Holy See Bridges of Goodwill

“Conscious of the great responsibility entrusted in declaring the Gospel of Our Lord, we have waited for the sign to so declare it, to those who must now act with the Power that it so confers. Such Power is not utopia worship, it leads to knowledge in depth of the Estate of Our Lord Jesus Christ on Earth and in the kingdom of God.”

St Anthony

Saint Anthony, by Murrilo

“The purpose of this letter is to build bridges of goodwill and charity rooted in Christ.”

Holy See Bridges of Goodwill

Franciscus PP.
The Holy See

Open Letter
Amicus curiæ

5th July 2013

Holy Father Francis!

In the name of the Almighty One, Christ, Our Father in Heaven, whose Word is the flesh and blood of all men and women, Greeting!

As Your Holiness has said, let us not remain nostalgic for the onions earned at the table of slavery1 and walk on to freedom, prayerfully resolute in the Lord with trust in His mercy – for an entire world may be saved by one good man, as Our Lord testified with His life and resurrection!

Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

The method of this letter

We wish to speak about the kingdom of God, Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, His love and His service. We must speak about the King James Bible in the vernacular that we write in, the English language, the meaning of words, the search it spawned for the kingdom of God and how it has enriched the lives of men and women the world over and how the world economy is based on it. After a brief introduction, we start with the wisdom of Cardinal Newman on the Holy See and his insights into language and on how the faithful are ‘consulted’.

The purpose of this letter is to build bridges of goodwill and charity rooted in Christ.

As this letter is an Open Letter, we have taken the liberty to quote Your Holiness. We are sure that Your Holiness will continue to indicate by words and actions that speak louder than words, the truth, the light, the faith and the way of Christ.

On the difficulty in writing to Your Holiness in English

Speaking Italian to our countrymen is like watching a movie in colour, high definition, very clear pictures. Speaking English to them, even with our best effort, is like watching a movie in black and white”
Professor Emilio Matricciani on the Politecnico di Milano switching to English2

We have the problem in reverse and the difficulty is compounded in that English is a vast language – each discipline has its own specialised vocabulary; there is street English, formal English and legal English; there is American, English, Scottish, Australian, Indian and so on.

With regards to religion and spirituality, there is a vast amount of translated material and biographical life experience, most of which was never before available in the West – transforming and ‘pacifying’ blood lust in the West. The Almighty One is incarnate in so many, (although not all are realised Masters like our Lord Jesus Christ), that a one in a billion chance becomes a feasible reality. When Our Lord Jesus Christ said that the Lord takes thought for the morrow, the reality is quite literal: He has already created the solution to the problem, even as the problem first arises and then becomes the manifest difficulty for the Apostolic See of Peter to overcome.

Cardinal Newman on Language3

Now I shall go on presently to remark on the proposition itself which is conveyed in the words on which I have been commenting; here, however, I will first observe, that such misconceptions as I have been setting right will and must occur, from the nature of the case, whenever we speak on theological subjects in the vernacular; and if we do not use the vernacular, I do not see how the bulk of the Catholic people are to be catechised or taught at all. English has innovated on the Latin sense of its own Latin words; and if we are to speak according to the conditions of the language, {201} and are to make ourselves intelligible to the multitude, we shall necessarily run the risk of startling those who are resolved to act as mere critics and scholastics in the process of popular instruction.

This divergence from a classical or ecclesiastical standard is a great inconvenience, I grant; but we cannot remodel our mother-tongue. Crimen does not properly mean crime; amiable does not yet convey the idea of amabilis; compassio is not compassion; princeps is not a prince; disputatio is not a dispute; prævenire is not to prevent. Cicero imperator is not the Emperor Cicero; scriptor egregius is not an egregious writer; virgo singularis is not a singular virgin; retractare dicta is not to retract what he has said; and, as we know from the sacred passage, traducere is not necessarily to traduce.

Now this is not merely sharp writing, for mistakes do in matter of fact occur not unfrequently from this imperfect correspondence between theological Latin and English; showing that readers of English are bound ever to bear in mind that they are not reading Latin, and that learned divines must ever exercise charity in their interpretations of vernacular religious teaching.

For instance, I know of certain English sermons which were translated into French by some French priests. They, good and friendly men, were surprised to find in these compositions such language as “weak evidence and strong evidence,” and “insufficient, probable, demonstrative evidence;” they read that “some writers had depreciated the evidences of religion,” and that “the last century, when love was cold, was an age of evidences.” Evidentia, they said, meant that luminousness which attends on demonstration, conviction, certainty; how can it be more or less? how can it be unsatisfactory? how can a sane man disparage it? how can it be connected with religious coldness? The simple explanation of the difficulty was, that the writer was writing for his own people, and that in English "an evidence" is not evidentia.

Another instance. An excellent Italian religious, now gone to his reward, was reading a work of the same author; and he came upon a sentence to the effect, I think, that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was to be held with "implicit" faith. He was perplexed and concerned. He thought the writer held that the Church did not explicitly teach, had not explicitly defined, the dogma; that is, he confused the English meaning of the word, according to which it is a sort of correlative to imperative, meaning simple, unconditional, absolute, with its sense in theology.

