Talk:Scottish Rite

Charles II and James II: Declarations of Indulgence (And Other Acts of Tolerance)?

I am concerned that there has been such a reaction against any hint of Stuart influence, that there could be a neutrality issue (to me, the history section even seems a bit anti-Jacobite).

Though James II and the Bonnie Prince were not directly involved, I believe it is appropriate to cite the Declarations of Indulgence, by Charles II and James II, and other acts of their religious and ethnic tolerance, as part of our philosophical tradition.

I’m reminded of the lecture of the 14th degree (Perfect Elu):

“Of political truth, nothing whatever is taught in the Blue Masonry of the English Rite. Nothing is heard in it of free government, the rights of the people, the rights of man, or of free thought, free conscience, and free speech. On the contrary, the Mason was to be submissive to the laws of Parliament, the supreme Legislature, which had changed the succession to the Throne, and to support the House of Hanover against the House of Stuart, not engaging in plots or conspiracies against the State. There is nothing in the Ritual to offend Pope or King, Inquisitor or Jesuit. All the Symbols that had originally and still have in the Scottish Rite, a political meaning, have been assiduously misinterpreted, until they teach no political Truth whatever.”

To balance things out a bit, could we please honor Charles II and James II for their daring actions of tolerance, and stand by drawing moral conclusions from those actions?

Does anyone object to a properly cited section on this being inserted? (Suggestions on where would also be much appreciated) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.244.236 (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sort of...that lecture doesn't exist in the NMJ 14th, and I'm not sure about the SJ 14th, but my point is that the Jacobite item resounds in A&AR more so than AASR, so it would need to be clarified. Furthermore, we aren't drawing conclusions here, but simply imparting information, so whatever you add must adhere to WP policies. MSJapan (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... that is interesting, that the NMJ has been doing some editing. I'm not sure if this is still read at the reunions/classes, but it is still in the SJ monitor (and I dearly hope it stays there -- the capstone of the Lodge of Perfection is no small thing). Now, please don't get me wrong, I am so very greatful for what you guys have been doing here to uphold the dignity of the organization. But I am concerned about a kind of "revisionism," "postmodernism," or "social constructionism," (whatever you want to call it), which is the same thing we criticize the pseudo-historians of; it causes a loss of genuine organizational memory and historical context. There really are some Jacobite and Scottish Enlightenment connections here (which have also been abused by pseudo-historians) that are good and valuable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.210.241 (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to keep ritual (which uses allegorical histories to teach very important lessons) and actual history clearly distinct. Most of the "history" presented in the various Masonic lectures (of all bodies and degrees) is very poor history. We must remember, the men who created the Scottish Rite were not trying to write good history, they were trying to write meaningful allegory. Blueboar (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There are actually some pretty well developed origination interpretations, within the French tradition, that go back to Irish (Jacobite) military lodges that arrived (in France) in 1688 (following the deposed Stuart Court), or thereabouts, and Scottish Jacobites that were French Grandmasters (Wharton, MacLean, and Radcliffe). Morin, who was a Freemason in France as of 1744, was rather contemporary (or very near) to these gentlemen. All of this can, of course, can be sourced, and does have some respectable consensus within the French practice.

Now, here is where I believe there is both an epistemological issue (which I will elaborate on) and a neutrality issue... possibly biased toward an exclusively Hanoverian-English origination interpretation, as opposed to a French-Jacobite origination interpretation.

Starting with "The seed of the myth of Stuart Jacobite influence on the higher degrees may have been a careless and unsubstantiated remark made by John Noorthouk in the 1784 Book of Constitutions of the Premier Grand Lodge of London. It was stated, without support, that King Charles II (older brother and predecessor to James II) was made a Freemason in the Netherlands during the years of his exile (1649–60). However, there were no documented lodges of Freemasons on the continent during those years..." and continuing to the last paragraph in the History section, we are essentially engaging a nonfact with a speculation (note the use of the word "may" in the opening). I'll note also, that this seems a lot like getting sucked into the "social constructionism" theories of the 1960s, where people believed that changing people's perception of reality could somehow change reality itself (a reification fallacy). We should not engage nonfacts with speculations. It would be better simply not to bring up the issue, in an academic sense.

