Talk:Knight Kadosh

Why this page?
This page is simply a copy of a section at Catholicism and Freemasonry. It adds NO new information. It is not a sub-page... The point of subpages is to expand on the information contained in the mainpage, not just to repeat it. Is anyone planning to expand this article? If so, what kind of information will be included? Blueboar 17:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Could do, I've just skimmed the description of the degree in ACF Jackson, but it doesn't match with the description here, oops. Given that, I'm not sure of the purpose unless we copy the descriptions of all 33 from Jackson.  I'd rather not describe all 33, so this one is a bit of an anomaly.ALR 19:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It also doesn't address the fact that the CE used the obsolete Cerneau source, and not the real source, on which to base its argument. Even in 1913 (the date for the old CE), Cerneau had been out of use for over 40 years. MSJapan 21:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jackson does talk about the penalties of the degree, as one of the Elu series, being pretty gruesome. He doesn't go into depth, but it's clear he's talking about the penalties on the candidate, similar to TCAAMTTOBTR (EA) etc, nothing more than that.  I'll transcribe in a few days, studying for an exam on Friday so it'll have to wait til after that.ALR 21:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Why this page? Because I was going to put some text in the Scottish Rite degree page on the controversy and then realised that the Knight Kadosh didn't have an article. I am sure that the text will soon include more than the information from the C&FM page.JASpencer 22:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that it's justifiable to have an article dedicated to it, the issues surrounding the Cerneau ritual are discussed elsewhere. On this justification there would have to be a couple of hundred different articles, each dealing with an individual degree or grade ceremony, many of them with little potential to be more than a few lines long.ALR 06:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I was a bit put off by the use of Å.E. Waite's "New Encyclopedia of Freemasonry" as a source for this article. I don't know anyone that uses A.E. Waite by itself, and usually when they do it is to show how most responsible historians and authors disagree with him. I have Waite on my reference shelves, but I keep it on a high shelf as I rarely ever use it. Closer to hand are "Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia," Bernard Jones' "Freemasons' Guide and Compendium," recent volumes of A.Q.C. (from the London Research Lodge). Other older works that I would reach for long before I would ever look in Waite are "Gould's History of Freemasonry," and "Mackey's Revised Encyclopedia." But I'd never refer to the last two without comparing with the others. For history of the Scottish Rite A.C.F. Jackson's "Rose Croix," and Wm. L. Fox's "Lodge of the Double Headed Eagle" are the best sources, although there is always updated information being published in A.Q.C. or the Scottish Rite Research Society. But as for Waite? I'd put it up high, where you can't reach it easily.PGNormand 17:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the abbreviations are OK, but I would say that Waite's explanations of workings are somewhat fanciful. However, I also know Gould is a bit off in places as well (for example, he misspelled the German word for "stonemason").  I think we need the citations (especially since Waite and others' works are readily available at local bookstores), but it might be helpful to have a third-party source that critiques Waite and his contemporaries' methodology. MSJapan 21:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn't either last years or the previous AQC contain an article on Waite? ISTR reading something about him in one, but I don't keep mine in order, they're all over the house so it could be in any one from the last 10 years or so.ALR 21:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I orgianlly added the Waite references, because that was what I had on hand at the time. Although I believe most of Waite's earlier works are completely unreliable, "A New Encyclopedia of Freemasonry" can be used for historical context.  I have also added a Mackey ref, which was the exact same information regarding the Kadosh ritual.  I am pleased to see that your library is so extensive, PGNormand.  Feel free to broaden what I started in terms of the history of this degree. Chtirrell 00:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word(s) "Controversy" / "Controversial"
