Discussion:
AMORC Letter Translation Online: H. Spencer Lewis Correspondence with Theodore Reuss In AMORC Archives: Truth of the History Between Them Different from Outside Publications About It Today
(too old to reply)
Cathari
2006-07-24 14:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I have attempted to move this posting to an entirely separate subject
thread. If it does not create its own topic on the archive list, I
will not try this again.... I apologize for the inconvenience of the
repetitions due to deleting/reposting. --Cathari
_____________

Cathari wrote:
July 19, 2006 for alt.amorc

According to the letter, with relevant sections below, which is a
translation presented online from French, from the A.M.O.R.C., Dr. H.
Spencer Lewis had no personal or initiatic relationship with Theodore
Reuss, nor was A.M.O.R.C.'s initiatic line derived from the O.T.O.
Following this introduction, are some of the excerpts helping to
explain to the unnamed recipient (for online purposes), someone who the
author of the letter indicates has written something for the public
about this, which he indicates as an official of A.M.O.R.C., indicates
that specific documented, archived correspondences of Dr. H. Spencer
Lewis proves otherwise.

This posting and excerpts from the AMORC letter described, is as points
of information for individuals interested in pursuing their own
additional research. There have been false claims and presumptions made
about this, and also, about the initiatic source of the A.M.O.R.C.
established by HSL in 1915. The source of the originally founded
AMORC was not the O.T.O. nor the Masonic Order. Also, according to
Masonic historians, the history of the induction of the Rosicrucian
aspect of the Masonic Order (Freemasonry) is from the specific
Rosicrucian tradition in Europe, and occured well before the 19th
Century. Also, my discussion is not about Sachse, who was both a Mason
and a Rosicrucian, because this has been covered by other authors
elsewhere.

This will conclude any further discussion now concerning claims and
neurologic subtleties of the posting individual "Teletourgos" on
alt.amorc and elsewhere for some time on the internet who, for some
reason of her own, would prefer that people believe the false history
of pre-1990 A.M.O.R.C. as purported by certain history publications
today. This has now become a never-ending contradition by writers
today, and there is no further point at this time to say more here
about the controversy created.

On alt.amorc now, with the excerpts of the AMORC text of the online
translated letter about H. Spencer Lewis and Theodore Reuss, I return
to the earlier stated purposes of discussing the world events with the
integration of universal principles involved, which most people who
know the history of and purpose of Rosicrucian studies and personal
investigation and experimentation realize has to do with the reality in
our own lives and the world. All are connected, and it helps to
understand the events happening on the ground, when we are able, too,
to integrate the principles studied for over 20 and 30 years by a
number of Rosicrucian based Orders in America throughout its history,
and some still functioning now, from long before the 20th Century.
Each has a different focus, but are a part of the greater western
esoteric tradition. --Cathari

END
* * *

At the following URL is the translated text of the above referenced
letter to an author providing erroneous information about H. Spencer
Lewis, and Theodore Reuss, in regard to the O.T.O. and Freemasonry.
Below the URL are portions of the letter, and the entire letter may be
read at the URL. http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/sunrise/amorc_en.htm

....

"In your text, you give as a precision, the fact that the two men
knew each other on 1909 during H. Spencer Lewis' trip to France and
England without giving anyway any precision allowing to establish the
actuality of this meeting. This yours statement proves to be without
any basis when put face to face with the correspondence between the two
men, which correspondence perfectly well informs of what the origins,
the historical background of their relationship and the reasons for
their breaking, were....."

....

[Note: H. Spencer Lewis' first letter introducing himself to
Theodore Reuss was dated December 28th 1920, according to the body of
this account of their meeting.]

"....Back to America, MacBlain Thomson did not pride himself on the
way by which he had diverted the Zurich Congress for the benefit of
his American Masonic Federation that became by this operation the
International Masonic Federation. Reuss's reaction can be imagined when
he received H. Spencer Lewis's letter in which the last one gave
MacBlain Thomson's name as a reference. ..."

....

"For six month Theodore Reuss will wait, before answering to H.
Spencer Lewis. His first letter is dated: June 19th 1921. In this
letter,
Theodor Reuss corrects H. Spencer Lewis's remarks about MacBlain
Thomson's International Masonic Federation of UTAH. As a precision, he
states he has no longer any connexion with that man who had betrayed
his confidence. As another precision, he writes to the Imperator of
A.M.O.R.C. that O.T.O. is an Order coming in direct descent from the
ancient rosicrucians and therefore, that *O.T.O. is not a modern
creation by Free Masons*. From this first letter, Theodor Reuss
presents O.T.O. as the exoteric front or showcase of a rosicrucian
Order. It's for this reason that H. Spencer Lewis will judge
interesting to establish relationship with Theodor Reuss....."

