American 'Militiae Cruciferae Evangelicae'
teletourgos
turbulence of the Rosicrucian wars of the 1930s.
It reprints of the 1902 and 1903 manifestoes of the Militia Crucifera
Evangelica's American branch, these being called the 'American
Manifestoes'. It also reproduces certain sections of a 1905 history of
the group.
It is published c.1935 by the Clymer 'Rosicrucian Foundation' and
contrasts this history with a 1933 announcement by HS Lewis that the
MCE had been incorporated within AMORC and that AMORC contained the
only 'authentic' MCE in the USA.
This statement of Lewis is self-evidently false, and one must
uncharitably conclude, a deliberate lie.
This must be the case whatever Mr Lewis's or Clymer's intentions in
fighting over the MCE heritage were.
I am not the most sure of whether the Clymer group is linked to this
early American MCE, but plainly the intention is that one should think
so.
But one must needs be unsure; sectarianism is rarely the best soil for
growing the fruits of truth !
The name is given of a European connection of the American MCE with the
Count 'Quinotti', who is sometimes given as the initiator of Clymer
himself.
So, my question is: is the modern OMCE organisation a perpetuation of
the AMORC MCE [which one is to understand is not an 'order' in its own
right] or does it have links to the body that produced the 1902-1903
American Manifestoes ?
If so, did that American body have links to Clymer ?
Jean
Cathari
Please don't consider this the "definitive" answer, because in my
opinion, that can only truly come from GSL. However, I note a few days
have gone by, and he may not have seen your question. So, this is just
maybe "some" of the answer, and I hope, accurate even limited as my own
direct knowledge may be. I write of my own direct experience, however,
with writings of HSL, and as only a member of the OMCE today, etc.
teletourgos wrote:
....
>
> It is published c.1935 by the Clymer 'Rosicrucian Foundation' and
> contrasts this history with a 1933 announcement by HS Lewis that the
> MCE had been incorporated within AMORC and that AMORC contained the
> only 'authentic' MCE in the USA.
>
> This statement of Lewis is self-evidently false, and one must
> uncharitably conclude, a deliberate lie.
Harsh judgment, and I have a different view about this, for what it's
worth.
There is one point to pay good attention to, while remembering that
today we are not looking through the glass of the culture of 1933 in
America. The point is this regarding both the use of the generic name
"Rosicrucian" and the reference, "MCE" or "Militia Crucifera
Evangelica".
It is clear from anything I have read personally of Dr. Lewis,
particularly in the private monographs to members, including the White
Books, that the word "Rosicrucian" specifically as this one word (i.e.,
not Rosae Crucis, etc., etc.) and refs. to MCE and the Militia
Crucifera Evangelica, were legally in the U.S.--trademarks. I believe
they were legally registered under U.S. laws such that ONLY the AMORC
could use them to "authentically", in other words, identify these
specific organizations working as the Dr. H.S. Lewis Rosae Crucis
lineage.
So, I would personally have to see the exact quotes of anything Clymer
presented, or of the 1933 pamphlet put out by AMORC on the MCE, to have
any other conclusions about "making false claims." Perhaps someone
else who has studied the private and public communications of Dr.
Lewis--within the context of the entire, programmed system of
instruction--might have a different understanding.
Another point, related indirectly, is that in anything that I read of
Dr. Lewis' words, he had a genuine, responsible concern about
protecting the name "Rosicrucian" as a reference which could be easily
confused by the public, with other organizations using the name, but
which could be misunderstood under the headings of "evil, dark arts,
Black Magic," and so on. The interest was clearly as I understood it,
to be about specifically the "nature of AMORC" as opposed to others
claiming a Rosicrucian lineage, whether for better or worse as to the
nature of the others.
In reading the words of Dr. Lewis vs. the words of someone, Clymer or
others, it is very clear where the heart is in them, no matter what was
written--the heart of the expression says more than any facts presented
without benefit of the heart of the tradition carried.
>
....>
> But one must needs be unsure; sectarianism is rarely the best soil
for
> growing the fruits of truth !
Agreed! However, I don't think that Dr. Lewis' intention was about
sectarianism, but about being clear "who and what is a Rosicrucian"?
And, "Rosicrucian" then particularly, was an identy trademark symbol,
as much as it referred to the Rosicrucian movement of centuries, where
every intiate knows that the mode of spreading the teachings, was from
initiatic teachers to students, who became initiatic teachers of that
which they knew clearly which was the tradition as passed onto them by
teacher--so naturally, organizations of many different names, WERE and
indeed ARE "Rosicrucian" by any name, if true to the tradition. But in
1933 with the first "public organization" as AMORC was, it was part of
the package of presentation by Lewis.
I believe similar things are true of the "MCE"--and, who knows, perhaps
on MCE Clymer was much lacking as to actual initiatic lineage of the
specific tradition of the Militia Crucifera Evangelica, which is
carried today through the Russian lineage of Imperator Gary L. Stewart
in today's organization: *Order of the Militia Crucifera Evangelica
(OMCE)*--not because only of a name or tradmark, but because of the
lineage specific to that part of the western esoteric tradition. (YES!
He can say this much clearer and better than I or anyone else!!)
>
> The name is given of a European connection of the American MCE with
the
> Count 'Quinotti', who is sometimes given as the initiator of Clymer
> himself.
>
> So, my question is: is the modern OMCE organisation a perpetuation
of
> the AMORC MCE [which one is to understand is not an 'order' in its
own
> right] or does it have links to the body that produced the 1902-1903
> American Manifestoes ?
No, the OMCE is NOT a perpetuation of the AMORC related MCE, as I
attempted to explain. It is a re-establishment today, of the tradition
known in the 16th Century. And, of course, it is true that as it was
organized by Dr. Lewis and under Ralph M. Lewis, too, the MCE of AMORC
was clearly stated as being "an honorary" organization by invitation of
the Imperator only. That is stated in a public book by HSL, the RC Q&A
with History.
>
> If so, did that American body have links to Clymer ?
As I understand it, no, no links of MCE to Clymer personally with GSL,
just as GSL's lineage is not of HSL regarding the MCE tradition--both
Clymer and HSL may well indeed have had their own initiatic lineage to
the tradition, however, apart from GSL's through Russian initiators, as
he has put it himself.
>
> Jean
Cathari
Sid
teletourgos
>
> It is clear from anything I have read personally of Dr. Lewis,
> particularly in the private monographs to members, including the
White
> Books, that the word "Rosicrucian" specifically as this one word
(i.e.,
> not Rosae Crucis, etc., etc.) and refs. to MCE and the Militia
> Crucifera Evangelica, were legally in the U.S.--trademarks. I
believe
> they were legally registered under U.S. laws such that ONLY the AMORC
> could use them to "authentically", in other words, identify these
> specific organizations working as the Dr. H.S. Lewis Rosae Crucis
> lineage.
That, as far as I am aware, did not occur at all. In fact, rather the
opposite occurred.
Clymer actually won a court case where it was held that the word
'Rosicrucian' was generic and not reserved to the use of any one
organisation. This allowed him to register a corporation in
Pennsylvania with that name.
AMORC even say as much on their website, saying that the 'the word
"rosicrucian" is so old it cannot be trademarked, so other groups
cannot be prevented from using it.'
So it seems unlikely to me that we are speaking of a situation of
trademarks.
The claim is excised from 'Rosicrucian Digest' a public magazine. It
is a note surrounded by a border, so one may assume - initially at
least - that all matters relating to that announcement occur within
that bordered section of text.
I do not have 1933 copies of 'Rosicrucian Digest' to hand but will
endeavour to visit a library and check if I can.
I think a common sense interpretation of the article, in a public
magazine must infer that indeed the words 'Militia Crucifera
Evangelica' are being used in a general sense and not as a specific
copyright or trademarked term. There is no such caveat or note saying
that they are being referred to in this way.
If that was the intention, to use them as trademarked terms, then that
intention does not come across, and again we are faced with the problem
of a misleading statement.
>
> So, I would personally have to see the exact quotes of anything
Clymer
> presented, or of the 1933 pamphlet put out by AMORC on the MCE, to
have
> any other conclusions about "making false claims." Perhaps someone
> else who has studied the private and public communications of Dr.
> Lewis--within the context of the entire, programmed system of
> instruction--might have a different understanding.
For mine, this is an odd view, that one must have gone through Lewis's
entire sytem of instruction to examine his doings, at least those
doings which are evidenced in a publicly available magazine, from a
'historical' standpoint.
I think one may be a supporter or adherent and still come up with an
impartial view, but equally, the proper view of scholarship does not
discount outside views as being 'lesser' in any sense.
Indeed, if one were to prepare a paper for a research body, it may
rather diminish the credibility of a paper if one were to be an
adherent of the subject's system. For example, were I to write a
biography of Hitler after many years in the Nazi Party, I think
impartial observers would correctly be cautious !
>
> Another point, related indirectly, is that in anything that I read of
> Dr. Lewis' words, he had a genuine, responsible concern about
> protecting the name "Rosicrucian" as a reference which could be
easily
> confused by the public, with other organizations using the name, but
> which could be misunderstood under the headings of "evil, dark arts,
> Black Magic,"
He may have felt he had that responsiblity. But the sources are silent
on any impartial authority regarding Lewis as having had such a
capacity, outside the minds of he and his membership.
We've recently had such a misunderstanding about black magic on here,
which I must feel shows that it is most easy to misunderstand those
terms. So they are terms I am cautious of. And in some sense I feel
it best to avoid them totally.
Either in relation to Clymer's silly attacks on AMORC, and AMORC's
equally silly failed attacks on other systems over the years.
The 'heart of the expression' I have always understood to include - at
the very least - a commonsense interpretation of words as stated in
their context, without squinting and trying to import meanings that
aren't there. One may of course add material or seek another way of
understanding if a commonsense understanding cannot be reached. But
here that does not seem to be the situation.
In this context, the heart of this communication seems to be a
misrepresentation, when contrasted with the obvious existence of
another Militia Crucifera Evangelica which was a functioning order a
long time before Lewis's announcement.
If other properly sourced information were to come up which would allow
a different understanding, I would indeed be willing to consider it.
And I am not a wholesale apologist for the rant of Clymer, but on this
issue I think he may have had legitimate grievance.
I think also, from another source, that in relation to the Count Clymer
named, that this person was indeed the bearer of 'a' legitimate MCE
lineage, there being a few branches from which such a thing might be
derived.
As to the exact nature of that, I will leave it to those who know more.
Jean
Cathari
teletourgos wrote:
>
> If other properly sourced information were to come up which would
allow
> a different understanding, I would indeed be willing to consider it.
Judging from what I have seen of your tack here, I seriously doubt
"other properly sourced information" will be provided. Why? You are
not asking a "true" question here....
>
> And I am not a wholesale apologist for the rant of Clymer, but on
this
> issue I think he may have had legitimate grievance.
You are an apologist for "someone". I don't think Clymer had a
legitimate grievance on this point, although both he and Lewis made
some mistakes.
>
> I think also, from another source, that in relation to the Count
Clymer
> named, that this person was indeed the bearer of 'a' legitimate MCE
> lineage, there being a few branches from which such a thing might be
> derived.
Even if both Lewis and Clymer "knew" the Count, and maybe even studied
along the same lines, etc., it is irrelevant to this issue of their
personal squabbling. Again, I can only point you to direct writings of
Lewis, where you can draw your own conclusions. As for "scholarly"
histories, especially on the topic of esoteric, spiritual orders, Jean,
you would know as well as I that all through the centuries the
"scholars" have been equally guilty of misleading the masses, and today
we have suffered as a humanity for the lies and deceptions of the
histories written all through the time it has been recorded. So, it
makes no points with me to taut the "scholarly" approach when it comes
to esoteric matters--and what makes the tenor of a person which is seen
very clearly in the writing here and anywhere....
> As to the exact nature of that, I will leave it to those who know
more.
>
> Jean
Excellent if you had said only this and not the other trash comments
that only cause people not to want anything to do with anything you
have to say--now I understand what has been happening here while I've
been out of touch with alt.amorc. Please think about what I am saying
to you here, as I, too, am disappointed in you. But, it's something I
have to learn more about, and be able, as others, to simply go into the
silence.
Chao!
Cathari
gls
On 15 Mar 2005 06:12:51 -0800, "teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>I have just received an interesting pamphlet, no doubt thrown up by the
>turbulence of the Rosicrucian wars of the 1930s.
>
>It reprints of the 1902 and 1903 manifestoes of the Militia Crucifera
>Evangelica's American branch, these being called the 'American
>Manifestoes'. It also reproduces certain sections of a 1905 history of
>the group.
Even more interesting, in my opinion, is that the 1935 Clymer
reproduction leaves a lot out from the initial 1905 publication. I'll
get to this in a bit.
>It is published c.1935 by the Clymer 'Rosicrucian Foundation' and
>contrasts this history with a 1933 announcement by HS Lewis that the
>MCE had been incorporated within AMORC and that AMORC contained the
>only 'authentic' MCE in the USA.
>
>This statement of Lewis is self-evidently false, and one must
>uncharitably conclude, a deliberate lie.
Not necessarily. Quite frankly, I don't think either Clymer or Lewis
had even heard about this earlier Militia until Clymer discovered and
referenced the book in 1935.
The book referred to is a 1905 publication entitled "The Order Militia
Crucifera Evangelica" by Count St. Vincent. The work represents an
obscure Order that existed from 1902 to 1906. On the title page of
that book is a symbol often related to Rosicrucianism and which
appears on a number of 17th century manuscripts -- most notably those
of Andrea's.
Clymer argues that on the basis of his publication "The Initiates, A
Rosicrucian Magazine" Vol. 1 April, 1908, where that symbol referred
to above appears as one of seven symbols on that publication is
sufficient argument to prove that the earlier MCE was absorbed into
his organization. I see no real indication that such is true. Rather,
I see it as a convenience of argument used to sway an ongoing heated
debate. At varying times, both Lewis and Clymer can be said to spin
things in their favor if they could and I think this is one of
Clymer's spins.
This is a rather complicated issue that can quite easily drive
researchers mad at worst and bald at best, so I'm going to jump in and
try to give my opinion in a nutshell ...
I think the following scenario can quite easily apply to the formation
of any esoteric Order -- especially some of those formed in the 18th
and 19th centuries, but I'll limit my thoughts to the MCE.
Effectively, we have Arthur E. Waite who, in my opinion contributed to
esotercisim and esoteric history in precisely the same way that
Betrand Russell contributed to the history of philosophy and
relativity. They are both well educated, have excellent reputations,
are often referenced as a source, but are effectively worthless in
those fields when it comes to reliable and accurate information.
What I think happened is that after AE Waite published the "Real
History of the Rosicrucians", Count St. Vincent's 1902 group
latched onto that work and decided to create an Order based upon what
they thought to be accurate information contained therein. Clymer,
then, later latched onto St. Vincent's Order justifying his authority
based upon a symbol they both used but neither created.
The problem here is that Waite wrote (pg 213): "The only sect or
association with which the Rosicrucians may be pertinently compared,
and which we hear of before the year 1610, is the Militia Crucifera
Evangelica which assembled at Lunenburg in 1598 under the auspices of
the mystic and theosophist, Simon Studion. It's proceedings are
reported in an unprinted work from his pen entitled "Namoetria, ..."
Clymer writes in "The Rosicrucian Fraternity in America" vol. 1, page
93: "The first of these, the Lunenburg Manifesto of 1530, is of
particular interest ... the Second Manifesto of Lunenburg, issued 68
years later [1598], actually established the Militia as an Order ..."
Here, Clymer is actually referencing the 1905 book of Count St.
Vincent. What Clymer doesn't say in his pamphlet is what that 1905
book actually says.
"The Order Militia Crucifera Evangelica" by Count St. Vincent, page
15: "In the year 1527 a secret society was founded in Germany known as
the Militia Crucifera Evangelica. This Society or Fraternity owes its
existence to one Simon Studion ... Its first appearance was due to the
fact that Studion and three of his companions wanted religious liberty
...The society continued to be purley Mystical or Alchemical until the
year 1598, when the first Convention was held at Lunenburg, Germany,
after which period, it became both a Mystical and wholly secret Order
..."
At first, I thought the 1527 date was a possible typing error.
However, that date is referenced in the book on three separate
occasions.
The first problem here is that Simon Studion was born in 1543 and
couldn't possibly have created the MCE in 1527. This. Clymer avoids
saying in his pamphlet. However, the major problem is caused, not by
Count St. Vincent's error, but rather by AE Waite's shoddy research
and that is dating the formation of the MCE in 1598. In Waite's second
book on the subject, he properly dates the convention as being held in
1586. However, two Orders have already created their authenticity
based upon the earlier error.
HS Lewis, on the other hand, used Waite's second book on the subject,
the "Brotherhood of the Rosy Cross" and cited the information there as
his source and based AMORC's MCE as originating from a meeting held on
the proper date in 1586.
However, another very major Waite error that exists in both of his
books caused all three Orders to assume that the Militia Crucifera
Evangelica was founded as a result of that Lunenburg meeting
(regardless of the date it was held). The reason why that assumption
is made by waite, Clymer, St. Vincent, and Lewis is because none of
them, most particularly Waite, even bothered to look at the very
document originating from that meeting -- namely, the Naometria. Waite
mistates the name of the Convention as being: "Cruce Signatorum
Conventus" which implies that the order has already been established
or, rather, has been established during the Convention. Had Waite
actually looked at the Naometria, he would have noticed that the name
of the convention was: "Cruce Signandorum Conventus" (note the
difference between Signatorum/Signandorum) which means that the
formation of the Order will take place at a later time and therefore
did not take place at that meeting.
The bottom line is that the MCE was not formed on that date; did not
exist prior to that date; and there is no indication either in the
Naometria or elsewhere that it ever had been established. Rather, what
we have on the one hand are a lot of people speculating that it
existed while on the other, some people trying to legitimize their
ordial creations by refrencing those, unbeknowst to them, errors.
>This must be the case whatever Mr Lewis's or Clymer's intentions in
>fighting over the MCE heritage were.
>
>I am not the most sure of whether the Clymer group is linked to this
>early American MCE, but plainly the intention is that one should think
>so.
The only indication I can find is the duplication of a common 17th c.
Rosicrucian Symbol that appeared on the 1905 publication of Count St.
Vincent and the 1908 publication on the cover of Clymer's "The
Initiates". There may be a more reliable link, I don't know, but the
reliability of St. Vincent's claims would make me want to look
elsewhere.
However, as to the use of the name Militia Crucifera Evangelica, which
is really the issue of their concern, it appears that both AMORC and
Clymer started using the name around the same time -- circa 1927, 28
In vol 1 of the "Rosicrucian Fraternity in America" Clymer writes: "On
January 30th, 1934, the MCE registered its name in the State of
Pennsylvania for the first time in any State or Country thus
preempting the name from infringement." There appears to be a battle
of oneupmanship in the backdating department.
>
>But one must needs be unsure; sectarianism is rarely the best soil for
>growing the fruits of truth !
>
>The name is given of a European connection of the American MCE with the
>Count 'Quinotti', who is sometimes given as the initiator of Clymer
>himself.
Are you meaning Count St. Vincent?
>So, my question is: is the modern OMCE organisation a perpetuation of
>the AMORC MCE [which one is to understand is not an 'order' in its own
>right] or does it have links to the body that produced the 1902-1903
>American Manifestoes ?
Ok, this I can answer with absolute certainty without having to do a
lot of research. The OMCE is not connected to or a perpetuation of
either the AMORC MCE or the St. Vincent MCE. It was created by myself
in July, 1990. It does not claim to have any initiatic lineage to the
1586 Studion Convention, but rather, is formed in the spirit of that
Cruce Signandorum Conventus (notice I said "Signandorum"). It's
lineage is appropriately taken, in part, through my connection to two
lodges I was associated with in the early 70's. But basically, the
OMCE, it's rituals and teachings are primarily my creation. I do my
best to make that clear to anyone and everyone.
>If so, did that American body have links to Clymer ?
As I've said, I think the 1902 Order was independantly formed using
Waite as a source. I don't think there was a link, but I could be
mistaken ... however, just as a side bit I ran across today for the
first time as I was looking into this tmatter about the MCE, I noticed
on the Clymer Rosicrucian Organizations website that a member of their
World Council and Council of Three back in the 1800's was a person
named William Lloyd Garrison -- of whom I happen to be a direct
descendant on my mother's side. I wonder if that makes me ... no,
nevermind. I ain't about to go anywhere near that can of worms ...
>
>Jean
gls
gls
On 17 Mar 2005 07:02:05 -0800, "Cathari" <cat...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
<snip>
>It is clear from anything I have read personally of Dr. Lewis,
>particularly in the private monographs to members, including the White
>Books, that the word "Rosicrucian" specifically as this one word (i.e.,
>not Rosae Crucis, etc., etc.) and refs. to MCE and the Militia
>Crucifera Evangelica, were legally in the U.S.--trademarks. I believe
>they were legally registered under U.S. laws such that ONLY the AMORC
>could use them to "authentically", in other words, identify these
>specific organizations working as the Dr. H.S. Lewis Rosae Crucis
>lineage.
Pre-1990 AMORC had only two trademarks: "The Supreme Grand Lodge of
the Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis, Inc." and that one symbol
(seal) that could be found on the covers of some monographs and the
back of some editions of the Mastery of Life.
<snip>
>Another point, related indirectly, is that in anything that I read of
>Dr. Lewis' words, he had a genuine, responsible concern about
>protecting the name "Rosicrucian" as a reference which could be easily
>confused by the public, with other organizations using the name, but
>which could be misunderstood under the headings of "evil, dark arts,
>Black Magic," and so on. The interest was clearly as I understood it,
>to be about specifically the "nature of AMORC" as opposed to others
>claiming a Rosicrucian lineage, whether for better or worse as to the
>nature of the others.
I think we all need to open our eyes a bit here. I think Dr. Lewis was
a remarkable Rosicrucian and person. If I didn't, I wouldn't be doing
the CR+C. But when you get down to the bottom line, and this refers to
both Lewis and Clymer equally, that as a result of their infighting
that got out of hand, they both wanted to *protect* the name
"Rosicrucian" as being exclusive to their own Orders so as to let the
world know that only they were the true and legitimate Orders. That
attitude, in my opinion, is contrary to the Spirit of Rosicrucianism
as established by the 17th c. Manifestos and our very rules.
<snip>
>As I understand it, no, no links of MCE to Clymer personally with GSL,
>just as GSL's lineage is not of HSL regarding the MCE tradition--both
>Clymer and HSL may well indeed have had their own initiatic lineage to
>the tradition, however, apart from GSL's through Russian initiators, as
>he has put it himself.
Having been initiated into a Lodge in the early 70's by a person who
happened to be of Russian extraction does not necessarily mean that
the OMCE is of a Russian Lineage.
>Cathari
gls
gls
I'm butting in here between the exchange between yourself and Cathari:
On 18 Mar 2005 07:42:15 -0800, "teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>> It is clear from anything I have read personally of Dr. Lewis,
>> particularly in the private monographs to members, including the
>White
>> Books, that the word "Rosicrucian" specifically as this one word
>(i.e.,
>> not Rosae Crucis, etc., etc.) and refs. to MCE and the Militia
>> Crucifera Evangelica, were legally in the U.S.--trademarks. I
>believe
>> they were legally registered under U.S. laws such that ONLY the AMORC
>> could use them to "authentically", in other words, identify these
>> specific organizations working as the Dr. H.S. Lewis Rosae Crucis
>> lineage.
>
>
>That, as far as I am aware, did not occur at all. In fact, rather the
>opposite occurred.
>
>Clymer actually won a court case where it was held that the word
>'Rosicrucian' was generic and not reserved to the use of any one
>organisation. This allowed him to register a corporation in
>Pennsylvania with that name.
Can you cite the court case? My understanding is a little different.
As I understand it, on May 12, 1927, Clymer registered the name of
his corporation in the State of Pennsylvania as "Fraternity of the
Rosicrucians (Order of the Rose Cross)". He attached a book title
referencing the words "Fraternity of the Rosicrucians" that was filed
with the Library of Congress on the 4th of December, 1906 and a
certificate of copyright registration on February 28th and March 11th
1913 of the phrase "Knights of the Rose Cross". When trying to
wordmark or trademark something, you generally attach exhibits showing
the name you are trying to trademark has been in use by yourself.
In 1934, Clymer then tried to register the word marks: "Brotherhood
and Temple of the Rosy Cross", "Rosicrucian Brotherhood and Order",
and "The Fraternitatis Rosae Crucis" in the State of Pennsylvania. In
April, 1934, HSL filed an objection to the use of the phrases "Temple
of the Rosy Cross", "Rosicrucian Brotherhood", "Rosicrucian Order",
and "Brotherhood of the Rosy Cross". Notice that the names objected to
are different from Clymer's submission. HSL argued that the phrases he
was objecting to were long connected to Rosicrucian history; some of
which have been and were still in use by AMORC as early as 1916 and
1917 in the State of Pennsylvania.
On January 2, 1935, the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
overturned the objections of Lewis and gave Clymer's Order the use of
the phrases: "Rosicrucian Brotherhood and Order"; "The Brotherhood
and Temple of the Rosy Cross", and "The Fraternitas Rosae Crucis"
(which was the registered name since 1927). This was not done in
court, but rather through what would now be considered to be the
trademark and Patent Office. What it meant was that Clymer had
exclusive right to use those phrases *exactly* as he registered them
--- i.e. he could use "Rosicrucian Brotherhood and Order", but he had
no exclusive right to use "Rosicrucian Brotherhood" or "Rosicrucian
Order". He could use them if he wanted, but so could AMORC or anyone
else.
Effectively, what HSL did was to protect his use of such words as
Rosicrucian Temple, Rosicrucian Order, Rosicrucian Brotherhood, etc.
by arguing that they were generic useages and could not be copyrighted
by anyone. For them to be copyrighted by any one order, those generic
phrases had to be incorporated into a *specific* corporate use. In
otherwords, it was HSL that got certain words relating to
Rosicrucianism generically protected for general use. Not Clymer.
<snip>
>I think a common sense interpretation of the article, in a public
>magazine must infer that indeed the words 'Militia Crucifera
>Evangelica' are being used in a general sense and not as a specific
>copyright or trademarked term. There is no such caveat or note saying
>that they are being referred to in this way.
Perhaps of interest, in 1991 AMORC wordmarked the phrase "Militia
Crucifera Evangelica" In so doing, I cannot wordmark "Order of the
Militia Crucifera Evangelica" because of its similarity. However, I
can use it and have registered it as our corporate name because it is
different -- however, our Ordial name (true name or esoteric name, if
you will) is "Crvcem Sigillvm Militvm" and is trademarked on our two
seals. In the same vein, though, I wordmarked "O.M.C.E." which
disallows AMORC from wordmarking "M.C.E." -- but they can still use
it. It's funny and complicated -- the world of corporations and
trademarks. It's not as cut and dried as the Lewis/Clymer dispute
makes it seem.
<snip>
>I think one may be a supporter or adherent and still come up with an
>impartial view, but equally, the proper view of scholarship does not
>discount outside views as being 'lesser' in any sense.
Unfortunately, in practice, very few supporters are impartial and
scholarship does discount outside views (or more appropriately,
totally ignores them,) But I agree with you wholeheartedly. We on the
inside absolutely have to take an honest look at what it is that we
have done otherwise, we will never have any credibility. If we, as an
esoteric community, can establish our own integrity from within, then
it puts the ball in the academic court necessitating they clean up
their own houses or begin to look ridiculous.
>
>Indeed, if one were to prepare a paper for a research body, it may
>rather diminish the credibility of a paper if one were to be an
>adherent of the subject's system. For example, were I to write a
>biography of Hitler after many years in the Nazi Party, I think
>impartial observers would correctly be cautious !
But you would be the one I would go to if I wanted to find out about
Hitler because you would be representing the mindset of the Nazi
world. All I would have to have is the ability to discern between that
mindset and the perceived reality from the outside -- thereby allowing
me to formulate my own opinions.
<snip>
>In this context, the heart of this communication seems to be a
>misrepresentation, when contrasted with the obvious existence of
>another Militia Crucifera Evangelica which was a functioning order a
>long time before Lewis's announcement.
As I said in another post, I think it may have lasted ... maybe 6
years ... and nobody really knew anything about it until they tried to
prove their link to the past. I think Clymer's mistake was to jump too
quickly onto the bandwagon of that earlier Order perpetuating Waite's
shoddy research on the Order as being established in 1598 as a result
of a convention and St. Vincent's gem that the Order was first
organized by Studion in 1527 -- 16 years before his birth -- and
Clymer's, what I would term, rather convenient forgetting of that fact
when he re-published the earlier work in part. And Lewis ... well, he
relied on Waite, too and is still paying for it.
Just as a sidenote here ... we're talking about events that happened a
long time ago with people long gone. Even though I appear to be rather
critical of Clymer, I actually have a lot of respect for the present
generation of his Order. We have to measure this work we all do by
deeds, not words.
>If other properly sourced information were to come up which would allow
>a different understanding, I would indeed be willing to consider it.
well, I do have a different way at looking at things. Maybe you're
considering it. But, as always, what I write is just my opinion. The
actual truth could very easily be somewhere else.
>And I am not a wholesale apologist for the rant of Clymer, but on this
>issue I think he may have had legitimate grievance.