Basically, this is trying to prove a negative, that Jacobites were absolutely not (100% never, zip, nada, etc.) involved with French Freemasonry -- the same Freemasonry that Morin was contemporary with, and from whose "Rite of Perfection" (or "Rite of the Royal Secret") the modern AASR was originated. Under this interpretation, the origins of French Freemasonry, and, ergo, the continuation of Scottish (Jacobite) Freemasonry, become very relevant.

We can prove that there are no source documents stating that Charles II and James II were directly involved, but to be so absolutist that there was never any Jacobite involvement... seems not to be an academic interpretation, based on solid sources. Again, proving a negative is a difficult logical undertaking (another logical fallacy often used by anti-Masons).

How about we just remove the whole section starting with "The seed of the myth..." and go straight into Morin -- an originational fact which we can absolutely prove and source, with no offence given to either Hanoverian-English or French-Jacobite origination interpretations? Perhaps, in the future, we can better compare and contrast the various earlier origination theories, with better source documentation. In the meantime, I think removing it as encyclopedic fact is the best action. Any consensus to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.210.241 (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem discussing the various ideas and theories that are out there... the key is to clearly indicate whether the theory being discussed is myth, accademic speculation (noting who did the speculating), "pop" history speculation, or generally accepted fact. Personally, I think very little prior to Morin would qualify as accepted fact, but as speculation we could probably discuss it. Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly right on anything prior to Morin qualifying as accepted fact! How about we start with Morin, and defer to the wikipedia page History of Freemasonry in France, which is the appropriate place to put information on how Freemasonry got to France? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.244.236 (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Birth of SR

We seem to have some confusion on whether there is a typo in the secion on the Birth of the Scottish Rite... specifically the date in bold below:

• ...Finally, the charter of this organization (written January 7, 1815) added, "We think the Ratification ought to be dated 21st day May 5815."

I do understand how most editors this will assume this is a typo... but it may not be. The date is part of a quote, and the writer may be using the traditional Masonic dating system of "Anno Lucis" (Year of light)... an adaptation of Bishop Usher's more known Anno Mundi (the Masonic date simply adds a rounded off 4000 years to the date Anno Domini.) May 21, 1815 (Anno Domini) would have been May 21, 5818 (Anno Lucis). As this date is taken from a Masonic document, the author may have been using Masonic dating.

So that we don't go back and forth reverting each other over this... would someone please check the actual cited source (Arturo de Hoyos, "Structure of the Scottish Rite" in Scottish Rite Ritual, Monitor and Guide 2d ed. Washington, D.C.: Supreme Council, 33°, S.J., 2009, p. 106.) and see how the date appears there. And If it does in fact say 5815, we probably need to include some sort of note explaining why this is actually the correct number. Blueboar (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll add it to the to-do list. MSJapan (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Relevant material removed from article "White hat"

My impression is that the following is surplus to what already exists following the anchor Scottish Rite#33rd degree:

In the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, a white hat signifies an honorable degree which has been bestowed upon a member. It is also known as the 33rd degree. A 33° mason is a master mason who has exhibited knowledge, passion and sacrifice to his craft. It is awarded by the Supreme Council. Members selected for inclusion are elected at the Council's annual session. Members unanimously elected become honorary members of the Supreme Council. The cap for an Inspector General Honorary is white with a white band edged in gold, featuring the symbol for this honorary Degree, a red slanting Patriarchal Cross.<ref>http://www.supremecouncil.org/index.tpl?&ng_view=19</ref>.

