Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00584)

Hallo Daniel and all,

My views are:

The following was written out of compassion to everyone of you.

So Blavatsky was very much wrong when she got the following published in 
Lucifer?


"THEOSOPHY OR JESUITISM?"
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/TheosophyOrJesuitism.htm (HPB, 
Lucifer - June 1888)

A few exceprts might be helpful:
"At the same time, all those who are pursuing in life's great wilderness of 
vain evanescent pleasures and empty conventionalities an ideal worth living 
for, are offered the choice between the two now once more rising powers--the 
Alpha and the Omega at the two opposite ends of the realm of giddy, idle 
existence--THEOSOPHY and JESUITISM.

For, in the field of religious and intellectual pursuits, these two are the 
only luminaries--a good and an evil star, truly--glimmering once more from 
behind the mists of the Past, and ascending on the horizon of mental 
activities. They are the only two powers capable in the present day of 
extricating one thirsty for intellectual life from the clammy slush of the 
stagnant pool known as Modern Society, so crystallized in its cant, so 
dreary and monotonous in its squirrel-like motion around the wheel of 
fashion. Theosophy and Jesuitism are the two opposite poles, one far above, 
the other far below even that stagnant marsh. Both offer power--one to the 
spiritual, the other to the psychic and intellectual Ego in man. The former 
is "the wisdom that is from above . . . pure, peaceable, gentle . . . full 
of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy," while 
the latter is "the wisdom that descendeth not from above, but is earthly, 
sensual, DEVILISH."3 One is the power of Light, the other that of Darkness. 
. . ."
... and later...
"It is vain to argue and claim a difference between Jesuitism and Roman 
Catholicism proper, for the latter is now sucked into and inseparably 
amalgamated with the former. We have public assurance for it in the pastoral 
of 1876 by the Bishop of Cambrai. "Clericalism, Ultramontanism and Jesuitism 
are one and the same thing--that is to say, Roman Catholicism--and the 
distinctions between them have been created by the enemies of religion," 
says the "Pastoral." "There was a time," adds Monseigneur the Cardinal, 
"when a certain theological opinion was commonly professed in France 
concerning the authority of the Pope. . . . It was restricted to our nation, 
and was of recent origin. The civil power during a century and a half 
imposed official instruction. Those who professed these opinions were called 
Gallicans, and those who protested were called Ultramontanes, because they 
had their doctrinal centre beyond the Alps, at Rome. Today the distinction 
between the two schools is no longer admissible. Theological Gallicanism can 
no longer exist, since this opinion has ceased to be tolerated by the 
Church. It has been solemnly condemned, past all return, by the Ocumenical 
Council of the Vatican. ONE CANNOT NOW BE A CATHOLIC WITHOUT BEING 
ULTRAMONTANE--AND JESUIT."
...and later...
"One would think Esoteric philosophy and especially the Occult Arts, or 
Magic, were an abomination to these good holy fathers? And so indeed they 
would have the world believe. But when one studies history and the works of 
their own authors published with the imprimatur of the Order, what does one 
find? That the Jesuits have practised not only Occultism, but BLACK MAGIC in 
its worst form,4 more than any other body of men; and that to it they owe in 
large measure their power and influence!"


Sorry if I offend anyone in these times of thread-closing and the like.


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "danielhcaldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 8:09 PM
Subject: Theos-World The "scorpion-whip of hatred" is intensified even 
more???


> Notice what KH says:
>
> "... even the faintest shadow of difference ARMS seekers
> after the same truth, otherwise earnest and sincere, with the
> scorpion-whip of hatred against their brothers, equally sincere and
> earnest." caps added.
>
> In this example both "sides" are characterized as "earnest"
> and "sincere".
>
> But what happens if one side starts to believe
> or to "accuse" the other side of being NOT earnest, NOT sincere?
>
> I would suggest that the "scorpion-whip of hatred" is intensified
> even more!
>
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links