Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00131)

At 12:01 AM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In message <2.2.32.19960502195709.006a5240@mail.slip.net>, alexis
>dolgorukii <alexei@slip.net> writes
>>>Thank you Alan that is very interesting. Perhaps you can clear something up
>>for me, Hadn't both Leadbeater and Wedgewood been "defrocked" by the
>>Anglican Church for their sexual peccadillos?
>
>I have no evidence to support this claim, though it is an old one.  It
>is possible that Wedgwood *resigned* but so far as I know CWL left of
>his own accord.

As to Wedgewood, was he part of the famous "china" family? Wasn't it
relatively customary in those days to permit someone to resign rather than
face charges? As to CWL, did he not "leave of his own accord" right after a
scandal (of the usual sort) with a youth group he led?
>
>> As "defrocked Priests'
>>wouldn't their consecration as Bishops have been irregular to say the least?
>
>Note the title of my book!  The view of the Church of England was and is
>that their later consecration was invalid and irregular.  The view of
>the Church of Rome was that they were valid but irregular. But the view
>of Rome is that the orders of the Church of England (at all levels) are
>totally invalid.  On this argument, CWL's (and mine) holy orders are
>more valid than those of the Achbishop of Canterbury! :-)

Alan: Why do you think I chose those exact words? I think I understand the
Roman viewpoint, they are terrified of invalidating any Apolstolic
Succession, though how they can do so with the various English Archbishops
is beyond by comprehension. If anyone's apostolic succession is valid the
Arch Bishop of Canterbury's is. (Now I question the validity of the entire
concept, but my questioning includes the Pope).
>
>>Obviously Wedgewood found another source of authority, what was it? I don't
>>know about either of them "dying insane" but shrewd or not, it could
>>reasonably be argued, based upon their lives and works, that both of them
>>"Lived insane", could it not? After all "living in a dream world of his own"
>>is practically the dictionary definition of psychosis. Why do you suppose
>>the silly man lied about his date of birth?
>
>Their source of authority derived from the Dutch Old Catholic Church
>which had broken ties with Rome, which had failed to destroy them (the
>Dutch Old Catholics).  The differences were doctrinal.  Later they broke
>with the Old Catholics to form the [theosophical] Liberal Catholic
>Church, in which (today, but not then) reincarnation is an article of
>faith.
>>
>>It's a shame Routledge & Kegan Paul has changed ownership and policies, they
>>were one of the better sources of alternative philosophical works.
>>
>>By the way, have you encountered Liesel's accusations that Chuck and myself
>>are "E.S. agents provocateur" sent in to "destroy Theos-List"?
>>Your thoughts please.
>
>I think Liesel perceives you both as making a lot of disruptive noise,
>and looks for a familiar explanation.  She does not accuse, she
>speculates.  Personally, I doubt that there is any ES conspiracy of any
>kind to disrupt theos-l, which has less than 100 subscribers out of tens
>of thousands of potentially pliable theosophists!  The worldwide TS may
>be small, but theos-l is miniscule by comparison, though its capacity to
>broadcast *information* is huge.
>
>I would personally like to see *more* information being broadcast, and a
>great deal less combativeness.
>>
>>fondly
>>
>>alexis d.
>>
>ditto
>
>alan b.
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
Oh alan, if you think I enjoy the combat, you are mistaken, I don't. But I
also don't like having certain topics made Tabu. Like the one we discussed
herein.

fondly

alexis d.>