As Cardinal Newman has noted, English has gone on to describe the evidence in the phenomenal world manifestation with incredible detail with degrees of probability of certainty – witness the achievements of Heisenberg and Einstein in science – that have shown how “rocks shall immediately cry out”, as they did over Hiroshima and Nagasaki and do now in the ‘energy weapons’ and other toys for the boys.

If it were not for the foresight of our Roman Fathers in the Apostolic See of Peter and his Allies for the Rule of Law, the era ahead may have been very brutal indeed.

We also see that in Latin America, on average, there is a complete dearth of knowledge in book stores, libraries and conversation. People are far simpler – we can see now that this was a deliberate choice of Your Holiness’ predecessors to protect the people living there from competitive destruction that was evidenced by the American Civil War. The kindness of Pope Benedict XVI to release the hour long video4 ‘Secret Access The Vatican 2011’ which includes the testament of Abraham Lincoln and his ‘confederate’ enemies corroborates this. Yet, ‘dumbing the population down’ is not a solution for preserving the people of the future – they will perish for lack of knowledge in handling the deadly poisons of the recent epoch.

On ‘consulting the faithful’ and the continuous Inquisition by the Holy See

Cardinal Newman:

A QUESTION has arisen among persons of theological knowledge and fair and candid minds, about the wording and the sense of a passage in the Rambler for May. It admits to my own mind of so clear and satisfactory an explanation, that I should think it unnecessary to intrude myself, an anonymous person5, between the conductors and readers of this Magazine, except that, as in dogmatic works the replies made to objections often contain the richest matter, so here too, plain remarks on a plain subject may open to the minds of others profitable thoughts, which are more due to their own superior intelligence than to the very words of the writer.

The Rambler, then, has these words at p. 122: “in the preparation of a dogmatic definition, the faithful are consulted, as lately in the instance of the Immaculate Conception.” Now {199} two questions bearing upon doctrine have been raised on this sentence, putting aside the question of fact as regards the particular instance cited, which must follow the decision on the doctrinal questions: viz. first, whether it can, with doctrinal correctness, be said that an appeal to the faithful is one of the preliminaries of a definition of doctrine; and secondly, granting that the faithful are taken into account, still, whether they can correctly be said to be consulted. I shall remark on both these points, and I shall begin with the second.

Now doubtless, if a divine were expressing himself formally, and in Latin, he would not commonly speak of the laity being “consulted” among the preliminaries of a dogmatic definition, because the technical, or even scientific, meaning of the word “consult” is to “consult with,” or to “take counsel.” But the English word “consult,” in its popular and ordinary use, is not so precise and narrow in its meaning; it is doubtless a word expressive of trust and deference, but not of submission. It includes the idea of inquiring into a matter of fact, as well as asking a judgment. Thus we talk of “consulting our barometer” about the weather:—the barometer only attests the fact of the state of the atmosphere. In like manner, we may consult a watch or a sun-dial about the time of day. A physician consults the pulse of his patient; but not in the same sense in which his patient consults him. It is but an index of the state of his health. Ecclesiastes says, “Qui observat ventum, non seminat;” we might translate it, “he who consults,” without meaning that we ask the wind’s opinion. This being considered, it was, I conceive, quite allowable for a writer, who was not teaching or treating theology, but, as it were, conversing, to say, as in the passage in question, “In the preparation of a dogmatic definition, the faithful are consulted.” Doubtless their advice, their opinion, their judgment on the question of definition is not asked; but the matter of fact, viz. their belief, is sought for, as a testimony to that apostolical tradition, on which alone any doctrine whatsoever can be defined. In like manner, we may “consult” the liturgies or the rites of the Church; not that they speak, not that they can take any part whatever in the definition, for they are documents or customs; but they are witnesses to the antiquity or universality of the doctrines which they contain, and about which they are “consulted.” And, in like manner, I certainly understood the writer in the Rambler to mean (and I think any lay reader might so understand him) that the fidelium sensus and consensus is a branch of evidence {200} which it is natural or it necessary for the Church to regard and consult, before she proceeds to any definition, from its intrinsic cogency; and by consequence, that it ever has been so regarded and consulted. And the writer's use of the word “opinion” in the foregoing sentence, and his omission of it in the sentence in question, seemed to show that, though the two cases put therein were analogous, they were not identical.

Having said as much as this, I go further, and maintain that the word “consulted,” used as it was used, was in no respect unadvisable, except so far as it distressed any learned and good men, who identified it with the Latin. I might, indeed, even have defended the word as it was used, in the Latin sense of it. Regnier both uses it of the laity and explains it. “Cùm receptam apud populos traditionem consulunt et sequuntur Episcopi, non illos habent pro magistris et ducibus, &c.” (De Eccles. Christi. p. i. § 1, c. i., ed. Migne, col. 234.) But in my bountifulness I will give up this use of the word as untheological; still I will maintain that the true theological sense is unknown to all but theologians. Accordingly, the use of it in the Rambler was in no sense dangerous to any lay reader, who, if he knows Latin, still is not called upon, in the structure of his religious ideas, to draw those careful lines and those fine distinctions, which in theology itself are the very means of anticipating and repelling heresy. The laity would not have a truer, or a clearer, or a different view of the doctrine itself, though the sentence had run, “in the preparation of a dogmatic decree, regard is had to the sense of the faithful;” or, “there is an appeal to the general voice of the faithful;” or, “inquiry is made into the belief of the Christian people;” or, “the definition is not made without a previous reference to what the faithful will think of it and say to it;” or though any other form of words had been used, stronger or weaker, expressive of the same general idea, viz. that the sense of the faithful is not left out of the question by the Holy See among the preliminary acts of defining a doctrine.

