Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00946)

The LCC offers a set of teachings which are mystical. By its own definition,
it's a gnostic church. Hence, it can't divorce itself from the Ageless Wisdom
(theos-sophia). From the TS, yes, but not from esoteric Christianity. It was
never meant to be a mainstream Church, either Protestant or Roman Catholic.
What purpose would it serve if it were mainstream since there are so many of
them as it is? The LCC is basically a wedding between Catholic sacramentalism
and gnostic teachings. That is the essence of its uniqueness. If it abandoned
its metaphysical teachings, it would lose its raison d'etre.

I belong to the TS, ULT and TS (Pasadena). I'm an associate member in a
rosicrucian group (not AMORC), a Sai Baba devotee and have (gasp!) all the
collected works of Alice A. Bailey in my library of some 3,500 volumes on
metaphysics and esotericism. I'm also in the LCC clergy. I  haven't been
excommunicated yet nor do I expect to be! I've read some of the A.A.B books
and but others of hers I'll probably never read. Just like I've read some of
HPB but read more of those who followed in her wake in the TS (and as well as
those were outside the TS like Steiner, Heindel, Clymer, Manly P. Hall,
Aurobindo, Ramakrishna, Mouni Sadhu, Yogananda, etc., etc., the list goes on)
And, huh, oh yes, even Jerry too (Enochian Physics, ISBN 0-87542-712-X)!  I
have a tendency to gravitate more toward the models presented by CWL, Hodson
and Taimni but that's just my predilection. Different styles, different
emphasis. The point is I have the freedom to explore, like anyone else. There
are clergy and laity who are martinists, rosicrucians, kabalists,
theosophists, astrologers, TM-ers, and even alchemists besides those who are
CoM-ers, ES-ers and all the rest of it. And there are some who are just
clergy or laity who are not affiliated with anything other than the Church.
No problema.


LunarPitri