....

"These two letters alone permit to show, by and in themselves, how
and in what circumstances both men began their relationship, the which
lasted from december 1920 to may 1922...."

....

"Another problem will help for the TAWUC being established: the
capitation asked by Theodor Reuss to finance the TAWUC secretary. H.
Spencer Lewis judges this capitation to be acceptable, given that
Theodor Reuss takes charge of all the secretarial work. Things don't go
the same way with the A.M.O.R.C. Supreme Council. Its members estimate
the sum asked is too high, even if Theodor Reuss mentions it as being
in conformity with the usual practice among the masonic obediences. The
negotiations in this regard won't go further and Theodor Reuss won't
ask for anything to the Imperator. Permit us to add that at no time H.
Spencer Lewis paid the least amount of money to Theodor Reuss.

"From this moment the projects between America and Europe crumble and
H. Spencer Lewis who seems to feel he proceeded too fast, in all
possible ways endavors to idle about the whole matter. H. Spencer Lewis
has doubts as to the rosicrucian claims of his correspondent. He asks
him the origin of the rosicrucian charters and initiations Theodor
Reuss claims to have received. The explanations given by Reuss may have
some interest for the historian for they are witnesses of the microcosm
the O.T.O. head frequented ; but, they were hardly convincing as to the
value of Reuss's rosicrucianism. H. Spencer Lewis worries about the
fact that so little reliable a character as Aleister Crowley, exhibits
himself in the United States as an O.T.O. representative ; so, he
several times asks Theodor Reuss what is precisely Crowley's true
position within O.T.O. Theodor Reuss's explanations are precise and he
states he has broken all connexions' with Crowley. Was H. Spencer Lewis
wholly convinced, however?

"From a long time the Imperator was waried of the dealings of the
one (Crowley) who tried to have the people believe he was the secret
chief of rosicrucianism. In the issue of October 1916 of American Rosae
Crucis, H. Spencer Lewis had severely criticized Aleister Crowley
whom he presented as a practician of black magics. He specified that
Aleister Crowley was an impostor, had nothing to do with A.M.O.R.C, and
that he was not the secret chief of rosicrucianism contrary to what
Crowley tried to have believed by people. (See in American Rosae
Crucis: "Some books not recommended - The Imperator review a few
books", pp. 22-23, about "The Book of the Goetia")

"Another point will urge the Imperator to drop the T.A.W.U.C.
project:
the porposition Theodor Reuss did in his letter as of september 5th,
1921. He notes Theodor Reuss seems to be more concerned by commercial
rather than by initiatic activities....."

....

"As you can see, the relationship between H. Spencer Lewis and
Theodor Reuss has nothing to do with what is often ignorantly thought
they were because so often stated and then, therefore, so erroneously
believed: the fact that A.M.O.R.C. would have depended upon O.T.O.
Actually, A.M.O.R.C. has never depended upon any organization.
Moreover, very much imagination is necessary to find common points
between the two organizations, A.M.O.R.C. and O.T.O., either from the
ritual view point or from the doctrinal one. The relationship between
both organizations was built with as basic ideas those of a project by
Theodor Reuss: to make active again the idea formulated by Papus in
1908. Papus's congress hardly gave results and Theodor Reuss who had
participated to it, threw out again this project after World War I.
After the Zurich Congress failed, he saw in A.M.O.R.C. important enough
an organization that would help him to complete said project. H.
Spencer Lewis who first thought he had to do with a worthy man was
enthousiastic, but he also realized that Theodor Reuss purposes were
not his and that Reuss's rosicrucianism was without any basis. He
quickly noted that Reuss mainly tried to do business, this is the
reason why he withdrew and left any relationship he could have had with
this man, being without doubt sorry to have committed himself in it.