It is in this sense, that I have not left out the “sense of the faithful” in this letter. Without healing the lobotomy between the ‘rational’, discursive society created by the Latin alphabet and the symbolic, visual religion of Roman Catholic Church we would leave out the “sense of the faithful” for ‘half’ the population.

Left hemisphere industrialism has blinded the Chinese to the effects of our alphabet: pattern recognition is in the right hemisphere.

The unique innovation of the phonetic alphabet released the Greeks from the universal acoustic spill of tribal societies.

The TV generation is postliterate and retribalized. It seeks by violence to scrub the old private image and to merge in a new tribal identity, like any corporate executive.

The twentieth century encounter between alphabetic and electronic forces of culture confers on the printed word a crucial role in staying the return to “the Africa” within.

We are swiftly moving at present from an era where business was our culture into an era when culture will be our business. Between these poles stand the huge and ambiguous entertainment industries.
Quotes from Marshall McLuhan6

Democracy, a system of supposedly consulting popular sentiment, is widely touted to have ‘conquered the world’; yet even the College of Cardinals must only have a slight hint of the legal powers of the Holy See or the history that has brought us to this day. Your Holiness has already warned the diplomats7, bankers and traditionalists. It will be an act of mercy and to teach the world the true history of the past five hundred years together with the Knowledge of the living Christ, enthroned in the kingdom of Heaven that is within us. Such an act of Love would dissolve hatred, not inflame it. Such an act of Love is not nostalgia or curiosity. Such an act of Love is the awakening of Christ in our heart, making it the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Such an act of Love is lighting the lamp of wisdom-knowledge in people’s hearts so that never in the future shall man be tempted by the love of money.

Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

It is by seeking the kingdom of Heaven with Love that Our Lord has granted me insight into His estate in the kingdom of Heaven and on Earth. Having said all that, we must now go on to inquire and discriminate what is true Fatherly Love. We must look further into language:

In the English language, a Catholic Inquisition brings up images of the historical atrocities in Spain. In English, inquire is innocent enough, discrimination is a better English word for separating truth from falsehood. Cardinal Newman again:

Physicians evade the questions of sick persons about themselves; friends break bad news gradually, and with temporary concealments, to those whom it may shock. Parents shuffle with their children. Statesmen, ministers in Parliament, baffle adversaries in every possible way short of a direct infringement of veracity. When St. Athanasius saw that he was pursued on the Nile by the imperial officers, he turned round his boat and met them; when they came up to his party and hailed them, and asked whether they had seen any thing of Athanasius, Athanasius cried out, "O yes, he is not far from you;" and off the vessels went in different directions as swiftly as they could go, each boat on its own errand, the pursuer and the pursued. I do not see that there is in any of these instances what is expressed by the English word “equivocation;” but it is the æquivocatio of a Latin treatise; and when Protestants hear that æquivocamus sine scrupulo, they are shocked at the notion of our “unscrupulous equivocation.”

Now, in saying all this, I must not be supposed to be forgetful {203} of the sacred and imperative duty of preserving with religious exactness all those theological terms which are ecclesiastically recognised as portions of dogmatic statements, such as Trinity, Person, Consubstantial, Nature, Transubstantiation, Sacrament, &c. It would be unpardonable for a Catholic to teach “justification by faith only,” and say that he meant by “faith” fides formata, or “justification without works,” and say that he meant by “works” the works of the Jewish ritual; but granting all this fully, still if our whole religious phraseology is, as a matter of duty, to be modelled in strict conformity to theological Latin, neither the poor nor children will understand us. I have always fancied that to preachers great license was allowed, not only in the wording, but even in the matter of their discourses; they exaggerate and are rhetorical, and they are understood piè as speaking more prædicatorio. I have always fancied that, when Catholics were accused of hyperbolical language towards the Blessed Virgin, it was replied that devotion was not the measure of doctrine; nor surely is the vernacular of a magazine writer. I do not see that I am wrong in considering that a periodical, not treating theology ex professo, but accidentally alluding to an ecclesiastical act, commits no real offence if it uses an unscientific word, since it speaks, not more digladiatorio, but colloquialiter.

