The Plan is ready. Will you support economic growth at this General Cononference

greenspun.com : LUSENET : A.M.E. Today Discussion : One Thread
Brothers and Sisters Greetings and Blessings to you all. With four weeks to go before General Conference GC2004 I ask you all this question. After three years of discussion on this board with full questions and answers, are you prepared to give the economic empowerment plan of Sen. Santucci and I your support going into GC2004?

We have shown that by your support and votes at GC2004 we can enact legislation to change the financial picture of our Church to the best it has ever been. We have shown how revenue can be raised and where it can be deposited. This plan would only succeed with your support as we would need some of you involved in the various committees and boards once approved.

To change our financial picture would reduce the assessments of each Church and eventually eliminate assessments over the long term. How do you feel about this? Are you prepared to pray and support us?

Let us know either here or directly through my email.

Thank you and God Bless You

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2004

Answers

It is time for a season of change and growth, and I stand with you.

Vaya con dios, mi hermano!



-- Anonymous, May 26, 2004

As long as the revenues from this financial empowerment plan end up properly funding the AME church and are properly accounted for, as opposed to fattening the pockets of some that are in high places, then I am all for this proposal. God bless.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2004
Ahh, Parson Harper, can you kindly translate? I live in Northwest FL not Southeast FL where such expressions are used with regularity :-) QED

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2004
Vaya con dios, mi hermano!

Go with God, my brother!

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2004

Bro Dickens:

Since you are our self-proclaimed resident economist do we get the benefit of your expert opinion? I hope so.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2004

I personally wrote and submitted legislation for the financial security of our church. I spent two years researching and working on it. I fully believe it would have been accepted, workable and feasible and that it would have put us in excellent financial standing for generations to come. It passed through several divisions of the Lay Organization where it was voted and agreed upon. Since Bill Dickens saw the legislation he can vouch for the validity of it.

However, some of our elected officials and the “power that be”—ones who should have been most concerned about the financial status of our church--forced it to be thrown out in committee so that the General Conference will never get the opportunity to consider and vote on it.

So, my bother my comment to you is that we will have to wait and see what happens at the General Conference with our elected officials and the “powers that be”.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2004

Bro. Brangman and or Senator Rev. Santucci, Could you let us know whether and how accountability is built into your plan? Raising money is not the problem, being transparent about what happens to it is. Case in point, the sad saga of Morris Brown. What happened to de money?! We do not have an answer because we have not in the past insisted upon accountability in church financial matters. To be clear in this less than perfect communications medium, neither you nor Rev. Santucci are responsible for Morris Brown other than to the extent every member shares some responsibility. My point is that in every discussion about the finances of the Church the prevailing problems we have is a lack of trust in how funds are administered (which leads to less revenues) and lack of accountability. Therefore any plan, old or new must deal with this fundamental issue.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2004
"E" opines -

"Since you are our self-proclaimed resident economist"

Lord John Maynard Keynes stated in his book Economic Consequences of Peace (1920) that all politicians are slaves to the ideas of some economist. So, until some of my professional colleagues like Glenn C. Loury, William A. Darity, Whilemina Leigh, William Spriggs, Julianne Malveaux, Bernard Anderson and others join this BB, I guess I'm it :-) FYI. There is an interesting concept developed by the esteemed Princeton University economist Alan Blinder called Murphy's Law of Economists. It goes something like this. Economists exert the least influence on public policy in matters that they know best and exert the greatest influence in matters they know least. I reviewed the Brangaman-Santourri plan for financial empowerment last year and gave it my unconditional support. You can draw your own conclusions about my degree of influence :-) QED

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2004

Thank You all for your responses thus far

To Sister Augusta, Yes all monies will be aimed for the AME Church and will provide audited financial statements. To Bro. Robert I too am waiting and praying for a positive response from the GC2004. I was succesful in 2000 with the Re-insurance program launch.I hope and pray we will see continuance with this.

Rev. Harper your fascinating response and support I appreciate. I agree that a review (positive or negative) from the Distinguished Professor QED would be appreciated as he is an independant thinker and economist.

Blessings to you all

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2004

No. I am not prepared to support the proposed plan. As I understand it, the plan will make a central or unified financial plan with the flow of local church finances upward to the episcopal level. This type of plan is much like our (US) Federal Government and the taxes continue to rise.

Any plan that I support must begin with the reduction of our Bishop/General Officer staff by at minimum 50%, with corresponding reduction in the Middle Management (Presiding Elder Staff. The plan must also include improving the quality of life and impowerment of our pastors, with the primary focus moving toward the local church. Why 50%? In the past 50 years our membership has decreased by more than 50% and the overhead should likewise decrease. Instead, we are planning to elect even more bishops and general officers at this General Conference.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2004

"...The plan must also include improving the quality of life and impowerment of our pastors, with the primary focus moving toward the local church..."