"The relationship between A.M.O.R.C. and O.T.O. was therefore a
project without any sequel. Furthermore, from the first Theodor
Reuss'sletter (june 1921) to the time when H. Spencer Lewis no longer
answers (october 1922), this relationship between A.M.O.R.C. and
O.T.0, lasted but one and half year. Instead of all, the letters
exchanged between both men is interesting inasmuch it gives many
informations about the way Theodor Reuss presents the O.T.O., viz., as
being the exoteric front of a secret rosicrucian circle. In his
letters, he solely deals with this ((rosicrucian)) sight while at no
moment does he tackle the elements of the O.T.O.'s doctrine. The study
of this correspondence is quite edifying: it dismantles all the wild
imaginings built-up by whoever wants to see in O.T.O. the hidden source
of A.M.O.R.C. and who, with partial facts taken as basis, fancifully
imagine true novels without any connexion with actuality...."

....

*In your book *Der Grosse Theodor Reuss Reader* (1997) you reproduce an
A.M.O.R.C. document bearing a written reference to O.T.O. This
document is the copy of a Pronunziamento, done after a copy coming
from the New York Public Library. An unbiased study of this document
shows it has been forged. This document (rid from any forgery and as
originally it could be read) is an announcement of the birth of
A.M.O.R.C. on february 1915 in the following words :


'In this year of 1915 (=7) there shall be
established in the United States of America
the Fraternity of the Ancient and Mystical
Order of the Rosae Crucis in accordance
with an official manifesto'


"Following this text which is a wholly printed text, the letters
"O.T.O." have been roughly added (in the forged text you reproduce) so
as to let people think O.T.O. to be the originator of A.M.O.R.C. The
letters "O.T.O." have been written, in this document, in a part the
role of which is quite obviously and solely destined to the
presentation of said pronunziamento.

"Here, it's a matter of coarse forgery. We ignore when and by whom
this document deposited in the New York Public Library may have been
forged this way. Whatever may be the answer, you ought to know this
document is not an "original" and that the Supreme Grand Lodge of
A.M.O.R.C. has an original (See photocopy included), an unforged one,
contrary to the one you exhibit. The original document from the
Supreme Grand Lodge of A.M.O.R.C. (126x203mm, linen style paper, about
13Ogr/m2, grey-green as to the color), does not refer to O.T.O.
"Moreover, how could we think O.T.O. to be the oiginator of
A.M.O.R.C. since the relationship between H. Spencer Lewis and Theodor
Reuss only started at the end of year 1920. Furthermore, in the
documents (for instance, the minutes of the meetings which prepared the
birth of the Order - and which had as one of their consequence the
above mentioned Pronunziamento; the minutes of the meetings of the
Supreme Council...), we find absolutely no reference to O.T.O. or to
Theodor Reuss...."

[The letter continues, and again, you will find the entire text of the
letter presented online at
http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/sunrise/amorc_en.htm ]

* * *
teletourgos
2006-07-24 15:35:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The source of the originally founded
Post by Cathari
AMORC was not the O.T.O. nor the Masonic Order. Also, according to
Masonic historians, the history of the induction of the Rosicrucian
aspect of the Masonic Order (Freemasonry) is from the specific
Rosicrucian tradition in Europe, and occured well before the 19th
Century.
TT:

The only form of Rosicrucianism within Masonry is that of the SRIAnglia
and its descendant bodies in Scotland, the US, Canada, Australia and
France. And of course , the Societas Rosicruciana in America (which
moved away from the Masonic pre-requisite).

The SRIAnglia was founded in 1865.

There was no 'Rosicrucian aspect of the Masonic order' prior to the
19th century.

This is merely common sense. If there had been such a thing as Masonic
Rosicrucianism prior to the 19th century, there would have been no need
for Messrs Hughan and Little to go to the trouble of founding SRIAnglia
in the first place.
Post by Cathari
This will conclude any further discussion now concerning claims and
neurologic subtleties of the posting individual "Teletourgos" on
alt.amorc and elsewhere for some time on the internet who, for some
reason of her own, would prefer that people believe the false history
of pre-1990 A.M.O.R.C. as purported by certain history publications
TT:

What on earth are you whittering on about ? If you are talking about
Monsieur Vanloo's book, well, I've met him, and read it, but my
research does not come from it. I

f you read the text of M. Vanloo's material on Koenig's site, you will
see that he determines that AMORC is *not* a descendant of OTO. I
quote :

"Therefore my final conclusion is that A.M.O.R.C. is NOT an offspring
of the O.T.O. stricto sensu. It is well Lewis' creation and does not
derive from any other existing movement, and A.M.O.R.C. teachings are a
compendium or digest of different sources, a sort of «melting pot» to
which Lewis added his personal ingredients and which has finally
produced something of its own."