I shall conclude this head of my subject with allusion to a passage in the history of St. Dionysius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria, though it is beyond my purpose; but I like to quote a saint whom, multis nominibus (not “with many names,” or “by many nouns”), I have always loved most of all the Ante-Nicene Fathers. It relates to an attack which was made on his orthodoxy; a very serious matter. Now I know every one will be particular on his own special science or pursuits. I am the last man to find fault with such particularity. Drill-sergeants think much of deportment; hard logicians come down with a sledge-hammer even on a Plato who does not happen to enumerate in his beautiful sentence all the argumentative considerations which go to make up his conclusion; scholars are horrified, as if with sensible pain, at the perpetration of a false quantity. I am far from ridiculing, despising, or even undervaluing such precision; it is for the good of every art and science that it should have vigilant guardians. Nor am I comparing such precision (far from it) with that true religious zeal which leads theologians to keep the sacred Ark of the Covenant in every letter of its dogma, as a tremendous deposit for which they are responsible. In this curious sceptical world, such sensitiveness {204} is the only human means by which the treasure of faith can be kept inviolate. There is a woe in Scripture against the unfaithful shepherd. We do not blame the watch-dog because he sometimes flies at the wrong person. I conceive the force, the peremptoriness, the sternness, with which the Holy See comes down upon the vagrant or the robber, trespassing upon the enclosure of revealed truth, is the only sufficient antagonist to the power and subtlety of the world, to imperial comprehensiveness, monarchical selfishness, nationalism, the liberalism of philosophy, the encroachments and usurpations of science. I grant, I maintain all this; and after this avowal, lest I be misunderstood, I venture to introduce my notice of St. Dionysius. He was accused on a far worse charge, and before a far more formidable tribunal, than commonly befalls a Catholic writer; for he was brought up before the Holy See on a denial of our Lord's divinity. He had been controverting with the Sabellians; and he was in consequence accused of the doctrine to which Arius afterwards gave his name, that is, of considering our Lord a creature. He says, writing in his defence, that when he urged his opponents with the argument that "a vine and a vine-dresser were not the same," neither, therefore, were the “Father and the Son,” these were not the only illustrations that he made use of, nor those on which he dwelt, for he also spoke of “a root and a plant,” “a fount and a stream,” which are not only distinct from each other, but of one and the same nature. Then he adds, “But my accusers have no eyes to see this portion of my treatise; but they take up two little words detached from the context, and proceed to discharge them at me as pebbles from a sling.” If even a saint's words are not always precise enough to allow of being made a dogmatic text, much less are those of any modern periodical.

The conclusion I would draw from all I have been saying is this: Without deciding whether or not it is advisable to introduce points of theology into popular works, and especially whether it is advisable for laymen to do so, still, if this actually is done, we are not to expect in them that perfect accuracy of expression which I demanded in a Latin treatise or a lecture ex cathedrâ; and if there be a want of this exactness, we must not at once think it proceeds from self-will and undutifulness in the writers.

We quote Cardinal Newman extensively from his essay on consulting, for we wish to offer Your Holiness a test that distinguishes the worshippers of Caesar’s idols amidst those who claim to be loyal servants of Christ, whilst offering a way of teaching that can ignite an era of genuine, balanced spirituality rooted in Christ.

The Nicene Fathers were very clear that God the Father, and Christ the Son were of the same substance and that there was not one iota of difference.

The test is simple: “Does our Church teach about Christ and Satan?”

Those who answer yes are in the Church of Two, Satan in opposition to Christ, the Church of Matter and Spirit8, the Church of Caesar that crucifies Christ; bread (food) and circuses (entertainment) for the people, knowledge of all types reserved for priests, aristocrats, bishops and kings and amnesia for the people in the name of forgiveness. This is the Church of Roman Gentiles who ruled as before by substituting the religion of ‘Two’ with another. This is the Church that forbid inquiry of phenomena, that enforced the ‘flat earth policy’, that oversaw the destruction of Greek wisdom-knowledge. Tyranny of the Bishop (star chamber courts) when people are obedient and tyranny of Caesar when they step out of line (fight in war or face the execution squad). This is the Church of Uniformity, accept the crucifixion of Christ or try the comfy chair. This is the Church of the marriage of Two – the One marriage Trust between man and woman with the Church – a marriage granted by Two. This is the Church that enforces praying in long robes in public9, a pastor in the role of ‘Spiritual Centurion’ of a hundred men – this Roman meme also seen reflected in the administration of a wappentake.

What horrors has the Church of Two not committed in the name of Christ? This is the Church that worships Force, the Church of persecution by the sword and by the pen, creating the martyrs that it lusts for. This is the Church rightfully subject to chastisement and the Magna Carta wars of the past five hundred years by God Almighty Himself – the Church of fresh wounds on the body of Christ. Who but Our Lord has borne the burden?10 Those who fail the test will immediately deny Him manifest in their own flesh. It is through consciousness rooted in Christ within that one becomes aware of one’s own flesh and the world in which that flesh lives. He has sent this Court of Record to heal the lobotomy of the Western mind and return all men and women to the Almighty One through Christ who lives within.

Speaking in English, this test is liable to be misunderstood. Symbolic language is not useful in communicating to Americans, for example, who have failed to take cognisance of the jurisdiction indicated on their one dollar bill, or the French who have this lovely garden at the Loire11. Similarly, English translated into the Latin family of French, Spanish and Italian is not useful for setting an appointment or signing an agreement or putting something in trust – una cosa mas intervenes and fine temporal distinctions are lost. It is worse when one discusses matters of the spirit. About a decade ago, speaking through a fluent French interpreter, we talked to a French family about the English word Mind with a capital M (as used by Paul Brunton), to distinguish it from Spirit (as it is used in the popular vernacular). We found it impossible, for both are translated as esprit in French.

