor point, to reply to several English brethren who attach a point of honour to having and wearing Gr or PG regalia, I can only point out to them the "French difference". Over here, it is
difficult, in the case of a vast number of the touters of such, to attach any form of honour or masonic value to the regalia or its being worn My personal opinion is that the Provinces and the
majority of their officers are not worth saving, and should disappear from the future Constitution. But I am probably in a minority on this point and will bow down to the majority. But I feel sure
the wearing of such regalia will be restricted to special occasions in the future.
In the meantime, many thanks to Bro Baldrick for his point of view and opening up the discussion on points that do need airing openly.
And keep looking out for developments!
Most fraternally
Arturusrex


Baldrick of Dunny on the Wold 03/07/2011 17:09


If, as you claim Winnie, that the suspension relating to La Perle de Lumière isn't worth the paper it's written on, what is your view regarding all the lodges within the GLNF which have been
consecrated since the GM resigned his presidency of the association? (I have no idea how many but there must be some) - Are all their warrants null and void and not worth the paper they're written
on? Are we to condemn all the well meaning founders and brethren of these lodges as accomplices of the current system? Do you consider the consecration of the Grand Lodge of Monaco null & void
because a GLNF Grand Officer officiated? Where will it all end?

I tell you this - I know what the UGLE's view of "La Perle de Lumière's" declaration of independance would be, and if I'm right we will find out the GLNF position in due course. Notwithstanding, I
doubt if anyone on the FMR side would accept it.

I guess all will depend on the eventual result of an AGM (whenever that will be) and we'll all get to see what the majority of delegates want to happen in the future. Until then it's all up in the
air, but when the decisions are made I hope that everyone in the GLNF will have the good grace to accept the majority view and move on.

Those that can't should leave and go their own way.


Winnie 03/07/2011 21:10



My Brother,


 


You raise an interesting point. Technically, I would say that a new Lodge consecrated under the signature of our self-proclaimed spiritual guide since his resignation is in fact not consecrated.
However, once the dust has settled, we can only hope that the new GM will lift those suspensions pronounced in haste during these troubled times. And that he confirms the charters of any recently
consecrated Lodge.


As to the validity of the consecration of the GNR Lodge of Monaco, the title of Past Grand Master is rightly held by JC Foellner, like him or not. And Foellner was not representing François
Stifani, he was representing the GLNF. It had been made perfectly clear to François Stifani that he was persona non grata on the Rock. And so he created the feeble excuse that his presence was
required at an important masonic function in Italy. A function under the banner of an Italian Lodge not recognised by the UGLE. Once again François Stifani ignored the Landmarks.


 


The Master Masons at La Perle de la Lumière knew perfectly well what they were doing, they knew that their declaration put them outside the bounds of the GLNF, with or without a GM. 



Baldrick of Dunny on the Wold 03/07/2011 11:41


The longer this whole sad episode goes on the more I begin to believe that the Grande Loge Nationale Française is done for. Those on the side of FMR will not be satisfied until they've brought the
whole edifice crashing to its foundations, and even then I'm not convinced that they'll be happy with the result.

I do believe that those at the top have to go, and the sooner the better. However I am firmly of the opinion that until things are changed at a regular annual general meeting the current
Constitutions and Regulations of the Craft are still in force and should be observed. That means that until the GM is replaced he remains as such "until a sucessor has been duly elected and
installed in his stead". This applies equally to all those members of Grand and Provincial colleges who have sworn a similar oath at their investiture. (IMHO)

There are always two sides to a story and whilst I understand the viewpoint of the Brethren of Perle de Lumière, I do not support their action, nor for that matter its legality. If they can't live
with the rules currently in force then they should leave & go independant. Perhaps this may well be a way of resolving their discontent. Either that or conform to the rules currently in force
until such times as they are changed.

The structure of the GLNF is not much different from that of the UGLA, with Grand and Provincial colleges. The rules clearly state the regalia & decors to be worn by such brethren, and VMs who
insist on it not being worn are frankly out of order. However, I am totally against Grand Officers (whether they be National or Provincial) sticking their noses in to Lodge affairs, particularly in
open lodge. The Worshipful Master is Sovereign and everyone else should keep their counsel unless asked.

I really do hope this sad affair is ended soon, for everyone's sake. Stifani should do everyone a favour and fall on his sword. Go and go now. To remain after his sell by date does no-one any
honour.

Aedificemus.


Winnie 03/07/2011 14:17



My Brother,


There is no Grand Master. The Statutes and by-laws of both the GLNF and the GLNF Association are patently clear on this point. The Grand Master and the President of the Association are one and
the same person. Of his own volition François Stifani resigned as President of the Association. As such he also resigned as Grand master. It follows that all GOs and PGOs apponited by him also
fall at the same time. 


You rightly point out that the WM is the sole master of the Lodge. Unless a visiting GO or PGO is attending on a specific mission it is perfectly normal that the WM require them to wear the Rite
regalia and not the GO or PGO regalia. Equally he can require them to sit on the North or the South but not in the East.


Concerning La Perle de la Lumière it is clear that the masters of the Lodge knowingly took a radical stand of view in order to provoke the reaction that they got. Since the 1997 and subsequent
modifications to the Constitutions, Statutes and By-Laws take precedence over those of 1986 they well knew that the GLNF would suspend them. The error is that the PGM cannot suspend a Lodge
without the authorisation of the GM. And since there is no longer a GM the suspension isn't worth the paper it's printed on.


Resist, Resist, Resist !!!