It came from White hat#In Freemasonry, which should be referenced if it is used in the accompanying article (or elsewhere).
--Jerzy•t 05:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with removing the passage from the White Hat article... it was out of place there. Blueboar (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have always taken issue with describing the Thirty-Third Degree as an "honorary degree" as that terminology, without explanation, gives the uninformed a false impression about the Degree. The Thirty-Third Degree is a degree in the same way that the 28th Degree, or the 19th Degree, or the 14th Degree are all degrees. Certainly it is an honor to be elected to receive the Degree, but its an honor to receive the First Degree, or the Third Degree, as well. So, by that definition, they are all "honorary degrees." However, to imply that the Thirty-Third Degree is less of a degree because a recipient is accorded the Degree as a special honor, is simply wrong. I believe the confusion derives from the fact that a recipient of the Degree is an honorary member of the Supreme Council. However, this does not make the Degree "honorary." To say that a member is an "honorary Thirty-Third Degree Mason" is incorrect. There is no such thing as an "honorary Thirty-Third Degree Mason." Rather, a man who receives the Thirty-Third Degree is an "Inspector General Honorary." PGNormand (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't, Peter. If you don't overanalyze it, it works fine. MSJapan (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a simple explanation that I first heard in 1980 when I took the S.R. Degrees. Throughout the 1980s I heard it a number of other times, and it made perfect sense to me. The Research Society Board members discussed it informally back about ten years ago, when Jim Tresner's book "Vested in Glory" was published, and everyone, of course, agreed with what I posted above. I was just bringing the rest of you into the loop. But, this is Wikipedia, which, as we all know, has its own version of the truth. So, do as you please. Do you refer to other degrees as "honorary"?PGNormand (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

On page 124 of the "Scottish Rite Ritual Monitor and Guide" (publ. 2009) it states, "The Thirty-Third Degree occupies a unique place in the Scottish Rite. In its early history the Degree ... was reserved for the nine officers comprising the Supreme Council ... [which] did not increase its number until 1857, when several New Orleans Masons were elected on an honorary basis.... Such honorary members are called 'Inspectors General Honorary.' However, reception of the Thirty-Third Degree is not merely an honor: the Degree is the historical and actual completion of the Rite." The title of this section of the book is given as the following: "33°, Inspector General Honorary." The reader will notice that it is not "33° Honorary," or worse, "Honorary 33°." Receiving the degree makes the recipient a "Thirty-Third Degree Mason." It does not make him an "Honorary Thirty-Third Degree Mason." PGNormand (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that there's a reliable source, we can change it. MSJapan (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(Update) Except that it's not incorrect in the first place, and has been correct since at least April from a quick loo at diffs. As a matter of fact, the terminology is exactly what you want it to be, and the word "honorary" is only used three times in one paragraph in this whole article - PershGo didn't change it in his edits, either. It's also not in the White hat article either, as noted above. So, in all seriousness, where's the problem that led to the rigamarole? MSJapan (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hybrid Double-Headed Eagle