In the article, under the sub-heading "Controversy," it is stated that "the Knight Kadosh Degree is controversial." Later, under the same sub-heading, the book Morals & Dogma by Albert Pike is described as "controversial." Of course, I understand that the epithet "controversial" is added here by someone who has an anti-Masonic P.O.V., so its to be expected. But, I guess my question is this: Isn't the Scottish Rite, and even Freemasonry itself, 'controversial' to this writer? If so, then why not add the term "controversial" prior to each and every mention of the Scottish Rite, Freemasonry, the book Morals & Dogma, Albert Pike, etc, etc, etc? By the same token, if Freemasons disagree with some of the things written in The Catholic Encyclopedia, then don't they consider it to be, well, controversial? And if so, then why DON'T they add the term "controversial" before every mention of THAT book??? Its just all so confusing.PGNormand 00:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, technically, I would think that of all things, throwing out a POV statement like "controversial" should either be explained in detail, complete with probably several refs, pr yanked right-quick? Grye 08:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, OK, I read it, & it is ref'd... But not, I think, written very well. I do see the relavance to the section though: Say a Catholic comes to the page, knowing nothing, &/or hearing this-and-that, wondering what all the hoopla is about, & wants to educate themself... I can see it. for what it's worth. But yeah, maybe some work? Grye 08:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The word was a bit over-used. I edited the section to fix that. MSJapan 17:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess my point was that everything is controversial to somebody! For example: Isn't the Methodist Church considered controversial to the Anglican Church, since the Methodists broke away from the Anglicans? By the same token, isn't the Anglican Church considered controversial to the Roman Catholic Church, and vice versa? If so, then when writing an article about, let's say, the Anglican Church, should ANY reference to the Roman Catholic Church be preceded by the word "controversial." By the same token, in any article about either church, shouldn't there be a subheading labeled "Controversy," where it is explained that "to Roman Catholics the Anglican Church is considered controversial," and vice versa. Or, in other articles, "to Eastern Orthodox Christians, the Roman Catholic Church is considered controversial." Or, "to Presbyterians, the Baptist Church is considered controversial," etc, etc, etc. PGNormand 18:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Northern Jurisdiction Degrees
When the Scottish Rite Degrees are mentioned or listed in Wikipedia articles a practice seems to have developed that an editor will post the title(s) of the Degree(s) in the Southern Jurisdiction and then offer the title(s) as they appear in the Northern Jurisdiction, as if these were simply two different but equal lists of title(s) of the Degrees. In fact, however, the titles of the Degrees and their arrangement, as used by the Mother (Southern) Supreme Council, is substantially the same list or "tableau" of Degrees that is used in the Canadian Supreme Council, the English Supreme Council, the Australian Supreme Council, and virtually every other Supreme Council in the world. It is the Northern Supreme Council of the U.S. that has made fairly dramatic changes to the titles of its Degrees, their arrangment, and even their content. It needs to be remembered that there are more than two Supreme Councils in the world, and the U.S. Supreme Councils, although the Southern Jurisdiction is the oldest, are not the only ones. The Kadosh Degree appears in every tableau of the Scottish Rite Degrees that I have ever seen, except in that of the Northern Jurisdiction of the U.S.PGNormand 14:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Bro Normand, what I would like to see, either here, OR in the SRJ, is a discussion of the "lineage" of the degrees as worked by th AASR around the world. We know, for example, that the degrees that were first worked by the SJ, are not what were being worked after the Pike revision, and that what is now being worked in the SJ is not the "pure" Pike revision anymore.  I'm mindful of Henderson's Masonic World Guide which describes the descent of all of the various GL's, and a quick blurb about what ritual they use.  So, for example, we would see:  SJ (Pre Pike (and a better description of it than that), Pike, new ritual) or whatever the progression was, and then NMJ (Pre-Pike, Cerneau or whatever the source was, revision, and the latest revision . . .).  I'll talk about some of this with a friend at NMJ in Lexington, about developing a history of this, even in a short outline form.--Vidkun 15:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Although the Scottish Rite Research Society is probably the better venue for publishing an article of that nature. Up to now, articles like this have focused on only one degree at a time, rather than attempting to take on all 29 of the original SR degrees. I don't believe that rewording (or "rescripting") a degree thereby creates a new degree. Its still the same degree, just a different "version." If the basic elements, the theme, the legend, the lesson, the passwords, signs, grips, symbology of the degree, etc. stay essentially the same, then it is still the same degree, even though there may be several different versions of the script for the degree. Obviously, many of the SR degrees were originally written in French or German. When they were translated to English a new version was created. They may have been translated several different times by several different translators, each creating their own version, and some maybe embellishing a bit, but this did not create a new degree, or degrees. All this is an entirely different thing from what has