Jean
teletourgos
2006-07-24 15:40:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cathari
I have attempted to move this posting to an entirely separate subject
thread.
TT:

Well, you failed to do so. It is not rocket science to do so. In
Google Groups, you just press 'Start a New Topic' at the top of your
screen.



The source of the originally founded AMORC was not the O.T.O. nor
the Masonic Order. Also, according to Masonic historians, the history
of the induction of the Rosicrucian aspect of the Masonic Order
(Freemasonry) is from the specific
Post by Cathari
Rosicrucian tradition in Europe, and occured well before the 19th Century.
TT:

The only form of Rosicrucianism within Masonry is that of the SRIAnglia

and its descendant bodies in Scotland, the US, Canada, Australia and
France. And of course , the Societas Rosicruciana in America (which
moved away from the Masonic pre-requisite).


The SRIAnglia was founded in 1865.


There was no 'Rosicrucian aspect of the Masonic order' prior to the
19th century.


This is merely common sense. If there had been such a thing as Masonic

Rosicrucianism prior to the 19th century, there would have been no need

for Messrs Hughan and Little to go to the trouble of founding SRIAnglia

in the first place.
Post by Cathari
This will conclude any further discussion now concerning claims and
neurologic subtleties of the posting individual "Teletourgos" on
alt.amorc and elsewhere for some time on the internet who, for some
reason of her own, would prefer that people believe the false history
of pre-1990 A.M.O.R.C. as purported by certain history publications
TT:

What on earth are you whittering on about ? If you are talking about
Monsieur Vanloo's book, well, I've met him, and read it, but my
research does not come from it.


If you read the text of M. Vanloo's material on Koenig's site, you will

see that he determines that AMORC is *not* a descendant of OTO. I
quote :


"Therefore my final conclusion is that A.M.O.R.C. is NOT an offspring
of the O.T.O. stricto sensu. It is well Lewis' creation and does not
derive from any other existing movement, and A.M.O.R.C. teachings are a

compendium or digest of different sources, a sort of «melting pot» to

which Lewis added his personal ingredients and which has finally
produced something of its own."


Jean
Cathari
2006-07-24 17:06:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dear Teletourgos, I did indeed us an entirely new, separate "Start New
Topic"--and not from the open window on the archive page, where the
earlier posting is filed by Google Groups. This is why I kept trying
again, to be certain I had done my part correctly. Maybe after 30 days
with no response on the topic tree, this would be possible at the
archive page.
Post by teletourgos
Post by Cathari
I have attempted to move this posting to an entirely separate subject
thread.
Well, you failed to do so. It is not rocket science to do so. In
Google Groups, you just press 'Start a New Topic' at the top of your
screen.>
There was no 'Rosicrucian aspect of the Masonic order' prior to the
19th century.
Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings -- Volume I: "The New
Atlantis"
http://www.cuttingedge.org/video/americassecret.html
There are indeed other references placed on alt.amorc over the past
year/s, which provide other resources that 1717 is when Rosicrucian
teachings were placed into the new order of Freemasonry, by Francis
Bacon himself. This point about 1717, has now been further reinforced
with the new information from the new award-winniing video documentary
of 2006. The information in the video is from a reknowned researcher
on Bacon, and includes info. from the United Grand Lodge of England,
mother lodge of Freemasonry. This is the first resource I've seen with
this additional information attributing the credit to Bacon for the
1717 induction of RC teachings into Masonry, and you might enjoy the
video, also, it is so excellent overall.

On the URL above, is more about the video, including a free 10-min.
clip from it. (Part II is expected to be available in October.)

Cathari
Post by teletourgos
This is merely common sense. If there had been such a thing as Masonic
Rosicrucianism prior to the 19th century, there would have been no need
for Messrs Hughan and Little to go to the trouble of founding SRIAnglia
in the first place.
teletourgos
2006-07-24 23:14:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I have lectured at UGLE and delivered a number of papers there.

I just slightly, vaguely, do know what UGLE is.

Let me be quite clear that whatever your video may say, you will *not*
find UGLE supporting the idea that Rosicrucianism was 'inducted' into
Freemasonry in 1717 'by Francis Bacon himself'.

In 1717, Francis Bacon had been dead for 91 years. That's the first
problem.

If the ideas of Rosicrucianism were already in Freemasonry, then the
formation of SRIA would not have been necessary.

