Comments on: Grand Master Wilbert M. Curtis

By: BeeHive

BeeHive — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:23:36 +0000

Thanks Brother Cooley for your kindness and understanding. I was not trying to get on your case. I’m just a little upset at developments elsewhere and some days my head is not screwed on straight. Brotherly love will prevail!

By: Adrian Cooley

Adrian Cooley — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:24:56 +0000

Grand Master Curtis, I thank you for the explanation. Again, like I said in my original post this was a great article about you. I was simply curious about the use of the word “charter” because it might mislead some to think that the MWPHGL of Texas was not regular and legitimate BEFORE the UGLE gave you this document. But of course we know the MWPHGL of Texas as well as other PHA Grand Lodges were regular and legitimate before being recognized by the UGLE. I’m just a brother looking to gain more light. Thanks again for enlightening us. Thank you Beehive for writing this article. I look forward to following your blog.

By: BeeHive

BeeHive — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:16:05 +0000

Thanks Grand Master, my misunderstanding. I’m not sure how I thought it was a Charter but I am indebted for being set straight. My weakness has always been rules and regulations and all things relative to the political/legal entanglements that snare our Fraternity. Next time I will take more time to ask the questions to make sure I have it right. In the meantime my apologies for the controversy.

By: Wilbert M. Curtis

Wilbert M. Curtis — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:31:40 +0000

Gentlemen,
There is an error in the article as it relates to the document that I am holding. Since it is seems to be the point of contention inspite of the good that comes from the article, I will address it. The document that I am holding is not a CHARTER. It is the commission from the United Grand Lodge of England designating me as the Representative for the Grand Lodge of England to the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas. It is purely an Honorary Appointment of which I cherrish dearly. The jewel that I am holding is the jewel of that office.

It is amazing how when someone attempts to do something postive and makes a error, it becomes the highlight of the event.

The Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas and the Grand Lodge of Texas do recognize each other. The Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas does have mutual recognititon with the United Grand Lodge of England.

I commend the writer for the article and accept responsibility for any misunderstanding that may have come from this fine article.

Fraternally and sincerely,

Wilbert M. Curtis, Grand Master
Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas

By: Tom Accuosti

Tom Accuosti — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:02:40 +0000

then all Mainstream Grand Lodges are clandestine because they were never chartered.

Of course, some GLs derive their charters from other US states…

:coughs:

Well, never mind that now.

then all Mainstream Grand Lodges are illegal because they just usurped the authority to be such never having been granted that authority by their original source, the Grand Lodge of England

Right, which is entirely unlike what the UGLE did when they…

Umm… Err…

:crickets:

Well, I’m sure it all works out in the end.

By: Flotown79

Flotown79 — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:24:53 +0000

Is it odd that no one has questioned the legitimacy St. John’s Lodge in Massachusetts. It set itself up as a GL in 1733. At one time there were a total of 4 GL in the Mass at once.

The GL of AK was formed after the MWPHGL of AK. Many say that was possible because “MS” did not recongize PHA. So according to some PHA never existed. Well, when African Grand Lodge notified the world that it was “free and independent” it didn’t recognize other GL in the US. The same rules that the GL of AK used, Prince Hall did the exact same thing.

By: Adrian Cooley

Adrian Cooley — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:52:12 +0000

Maybe I need to clarify that I am a PHA Mason myself (as my lodge website shows) and I think maybe I need explain myself a little more.

You said
“It is a Charter and if what you say is true by your reasoning then all Mainstream Grand Lodges are clandestine because they were never chartered.”

When I said Grand Lodges are not chartered I said that because isn’t it the usual Masonic custom that 3 or more lodges who were regularly chartered to form a regular Grand Lodge? (Of course the exceptions in the early days of the land what we now call America in the 1700s) Basically, I am of the understanding that Grand Lodges do not need to be chartered as long as the three or more lodges that formed it were chartered by a legitimate and regular Grand Body. Is this not correct?

Also, you said
“Prince Hall, however, unlike Mainstream GLs applied for reinstatement from the UGLE and received the same.”

When you say “Prince Hall” are you talking about the PHA Grand Lodges that have applied for recognition from UGLE in the last 20 years? Again, just curious because this is interesting.

By: BeeHive

BeeHive — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:16:00 +0000

It is a Charter and if what you say is true by your reasoning then all Mainstream Grand Lodges are clandestine because they were never chartered. Also by your reasoning then all Mainstream Grand Lodges are illegal because they just usurped the authority to be such never having been granted that authority by their original source, the Grand Lodge of England – which is a common criticism of Prince Hall.

Prince Hall claims that they are the only Grand Lodges in the United States of America who still have a Charter issued by the UGLE, the mother Grand Lodge for most of the early Lodge development of this country.

Most people forget when they criticize Prince Hall for having lost its connection with the Grand Lodge of England and being dropped from its roles in the early 1800s that the same thing happened to all white Mainstream Grand Lodges also. Between the American Revolution and the War of 1812 all harmonious relations with England ceased and communication with “the enemy” was held to a bare minimum.

Prince Hall, however, unlike Mainstream GLs applied for reinstatement from the UGLE and received the same.

By: Adrian Cooley

Adrian Cooley — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:55:47 +0000

@William

Thanks for explanation but is “charter” the appropriate name? It may mislead one to believe that MWPHGL of Texas has a charter from the UGLE empowering them work as Masons. I don’t believe UGLE gives charter to lodges anymore, plus I also don’t believe Grand Lodges are chartered only subordinate lodges. Just curious.

By: William Ross

William Ross — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:24:29 +0000

@ Adrian Cooley-
I think that’s a copy of our acknowledgment from UGLE as a legally formed and regular Grand Lodge. In order for a state to receive this recognition from UGLE, the historic source of legal masonry, they must have mutual recognition with their predominately white Masonic Grand Lodge in the same state. Both Prince Hall and the white GL (of Texas) agreed to this in 2006, so the charter of recognition was issued to Texas from England. In actuality, Prince Hall still has our original charter from England from 1874, which made us legitimate in the first place.