been done by the U.S. Northern Supreme Council. The NMJ has essentially tossed out some of these degrees in their entirety, and supplanted them with entirely new degrees. An example is "The Four Chaplains Degree" that recounts the story of four Navy Chaplains who died in World War Two. To include a list of "Scottish Rite Degrees" that includes an "invention" like this one alongside a list of the original Scottish Rite Degrees, implying that the two lists are equally legitimate lists of Scottish Rite Degrees, is completely specious, deceptive and misleading. PGNormand 19:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Vidkun: In response to your posting above, see the "Scottish Rite Ritual Monitor & Guide" published by the Mother Supreme Council 33°. In the appendix 1 of that book it reprints the "Circular throughout the two Hemispheres" that was published and commonly known as the "Manifesto of 1802." In that document, it gives the original list of 33 degrees of the Scottish Rite. In addition to the first three degrees of Masonry, it lists 4) Secret Master, 5) Perfect Master, 6) Intimate Secretary, 7) Provost and Judge, 8) Intendant of the Building, 9) Elected Knights of 9, 10) Illust. Elected of 15, 11) Sublime Knight Elected, 12) Grand Master Architect, 13) Royal Arch, 14) Perfection, 15) Knight of the East, 16) Prince of Jerusalem, 17) Knight of the East and West, 18) Sov. Prince of Rose Croix of Heroden, 19) Grand Pontiff, 20) Grand Master of All Symbolic Lodges, 21) Patriarch Noachite, or Chev. Prussien, 22) Prince of Libanus, 23) Chief of the Tabernacle, 24) Prince of the Tabernacle, 25) Prince of Mercy, 26) Knight of the Brazen Serpent, 27) Commander of the Temple, 28) Knight of the Sun, 29) K. --H., 30, 31, 32) Prince of the Royal Secret, Princes of Masons, and 33) Sov. Grand Inspectors General -- Officers Appointed for Life. Also listed were several other degrees which were in the possession of the Supreme Council, and those included the degrees of "Compagnon Ecossais, Le Maitre Ecossais & Le Grand Maitre Ecossais, &c, &c, making in the aggregate 52 degrees." You will notice that all the numbered degrees above (4 through 29 and 33) are the same degrees as are in use today by the Mother Supreme Council, although five degrees (25 through 29) now appear in slightly different positions. Now, in response to your comments above, I would make three points: First, the original form of the degrees was somewhat sparse in terms of "ritual," making them more of a "communication" than a "conferral" as they are today. Typically, a degree consisted of a short opening ritual of a few lines followed by a short "reception" and an obligation. Following that, the Brother was then invested with his new regalia, given the signs, tokens and words of the degree, and then given a lecture in the form of questions and answers. This was followed by a closing ritual. My second point is that there is a misconception that there was some sort of "pure original ritual" before Pike's revision(s). This simply isn't true. In the early years of the 19th century there were no "official" rituals of the degrees, and revisions were made during the 1820's. (By 1823, the Kadosh Degree had been moved to the 30th, the 29th had become Knight of St. Andrew, and the 31st had become Grand Inquiring Commander.) During the early to mid-1800's, a number of different sources were collected which included Francken's versions of the degrees, Dalcho's rituals, some French versions of some of the degrees, and two important works:  Francois Delauney's "Thuileur Universel, ou Manuel du Franc-macon" and Delauney's "Thuileur des trente-trois degres de l'ecossisme du rit Ancien, dit Accepte. All of these sources, as well as others, gave Pike a great deal of insight into the roots of the degrees and many obscure significant words in the degrees. All this helped him bring into the Rite many of the degree elements that had been missing in the earliest Supreme Council versions. The Third and last point I want to make is that the degree of "Knight Kadosh" (the 30th Degree of the Scottish Rite) has always been a part of the Scottish Rite, and is one of the oldest and most important degrees that now make up the Rite. It is the most "Scottish Rite" of all the Scottish Rite degrees, to the point that deleting it from the "ingredients" of the Rite is like taking apples out of an apple pie recipe while still wanting to call the result "apple pie." A.C.F. Jackson, in his book "Rose Croix" (publ. in 1980) states that "the first ritual of the Kadosh or Knights Templar degree" is given in a book written about 1769, although older versions of the degree have been found in the last twenty years pushing its origin to much earlier. It is believed to have been the highest degree of an early system of degrees that included the "Elu" or "Elect Degrees", the Kadosh degree being the degree of "Chevalier Elu." In any case, it was always treated as the "Ne Plus Ultra" degree, and in Morin's Rite of the Royal Secret it appears as the penultimate degree, second only to "Prince of the Royal Secret." As the Scottish Rite is essentially a neo-Templar body, to remove "the most Templar" of all the degrees of the Rite is to declare a basic lack of understanding of the very nature of the Scottish Rite. 74.192.207.49 (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