That turrned around and bit him on the dairy air (please excuse my
butchering of the French language with regards to this phrase -- just
an inside Belgian joke that goes back a long way)
>I think also, from another source, that in relation to the Count Clymer
>named, that this person was indeed the bearer of 'a' legitimate MCE
>lineage, there being a few branches from which such a thing might be
>derived.
I disagree for reasons stated.
>As to the exact nature of that, I will leave it to those who know more.
Unfortunately, in this field, it's not about knowing more, it's often
about taking too many liberties. We need to correct that ...
>
>Jean
gls
gls
On 18 Mar 2005 08:53:35 -0800, "Cathari" <cat...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>teletourgos wrote:
<snip>
>> As to the exact nature of that, I will leave it to those who know
>>more.
>>
>> Jean
>Excellent if you had said only this and not the other trash comments
>that only cause people not to want anything to do with anything you
>have to say--now I understand what has been happening here while I've
>been out of touch with alt.amorc. Please think about what I am saying
>to you here, as I, too, am disappointed in you. But, it's something I
>have to learn more about, and be able, as others, to simply go into the
>silence.
Sorry, I must be missing something. What trash comments did jean say?
>
>Chao!
>
>Cathari
gls
gls
<snip>
>As I understand it, no, no links of MCE to Clymer personally with GSL,
>just as GSL's lineage is not of HSL regarding the MCE tradition--both
>Clymer and HSL may well indeed have had their own initiatic lineage to
>the tradition, however, apart from GSL's through Russian initiators, as
>he has put it himself.
>Cathari
Incidentally ... who is "GSL"?
gls ...
Cathari
gls wrote:
> Hi Cathari;
> ....
> Sorry, I must be missing something. What trash comments did jean say?
> gls
Hi, Gary,
I think that Jean should know that I was not referring to her history
refs. but to "trashing" others, that is personal attacks to those who
have a different view from hers, however subtle it may be for
others--and I leave this at that.
But, I'm very glad you came online providing a wealth of properly
sourced information to add to her commentary. It is clear from your
very detailed response, that the delay was not because you did not see
Jean's commentary, but that you were preparing a complete, scholarly
and esoteric resourced response. I'm so glad!!
In the future, people especially including myself, should not
second-guess that either you didn't see a query or even that you are
potentially writing an entire thesis on anything asked/said here on
alt.amorc (although I do think truly it was not a true question in the
sense of "I really want to know" judging only from her own already
harsh judgment that Dr. Lewis must be lying, although you answered it
as a question, and I bow to your greater wisdom on that).
That my own response did not satisfy Jean is not my issue, as my view
being too much of a personal view for her to which I can only point to
my own experience--my issue is with her methods of personal attack and
personal insult as a weapon to shut down an opposing point of view.
However, that my response was too much based upon personal perception
for her (to which some of the things which you presented naturally do
indeed eliminate as erroneous in my thinking)--is why I suggested she
read more herself of what Dr. Lewis wrote himself and compare it with
what others have said about the same things. I do believe that that is
another facet to getting to the truth of "who did what to whom" as her
opening commentary was getting at in her statements "trashing Dr.
Lewis", which helps one to step aside from purely scholarly and
exoteric factors in the histories written.
So, Jean, too, was expressing her own perception, even though I do not
agree with it, especially with the harshness of it. Why can't we all
realize that even Imperators are human beings, who have a particular
level of evolution themselves that has some distance in varied
comparisons (only God knows...)--and no matter what ordial initiations
had, they are bound to have made errors and bad choices of actions
along the way. The greater "deeds" done for the greater purpose in
behalf of the evolution of humanity is what matters most, as I see it.
The squabbling is a distraction from sourcing the truth that presumably
anyone in the Orders are questing.
I wonder how many people realize that your scholarly experience
including your higher formal education, is specifically about
philosophy, and the esoteric history as you have sourced it personally.
It's a wealth of knowledge and understanding.
But the point of Jean's trashing comments is, in discussing these
things, personal attacks to not get a person what most likely is what
they really want to "know". She has a lot of knowledge about
histories, but the methods just don't make it with me. Obviously,
there is so much more for me to learn about dealing with this
phenomenon within the "esoteric, spiritual" stream, because certainly
my own personal reaction to such things does not make matters any
better either.
Oh--and as to my length and breadth of imperfection, too, such obvious,
blatant typos, because GSL certainly could not be a reference to, say,
a "Gary Lewis"--but it's so interesting, too, that over the past
decade, I have seen others "flub" and call you Lewis, and it is very
clearly a distinction that, "no, folks, he is not even a reincarnation
of Dr. H. Spencer Lewis"!!! I am aware of Dr. Lewis' distinct
failings, however, I do not broadcast them, but his humanity is
entirely separate, I believe, and we should respect the greater good
that he set out to do by his personal deeds in behalf of the
Rosicrucian movement.
Cathari
Cathari
gls wrote:
> Hi Cathari;
>
> On 17 Mar 2005 07:02:05 -0800, "Cathari" <cat...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >As I understand it, no, no links of MCE to Clymer personally with
GSL,
> >just as GSL's lineage is not of HSL regarding the MCE
tradition--both
> >Clymer and HSL may well indeed have had their own initiatic lineage
to
> >the tradition, however, apart from GSL's through Russian initiators,
as
> >he has put it himself.
>
> Having been initiated into a Lodge in the early 70's by a person who
> happened to be of Russian extraction does not necessarily mean that
> the OMCE is of a Russian Lineage.
> gls
Thanks. Yes--I did understand that distinction, but I didn't know if I
should make any references myself to the Lodges you have discussed. My
understanding has been that there was a great, great Rosicrucian
lineage in Russia that became part of the "Rosicrucian stream of the
western esoteric tradition", just as many other great spiritual
esoteric threads, too, joined with others of the same objectives and
purpose. It would not make those Lodges where you were a member in
your 20s, "AMORC Lodges" or even "OMCE Lodges", and it is my
understanding that your initiatic authority does come from the European
Lodges, just as you also have an initiatic authority from the Lewis
authority. Do I have this correct?
Cathari
gls
On 19 Mar 2005 06:13:43 -0800, "Cathari" <cat...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>gls wrote:
<snip>
>But, I'm very glad you came online providing a wealth of properly
>sourced information to add to her commentary. It is clear from your
>very detailed response, that the delay was not because you did not see
>Jean's commentary, but that you were preparing a complete, scholarly
>and esoteric resourced response. I'm so glad!!
I didn't see Jean's post until yesterday afternoon (Friday, March 18).
I had some work to do and then came back online yesterday night to
respond. As for the preparation of my response, I already knew what I
wanted to say and it took about 30 minutes to doublecheck my sources.
>In the future, people especially including myself, should not
>second-guess that either you didn't see a query or even that you are
>potentially writing an entire thesis on anything asked/said here on
>alt.amorc
Umm ... anyway, I would think it safe to assume that if I don't
respond to a post it is either because I didn't see it or that I chose
not to respond. And if it takes me time to respond, it doesn't
necessarily mean I preparing a response. I think such would apply to
anyone.
> (although I do think truly it was not a true question in the
>sense of "I really want to know" judging only from her own already
>harsh judgment that Dr. Lewis must be lying, although you answered it
>as a question, and I bow to your greater wisdom on that).
Sorry if my response came across as me answering a question. I saw
Jean's (I don't know his/her gender so I will avoid using one) comment
and took it at face value -- that being, an informed opinion drawing a
valid conclusion. I offered my opinion as a counter and drew an
equally valid conclusion (bearing in mind that a valid conclusion is
not dependant upon being true or false). *If* there was an intent to
trash Dr. Lewis, you, me, or anyone else on Jean's part, first, I
don't see it that way, and second, would it matter if that were the
case?
<snip>
>Cathari
gls
Cathari
gls wrote:
> Hi Cathari;
>
> On 19 Mar 2005 06:13:43 -0800, "Cathari" <cat...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >gls wrote:
>
> I didn't see Jean's post until yesterday afternoon (Friday, March
18).
> I had some work to do and then came back online yesterday night to
> respond. As for the preparation of my response, I already knew what I
> wanted to say and it took about 30 minutes to doublecheck my sources.
...not surprised, and glad to hear it.
....
> Umm ... anyway, I would think it safe to assume that if I don't
> respond to a post it is either because I didn't see it or that I
chose
> not to respond. And if it takes me time to respond, it doesn't
> necessarily mean I preparing a response. I think such would apply to
> anyone.
Yes. I knew that the commentary was not specifically addressed to you,
however, you would be the "proper sourcing"--still, I expressed my own
view in the interim, not to be confused by anyone else's, either,
naturally.
> > (although I do think truly it was not a true question in the
> >sense of "I really want to know" judging only from her own already
> >harsh judgment that Dr. Lewis must be lying, although you answered
it
> >as a question, and I bow to your greater wisdom on that).
>
> Sorry if my response came across as me answering a question. I saw
> Jean's (I don't know his/her gender so I will avoid using one)
comment
> and took it at face value -- that being, an informed opinion drawing
a
> valid conclusion. I offered my opinion as a counter and drew an
> equally valid conclusion (bearing in mind that a valid conclusion is
> not dependant upon being true or false).
Agreed.
> *If* there was an intent to
> trash Dr. Lewis, you, me, or anyone else on Jean's part, first, I
> don't see it that way, and second, would it matter if that were the
> case?
Let's see...ummm....in the final analysis: NO. [I know, I know: so
what's all the excitement??? Yeah, okay. Thanks.]
>
> <snip>
>
> >Cathari
>
> gls
teletourgos
I am using McIntosh in relation to the court case - but I could be
wrong . . . but the AMORC statement seemed to corroborate this.
However it also could point to them having received legal advice that
it can't be copyrighted- which what you've said below seems to indicate
was the case.
It might be that McIntosh is summarising a vast amount of legal to-ing
and fro-ing into a sentence.
Anyway, you seem to have laid it out and it seems we have to thank
Lewis, rather than Clymer for the freedom of speech in relation to the
term.
So, I retract that part of my post.
As I said, and I'm not going to get into what 'trash comments' are -
and I'm not an apologist for Clymer, or anyone really.
I don't know any Rosicrucian group that is totally free of humbug, and
in any interpretation of events, we're going to find times when we're
less than impressed with what other human beings have done.
I'd hope to see credit where its due to both men, as poisonous as the
atmosphere was between them . . . we have to thank each of them for
furthering the tradition in one sense, even if it was done with more
than a little ego and anger on both sides.
>
> Unfortunately, in practice, very few supporters are impartial and
> scholarship does discount outside views (or more appropriately,
> totally ignores them,) But I agree with you wholeheartedly. We on the
> inside absolutely have to take an honest look at what it is that we
> have done otherwise, we will never have any credibility. If we, as an
> esoteric community, can establish our own integrity from within, then
> it puts the ball in the academic court necessitating they clean up
> their own houses or begin to look ridiculous.
I think that is really important.
Occult 'history' has too often been poorly done, and at this point, I'd
rather see it well done. We have something to give the world, and I'd
rather do it well, and thus have something worthwhile to put up against
those lazy academics who too easily fall back on their bias, and say
our area is 'dodgy' or disreputable.
AMORC particularly does a lot of historical revisionism in relation to
themselves, and I think this is a great pity, sanitising what has been
a colourful and exciting organisation in the interests of a rather dull
homogeneity.
In relation to Cathari's comments on the internal or external viewpoint
:
Your point is taken, but I think the external points of view cant be
discounted.
If I understand you, Cathari, you've consistently indicated that
certain things must not be well understood without going through
Lewis's system.
I disagree with that view at least when it comes to historical doings.
I think we just have to accept that we hold different views there.
I strongly feel that AMORC is not unique and that you can find worthy
commentators on its history who've come through similar systems - such
as OHTM and even divergent magical systems like the G .: D .:
The thing with that 1905 book is that it was published by the
Rosicrucian Foundation of Pennsylvania - which was Clymer's publishing
company ? wasn't it ? So I am surmising that Clymer had a longer
awareness of the MCE and 'got there first'.
Regardless, I don't think the motives behind either the AMORC 1933
announcement or Clymer's 1935 pamphlet were the best, as I said in the
first post, my feeling is they were motivated by the war going on
between them rather than any genuine desire to further the interests of
[any] MCE.
>
> Just as a sidenote here ... we're talking about events that happened
a
> long time ago with people long gone. Even though I appear to be
rather
> critical of Clymer, I actually have a lot of respect for the present
> generation of his Order. We have to measure this work we all do by
> deeds, not words.
>
> >If other properly sourced information were to come up which would
allow
> >a different understanding, I would indeed be willing to consider it.
>
> well, I do have a different way at looking at things. Maybe you're
> considering it. But, as always, what I write is just my opinion. The
> actual truth could very easily be somewhere else.
I'm happy to acknowledge that you've changed my view on this matter . .
. thanks for all the information as usual.
I do worry though that some seem too keen to make Clymer the 'baddie'
in all this and I think that is unfortunate because it ignores the good
work his order did and perhaps still does - I understand that it's
having a rocky situation at the moment.
>From what I'm told this 'Quinotti' was a different person to St Vincent
and he was said to have passed the MCE to Clymer. That's at least what
someone in a now far-flung Clymer group in Sth America represented to
me. But you know, that could be a myth too.
>
> >I think also, from another source, that in relation to the Count
Clymer
> >named, that this person was indeed the bearer of 'a' legitimate MCE
> >lineage, there being a few branches from which such a thing might be
> >derived.
>
> I disagree for reasons stated.
>
Jean
Sid
"teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<1111338932....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
> Occult 'history' has too often been poorly done,
To a point I agree with this but on the otherhand there have been a
number of very good works written by some German historians, both old
and modern.
> AMORC particularly does a lot of historical revisionism in relation to
> themselves, and I think this is a great pity, sanitising what has been
> a colourful and exciting organisation in the interests of a rather dull
> homogeneity.
This is probably just a self defence reaction caused by all the anti-
material that has been printed and posted throughout the years.
> I strongly feel that AMORC is not unique and that you can find worthy
> commentators on its history who've come through similar systems - such
> as OHTM and even divergent magical systems like the G .: D .:
Well any group or Order may view their system of instruction or study
as being 'unique'. That's okey. But we are not on some kind of
football scale or league of who is the best or the highest on the
list. It is unfortunate when people get the feeling that they should
appologise for being a member of AMORC or because they are not a
Master Mason (just hypothetical examples), so do not belong to the
higher league of Initiatic Orders, be they of the new FUDOSI or other.
At best people have either been descieved or the information has been
convienently witheld or kept secret. At its worst this is just pure
arrogance and does not support the cause, and is detremental to the
groups involved in this type of attitude. Worse still when individuals
and groups become involved in subversive activity both within other
groups/Orders and from the outside.
> Regardless, I don't think the motives behind either the AMORC 1933
> announcement or Clymer's 1935 pamphlet were the best, as I said in the
> first post, my feeling is they were motivated by the war going on
> between them rather than any genuine desire to further the interests of
> [any] MCE.
Again it could be yet another case of 'which' MCE.
> I do worry though that some seem too keen to make Clymer the 'baddie'
> in all this and I think that is unfortunate because it ignores the good
> work his order did and perhaps still does - I understand that it's
> having a rocky situation at the moment.
Just a few misguided people creating 'enemies' for their own ends. (my
opinion).
I'm sure that Clymer like many others genuinely did believe that
everything that came out of Europe was true.
> >From what I'm told this 'Quinotti' was a different person to St Vincent
> and he was said to have passed the MCE to Clymer. That's at least what
> someone in a now far-flung Clymer group in Sth America represented to
> me. But you know, that could be a myth too.
I take it you are referring to the people in Brasil who have good
links with Germany, be they FRC, Gold Rose Cross Rosicrucians, Fratres
Lucis, GD, OTO etc.,?
Regarding the history of the Fraternitas Rosć Crucis (FRC):
R. Swinburne Clymer:
"During the year 1905, R. Swinburne Clymer, M.D., was appointed Grand
Master of the August Fraternity of Rosicucians for the United States.
Later, when he was selected to have control over the Fraternity in
North, South America and the Isles of the sea, he received the title
of Supreme Grand Master. Later, when WWII decimated most of the
European Orders, Dr. Clymer became Supreme Grand Master not only for
North and South America, but for all of Europe as well."
Note: Imperator H. Spencer Lewis was initiated in Tolouse in 1909.
(from a short letter to his wife)
"It seems fitting to explain here the several titles found in Occult
Literature:
A Grand Master is the head of the August Fraternity for one country.
A Supreme Grand Master is the head of the August Fraternity for more
than one country.
The one personality who is the head of the World-Wide Fraternity has
the title of Count, but such an individual remains unknown to the
student body. He is known only to the Grand Masters and Supreme Grand
Masters."
---------------------------
The Universal Confederation
of Orders, Societies and
Fraternities of Initiation
Articles of Association 1939
"We trace the origin of our Great Work back through the ages to the
old Masters and Initiates of the Ancient Wisdom and the Great Arcane
Schools of the remote ages, and have the assurance that we possess the
original, true esoteric and arcane teachings of the *Sons of the
LIGHT, i.e., the Sons of God."
*See the Masonic novel by Roger Peyrefitte "The Sons of Light". A
very good read for both Masons and non-Masons.
Perhaps the 2 most important Masons of that period (1800's) were
probably the young General La Fayette and the Hungarian Kossuth?
"The sacred doctrine and teachings of the Ancient Esoteric Schools, as
preserved and handed down to us through Supreme Grand Master to
Supreme Grand Master, are the essential philosophy, the original
landmarks, tenets, ethics and teachings of the authentic HERMETIC
BROTHERHOOD, and the original FRATERNITAS ROSAE CRUCIS, parent of the
**Order of the Red Rose and Golden and Rosy Cross, are the
fundamentals of this International Confederation of Initiates and the
basis upon which it is founded and operated."
http://www.soul.org/index.html
Order of the Holy Grail of Clymer, and the work of A.E. Waite "The
Hidden Church of the Holy Grail"
**Order of the Red Rose and Golden and Rosy Cross:
--
Regards,
Sid
gls
On 20 Mar 2005 09:15:32 -0800, "teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
<snip>
>> Unfortunately, in practice, very few supporters are impartial and
>> scholarship does discount outside views (or more appropriately,
>> totally ignores them,) But I agree with you wholeheartedly. We on the
>> inside absolutely have to take an honest look at what it is that we
>> have done otherwise, we will never have any credibility. If we, as an
>> esoteric community, can establish our own integrity from within, then
>> it puts the ball in the academic court necessitating they clean up
>> their own houses or begin to look ridiculous.
>
>I think that is really important.
very much so. but it will never happen until everyone in our field
starts dealing with things honestly and openly.
<snip>
>AMORC particularly does a lot of historical revisionism in relation to
>themselves, and I think this is a great pity, sanitising what has been
>a colourful and exciting organisation in the interests of a rather dull
>homogeneity.
Very true and the process is ongoing. But AMORC isn't alone in this.
<snip>
>I strongly feel that AMORC is not unique and that you can find worthy
>commentators on its history who've come through similar systems - such
>as OHTM and even divergent magical systems like the G .: D .:
What I think is unique, as you imply, is the mind and soul of each
individual that turns to the inner work, be it mystical, occult,
AMORC, Golden Dawn, OTO, Wicca, or any other Order or system, be it
formalized or not is really unimportant when compared to what drives
one to seek the inner life. What is not unique is the unfortunate
infighting.
>The thing with that 1905 book is that it was published by the
>Rosicrucian Foundation of Pennsylvania - which was Clymer's publishing
>company ? wasn't it ? So I am surmising that Clymer had a longer
>awareness of the MCE and 'got there first'.
I'm relying on my memory that goes back to 1977 when I first ran into
that book. As I recall (take that for what it's worth), it was a
hardcopy self-published work without any reference to a publisher. I
kept my complete library in my office when I was with AMORC and as a
result of the 1990 affair I was only able to get back about 60% of
that library. That book was not one of them. What I have now, though,
is a photocopy sent to me by a friend. In that photocopy there is no
reference to a publisher, but the back pages include advertisement for
a number of books written by Clymer and published by the Philosophical
Publishing Co. In Allentown, PA (which was Clymer's group). What date
it was published, I have no idea. It could by 1905 or it could be
1965. The only thing we do know is that Clymer at least reprinted it
at some point in time. And it is possible that he even wrote it, but I
have my suspicions about that. Personally though, it would be a lot
easier from a research perspective to find that he or someone in his
organization was the author ...
Again, what I really think is that both Clymer and Lewis borrowed some
of the documentation for their respective MCE's from Waite -- Clymer
from the 1887 "Real History of the Rosicrucians", and Lewis from the
1924 "Brotherhood of the Rosy Cross". And everyone got it wrong. The
things that Waite, Clymer, and Lewis claim are in the Naometria just
simply aren't there.
As to the order of who got to the MCE first? I would say it's Waite,
Clymer, Lewis. But, that's just my opinion. There was certainly no
turmoil about it until the late 20's.
>Regardless, I don't think the motives behind either the AMORC 1933
>announcement or Clymer's 1935 pamphlet were the best, as I said in the
>first post, my feeling is they were motivated by the war going on
>between them rather than any genuine desire to further the interests of
>[any] MCE.
I agree. A lot of energy was wasted during that time ... and
apparently, it's still going on in some circles.
<snip>
>>From what I'm told this 'Quinotti' was a different person to St Vincent
>and he was said to have passed the MCE to Clymer. That's at least what
>someone in a now far-flung Clymer group in Sth America represented to
>me. But you know, that could be a myth too.
I dug around a bit today and I actually have more questions than
answers, but briefly, this is what I found -- all of it from Clymer
related sources with a *possible* unrelated source via Marie Corelli :
Count A Guinotti (someone needs to look this up in Rystaps Amorial as
there are not all that many Counts and Dukes running around that
weren't documented) was said to have passed authority to Dr. Randolph
in 1858. The mantle was then taken up by Freeman B. Dowd in 1875;
Edward Brown in 1907; and Clymer in 1908. I also saw it claimed
Guinotti was approached by Count St. Vincent (another trip to the
Amorial is due here) in 1902 to receive authorization to establish the
Order Militia Crucifera Evangelica and it was given. He was also
referred to by Marie Corelli as being her spiritual instructor or
father. I also found reference that the torch was passed to Count St.
Vincent when Count Guinotti died. What I can't find is any birth and
death information for either people nor any outside documentation as
to who these people actually were.
<snip>
>Jean
gls
teletourgos
Gary
I am sadly in reliance on handwritten notes taken from a late night
phone call a few weeks ago, but yes, this is fundamentally what I heard
with the exception that Clymer was claimed to have also gotten the MCE
in 1902.
But you know, this is stuff Clymer published so he might have 'inserted
himself' in there. He is very much known for rewriting and editing
materials so they suited his purpose. One must shake one's head at his
treatment of Randolph's work, for instance.
Ah yes it is Guinotti and not Quinotti. But like you, one can yet have
no idea who he really was.
The best I can deduce is that there was a socialite Count Giunotti in
the US in the late 1800s.
Another interesting connection here, is that Clymer at one point
published a novel by a Marguerite Verdier, which he annotated. It was
called 'The Master Initiate and the Maid'.
Now 'Verdier' is an extremely interesting surname to arise in such
contexts as we are looking at !
Jean
Cathari
....
> So, I retract that part of my post.
>
> As I said, and I'm not going to get into what 'trash comments' are -
> and I'm not an apologist for Clymer, or anyone really.
>
> I'd hope to see credit where its due to both men, as poisonous as the
> atmosphere was between them . . . we have to thank each of them for
> furthering the tradition in one sense, even if it was done with more
> than a little ego and anger on both sides.
What you say may be true, however, again I would point people to
reading the direct writings of both HSL and Clymer and draw their own
conclusions. I have read both, and I have a different view about
Clymer's nature and personal objectives, even if he may also have been
interested in meeting the traditional purposes of the Rosicrucian
stream.
> > Unfortunately, in practice, very few supporters are impartial and
> > scholarship does discount outside views (or more appropriately,
> > totally ignores them,) But I agree with you wholeheartedly. We on
the
> > inside absolutely have to take an honest look at what it is that we
> > have done otherwise, we will never have any credibility. If we, as
an
> > esoteric community, can establish our own integrity from within,
then
> > it puts the ball in the academic court necessitating they clean up
> > their own houses or begin to look ridiculous.
>
> I think that is really important.
....
>
> In relation to Cathari's comments on the internal or external
viewpoint
> :
>
> Your point is taken, but I think the external points of view cant be
> discounted.
>
> If I understand you, Cathari, you've consistently indicated that
> certain things must not be well understood without going through
> Lewis's system.
No, Jean, and if at this time anyone re-reads my post, you will perhaps
see that my view is not what you have stated here. My statement about
going through the Lewis system of monographs was of an entirely
different purpose and nature, as you would see, too, I think, as a
"respoonse" for lack of that of GLS at the time.... Additionally, I'm
saying now that if you want to get a flavor of HSL himself, you would
be able to read old articles from the Rosicrucian Digest, the American
Rosae Crucis, the Mystic Triangle, perhaps even find some of the
private issues sent only to members during membership, of "The Forum".
And, of course, there are many public books written by Lewis, that,
even if one doesn't agree with the points of scholarship, will find the
nature of the heart of the person himself.
This is what I was expressing as one method outside established
scholarship, of determining the nature of a source of anything. It is
the very direct experience that I had in reading Clymer's own words in
one of his public books (not even hidden away in his system papers and
sources), that convinced me of Clymer's personal nature and intent,
which I find abhorantly outside my own understanding of traditional
initiation factors. It isn't even only a matter, in my view, of Clymer
having some failings; it is a matter of the nature of "evolutionary
initiation" that came through.
....
> I disagree with that view at least when it comes to historical
doings.
> I think we just have to accept that we hold different views there.
>
> I strongly feel that AMORC is not unique and that you can find worthy
> commentators on its history who've come through similar systems -
such
> as OHTM and even divergent magical systems like the G .: D .:
For over 30 years now, I have studied within the traditional stream of
the Rosicrucian movement, and have not "tried" one or another
organizations to "see how different" one may be from another. I can
tell you this, though, that unless one continues through the entire
Lewis system, one misses the real ending and new beginning if you get
my meaning. I am aware that other organizations have different systems
of study, and even different topics, however, I guess I'm one of the
fortunate ones who realized very early how deeply significant the Lewis
system was in how it was put together in a psychologically progressive
way, that causes the student to "look within", and realize from direct
experience the wealth of that ability--while, of course, continuing
one's own personal spiritual evolution in its own way, but at least,
then hand in hand with one's true source of the heart.
>
> > Just as a sidenote here ... we're talking about events that
happened
> a
> > long time ago with people long gone. Even though I appear to be
> rather
> > critical of Clymer, I actually have a lot of respect for the
present
> > generation of his Order. We have to measure this work we all do by
> > deeds, not words.
....
> I'm happy to acknowledge that you've changed my view on this matter .
.
> . thanks for all the information as usual.
>
> I do worry though that some seem too keen to make Clymer the 'baddie'
> in all this and I think that is unfortunate because it ignores the
good
> work his order did and perhaps still does - I understand that it's
> having a rocky situation at the moment.
I always consider the "a bird in the hand..." principle, and
unfortunately, because I was very, very early introduced to Clymer's
own direct words that stunned me to stay shunned with him, no point in
looking "three in the bush" where hidden away one can be easly taken
away to some other course unintended. "My View".
....
> >
> Jean
Cathari
Sid
This is a long shot but I have a feeling that we should perhaps be
taking a closer look at 2 people from Hungary called Count Gyorgy
Apponyi (Rakoczi = Manyoki) Count of Zekella (?) 1844-1933 and Count
Albert Apponyi 1846-1933(?) There are different spellings for these
names. George Rákoczi II. wrote a manifesto in defence of human
rights, and I believe was also minister of education in Hungry
1906-1910. Count A.A. met President Roosevelt in Hungary in 1911. Also
a possible link to the Mason Louis Kossuth, and I think that the young
General Lafayette was also involved. I also found mention of an
Asiatic Society of Bengal, Culcutta. HSL wrote that Lafayette was the
first Rosicrucian to visit America at that time. LaFayette was also a
Mason and at the age of 27 on his final trip to America, he was made
an honorary member of the Masonic Lodge of Washington on the 21st of
February 1825. Hope this helps.
Regarding the Lewis MCE: Check the similarity of the heraldry used by
Lewis with the town of Toulouse, The Cross of Henry IV of Navarra,
Huggonauts and the Cathare Cross. For what it may be worth, I did not
get the feeling that this was a construct, and I found RML's
explanation rather interesting.
more below
gls<gls@...> wrote in message news:<eems31pm8dhbdggd3...@4ax.com>...
> Hi Jean;
>
> On 20 Mar 2005 09:15:32 -0800, "teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I dug around a bit today and I actually have more questions than
> answers, but briefly, this is what I found -- all of it from Clymer
> related sources with a *possible* unrelated source via Marie Corelli :
> Count A Guinotti (someone needs to look this up in Rystaps Amorial as
> there are not all that many Counts and Dukes running around that
> weren't documented) was said to have passed authority to Dr. Randolph
> in 1858. The mantle was then taken up by Freeman B. Dowd in 1875;
> Edward Brown in 1907; and Clymer in 1908. I also saw it claimed
> Guinotti was approached by Count St. Vincent (another trip to the
> Amorial is due here) in 1902 to receive authorization to establish the
> Order Militia Crucifera Evangelica and it was given. He was also
> referred to by Marie Corelli as being her spiritual instructor or
> father. I also found reference that the torch was passed to Count St.