As Cardinal Newman said, we must exercise charity when teaching:

Now this is not merely sharp writing, for mistakes do in matter of fact occur not unfrequently from this imperfect correspondence between theological Latin and English; showing that readers of English are bound ever to bear in mind that they are not reading Latin, and that learned divines must ever exercise charity in their interpretations of vernacular religious teaching.

Get thee behind me, Satan, said Our Lord. The image is of a Roman soldier getting into line; forming or symbolising One, led by Our Lord, the Chief. In Buddhist teaching, this is directly and simply stated Mind is the Chief of thoughts. From the Dhammapada:

  1. Mind precedes all mental states.
    Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought.
    If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts
    suffering follows him
    like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

  2. Mind precedes all mental states.
    Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought.
    If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts
    happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

  3. He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me.”
    Those who harbour such thoughts
    do not still their hatred.

  4. He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me.”
    Those who do not harbour such thoughts
    still their hatred.

  5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world.
    By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased.
    This is a law eternal.

A Christian translation in romantic symbols, as contrasted to the English translation above, would say, Christ precedes all mental cogitation, the domain of Satan, who tempts one into sin and lust for the fruits of the tree of knowledge, which is another word for ignorance of our Mind rooted in One Christ, Our Father in Heaven, by thoughts like, “He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me”, the bitter fruits of the tree of knowledge. This kind of thinking, curiosity and nostalgia for the past, is indulging in the temptation of sin. By love and forgiveness alone is hatred appeased.

Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

17:4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.

Realisation of Mind is not attainment of a blank state, it is the ‘second coming’ of the living Christ in our innermost being, the true baptism or second birth, the living wisdom-knowledge that our flesh is the word of God made manifest.

Realisation of Christ in the kingdom of Heaven within us is the goal of life; with success one sees one’s body and the world/universe in which we live as one’s body.

The Sage, then, has gone through a process of reasoning when he expounds his act to others; but in relation to himself he is Vision: such a man is already set, not merely in regard to exterior things but also within himself, towards what is one and at rest: all his faculty and life are inward bent.

Plotinus III.8.6

Plotinus, the great Greek cosmologist of the soul, is expounding the ‘Holy See’ (translated Vision above) and “seek ye first the kingdom of God”. Plotinus, read with the universal principles of God communion elucidated by Paul Brunton, opens up our faith in Jesus Christ, One with Our Father in Heaven and reveals the cosmology of theology.

Another book that points to the unity of Christian and Eastern thought that was initiated by Our Father in Heaven, simply Babaji in Hindi, is Kaivalya Darsanam, by Swami Yuketeswar Giri – a title that we would translate as ‘Holy See’. In this book is outlined the unity of Christian and Indian thought in Sanskrit and English, the cosmic fact that we now are in the Treta Yuga or the Age of Electricities – the age in which we live, where man has direct knowledge of the fine electricities and the relation of this age to the sidereal zodiac. In this thesis of the oneness of Christian and Indian though, we find the following:

Man, thus comprehending, abandons altogether the vain idea of the separate existence of his own Self and becomes unified with Him, the Eternal Spirit, God the Father. This unification with God is Kaivalya, the ultimate [holy] goal of man, as explained in this treatise. See Revelation 3:21

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.”

When, with the help of scientific apparatus, one looks into the remote cosmos with the Hubble space telescope, we are looking into Christ’s body. Such seeing does not result in the living-wisdom-knowledge of Christ as one’s being, for the kingdom of God is not outside us, but within us. To forbid astronomy and astrology is to forbid knowledge, to bring Satan’s darkness upon the glorious Nature of Christ. The holographic images of the cosmos bring wonder and awe, for in the cosmos is writ the Power and Reality of Our Father in Heaven which Plotinus expounds, whose dim adumbrations echo to us in so-called newspaper ‘astrology’.

This re-cognition of one, the unity of life, is not the ‘uniformity’ that the ‘traditionalists12’ wish to impose, as Your Holiness has already pointed out. The symbolic ‘about turn’ of the reforms of Vatican II to the liturgy are lost on such people who indulge in nostalgia … all of which points to the need to bring men and women directly to Christ who lives in their hearts in the kingdom of God, the only ‘identity card’ needed to travel and trade across the world. As Your Holiness has succinctly stated:

Pope Francis13: “We are sons of God thanks to Jesus: no one can take away this ‘identity card’. This is how I identify myself: as a child of God! What a beautiful identity! Civil status: we are free! Amen.”

Pope John XXIII Pacem in Tetris

Pope John XXIII’s last encyclical, Pacem in Tetris or Peace on Earth, published on 11 April 1963, helped diffuse the Cuban missile crisis. At that critical time, Planet Earth came within one USSR nuclear submarine commander, Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov’s countermand of an order to launch a nuclear strike14.

What is unknown and unappreciated is that it is known to us that there were sages present on Earth who were awake to Christ, who were tasked by the Earth’s four guardian Archangels to contemplate on and to raise the consciousness of world leaders to prevent nuclear war.