The double-headed Eagle that Wikipedia uses at the top of this article about the Scottish Rite is neither a 32nd Degree Eagle nor a 33rd Degree Eagle. The original artwork is clearly the 1877 double-headed Thirty-Third Degree Eagle created as the symbol for the Mother Supreme Council, which has appeared in a number of its publications over the years. However, some less than clever person has deleted the diadem crown, surmounted by a triangle with a "33" in it, from over the heads of the Eagle, and added a triangle with a "32" to the chest of the Eagle. However, the resulting design retains the 33 stars under the Eagle's wings, and the 33rd Degree Motto, "Deus Meumque Jus," both of which betray the fact that it is a strange hybrid alteration of the Mother Supreme Council's 33rd Degree design. For those who are interested, the 32nd Degree Double-Headed Eagle would appear similar to this hybrid design, but it would not have the 33 stars under the wings, and it would normally bear the motto "Spes Meo in Deo Est." But, for those who don't "overanalyze" these things, I guess "it works fine." PGNormand (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, as long as I'm casting pearls here, I might as well mention that the Scottish Rite's double-headed Eagle is not the Eagle of Lagash - not any more than it is a Hohenzollern, a Brandenburg, a Habsburg or a Romanov double-headed Eagle. The fact that the earliest known example of a double-headed Eagle appeared at Lagash in Sumeria, does not necessarily make every other double-headed Eagle in use an "Eagle of Lagash." Again, sorry to "overanalyze," MSJ. I'd just as soon that you leave these errors in Wikipedia, so that when I speak to Scottish Rite classes and other groups I can use them as examples as to why you can't use Wikipedia as a reliable reference.PGNormand (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The only reason WP uses it is because somebody uploaded it and tagged it into the page. Feel free to replace it with the correct one, making sure that the image is free for use and not under copyright. MSJapan (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll pass on changing it. I learned a long time ago that any editing I do will only get reverted by those who don't want to be confused with the facts. As I said, its too good an example that I can use to point out why Wikipedia is not a reliable source, not that there aren't hundreds of other examples.PGNormand (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it. I had a SR Bro. grab an what is essentially an original for me. I, not following the Scottish Rite myself was unaware of the error but since I was looking for a better version for aesthetic reasons anyways the problem solved its self. I appreciate your input, but persecuted editor act has to go. I don't know who rubbed you the wrong way, and frankly I don't care. Wikipedia is how the vast majority of internet users are getting their information these days. This fact can easily be tested by typing the name of nearly any subject into Google and realizing that Wikipedia is almost invariably on the first page, and most often in the top 3 results. So you can either complain about it or use your knowledge on the subject to ensure that Freemasonry is accurately depicted in likely the only place most people will look to learn about it. I'm here because I want people to know the truth about Freemasonry. The question is do you? PeRshGo (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware that "the vast majority" of internet users are getting their info from Wikipedia. You aren't telling me anything I didn't know. But the fact that they do come here for information, doesn't alter the fact that what they find here is often incorrect. That is the reason that I log on here periodically and point out the errors when I find them. I do so in the hope that one of the resident editors, those that spend all their time here, will fix them. However, all too often I get responses like yours that say "fix it yourself." I used to do that. However, all the references in the world did not hold up to the popularly held views of the editors. When I made corrections, with substantial documentation, my changes were reverted, not because someone had conflicting documentation, but because a handful of editors voted that they like the other way better! (I don't care what all your grandmothers told you, the moon is not made of green cheese.) Facts should not be subject to popular vote. I have more important things to do than spend time building internet sand castles that will only be swept away as soon as I log off. I'd prefer that the editing be done by those who are here every day. If you like the information that I provide, then use it. If you don't like, then ignore it.PGNormand (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Pete, your entire rant is one of sour grapes. Regarding voting over ruling facts, as far as I can tell, that was ONE issue, the Antients vs Ancients issues, and you can't seem to let that go - you persist in making the whole issue into a personal martyrdom/personal attack about not getting your way. Ancients/Antients isn't something that causes a mass of misinformation, but a number of the theories you have propounded here could be, at least as far as your theories regarding the creation of the Third Degree. And, as you say, wikipedia isn't a reliable source - in fact, wikipedia says that about itself. Anyone who come here looking for information should go and look at sources of that info before accepting it as gospel - if they don't, that isn't the fault of the articles as written, it is the fault of the readers for being lazy.--Vidkun (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My disappointment with Wikipedia as a failed experiment, especially in regards to Freemasonry, is certainly not limited to "one issue," as you accuse. I wish it was. And that's the problem. Even if I was editing, there isn't enough of me to fix all the "issues" that need to be corrected. As for previous discussions about the origins of the Third Degree, those discussions were not about my wanting a theory adopted as fact. Rather, my comments were meant to draw attention to the fact that the Masonic articles of Wikipedia DO accept a theory as fact. The theory that the Master Mason's Degree did NOT exist in some form in the year 1717, can only be described as a "theory." And yet, the Masonic Wikipedia articles state this as though it was accepted fact. It is not. The fact that the four lodges that formed the Moderns' grand lodge in 1717 did not have or work the Master Masons' Degree, or the fact that exposures published in London during the 1720s did not include it, do not constitute "proof" that the degree did not exist. In fact, the "Five Points of Fellowship," and other elements of the M.M. Degree, which appear in several early Masonic catechisms prior to 1717, provide tantalizing evidence that the Degree, in some form or another, may have been worked (maybe as a degree for installed Masters only) in other places outside London. The Trinity College Ms. of Dublin, Ireland, dated 1711, gives three signs and words: "The Masters," "The fellow craftsman's," and "The Enterprentice's." Again, this is not proof, but is evidence that three degrees may have existed at that time. But all this is beside the point. The point is that no one can prove that the M.M. Degree did NOT exist in 1717. To state it flatly as if it was accepted fact is misleading.