> Vincent when Count Guinotti died. What I can't find is any birth and
> death information for either people nor any outside documentation as
> to who these people actually were.
>
> gls
Clymer wrote an interesting short chapter about Simon Studion in his
book "Book of Rosicruciae" (page 151), and also mentions the MCE a
number of times in this book. He writes, "In 1586 he (Studion) left
Nurenberg to attend a mission to a Lutheren assembly to be held at
Lunebergon." This spelling is very close to the name of a small town
in France, but not the Luneburg in the North of Germany.
Clymer also writes that Studion died in 1597 which is also not
correct, otherwise how could he have completed his second and revised
version of the Naometria [Nova] in 1604? He also states that the
"Naometria served Johann Valentin Andreae and other Initiates as a
draft or "skeleton" for the Fama." If anything it would be the other
way round, and strangely, JVA in his comedy called TURBO which is a
biography of his own life, makes fun of Studion and his Naometria.
Interestingly, JVA in his comedy TURBO also allows the Fama to 'speak
3 times', and there are some interesting players in the comedy (people
whom he (JVA) met upon his travels. If JVA was a member of theis group
then why would he go to all the trouble to set up his own Order as
well, which failed?
The last record of Studion is believed to be 1606-1608 when he was
sent to the Monastry of Maulbronn as a punishment for his comments
against the Pope in the Naometria [Nova]. Incidently, the Pope did not
die in 1920 as Studion had calculated. Perhaps 1920 had another
meaning.(?)
Clymer also presents Studion was being an Alchemist, which I find very
hard to believe. Perhaps he is talking about spiritual Alchemy, I
don't know, but that said I have not found anything even remotely
alchemical in any of the works of Studion, what-so-ever. Please
correct me if I'm wrong in this. The 10.000 verse poem is dedicated to
the Duke of Wuertemberg and his family tree. A Chymical Wedding? I
don't know.
Interestingly, on the front page of the first copy of the Naometria
Studion writes: In gratitude to the S.S. (Sanctus Spiriti), and on the
first page of the Nova version he writes: In gratitude to the MCE.
This would suggest to me that the MCE already existed, but knowing
Studion anything is possible, and nothing should be regarded as
insignificant or unimportant.
It has been suggested that Studion re-wrote the Naometria just because
his prophetic etc., calculations had not worked out i.e., he wanted to
make his calculations fit better so wrote the Nova version. This may
be possible, but personally I believe the historical record that some
people seriously wanted to have the Naometria printed, thus motivating
Studion to set about re-writing the Naometria again.
Your writing on here is much appreciated. Thanks.
Regards,
Sid
teletourgos
Sid wrote:
> Hi Gary, Hi Jean,
>
> This is a long shot but I have a feeling that we should perhaps be
> taking a closer look at 2 people from Hungary called Count Gyorgy
> Apponyi (Rakoczi = Manyoki) Count of Zekella (?) 1844-1933 and Count
> Albert Apponyi 1846-1933(?) There are different spellings for these
> names. George Rákoczi II. wrote a manifesto in defence of human
> rights, and I believe was also minister of education in Hungry
> 1906-1910.
Hello Sid and thank you for your input which I always enjoy looking at.
Apponyi arises twice in this area. First, Kenneth Mackenzie named him
as his initiator in Europe - which must have occurred when Mackenzie
was a young man, 19 or 20.
It is this to which we sometimes refer as the origin of the famous GD
cyphers.
Waite treated this in what must be said is typical Waite fashion,
saying at one point that the record of Mackenzie on things Rosicrucian
'is one of recurring mendacity'. But then I believe later in life he
treated Mackenzie's claim more seriously, without bothering to retract
his earlier judgement.
It is sometimes said that Lewis cooperated with Sylvester Clark Gould
in his attempt to make Rosicucian contacts in Europe - the 1909 trip.
However Gould dies before this could occur. Gould was allegedly to
meet a Count Apponyi on that trip.
The latter-day 'apologist' for Waite, RA Gilbert, I do not think
regards this claim as serious, but the recorded existence of successive
Counts Apponyi make one wonder.
I was told once that the Apponyis made money in porcelain, a trade
which may at one time have involved alchemical skills ?
Gary says before that friend Waite is wrong regarding the MCE - and
that this led in different ways - to the mistakes of Clymer and Lewis-
which referenced different versions of Waite.
Waite's arrogance has not helped us here . . . in that to acknowledge
his first mistake in his second publication would have helped and
perhaps given due alert that he was not to be absolutely relied on.
*******
What I wonder is that rose-cross symbolism is mentioned as existing in
the Naometria, I believe by Lewis. Someone here may have the reference
but I believe I read it in an old copy of 'Rosicrucian Q&A'.
Is he parroting Waite, or did Lewis get to examine the document himself
? And is the symbolism linking rose and cross, or does it just involve
roses and crosses among many other elements, as in the writings of
Bureus ?
Jean
gls
On 21 Mar 2005 09:45:19 -0800, kangar...@T-Online.de (Sid) wrote:
<snip>
>Clymer also writes that Studion died in 1597 which is also not
>correct, otherwise how could he have completed his second and revised
>version of the Naometria [Nova] in 1604?
I agree, Studion lived beyond that date.
> He also states that the
>"Naometria served Johann Valentin Andreae and other Initiates as a
>draft or "skeleton" for the Fama."
That's probably stretching things a bit. Most likely, in my opinion,
Joachim de Fiore (12th c. monk) influenced the writers of both works
and it's just that influence which makes them seem connected.
> If anything it would be the other
>way round,
Why?
<snip>
>The last record of Studion is believed to be 1606-1608 when he was
>sent to the Monastry of Maulbronn as a punishment for his comments
>against the Pope in the Naometria [Nova]. Incidently, the Pope did not
>die in 1920 as Studion had calculated. Perhaps 1920 had another
>meaning.(?)
You mean 1620, correct? I think the 'other' meaning is simply that
Studion was wrong.
<snip>
>Interestingly, on the front page of the first copy of the Naometria
>Studion writes: In gratitude to the S.S. (Sanctus Spiriti),
What makes you think his use of S.S. in this context means Sanctus
Spiriti? ... Anyway, can you write the phrase youe refrencing out in
Latin? I'm not seeing what you're referring to.
> and on the
>first page of the Nova version he writes: In gratitude to the MCE.
I disagree. He uses "gratia" in connection to " In cruicifera
MILITIAE Evangelicae" which translates to: "For the *sake* of the
crossbearing Evangelic ARMY". 'For the sake of' and 'in gratitude to'
are two different things. Also, we can't be certain that he is
actually referring to an organization named Militia Crucifera
Evangelica -- although I conceed he might be. It's quite possible he
is making reference, in lieu of the new religious climate of the
Reformation, to the times of the Crusades and the crusaders and
likening to crossbearing soldiers of several centuries before it to a
new Crusade of the Reformation happening in his lifetime.
>This would suggest to me that the MCE already existed,
Not necessarily. If you translate it as you suggest, I can see how you
arrive at your conclusion. But if you translate it "for the sake of a
crossbearing Army", then no. Especially when it is a convention called
for those who are to *be* marked with the cross as opposed to those
who have *been* marked. In the 1604 version, "signandorum" is still
being used.
When reading it, what is sounds like to me is that in 1586 a meeting
was held that was represented by several Royal Houses of the
Protestant persuasion, if you will, and who decided that the meeting
(which wasn't technically called "Cruce Signandorum Conventus" by the
way, but rather, that phrase is descriptive of what was to be done at
the convention -- but for our purposes (OMCE) this is how we refer to
that convention by way of naming it as such) would be the foundation
of a confederation of Protestant States in which a treaty would be
upheld to protect each other from any attacks from the Catholics. At
some point in time, this confederation would put together an army of
those marked by the cross to defend what the reformationists construed
to be the truth.
Now, the question is, when was (or even 'if') the MCE organized? And
if so, how was it organized? I tend to think, as opposed to an army, a
movement was developed that evolved into what we now know as
Rosicrucianism. However, at the time of the Convention, I don't think
it was perceived that way ...
<snip>
>Regards,
>Sid
gsl
Sid
"teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<1111431223....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
>
> It is sometimes said that Lewis cooperated with Sylvester Clark Gould
> in his attempt to make Rosicucian contacts in Europe - the 1909 trip.
> However Gould dies before this could occur. Gould was allegedly to
> meet a Count Apponyi on that trip.
H. Spencer Lewis was born in November 25, 1883.
Initiated in Toulouse in 1909 at the age of 26.
He died in August 2, 1939.
The young HSL was probably looking for anything Rosicrucian in Europe
at that time, and no doubt both Lewises had their disapiontments in
this regard.
> The latter-day 'apologist' for Waite, RA Gilbert, I do not think
> regards this claim as serious, but the recorded existence of successive
> Counts Apponyi make one wonder.
The family of Apponyi went back a long way so one would expect a
number of them, but this would not automaticly make them all RC or FM.
> I was told once that the Apponyis made money in porcelain, a trade
> which may at one time have involved alchemical skills ?
Well this is possible, as the famous Meisner(Spl.?) porcelain was
actually discovered because the poor guy who discovered it had
originally been cept captive to make gold through Alchymecial means.
His life depended upon it. Unfortunately his discovery of the Meisner
porcelain formula did not give him freedom or save his life as people
did not want the secret of the making of white gold to get out.
> Gary says before that friend Waite is wrong regarding the MCE - and
> that this led in different ways - to the mistakes of Clymer and Lewis-
> which referenced different versions of Waite.
>
> Waite's arrogance has not helped us here . . . in that to acknowledge
> his first mistake in his second publication would have helped and
> perhaps given due alert that he was not to be absolutely relied on.
Well to be fair to Waite, he did say that a lot of research still had
to be done, and HSL also wrote the same (See the American Rosae Crucis
of 1916 and the History of the Order by HSL.)
> *******
>
> What I wonder is that rose-cross symbolism is mentioned as existing in
> the Naometria, I believe by Lewis. Someone here may have the reference
> but I believe I read it in an old copy of 'Rosicrucian Q&A'.
Many people have made that claim.
The pre-Rosicrucian claim was probably first made by someone called
L.M. Frischlin who was a German priest in the 1900's. Not to be
confused with Nicodemus Frischlin (1547-1590) who was a fellow student
in the same University in Tuebingen with Studion. I was able to find
the diaries of Crusius but have not been able to find the diaries of
either N. Frischlin or those of the Priest L.M. Frischlin in which it
is claimed that there was a link between the old Rosicrucians and the
Naometria of Studion i.e., a claim believed to have been made by L.M.
Frischlin in his diaries. The famous poet and Humanist Nicodemus
Frischlin also had a brother called Jackob Frischlin.
> Is he parroting Waite, or did Lewis get to examine the document himself
> ? And is the symbolism linking rose and cross, or does it just involve
> roses and crosses among many other elements, as in the writings of
> Bureus ?
I think the word 'parroting' is rather ingenious and unkind in both
cases as used here. Both Waite and Lewis were looking for the truth,
even if the books by both HSL and RML were rather simple, and if the
books by Waite make your hair fall out. Both then and now, people
made/make the best of the material and information available, and it
is very frustrating when people allow the confusion to continue.
Regardless of our chosen path we are looking for the truth, which is
also a part of a process.
We are fed up with people who just want to continue the confusion.
Why has the book by JVA "Turris Babel and the CHAOS of the
Rosicrucians (1616) never been published? Perhaps because there are a
few home truths in there that the politically correct do not want to
hear.
Let us be honest, the CHAOS continues.
That needs to be changed. People need to work together instead of
against each other. This can ONLY be achieved within a landscape of
trust, and requires that those who are 'true of voice' take action.
There is a diagram on page 271 of the Naometria Nova but there is no
actual picture of a rose cross. There are a lot of large numbers and
brackets within a number of circles and there is a cross in the
centre. The name Rose of Jericho has been written in the margine which
is believed to be a Knights Templar symbol of resurection. What is
interesting is the numbes 7,8,5, in the diagram i.e., 7 concentric
circles containing 5 brackets within 8 brackets and a cross in the
middle. These numbers are within the vault of CR as mentioned in the
Fama.
It would also be stretching it a bit to say that this was a picture of
a Rose Cross.
Best I can do.
Regards,
Sid
Thomas Nofsinger
> Who is this gsl guy? :)
Like Sid, another man I generally place trust in.
Met him once, for about 4 hours, in Dallas somewhere
around 1991.
Thomas Nofsinger
Sid
gls<gls@...> wrote in message news:<8l9u315csqlbtv6sh...@4ax.com>...
> Hi Sid;
>
> On 21 Mar 2005 09:45:19 -0800, kangar...@T-Online.de (Sid) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Clymer also writes that Studion died in 1597 which is also not
> >correct, otherwise how could he have completed his second and revised
> >version of the Naometria [Nova] in 1604?
>
> I agree, Studion lived beyond that date.
>
> > He also states that the
> >"Naometria served Johann Valentin Andreae and other Initiates as a
> >draft or "skeleton" for the Fama."
>
> That's probably stretching things a bit. Most likely, in my opinion,
> Joachim de Fiore (12th c. monk) influenced the writers of both works
> and it's just that influence which makes them seem connected.
>
> > If anything it would be the other
> >way round,
>
> Why?
Perhaps, people who had read the Naometria, and being inspired by it,
wrote the Fama and the Chymical Wedding.
> <snip>
>
> >The last record of Studion is believed to be 1606-1608 when he was
> >sent to the Monastry of Maulbronn as a punishment for his comments
> >against the Pope in the Naometria [Nova]. Incidently, the Pope did not
> >die in 1920 as Studion had calculated. Perhaps 1920 had another
> >meaning.(?)
>
> You mean 1620, correct? I think the 'other' meaning is simply that
> Studion was wrong.
Yes, sorry about that. Studion may have been wrong on a number of
things, but I am not qualified enough to write anything in stone. If
Studion 'mirrored' numbers then he would be writing 1620 = 2016, but
that would be going to far into the realms of speculation.
>
> <snip>
>
> >Interestingly, on the front page of the first copy of the Naometria
> >Studion writes: In gratitude to the S.S. (Sanctus Spiriti).
The House of the S.S. being claimed as a Rosicrucian symbol, but the
use of it by Clymer i.e., 'House of Studion' with the rose and the
black cross upon the heart, is the emblem of Martin Luther that he
(Luther) used i.e., much like a trade mark today to protect his works
from copiers.
>
> What makes you think his use of S.S. in this context means Sanctus
> Spiriti? ... Anyway, can you write the phrase youe refrencing out in
> Latin? I'm not seeing what you're referring to.
Well you've got me there. I'll let you know when I find it again. I do
not think that I have made a mistake here. Is it possible that there
are 2 cover pages to the Nova version? I'm sure I saw 'in gratium
S.S.' and not S.S. = Simon Studion.
> > and on the
> >first page of the Nova version he writes: In gratitude to the MCE.
>
> I disagree. He uses "gratia" in connection to " In cruicifera
> MILITIAE Evangelicae" which translates to: "For the *sake* of the
> crossbearing Evangelic ARMY". 'For the sake of' and 'in gratitude to'
> are two different things. Also, we can't be certain that he is
> actually referring to an organization named Militia Crucifera
> Evangelica -- although I conceed he might be. It's quite possible he
> is making reference, in lieu of the new religious climate of the
> Reformation, to the times of the Crusades and the crusaders and
> likening to crossbearing soldiers of several centuries before it to a
> new Crusade of the Reformation happening in his lifetime.
>
> >This would suggest to me that the MCE already existed,
>
> Not necessarily. If you translate it as you suggest, I can see how you
> arrive at your conclusion. But if you translate it "for the sake of a
> crossbearing Army", then no. Especially when it is a convention called
> for those who are to *be* marked with the cross as opposed to those
> who have *been* marked. In the 1604 version, "signandorum" is still
> being used.
Good point, thanks.
>
> When reading it, what is sounds like to me is that in 1586 a meeting
> was held that was represented by several Royal Houses of the
> Protestant persuasion, if you will, and who decided that the meeting
> (which wasn't technically called "Cruce Signandorum Conventus" by the
> way, but rather, that phrase is descriptive of what was to be done at
> the convention -- but for our purposes (OMCE) this is how we refer to
> that convention by way of naming it as such) would be the foundation
> of a confederation of Protestant States in which a treaty would be
> upheld to protect each other from any attacks from the Catholics. At
> some point in time, this confederation would put together an army of
> those marked by the cross to defend what the reformationists construed
> to be the truth.
>
> Now, the question is, when was (or even 'if') the MCE organized? And
> if so, how was it organized? I tend to think, as opposed to an army, a
> movement was developed that evolved into what we now know as
> Rosicrucianism. However, at the time of the Convention, I don't think
> it was perceived that way ...
I know my limitations, and am not an expert on either Studion or his
Naometria, and would not wish to appear as such.
I am just trying to get a little closer to the truth.
Would you say that the Naometria is our noble legacy?
For the most part, Studion used the numberical values of both the
Greek and the Hebrew letters, but I noticed that Studion gave the
value of the letter 'S' as 17 which puzzled me somewhat so I went to
his index and wrote down the alphabet as he had written it in the back
of his Nova version of the Naometria. You will notice that he has left
the space for the letter 'K' blank. I think the letter K was
introduced to the Latin alphabet later. (from the Greek)
Write the list of 22 letters and numbers as follows:
1-22 = (0)
2-21
3-20
4-19
5-18
6-17
7-16
8-15
9-14
10-13
11-12
> <snip>
>
> >Regards,
> >Sid
>
> gsl
Sid
(This is my second answer to this post)
gls<gls@...> wrote in message news:<8l9u315csqlbtv6sh...@4ax.com>...
> Hi Sid;
>
> On 21 Mar 2005 09:45:19 -0800, kangar...@T-Online.de (Sid) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Clymer also writes that Studion died in 1597 which is also not
> >correct, otherwise how could he have completed his second and revised
> >version of the Naometria [Nova] in 1604?
>
> I agree, Studion lived beyond that date.
>
> > He also states that the
> >"Naometria served Johann Valentin Andreae and other Initiates as a
> >draft or "skeleton" for the Fama."
>
> That's probably stretching things a bit. Most likely, in my opinion,
> Joachim de Fiore (12th c. monk) influenced the writers of both works
> and it's just that influence which makes them seem connected.
Could the connection be that they were both Chiliasts?
It has been said that the 'building' of Fiore had 3 walls or Ages. The
'building' of Studion has 4.
(very) Basicly put, Fiore was into the 3 ages of the World i.e., the
Age of the Father (old Testament), the Age of the Son (New Testament),
and the Age of the Holy Ghost (Naometria?). This was also combined
with the 6000 years age of the world and the preperation for the
coming of a new Order and the 7th and last period of 1000 years being
the Golden Age.
> <snip>
>
> >Interestingly, on the front page of the first copy of the Naometria
> >Studion writes: In gratitude to the S.S. (Sanctus Spiriti),
>
> What makes you think his use of S.S. in this context means Sanctus
> Spiriti? ... Anyway, can you write the phrase youe refrencing out in
> Latin? I'm not seeing what you're referring to.
Okey, I found the page. I knew that I had seen it. It is in the first
copy of the Naometria on page 55 which is where the title page
actually starts i.e., after the introduction.
The exact words are: "...in Ecclesia DEI temporum ..... ..... statu
per Spiritus Sancti gratiam. Authore Simone Studione etc..." (not
S.S.-sorry)
A friend of mine believes that Studion wanted to re-activate the old
MCE be it the MTH or the MCE of the past or a copy of it because
theirs had now become a 'Protestant' cause and not a Catholic one.
In the index of the Nova version I found that both the words
'Signandorum' and 'Signatorum' are used:
"Signandorum cruce Conventus Lunaburgi - page 14"
"Cruce Signatorum conventus Luneburgi 1586 etc., - page 149"
"Cruce Signatorum Evanglicorum etc., - page 975"
"Cruce Signatorum mysterium contra Antichristum. - page 977"
Is it posible that they are also talking about 'before' and 'after'
the Convention, or is there a simple answer to be found in the use of
Latin?
It has probably been disregarded that the eccentric Studion was also
an archaeologist and avid collector of artifacts from the past. His
belief was that the people of the area had always been there and had
not just arrived from somewhere. I believe that Studion with his
Naometria and its contents, wanted to prepare something for the future
that would be found i.e., we are honored with this legacy that has
been entrusted to us, and infact we could be looked upon as students
of a kind of 'spiritual' archaeologie. Perhaps with mystical
arithmetic and mystical archaeologists digging up the past to preserve
and prepare for the future? What do you think?
Regards,
Sid
teletourgos
[[The young HSL was probably looking for anything Rosicrucian in Europe
> at that time, and no doubt both Lewises had their disapiontments in
It's in that sense that I use the word 'parroting' below. I think
Lewis was quite young and perhaps unsure of what was to be included
under the definition of Rosicrucian, who or what was to be trusted,
etc, at least into the 1920s.
Did he not at one point tell members he would provide lessons from a
'Rosicrucian Ashrama' because some early members told him there were
'Rosicrucian temples' in India ?
I'm sure that was based on a misunderstanding - whether Lewis was ever
able to give members these lessons one must be unsure.
That's just being human, so I think his memory should be robust enough
to stand use of the word 'parroted'. Some have been less kind, as you
know.
Thank you for this valued contribution on the Naometria. There appears
to have been a minor industry dedicated at finding 'pre-Rosicrucian
traces' in a number of documents.
One was making the rounds some time ago referencing a document from
'1580' that effectively lifted whole portions from a document not
written till the mid 1600s, and Christopher McIntosh says that date of
1580 is unsupportable and more likely 1680.
The reference to the Jericho Rose is interesting in the context of
Rafal T Prinke's artice on the Jagged Sword and the Polish Rosicrucians
which looks to this early Templar symbolism. Admittedly one of the few
real tangible links between the Templars and the Rosy Cross.
[[Turris Babel and the CHAOS of the Rosicrucians (1616) never been
published? Perhaps because there are a few home truths in there that
the politically correct do not want to
hear.]]
One is not to be sure what you are speaking of here. But, you know,
this is a newsgroup, with all free to say as they will - so please -
tell what it is about. It sounds fascinating.
I don't know who wants to continue the confusion. I've suffered
because of it myself, and there is so little need for it, even as
regards the early 1900s, and less so as regards the 17th century.
But look at this newsgroup over the past two weeks . . . I've learnt so
much, I'm not scared to admit . . . the clouds are clearing.
Especially when you think what it was like even a few months ago, with
nothing here except anti-AMORC tirades based on uncritical whole-sale
reproductions of Prof. Clemente Redolar's work. Which, to be fair,
even have their place too.
Jean
Cathari
out, Jean can be a male name. Should we think of you as Ms/Madame, or
Mr/Sir, or some other appropriate address? Please forgive this
confusion.)
teletourgos wrote:
....
> Did he not at one point tell members he would provide lessons from a
> 'Rosicrucian Ashrama' because some early members told him there were
> 'Rosicrucian temples' in India ?
I did not know what Lewis might ever have told members early on about
Rosicrucian temples in India. However, maybe someone else can
enlighten all of us better about the connection of the work of the
Rosicrucian stream as we've come to know it, and the temples of India,
also Tibet.
It is clear to me from various researches along my way, that there is a
connection, although the traditions are different as to certain
practices and belief; doctrines are parrallel in some way as to
universal laws, etc. However, I do not have a direct knowledge about
this. One thing very exciting to me recently in some work I've been
doing personally in the search is the significant connection of the
Essenes. When one begins to follow the thread back to Moses and
further back to Abraham in Ur of Mesopotamia, one begins to realize
that in the time said to be when Jesus walked, he studied in "the East"
as far east as India, as well. It is documented that Jesus (Issu)
spent time at temples in India and Tibet. Also, on a more modern note,
Nicholas Roerich was a well-known Rosicrucian and Tibetan Buddhist who
played a major role bridging the past to modern Rosicrucianism and
letters he wrote to HSL on his major journey to Tibet were published by
Lewis in the AMORC magazine.
....
> I don't know who wants to continue the confusion. I've suffered
> because of it myself, and there is so little need for it, even as
> regards the early 1900s, and less so as regards the 17th century.
>
> But look at this newsgroup over the past two weeks . . . I've learnt
so
> much, I'm not scared to admit . . . the clouds are clearing.
Hey!! I love the circumspect approach to matters you have expressed in
this posting. And, we all have our moments of pointedness as we have
seen here on alt.amorc, too.
In the Grail tradition, one of the mythologies carrying important
principles for us all, one of the key points of beginning in anyone's
search (for anything under the Sun as I see it), was the test of having
a "true question" in any form, whether asked as a question, or whether
simply a statement that only implies a question, or left as a question
that is only in one's heart, and never outwardly expressed. The silent
question often is the most often answered question, also, because
within our thoughts our questions are true to ourselves, and if we are
careful in the method of how we think on these things, our thoughtful
questions, clear and true questions, become answered in the most
unusual, unique ways, and come from some of the most unexpected
sources, so that they are most meaningfully customized for our personal
recognition and understanding.
I was glad to see you posting today, Jean, as you have brought much
interesting and important discussion to all who read this newsgroup.
Cathari
Sid
Betrifft:Re: American 'Militiae Cruciferae Evangelicae'
View this article only
Newsgroups:alt.amorc
Datum:2005-03-23 02:42:52 PST
Hi Jean,
I received an "Unable to retrieve message" from Google so have copied
and re-pasted your post again here.
>>[[The young HSL was probably looking for anything Rosicrucian in
Europe
>> at that time, and no doubt both Lewises had their disapiontments in
>> this regard.]]
He was a young man and young men can make mistakes.
Personally, I believe that his Initiator was waiting for him to
appear, a bit like the case with Raymund Andrea. HSL was expecting
him.
>It's in that sense that I use the word 'parroting' below. I think
>Lewis was quite young and perhaps unsure of what was to be included
>under the definition of Rosicrucian, who or what was to be trusted,
>etc, at least into the 1920s.
I am not going to give you minus points just because you used the word
'parroting' with regards to HSL and Waite, no problem. I have read a
number of your previous posts, and expect that like me you write the
way you feel at the time of writing. Most people do. I am writing this
direct on screen. Sometimes I prepare a text, and sometimes I just
copy and paste an old text from past research, ramblings, comments
etc.
I think that HSL was very clear about his responsibilities and the
burden of the task ahead of him otherwise he would not have been
initiated. (just my personal opinion)
Perhaps he did not expect a war of the RC upon his return to America.
Never-the-less I think that he was very robust to say the least,
otherwise he would not have achieved so much in such a short time. He
was only 56 when he died.
>Did he not at one point tell members he would provide lessons from a
>'Rosicrucian Ashrama' because some early members told him there were
>'Rosicrucian temples' in India ?
Perhaps there were people in India? Take a look at 'some' of the
American Rosae Crucis digests (1916) and you will find a number of
names and countries.
>I'm sure that was based on a misunderstanding - whether Lewis was
ever
>able to give members these lessons one must be unsure.
Those receiving other forms of instruction would be very clear about
their nature, and regardless of weather it was from the Imperator or a
Class Master. Much would depend upon the progress of the individual
student, and if they sent in regular reports or not.
>That's just being human, so I think his memory should be robust
enough
>to stand use of the word 'parroted'. Some have been less kind, as
you
>know.
I would expect any and every Imperator to be extreamly robust.
I understand that HSL's instructions were that he was to set up a
Lodge type of system with oral instruction. After seeing that there
were so many other people on the market 'Rosicrucian' so-to-speak he
then set about to build the monograph home study system. Of course
this was something completly new at the time. The other reason I
believe was that the Lodges had grown much larger than the Soverign
Grand Lodge in America, and because there were a great many members
who were not able to attend the Lodge because of distance.
>Thank you for this valued contribution on the Naometria. There
appears
>to have been a minor industry dedicated at finding 'pre-Rosicrucian
>traces' in a number of documents.
Peuckert (Germany) had a whole team of researchers behind him, and
there were a number of others as well right up to the present day. I
still have a lot to read. Research is a part of human nature.
>One was making the rounds some time ago referencing a document from
>'1580' that effectively lifted whole portions from a document not
>written till the mid 1600s, and Christopher McIntosh says that date
of
>1580 is unsupportable and more likely 1680.
Not sure I know what you are referring to here. Which document and
which country?
>The reference to the Jericho Rose is interesting in the context of
>Rafal T Prinke's artice on the Jagged Sword and the Polish
Rosicrucians
>which looks to this early Templar symbolism. Admittedly one of the
few
>real tangible links between the Templars and the Rosy Cross.
I am sure there are others out there. As an example, between the year
of the death of the last Grand Master of the MTH Jacques de Molay in
1314 and the discovery and opening of the vault of Christian
Rosenkreuz in 1604 is the axis year of 1459 which is also the year of
the Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreuz.
>>[[Turris Babel and the CHAOS of the Rosicrucians (1616) never been
>>published? Perhaps because there are a few home truths in there that
>>the politically correct do not want to
>>hear.]]
This should be 1619 - sorry my mistake.
>One is not to be sure what you are speaking of here. But, you know,
>this is a newsgroup, with all free to say as they will - so please -
>tell what it is about. It sounds fascinating.
The full title is "TURRIS BABEL sive Judiciorum de Fraternitate
Rosaceae Crucis CHAOS." by Johann Valentine Andreae (1619).