The Biblical story of Abraham’s plea to the Lord that the city of Sodom be spared if ten righteous men could be found therein, and the divine reply: “I will not destroy it for ten's sake,” gains new meaning in the light of India's escape from the oblivion of Babylon, Egypt and other mighty nations who were once her contemporaries. The Lord's answer clearly shows that a land lives, not by its material achievements, but in its masterpieces of man.

Let the divine words be heard again, in this twentieth century, twice dyed in blood ere half over: No nation that can produce ten men, great in the eyes of the Unbribable Judge, shall know extinction. Heeding such persuasions, India has proved herself not witless against the thousand cunnings of time.

Paramahansa Yogananda, Autobiography of a Yogi

On Vatican II, Pope John XXIII’s legacy, we quote the following15:

The Council has introduced significant updates to the liturgy, biblical studies and dialogue with other Churches. It reaffirmed the rights of faithful, including that of religious freedom. It gave lay people a new and more active role in the Church. It would be wrong to reduce Vatican II to a set of approved documents, even though in certain cases these are absolutely innovative from an ecclesial and cultural point of view. Through the use of spoken languages, the leading role of faithful in the liturgical assembly, the adoption of sometimes divisive musical methods and of musical languages, the new Mass deeply transformed the life of Catholics throughout the world. A new era began with the approval of the constitution “Sacrosanctum Concilium” which reformed the liturgy in December 1963. The Church would no longer be the same again. Vatican II essentially marked a watershed moment which changed the face of the Church.

Freedom of Conscience

In Great Britain, freedom of conscience emerged as a force to overcome tyranny. The historical and legal testament to this fact is to be found in the evolution of the Privy Council oath. In our current investigation of British Parliament MPs and Lords, we have to ask, “do we have ‘remote controlled’ members of the legislature, ‘whipped’ to perform or are they free to vote their conscience?”

We note Your Holiness’ lesson on this subject, compact and clear:

The Pope based his remarks16 on Luke 9 which tells how Jesus made the concrete decision to travel to Jerusalem, where he would be crucified.

“Jesus, in his earthly life, was not, so to speak, 'remote-controlled,'” he said. “He was the Word made flesh, the son of God made man, and at one point he made a firm decision to go up to Jerusalem for the last time.”

During his reflection, Pope Francis also emphasized that Jesus never imposes his will on anyone but “extends invitations,” and “invites us.”

The pontiff added that what Jesus wants is for Christians to be free and that the way to do this is through “the inner dialogue with God in conscience.”

“If a Christian does not know how to talk with God, does not know how to listen to God, in his own conscience, then he is not free,” he stressed.

The Pope underscored that the faithful must learn to listen more to their consciences, but that “this does not mean we ought to follow our ego, do whatever interests us, whatever suits us, whatever pleases us.”

Conscience, he explained, is “the interior space in which we can listen to and hear the truth, the good, the voice of God.”

On Love

The service Our Lord Jesus Christ renders to the Children of Our Father in Heaven can best be described by the word “Love”. Contemplation of the qualities of such love are captured by Swami Vivekananda17:

We may represent love as a triangle, each of the angles of which corresponds to one of its inseparable characteristics. There can be no triangle without all its three angles; and there can be no true love without its three following characteristics. The first angle of our triangle of love is that love knows no bargaining. Wherever there is any seeking for something in return, there can, be no real love; it becomes a mere matter of shop-keeping. As long as there is in us any idea of deriving this or that favour from God in return for our respect and allegiance to Him, so long there can be no true love growing in our hearts. Those who worship God because they wish Him to bestow favours on them are sure not to worship Him if those favours are not forthcoming. The Bhakta [lover of Our Lord] loves the Lord because He is lovable, there is no other motive originating or directing this divine emotion of the true devotee.

We have heard it said that a great king once went into a forest and there met a sage. He talked with the sage a little and was very much pleased with his purity and wisdom. The king then wanted the sage to oblige him by receiving a present from him. The sage refused to do so, saying, “The fruits of the forest are enough food for me; the pure streams of water flowing down from the mountains give enough drink for me; the barks of the trees supply me with enough covering; and the caves of the mountains form my home. Why should I take any present from you or from anybody?” The king said, “Just to benefit me, sir, please take something from my hands and please come with me to the city and to my palace.” After much persuasion, the sage at last consented to do as the king desired and went with him to his palace. Before offering the gift to the sage, the king repeated his prayers, saying, “Lord, give me more children; Lord, give me more wealth; Lord, give me more territory; Lord, keep my body in better health”, and so on. Before the king finished saying his prayer, the sage had got up and walked away from the room quietly. At this the king became perplexed and began to follow him, crying aloud, “Sir, you are going away, you have not received my gifts.” The sage turned round to him and said, “I do not beg of beggars. You are yourself nothing but a beggar, and how can you give me anything? I am no fool to think of taking anything from a beggar like you. Go away, do not follow me.”

There is well brought out the distinction between mere beggars and the real lovers of God. Begging is not the language of love. To worship God even for the sake of salvation or any other rewards equally degenerate. Love knows no reward. Love is always for love's sake. The Bhakta loves because he cannot help loving. When you see a beautiful scenery and fall in love with it, you do not demand anything in the way of favour from the scenery, nor does the scenery demand anything from you. Yet the vision thereof brings you to a blissful state of the mind; it tones down all the friction in your soul, it makes you calm, almost raises you, for the time being, beyond your mortal nature and places you in a condition of quite divine ecstasy. This nature of real love is the first angle of our triangle. Ask not anything in return for your love; let your position be always that of the giver; give your love unto God, but do not ask anything in return even from Him.