Jean
Post by Cathari
Post by teletourgos
Well, you failed to do so. It is not rocket science to do so. In
Google Groups, you just press 'Start a New Topic' at the top of your
screen.>
There was no 'Rosicrucian aspect of the Masonic order' prior to the
19th century.
Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings -- Volume I: "The New
Atlantis"
http://www.cuttingedge.org/video/americassecret.html
There are indeed other references placed on alt.amorc over the past
year/s, which provide other resources that 1717 is when Rosicrucian
teachings were placed into the new order of Freemasonry, by Francis
Bacon himself. This point about 1717, has now been further reinforced
with the new information from the new award-winniing video documentary
of 2006. The information in the video is from a reknowned researcher
on Bacon, and includes info. from the United Grand Lodge of England,
mother lodge of Freemasonry. This is the first resource I've seen with
this additional information attributing the credit to Bacon for the
1717 induction of RC teachings into Masonry, and you might enjoy the
video, also, it is so excellent overall.
On the URL above, is more about the video, including a free 10-min.
clip from it. (Part II is expected to be available in October.)
Cathari
Post by teletourgos
This is merely common sense. If there had been such a thing as Masonic
Rosicrucianism prior to the 19th century, there would have been no need
for Messrs Hughan and Little to go to the trouble of founding SRIAnglia
in the first place.
Cathari
2006-07-25 02:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by teletourgos
I have lectured at UGLE and delivered a number of papers there.
I just slightly, vaguely, do know what UGLE is.
I have not heard of a "UGLE".
Post by teletourgos
Let me be quite clear that whatever your video may say, you will *not*
find UGLE supporting the idea that Rosicrucianism was 'inducted' into
Freemasonry in 1717 'by Francis Bacon himself'.
In 1717, Francis Bacon had been dead for 91 years. That's the first
problem.
This is true, as I indicated he was involved in the 17 Century, but in
the video I believe the operative word was that Bacon was
"responsible", was given credit, and on this specificity--corrected.
You'd have to see the video to get the specific, exact, whole
reference. I wish there were a specific text version, but not
available. However, the information and presentation is compelling.

Cathari
teletourgos
2006-07-25 02:32:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
TT:

United Grand Lodge of England. Hence, U.G.L.E.

Generally referred to as 'Ugly' by English brethren with a sense of
humour.

The 'mother organisation' of Freemasonry as you say, though not its
'mother lodge'.

That is a different idea in Freemasonry, and means something rather
different.

If you ever go to England, visit UGLE's library in Covent Garden and
you'll find many, many articles considering the idea that
Rosicrucianism is the originator of Freemasonry.

Basically, that idea is not accepted by English Freemasonry for a
number of sound and well argued reasons, although it is a minority view
held by some folk.

If I find that video I will watch it.

Jean
Post by Cathari
I have not heard of a "UGLE".
Post by teletourgos
Let me be quite clear that whatever your video may say, you will *not*
find UGLE supporting the idea that Rosicrucianism was 'inducted' into
Freemasonry in 1717 'by Francis Bacon himself'.
In 1717, Francis Bacon had been dead for 91 years. That's the first
problem.
This is true, as I indicated he was involved in the 17 Century, but in
the video I believe the operative word was that Bacon was
"responsible", was given credit, and on this specificity--corrected.
Cathari
2006-07-25 02:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Okay, Teletourgos, duly noted. You will need to see the video. When
you do, I will look forward to hearing your analysis on the subject.
I'm afraid I simply cannot remember the exact verbage, except that it's
the first time I've heard Bacon named as "responsible" for the
Rosicrucian aspect being inserted into the new Order of Masons.

The only time I've been to London, thus far in this lifetime, at least,
I was fortunate to visit a number of places, but time was scarce, and
on that trip my focus was the South of France. Maybe one day again, I
can go and focus on some of the other history I love.

Thanks.

Cathari
Post by teletourgos
United Grand Lodge of England. Hence, U.G.L.E.
Generally referred to as 'Ugly' by English brethren with a sense of
humour.
The 'mother organisation' of Freemasonry as you say, though not its
'mother lodge'.
That is a different idea in Freemasonry, and means something rather
different.
If you ever go to England, visit UGLE's library in Covent Garden and
you'll find many, many articles considering the idea that
Rosicrucianism is the originator of Freemasonry.
Basically, that idea is not accepted by English Freemasonry for a
number of sound and well argued reasons, although it is a minority view
held by some folk.
If I find that video I will watch it.
Jean
Loading...