As for the Ancients/Antients discussion, I understand that the majority here voted to use the spelling of the word that includes the letter "t" ("Antients"). Back when I was contributing and editing on Wikipedia, I created the article on the "Ancient Grand Lodge of England." But, everywhere that I used the conventional spelling, the word was diligently altered to the alternate spelling, "Antients," not just in that article, but in all the Masonic related articles. However, I notice now that others use the word "Ancients," spelled with a "c", in any number of Masonic related articles, but they don't get corrected. So, yes, I have to admit that I do believe I was singled out. The point that I made at that time (and the point I will reiterate here for those that are new to the discussion) was that the grand lodge that was formed in 1751 "called itself" by the name "the Ancients," using the letter "c". It was the Moderns, the members of the grand lodge of 1717, that called the newer grand lodge the "Antients" with a "t". The citation here is the article by Ivor Grantham, Librarian of the United Grand Lodge of England, and published in A.Q.C. Vol. LXIV (1951), pp. 76-78. Throughout the 62-year existence of the Ancient Grand Lodge, its minutes and records use the term "Ancient" spelled with a "c" exclusively, with the exception of only four instances (1764, '65, '66, and '92), the word "Antient" with a "t" was a variant, after all, but a variant that was hardly ever used, to the point that one must believe it was accidental when it was used only 4 times in 62 years. The name appeared as "Ancient" with a "c" in every edition of Grand Secretary Dermott's "Ahiman Rezon" (the Ancients' grand lodge monitor) up to the Union of 1813. Now, my personal opinion is that the Ancient Grand Lodge should be called by the name that they gave themselves - the name that THEY named their OWN grand lodge - and not by the name they were later called by others. But, this is only my personal opinion, and its an unpopular opinion at that, and I accept that I am in the extreme minority. The majority rules here, and I accept that. However, if you want the Masonic articles on Wikipedia to be factual, you should not have sentences that say that the Ancients "called themselves" the "Antients," because they did not. It is just too easy to reword a sentence to say: "However, a few lodges formed a rival grand lodge on 17 July 1751, which became known as 'The Antient Grand Lodge of England'." That would be accurate! The current sentence includes the words, "...which they called 'The Antient Grand Lodge of England'." Why would you prefer to purposely mislead your readers when its so easy to be factual?

As long as I'm on the subject of the Ancient Grand Lodge, I might point out that in the first line of the article on that grand lodge it now states that the full name of that grand lodge was the "Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of England, according to the old Constitutions." Of course, this is wrong, as the Ancients never used the term "Constitutions" in the name. (The word "Constitution" was used in the name of the Moderns' grand lodge, but not by the Ancients' grand lodge.) I pointed this out in August 2007, but it hasn't been changed or corrected since that time. Then, in the second paragraph, the article contradicts itself by using the name "Grand Lodge of England According to the Old Institution." Again, this reference is wrong, as the word "Institution" should be plural. There are now no footnotes in this article. At least I used footnotes and offered citations for what I wrote.

But there are other problems. I brought some of these up recently on the discussion page attached to the article on "Freemasonry." They were dismissed as being old news. One of these problems is the myth of a "schism" in the Grand Lodge of 1717 that led to the formation of the Ancient Grand Lodge. The myth of what was referred to throughout the 19th century as "The Great Masonic Schism" was debunked in 1887 by Henry Sadler, Grand Librarian of the U.G.L.E., in his book "Masonic Facts and Fictions" (1887). And this is referenced in other, more recent Masonic sources, like "Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia" articles on "Henry Sadler," and on the "Ancient Grand Lodge of England." There was no schism, and the Ancient Grand Lodge was not formed by "schismatics" or "seceders," but you wouldn't know it by reading the Wikipedia articles on "Freemasonry," "Antient Grand Lodge of England," and "Degree (Freemasonry)," and others. In those articles, the reader is told that the Ancient Grand Lodge was formed as a result of a "schism" that resulted from perceived innovations introduced in the craft by the Moderns. Undoubtedly, the Ancient Masons including the Irish, Scots, and others, who belonged to the so-called "St. John's Lodges," felt that the Moderns lodges had made innovations, but the founders of the Ancient Grand Lodge were not schismatic, and did not secede from the Moderns Grand Lodge, they never belonged to it in the first place. If three or four of us form a new club, we cannot at any time refer to outsiders as "schismatics" or "seceders" if they were never members to begin with.