The second angle of the triangle of love is that love knows no fear. Those that love God through fear are the lowest of human beings, quite undeveloped as men. They worship God from fear of punishment. He is a great Being to them, with a whip in one hand and the sceptre in the other; if they do not obey Him, they are afraid they will be whipped. It is a degradation to worship God through fear of punishment; such worship is, if worship at all, the crudest form of the worship of love. So long as there is any fear in the heart, how can there be love also? Love conquers naturally all fear. Think of a young mother in the street and a dog barking at her; she is frightened and flies into nearest house. But suppose the next day she is in the street with her child, and a lion springs upon the child. Where will be her position now? Of course, in the very mouth of the lion, protecting her child. Love conquers all fear. Fear comes from the selfish idea of cutting one's self off from the universe. The smaller and the more selfish I make myself, the more is my fear. If a man thinks he is a little nothing, fear will surely come upon him. And the less you think of yourself as an insignificant person, the less fear there will be for you. So long as there is the least spark of fear in you there can be no love there. Love and fear are incompatible; God is never to be feared by those who love Him. The commandment, “Do not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain”, the true lover of God laughs at. How can there be any blasphemy in the religion of love? The more you take the name of the Lord, the better for you, in whatever way you may do it. You are only repeating His name because you love Him.

The third angle of the love-triangle is that love knows no rival, for in it is always embodied the lover's highest ideal. True love never comes until the object of our love becomes to us our highest ideal. It may be that in many cases human love is misdirected and misplaced, but to the person who loves, the thing he loves is always his own highest idea. One may see his ideal in the vilest of beings, and another in the highest of beings; nevertheless, in every case it is the ideal alone that can be truly and intensely loved. The highest ideal of every man is called God. Ignorant or wise, saint or sinner, man or woman, educated or uneducated, cultivated or uncultivated, to every human being the highest ideal is God. The synthesis of all the highest ideals of beauty, of sublimity, and of power gives us the completest conception of the loving and lovable God.

These ideals exist in some shape or other in every mind naturally; they form a part and parcel of all our minds. All the active manifestations of human nature are struggles of those ideals to become realised in practical life. All the various movements that we see around us in society are caused by the various ideals in various souls trying to come out and become concretised; what is inside presses on to come outside. This perennially dominant influence of the ideal is the one force, the one motive power, that may be seen to be constantly working in the midst of mankind. It may be after hundreds of births, after struggling through thousands of years, that man finds that it is vain to try to make the inner ideal mould completely the external conditions and square well with them; after realising this he no more tries to project his own ideal on the outside world, but worships the ideal itself as ideal from the highest standpoint of love. This ideally perfect ideal embraces all lower ideals. Every one admits the truth of the saying that a lover sees Helen's beauty on an Ethiop's brow. The man who is standing aside as a looker-on sees that love is here misplaced, but the lover sees his Helen all the same and does not see the Ethiop at all. Helen or Ethiop, the objects of our love are really the centres round which our ideals become crystallised. What is it that the world commonly worships? Not certainly this all-embracing, ideally perfect ideal of the supreme devotee and lover. That ideal which men and women commonly worship is what is in themselves; every person projects his or her own ideal on the outside world and kneels before it. That is why we find that men who are cruel and blood-thirsty conceive of a bloodthirsty God, because they can only love their own highest ideal. That is why good men have a very high ideal of God, and their ideal is indeed so very different from that of others.

Seeking Our Lord in the Kingdom of Heaven within, pursuing Him out of such pure Love, the lover of Our Lord dives into his own Being, stilling his mind following the ancient advice from Psalms 46:10, “Be still and know that I am God”, his thoughts, even of body and world, subside whilst awake and melt into Being. One’s ego ceases to exist (ex-ist) and Is-ness or I-am-ness remains.

For such love to manifest, one must not be tempted by Satan’s bitter fruits on the tree of Knowledge. The ego, receptacle of such thoughts must die, as Saint Paul says in Corinthians 15:31, “I die daily”. The practices to defeat the ego are explained in simple language by Paul Brunton and covered in the transcribed talks of Anthony Damiani, Standing In Your Own Way. He goes on to outline in Looking Into Mind and Living Wisdom, the wisdom nature of a Sage, one who is awake in Christ.

Paul Brunton18 outlines the resolve to serve God’s children that such Love brings:

We are asked: What is the interpretation of a sentence in that excellent little book Light on the Path by Mabel Collins, which runs “For within you is the light of the world--the only light that can be shed upon the Path. If you are unable to perceive it within you, it is useless to look for it elsewhere. It is beyond you; because when you reach it you have lost yourself. It is unattainable because it forever recedes. You will enter the light but you will never touch the flame.”