It contains 25 chapters each describing 3 types of people = 75
different types of people and their opinions regarding the R+C. As an
example chapter 25 is about the 3 types i.e., Fama (rumour),
obstinate, and the reserved type of opinion.
>I don't know who wants to continue the confusion. I've suffered
>because of it myself, and there is so little need for it, even as
>regards the early 1900s, and less so as regards the 17th century.
Well Peuckert wrote that the Rose Cross had been on the streets since
the first apearance of the Fama Fraternitatis. Perhaps I'm 'parroting'
now.
>But look at this newsgroup over the past two weeks . . . I've learnt
so
>much, I'm not scared to admit . . . the clouds are clearing.
Good to hear, and I hope it continues.
>Especially when you think what it was like even a few months ago,
with
>nothing here except anti-AMORC tirades based on uncritical whole-sale
>reproductions of Prof. Clemente Redolar's work. Which, to be fair,
>even have their place too.
I don't know this material.
>Jean
Regarding the Naometria. I don't think that we have even scrached the
surface yet.
Regards,
Sid
gls
On 22 Mar 2005 15:08:35 -0800, kangar...@T-Online.de (Sid) wrote:
>Hi Gary,
>
>(This is my second answer to this post)
>
>gls<gls@...> wrote in message news:<8l9u315csqlbtv6sh...@4ax.com>...
>> Hi Sid;
>>
>> On 21 Mar 2005 09:45:19 -0800, kangar...@T-Online.de (Sid) wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >Clymer also writes that Studion died in 1597 which is also not
>> >correct, otherwise how could he have completed his second and revised
>> >version of the Naometria [Nova] in 1604?
>>
>> I agree, Studion lived beyond that date.
>>
>> > He also states that the
>> >"Naometria served Johann Valentin Andreae and other Initiates as a
>> >draft or "skeleton" for the Fama."
>>
>> That's probably stretching things a bit. Most likely, in my opinion,
>> Joachim de Fiore (12th c. monk) influenced the writers of both works
>> and it's just that influence which makes them seem connected.
>
>Could the connection be that they were both Chiliasts?
Or that they were both Christian? Or even, men of letters? Or even
'men' for that matter. There are all types of connecting qualifers
available to pick and choose from. Assuming Andrea was a Millennialist
(I don't really know one way or the other) and that both he and
Studion were of the same school of Millennialism and were thus, wired
to think the same way and therefore "connected", we would still have
the problem as to whether the Fama was actually authored by Andrea.
I'm not convinced that it was. My point was that *if* there was any
connection as Clymer apparently suggested, it would seem to me it
would have been relegated to an overriding popular concept of the
times -- i.e., Fiore's prophecy, which, as I mentioned, would be
stretching it a bit.
<snip>
>> >Interestingly, on the front page of the first copy of the Naometria
>> >Studion writes: In gratitude to the S.S. (Sanctus Spiriti),
>>
>> What makes you think his use of S.S. in this context means Sanctus
>> Spiriti? ... Anyway, can you write the phrase youe refrencing out in
>> Latin? I'm not seeing what you're referring to.
>
>Okey, I found the page. I knew that I had seen it. It is in the first
>copy of the Naometria on page 55 which is where the title page
>actually starts i.e., after the introduction.
>
>The exact words are: "...in Ecclesia DEI temporum ..... ..... statu
>per Spiritus Sancti gratiam. Authore Simone Studione etc..." (not
>S.S.-sorry)
Yes, Studion references the Holy Spirit. You find a lot of such
references in Christian writing (as in Father, Son, Holy Ghost). I
don't think there's any doubt that Studion was very religious and very
pro-Luther and the reformation, but how does the use of the words
necessarily relate to Rosicrucianism or the MCE? I know that a lot of
occultists and mystics will use such abbreviations (as S.S.) to mean
something esoteric pertaining to their beliefs, but that doesn't mean
that all uses will pertain to those beliefs.
<snip>
>A friend of mine believes that Studion wanted to re-activate the old
>MCE be it the MTH or the MCE of the past or a copy of it because
>theirs had now become a 'Protestant' cause and not a Catholic one.
Where has it been shown that the MCE existed prior to 1586 (if it even
existed at that date)?
What is the MTH? Are you introducing some form of Templarism?
Also, I'm not sure if I'm understanding your sentence. Are you saying
that the "old" MCE was also known as the MTH which was another name
for the old MCE?
>In the index of the Nova version I found that both the words
>'Signandorum' and 'Signatorum' are used:
Yes, agreed.
>"Signandorum cruce Conventus Lunaburgi - page 14"
There are two page 14s in the 1604 version of the Naometria -- one in
the introduction, which normally wouldn't be indexed, but I mention it
here because the above phrase doesn't appear on either page 14. Page
14 illustrates his numerology in relation to years of Christ and Rome.
I looked several pages before and several after and didn't see it.
Can you clarify where this phrase is?
>"Cruce Signatorum conventus Luneburgi 1586 etc., - page 149"
Are you actually looking at the Naometria or are you referencing what
someone else has told you? The reason I ask is, my fault here, I
assumed you were looking at page 149 where it clearly states
"Signandorum" in the marginal notes and not Signatorum as you state --
take a look. However, if you look *only* at the index (which is
apparently what Waite did thereby causing this mess (my bias is
showing), you find "signatorum" -- which, to my way of thinking, is an
indexing error and nothing else.
>"Cruce Signatorum Evanglicorum etc., - page 975"
Yes, but our discussion is about what happened at the Convention and
the useage here doesn't apply to that. In context, the "Cruce
Signatorum Evangelicorum etc" -- when the "etc" is expanded -- states
that "the Patriarch Joseph is the image of the Evangelics marked by
the Cross." There's no doubt that there are a lot of people marked by
the cross -- all the Crusaders were, people who take Communion are,
etc. But they are not the people who are said to be the ones forming
the MCE. Those are different people who have yet to be marked.
>"Cruce Signatorum mysterium contra Antichristum. - page 977"
In context: "Mystery of those marked by the cross in opposition to (or
against) the antichrist."
>Is it posible that they are also talking about 'before' and 'after'
>the Convention, or is there a simple answer to be found in the use of
>Latin?
I opt for the simple answer to be found in Latin. My contention is
that those writers being discussed (Waite, Lewis, and Clymer) based
the formation of their Orders (or books as was the case of Waite) of
of what they wanted it to be rather than what it actually was. The
spirit of what they wanted it to be has become a very powerful
egregore, and a very good one. That is why, when I formed the OMCE, I
said it was in the spirit of that Convention and not directly related
to that convention. It is also why I introduced other lineages into it
that were more inline with the esoteric tradition we all represent in
our respective schools.
I think where a problem arises is when one tries to document a belief
into a factual existence. I'm always amazed that over the course of
many years, or even centuries, that such pains have been taking to
establish an esoteric Order as having a mundane link as if that would
somehow give credibility to it. To my way of thinking, that's a good
example of the tail wagging the dog and does more to encourage the
arrogance of initiation rather than the initiatic process (i.e. "I
have authority because I have been tapped on the head by a sword"
rather than, "I have the authority by virtue of my deeds or
abilities."
>It has probably been disregarded that the eccentric Studion was also
>an archaeologist and avid collector of artifacts from the past. His
>belief was that the people of the area had always been there and had
>not just arrived from somewhere. I believe that Studion with his
>Naometria and its contents, wanted to prepare something for the future
>that would be found i.e., we are honored with this legacy that has
>been entrusted to us, and infact we could be looked upon as students
>of a kind of 'spiritual' archaeologie. Perhaps with mystical
>arithmetic and mystical archaeologists digging up the past to preserve
>and prepare for the future? What do you think?
That could very well be and is something worth investigating. But be
careful not to look for what you want to find. Rather, look for what
is actually there. What I have generally found is that what people
want to believe is a wonderful thing, but often interferes with what
exists to be believed ... and what exists to be believed causes
everything else in this universe to pale in comparison.
>
>Regards,
>Sid
gls
gls
On 22 Mar 2005 02:08:34 -0800, kangar...@T-Online.de (Sid) wrote:
<snip>
>Would you say that the Naometria is our noble legacy?
I guess that would depend upon who the "our" is and whether or not the
Naometria is viewed in the spirit it was written or the spirit in
which it was thought to have been written ... but as in the latter,
yes.
>> >Regards,
>> >Sid
>>
>> gsl
>
>Who is this gsl guy? :)
sheesh ... now I'm doing it ...
gls
gls
On 21 Mar 2005 02:14:37 -0800, "teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>Gary
>
>I am sadly in reliance on handwritten notes taken from a late night
>phone call a few weeks ago,
I can understand that ... been there myself ...
> but yes, this is fundamentally what I heard
>with the exception that Clymer was claimed to have also gotten the MCE
>in 1902.
According to his own timeline, he inherited the entire system in 1908
and that Count St. Vincent was the one who allegedly received
authority from the Count Guinotti to operate the MCE in the West. That
was in 1902. Unless Guinotti was Clymer, then I would tend to disagree
based upon what Clymer initially wrote.
Perhaps of interest, yesterday I tried to get a fix on the timeline as
to when Clymer first published the MCE pamphlet -- not an easy task
when the publishing company initially never used publication dates.
Based upon the advertisements included with the book. I could date the
copy of the book I have in my possession from 1916 at the earliest to
1920 at the latest. This is based upon the included ad of their
"newest book, 'The Philosophy of Fire'"
I called the Philosophical Publishing Co. and asked when the first
edition was published. They said the earliest book they had was 1942
but that was a "revised edition" -- which wasn't much help. Anyway, to
make a long story short, Clymer wrote a series of books with similar
titles, the first being "The Philosophy of Living Fire" in 1906. The
advertised book, however, was "The Philosophy of Fire" and it states
in the ad that it was about to be sold out and I would presume, since
it was used as teachings for Rosicrucians of his Order, that future
editions weren't too far off in the making. The oldest edition I
managed to locate was the third edition published in 1920 and, in my
reliance of my memory of a lost handwritten note made, ahem, two days
ago, I tend to recall the first edition was 1916. In that the book was
also advertised with "The rosicrucians and their Teachings" many
editions removed from the First edition of 1902, strongly suggests in
my mind that 1916 to 1920 would be when Clymer issued the Count St.
Vincent pamphlet (at least with regards to the copy I have).
If Clymer wasn't the one who actually wrote the pamphlet, which he
suggests he wasn't, then I would tend to think at this time that he
incorporated a defunct organization and did a little backdating.
As to HSL's first use of the MCE, he first wrote about it publicly in
"The Mystical Life of Jesus" first edition, 1929 -- which coincides
with his Egypt tour of that year in which he referred to the
participants of members of the MCE. I would further venture an opinion
that he had spent some time in planning the development of the MCE and
that it was well organized by that date. His references on both the
certificates and in his writings strongly suggest the powerful
influence of the 1924 version of Waite's book on Rosicrucianism. So I
would estimate HSl's awareness of the MCE developed between 1924 to
1929.
Also, there is a membership certificate inducting Nicholas Roerich
into AMORC's MCE dated November 18, 1929. It's signed by H. Spencer
Lewis and counter-signed by Ralph Lewis. It is not signed by Roerich
meaning the certificate was never given to him. There is a rumor going
around that Roerich was a member of AMORC. He was not. He was in
written communication with both HSL and then RML from 1922 until his
death in 1947 -- having been introduced to the Lewis' by an American
AMORC member from Chicago spending some time in Shanghai in the early
20's and who organized AMORC's participation in the Roerich Peace
Pact. But that was pretty much the limit of Roerich's involvement with
AMORC -- a cultural relationship in which he sent articles and
artifacts for the R+C museum.
Anyway, Clymer wins the awareness award, but I don't think Clymer made
an issue about the MCE until after Lewis started using it ... and from
what I can tell, it didn't become a battle issue until around
1934/35.
Umm ... I just noticed this ... In vol 1 of Clymer's "The Rosicrucian
Fraternity in America, pg. 88 he duplicates the title page of Count
St. Vincent's "The Order Militia Crucifera Evangelica". However, he
adds something that isn't on my copy: "Price $2.00, The Philosophical
Publishing Co. Allentown PA." I think we have a little bit fo fudging
here for the sake of proving a point. My copy has no mention of a
publisher even though it is apparent, by the ads in the back, that
Clymer's group issued it.
>But you know, this is stuff Clymer published so he might have 'inserted
>himself' in there. He is very much known for rewriting and editing
>materials so they suited his purpose. One must shake one's head at his
>treatment of Randolph's work, for instance.
And the above. It makes me wonder why he would do that. Especially
with regards to the MCE when it can be shown he was using the name as
early as circa 1916.
>Ah yes it is Guinotti and not Quinotti. But like you, one can yet have
>no idea who he really was.
>
>The best I can deduce is that there was a socialite Count Giunotti in
>the US in the late 1800s.
I took a brief look at Rietstap's Amorial and could not find any
references to either the Guinotti or St. Vincent families (as there
was none for a Belcastle nor was their a marriage between the
Belcastle and Ligne families). Although they could be hidden in a
French spelling. I don't think it likely. The result, in my
estimation, is that we're not talking about real Counts with either
Clymer's or Lewis' claims. But, that doesn't mean they didn't exist.
Just that they weren't Counts or of any other title. We know that
Joseph Belcastle met with HSL in 1909, I'm sure Clymer met up with
someone as well. The best independant source I can find regarding the
actual existence of someone with the name Guinotti is through Marie
Corelli references in some of her novels. Whether or not he was a real
person, or a fictionalized character that was borrowed, I don't know.
Even Count St. Vincent in his pamphlet on the OMCE doesn't reference
him, although he does reference Dr. Franz Hartman ...
>Another interesting connection here, is that Clymer at one point
>published a novel by a Marguerite Verdier, which he annotated. It was
>called 'The Master Initiate and the Maid'.
I may be wrong, but somehow I got the impression he was the author of
that book.
>
>Now 'Verdier' is an extremely interesting surname to arise in such
>contexts as we are looking at !
Yes, but somehow I don't think Marguerite and Jerome were connected.
Assuming everyone was telling the truth, the irony would just be too
overwhelming if they were ...
>
>Jean
gls
gls
On 21 Mar 2005 10:53:44 -0800, "teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
<snip>
>It is sometimes said that Lewis cooperated with Sylvester Clark Gould
>in his attempt to make Rosicucian contacts in Europe - the 1909 trip.
>However Gould dies before this could occur. Gould was allegedly to
>meet a Count Apponyi on that trip.
I have seen no indication that there was ever any connection between
Lewis and Gould. Lewis' stormy relationship with the Boston group
occured after 1909.
One thing that always puzzled me, however, was why HSL was never
advised to meet Papus, et. al. 5000 Martinists and Rosicrucians in
Paris alone in 1909 should've raised a few flags ... Hsl later writes
that he never heard of Papus until 1915.
<snip>
>What I wonder is that rose-cross symbolism is mentioned as existing in
>the Naometria, I believe by Lewis. Someone here may have the reference
>but I believe I read it in an old copy of 'Rosicrucian Q&A'.
Yes, he stated that. There are a number of other suggestions to that
end as well and even some (not HSL) were claiming that Martin Luther
had to have been a Rosicrucian, or at least friendly witrh them,
because why would he use their symbol as his seal if he wasn't? (Count
St. Vincent, "The Order Militia Crucifera"). I think the better
question, if we want to think that way, would be: why would the
Rosicrucian choose the seal of Martin Luther to be their symbol? Or,
perhaps, maybe, Luther's Rose and the Rosicrucian rose have no
connection. I don't really see any overt R+C symbolism in the
Naometria, but people can argue there is if they look hard enough.
>Is he parroting Waite, or did Lewis get to examine the document himself
>? And is the symbolism linking rose and cross, or does it just involve
>roses and crosses among many other elements, as in the writings of
>Bureus ?
The first time AMORC saw the entire Naometria was in 1983 when a
member loaned them a copy of the microfilm he had acquired. Prior to
that, they only had a copy of the title page. The problem with the
Naometria is that apparently no one, until recently, has bothered to
take a serious look at it.
>
>Jean
gls
gls
On 23 Mar 2005 02:42:48 -0800, "teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
<snip>
In reference to HSL:
>Did he not at one point tell members he would provide lessons from a
>'Rosicrucian Ashrama' because some early members told him there were
>'Rosicrucian temples' in India ?
When HSL started the AMORC in the early years, he had many
international contacts including one or two in India. I think many of
the Eastern contacts developed out of two Lodges established in China
(Harbin and Shanghai) in the early 20's. Those two Lodges constituted
the Russian Grand Lodges and many of their members were White Russians
who escaped the Russian Revolution -- at least, initially, in Harbin.
Many of the Harbin people migrated down to Shanghai where there was a
more international flavor to the membership -- including some British
and Americans. At that time, since India was a British colony (of
sorts), one British member, in particular, having lived in India,
introduced his friend, still living in India, into the Order -- who
then became the AMORC delegate there. That person, I forget his name,
sent some material to AMORC that probably served as source material as
HSL wrote the monographs. When working the CR+C monos, I see where
that was introduced.
However, the Ashrama thing had nothing to do with what was going on in
India and everything to do with what was happening with the Indian
Academy of Sciences in Los Angeles. That is the institute that gave
HSL one of his honorary Ph.ds.
>I'm sure that was based on a misunderstanding - whether Lewis was ever
>able to give members these lessons one must be unsure.
As it turned out, fortunately, the lessons the guy furnished HSL never
found their way into the monographs. They weren't that good.
<snip>
>The reference to the Jericho Rose is interesting in the context of
>Rafal T Prinke's artice on the Jagged Sword and the Polish Rosicrucians
>which looks to this early Templar symbolism. Admittedly one of the few
>real tangible links between the Templars and the Rosy Cross.
In my opinion, the Templars were a Catholic Order up until the time
they were betrayed by King and Pope. After that, they ceased to exist
and, for the most part, it's really the romance of the Templars that
has found its way into the esoteric realms. By the end of the
Templar's reign, they weren't a very pretty Order. De Molay actually
forbid the Templars to be literate and by going through the evolution
of their rule, you can see how things changed throughout the years.
The Templars were not adaptable like some of the other Military
Orders, and when they lost their foothold in the Middle East, their
purpose, their charter was finished.
With that said, though, within the Templars, you find some interesting
developments. Especially in the very beginning where an inner core, if
you will, maintained an agenda that served their own purposes -- and
those purposes eventually added to the R+C ideal of intellectual and
spiritual freedom -- but it wasn't the Templars that did that. rather,
some within the Templar Order who used the Order as a vehicle. There's
an interesting novel about this. I'll try to remember the name.
But if you get into the Holy Blood contentions, once again, we're
dealing with a lot of romance. If you use that information as a
Rosicrucian/Templar connection, it will fall flat on its face in that
the connecting document, the "Dossier Secrets" were written in the
1950's and reallt doesn't say anything. Rather, it's probably better
to look the material John Robinson wrote ("Born in Blood"). It gives,
in my opinion, some pretty interesting insights.
<snip>
>Jean
gls
gls
Seems like I'm doing a lot of posting today ...
On 23 Mar 2005 12:15:08 -0800, kangar...@T-Online.de (Sid) wrote:
>Von:teletourgos (telet...@yahoo.co.uk)
>Betrifft:Re: American 'Militiae Cruciferae Evangelicae'
<snip>
>I understand that HSL's instructions were that he was to set up a
>Lodge type of system with oral instruction.
That's what he initially did and really had no intent to change that.
> After seeing that there
>were so many other people on the market 'Rosicrucian' so-to-speak he
>then set about to build the monograph home study system. Of course
>this was something completly new at the time. The other reason I
>believe was that the Lodges had grown much larger than the Soverign
>Grand Lodge in America, and because there were a great many members
>who were not able to attend the Lodge because of distance.
The monographs system was introduced by Ralph in 1924. He told me
there were two reasons for that. First, as you said, the State Grand
Lodges were becoming larger than the Supreme grand Lodge that
financially existed almost solely upon royal support. As the Grand
Lodges grew, so did their internal financial responsibilities that
resulted in a hardship for the SGL -- the GL's couldn't pay their
support; and second, AMORC wanted to reach more people. By introducing
the monograph system, they redirected the financial center to the SGL
and did an excellent job in reaching more people with an efficient
system.
The down side was that since monographs were no longer taught in the
Convocations, they were replaced with discourses thereby moving the
Convocation away from the inner work (this is my observation. I'm sure
others would disagree) in that the focus of the ritual was placed on
the intellectual comprehension in an inconsistent flow of subject
matter as opposed to doing spiritual work. The second downside was
that in the process of changing the monogrpahs to read more
generically for a different audience, editing started to take place,
and that editing was not done by HSL. Over the years of multiple
editings, the monographs, in many areas, lost the original message.
<snip>
>I am sure there are others out there. As an example, between the year
>of the death of the last Grand Master of the MTH Jacques de Molay
Once again, what is the MTH and how does it relate to de Molay?
<snip>
>Sid
gls
teletourgos
Gary
The nature of the relationship with the Soc Ros in America I know
little of, beyond their refusal of his membership request in which-
early 1914 ? - to be seen on their website.
And a funny story about Lewis visiting them and the dropping of a cup
of tea in exasperation because they demanded he go through their system
rather than gaining 'honorary' recognition - neither of which are
exactly impartial recollections.
Although, you know, at that last one, I am moved to smile. Bless !
Of coure there are also illustrations in Khei's publications [GW
Plummer] which look like drawings from the Rosicrucian Manual. I assume
Lewis did them, but one is not to know, again.
If you can detail some more, or some hints of where to go to research
such matters, I would be in your debt.
The failure to meet Papus and any in the Peladan or de Guaita groups is
very strange.
Or, even easier for Lewis, given the language barrier, why did he not
try to meet any English Rosicrucians from the Golden Dawn tradition ?
Excepting Crowley and Lewis's odd talk of Mrs Banks-Stacy as
representing some 'English Rosicrucians' - a connection I have always
strongly doubted, this has always perplexed me. The materialising of
Mrs Stacy in 1915, just when she is needed [!] arouses my suspicious
nature, especially given the presence of Mr Crowley in New York at that
time !
Even more, why did he not try to meet with the Golden Dawn temple in
New York ?
Later their members were to take a low view of Lewis's promotional
activities, as to be found in the correspondence of Case and Regardie.
But prior to 1915 one must fail to see why he did not try to forge some
relationship. Odd.
Jean
teletourgos
appear, a bit like the case with Raymund Andrea. HSL was expecting
him. "
Sid, I would like to know more of what this initiation of Raymund
Andrea was - I had always heard that AMORC-England had some of it's own
'strands of the tradition' and would like to know more about that.
The '1580' document is the 'Thesaurus Thesaurorum A Fraternitate Rosae
et Aureae Crucis Testamento'. I am mistaken though as it is Akerman
who says it must be of 1680 via a Naples fraternity.
Though McIntosh says it is plainly 'much later' and that the date is
not to be believed.
Jean
teletourgos
Of the Templars, I am with you. I cannot believe that such an order
conveyed the tradition it is supposed to.
As you say, they are not literate, in the main, and there is almost
nothing to indicate esoteric interests in what was captured in 1307.
Given the surprise nature of the raids, and their success, indicating
that the Templars were truly surprised and did not get to hide
anything, this is most telling.
Prinke's article on this sword, though, does at least raise questions
of a hint of Templar esotericism. What to make of it though ? Perhaps
not too much , Prinke himself says he is only guessing as to meaning of
both the inscriptions and symbol.
And we are looking back to that sword with a kind of yearning, seeing
what we want to see.
The Plantard area, yes, I am with you there. All rubbish, from start
to finish. The odd comment is made that Sauniere may have had
Rosicrucian or Martinist links, but again, nothing definite.
The only Rosicrucian connection, is that in the idea of a list of grand
masters indicating lineage, Plantard is in debt to AMORC's 'Mastery of
Life' or similar promotional booklet.
Of course such an idea did not arise with AMORC itself, but the
technique seems to revive with Plantard and Etienne Caro after AMORC
moves into Europe in strength in the 1950s.
Jean
teletourgos
>contexts as we are looking at !
Yes, but somehow I don't think Marguerite and Jerome were connected.
Assuming everyone was telling the truth, the irony would just be too
overwhelming if they were ... ]]
Gary
I am wondering I suppose if there is some other source, that perhaps we
are not aware of, that tipped off both Clymer and Lewis to various
things - such as the MCE, such as 'Verdier' whoever he or she was.
Can you shed light on who 'Jerome Verdier' was or might have been ?
If it is a coincidence it is indeed odd. Verdier is not a common
surname in America, surely.
I do not know what to think of M.Vanloo's work on the 'Jerome Verdier'
letter, but think he may have a point.
He is a native French speaker himself, of course, and if he thinks that
letter is odd in its wording and in the way the signature is signed,
then it may be the case that it is a forgery.
But again, maybe for some reason both Clymer and Lewis wanted the name
'Verdier' to be seen in connection with their organisations, for some
reason that those 'in the know' about who Verdier was, would
understand. They would not be the first Rosicrucian groups to drop
hints in this fashion.
The other interesting thing to this is that Jules Bois kept up a
correspondence with Paris's Jean le Cardinal Verdier for many years.
An American university holds the collection.
Sometimes it is said that there was a link between Jules Bois and Lewis
and that they met in New York. This is written by the G.:D.: adept
Robert Word many years ago.
Certainly Jules Bois was in America in World War 1, as some sort of
international ambassador, and one must guess that he perhaps landed in
New York and spent time there. And all this at the time when Verdier
was supposed to have met Lewis.
Maybe Jules Bois met Lewis and told him his name was Verdier ? As a
joke, for the alleged 'Satanist' with his books on the banned list, to
use the name of the esteemed churchman ?
Jean
Sid
gls<gls@...> wrote in message news:<36q441pluf4n63rp3...@4ax.com>...
> Hi Sid,
>
> Seems like I'm doing a lot of posting today ...
Getting dificult to keep track of all the threads :)
If my information is correct, the letters MTH are the initials of the
original name of the Knights Templar i.e., Militia Templi
Hierosolymitani.
Hiero/solyma = Hiero = picture in stone. Hieros = Holy, sacred, see
and the word solyma = reclaimed.(?) Temple of Soloman (?)
Hierichuntis = Jericho. The hereldic animal of Jericho was the lion.
The use of the word 'Order' was Catholic so would not have been used
by Studion.
In the Fama the books Liber 'M', 'T', and 'H' are mentioned, but I
guess that even the remotest link would be just pure speculation.
Will get back to you at another time regarding your other posts.
Regards,
Sid
gls
On 24 Mar 2005 11:48:13 -0800, kangar...@T-Online.de (Sid) wrote:
>Hi Gary,
>
>gls<gls@...> wrote in message news:<36q441pluf4n63rp3...@4ax.com>...
<snip>
>> Once again, what is the MTH and how does it relate to de Molay?
>If my information is correct, the letters MTH are the initials of the
>original name of the Knights Templar i.e., Militia Templi
>Hierosolymitani.
The original name of the Templar Order was: "Pauperes Commilitones
Christi Templique Salomonis". Translated -- The Poor Fellow-soldiers
of Christ and the Temple of Solomon.
Thanks, though. I now see what you're referring to. But to the best of
my knowledge the name "Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani" was first
used by the Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani in 1932 --
with that organization being a reorganization of a Templar Order
founded in 1804 by Fabre-Palaprat and which died out later that
century.
<snip>
>The use of the word 'Order' was Catholic so would not have been used
>by Studion.
I'm not following you ... are you saying Studion was a member of the
MTH?
<snip>
>Regards,
>Sid
gls
gls
On 24 Mar 2005 07:24:05 -0800, "teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
<snip>
>Gary
>
>I am wondering I suppose if there is some other source, that perhaps we
>are not aware of, that tipped off both Clymer and Lewis to various
>things - such as the MCE, such as 'Verdier' whoever he or she was.
>
>Can you shed light on who 'Jerome Verdier' was or might have been ?
In 1983 or 84 I decided to contact the Hotel Biltmore in New York City
to see if I could get any registration records from 1915 and Jerome
Verdier. I don't remember exactly the reason why, but I was
unsuccessful -- it was either because the hotel no longer existed or
there was a fire that destroyed the records in question. I always had
it in mind to research further -- perhaps seeing if there was a
management group for the Biltmores that might have records, but I
never got around to it ... at least yet.
>If it is a coincidence it is indeed odd. Verdier is not a common
>surname in America, surely.
>
>I do not know what to think of M.Vanloo's work on the 'Jerome Verdier'
>letter, but think he may have a point.
>
>He is a native French speaker himself, of course, and if he thinks that
>letter is odd in its wording and in the way the signature is signed,
>then it may be the case that it is a forgery.
I looked up Van Loo's letter and it seems to me he is suggesting that
HSL forged the Verdier letter. It's a possible conclusion, but I'm not
convinced that it is a probable conclusion. There are too many other
factors that could weigh into it -- such as the person in question was
someone attempting to defraud Lewis (a lot of that happened during
AMORC's early years) for one.
I agree with Van Loo that there is a problem with the French, but I
also note that when looking at a lot of the various documents and
correspondance, there's a number of errors -- even in English. A lot
of sloppy typing happened in the early days from all parties. Anyway,
if an editor ever got hold of the Gettysburg Address by Abraham
Lincoln, for example, one could conclude that Lincoln was illiterate
by virtue of the editing.
