Registers

Register I — Ego, Integrity, and the Duty of Truth

Greetings and Welcome,

Welcome to The Registers of Hérédom™.
My name is A. L. Guerra—Esoterist, Freemason, explorer of archives, and traveler in search of truth. This inaugural entry addresses a subject that has troubled me for many years: ego.

Ego is ever-present. It lives, breathes, and feeds alongside man. In Freemasonry, particularly as taught within the York Rite, one of the earliest lessons is caution—restraint in speech, conduct, and display. Yet today, many who engage in what can only be described as performative rather than operative Freemasonry feel compelled to broadcast their memberships, titles, and affiliations across social media.

These individuals are often referred to as “Facebook Masons.” While the term may sound unkind, it is descriptive rather than derogatory.

No Masonic Order—and no individual—has the right to coerce, shame, or pressure a Brother into revealing his private obligations or affiliations. Membership in the Fraternity is a matter between the man, his conscience, and God. Every individual is entitled to privacy, peace, and proper decorum. And yet, we increasingly encounter self-proclaimed authorities who violate this sacred boundary while presenting themselves as experts on subjects they have not deeply studied.

Ego does far more harm than good, especially to those who believe themselves to be on righteous paths. Examples are plentiful:

• Claiming exclusive custodianship over documents that are, in fact, publicly accessible
• Presenting oneself as a scholar while producing thin works padded by spacing rather than substance
• Copying images from published sources and presenting them as original contributions
• Rushing to publish without scholarship, context, or effort, thereby diminishing one’s own work

There are, however, serious historians—men and women who labor carefully in archives, who write with discipline, and who present history responsibly. To these individuals, I greet you on the square of virtue, and I support your efforts.

Much of the present confusion surrounding Regularity and Irregularity in modern Freemasonry arises from what might be called picture Masonry—surface-level representations without depth or context. To those who play at authority without archival knowledge, there is still hope. Perhaps study will correct what ego has obscured. Perhaps it will not. Either way, I do not engage in political commentary. Conviction without understanding is not vision.

Ego can kill the soul.

Ego can erase good intentions.

Ego can undo sincere labor.

Ego can reduce a man to a child playing at maturity.

I do not carry ego. I do not carry another’s burdens. And I will not sacrifice my integrity so that others may profit from it.

Understand this clearly: The Registers of Hérédom™ will not follow the prevailing “commentary culture” of research, history, doctrine, or hearsay. I will speak only to what is documented. I will not omit facts to preserve comfort or appease sensibilities. Truth has no color, no shade, no veil—only existence.

I hold degrees and titles across various organizations, yet I am unattached and beholden to none. My obligation is to truth and to the record.

Cerneau was, in my opinion, a man of integrity, honor, charity, and virtue. He did not invent history; he documented it. It exists whether acknowledged or not.

In my recent work, I have diplomatically transcribed and translated his writings so that others may study them directly. These works are cited, scholarly, and offered for archival review. T. J. Whitney has contributed greatly to the restoration and publication of these materials, and I thank him sincerely for his efforts. Original texts and English diplomatic translations appear together so that readers may learn as I have.

I will not offer personal opinions on claims of supremacy. I will, however, demonstrate—through evidence—that not everything encountered online is factual. One must investigate, verify, and return to sources.

Register II — On Lineage Inquiries and the Limits of the Record

In the days following the publication of Register I, I have received several inquiries asking whether I can direct individuals to obtain, access, or receive what is commonly referred to as a “line” of Scottish Rite authority.

This notice is offered as a collective response.

The Registry of Hérédom™ does not broker lineages, facilitate transmissions, issue recommendations, or validate claims of authority. It exists for one purpose only: the preservation and publication of documentary records.

In historical study, a distinction must be maintained between documented authority, institutional continuity, and modern fraternal inheritance. These categories are often conflated, but they are not interchangeable. Where documentation survives, it can be examined. Where it ends, claims must stop.

Questions framed around “obtaining a line” misunderstand how authority functioned historically and how archives operate today. Titles, affiliations, and modern organizational continuity are not substitutes for primary evidence.

The Registry welcomes documents, correspondence, dated records, and verifiable archival material. It does not engage in credential validation, jurisdictional politics, or comparative claims of legitimacy.

For documentary evidence bearing directly on questions of authority, certification, and the limits of succession, readers are referred to Register No. 3, wherein primary records are reproduced without commentary.

Register III — When the Record Closes: Authority, Certification, and the Limits of Succession

In response to continued inquiries regarding succession, authority, and so-called “lines” within the Scottish Rite, the Registry offers the following material. As with all Registers, this notice does not present opinion or adjudication. It presents documents.

Where questions persist, the Registry responds with primary evidence.

I. Dr. Frederick Dalcho’s Statement on Authority (1822)

The following correspondence is preserved and published by Alain Bernheim in Heredom: The Transactions of the Scottish Rite Research Society, Volume 20 (2012), pp. 40–53. It reproduces contemporaneous letters exchanged in 1822 between P. Javain, 33°, and Dr. Frederick Dalcho.

This statement is contemporaneous, unambiguous, and made by the individual in whom authority is alleged to have resided. It records a direct denial of any transfer of power or authorization to act in his name. No interpretation is required. The document speaks for itself.

II. Delahougue Certification Preserved by Kloss

A second and independent piece of evidence is preserved by Georg Kloss in Die Freimaurerei in ihrer wahren Bedeutung (Frankfurt am Main, 1847), citing material preserved through the Thory collection.

Whether one accepts or rejects this claim is not the function of the Registry. What matters is that authority was openly contested, certified internally, and argued contemporaneously. The record reflects plurality, dispute, and competing constitutional claims—not uniformity.

III. Archival Note

Taken together, these documents establish two essential points:

• Where personal authority existed, it was not transferred.
• Where institutional authority existed, it was contested and certified, not assumed to be singular or uncontested.

The Registry neither harmonizes nor reconciles these records. It preserves them.

IV. Further Study

A full diplomatic transcription, diplomatic translation, and contextual treatment of these and related documents are published in:

The Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite in Thirty-Three Degrees: Expanded (1762–2025)

The Registry refers readers to the published record and concludes this Register accordingly.