User Pages
Could I ask editors who are discussing these things on their user pages to discuss them here so that there can be some coherance. It's OK now because we all have watchpages, but in six months time some of these conversations will be harder to piece together. It will also keep a couple of my more millitant comrades from muttering about back channels. JASpencer 22:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Communication between individuals is between them... that is what user talk pages are for. Thanks for telling me that you watch our user pages... now I know to say nasty things about you.  :>) Blueboar 23:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * TBH, it's really the same discussion as has been going on on the Scottish Rite and/or Catholicism and Freemasonry pages. To sum up, the problem is that the degree as it is complained about was never a mainstream degree (see Cerneau discussions), and was last valid in 1867.  For myself, though, I think this seems like an attempt to POV push - even if we were to assume hypothetically that this degree was the real degree at one point, it's been changed numerous times in both jurisdictions, and the argument is therefore dated and no longer valid (though textual proof shows that the argument was invalid long before the argument was made).  So why an article on only this degree, especially given the negative proof available? MSJapan 23:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

From ACF Jackson - The Knight Kadosh or Ne Plus Ultra
This is from an appendix to ACF Jacksons history of the A&AR, so the rituals discussed are predicated on being the English ones, derived from the rituals passed by NMJ when England was warranted to form it's own Supreme Council. Therefore it has not been influenced by Pikes writings, NMJ existed before Pikes alterations. - The degree is worked in full by the Supreme Council for England and Wales for the promotion of Most Wise Sovereigns of the 18th Rose Croix degree. Candidates are those who have been recommended for this promotion by the Chapters, and elected by the Supreme Council to the 30th. Before the ceremony of the 30th the intermediate degrees of 19 to 29 are communicated and conferred by name only. tHis is always done by the Supreme Council or its representatives.

The past history of the degree is, however, of much interest to students of the A&A Rite. The actual Kadosh degree may have been the last of a series of Elu (Elect) degrees. These Elect degrees are called the 'Vengeance Degrees' but there is some doubt whether the originals dealt with earthly punishments. A 1765 version of the Chevalier Elu (not 30th at the time) finds the master telling the candidate you know well the persecutions which wiped out the Templars....Our leader, in the middle of his torments, said no more than that God was too just to leave this crime unpunished

There is considerable evidence that the origins of this type of Kadosh degree lie in Germany and were a development of the Rite of Strict Observance. The degree was probably introduced into France through Metz, with the inspirer being the same master of a Metz Lodge, Meunier de Precourt, who game information to Willermoz about the 18th. The degree had a bad reception in Paris and was condemned by the Council of the Kinghts of the East as 'false, fanatical, detestable, not only because it was contrary to the principles and duties of the State and Church'. It was, however, accepted by the Council of Emperors of the East and West. Its actual date may be fixed by the fact that, as late as 1767, the Compte de Cleremont wrote that the 'limit of the sublime degrees in Masonry' was 15 of which the summit was the Rose Croix, while by 1717 it was the Kadosh degree mentioned in Franckens Ms.