Based upon Van Loo's letter and analysis of both the French and
English useage (of the latter, Van Loo has some errors), I'm not
convinced that Verdier was either a fraud or a forgery. What raises my
suspicions, though, is the relatively few AMORC/Lewis references to
the individual -- which suggests a possible problem with the
individual himself. If the guy was real or if he was a forgery, I
think there would be a lot more reference to him. If he was a fraud,
references would be dropped.
<snip>
>Sometimes it is said that there was a link between Jules Bois and Lewis
>and that they met in New York. This is written by the G.:D.: adept
>Robert Word many years ago.
I don't know one way or the other although I have heard of the alleged
meeting. I just never got around to looking into it.
>Certainly Jules Bois was in America in World War 1, as some sort of
>international ambassador, and one must guess that he perhaps landed in
>New York and spent time there. And all this at the time when Verdier
>was supposed to have met Lewis.
>
>Maybe Jules Bois met Lewis and told him his name was Verdier ? As a
>joke, for the alleged 'Satanist' with his books on the banned list, to
>use the name of the esteemed churchman ?
I doubt that. I think if they met they would've been up front about
it.
>
>Jean
gls
gls
On 24 Mar 2005 03:10:37 -0800, "teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>Gary
>
>The nature of the relationship with the Soc Ros in America I know
>little of, beyond their refusal of his membership request in which-
>early 1914 ? - to be seen on their website.
>
>And a funny story about Lewis visiting them and the dropping of a cup
>of tea in exasperation because they demanded he go through their system
>rather than gaining 'honorary' recognition - neither of which are
>exactly impartial recollections.
>
>Although, you know, at that last one, I am moved to smile. Bless !
>
>Of coure there are also illustrations in Khei's publications [GW
>Plummer] which look like drawings from the Rosicrucian Manual. I assume
>Lewis did them, but one is not to know, again.
>
>If you can detail some more, or some hints of where to go to research
>such matters, I would be in your debt.
I'd try to get into the Soc Ros in America files and look into HSL's
masonic connections. Sorry, but I've not done a lot of research in the
former so I can't be of much help. Most of my research into that area
was with regards to tracing down the source of the teachings, but
mostly, trying to figure out how AMORC's history got worked up.
>
>The failure to meet Papus and any in the Peladan or de Guaita groups is
>very strange.
>
>Or, even easier for Lewis, given the language barrier, why did he not
>try to meet any English Rosicrucians from the Golden Dawn tradition ?
I think he did -- not necessarily of that tradition, but I'm convinced
something did happen in England in 1909. A few years ago when I was
rummaging around in the document files, I found a copy of the
passanger manifest for the S.S. America of the Hamburg/American
Shipping Lines (who T. Reuss worked for, incidentally) -- the boat
HSL took to France in 1909. Only he didn't get off in France, he got
off in England where the boat first docked. He showed up in France a
few days later. I confirmed that by finding a British Library reading
room ticket in his name dated in August, 1909 tucked neatly away in
the manifest. A few years ago, I tried to confirm that with the
British Library and had them look for a few days either way of the
date I remembered. I came up empty. I'm not sure if one has to go
personaly to get a ticket or if they can be gotten in advance. If not,
someone got it for him and he didn't show up ...
>Excepting Crowley and Lewis's odd talk of Mrs Banks-Stacy as
>representing some 'English Rosicrucians' - a connection I have always
>strongly doubted, this has always perplexed me. The materialising of
>Mrs Stacy in 1915, just when she is needed [!] arouses my suspicious
>nature, especially given the presence of Mr Crowley in New York at that
>time !
Crowley and both lewis' corresponded on many occasions. I've seen all
the correspondance, and there was no love lost between them. However,
Mary Banks- Stacy was real and had met with Lewis on a number of
occasions over the course of a number of years. Ralph told me he
remembered her quite clearly and that she had once told him that if he
ever wanted to go to West Point, she would be able to help him get in.
Furthermore, I've seen the "jeweles" she gave HSL. Except for one
Masonic emblem, you could not tell that they were related to R+C
symbolism -- but, gave them to AMORC she did.
>Even more, why did he not try to meet with the Golden Dawn temple in
>New York ?
Bad blood had developed -- probably because of the hsl/Crowley
disputes.
>Later their members were to take a low view of Lewis's promotional
>activities, as to be found in the correspondence of Case and Regardie.
>
>But prior to 1915 one must fail to see why he did not try to forge some
>relationship. Odd.
>
>Jean
gls
<snip>
gls
On 24 Mar 2005 03:47:49 -0800, "teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
<snip>
>The Plantard area, yes, I am with you there. All rubbish, from start
>to finish. The odd comment is made that Sauniere may have had
>Rosicrucian or Martinist links, but again, nothing definite.
>
>The only Rosicrucian connection, is that in the idea of a list of grand
>masters indicating lineage, Plantard is in debt to AMORC's 'Mastery of
>Life' or similar promotional booklet.
Or, he was trying to set AMORC up for his con.
Perhaps of interest, a copy of the "Dossier Secrets" found its way
into the AMORC archives (I'm remembering in the 50's, but I might be
mistaken. In that they found their way into the Bibliotheque Nationale
circa 1967/68, I could be a bit early with the dates -- either that,
or they "circulated" around before getting deposited in the library).
Anyway, they were given to AMORC by Raymond Bernard.
<snip>
gls
Sid
No, and I have no proof that that could even be remotely possible.
What I am doing is suggesting that Studion was inspired by something
within the landscape of the Tuebingen circle to re-activate something
from the past similar to the Templar system.
Sid
Sid
"teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<1111663806.8...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
> "Personally, I believe that his Initiator was waiting for him to
> appear, a bit like the case with Raymund Andrea. HSL was expecting
> him. "
>
> Sid, I would like to know more of what this initiation of Raymund
> Andrea was - I had always heard that AMORC-England had some of it's own
> 'strands of the tradition' and would like to know more about that.
That would be difficult as that would be something between the
Imperator and the initiate, but in an excerpt from one of his letters
(Andrea) he expressed his disapointment in not being able to find any
group to be of service "I had knowledge, but not a single door would
open to a sphere where it could be applied to practical and useful
ends." This is from one of the booklets that were privately published
by the Francis Bacon Lodge in London.
It was H. Spencer Lewis who gave him the name Raymund Andrea, his real
name was Herbert Adams (21 July 1882 - 22 July 1975).
Sid
Sid
gls<gls@...> wrote in message news:<3u57419f3mb6skgiu...@4ax.com>...
> >> Once again, what is the MTH and how does it relate to de Molay?
>
> >If my information is correct, the letters MTH are the initials of the
> >original name of the Knights Templar i.e., Militia Templi
> >Hierosolymitani.
>
> The original name of the Templar Order was: "Pauperes Commilitones
> Christi Templique Salomonis". Translated -- The Poor Fellow-soldiers
> of Christ and the Temple of Solomon.
>
> Thanks, though. I now see what you're referring to. But to the best of
> my knowledge the name "Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani" was first
> used by the Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani in 1932 --
> with that organization being a reorganization of a Templar Order
> founded in 1804 by Fabre-Palaprat and which died out later that
> century.
Interestingly, Peladan was a Regent of the OHMTH and the cross of this
order is on some of the Rosicrucian documents (Manifesto/FUDOSI).
There is also a very faint stamp of the Order next to one of the
signatures. I don't remember which document exactly i.e., I don't
remember if it was specificly FUDOSI or not.
Regarding Studion, perhaps he was looking at the German (Tutonic)
Order at Acre (1119), when they reformed as a military Order instead
of just a caritative one?
Sid
teletourgos
>
> I'd try to get into the Soc Ros in America files and look into HSL's
> masonic connections. Sorry, but I've not done a lot of research in
the
> former so I can't be of much help. Most of my research into that area
> was with regards to tracing down the source of the teachings, but
> mostly, trying to figure out how AMORC's history got worked up.
Gary
Where AMORC teaching comes from is always of interest. One looks at
the work of Mark Stavish discussing the origins of the lessons and this
is interesting. Some seems to come from Ramacharaka. Some must derive
from new thought, so perhaps Quimby ?
On some of it, I am very perplexed, but do not think much comes from
European Rosicrucian traditions of the 18th century etc. But Lewis
often does not mention sources so that it is hard to know.
Oh yes, I was not inferring that Mrs Banks-Stacy did not exist, I am
sure she did. And there was - apparently -a historical sketch of her in
some recent 'History of Rosicrucianism' by one Fr Rebisse, where its
said she was well travelled and followed her son on his military
campaigns and diplomatic assignments in the Orient.
>From this I believe though unsure if the article specifically mentions
it, that she had theosophical interests. Whether that made her a
'Rosicrucian' one cannot know, but to Lewis, she may have seemed to be
one. It seems though that David Rocks was a little hasty in saying she
'could not have acted in the capacity' that Lewis stated. After all,
she must have seemed a worldly person with some occult interests, and
to Lewis she may have seemed to be some sort of 'occult ambassador' and
perhaps therefore a Rosicrucian or at least a person with Rosicrucian
connections ? What the 'English' connection she had was, though I do
not know. Theosophical links, maybe ?
Do you think that Crowley and Lewis met in 1915 ?
Jean
>
Sid
gls<gls@...> wrote in message news:<t4k341t4du82gd1hm...@4ax.com>...
> >>
> >> >Clymer also writes that Studion died in 1597 which is also not
> >> >correct, otherwise how could he have completed his second and revised
> >> >version of the Naometria [Nova] in 1604?
> >>
> >> I agree, Studion lived beyond that date.
> >>
> >> > He also states that the
> >> >"Naometria served Johann Valentin Andreae and other Initiates as a
> >> >draft or "skeleton" for the Fama."
> >>
> >> That's probably stretching things a bit. Most likely, in my opinion,
> >> Joachim de Fiore (12th c. monk) influenced the writers of both works
> >> and it's just that influence which makes them seem connected.
> >
> >Could the connection be that they were both Chiliasts?
>
> Or that they were both Christian? Or even, men of letters? Or even
> 'men' for that matter. There are all types of connecting qualifers
> available to pick and choose from.
Good point.
Assuming Andrea was a Millennialist
> (I don't really know one way or the other) and that both he and
> Studion were of the same school of Millennialism and were thus, wired
> to think the same way and therefore "connected", we would still have
> the problem as to whether the Fama was actually authored by Andrea.
I would expect everyone in the Tuebingen circle to all be "connected"
together but this would not necessarily make them all 'Rosicrucians'.
The members of the 'Fruitbringer's Society' may be another matter.
Well both the subjects of Vaticinia and Mystical Arithmetic were a
part of the daily curriculem at the University of Tuebingen, so I
would expect them all to be involved in Millenniamism in some form or
other. Studion got himself into trouble because he took everything too
far. It has also been recorded that at the end of the 1600's he
presented himself as the Angel Ezechiel dressed in line cloth with
writing materials, according to Chapter 9. verse 2 of Ezechiel.
Regarding his comments about the Pope: Tobius Hess defended him at
Court and Studion in his deffence said that Rome was a synonym for
Stuttgart, and Marbach was his Jerusalem.
It appears that Studion also neglected his normal teaching duties
because of his obsession with the completion of the Naometria and
other works for the House of Duke Friedrich. (I am writing this from
memory of past notes)
I think you will find that Andrea himself wrote that he was NOT the
author of the Fama. Either way I don't see why this should be a
problem.
What does puzzle me though is the claim that the Fama was written by
Francis Bacon. Although this may be a nice idea for some people, my
question is: If it was written in English by Bacon then there would be
no need to re-translate it back into English again.
> I'm not convinced that it was. My point was that *if* there was any
> connection as Clymer apparently suggested, it would seem to me it
> would have been relegated to an overriding popular concept of the
> times -- i.e., Fiore's prophecy, which, as I mentioned, would be
> stretching it a bit.
Superstition and prophecy were very prevelent at that period of time.
As it had been written that Duke Friedrich was interested in the
Occult and Alchyemie, perhaps this is where the idea was taken
regarding Studion. (?)
> <snip>
>
> >> >Interestingly, on the front page of the first copy of the Naometria
> >> >Studion writes: In gratitude to the S.S. (Sanctus Spiriti),
> >>
> >> What makes you think his use of S.S. in this context means Sanctus
> >> Spiriti? ... Anyway, can you write the phrase youe refrencing out in
> >> Latin? I'm not seeing what you're referring to.
> >
> >Okey, I found the page. I knew that I had seen it. It is in the first
> >copy of the Naometria on page 55 which is where the title page
> >actually starts i.e., after the introduction.
> >
> >The exact words are: "...in Ecclesia DEI temporum ..... ..... statu
> >per Spiritus Sancti gratiam. Authore Simone Studione etc..." (not
> >S.S.-sorry)
>
> Yes, Studion references the Holy Spirit. You find a lot of such
> references in Christian writing (as in Father, Son, Holy Ghost). I
> don't think there's any doubt that Studion was very religious and very
> pro-Luther and the reformation, but how does the use of the words
> necessarily relate to Rosicrucianism or the MCE? I know that a lot of
> occultists and mystics will use such abbreviations (as S.S.) to mean
> something esoteric pertaining to their beliefs, but that doesn't mean
> that all uses will pertain to those beliefs.
I was specificly thinking of the drawing of the House S.S./Fama in the
work of Schweighardt.
> <snip>
>
> >A friend of mine believes that Studion wanted to re-activate the old
> >MCE be it the MTH or the MCE of the past or a copy of it because
> >theirs had now become a 'Protestant' cause and not a Catholic one.
>
> Where has it been shown that the MCE existed prior to 1586 (if it even
> existed at that date)?
>
> What is the MTH? Are you introducing some form of Templarism?
>
> Also, I'm not sure if I'm understanding your sentence. Are you saying
> that the "old" MCE was also known as the MTH which was another name
> for the old MCE?
>
> >In the index of the Nova version I found that both the words
> >'Signandorum' and 'Signatorum' are used:
>
> Yes, agreed.
>
> >"Signandorum cruce Conventus Lunaburgi - page 14"
>
> There are two page 14s in the 1604 version of the Naometria -- one in
> the introduction, which normally wouldn't be indexed, but I mention it
> here because the above phrase doesn't appear on either page 14. Page
> 14 illustrates his numerology in relation to years of Christ and Rome.
> I looked several pages before and several after and didn't see it.
>
> Can you clarify where this phrase is?
Yes, when I next have the time and access to the microfilm viewer at
the local archives.
> >"Cruce Signatorum conventus Luneburgi 1586 etc., - page 149"
>
> Are you actually looking at the Naometria or are you referencing what
> someone else has told you? The reason I ask is, my fault here, I
> assumed you were looking at page 149 where it clearly states
> "Signandorum" in the marginal notes and not Signatorum as you state --
> take a look. However, if you look *only* at the index (which is
> apparently what Waite did thereby causing this mess (my bias is
> showing), you find "signatorum" -- which, to my way of thinking, is an
> indexing error and nothing else.
You will also find that there are 2 copies of pages 166 and 167(?) on
the micro film as well.
I would be interested to know if pages 1407 to 1454 are missing on
your copy of the microfilm, or not?
The 47 missing pages have been missing since at least the year 1919 as
has been written by hand on the first page.
I also believe that there is a copy of the Naometria (probably
microfilm but one never knows) at a medical library in London (The
'Wellcome' Medical Library(Spl.?), together with other fragments of
Hermetical texts. I think what has happened is someone has just
collected different pages of different fragments and put them together
and caled them Hermetica. Probably under misalenia.
It would be good if we could find the missing pages/fragments in the
London library of the BM as well.
Yes, I am actually looking at the Naometria, but only the index. I
have all of the first version of the Naometria on paper, but I only
have the index with the introduction of the Nova version on paper. It
would cost me an arm and a leg to get ADin3 copies on paper here at
the local town archives. I printed the index at the university while
in Pittsburgh last year. We also printed out a copy of Studion's
wedding poem for you on A-Din3 paper.
My main interest in Studion is that I would like to get to know him
better, and I am especially interested in the subject of 'his'
Mystical Arithmetic, be he a 'Rosicrucian' or not.
It may not mean much but the German words 'Hoch zu(r) Ross' i.e.,
meaning 'mounted on horseback/the high horse' are very close to
'Hier-ros', but perhaps not. Ross is German for horse, steed.
Ross = Rose of Jericho?
Sid
Sid
> Interestingly, Peladan was a Regent of the OHMTH and the cross of this
> order is on some of the Rosicrucian documents (Manifesto/FUDOSI).
> There is also a very faint stamp of the Order next to one of the
> signatures. I don't remember which document exactly i.e., I don't
> remember if it was specificly FUDOSI or not.
Sorry that should read 'OSMTH' (Regency) and not OHMTH.
Sid
gls
On 25 Mar 2005 03:08:12 -0800, kangar...@T-Online.de (Sid) wrote:
>What I am doing is suggesting that Studion was inspired by something
>within the landscape of the Tuebingen circle to re-activate something
>from the past similar to the Templar system.
Why do you think he was reactivating or trying to reactivate something
similar to the Templar system?
>
>Sid
gls
gls
On 25 Mar 2005 03:51:45 -0800, kangar...@T-Online.de (Sid) wrote:
>Hi Gary,
>
>gls<gls@...> wrote in message news:<3u57419f3mb6skgiu...@4ax.com>...
>
>> >> Once again, what is the MTH and how does it relate to de Molay?
>>
>> >If my information is correct, the letters MTH are the initials of the
>> >original name of the Knights Templar i.e., Militia Templi
>> >Hierosolymitani.
>>
>> The original name of the Templar Order was: "Pauperes Commilitones
>> Christi Templique Salomonis". Translated -- The Poor Fellow-soldiers
>> of Christ and the Temple of Solomon.
>>
>> Thanks, though. I now see what you're referring to. But to the best of
>> my knowledge the name "Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani" was first
>> used by the Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani in 1932 --
>> with that organization being a reorganization of a Templar Order
>> founded in 1804 by Fabre-Palaprat and which died out later that
>> century.
>
>Interestingly, Peladan was a Regent of the OHMTH
Peladan died in 1918. The OSMTH was formed in 1932 -- which would
pretty well establish he wasn't involved.
However, in all fairness, it should be mentioned that the OSMTH
claimes it was merely renamed in 1932, but that it had a continual
existence since it's "modern" inception by Bernard Raymond
Fabre-Palaprat in 1804 (who, incidentally, claimed his authority from
what he called the 'Carta Transmissionis, or Larmenius Charter --
which allegedly dates back to 1324 and lists a complete succession of
Templar Grand Master's all the way up to Fabre-Palaprat -- and a
couple of other manuscripts dated at 1705. The Charter, et. al, has
been establsihed as a forgery. In 1814, Fabre-Palaprat also claimed to
have *found* what he called the "Evangelikon/Levitikon" which was the
basis of his Johannite Church and the doctrine of his neo Templar
Order. He also claimed that book contained the nine grades of the
Templar Order -- all of which is also spurious in my not so humble
opinion) ... but, if one sees their claims as being accurate, then I
suppose it can be claimed that Peladan was involved in that particular
modern Templar Order ...
Anyway, Fabre-Palaprat died in 1838 and according to the records at
the time, his Templar Order was laid to rest by one of his successors,
Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex around 1840/41
Again, if you go by the Order's claims, they had a continual
succession of Templar Grand Masters from Hugh de Payens up to the
present time. But, I think it pretty accurate to say that the Templar
Order was abolished in 1314; Fabre-Palaprat created his own version of
the Templar Order in 1804 based upon forged documents; added his
version of Templar doctrine in 1814, once again founded on forgeries;
the Order was closed in or around 1840; and then re-started in 1932 --
emerging in dominance amongst a slew of neo-templar activity. Since
then, it has splintered a number of times.
> and the cross of this
>order
Which would be, effectively, the cross of Lorraine -- which was never
a Templar cross in spite of their inhouse historians claiming it was a
"little known Templar Cross".
> is on some of the Rosicrucian documents (Manifesto/FUDOSI).
Yes, the cross of Lorraine is among the five symbols used on the
document(s) you reference. There were a number of blank documents
printed in 1934 entitled: Manifesto Au Nom et Sous les Auspices de la
Puissance Supreme Conseil International des Ordres Orientaux" that
were intended to be used for the 1934 FUDOSI Convention. However, I
see no indication that the OSMTH is represented on any of those
documents -- if that was the point you were making.
>There is also a very faint stamp of the Order next to one of the
>signatures. I don't remember which document exactly i.e., I don't
>remember if it was specificly FUDOSI or not.
Unless you can identify the document, I can't respond.
>Regarding Studion, perhaps he was looking at the German (Tutonic)
>Order at Acre (1119), when they reformed as a military Order instead
>of just a caritative one?
I don't know what Studion was looking at. But I've not really seen any
kind of evidence that he was trying to form any kind of Order. That
doesn't mean he wasn't, but ...
>
>Sid
gls
gls
On 25 Mar 2005 15:48:22 -0800, kangar...@T-Online.de (Sid) wrote:
<snip>
>What does puzzle me though is the claim that the Fama was written by
>Francis Bacon. Although this may be a nice idea for some people, my
>question is: If it was written in English by Bacon then there would be
>no need to re-translate it back into English again.
I don't think Bacon wrote it either, but if he had, what would make
you think he necessarily wrote it in English?
<snip>
>> >"Signandorum cruce Conventus Lunaburgi - page 14"
>>
>> There are two page 14s in the 1604 version of the Naometria -- one in
>> the introduction, which normally wouldn't be indexed, but I mention it
>> here because the above phrase doesn't appear on either page 14. Page
>> 14 illustrates his numerology in relation to years of Christ and Rome.
>> I looked several pages before and several after and didn't see it.
>>
>> Can you clarify where this phrase is?
>Yes, when I next have the time and access to the microfilm viewer at
>the local archives.
Don't worry about it Sid. I have the page in question and it's not
there. From the way you were writing, I was under the impression you
were actually looking at the page as well, which I now understand, you
don't have.
<snip>
>Yes, I am actually looking at the Naometria, but only the index.
In the future, how about clarifying what it is you are actually
looking at? It would make communication much easier. To my way of
thinking, quoting what is said to bo on a page as opposed to quoting
what actually is on a page are two different things.
<snip>
>Sid
gls
gls
On 25 Mar 2005 05:40:20 -0800, "teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
<snip>
>Do you think that Crowley and Lewis met in 1915 ?
I don't know, but my tendancy is to think they didn't. There's quite a
bit of correspondance between the two and nothing I've seen ever even
hinted at a meeting.
>
>Jean
gls
Sid
gls<gls@...> wrote in message news:<6arb4157qpk7a2al6...@4ax.com>...
For what it may be worth, HSL made his view of Crowley quite clear in
one of the American Rosae Crucis digests of 1916. (don't remember
which one)
Sid
> >
> >Jean
>
> gls
Sid
gls<gls@...> wrote in message news:<l3pb4192kpb5j4old...@4ax.com>...
> Hi Sid;
>
> On 25 Mar 2005 15:48:22 -0800, kangar...@T-Online.de (Sid) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >What does puzzle me though is the claim that the Fama was written by
> >Francis Bacon. Although this may be a nice idea for some people, my
> >question is: If it was written in English by Bacon then there would be
> >no need to re-translate it back into English again.
>
> I don't think Bacon wrote it either, but if he had, what would make
> you think he necessarily wrote it in English?
I think that what happened was simply that the first translation of
the Fama Fraternitatis from the original German (1614) version (2)
into Latin was printed in 1615 together with the Confessio
Fraternitatis. These were then tranlated and published in English. In
the early days AMORC believed that the 1615 version in Latin was the
first. (even ARC made this mistake) No big deal.
> <snip>
>
> >> >"Signandorum cruce Conventus Lunaburgi - page 14"
> >>
> >> There are two page 14s in the 1604 version of the Naometria -- one in
> >> the introduction, which normally wouldn't be indexed, but I mention it
> >> here because the above phrase doesn't appear on either page 14. Page
> >> 14 illustrates his numerology in relation to years of Christ and Rome.
> >> I looked several pages before and several after and didn't see it.
> >>
> >> Can you clarify where this phrase is?
>
> >Yes, when I next have the time and access to the microfilm viewer at
> >the local archives.
>
> Don't worry about it Sid. I have the page in question and it's not
> there. From the way you were writing, I was under the impression you
> were actually looking at the page as well, which I now understand, you
> don't have.
Simple really, the index was at hand so I had a look at it. I have
just about everything by Studion on microfilm, and when I do go to the
local archives to use their viewer machine I take my note book with
me.
Just for the record, for anyone reading my posts, I am not a
researcher, just a layman who is interested in Studion etc. This does
not make me an expert on Studion or Rosicrucian history for that
matter, nor do I claim to be an authority on the Naometria.
> <snip>
>
> >Yes, I am actually looking at the Naometria, but only the index.
>
> In the future, how about clarifying what it is you are actually
> looking at? It would make communication much easier. To my way of
> thinking, quoting what is said to bo on a page as opposed to quoting
> what actually is on a page are two different things.
Okey, but I think I did originally write that I was looking at the
index. Never-the-less our discussing this subject on here has proved
to be very interesting indeed, and has opened up a very interesting
process for me personally. I hope it will continue. Thanks.
Sid
> <snip>
>
> >Sid
>
> gls
Sid
gls<gls@...> wrote in message news:<rohb419uop4ghmd68...@4ax.com>...
> Hi Sid;
>
> On 25 Mar 2005 03:51:45 -0800, kangar...@T-Online.de (Sid) wrote:
>
> >Hi Gary,
> >
> >gls<gls@...> wrote in message news:<3u57419f3mb6skgiu...@4ax.com>...
> >
>
> >There is also a very faint stamp of the Order next to one of the
> >signatures. I don't remember which document exactly i.e., I don't
> >remember if it was specificly FUDOSI or not.
>
> Unless you can identify the document, I can't respond.
Try this URL Roggemans(Spl.?), I think:
http://www.hermanubis.com.br/DocsMartinistas/PaginasImagens/documento14.htm
Anyway, there are many copies of these documents on the web.
The small stamp is rather faint and on the middle of the margine on
the bottom half right hand side of the document and next to a
signature.
If you are not able to get a direct link to the page try a search
under 'images' with '14fudosi5.jpg' (de 29).
> >Regarding Studion, perhaps he was looking at the German (Tutonic)
> >Order at Acre (1119), when they reformed as a military Order instead
> >of just a caritative one?
>
> I don't know what Studion was looking at. But I've not really seen any
> kind of evidence that he was trying to form any kind of Order. That
> doesn't mean he wasn't, but ...
Studion formed his alliance/covenant of the 'Crucesignati', a meeting
of which took place in Luneburg in 1586. This meeting was financed by
the Alliance of the crucifera Militiae Evangelica. The alliance of the
CME was a military/political con-fraternity of the various royal
houses. (As you have very eloquently stated in a previous post). I
have not found any information claiming this to be an Order of any
kind, CME or MCE, but if I were looking for one I would be looking at
the Inns of Court and the Royal Order of the Garter in England. Up
till now I have NOT found any mention of an actual MCE within any of
the numerous works on Rosicrucianism of that period.
If my information is correct, the next planned meeting that was to be
held in Constance did not take place.
I understand Studion was hoping for a new and general reformation
within the Protestant camp as well, but was also hoping for a
reformation of science and education etc., as well. On top of
everything else, the general feeling at the time was that the
reformation of Martin Luther had failed i.e., too much in-fighting
within the Protestant camp, without even mentioning the warring
factions of the Catholic alliances.
Apparently Studion had had a vision in which he had experienced that a
general reformation would be taking place in the future (political,
religious, scientific). Also from the renewal of the earth. He also
said that he had seen the crucifiction of the Pope in 1612. The year
1620 was believed to have been the year of the arrival of a new Order,
Christ and the 1000 year 'Golden' age, and the preperations for this
event were to take place in Constance. Unfortunately these views only
found 'ears' at the University of Tuebingen and the Court of Duke
Friedrich.
The some 30 people who were behind the Fama were/are believed to have
been Christian Pansophen, followers of Jacob Boehm, followers of
Paraselsus, and the Hermetic texts of Hermes Trismegistos.
Interestingly, J.V. Andrea in a letter, wrote of the Fama
Fraternitatis 'indignum lubidrium', but in the same breath wrote a
list of the names of people whom he would wish to win for this Order,
Fraternity, or Brotherhood Rosae Crucis. Motivated by Amos Comenius in
1620(?) JVA founded his own Order called 'Societas christiana', a
Christianised Fraternitatis R.C., the preperation of which were his
'Turris Babel' and 'Invitatio'. The 'Societas christiana' was passed
on to his (JVA) followers and became the 'Collegium lucis', but
neither of these groups were of the original Fama. The 'Pansophie' of
1604 was a 'living universal picture' (an egregore???) a 'viva
Universi imago'. Anyway, there were many so called societies etc., at
that time, some visible some invisible.
The first mention of Studion was in a paper by Wilhelm ab Indagine,
called "Wirtembergischen Repertorium der Literatur 1782, I, 521 ff.
who followed the diaries of Crusius. Crusius mentioned a Wolf
(Christoph Wolfflin?) who was working with Studion and also wrote that
Hermes Trismagistos was an Iatromathematician.
For the most part and in my own words, the above has been taken from
the work of the researcher historian (and his team) Will-Erich
Peuckert, called "Das Rosenkreutz". There are others.
Hope this is of some value and interest.
Sid
> >
> >Sid
>
> gls
gls
On 27 Mar 2005 10:37:05 -0800, kangar...@T-Online.de (Sid) wrote:
<snip>
>> >There is also a very faint stamp of the Order next to one of the
>> >signatures. I don't remember which document exactly i.e., I don't
>> >remember if it was specificly FUDOSI or not.