The meaning of this mysterious sentence is that the sage refuses to claim the ultimate mergence which is his right because he refuses to desert “the great orphan Humanity.” He stops short at the very threshold of Nirvana [kingdom of God, the Almighty One, the mathematical singularity where universes bloom as lotuses in a pond] simply to remain here and help others reach that threshold. Thus by his altruistic activity, meditative power, and intellectual penetration he continuously earns a title to that utter absorption of his ego in the unutterable Absolute which is Nirvana, but by his continuous self-giving for suffering mankind he never actually attains this goal. This extraordinary situation may be represented mathematically by the asymptote--a line which is drawn on a graph to approach nearer and nearer to a given curve but which never actually touches it within a finite distance. Only a man who feels with and for his fellow creatures will dare to make such a tremendous sacrifice of the supreme peace which he has won. How much more generous, how nobly grander is this example of ever-active altruistic service than that of ever-idle meditative reclusiveness!

The Power of Love

Declaring the Law of Christ, which is but a declaration of such pure love, exemplified by the life and teaching of Our Lord, One Christ, Our Father in Heaven is accompanied by great power as Paul Brunton19 describes regarding Buddha:

Conscious of danger in its depth, I would not preach the Law of Laws to men.” Thus Buddha told his disciples of one of the reasons why he first refused to make public his discovery of ultimate truth. To whom was this danger? If to himself, he was above fear. It was to his own generation. He expressly declared, on another occasion, “I have seen these things before, yet I did not reveal them. I might have revealed it, and others would not have believed it. Now, had they not believed me, it would have been to their loss and sorrow.” Buddha meant--and his meaning is further elucidated by other sayings--that those to whom he offers mystical truth and reject it, will bring hurt upon themselves by the very act of rejection. Such truth is accompanied by great power. It cannot be separated from its sayer. The sage doubted is the truth doubted. The sage rejected is the truth rejected. When this happens, the accompanying power--which would have blessed and helped if believed in--still affects those it touches but affects them adversely. It is like electricity, which is so useful a servant of man but so dangerous when not rightly treated, which may save life or destroy it altogether. The Prophet of an age or a continent knows these facts, as the law that brings him into birth knows it too. Consequently he appears when humanity has passed through such tremendous self-earned sufferings that the risk involved in saying the Word and thus showing them the only true way out, becomes an act of mercy by contrast.

Conscious of the great responsibility entrusted in declaring the Gospel of Our Lord, we have waited for the sign to so declare it, to those who must now act with the Power that it so confers. Such Power is not utopia worship, it leads to knowledge in depth of the Estate of Our Lord Jesus Christ on Earth and in the kingdom of God.

We take delight in the publication of Lumen Fidei and look forward to an era of “faith with works”, fearlessly going forward to embrace a border-less, identity-card or ‘passport’ free, debt free future for the Children of Our Lord, based on Love, knowledge and forgiveness.

We pray to Our Lord Jesus Christ that He guide us to those with a love of Truth, to those who can lead the world with love, charity and charisma, to whom we can give our knowledge of His estate on Earth and in the Kingdom of God so that the Children of Our Lord be free from fear and blessed with an abundance of life and peace.

We pray to Our Lord Jesus Christ that He bless Our Father Francis and Our Father Benedict XVI with divine love and fearlessness.

Yours faithfully,

Joseph Ray Sundarsson

Ref: GICOR/Pope-Francis-2-final





5Father Newman expresses my exact sentiment on intruding myself, an anonymous person, between the conductors of the Catholic faith and the faithful. Having taken this question in contemplation to the Lord, Pope Benedict XVI himself gave public answer, “I thought the Lord was asleep”. Indeed, we first heard His Holiness’ cry in the Christmas sermon published in 2012, to which our response was to write to Professor Richard Dawkins first, so we come with a “work of faith”.


Please don’t be ridiculous, either be saints or go back to the diocese and be a pastor, but don’t be ridiculous in the diplomatic service, where there is so much danger of becoming worldly in spirituality,” Pope Francis said June 6. … “Careerism is leprosy! Leprosy! Please, no careerism!” he pleaded.

8See Garden of Eden mind map available in the thesis before Parliament and at the link below:


9www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2012/10/01/the-southampton-priest-was-right-to-ban-yoga-classes/ - this ‘priest’ is no priest in the Universal ‘Catholic’ Church of Christ. Yoga means ‘union with God, the Almighty One’. The secrets of ‘how to’ reveal our inherent ‘union with God’ and the rational explanations of the epistemology, cosmology and theology are available in the English vernacular. Raja Yoga (the method of Royal Union with One) is contemplation of Him, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the King who lives within.

10On the feast of Saint Thomas the Apostle, Pope Francis said that encountering Christ is done by reaching out to our “wounded brothers” in works of mercy – touching Jesus’ own wounds.

“We find Jesus’ wounds in carrying out works of mercy, giving to the body – the body – and also to the soul, but the body, I stress, of your wounded brother,” the Bishop of Rome taught at his homily for daily Mass at the chapel of Saint Martha House in the Vatican July 3.

“Because”, Pope Francis added, “he is hungry, because he is thirsty, because he is naked, because he is humiliated, because he is a slave, because he is in jail, because he is in hospital. Those are the wounds of Jesus today.”


The traditionalists of Pope Pius X, whose election process has historical significance, is outlined in our Letter Rogatory to the British Parliament.