A legend in early versions is that the Elect (of 9 or 15) had descendents who were Kadosh (probablu a Hebrew word implying holy or consecrated). In due course, 70 of these Kadosh were translators of the bible under Ptolemy, King of Egypt. Later, under the leadership of St John the Almoner, they and their descendants tended the sick and needy, but they decreased in numbers until there were only a few remaining. These joined the Crusaders. such a story has, of course, no historical foundation. The persecution of the Templars appears in many of the versions of the Kadosh type degrees, with the remnants fleeing to Scotland. Unfortunately most include greusome and unpleasant penalties and these have been used by anti-masonic bodies in the same way that the penalties of the Symbolic degrees have been used to denograte Craft Masonry.

In the London French Ms, the candidates have to swear never to stop hating the Kinghts of Malta because they became rich with the wealth of the Kights Templar. This is historically untrue and the story was probably invented as an attack on the Roman Catholic Church, which had always been in amity with the Knights of Malta, and still is.

Towards the end of the 19th Century, when relations in France between State and Church were at their lowest ebb, the 'liberal-minded' members of the Grand Orient and its Council of Rites changed the ritual of the degree and used it for deliberate attack son the Church. Fortunately most of these conentious rituals have disappeared and the high degrees in France are now adaptations of more reasonable ones. -- Note: The various Elu degrees are extensions of the Traditional History of the 3rd.

That may inform the discussion.ALR 15:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge?
Any comments on the Merge proposal? Personally, I don't mind... but I also don't think it is completely needed either. Blueboar 17:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think keeping them seperate is the way to go. I don't believe ever SR degree needs an article, but this is a special case.  Chtirrell 19:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps we should remove the tag? Blueboar 19:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As I raised the issue it should be clear that I think they need merged. I don't see any justification for it to be distinct (fwiw I've just got home from an A&AR meeting) as it's no more special than any of the other degrees.  There are elements of any of them that could be twisted to support positions hostile to FM but it appears that this one is a hobby horse.ALR 22:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that Knight Kadosh has notoreity seperate from the Scottish Rite. The main thrust of the Larry Holly onslaught on Freemasonry at the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1990s was what he alleged happened in the Knight Kadosh degree.  This was perhaps the most notable single Christian criticism of Freemasonry since Quaesitum est. JASpencer 21:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * JAS does have a point ... Whether the alegations are true or not, unlike other degrees the Kadosh degree has been singled out for condemnation by Catholics and Fundamentalist Protestants alike. If it ends up that we do merge this into Scottish Rite, NPOV does indicate that some discussion of this specific degree (and the allegations of Anti-masons concerning it), should be included.
 * In either case... it does need to be noted that the various complaints are now definitely outdated,  since this degree was majorly re-worked in the recent ritual revisions (as of 2004, I think). Blueboar 23:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Magnum Opus says...
As the degree was originally written, it consists of an opening, an obligation, a very long history of the Templars, and a closing. It is mostly one long historical recitation, within which there are only a few mentions of Clement V, no mention of a tiara, and the candidate does nothing but sit and listen.

Pike, Albert. Magnum Opus or The Great Work, Kessinger, section XXX, pp. 1-19. ISBN 141791095X.

There are no internal page numbers, and each degree has its own section with its own page numbers. There is also no date, and no place of publication. MSJapan 00:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Gould quote... are we talking about the same Kadosh degree?
I cut the following from the article so we could discuss it:

Robert Freke Gould also notes the origin of the degree in a purported vengance of the Templars against the Papacy for its disbanning:

"In 1743 the Masons of Lyons invented the Kadosch degree, comprising the vengeance of the Templars, and thus laid the foundation for all the Templar rites."