>>
>> Unless you can identify the document, I can't respond.
>
>Try this URL Roggemans(Spl.?), I think:
>
>http://www.hermanubis.com.br/DocsMartinistas/PaginasImagens/documento14.htm
>
>Anyway, there are many copies of these documents on the web.
>
>The small stamp is rather faint and on the middle of the margine on
>the bottom half right hand side of the document and next to a
>signature.
It looks like it might be the cross of lorraine inside of a shield --
which would be the emblem the French Resistance fought under during
WWII considering the Vichy government kept the tricolor flag.
Considering the document you referred me to was dated 1945, I would
hazard a guess that the individual signing with that emblem could very
well have been a part of the resistance. But, by that time, since the
OSMTH had been in existence for 13 years and was also using the cross
of lorraine, there may be a connection there. What point are you
making? That its appearance means someone from the OSMTH attended that
meeting?
<snip>
>Sid
gls
gls
On 27 Mar 2005 07:45:29 -0800, kangar...@T-Online.de (Sid) wrote:
<snip>
>> >What does puzzle me though is the claim that the Fama was written by
>> >Francis Bacon. Although this may be a nice idea for some people, my
>> >question is: If it was written in English by Bacon then there would be
>> >no need to re-translate it back into English again.
>> I don't think Bacon wrote it either, but if he had, what would make
>> you think he necessarily wrote it in English?
>I think that what happened was simply that the first translation of
>the Fama Fraternitatis from the original German (1614) version (2)
>into Latin was printed in 1615 together with the Confessio
>Fraternitatis. These were then tranlated and published in English. In
>the early days AMORC believed that the 1615 version in Latin was the
>first.
That could've been what happened, I won't disagree with that, but my
question had to do with it's authorship and why you concluded Bacon
didn't write it. As I said, I don't think he did, but you seem to
dismiss Bacon as the author on the grounds the Fama first appeard in
German. Couldn't have Bacon written it in German?
>(even ARC made this mistake) No big deal.
The thing about Paul, Ashley, and their take on Rosicrucianism is that
they had no problem changing things around so they would conform to
their version of what they wanted said. So the above may or may not
have been a mistake on their part. That's why you need to be very
careful if you're using their translations -- especially in their
"Rosicrucian Primer". As one example, compare their translations of
the Laws contained in the Fama with the correct translations ...
gls
teletourgos
>
> Or, he was trying to set AMORC up for his con.
>
> Perhaps of interest, a copy of the "Dossier Secrets" found its way
> into the AMORC archives (I'm remembering in the 50's, but I might be
> mistaken. In that they found their way into the Bibliotheque
Nationale
> circa 1967/68, I could be a bit early with the dates -- either that,
> or they "circulated" around before getting deposited in the library).
> Anyway, they were given to AMORC by Raymond Bernard.
>
> <snip>
>
> gls
Gary
I do wonder about that. My feeling is that the 'Dossiers Secrets' were
in circulation before being deposited with the Bibliotheque.
There is occasionally reproduced some documents called 'Rosicrucian
Chronicles' which I believe must originate from a group called S.E.T.I.
- not to be sure (again) but I think it was a splinter group from AMORC
France prior to the 1990 coup - and some versions of these 'Chronicles'
reproduce much information about alleged Rosicrucians prior to the
early 17th century,and these details are also contained in the
'Dossiers Secrets' or at least in the work of those who interviewed
Plantard, such as Mr Lincoln.
In one such document is mentioned the alleged 1580 'Testamentorum'
document I referred to earlier. In another is the tale of a document
of 1629 alleged to contain the story of the Templars and their
transformance into the Elder Brothers of the Rosy-Cross - a story
Toussaint, Barber and Caro are to use in the late 1960s as well. (I
believe this 1629 document has been followed up and found to contain
nothing whatsoever of any 'Elder Brothers'.)
Caro was also to use the similar 'history of Rosicrucianism' as AMORC
for his outer-order members.
Jean
Sid
gls<gls@...> wrote in message news:<cvmh41tjk9itoka3i...@4ax.com>...
> Hi Sid;
>
> It looks like it might be the cross of lorraine inside of a shield --
> which would be the emblem the French Resistance fought under during
> WWII considering the Vichy government kept the tricolor flag.
> Considering the document you referred me to was dated 1945, I would
> hazard a guess that the individual signing with that emblem could very
> well have been a part of the resistance. But, by that time, since the
> OSMTH had been in existence for 13 years and was also using the cross
> of lorraine, there may be a connection there. What point are you
> making? That its appearance means someone from the OSMTH attended that
> meeting?
> gls
Basicly, I am just suggesting that there is a remote possibility that
a member of the OSMTH was involved with the original design of the
document(s), and the signing of this specific document.
Sid
Sid
gls<gls@...> wrote in message news:<7jph415s4gso7rt2a...@4ax.com>...
> Hi Sid;
>
> On 27 Mar 2005 07:45:29 -0800, kangar...@T-Online.de (Sid) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> >What does puzzle me though is the claim that the Fama was written by
> >> >Francis Bacon. Although this may be a nice idea for some people, my
> >> >question is: If it was written in English by Bacon then there would be
> >> >no need to re-translate it back into English again.
>
> >> I don't think Bacon wrote it either, but if he had, what would make
> >> you think he necessarily wrote it in English?
>
> >I think that what happened was simply that the first translation of
> >the Fama Fraternitatis from the original German (1614) version (2)
> >into Latin was printed in 1615 together with the Confessio
> >Fraternitatis. These were then tranlated and published in English. In
> >the early days AMORC believed that the 1615 version in Latin was the
> >first.
>
> That could've been what happened, I won't disagree with that, but my
> question had to do with it's authorship and why you concluded Bacon
> didn't write it. As I said, I don't think he did, but you seem to
> dismiss Bacon as the author on the grounds the Fama first appeard in
> German. Couldn't have Bacon written it in German?
It was just something that puzzled me that's all. I certainally would
not want to 'dismiss' anything that someone of the magnitude of Bacon
would say or do. Interestingly, his "New Atlantis" had quickly been
published in Tuebingen/Stuttgart(?) at that time, which is not
surprising realy because they were all Anglophiles (nuts about
anything English), and the Plays etc., of the time.
> >(even ARC made this mistake) No big deal.
>
> The thing about Paul, Ashley, and their take on Rosicrucianism is that
> they had no problem changing things around so they would conform to
> their version of what they wanted said. So the above may or may not
> have been a mistake on their part. That's why you need to be very
> careful if you're using their translations -- especially in their
> "Rosicrucian Primer". As one example, compare their translations of
> the Laws contained in the Fama with the correct translations ...
(Going back a bit, but I noticed that the year 1615 had been written
in the leaflet(?) that came with their certificate of the ARC
Initiation.)
In much the same way as the word "Aurora" was also not in the original
versions (I believe there were 2 in 1614) of the Fama in German. This
is generally believed to have been caused by the influence of a group
of followers of Jacob Bohme, upon future translations.
Sid
Jean-Noel
The Rosicrucian Chronicles have nothing to do with the S.E.T.I.
S.E.T.I. is the same organisation than the "Cenacle de la Rose+Croix".
It has been created in 1990 (february, the 19th) in Limoges. Some
years later, the officers of the S.E.T.I. got in touch with former
officer of AMORC SGL (Kenneth Thompson, Warren Russef, Curt Warren,
etc.) who issued a magazine entitled "rosicrucian chronicles". The RC
Chronicles published part of our letters and we, with the SETI, we
translated some texts of the chronicles and sent them to our members
or members of AMORC. At the same period, we get also in touch once
again with Ken O'Neill, somebody we met at the Limoges' AMORC
Convention in 1989 and played at this occasion a shady role...
Suddenly, we had no more news from RC Chronicles neither K.O.N. Our
letters remained without answer and we never hear anything else about
these Chronicles...
regards
Jean-Noel
"teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<1112104730.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>...
gls
On 29 Mar 2005 05:58:50 -0800, "teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
<snip>
>I do wonder about that. My feeling is that the 'Dossiers Secrets' were
>in circulation before being deposited with the Bibliotheque.
I forget the dates, exactly, but they were written sometime in the
50's and appeared in the library, in an unconventional way, in the
late 60's.
>Jean
gls
teletourgos
Jean-Noel wrote:
> Hello to all.
>
> The Rosicrucian Chronicles have nothing to do with the S.E.T.I.
Thank you for the correction on the origin of the 'Chronicles'
materials. However, I am not to overly emphasise the point, but you
appear rather to show with what you tell to us, that there was at least
some connection between these R+C Chronicles and S.E.T.I.
But rather an exchange of information than a formal link. And as you
say, they do not 'officially' originate with S.E.T.I. but are promoted
by it for a time.
However my understanding is as you say, that these 'Chronicles' start
out being closely related to former AMORC people and then change to
another 'agenda'.
When the falsehoods about pre-1610 Rosicrucian documents were worked
into the 'Chronicles' I do not know, but some at least have been part
of the French esoteric world since the 1950s and probably originated
with Plantard. I do not think they originate with the Chronicle
writers themselves.
Jean
teletourgos
Sid
I can find a privately printed book by Raymund Andrea called 'The
Mystic Way' which is published by Littlewood & King in London, 1938.
Kessinger have apparently reprinted it.
It contains essays or chapters on : Mystical Knowledge it Paramount
Value; Mystic Meditation; The Contemplative Mind; Mystic Inspiration;
The Awakening Desire; The Dark Night; Mystic Love; Mystical
Participation; The Disciple Militant; The Sanctity of Service; Mystical
Quietude; The Mystical Challenge
I am wondering if this book might contain the letter.
Jean
Sid
"teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<1112191716....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>...
> Sid
>
> I can find a privately printed book by Raymund Andrea called 'The
> Mystic Way' which is published by Littlewood & King in London, 1938.
> Kessinger have apparently reprinted it.
This booklet was re-published under the title 'The Mystic Path' and
was booklet number 2 that was with a set of 4 booklets that were
privately published by the Francis Bacon Lodge in London.
First published as 'The Mystic Way' by Littlewood & King in London, in
1938.
2nd edition in 1957 by the Francis Bacon Chapter.
3rd edition in 1982 by the Francis Bacon Lodge.
>
> It contains essays or chapters on : Mystical Knowledge it Paramount
> Value; Mystic Meditation; The Contemplative Mind; Mystic Inspiration;
> The Awakening Desire; The Dark Night; Mystic Love; Mystical
> Participation; The Disciple Militant; The Sanctity of Service; Mystical
> Quietude; The Mystical Challenge
>
> I am wondering if this book might contain the letter.
No, the excerpt from the private letter that I quoted from, is in the
first chapter called "Biographical Sketch" and the chapter "Extracts
from Private Letters", is in the 'first' booklet of the 4 booklets,
and is from 1982 with the title "Waiting for the Master". Not to be
confused with the 2 books by RA "The Technique of the Master (1932)"
and "The Technique of the Disciple (1935)".
Regards,
Sid
Sid
I think we are confusing things here, or did I miss something?
I have the 'Rosicrucian Chronicles' and the 'Rosicrucian Disorder'
from the debacle of the 1990's, but you are talking about the the so
called 'Rosicrucian Chronicles' from the 1600's - 1700's. I take it
this is the English term for a French name for these documents?
Are you talking about the so called 'Occulte Briefe/Letters' of the
R+C from Germany?
Sid
"teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<1112174737....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>...
teletourgos
I have not seen actual copies of the publications but rather the
material, typed and distributed on various email lists - at one point I
think on the so-called 'Rosicrucian Free Speech Forum' which is now in
what one must say are its death throes.
I am not sure when it derived but it seems I am talking of the material
Jean-Noel mentions so it must come from that era, 1989-90 ?
That is why I say that I do not know when specific references to
documents in that material worked its way in. It may not be original
material, it may be that it was added by someone keen to push a certain
agenda when it was re-typed for the Internet.
But there are a number of old falsehoods in those documents, placed
there to 'prove' a Rosicrucian history prior to 1604. These falsehoods
also occur in the Dossiers Secrets and related materials, such as of
Jean Markale.
******
With the history of S.E.T.I., the organisation is established in
February 19, 1990 but the AMORC coup did not occur until April 1990.
Was S.E.T.I. established because of problems occurring before the coup
but related to those events, or was it established for other reasons ?
Jean
Sid
Again, too many things are being thrown together into one post.
"teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<1112267290.3...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
> Sid
>
> I have not seen actual copies of the publications but rather the
> material, typed and distributed on various email lists
Then it would be kind of difficult to discern the authenticity of the
texts posted. Either way with so much material out there at that time
it was/is a simple case of take your pick. I'm not so sure that I
would want to dig up all of that material again. All water under the
bridge now.(?)
- at one point I
> think on the so-called 'Rosicrucian Free Speech Forum' which is now in
> what one must say are its death throes.
I take it you are referring to the RC-FS-Forum? Well, I have been on
and off this forum a number of times over the years, and it is still
going strong. "Death throes"? I don't think so.
> I am not sure when it derived but it seems I am talking of the material
> Jean-Noel mentions so it must come from that era, 1989-90 ?
If you are still talking about the "Rosicrucian Chronicles" they
started at about August 2, 1992 and ended about early Spring of 1993.
There was a great deal of material sent out at that time including
"The Rosicrucian Disorder" texts.
> That is why I say that I do not know when specific references to
> documents in that material worked its way in. It may not be original
> material, it may be that it was added by someone keen to push a certain
> agenda when it was re-typed for the Internet.
So many documents, opinions, agendas, groups etc.
> But there are a number of old falsehoods in those documents, placed
> there to 'prove' a Rosicrucian history prior to 1604. These falsehoods
> also occur in the Dossiers Secrets and related materials, such as of
> Jean Markale.
How would one define a falsehood, past or present?
My take on this would be simply that because people were not able to
get their hands on the original material (Occult Letters of the R+C
and the original work book of the R+C student?), they just set about
creating their own letters, documents, study material etc. Very
frustrating for any researcher, and even more so for the young student
upon the path who is looking for an authentic system of initiation and
instruction, with new groups and Orders etc., popping up everywhere
year after year.
I'm not quite sure where all this is going. (?)
> ******
>
> With the history of S.E.T.I., the organisation is established in
> February 19, 1990 but the AMORC coup did not occur until April 1990.
I don't know the history of this group.
>
> Was S.E.T.I. established because of problems occurring before the coup
> but related to those events, or was it established for other reasons ?
Again, I am not qualified to answer this question.
May I ask why there is so much interest in this period of the past?
Regards,
Sid
Jean-Noel
> With the history of S.E.T.I., the organisation is established in
> February 19, 1990 but the AMORC coup did not occur until April 1990.
>
> Was S.E.T.I. established because of problems occurring before the coup
> but related to those events, or was it established for other reasons ?
>
> Jean
yes, that's right : S.E.T.I. was established before what you call the
"coup" and so, the reasons of its founding had nothing to do directly
with the eviction of Gary Stewart. In fact, it was about french Grand
Lodge...We have a complete history on our website but it is written in
french language...
http://www.crc-rose-croix.org/hist/
regards
Jean-Noel
teletourgos
Sid
>
> - at one point I
> > think on the so-called 'Rosicrucian Free Speech Forum' which is now
in
> > what one must say are its death throes.
>
> I take it you are referring to the RC-FS-Forum? Well, I have been on
> and off this forum a number of times over the years, and it is still
> going strong. "Death throes"? I don't think so.
When I last visited it seemed to involve very little of Rosicrucian
interest. This was my feeling after two months of posts.
>
> > I am not sure when it derived but it seems I am talking of the
material
> > Jean-Noel mentions so it must come from that era, 1989-90 ?
>
> If you are still talking about the "Rosicrucian Chronicles" they
> started at about August 2, 1992 and ended about early Spring of 1993.
>
> There was a great deal of material sent out at that time including
> "The Rosicrucian Disorder" texts.
Those I have not heard of, but these are the Chronicles I speak of.
>
> > But there are a number of old falsehoods in those documents, placed
> > there to 'prove' a Rosicrucian history prior to 1604. These
falsehoods
> > also occur in the Dossiers Secrets and related materials, such as
of
> > Jean Markale.
>
> How would one define a falsehood, past or present?
In relation to the documents claimed as evidence for pre-1604
Rosicrucian history, one must note that one of them is very damaged and
examination has found that it does not mention the Rosicrucian group
claimed to be mentioned. This document has received attention because
it is mentioned in 'Holy Blood and Holy Grail'.
The claim was first made in the 1930s, and even that the document is
damaged, the pages existing in it at that time did not support the
claim.
And two others are dated 1574 and 1580 when reputable historians regard
them as 1670 or 1680 - as they reproduce material from documents
orginally written in the 1660s.
I call that a falsehood. What is more interesting is why it was felt
necessary to do so.
>
> >
> > Was S.E.T.I. established because of problems occurring before the
coup
> > but related to those events, or was it established for other
reasons ?
>
> Again, I am not qualified to answer this question.
>
> May I ask why there is so much interest in this period of the past?
It is an interesting period of Rosicrucian history. A worldwide
movement that dominates a small field fractures and changes into a
number of smaller organisations with differing goals. One must feel
that this is a historical event of importance in that field, no ?
Is it any the less legitimate than being interested in the period of
the 'Naometria' ?
Jean
teletourgos
Jean
Sid
"teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<1112345859....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
> > May I ask why there is so much interest in this period of the past?
>
>
> It is an interesting period of Rosicrucian history.
Yes.
>A worldwide
> movement that dominates a small field fractures and changes into a
> number of smaller organisations with differing goals.
Confusion and chaos, lies and falshoods, roumors etc., The Lodge in
darkness and without Light, "...and so it goes, everybody knows...".
Nothing new under the Sun, I guess.
>One must feel
> that this is a historical event of importance in that field, no ?
Depends upon ones personal interests, views, information and motives
etc.
Upon the mundane plane, muddy water is muddy water, and BS remains BS
(I'm being nice here), and remember that "stolen water is sweet".
There is a lot of ego out there, my friend.
If you are specificly making a reference to the debacle in 1990 then
NO, and I certainly would not want to justify the actions of a small
group of cabal in any way what-so-ever, be they carried out by a group
of Grand Masters or others. What happened in 1990 was long over due,
and it was only a matter of time before proper action would have had
to have been taken.
The spiritual aspect always protects itself.
> Is it any the less legitimate than being interested in the period of
> the 'Naometria' ?
I am not questioning the legitimacy of your interest in either this,
or any other period of time.
The 'period' in which the Naometria was written,and the 'Naometria'
itself are two very different things indeed.
But as Peuckert wrote regarding the publication of the Fama, the
Rose+Cross is on the streets/in the gutter.
After more than 30 years of membership in different Orders and groups
I have both seen and heard more than my fair share of BS, and people
who are a complete waist of space, to last me a lifetime.
One no longer knows who is friend or foe, what is true or false, who
to trust etc.
An "historical event of importance"? I don't think so, Jean!!!
Are you talking about the past history of esoteric, mystical, magical,
occult Orders and groups, and some of the people who join them? Well,
I shall let Raymund Andrea and Khunrath answer that one for you.
A very sorry state of affairs indeed when people speak of serving the
Light.
Sid
teletourgos
>
> >A worldwide
> > movement that dominates a small field fractures and changes into a
> > number of smaller organisations with differing goals.
>
> Confusion and chaos, lies and falshoods, roumors etc., The Lodge in
> darkness and without Light, "...and so it goes, everybody knows...".
>
> Nothing new under the Sun, I guess.
Well, my view is that this is not all that went on. And not all that
came out of the process was bad, far from it.
>
> >One must feel
> > that this is a historical event of importance in that field, no ?
>
> Depends upon ones personal interests, views, information and motives
> etc.
>
> Upon the mundane plane, muddy water is muddy water, and BS remains BS
> (I'm being nice here), and remember that "stolen water is sweet".
>
> There is a lot of ego out there, my friend.
Ego or not, is hardly the issue. Ego comes to the fore in every event
in human history, but we do not stop examining just for that reason,
surely ?
I do not think one can dispute its importance however. 85% [at least]
of the world's Rosicrucians were in AMORC, so the schism of that
movement is surely a historical event in the field of Rosicrucianism ?
If not, one must ask, what is ?
>
> If you are specificly making a reference to the debacle in 1990 then
> NO, and I certainly would not want to justify the actions of a small
> group of cabal in any way what-so-ever, be they carried out by a
group
> of Grand Masters or others. What happened in 1990 was long over due,
> and it was only a matter of time before proper action would have had
> to have been taken.
All the more reason to study it. That an event occurred is the 5% of
the iceberg on the surface. That event is indication of the
undercurrents beneath the water, of hopes, dreams, arguments, quiet
conversations, discontents, whatever, and also of the 95% of the
iceberg which is below . . . to mix up one's metaphors frightfully.
>
> But as Peuckert wrote regarding the publication of the Fama, the
> Rose+Cross is on the streets/in the gutter.
All the more reason to peer into the gutter. As long as one is not
minded to stay there.
>
> After more than 30 years of membership in different Orders and groups
> I have both seen and heard more than my fair share of BS, and people
> who are a complete waist of space, to last me a lifetime.
>
> One no longer knows who is friend or foe, what is true or false, who
> to trust etc.
>
> An "historical event of importance"? I don't think so, Jean!!!
Well, as I have said before, I do not see how a schism in the world's
largest movement in a small area can fail to be important when one is
concerned to study that area. And how such a thing is disqualified
from historical importance. In fact, it seems to me most important.
We are fifteen years from it now, that is enough time to have a look
back in [something less than] anger.
As the central protagonist has been on here and doing with us . . . a
good example surely.
So we will just have to hold our different views on this.
I do not think two 'walking question marks' are bound to come up with
the same answer, no ?
Jean
Sid
Not quite sure where to take this, or in fact where you would like to
take this exchange.
Von:teletourgos (telet...@yahoo.co.uk)
Betrifft:Re: R+C Chronicles of 1990/ S.E.T.I.
View: Complete Thread (9 Beiträge)
Original Format
Newsgroups:alt.amorc
Datum:2005-04-04 10:00:45 PST
>
> >A worldwide
> > movement that dominates a small field fractures and changes into a
> > number of smaller organisations with differing goals.
>
> Confusion and chaos, lies and falshoods, roumors etc., The Lodge in
> darkness and without Light, "...and so it goes, everybody knows...".
>
> Nothing new under the Sun, I guess.
Well, my view is that this is not all that went on. And not all that
came out of the process was bad, far from it.
I'm sure that this is not all that went on.
Would you perhaps like to give us some examples?
>
> >One must feel
> > that this is a historical event of importance in that field, no ?
>
> Depends upon ones personal interests, views, information and motives
> etc.
>
> Upon the mundane plane, muddy water is muddy water, and BS remains BS
> (I'm being nice here), and remember that "stolen water is sweet".
>
> There is a lot of ego out there, my friend.
Ego or not, is hardly the issue. Ego comes to the fore in every event
in human history, but we do not stop examining just for that reason,
surely ?
Well, from my experiences, ego was the main motivating factor and
motor behind all the actions that were/are taken, regarding both AMORC
and the various subversive activities to either take over the key
positions within AMORC or to destroy it. Actions by others from both
within AMORC and from the outside.
I do not think one can dispute its importance however. 85% [at least]
of the world's Rosicrucians were in AMORC, so the schism of that
movement is surely a historical event in the field of Rosicrucianism ?
If not, one must ask, what is ?
This would depend upon ones way of looking at things, and if one was a
member of AMORC or not. A 'Home Sanctum' member would probably have
responded differently to the process, based upon the information
received [or not as the case may be] than a long serving
member/officer of the subordinate groups and Grand Lodges. Each member
was confronted both individually and collectively.
>
> If you are specificly making a reference to the debacle in 1990 then
> NO, and I certainly would not want to justify the actions of a small
> group of cabal in any way what-so-ever, be they carried out by a group
> of Grand Masters or others. What happened in 1990 was long over due,
> and it was only a matter of time before proper action would have had
> to have been taken.
All the more reason to study it. That an event occurred is the 5% of
the iceberg on the surface. That event is indication of the
undercurrents beneath the water, of hopes, dreams, arguments, quiet
conversations, discontents, whatever, and also of the 95% of the
iceberg which is below . . . to mix up one's metaphors frightfully.
Although I would like to continue to remain open to all new
information, and facets etc., regarding this matter, I somehow feel
that it has in fact been studied very thouroughly.
Interestingly, the OSMTH went through a similar process about a year
later when they also got blown apart.
>
> But as Peuckert wrote regarding the publication of the Fama, the
> Rose+Cross is on the streets/in the gutter.
All the more reason to peer into the gutter. As long as one is not
minded to stay there.
That is up to the individual, but I think that you will probably find
that there is only a shadow of a copy of the original Rose+Cross in
the gutter to-day.
>
> After more than 30 years of membership in different Orders and groups
> I have both seen and heard more than my fair share of BS, and people
> who are a complete waist of space, to last me a lifetime.
>
> One no longer knows who is friend or foe, what is true or false, who
> to trust etc.
>
> An "historical event of importance"? I don't think so, Jean!!!
Well, as I have said before, I do not see how a schism in the world's
largest movement in a small area can fail to be important when one is
concerned to study that area. And how such a thing is disqualified
from historical importance. In fact, it seems to me most important.
Why do you think that it is so important?
I guess it is only a matter of time before Dan Brown builds the story
into one of his books.
We are fifteen years from it now, that is enough time to have a look
back in [something less than] anger.
The anger comes to the surface every year at about the same time, a
bit like a cycle I guess. Nothing to worry about, Jean.
As the central protagonist has been on here and doing with us . . . a
good example surely.
I have not heard him called that before, but agreed.
So we will just have to hold our different views on this.
I do not think two 'walking question marks' are bound to come up with
the same answer, no ?
Another protagonist in this sad history of events has his own website
at:
http://www.wilhelm-raab.de/index.html
Regards,
Sid
Jean
"teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<1112634041....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
teletourgos
Sid wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> Not quite sure where to take this, or in fact where you would like to
> take this exchange.
I do not need it to be taken anywhere. But to say that I see my
interest in the area as one which one does not seem hard to understand.
Even though it is divorced from personal knowledge of the participants,
nor any particular interest in supporting any group over another.
>
>
> I'm sure that this is not all that went on.
>
> Would you perhaps like to give us some examples?
Surely the formation of CR+C was a positive outcome.
A rediscovering and a climbing appreciation for the true 17th century
origins of the movement rather than the rather more fuzzy claims of
'Egypt' and the like.
And a willingness to talk about the real origins of HS Lewis's branch
of the tradition.
A good outcome, because it gives us methods to defend against
ideologues who will recycle old informations to say that he was a liar
or worse. As happened here, two months or so.
The poster who was doing this has now retreated, in the face of better
information, which an AMORC of Ralph Lewis's time would not have
furnished to its members in the so-called 'good old days'.
> This would depend upon ones way of looking at things, and if one was
a
> member of AMORC or not. A 'Home Sanctum' member would probably have
> responded differently to the process, based upon the information
> received [or not as the case may be] than a long serving
> member/officer of the subordinate groups and Grand Lodges. Each
member
> was confronted both individually and collectively.
Even so, the feelings of the many sorts of people involved are relevant
to Rosicrucianism today. If they remain in AMORC, leave for CR+C, ARC,
or branch out to the more remote reaches of the movement, we come up
against them, with them, blending, forming and reforming new
manifestations of the tradition. They are informed and made by the
process of change, as are we all.
And how must one know that every GL of AMORC will remain associated
with Bernard ? My feeling is that this will not be so, and that others
in the R+C will find themselves blending with those who have jettisoned
that connection, in new incarnations.
> Although I would like to continue to remain open to all new
> information, and facets etc., regarding this matter, I somehow feel
> that it has in fact been studied very thouroughly.
One must feel that no book has been written on it, and I think there is
one there. One hopes not by Dan Brown, but by a serious researcher.
> Well, as I have said before, I do not see how a schism in the world's
> largest movement in a small area can fail to be important when one is
> concerned to study that area. And how such a thing is disqualified
> from historical importance. In fact, it seems to me most important.
>
> Why do you think that it is so important?
Consider the following. Does one study 16th century Christianity in
Europe without mentioning the Reformation ? Or Buddhism without
considering the Mahayana or Hinayana ? No. Schisms indicate a
divergence in the path, a clash over things held to be important.
I did wonder what had happened to Herr Raab. But not very much.
Jean
Sid
I have taken the liberty of changing the title of this thread.
Hope you don't mind.
"teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<1112791246.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
> Sid wrote:
> > Hi Jean,
> >
> > Not quite sure where to take this, or in fact where you would like to
> > take this exchange.
>
> I do not need it to be taken anywhere. But to say that I see my
> interest in the area as one which one does not seem hard to understand.
Well there are certainly a number of different ways one could take
this, but this will depend upon the participation of the reader, or
not, as the case may be, but agreed, let us try and keep it simple.
(as Khunrath would have done)
> Even though it is divorced from personal knowledge of the participants,
> nor any particular interest in supporting any group over another.
Well you have mentioned 3 of the protagonists thus far so I would
assume that you have some knowledge on the subject, personal or
otherwise.