Another issue that I have is the idea, propounded here in Masonic articles on Wikipedia, that the addition of the Master Masons Degree was considered an innovation by the Ancients, which then drove them to create their own grand lodge (see articles previously referenced). Not only was there not a Masonic "schism" in 18th-century England, but its nonsense to believe that the Ancients objected to the Master Masons Degree. In fact, its possible ("possible") that the Irish and Scottish Masons had some form of the MM Degree long before the Moderns, whose Masonry was well-known to be not nearly as well-developed and complex as that of the Ancients (see the "Articles of Union" of 1813). I've never seen any article (outside of Wikipedia) or heard any Masonic historian ever state that the Ancients lodges in London, Ireland or Scotland objected to the MM Degree as an innovation. I challenge you and any Wikipedia editor to produce credible evidence or sources for this assertion. The only reference given for this is a link to an unnamed article, by an unnamed author, with a link to the Grand Lodge of British Columbia's website - a link that doesn't work (probably because someone pointed out to the Grand Lodge webmaster that the article was flakey, and it got taken down).

Lastly (and only because I have better things to do than add to the "one issue" referenced above), the article on "Degrees (Freemasonry)" states that the "growing schism" in Freemasonry was worsened by an "argument" between the two London grand lodges over two different third degrees: one called the Master Masons Degree by the Moderns' grand lodge (to which the Ancients objected, of course, because they considered it an innovation. Remember?) And the other third degree, being The Holy Royal Arch Degree," which was preferred by the Ancients. According to the article, this "schism" continued until "a somewhat confusing compromise was reached as to which third degree would be considered official." Wow. Just wow. Now "The History of Freemasonry" according to Wikipedia has morphed and mutated into a bizarre story that I never could have imagined. Its one thing to adhere to old myths (like the misspelling of the word "Ancient," or the myth of an 18th-century Masonic "schism" that never happened, which were debunked and discarded by respected Masonic historians well over a century ago), but now the editors of Wikipedia have created from whole cloth a completely "new history." I have to admit, someone's got a pretty good imagination. Just for fun, though, I'm going to cut and paste some of these articles and forward them to some others who never use Wikipedia, and to the officers of my Research Lodge, just to let them know what is going on here. "One issue," indeed.PGNormand (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter, please DO get members and officers of your Research Lodge involved. We want knowledgeable people working on our articles... we need people that know the sources well... who can summarize what those sources say, and properly cite it all. Be sure you tell them to check out Wikipedia's policies on Verifiability, Reliable sources and No original research before they edit. Blueboar (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Chart showing Albert Pike's revisions of the degrees

|- |19°-30° |1867, 1879, 1883 |- |31°-32° |1867, 1879, 1883 |-

The chart shows the same revision years for the 19th through 30th AND the 31st and 32nd degrees. Is there an error here, or should the two rows be combined? --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No error, but I am not sure if they should be combined. The chart reflects how Pike subdivided the degrees in his system (perhaps the lists of degrees on this old version of the page might clarify things for you).

• 4th - 14th degrees were grouped together as the Lodge of Perfection
• 15th - 18th degrees were grouped together as Rose Croix
• 19th - 30th degrees were grouped as Council of Kadosh
• 31st and 32nd degrees were grouped as Consistory

Pike made the revisions to the two last groups at the same time, but they are distinct groups. (at least in the Southern Jurisdiction... the Northern Jurisdiction groups its degrees differently... as can be seen on the old version of the page I linked to above). Blueboar (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Blueboar. It makes sense. --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)