Le Convent de Lausanne, vu par Jean-Paul Minsier

Conference Supreme Council (Berlin 2018)
Belgian contribution (pn, 33°)

The Scottish Rite, better known in Europe under the name Ancient and Accepted (Scottish) Rite, is a system of 30 degrees “beyond the Craft” which cannot have an effective existence without the Craft as a pedestal.
Indeed, the very prerequisite to be admitted into these “higher” degrees is to be a master-mason in good standing, member of a Craft lodge attached to a regular and recognized Grand Lodge. This being admitted, the two bodies, Grand Lodge and Scottish jurisdiction, are distinct and separate. There can be no official or insidious Interference of one of them upon the other, or reciprocally.
This means that these two organizations, although fraternally related, have also distinct and separate Statutes and Regulations. For the Craft, the basic document is the Book of Constitutions of the Fraternity of Right Worshipful Accepted Free Masons attributed to Dr James Anderson and published in 1723. It was often rewritten, reviewed, lengthened in three centuries, and adapted to local requests and sensibilities but it remains fundamentally unchanged.
The Scottish Rite, or rather the Supreme Council of the Grand Inspectors Generals 33°, has its own fundamental law in the Grand Constitutions of (so-called) 1786, taking their precedence in the Constitutions and Regulations supposedly drawn up in 1762. These documents are still accepted worldwide as fundamentals of the rite, whatever their authors, date of redaction or place of birth can be (my personal bet is that it took place in South Carolina in the early 19th).
These Grand Constitutions present with an introduction (Nova Instituta Secreta) in18 articles. A formal belief in an organisation of the material Universe is required. These Constitutions intended to connect and agglomerate into one single body all the rites and Scottish degrees hatched, nurtured and thriven in the 18th Century France and Germany. The endpoint was the upsetting of an organization in 30 degrees with common aim and objectives. The details of the 18 articles are mainly irrelevant. Let it be sufficient to emphasize that the head of the Supreme Council must be constituted by at least nine GIG (Grand Inspector General), presided by the first two Officers, the Souvereign Grand Commander and the Lieutenant Grand Commander. They are assisted by a Minister of State, a Grand Master of Ceremonies and a Captain of the Guards. They also appoint a Secretary and a Treasurer of the Holy Empire. Ge The power of the ( Supreme Council does not interfere in any degree below the 17th or Knight of The East and West degree, but every lodge of Perfect Masons are requested to recognize the GIG as such and to receive them with due honours.
There are in these Grand Constitutions no hint at creating bridges with the profane world of the non-initiates! There is not even a single mention of relationships between the Supreme Councils themselves, but for the general remark that there shall be only one Council of this degree in each nation or realm in Europe and two in the United States of America. That limitation caused enduring feuds and dog fighting between rival entities as it used to be the case in North America between the two mainstream jurisdictions and the Cerneau bodies (of which one at least still exists in Louisiana). It still is the situation in France, Belgium and other nations of Europe where the rite is indeed deeply divided.
The Grand Constitutions are mute concerning the pre-eminence of any Council upon the others, which implies that all Supreme Councils in the world are on the level, independent and sovereign, with no supra-national supervision. There were in their eventful history three attempts to hatch a (supra-national) confederation of Supreme Councils. It was in 1834, in 1876 and more recently in 2012 or so. In each case it was a failure for diverse reasons, the distance being of course a most deterrent factor in the 19th century. One obvious reason for that failure was a strive for hegemony and leadership from oldest, largest, and wealthiest Supreme Councils.
If the bridges between Supreme Councils must remain on the strict level of friendly relations, occasional meetings (like this one) without decision-making power and amicable visitations, what must be said about the relations of the Supreme Councils with Grand Lodges?
Let me be quite clear on this topic. These relationships are essential provided they remain informal. They must be cordial, friendly and as frequent as necessary, always keeping in mind the preeminence of the Craft which is and remains the stem on which Masonry thrives and blossoms. The degrees beyond the Craft (either called Scottish, Rectified, Templar or otherwise!) cannot exist and survive without a Craft support while the reverse is not true. I do not believe in the viability of a so-called Scottish Order disconnected from freemasonry, as dreamed of in the past by some high-ranking French Masons.
Finally, I will return to Anderson’s Constitutions. They insist that the behaviour of a Mason within the lodge as well in the presence of strangers must be that of a moral and wise man who, when adverting a discourse must manage it prudently for the Honour of the worshipful Fraternity (Charge VI, 4). I hope I followed this advice.

Je me souviens de l’étonnement des dignitaires de la GLRB lorsque quelques poissons pilotes de la GLDF s’en vinrent leur proposer une Confédération des Obédiences Régulières européennes dont la GLDF serait la tête pensante, profitant de l’irritation Britannique. La réponse fut prudente, sans enthousiasme excessif ni décision prématurée

Le coup d’essai dit « des cinq » fut un essai malheureux, malhabile et infructueux de mettre fin à la politique désastreuse de Stiffani qui engagea la GLNF (sa fraction la plus politisée en tout cas) dans une démarche césarienne eut pour conséquence imprévue de heurter de plein fouet le modus vivendi anglo-saxon. Les obédiences européennes (les cinq, GLDF en tête!), peu favorables aux prétentions de la GLNF, jouèrent la carte anglaise (très au courant de l’irritation de Londres) mais cette carte déclencha la réaction décisive de la faction traditionnelle de la GLNF d’où l’explosion de l’obédience de Pisan, l’expulsion de Stifani et de ses séides, et in fine la déception de la GLDF quand Pisan récupéra la reconnaissance britannique.

N’oublions pas la prise de conscience précoce de deux Loges de la G.L.d.F de la tentative de rejouer le coup de 1965 !
 » Les Droits de l’Homme » à l’Orient de Maubeuge et « Ar Vreur » à l’Orient de Saint-Brieuc.
Il est apparu limpide que la « Déclaration de Bâle » était la partie émergée d’un iceberg, congelé depuis plus d’une année par certains anciens Conseillers fédéraux.

Encore un excellent article complémentaire aux précédents sur le sujet du convent de Lausanne dont on voit bien l’importance qu’il a eu depuis sur la maçonnerie écossaise en France. Je n’imaginais pas que ce moment pouvait être à l’origine des événements de 1965. Mais l’explication tient la route. Peut-être faut-il également y voir l’une des racines de l’aventure inachevée de la CMF, l’autre étant la place laissée temporairement vacante par la GLNF ? Il est probablement encore trop tôt pour le dire avec suffisamment de recul sans doute.