Not sure (at the moment) how to respond to your comment regarding the
supporting of any group 'over' another. There are a great many
possibilities depending upon ones interest, involvement, past or
present, non-member of AMORC, past member of AMORC, member of both
AMORC and the CR+C together i.e., not every member/officer who
supported Gary was expelled from the Order, and I am sure that many
present members of AMORC know the importance of the Work that needs to
be continued. There is and never was any requirement or even a
suggestion thereof that ANY member or officer of AMORC should leave
the Order to either defend or support the chosen sucessor (GLS) to the
Office of Imperator by Ralph Lewis.
> >
> > I'm sure that this is not all that went on.
> >
> > Would you perhaps like to give us some examples?
>
>
> Surely the formation of CR+C was a positive outcome.
The manifestation of the CR+C was a natural reflection of the work of
the past Imperators by Gary Stewart, but this could have been done
within the landscape of AMORC and in the proper manner.
>
> A rediscovering and a climbing appreciation for the true 17th century
> origins of the movement rather than the rather more fuzzy claims of
> 'Egypt' and the like.
Well the 17th century is a 'safe place' for researchers if they have
not actually experienced 'Egypt' or the mystery schools. 'Fuzzy'
claims? I don't know any Order or group that does not contain a few of
those *LOL*.
I found my way to AMORC through a personal experience that I had as a
child when I saw a relique from UR in the British Museum that was
linked to Egypt in some way. No big deal, really. The 'Egyptian'
landscape within AMORC was a bit like arriving home to me, and I
always felt comfortable with it, and so far I have no reason to doubt
Spencer Lewis in regard to this matter, quite the opposite in fact.
Rather difficult to actually prove things that can only be
experienced. In a similar way with an experience in Aug/Sept of 1982
regarding the MCE and my introduction to the OMCE in November of 1990.
A bit like comming home.
>
> And a willingness to talk about the real origins of HS Lewis's branch
> of the tradition.
Difficult, but that would depend upon if the members of his branch
would want to release information to the public or not. I am always
interested in any form of serious research on the subject of
Rosicrucianism. I am sure that HSL would have had to take a number of
serious and strickt oaths of silence, so I would imagine that the
information that we are talking about would be for Imperators and
above, only. Regarding the higher degrees and other information
written and oral, within AMORC I would expect that AMORC members would
also take their oaths seriously, and keep some things strictly
private.
> A good outcome, because it gives us methods to defend against
> ideologues who will recycle old informations to say that he was a liar
> or worse. As happened here, two months or so.
Well don't quote me on this but I believe Spencer Lewis did write
something (old notes) about the subject of lies and the telling of the
truth, in either a monograph in the higher degrees or perhaps it was
in one of the CROMAAT Monographs, I don't remember.
> The poster who was doing this has now retreated, in the face of better
> information, which an AMORC of Ralph Lewis's time would not have
> furnished to its members in the so-called 'good old days'.
I don't know why someone would want to retreat after receiving either
new or better information. Anything that will spread light upon the
truth can only be to our advantage, don't you think? Well I spent
nearly 20 years in the 'good old days' and was fortunate enough to
meet a number of the 'old guard' members of the Order, and I am sure
that there are still a few going strong today, in the Order. I
disagree with you on this point because some of the 'old guard' were
very forth comming with information in private based upon the rule to
only speak to prepared ears.
>
> > This would depend upon ones way of looking at things, and if one was
> a
> > member of AMORC or not. A 'Home Sanctum' member would probably have
> > responded differently to the process, based upon the information
> > received [or not as the case may be] than a long serving
> > member/officer of the subordinate groups and Grand Lodges. Each
> member
> > was confronted both individually and collectively.
>
>
> Even so, the feelings of the many sorts of people involved are relevant
> to Rosicrucianism today. If they remain in AMORC, leave for CR+C, ARC,
> or branch out to the more remote reaches of the movement, we come up
> against them, with them, blending, forming and reforming new
> manifestations of the tradition. They are informed and made by the
> process of change, as are we all.
> or branch out to the more remote reaches of the movement
Would you like to elarge upon this statememnt, please?
> And how must one know that every GL of AMORC will remain associated
> with Bernard ? My feeling is that this will not be so, and that others
> in the R+C will find themselves blending with those who have jettisoned
> that connection, in new incarnations.
I am all ears, please continue.
> > Although I would like to continue to remain open to all new
> > information, and facets etc., regarding this matter, I somehow feel
> > that it has in fact been studied very thouroughly.
>
>
> One must feel that no book has been written on it, and I think there is
> one there. One hopes not by Dan Brown, but by a serious researcher.
What would you put in such a book, if you were to write one?
Well Dan Brown's book "The Da Vinci Code" did help the number of
visitors to Rosslyn Chapel to grow considerably, which is a great help
to the people interested in preserving the Chapel for posterity. So
"Thank you" Mr. Brown.
As to the need of a "serious researcher"? well a big YES!!! here, and
we certainly are very badly in need of of a serious researcher who is
qualified to write a book on the subject or Rosicrucianism, and
especially in the English language. The 70+ page introduction (by F.N.
Pryse) to the "Fame and Confession" that was printed for the SRIA in
1923 was very good. Since then there have been few to mention. Carlos
Gilly (LR) has written a good study of the Fama in German.
Any other suggestions in either English or German would be most
welcome. It is unfortunate that the work of Peuckert and a few others
has not found its way into the English language.
But a book about the debacle in 1990? I don't think so. What would you
write in such a book that would motivate a student upon the path to
join AMORC, CR+C or any other Rosicrucian branch for that matter???
> > Well, as I have said before, I do not see how a schism in the world's
> > largest movement in a small area can fail to be important when one is
> > concerned to study that area. And how such a thing is disqualified
> > from historical importance. In fact, it seems to me most important.
Schisms indicate that something is seriously wrong, in fact that
something is/was VERY seriously WRONG within the Order.
These things could have been sorted out in the proper manner, but I
feel that the people involved had manouvered themselves into a corner
and did not have the courage to say "Stop" let us not go down this
road. A handfull of people chose differently for different reasons,
and some (I am sure) now know that they were carefuly 'groomed' to act
as they did. Sorry if this sounds a bit like someone being 'wise after
the fact', it is not my intention.
My only(?) mistake (if it can be called such) is that I really did not
think that 'they' would get away with it.
It was all very carefully planned and orchestrated over a very long
period of time, and probably started before Gary even became a member
of the Order.
But perhaps we can go into that at another time. (?)
> >
> > Why do you think that it is so important?
>
> Consider the following. Does one study 16th century Christianity in
> Europe without mentioning the Reformation ? Or Buddhism without
> considering the Mahayana or Hinayana ? No. Schisms indicate a
> divergence in the path, a clash over things held to be important.
One could also say that it was simply a 'purification process' that
was long overdue.
> I did wonder what had happened to Herr Raab. But not very much.
Well, although he may have been one of the chief players or
instigators with regards to the debacle in 1990-1993, and its
preperation, I would not be willing to be too quick in making him out
to be the arch villain that some people my like to make him appear to
be. The true enemies of AMORC have been very clever in that they have
(as always) remained in the background, and both within the Order and
from the outside, through a subversive polacy of the establishing a
long term friendship with AMORC over a long period of time.
What we need now is for those in positions of responsibility within
the landscape of service to the Light, who recognise the importance of
the Work ahead, to take action.
We only need one person from Europe who is "true of voice", simple
really.
Have enjoyed the chat Jean, thanks.
Sid
>
> Jean
Sid
with others from long ago.
Sorry about that.
Sid
kangar...@T-Online.de (Sid) wrote in message news:<9560d8e3.05040...@posting.google.com>...
Sid
I have taken the liberty of changing the title of this thread.
Hope you don't mind.
"teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<1112791246.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
> Sid wrote:
> > Hi Jean,
> >
> > Not quite sure where to take this, or in fact where you would like to
> > take this exchange.
>
Sid
>
> Jean
Folgetext zu diesem Beitrag schreiben
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©2005 Google
teletourgos
> Well you have mentioned 3 of the protagonists thus far so I would
> assume that you have some knowledge on the subject, personal or
> otherwise.
One must have one's own views, and one's own impressions, but not
wanting those to influence the history.
>
> Not sure (at the moment) how to respond to your comment regarding the
> supporting of any group 'over' another. There are a great many
> possibilities depending upon ones interest, involvement, past or
> present, non-member of AMORC, past member of AMORC, member of both
> AMORC and the CR+C together i.e., not every member/officer who
> supported Gary was expelled from the Order, and I am sure that many
> present members of AMORC know the importance of the Work that needs
to
> be continued.
Yes, I agree. So wholesale attacks on any group are not the way . . .
because in such a widespread group as AMORC one does find those truly
in touch with the tradition.
> Difficult, but that would depend upon if the members of his branch
> would want to release information to the public or not. I am always
> interested in any form of serious research on the subject of
> Rosicrucianism. I am sure that HSL would have had to take a number of
> serious and strickt oaths of silence, so I would imagine that the
> information that we are talking about would be for Imperators and
> above, only. Regarding the higher degrees and other information
> written and oral, within AMORC I would expect that AMORC members
would
> also take their oaths seriously, and keep some things strictly
> private.
Given we are now many years since Lewis's death, I think it is safe to
talk about his initiators. One can imagine situations where it might
not be so, such as where to do would endanger the descendants of the
initiator. But that is not the case here.
>
> Well don't quote me on this but I believe Spencer Lewis did write
> something (old notes) about the subject of lies and the telling of
the
> truth, in either a monograph in the higher degrees or perhaps it was
> in one of the CROMAAT Monographs, I don't remember.
I will look for that. These of course are online now.
>
> I don't know why someone would want to retreat after receiving either
> new or better information. Anything that will spread light upon the
> truth can only be to our advantage, don't you think?
I would think so too. The fact that this person is now silent is
surely testament to the sorry circumstance that he didn't want to know
facts, he wanted to harm reputations and organisations.
Well I spent
> nearly 20 years in the 'good old days' and was fortunate enough to
> meet a number of the 'old guard' members of the Order, and I am sure
> that there are still a few going strong today, in the Order. I
> disagree with you on this point because some of the 'old guard' were
> very forth comming with information in private based upon the rule to
> only speak to prepared ears.
I have experienced this too, at various points. And have inherited
materials that do the same.
> > or branch out to the more remote reaches of the movement
I am speaking of people who arrive in other orders after long time in
AMORC, and their particular views, which at the first, seem odd to
those raised in other traditions.
>
> > And how must one know that every GL of AMORC will remain associated
> > with Bernard ? My feeling is that this will not be so, and that
others
> > in the R+C will find themselves blending with those who have
jettisoned
> > that connection, in new incarnations.
>
> I am all ears, please continue.
My feeling is that certain GLs will not stay. Only my feeling and I am
not going to point a finger and say, 'these will stay, these will go .
. .' To do so would push the weight onto certain individuals, whether
deserved or not. But I feel it will happen.
>
> What would you put in such a book, if you were to write one?
A history of the order before 1990. A synopsis of its teaching and the
changes over time. The issues of certain past schisms/disagreements,
their impact today. The events themselves. Views on these events.
The outcomes. The orders created out of the schism. Their histories,
and position on the teachings. How they sit within the R+C movement
today. A tentative conclusion labelled 'Speculation' in the largest
letters, suggesting what 'may' occur in the future.
These at the briefest, would be some areas of a 'nuts-and-bolts'
history, not a mystical book by any means. It would not be the purpose
of such book to urge anyone to join AMORC, CR+C, ARC, OMCE. But some
might do so. And would they be better or worse members ? I don't
know.
000
I am sorry, I was being 'trite' with regards to my comment of Raab. I
admit. I do not think him to be an arch-villain. But neither a saint.
I think certainly that AMORC-Germany has had better leaders. And in
reference to doctrine or ritual, has been as closest to a true R+C
organisation in the mundane as one can get.
And then opted to walk away from it all. I am not going to beat about
the bush there. But that is ancient history now.
Jean
Sid
Von:teletourgos (telet...@yahoo.co.uk)Betrifft:Re: R+C Chronicles
of 1990/ S.E.T.I. View: Complete Thread (14 Beiträge)
Original Format
Newsgroups:alt.amorcDatum:2005-04-11 02:37:47 PST
> Well you have mentioned 3 of the protagonists thus far so I would
> assume that you have some knowledge on the subject, personal or
> otherwise.
>One must have one's own views, and one's own impressions, but not
>wanting those to influence the history.
Would not every student upon the path have an influence upon the
history of groups within these types of landscape, be it either
directly or indirectly, objective or subjective, mundane or spiritual?
I would think so, because the true ‘New World Order' is humanity.
There are many examples and reasons both positive and negative, in
this regard that can have an influence upon history AND the future
history of authentic systems or sreams of initiation that are serving
Light and not darkness.
For example one may wish to withdraw to the silence and walk alone
with ones light, so to speak. This would be a positive example, should
a student choose such a path.
A negative example would be when a person knows the truth and misuses
it for their own ends etc., as was done both before and after 1990.
This can be experienced by the student upon the path in a number of
ways, even simply by looking at a person who is using this kind of
tactic, or sending out this kind of information i.e., what we ‘send
out' can be experienced by others, and in this case is called "The
un-spoken lie".
A negative form of silence, if you will.
> Not sure (at the moment) how to respond to your comment regarding the
> supporting of any group 'over' another. There are a great many
> possibilities depending upon ones interest, involvement, past or
> present, non-member of AMORC, past member of AMORC, member of both
> AMORC and the CR+C together i.e., not every member/officer who
> supported Gary was expelled from the Order, and I am sure that many
> present members of AMORC know the importance of the Work that needs to
> be continued.
>Yes, I agree. So wholesale attacks on any group are not the way . .
.
Well, I am not interested in any kind of "wholesale attacks on any
group" or individual for that matter, but that said my ‘bias' will
show through sometimes with regards to some of the people involved in
the schism.
Never-the-less I still have a few questions regarding the activities
of some people and groups and especially with regards to a group
called "The Academy" in Germany, but more about that later.
>because in such a widespread group as AMORC one does find those truly
>in touch with the tradition.
Agreed.
> Difficult, but that would depend upon if the members of his branch
> would want to release information to the public or not. I am always
> interested in any form of serious research on the subject of
> Rosicrucianism. I am sure that HSL would have had to take a number of
> serious and strickt oaths of silence, so I would imagine that the
> information that we are talking about would be for Imperators and
> above, only. Regarding the higher degrees and other information
> written and oral, within AMORC I would expect that AMORC members would
> also take their oaths seriously, and keep some things strictly
> private.
>Given we are now many years since Lewis's death, I think it is safe
to
>talk about his initiators. One can imagine situations where it might
>not be so, such as where to do would endanger the descendants of the
>initiator. But that is not the case here.
One will have to leave that up to the people who have that
information.
> Well don't quote me on this but I believe Spencer Lewis did write
> something (old notes) about the subject of lies and the telling of the
> truth, in either a monograph in the higher degrees or perhaps it was
> in one of the CROMAAT Monographs, I don't remember.
>I will look for that. These of course are online now.
They have been online for a long time. See CROMAAT monographs F and G.
> I don't know why someone would want to retreat after receiving either
> new or better information. Anything that will spread light upon the
> truth can only be to our advantage, don't you think?
>I would think so too. The fact that this person is now silent is
>surely testament to the sorry circumstance that he didn't want to
know
>facts, he wanted to harm reputations and organisations.
Well some reputations and organizations have been damaged by 1.) lack
of information, knowledge and understanding, 2.) gossip and rumour
etc., based upon 1.), and especially when people are bitter about the
way that they may have been treated in the past. 3.) Boasting based
upon arrogance reflected by/within advanced students upon the path,
regardless of their membership degree or group/Order that they may
belong to. 4.) Lack of tact when advanced members sometimes boast
about a pre-WWII AMORC member of the Order who left while in the 7th
degree. 5.) A very unfortunate anti-American stance amongst the
members/officers of the various Orders in Europe since the days of H.
Spencer Lewis that has continued till the present day vis á vis the
‘new' FUDOSI.
Well I spent
> nearly 20 years in the 'good old days' and was fortunate enough to
> meet a number of the 'old guard' members of the Order, and I am sure
> that there are still a few going strong today, in the Order. I
> disagree with you on this point because some of the 'old guard' were
> very forth comming with information in private based upon the rule to
> only speak to prepared ears.
>I have experienced this too, at various points. And have inherited
>materials that do the same.
> > or branch out to the more remote reaches of the movement
>I am speaking of people who arrive in other orders after long time in
>AMORC, and their particular views, which at the first, seem odd to
>those raised in other traditions.
Different facets of the same jewel, perhaps?
I found AMORC exceptional with regards to its multitudinous aspects
for personal research and learning (home sanctum study etc.), and
especially and even more so with regards to the many different types
of people one can meet within the landscape of group work, and in
travelling to various Jurisdictions. This would also include the TMO
as well, in this regard.
> > And how must one know that every GL of AMORC will remain associated
> > with Bernard ? My feeling is that this will not be so, and that others
> > in the R+C will find themselves blending with those who have jettisoned
> > that connection, in new incarnations.
>
> I am all ears, please continue.
>My feeling is that certain GLs will not stay. Only my feeling and I
am
>not going to point a finger and say, 'these will stay, these will go
.
>. .' To do so would push the weight onto certain individuals, whether
>deserved or not. But I feel it will happen.
We shall see what the future brings. This will of course be up to them
but I feel that the process continues.
> What would you put in such a book, if you were to write one?
>A history of the order before 1990. A synopsis of its teaching and
the
>changes over time. The issues of certain past schisms/disagreements,
>their impact today. The events themselves. Views on these events.
>The outcomes. The orders created out of the schism. Their
histories,
>and position on the teachings. How they sit within the R+C movement
>today. A tentative conclusion labelled 'Speculation' in the largest
>letters, suggesting what 'may' occur in the future.
Sounds good.
>These at the briefest, would be some areas of a 'nuts-and-bolts'
>history, not a mystical book by any means. It would not be the
purpose
>of such book to urge anyone to join AMORC, CR+C, ARC, OMCE. But some
>might do so. And would they be better or worse members ? I don't
>know.
To be objective, such a book would also require that a number of
people would need to be contacted and properly interviewed which would
include all of the Grand Masters of the 1990 period, (perhaps) as well
as some of the past Grand Masters, e.g., as in the case with the
German Grand Lodge. If such a book were to help future generations to
understand so that past mistakes were/are not repeated, again and
again, then I would welcome it.
A person could also leave their own personal ‘Confessio' for
posterity, that could also be published in such a book. Just ‘brain
storming' the subject here. One could also write a chapter on the
behind the scenes ‘skullduggery' that went on as well. Pun intended.
>000
>I am sorry, I was being 'trite' with regards to my comment of Raab. I
>admit. I do not think him to be an arch-villain. But neither a
saint.
No problem. A difficult enough job anyway without being a saint,
meaning that I somehow doubt that a saint could do the job. The
general view was rather polarized either for or against him, and some
members did take it much too far (both for and against). I did my best
to take the middle path with many others.
>I think certainly that AMORC-Germany has had better leaders. And in
>reference to doctrine or ritual, has been as closest to a true R+C
>organization in the mundane as one can get.
Not sure of your meaning here. Are you referring to AMORC-Germany and
their use of doctrine and ritual, group work etc., or are you making
an indirect reference to one of the past Grand Masters? Well I did not
agree with some of the serious changes in ritual that I had to
implement in 1989, completely eliminating the 3 most important parts
of the ritual, and I certainly hope that that has now been corrected
by the present Grand Master (MN).
>And then opted to walk away from it all. I am not going to beat
about
>the bush there. But that is ancient history now.
Well, a number of past Grand Masters certainly did walk away from it
all, and to be honest I don't blame them for doing so. I would use the
words to "throw in the towel" because they had become fed up with the
continual beatings they were getting and all the intrigue etc., that
was going on behind their back, but that is just my take on the
subject.
>But that is ancient history now.
I don't think so, far from it because it is influencing the present,
don't you think, and perhaps the past, present and the future are
closer than one may think?
I experience your posts as somewhat veiled, but I have a feeling that
you are making an indirect reference to the past Grand Master ME
(Bro.A)?
>Jean
If I may, I would like to take a somewhat speculative and simple look
at some of the aspects of the Ordo Rosae Crucis from the time of
Spencer Lewis, till the present day, and perhaps you and other readers
may like to add their own comments, views and information to help
‘fill in' some of the dots, so to speak.
H. Spencer Lewis gets Initiated into the Ordo Rosae Crucis in Toulouse
in France in 1909.
His strict instructions were that he was to set up a Lodge system
based upon the ancient tradition of the Order of the oral instruction
of its members. In 1915 according to his instructions he installs the
first Lodge of his own Order called AMORC in Pittsburgh. Not sure if
there was a Lodge in New York before this time(?).
He discovers early on (before his trip to Europe) that there are a
number of other Rosicrucian groups both in the United States and
Europe that are in effect ‘competition' to his own plans.
He is warned by his superiors that he must keep the Office of
Imperator, ritual and doctrine strictly separate from the mundane
structure and aspects of his chosen vehicle. He chooses to make a
compromise between the two, probably based upon American rules
regarding the corporate structure of organizations like this in
America, in that he chose 5 directors with himself as one of those
directors, and the Office of Imperator separate and above the mundane
requirements of Corporate law in the US. Unfortunately, this was
exactly the weak point in the Court case in 1990 in that AMORC in
their case claimed that the title of Imperator was simply that of
‘President' which they wished to have removed with the ‘Director' who
was one and the same person. If my memory serves me well, it was a
simple requirement of American corporate law in California that all 5
directors (plus the 10 Grand Masters who had also become members of
the Board of Directors) needed to be sworn in every 5 years(?) correct
me if I am wrong here. By the way if you look at the document that was
signed by the Directors in April 13, 1990 you will notice that there
are 2 Grand Masters missing, so this could hardly be called a
‘unanimous decision' by ALL of the Board members i.e., 2 Grand Masters
were not in agreement with what was being done.
As explained in a previous post H. Spencer Lewis and his son Ralph
Lewis started to set up a private degree system of study for the home
sanctum member. No come complaints that the Order is selling its
teachings and Initiations etc. Well we (home sanctum members) all knew
that the real Initiations were done within a proper Lodge environment.
On August 2, 1939 H. Spencer Lewis passes through transition, and
Ralph Lewis becomes the new Imperator.
Now to get back to ‘some' of the events leading up to the debacle in
1990.
After World War 2 AMORC had a rather difficult start in trying to get
off of the ground again in Germany in the late 1940's and early
1950's, in fact it is probably safe to say that the Order in Germany
has always been plagued by a great many difficulties and setbacks
through-out its history.
1950-1951 GM Fischer
1952-1953 GM ME
1954-1955 GM Orenstein
1955-1955 GM Schwarz
1956-1963 GM Mueller (German spelling without the German "Umlaut")
The new Consitution & Statutes of the Order in Uberlingen (Bodensee)
dated the 29 December 1958 = 3 April 1959 was signed by 13 people.
Grand Master W.F. Muller joined as a neophyt of the Order in the
Spring of 1949 and was installed as Grand Master by the Imperator in
1956-1963. He was held in high regard by the Imperator and was perhaps
one of the best loved Grand Masters of the whole period who was able
to achieve a great deal for the German speaking membership of the
Order in such a short period of time (8 years). After 15 years as a
member of AMORC he threw in the towel.
Frater Raab is I believe treasurer/secretary at this time (correct me
if I am wrong), and says at one of the Covocations "We want to give
our greatest effort, so that the ship that we are steering does not go
aground upon the sand". In a confidential letter (05. July 1990) to
all Officers of the subordinate bodies of the German Grand Lodge,
similar words were used, i.e., but now "the ship (AMORC) had sprung a
leak and was in grave danger of sinking", but that with the news that
Gary Stewart was now to become Imperator that the ship (AMORC) would
now sink. Sorry, Frater Raab, but you and others had already spoken
out against Imperator Ralph Lewis while he was still alive.
Frater Raab becomes Administrator in 1 April 1964.
Also on 1 April 1964 the new (German) Constitution and Statutes are
signed by:
Ralph M. Lewis (President) known & called internally as Imperator
Erwin W.E. Watermeyer (first vice-chairman), known & called internally
as Grand Master
Werner R. Kron (second vice-chairman), known & called internally as
Treasurer. (Taken from: The new Consitution & Statutes of the Order in
Uberlingen (Bodensee) dated the 29 December 1958 = 3 April 1959 was
signed by 13 people.)
In London on the 04 September 1966 Frater Werner Kron is installed as
Grand Master for the German speaking countries by Arthur C.
Pipenbrink, supreme secretary of AMORC in San José, CA, USA. On the
very evening of his installation Frater Raab informs him that he had
always wanted the position of Grand Master, whereupon Frater Kron
answers him with the words, "You should have said so, and I would have
let you have it" (roughly translated). Frater Kron throws in the towel
after 7/9 years as Grand Master.
New Constitution & Statutes of the Order in German, signed in San
José, California, U.S.A., September 25, 1968 by Imperator Ralph M.
Lewis, Arthur C. Piepenbrink, and Erwin W.E. Watermeyer = Baden-Baden
03 April 1969.
The interesting sentence in the C&S of the Order is as I mentioned
before, that EACH individual member and ALL members of the Order
together were both individually and collectively in a position as
custodians and as trustees of the Order within each of their respected
Jurisdictions etc., and also of the Supreme Grand Lodge.
See: Statutes, Chapter/Article 9, General Order, section 151.
By this time Ralph Lewis suggests that the German Jurisdiction (again
without a Grand Master), should amalgamate and join with the French
Grand Lodge of the Order i.e., no Grand Master in Germany. Well a few
senior Officers within the German Jurisdiction were having nothing of
it, and objected, so Ralph Lewis then told them that the members
should choose a new Grand Master.
Frater Raab is installed as Grand Master on the 15th of September
1973.
Frater Raab so desperately wanted to be Grand Master by now that he
was finally given what he wanted. Much in the same way that people
knew that Christian Bernard so desperately wanted to become the new
Imperator, so was given what he wanted.
One of the first things that the new Grand Master (WR) did was to
dismantle the fixed Temple that was at the Headquarters of the German
Grand Lodge that was in Baden-Baden. Perhaps he did not like the
"Egyptian" style of it but either way I personally feel that this was
the psychological and spiritual ‘break' of the link with the Supreme
Grand Lodge of the Order in America. This is also when many of the
senior members of the Order started to withdraw from the group work.
A bit of speculation here perhaps, regarding why some people here
(Germany) felt that they were not getting the proper support from the
Imperator as they had wanted and expected. It was simply because
information was not getting through to the Imperator and was being
blocked by a German member in the US called Frater Watermeyer who was
working at the Supreme Grand Lodge in San José CA, USA., and in one
example (1975?)I do know about a member who actually flew to the US to
hand over a report to the Imperator personally. He was told by the
secretary that Ralph Lewis was not at the Park, but the member in
question had actually seen him through his office door which was open.
The secretary knew that this member was from Germany. This did
contribute towards the good reputation of the Order in Germany amongst
some of the senior members.
Frater Watermeyer was the German representative in the USA at the
Supreme Grand Lodge of the Order. He was also an excellent instructor
at the University and had written a number of excellent articles. Met
him in London in 1982. Watermeyer I believe was also of the linage of
the Gustav Meyrink stream, which would probably bring to a link with
the Asiatic Brothers and the FUDOSI in Brussels, and possibly the
Knights of the Golden Rose who were also in Brussels.
The unfortunate and sad thing in this part of the story is that both
Watermeyer and Raab were using each other, (my personal opinion) and
each on top of everything else, had their own agendas. Watermeyer also
used material belonging to Paul Foster Case and BOTA and this material
was used within the Order for seminars in the higher degrees, and
lectures on the TAROT at Conventions, and all this without actually
telling the members the true source of the material being used. Well
later the books by Paul Foster Case were translated into German and
published so members will now know, much in the same way as the
complete 9 degrees of the Gold Rose Cross Order have since been
re-published.
Transition of Erwin W.E. Watermeyer (date not known)
Now back to the "Academy". The "Academy" is a group of people who
organize their meetings at the same time as AMORC does, which would
require some ‘inside help'. Their goal as I understand it is to
establish a long term friendship with members of the Order (i.e., we
just happen to bump into each other at the same place every year.), to
collect any and all information of value, and to take over key
positions within the Order. Here I believe that there are at least 2
groups involved, and both separately from one another. Now a high
degree Mason (side degrees) may say that they have already taken over
all the key positions, within the Order, but that would not
automatically make all Masons within the Order suspect, (far from it),
and I want to make this point ABSOLUTLY clear, because ALL of the
Masons whom I actually knew personally were all very honourable
gentlemen and beyond reproach of any kind. I do not look upon enemies
of the Grand Master as suitable material for any purpose, but the
"Academy" was ‘interested' in members who had perhaps found themselves
in Raab's ‘bad books' or perhaps they had gotten themselves into
trouble of some kind and were "on the way out", so to speak. Now this
type of activity IS subversive to say the least and is very
objectionable within a landscape such as ours.
I only have a few questions regarding the activities of this group,
which are: Were the activities of this group specifically a Masonic
"experiment", and were they officially sanctioned by ‘regular' Masonry
or were they sanctioned by ‘irregular' Masonry? Of course it is also
possible that this was just a small group of people with their own
agenda from a number of different groups, who were working together.
Perhaps someone reading this can enlighten us regarding this matter
and put the record straight.
The other point that I would like to bring to the fore is with regards
to the "new" FUDOSI and the question: Is the statement "We do not
recognise AMORC" actually true, or were they just the misguided words
of someone who was very bitter about the past, and the way he was
treated while he was an Officer in the Order?