This article seems to be about the kadosh degree that is contanined in the Southern Jurisdiction's Scottish Rite... what the Masons of Lyons may or may not have done in 1743 is a bit irrelevant ... unless there is a source that directly ties the two. Given that there were thousands of quasi-masonic degrees floating about France in the 1700s... do we know if this is even the same Kadosh degree? Blueboar 20:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The best that could be claimed was some sort of derivative through the Ecossais, if this is even at all related to that. To link it is specultive in the extreme. MSJapan 21:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Blueboar raises a valid point, but to say that it is speculative in the extreme is overdoing it. The fact that the degree bears the same name is quite probative; it's not likely a coincidence or unrelated.  However, I agree that it is not a bad idea to require a source which makes the connection. Mamalujo 23:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the fact that they are both Masonic (or quasi-masonic) degrees is a relationship... but the fact that they have the same name does not really mean anything much. Freemasonry in France in the 1700s was absolute chaos when it came to creating degrees and rites.  There really was no oversight.  In the struggle to become "recognized" as legit, these bodies often borrowed both material and degree names... but the end result was often several degrees with the same name that were very different than the original they all borrowed from.  There could be a direct connection between these two Kadosh degrees, or there could be no real connection at all beyond the name.  We need a source to know how strong the connection is. Blueboar 02:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, all granted. That's why I agreed with your original point requiring a source indicating a connection. Mamalujo 17:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Jean-Bapt. Willermoz developed a rite of 25 degrees about 1761 which included the Kadosh Degree. It is probable that Baron de Tschoudy, who wrote the book "L'Etoile Flamboyante" about the Kadosh and other high degrees, and who was living in Metz from 1756 to 1765, communicated them to others in Metz, but probably not before 1756. It would be naive to think that the degrees that Tschoudy was in possession of did not influence Willermoz. Meunier de Precourt, an important Mason of Metz during this period, could have easily obtained the degree from Tschoudy and communicated them to Willermoz at Lyons. We know that de Precourt and Willermoz corresponded, and de Precourt wrote to Willermoz in 1762 and stated that the German Rosicrucians knew of the "Order of the Temple" and were in possession of "a thousand marvelous secrets." When I attended a lecture by Prof. Margaret Jacob a couple of years ago, she discussed the many French archives that have been recently recovered from the Russians who confiscated them from the Germans at the end of WWII. During that lecture, she stated that there was an early Kadosh ritual in the archives of Lyons which predates 1761. ... For what its worth. 74.192.207.49 (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All very interesting, but to mention it we still need a direct connection to the Knight Kadosh dedgree that is part of the ASSR-SJ. We know that there were significant differences between Southern Jurisdiction's version of the degree and the Northern Jurisdiction's version (before the NJ dropped the degree completely), indeed enough of a difference that it is difficult to say that they are the same degree... so it is very possible that there were significant differences between the Lyons degree and the SJ's degree. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that Gould would be referring more to the supposed Cerneau version (the one everybody complains about; I say "supposed" because the only source readily available was written by an avowed anti-Mason), and I think Pike's rewrite(s) effectively break whatever link there was, but I can't be sure without consulting his sources there (Legendas, which can be done, but I can't do it right this minute). MSJapan (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism
