Cathecism vs. Masonic Disinformation

By VW Gene B. Illenberger, PDGL (379)

We are not allowed to communicate Masonically with Clandestine Masons; our rules are very specific. However, should you come across literature online and in print with disinformation that might possibly sow doubt in your minds, or find yourself unavoidably placed in a hot seat with no other recourse but to defend our Grand jurisdiction, hopefully the below Q&A guide will prove very useful:

A) We in the GLP assume the History of Spanish Masonry in the Philippines by virtue of the fusion via affiliation of 1917. The original Gran Logia Regional de Filipinas, led by its Grand Master, together with the vast majority of its hermanos, decided to shift allegiance to the GLPI (former name of the GLP), which caused the closure and surrender of the charter of all of its lodges to the Gran Oriente Espanol (GOE), and the later reconstitution of the same lodges (albeit renumbered), with the same Hermanos belonging to those lodges, into the GLPI. We were the actual Masons (Not a revival) who initiated Bonifacio, Mabini, Aguinaldo etc.

B) We lay claim by virtue of the fusion in 2001 of the Grand Lodge of Spain (Gran Logia de Espana, GLE/GLS) and Gran Oriente Espanol (GOE) - the same Grand Lodge that initiated the likes of Jose Rizal and Marcelo Del Pilar. The GLP has amity relations with the GLE/GLS.

See Answer to number 1. But let us ask them back as well: A) If the Gran Logia Nacional de Filipinas (GLNF) declared independence and operated its Supreme Council and Grand Lodge without authority to do so from its mother Grand Lodge, the Spanish Supreme Council or any other lawful Masonic body, what reason could it possibly argue that our Philippine National Heroes, for instance, more closely belongs to theirs than to GLP? These heroes were made Masons within lodges that are now part of the GLP, and initiated by Hermanos that are now forever part of our jurisdiction. One cannot claim affinity via rituals simply because of the use of such rituals - an act that is illegal in the first place. B) The Gran Logia Soberana del Archipelago Filipino or “Soberana'' cannot also lay claim as it came from GLPI, got another charter from the GOE as the revived Gran Logia Regional de Filipinas, and later given "independence," ergo they are a different entity altogether from the Original Gran Logia Regional de Filipinas, whose lodges which initiated Bonifacio, Mabini, Aguinaldo et al have already fused with the GLPI.

They can readily enter our lodges. They are recognized brethren by virtue of the Philippine fusion by affiliation of 1917 and the Spanish fusion of 2001.

Due to an unfortunate disharmony within Magdalo Lodge resulting in a change of lodge name, the esteemed brother became inactive for several years. He did not however demit from the GLP. He later returned to the fold a few years before his death. On 1 January 1955, he again took his vows in his lodge, Ibarra No. 31, and re-dedicated himself to FreeMasonry (Cabletow, Jan 1955). On 26 April 1955, he was even the Guest Speaker at the GLP 29th Ancom. (Pro 1955)

Masons, regular Masons in particular, are obligated to observe the Ancient Landmarks, Edicts, Rules & Regulations of the order, essential for Masonic brotherhood to exist. Part of those is recognizing who are legitimate Masons and who are not. Masonry is not the wild wild west wherein everyone can do as they please. If you insist that we are to interpret the above quote in the general sense, then there is no need for Freemasonry to exist, and anyone could just simply call himself a Mason and expect others to recognize him as such.

In order for a Scottish Rite Supreme Council to be regular, it must have amity with the first or Mother Council of the world - the Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction (SJ) USA. The Supreme Council SJ already claimed the Philippines as its territory in 1910. GLNF’s Supremo Consejo del Grado 33 para Filipinas declared its claim in 1924 despite having no charter from the SC of the GOE, nor amity from the Mother Council. Their SC was spurious in nature right from the start, being independently declared. In comparison, in 1950, the Supreme Council, 33°, Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite, Republic of the Philippines was legally formed by virtue of its charter being legitimately obtained from SJ, meeting all the requirements of the order including national sovereignty (The Philippines was not a sovereign nation in 1924.)

The charter issued to Soberana in 1925 gaved it authority to form a Grand Lodge within Spanish colonies under the Spanish Supreme Council. In 1925, the Philippines was no longer a Spanish colony but an American Protectorate. Despite the percieved independence granted to them, they were still under the Spanish Supreme Council therefore not totally independent. Their authority to form a Supreme Council for the Philippines in-

With Masonic unity in mind, after the fusion by affiliation in 1917, the Regional Grand Lodge of the GOE and all its lodges in the Philippines went dark. Their individual demits and lodge charters were returned to Spain with corresponding fees paid by Regional Grand Master TM Kalaw (Votaries of Honor, MW Fajardo.) The same lodges with the same affiliated members were then reconstituted under GLPI and renumbered. This means that, after 1917, there were no longer any Spanish lodges in the Philippines outside of GLPI, and there was a period of peace and unity. It was however short-lived, as the Regional Grand Lodge was revived around 1919 by disgruntled former members of the GLPI and a few remaining unaffiliated Masons. See 1917-1925 in the timeline.

Yes, since 1924. Their founders demitted from the GLPI, joined the revived Gran Logia Regional de Filipinas and even consequently got expelled from the same. This meant that they were even considered clandestine by an already clandestine group. This left them with no choice but to create their own SC and GL, without authorization to form their Supreme Council and Grand Lodge from the SC of the GOE, nor recognition and amity with the Mother Council SJ. They were independently declared, not by lodges, but by individual Masons - expelled Masons at that. Their Grand Lodge declared their own jurisdiction without auspices from another Grand Lodge and sprang out of nowhere under no Masonic authority whatsoever at the time of founding. GLNF fails on all requirements for Grand Lodge regularity.

Yes, since 1923 (Cabletow Vol.1 No.1). They meet the requirements of REGULARITY OF ORIGIN, as Soberana can trace the lineage of their charter (Issue No.8 notwithstanding) as follows: Soberana>Revived Gran Logia Regional de Filipinas>Gran Oriente Español>Grand Orient de France>Grand Lodge of England. This jurisdiction however still does not meet the criteria of