Does anyone actually know the names of the groups belonging to the new
FUDOSI and may we know their names?
Transition of Ralph M. Lewis in January 1986
The other point that I would also like to bring up to the fore (please
correct me if I am wrong) is that the IRS in the United States was
going to bring out a new ruling that would take effect in 1991, that
would require that ALL organizations like AMORC who had their Head
Office in the US would also have to automatically open their books
with regards to all of their holdings in other countries to the
American IRS i.e., all Grand Masters in each Jurisdiction of the Order
would have to "open their books". May I humbly suggest that perhaps
some Grand Masters did NOT want this to happen? So, the transfer of
the Supreme Grand Lodge of the Order was carefully planned and the
headquarters of the Order were moved to French Quebec in Canada, and
the man who would be king was just waiting to be asked.
In the hope that some of the above will be of some value to you the
reader, so that the mistakes of the past are not repeated again and
again.
The above has been written in memory of a good friend and Brother from
England who was a highly respected and much loved member of the Order
for more than 30 years of dedicated service, a member of the MCE and a
staunch defender of the person Gary Stewart and of his Office of
Imperator.
Norman was so upset by the relentless attacks against the Imperator
that he had a heart attack in 1990 that killed him.
To close: The events of 1990-1993(+) were cataclysmic to say the
least, and many members responded differently. Perhaps in another post
the ‘spiritual' aspects of this whole process can be addressed and
discussed within a landscape of fraternal exchange through the use
this ‘public' media.
I trust that I have not been too harsh upon you the reader.
Regards,
Sid
Teletourgos
> about a pre-WWII AMORC member of the Order who left while in the 7th
> degree.
That is something I cannot know or even guess at. Interesting though.
5.) A very unfortunate anti-American stance amongst the
> members/officers of the various Orders in Europe since the days of H.
> Spencer Lewis that has continued till the present day vis á vis the
> ?new' FUDOSI.
Yes, this does occur. And it is annoying. I think AMORCs corpus
could 'stand improvement' but not merely by incorporating European
material as opposed to Americans ones. It is not that simple. Some
still operate on the old 'Waite premise' that no US order can have any
genuine link to the past. A very stupid assumption.
>
> Not sure of your meaning here. Are you referring to AMORC-Germany and
> their use of doctrine and ritual, group work etc., or are you making
> an indirect reference to one of the past Grand Masters?
>
>
>
> I experience your posts as somewhat veiled, but I have a feeling that
> you are making an indirect reference to the past Grand Master ME
> (Bro.A)?
You think right. My view and it must be seen as only mine, is that
there were elements in what Bro.A brought to AMORC that could have
seen AMORC to be the most aligned group of any to the current, and
with these elements, married to its corporate and promotional ability,
could have been a greatest order for the furtherment of the R+C that
any could imagine. But for various reasons, this is not to happen,
and to me, a great opportunity was lost.
>
> H. Spencer Lewis gets Initiated into the Ordo Rosae Crucis in Toulouse
> in France in 1909.
>
> His strict instructions were that he was to set up a Lodge system
> based upon the ancient tradition of the Order of the oral instruction
> of its members. In 1915 according to his instructions he installs the
> first Lodge of his own Order called AMORC in Pittsburgh. Not sure if
> there was a Lodge in New York before this time(?).
>
> He discovers early on (before his trip to Europe) that there are a
> number of other Rosicrucian groups both in the United States and
> Europe that are in effect ?competition' to his own plans.
>
> He is warned by his superiors that he must keep the Office of
> Imperator, ritual and doctrine strictly separate from the mundane
> structure and aspects of his chosen vehicle.
I am suspect of this letter. I can think of no better person to write
it than Lewis himself. For two reasons.
1. So that concerns in the order about management can be answered and
Lewis can be seen to be eating 'humble-pie' by his critics, which is
to ensure that they feel their criticisms are answered and therefore
stay in his group. Some of them being senior Masons and able to
advise him on ritual and doctrine.
2. So that concerns about his 'charter' or right to found a group can
be answered, with Lewis now able to say, 'See, I am not the great
authority, I am just doing what my unknown superiours tell me. Ask
them, rather than me, if you doubt my mandate.'
>
> As explained in a previous post H. Spencer Lewis and his son Ralph
> Lewis started to set up a private degree system of study for the home
> sanctum member. No come complaints that the Order is selling its
> teachings and Initiations etc. Well we (home sanctum members) all knew
> that the real Initiations were done within a proper Lodge environment.
A concern is that sometimes this is not made abundantly clear. At
various times in the history, such unclearness occurs as to who is
initiated.
>
> After World War 2 AMORC had a rather difficult start in trying to get
> off of the ground again in Germany in the late 1940's and early
> 1950's, in fact it is probably safe to say that the Order in Germany
> has always been plagued by a great many difficulties and setbacks
> through-out its history.
>
> 1950-1951 GM Fischer
> 1952-1953 GM ME
> 1954-1955 GM Orenstein
> 1955-1955 GM Schwarz
> 1956-1963 GM Mueller (German spelling without the German "Umlaut")
>
> The new Consitution & Statutes of the Order in Uberlingen (Bodensee)
> dated the 29 December 1958 = 3 April 1959 was signed by 13 people.
>
> Grand Master W.F. Muller joined as a neophyt of the Order in the
> Spring of 1949 and was installed as Grand Master by the Imperator in
> 1956-1963. He was held in high regard by the Imperator and was perhaps
> one of the best loved Grand Masters of the whole period who was able
> to achieve a great deal for the German speaking membership of the
> Order in such a short period of time (8 years). After 15 years as a
> member of AMORC he threw in the towel.
It is to be wondered where he went. I do not know much of this.
>
>
> In London on the 04 September 1966 Frater Werner Kron is installed as
> Grand Master for the German speaking countries by Arthur C.
> Pipenbrink, supreme secretary of AMORC in San José, CA, USA. On the
> very evening of his installation Frater Raab informs him that he had
> always wanted the position of Grand Master, whereupon Frater Kron
> answers him with the words, "You should have said so, and I would have
> let you have it" (roughly translated). Frater Kron throws in the towel
> after 7/9 years as Grand Master.
What Raab did in the time of Kron is also unknown to me, but this I
gather is one reason for the extreme views against him. Or so it is
pointed out, so conjecture only, I was not there.
> One of the first things that the new Grand Master (WR) did was to
> dismantle the fixed Temple that was at the Headquarters of the German
> Grand Lodge that was in Baden-Baden. Perhaps he did not like the
> "Egyptian" style of it but either way I personally feel that this was
> the psychological and spiritual ?break' of the link with the Supreme
> Grand Lodge of the Order in America. This is also when many of the
> senior members of the Order started to withdraw from the group work.
It is odd, sigh, that something like this, a change of premises,
personalities, a slight refocus, can be all it needs to set in chain
serious changes. The current is an odd thing to work with, no ?
This did
> contribute towards the good reputation of the Order in Germany amongst
> some of the senior members.
I assume you mean the reverse ?
>
> Frater Watermeyer was the German representative in the USA at the
> Supreme Grand Lodge of the Order. He was also an excellent instructor
> at the University and had written a number of excellent articles. Met
> him in London in 1982. Watermeyer I believe was also of the linage of
> the Gustav Meyrink stream, which would probably bring to a link with
> the Asiatic Brothers and the FUDOSI in Brussels, and possibly the
> Knights of the Golden Rose who were also in Brussels.
Of him I have not heard. What did he end up doing ? I am sure that
someone from that background could be a great influence in providing
full and satisfying teaching.
>
> The unfortunate and sad thing in this part of the story is that both
> Watermeyer and Raab were using each other, (my personal opinion) and
> each on top of everything else, had their own agendas. Watermeyer also
> used material belonging to Paul Foster Case and BOTA and this material
> was used within the Order for seminars in the higher degrees, and
> lectures on the TAROT at Conventions, and all this without actually
> telling the members the true source of the material being used. Well
> later the books by Paul Foster Case were translated into German and
> published so members will now know, much in the same way as the
> complete 9 degrees of the Gold Rose Cross Order have since been
> re-published.
Well, the keys now start to tumble into their chambers. I knew this
was so, but not that this is the individual who did this.
[Although BOTA hierarchy are aware of it and it does give cause to
much laughter sometimes.]
To take a detour.
I was quite dismissive some time ago on this group at the blind
assertion that the GD current was 'black magic'. Some here did not
understand why I was so dismissive.
Part of this is because of the 'witless repitition' of this bias
occurs against the background where many senior AMORC people propogate
BOTA works, which as all know, are firmly part of the GD current.
And in that famous instance you mention, where they claimed it as
their own.
So much for AMORC's 'displeasure' at such 'black magic', that they use
it in preference or added to their own materials !
>
> Now back to the "Academy". The "Academy" is a group of people who
> organize their meetings at the same time as AMORC does, which would
> require some ?inside help'. Their goal as I understand it is to
> establish a long term friendship with members of the Order (i.e., we
> just happen to bump into each other at the same place every year.), to
> collect any and all information of value, and to take over key
> positions within the Order. Here I believe that there are at least 2
> groups involved, and both separately from one another. Now a high
> degree Mason (side degrees) may say that they have already taken over
> all the key positions, within the Order, but that would not
> automatically make all Masons within the Order suspect, (far from it),
> and I want to make this point ABSOLUTLY clear, because ALL of the
> Masons whom I actually knew personally were all very honourable
> gentlemen and beyond reproach of any kind. I do not look upon enemies
> of the Grand Master as suitable material for any purpose, but the
> "Academy" was ?interested' in members who had perhaps found themselves
> in Raab's ?bad books' or perhaps they had gotten themselves into
> trouble of some kind and were "on the way out", so to speak. Now this
> type of activity IS subversive to say the least and is very
> objectionable within a landscape such as ours.
>
> I only have a few questions regarding the activities of this group,
> which are: Were the activities of this group specifically a Masonic
> "experiment", and were they officially sanctioned by ?regular' Masonry
> or were they sanctioned by ?irregular' Masonry? Of course it is also
> possible that this was just a small group of people with their own
> agenda from a number of different groups, who were working together.
> Perhaps someone reading this can enlighten us regarding this matter
> and put the record straight.
I cannot enlighten on this. But again, the keys are falling into
place, and I can take this to someone who has mentioned very similar
to your question and ask him.
Jean
Sid
telet...@yahoo.co.uk (Teletourgos) wrote in message news:<c3b60eb3.05041...@posting.google.com>...
> 5.) A very unfortunate anti-American stance amongst the
> > members/officers of the various Orders in Europe since the days of H.
> > Spencer Lewis that has continued till the present day vis á vis the
> > 'new' FUDOSI.
Unfortunately, though seldom, I am glad to say there was also and
anti-American 'attitude' by a few misguided within the German
Jurisdiction, but I guess this all comes with the landscape when it
vibrates on this level.
(A bit of anger in my comments below - sorry about that)
> Yes, this does occur. And it is annoying.
Depends, upon the ocassion, the person, and the mood I'm in at the
time of being confronted with such an attitude. I have a healthy
indifference towards this kind of stupidity. But hay I'm not perfect
either, far from it.
>I think AMORCs corpus
> could 'stand improvement' but not merely by incorporating European
> material as opposed to Americans ones. It is not that simple. Some
> still operate on the old 'Waite premise' that no US order can have any
> genuine link to the past. A very stupid assumption.
>"I think AMORCs corpus could 'stand improvement'"
I would be interested in hearing some of your suggestions regarding
what could or should be improved within AMORC.
So Waite is one of the sources of the anti-American attitude.
Interesting.
> >
> > Not sure of your meaning here. Are you referring to AMORC-Germany and
> > their use of doctrine and ritual, group work etc., or are you making
> > an indirect reference to one of the past Grand Masters?
> >
> > I experience your posts as somewhat veiled, but I have a feeling that
> > you are making an indirect reference to the past Grand Master ME
> > (Bro.A)?
> You think right. My view and it must be seen as only mine, is that
> there were elements in what Bro.A brought to AMORC that could have
> seen AMORC to be the most aligned group of any to the current, and
> with these elements, married to its corporate and promotional ability,
> could have been a greatest order for the furtherment of the R+C that
> any could imagine. But for various reasons, this is not to happen,
> and to me, a great opportunity was lost.
It is unfortunate that the reasons cannot be brought out into the
open, to be viewed. This could lead to a greater understanding of an
ever changing landscape, but never-the-less one must remain optimistic
in these interesting and changing times.
> > H. Spencer Lewis gets Initiated into the Ordo Rosae Crucis in Toulouse
> > in France in 1909.
> >
> > His strict instructions were that he was to set up a Lodge system
> > based upon the ancient tradition of the Order of the oral instruction
> > of its members. In 1915 according to his instructions he installs the
> > first Lodge of his own Order called AMORC in Pittsburgh. Not sure if
> > there was a Lodge in New York before this time(?).
> >
> > He discovers early on (before his trip to Europe) that there are a
> > number of other Rosicrucian groups both in the United States and
> > Europe that are in effect 'competition' to his own plans.
> >
> > He is warned by his superiors that he must keep the Office of
> > Imperator, ritual and doctrine strictly separate from the mundane
> > structure and aspects of his chosen vehicle.
>
>
>
> I am suspect of this letter. I can think of no better person to write
> it than Lewis himself. For two reasons.
An interesting idea.
> 1. So that concerns in the order about management can be answered and
> Lewis can be seen to be eating 'humble-pie' by his critics, which is
> to ensure that they feel their criticisms are answered and therefore
> stay in his group. Some of them being senior Masons and able to
> advise him on ritual and doctrine.
>
> 2. So that concerns about his 'charter' or right to found a group can
> be answered, with Lewis now able to say, 'See, I am not the great
> authority, I am just doing what my unknown superiours tell me. Ask
> them, rather than me, if you doubt my mandate.'
Perhaps I shall take another look at both of the CROMAAT Monographs F
& G, again, and in light of your comments.
> >
> > As explained in a previous post H. Spencer Lewis and his son Ralph
> > Lewis started to set up a private degree system of study for the home
> > sanctum member. Then came the complaints that the Order is selling its
> > teachings and Initiations etc. Well we (home sanctum members) all knew
> > that the real Initiations were done within a proper Lodge environment.
>
> A concern is that sometimes this is not made abundantly clear. At
> various times in the history, such unclearness occurs as to who is
> initiated.
Well, for what it may be worth, it was always quite clear to me, and I
had my own Initiation Cards, so that the 'records' were also clear
regarding the degree taken and the date and location. AMORC has done a
lot of things very well.
I would suggest that the currents, as you call them, are very subtle,
in-fact so subtle were the changes within the vibration, making the
possibility of changes like this possible in the first place i.e., if
people had been listening properly in the first place the Temple would
not have been dismantled. They had allowed themselves to become
'distracted' from the flow, allowing other 'ideas' and the influence
of other egregores to interfere with the source. Speculation, perhaps,
but this is the best way that I can view what happened in this case.
It is not about the actual fact that the Temple was taken down, but
what had changed to allow someone to do such a thing in the first
place.(?) This is a 'positive' example with regards to the movement of
the source.
I remember another example when I had received my copy of the
'Rosicrucian Digest' and when I opened the envelope and looked at it I
immediately knew that something had been changed within the Order.
This is a 'negative' example of change within the landscape, caused by
interference.
The source does not allow any intereference what-so-ever.
This is my understanding as best as it can be put into words.
> This did NOT
> > contribute towards the good reputation of the Order in Germany amongst
> > some of the senior members.
>
>
> I assume you mean the reverse ?
Yes, it was a long night. Thanks.
> > Frater Watermeyer was the German representative in the USA at the
> > Supreme Grand Lodge of the Order. He was also an excellent instructor
> > at the University and had written a number of excellent articles. Met
> > him in London in 1982. Watermeyer I believe was also of the linage of
> > the Gustav Meyrink streem, which would probably bring to a link with
> > the Asiatic Brothers and the FUDOSI in Brussels, and possibly the
> > Knights of the Golden Rose who were also in Brussels.
>
> Of him I have not heard. What did he end up doing ? I am sure that
> someone from that background could be a great influence in providing
> full and satisfying teaching.
As far as I know he continued his work in San José.
> > The unfortunate and sad thing in this part of the story is that both
> > Watermeyer and Raab were using each other, (my personal opinion) and
> > each on top of everything else, had their own agendas. Watermeyer also
> > used material belonging to Paul Foster Case and BOTA and this material
> > was used within the Order in GERMANY for seminars in the higher degrees,
> > and
> > lectures on the TAROT at Conventions (in Germany), and all this without
> > actually
> > telling the members the true source of the material being used. Well
> > later the books by Paul Foster Case were translated into German and
> > published so members will now know, much in the same way as the
> > complete 9 degrees of the Gold Rose Cross Order have since been
> > re-published.
The Paul Foster Case material was brought to Germany by Watermeyer and
used by him here. The material was copied unbeknown to Watermeyer
during a break at one of the lectures, and used by others at other
times. I doubt very much that other Jurisdictions would allow this to
be done, and certainly not in San José´, where people just love to
take people to court. No, I should have written this a lot clearer.
(see correction above) The material was used in Germany, and like so
many things, the SGL in San José, did not know everything that was
beeing done here. Agreed, each Jurisdiction has/had its differences,
and this is a good thing, but I feel that some people here in Germany
took things much too far. (again, my personal opinion)
Absolutly nothing from either Paul Foster Case or BOTA was ever used
by AMORC in any of the degrees or teachings, higher or otherwise.
These were the actions of a very small number of people here, and the
'penny' droped for me when the title page of the book by PFC which I
had in English was shown at a slide show. Were these also members of
BOTA in Germany? This is also possible. Here in Germany, BOTA has a
very good reputation, so I do not understand your comments regarding
what has been said by others in other jurisdictions of AMORC.
> Well, the keys now start to tumble into their chambers. I knew this
> was so, but not that this is the individual who did this.
>
> [Although BOTA hierarchy are aware of it and it does give cause to
> much laughter sometimes.]
Was there not also a split within BOTA, between BOTA Europe and BOTA
America?
Going back a bit. Headquarters were in Paris at the time?
> To take a detour.
>
> I was quite dismissive some time ago on this group at the blind
> assertion that the GD current was 'black magic'. Some here did not
> understand why I was so dismissive.
Perhaps I missed something but I thought that the Hermetic Order of
the Golden Dawn and the Golden Dawn were two very different Orders,
and with so many splits at that period of time.
If you are talking about Crowley and c/o then I can well understand
the view of AMORC with regards to the subject of 'black magic'. At the
end of the day it is up to the individual what they actually join,
read, say and do etc., with regards to the subject of 'black magic'.
> Part of this is because of the 'witless repitition' of this bias
> occurs against the background where many senior AMORC people propogate
> BOTA works, which as all know, are firmly part of the GD current.
Many senior AMORC people in the UK with this attitude? I find this
rather hard to believe. The only place that this could be justified is
if the actual landscape of the AMORC groups is not respected. We have
had enough of that here in Germany, and it turns the Rosicrucian Work
within a group into a farce. I may not have seen it all, but what I
have seen in this regard is more than enough.
By the way even the Church of Satan people claim the Fama
Fraternitatis as their own and borrowed from the Golden Dawn. So which
Golden Dawn are we to believe, and which Golden Dawn are you actually
talking about?
> And in that famous instance you mention, where they claimed it as
> their own.
Nobody has actually claimed it as their own, just not been open about
the actual sources of some of the material that was used (in Germany).
Sorry, but nobody could be that stupid.
> So much for AMORC's 'displeasure' at such 'black magic', that they use
> it in preference or added to their own materials !
See above: I did not say that it had been added to their own
materials, I said that it had been used by some people within the
Order (in Germany). A big difference, I think.
Over the years, I have met a number of AMORC members who have joined
BOTA here in Germany, as well as many other groups. I have not heard
anything bad said about them either. Quite the opposite in fact, and
certainly nothing from AMORC either against BOTA or the Golden Dawn.
It is when people try to take over the AMORC groups that people start
getting upset, and quite right too. I was at one AMORC Lodge many
moons ago, and at the end of the Convocation we all formed a chain and
everyone started singing the closing song used by a Masonic Lodge.
About 20+ years ago, one group here in Germany actually boasted that
they had used the Rosicrucian Ritual 'against' the American Armed
Forces. I could go on believe me, but this is a 'public' forum. I have
had my fill of the 'crasies' and the "off the wall" people who just
think that they can say and do anything within a sacred landscape!!!
Reminds me of the guy who wanted to make us all Buddhists and our
group into a Buddhist Temple. Makes my blood boil!!!
It is no wonder that everything is being withdrawn when this kind of
BS is allowed to continue.
I look forward to your answer, Jean.
Regards,
Sid
>
>
> Jean
Teletourgos
I think the anti-American stance is something that Waite commented on,
at least in relation to the Soc Ros in America, Rosicrucian
Fellowship, and Clymers' FRC. Whether more of an own goal, one might
wonder - Waite of course being born in America.
Other sources for such criticism were Manly P Hall, who thought that
the claims of a number of modern organisations were 'utterly false',
something most likely to be directed at the US groups, I believe.
Again, an American, though such comments must foster those in Europe
who dislike American groups. Sometimes though it is not helped by the
groups themselves; AMORC-England has declined so far in recent years
that one must question its viability.
> I would be interested in hearing some of your suggestions regarding
> what could or should be improved within AMORC.
I think a broader focus within AMORC, such that one could study a
'standard syllabus' if one wanted, but that after a couple of years,
one could then decide to focus on other materials in study groups,
such as happens now with TMO. The early Lewis monographs, for
example, in preference to the re-written ones. And other material
AMORC has, such as OHTM materials and rituals. Even the Swiss
materials of Bertheolet's group, which were allegedly quite different
from what San Jose sent out.
What I envisioned is an order that sees its history and diversity as
an advantage, rather than something to be carefully edited out as
though it is to be a source of shame. And an order that has something
for the deeper student of the mysteries.
> It is unfortunate that the reasons cannot be brought out into the
> open, to be viewed. This could lead to a greater understanding of an
> ever changing landscape, but never-the-less one must remain optimistic
> in these interesting and changing times.
Well, I have only say-so as to what those reasons were. At a risk of
running the accusation of AMORC-bashing, I am not to go into this
until I have talked to more people and have a more impartial sense of
what occurs.
But this is not a matter which is to be taken lightly, by me, anyway.
Bro.A is a greatly respected person in this area and his decision not
to stay is something I would consider deeply, rather than to pretend
he never existed.
> The Paul Foster Case material was brought to Germany by Watermeyer and
> used by him here. The material was copied unbeknown to Watermeyer
> during a break at one of the lectures, and used by others at other
> times. I doubt very much that other Jurisdictions would allow this to
> be done, and certainly not in San José´, where people just love to
> take people to court. No, I should have written this a lot clearer.
> (see correction above) The material was used in Germany, and like so
> many things, the SGL in San José, did not know everything that was
> beeing done here. Agreed, each Jurisdiction has/had its differences,
> and this is a good thing, but I feel that some people here in Germany
> took things much too far. (again, my personal opinion)
>
> Absolutly nothing from either Paul Foster Case or BOTA was ever used
> by AMORC in any of the degrees or teachings, higher or otherwise.
>
> These were the actions of a very small number of people here, and the
> 'penny' droped for me when the title page of the book by PFC which I
> had in English was shown at a slide show. Were these also members of
> BOTA in Germany? This is also possible. Here in Germany, BOTA has a
> very good reputation, so I do not understand your comments regarding
> what has been said by others in other jurisdictions of AMORC.
In some jurisdictions, it is said that the GD current is one of black
magic. This is told to me, and makes me just shake my head. Rubbish,
sheer rubbish.
Even so, there are a number of higher degree fraters and sorors who
are also in BOTA or GD as well as AMORC, even in my jurisdiction, and
this is how I came to contact those groups. I am not the only one to
hear of BOTA or FLO through AMORC.
They do not officially use AMORC to propogate Case' teaching, and I
apologise if my earlier post is to give that impression. But they
informally, certainly do so, even to the extent of a brother giving me
notes on AMORC monographs where he highlights were I should consult PF
Case [original] teachings for an alternative or clearer view. My
feeling is that the two work well together. My opinion only.
BOTA split into a BOTAEurope group, and retained a Europe
representation of the earlier America and New Zealand 'BOTA in
Europe'. I am not sure how BOTAEurope fares but there was legal action
to stop them using the material. I have not heard of them for some
time. BOTA chose a very regrettable course which closes down group
work, solely to focus on mail order lessons, and this leads to three
schisms, with Artisans of the Light [defunkt] BOTAEurope [unsure] and
Fraternitas Lux Occulta [doing well, so one is told].
What you say of the 'Academy'.
Well I do not know it by that name but know of one GL where something
very similar is occurring. The exchange of information is two-way,
but the tendency is for those with these interests to sometimes prefer
to promote their own. This is why I say earlier that I feel schisms
will happen. I do not think it to be a thing fostered within either
regular or irregular Masonry, but a less formal process evolving from
connections between people in a number of organisations. Any number
of those are bound to be Masons.
Why is it possible ? Here I am going to be sectarian, and say that I
feel the Bernard-era AMORC to have such a weak, milquetoast egregore
that this process is encouraged, purely because of the curiosity of
intelligent men and women who wish to know more than they are given.
At the most, some of them, ethical people, will unconsciously prefer
others of like mind, when it comes to offices within AMORC. At the
lower end, some will, sadly, see a role for themselves to deliberately
undermine the group for their own uses. You will know about that.
But to underline that I see in this a tendency which is occurring
irrespective of individual motivations.
Jean
Sid
telet...@yahoo.co.uk (Teletourgos) wrote in message news:<c3b60eb3.05041...@posting.google.com>...
> A few comments.
>
> I think the anti-American stance is something that Waite commented on,
> at least in relation to the Soc Ros in America, Rosicrucian
> Fellowship, and Clymers' FRC. Whether more of an own goal, one might
> wonder - Waite of course being born in America.
I guess it is all part of the course, even to the present day, but
this also works both ways as some European & American comments have
also not been helpful.
By the way, do you happen know if there is a Clymer group or a Gold
Rose Cross group (Germany) in the UK?
> Other sources for such criticism were Manly P Hall, who thought that
> the claims of a number of modern organisations were 'utterly false',
> something most likely to be directed at the US groups, I believe.
> Again, an American, though such comments must foster those in Europe
> who dislike American groups. Sometimes though it is not helped by the
> groups themselves; AMORC-England has declined so far in recent years
> that one must question its viability.
Well I hope that this is not true today. I have visited a number of
AMORC groups in England in the past, and I found that even the
smallest of numbers in attendance reflected the substance and quality
of Raymund Andrea.
> > I would be interested in hearing some of your suggestions regarding
> > what could or should be improved within AMORC.
>
> I think a broader focus within AMORC, such that one could study a
> 'standard syllabus' if one wanted, but that after a couple of years,
> one could then decide to focus on other materials in study groups,
> such as happens now with TMO. The early Lewis monographs, for
> example, in preference to the re-written ones. And other material
> AMORC has, such as OHTM materials and rituals. Even the Swiss
> materials of Bertheolet's group, which were allegedly quite different
> from what San Jose sent out.
Well my take on this is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
With so many people in the different jurisdictions changing the
content of the Monographs is a very sad state of affairs, indeed vis á
vis the watered down German Monographs etc.
> What I envisioned is an order that sees its history and diversity as
> an advantage, rather than something to be carefully edited out as
> though it is to be a source of shame. And an order that has something
> for the deeper student of the mysteries.
Better still, to make it very clear what AMORC is and what it isn't.
I like the Lewis system (CR+C) because of its simplicity.
> > It is unfortunate that the reasons cannot be brought out into the
> > open, to be viewed. This could lead to a greater understanding of an
> > ever changing landscape, but never-the-less one must remain optimistic
> > in these interesting and changing times.
>
> Well, I have only say-so as to what those reasons were. At a risk of
> running the accusation of AMORC-bashing, I am not to go into this
> until I have talked to more people and have a more impartial sense of
> what occurs.
I think there is a defference between justified criticism, discussions
and comments about AMORC and actual "AMORC-bashing".
> But this is not a matter which is to be taken lightly, by me, anyway.
> Bro.A is a greatly respected person in this area and his decision not
> to stay is something I would consider deeply, rather than to pretend
> he never existed.
Agreed.
I found the diversity within AMORC etc., membership very valuable and
interesting.
> Why is it possible ? Here I am going to be sectarian, and say that I
> feel the Bernard-era AMORC to have such a weak, milquetoast egregore
> that this process is encouraged, purely because of the curiosity of
> intelligent men and women who wish to know more than they are given.
Personally, I would not want to judge the egregore of AMORC upon one
person (RB/CB) or even a small group for that matter. The groups in
each jurisdiction know best their strengths and their weaknesses.
> At the most, some of them, ethical people, will unconsciously prefer
> others of like mind, when it comes to offices within AMORC. At the
> lower end, some will, sadly, see a role for themselves to deliberately
> undermine the group for their own uses. You will know about that.
>
> But to underline that I see in this a tendency which is occurring
> irrespective of individual motivations.
>
> Jean
Personally, I would like to see the Orders working together instead of
against each other.
Regards,
Sid
Sid
s.pic...@gmail.com
> Hi Gary, I trust that all is well. Can you give me a link to the original text of the Liber Testamentorum, please? If it is in old German, I may be able to help you find/check up on, information for you. Let me know. Thanks.