There is a question regarding whether this article should be categorized in the Category:Anti-Catholicism. This is a real good question. It certainly contains material which is anti-Catholic in nature, which would seemingly qualify it for inclusion. Some of that material, seemingly, is supported by some sources which might be considered notable, although I am not including the Catholic Encyclopedia statement which I have serious questions of reliability about. My own personal opinion would be to include the category, but perhaps restructure the article so that the "Controversy" section is retitled "Allegations of Anti-Catholicism", stressing that there is no internal evidence which suggests the accuracy of the allegations. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you read the article, there is debate as to whether the degree actually does contain material that is Anti-Catholic in nature. There certainly are allegations that it does contain such material (or did... the degree was substantially re-written a few years ago), and I do not doubt that the Church views it as being Anti-catholic (it veiws all of Freemasonry as being such). But the Scottish Rite certainly does not view the degree as being Anti-Catholic. Thus the categorization is a somewhat POV determination ... I suppose the real issue here is whether the existance of an allegation is enough to qualify something for a somewhat accusitory categorization.  I would be much happier if the article were to be categorized with something like: "Allegations of Anti-Catholicism".  That would reflect the facts without being POV.  Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I probably would too, if such a category existed. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to. And the "it" to which I referring which contains material which is Anti-Catholic is this article, not necessarily the rite itself, and I apologize for any misunderstanding. Perhaps, if that content were to removed or placed in another article about allegedly anti-Catholic material in Freemasonry, that might be best. I don't myself know how many such articles contain such allegations, but I certainly could see having such potentially notable, if not necessarily accurate, material included in a central location, rather than being spread out to multiple articles. John Carter (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, considering that there is a lot of material regarding the interrelation of Catholicism and Freemasonry which is at best dubious, I wouldn't object to seeing the Anti-Catholicism category removed if the Catholicism and Freemasonry category is considered acceptable as it has been added. That category certainly doesn't have the "perjorative" element of the A-C category, and is probably sufficient for these purposes. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is acceptable to me. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been through the degree in the Southern Jurisdiction in 2003 or so. I can say with certainty that it DOES involve trampling a papal tiara and a crown, but it does not include stabbing a skull, I've never heard of anything like that. I cannot speak to whether or not the Valley in which I received the degree was using the or an official ritual, or the year the ritual was printed, I merely know what I participated in. That being said, the degree did make clear in its spoken verbage that the Tiara did not represent the Pope of the Catholic Church specifically, but any religious leader or organization that uses its power to urighteous, tyrannical means. I can't remember the exact statement. This obviously needs some investigation so the article can be accurate or at least be written in a way that represents more uncertainty about the content of the degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.152.69 (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No trampling (or skull stabbing) when I took the degree in 2008. But the key here is that we can not base what is stated in the article on the say so of any Wikipedia editor (you or me)... we need to base it on what reliable sources say.  That Catholic critics believe there is a trampling/stabbing in this degree, and object to it, is documented.  That Pike's original ritual (the only version to be published) does not contain trampling or stabbing is documented. Unfortunately, we can not say much more than this, because we don't have reliable sources to support it. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

1912 Catholic Encyclopedia
This may seem pointlessly nitpicking, but I'm not sure one way or another. I have seen at least one current Catholic apologist, Karl Keating, explicitly state that he sees the 1912 edition of the CE as being the preferable one to later editions because it was more detailed and complete in many historical areas than the later editions, which have apparently been condensed at least in regards to certain subjects. I also note that Keating, so far as I can tell, is no more necessarily anti-Masonic than any other apologist, and that's there's no reason to think that he made the statement specifically because of the information regarding Freemasonry.

That being the case, I question the extant phrasing regarding the 1912 CE, because it leads at least me to believe that it is implying that the content was removed because it was erroneous, which may not be the case in this instance, when apparently several entries were condensed for later editions. Maybe changing the phrasing to something along he lines of "the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia contained such information, but it is not to be found in subsequent editions, which were substantially condensed in several areas", might be more accurate. I hope no one sees this as being a statement that I believe the statement is necessarily accurate or justifiable, just that the evidence itself doesn't seem to necessarily support that conclusion simply on the basis of the info being omitted from later editions. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that is making an OR assumption. We do not know why articles were changed between editions.  In some cases the change may simply reflect an editorial desision to condense  ... but in others the change may reflect a change in knowledge and information.  To use the various articles on Freemasonry as the example... a change in text may reflect a desire to have a more condensed entry... but it may also reflect the fact that something in Freemasonry changed, or that the editors discovered that something stated in the original CE was not true, or at least was no longer true.  The point is, we don't know why the editors made the changes they made.  All we know is that the changes were made... some statements found in the 1912 ed. were not repeated in subsequent editions. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, for the most part. However, I think that OR assumption is one many readers will make, and that, on that basis, maybe adding a clause to the effect of the later editions being substantially abridged would help ensure that that conclusion, which I do think many readers would leap to, if not necessarily made. By simply stating the later editions were abridged, and possibly also copyedited, we could help ensure that that unfounded assumption is not instantly jumped to. John Carter (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We are not responsible for any assuptions readers may make ... we can not include assuptions. To do so violates WP:NOR. We have two sentences that are factual and verified... 1) "The 1918 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia stated that, in the ceremony in use in the Southern Jurisdiction of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite in the United States, purported to have been written by Albert Pike, the Papal tiara is trampled during the initiation." This is an accurate and verifiable statement, the 1918 edition does state this.  2) "This allegation does not appear in any subsequent editions of the Catholic Encyclopedia."  This is also an accurate and verifiable statement.  The allegation does not appear in subsequent editions.  To speculate as to why the allegation does not appear is OR... perhaps the editors thought it a minor point and cut it to save space; perhaps they discovered that the allegation was incorrect and that a Papal tiara is not trampled during the degree... perhaps a tiara was trampled in 1918, but was not in 1960s when the new edition came out.  The point is, we don't know.  Unless we have a source that discusses why that specific allegation was not included in later editions, we can not speculate.  All we can say is 1) it was in the 1918 edition and 2) it was not in the later ones. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, as per the Manual of style, clarity is something we are supposed to strive for and, thus, is something we are responsible for. And we do know that the later editions of the Encyclopedia were abridged, as per the source cited. I can probably provide a specific reference to that effect if required. Also, it is not speculation, if we have a source which I am all but certain I can provide within a day or two if necessary, to say that the later editions were abridged or shortened, which is really the only change in text being proposed. Considering that the first "supplement" to the Encyclopedia seems to have been published in 1922, as per our article on the Catholic Encyclopedia, it seems reasonable to me that the subject being included is the 1912 edition. I can probably also verify that if such is required. John Carter (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah.. hold on... I think I see where there is some confusion here. If you look at the citation, when the article talks about subsequent editions it is reffering to the 1967 New Catholic Encyclopedia ... not to "suplemental" editions of the original CE.  In the NCE the article on Freemasonry was substantially re-written.  Several claims that appeared in the old CE were not included in the NCE (the entire tone of the 1967 article on Freemasonry was less harsh ... note that the 2007 edition of the NCE does not even have an article on Freemasonry). Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Which basically means that the entire section has to be rewritten, if I grasp right. Because what it apparently says is that it appears in the 1912 edition (I don't know what this 1918 edition is, I don't find reference to any such specific edition), and did not appear in any of the subsequent editions (I have to assume reprints qualify as well, and although I can't be sure I think it probably was reprinted in the interim - I'll check on that), and that it did not appear in the substantially rewritten NCE edition. I think. This somewhat hinges on what this 1918 edition being referred to is, and whether there were any reprints in the interim. I think. John Carter (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at the citation... it should probably read 1917... the link is to an online version at www.newadvent.org that uses that date. I don't know if this version is different than the 1912 ed. (actually, I did not even know that there even was a 1912 ed).  I personally checked the 1967 NCE at the New York Public Library (I also looked at the 2007 edition, with the idea that that edition  would have the most up to date information, but found that there is no article on Freemasonry in that one at all).  What I do know is that the claim of tiara trampling is in the online 1917 version that is cited ... and it is not in the 1967 NCE.  Blueboar (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

New Ritual?
According to a recent edit: The Revised Standard Pike Ritual of 2000 included minor revisions, yet it maintains most of Pike's work.

I have to question this... I have it on fairly good oral authority that the AASR-SJ did a major overhall in recent years, and all but abandoned the Pike Ritual, especially in reguards to the Knight Kadosh Degree. Is my oral source wrong?... are we talking about two different things?... or what? Blueboar (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Knowing Art, I find it unlikely he would scrap Pike. I don't have his current email address, although it's probably available through supreme council, albeit an official, not personal one.--Vidkun (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Knight Kadosh. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20060827014028/http://www.bessel.org/helmer/200108.htm to http://www.bessel.org/helmer/200108.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)