I totally agree. Unless this plan has the local pastors in mind, who, by the way, have no "guaranteed salary" plan, supported by the administration of the AME Church, then this plan sounds like it is for the benefit of those (in high places) that already have some financial guarantees that are currently in place. Unless we can agree upon a plan that will benefit "the least of these" on up, then I do not support it. But them, I am just a very small fry. God bless.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2004

Responses to the following posts.

The accountability component built into this plan is based on three features. 1. This plan would be incorporated into a for profit corporation with the Board being comprised of primarily lay members of each of the first 13 districts. One member of Clergy per District with 2 lay from the districts.

2. The company would post semi-annual reports both paper and electonic with audited statements annually. Electronic access would be allowed for every registered member of the Church by registration security of every District.

3. Full reporting of finances shall be listed at every annual General Board meeting.

No Directors fees would be paid to anyone involved in this program. The only monies paid out monthly would be for employee salaries.

Rev. Byrd I am happy to provide any additional information you would desire.

Rev. Paris and Sister Augusta The most important component of the plan is to reduce the annual costs to each Church. After 10 years in this program the fully developed program would be able to pay the full operational costs of the General Church. This would remove the Annual Conference Assessments of every Church. After 15 years there would be an endowement fund available for Churches to solicit for financial assistance in program building or development. The fund would also reserve an annual contingency for education institutions. The overseas component would work to gradually remove Missionary Districts from the roll though economic empowerment. This would increase the amount available for global missions.

This would enable Churches to hold onto all of their assessments and better pay Pastors while increasing the Church Plant and facilities. The plan would leave Churches more to invest in YPD programs as well as Church School. The plan is not to just add more weight to the Church but provide balanced growth to increase membership without marginalizing our ability to service the growth.

Rev. Paris and Sister Augusta I look forward to your review of the details listed in previous posts. In order to succeed Rev. Paris I hope you remember my request for your assistance in setting up the Credit Union System you shared previously. Please feel free to continue asking questions.

Blessings from Bermuda

I hope this information is helpful.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2004

First and foremost, the salaries of every pastor must be such that he/she can devote full time to ministry and must be paid by the connection regardless of the size of the local church. You cannot require a minister to get a MDIV/PHD and expect to send him/her to a church that cannot pay a comparable salary. BE Blessed

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2004
Why are people so afraid of this economic plan? Let just do it. What harm could result from it?

Jazzman

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2004

The Bishops and General Officers have a very good retirement plan and their salaries are gauranteed, paid by the connection. The Presiding Elders are paid a full time living wage. The bishops see to it that the presiding elders are paid a living wage and retirement plan. The pastors are left at the mercy of the local church. The discipline requires a minimum salary for a pastor with a loophole if the church simply cannot afford it. In Texas, most of the churches have a total income of less than $100K/Year. Half of the Texas Church's annual income is less than $50K. They simply cannot pay a pastor $50K per year and provide maintenance on the property and other expenses. In other words, give the pastors the same type of package as the General Officers and I will support such a package.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2004
Jazzman,

No one is necessarily "afraid" of this economic plan. As Rev. Paris so eloquently states, some "financial" issues affecting the local church and "local" pastors need to be addressed and put into writing, or this economic system will not work. Or, let me correct myself. Only certain leaders that are benefitting from the current economic and financial status of the church will benefit from this new economic plan. We just cannot continue to have a connectional system and local churches that report to a connectional body, yet the connectional body has no financial responsibility for the local pastor nor the local church. The system is just not working. The economic system Brother Nalton proposes sounds good, but a better guarantee for those servants on the front lines (the pastors) and the flock (the local church and parishioners) needs to be implemented. Why is our leadership afraid to do that? God bless.

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2004

By way of observation:

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2004
I have recently been told that the Lay Delegates to the General Conference have the most freedom in their voting, than do the Pastoral Delegates. Can someone elaborate on this aspect? I ask this question because it would appear to me the thing for the Lay Delegates to do is to plan, and agree on what is best for our denomination, and VOTE THAT WAY as a body. Any comments?

Thank You

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2004

Brother Brangman,

Forgive me but, I'm a realatively new member to the board and - well - I haven't seen a plan. I've read discussion about a concept. I've seen back and forth banter about this aspect of finances and that, but - no plan. Is it too big to post? If not please do, otherwise please send to my email address - I would be interested in reviewing it and supporting it if sound.

In His Service,

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2004

Sister Ransom,

Since final decisions of the General Conference are determined by secret ballot vote; and given the fact that there are as many ministerial delegates as lay, How can it be considered that the Lay have more freedom than the Ministers to vote or that one has more power than the other when the final votes are cast?

However, given the fact that the Bishops, General Officers, Chaplains and College Presidents, most of who are also ministers, also have a vote; it would appear that the weight falls more heavily on the Ministerial side.

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2004

Broter Ron I would be happy to send it to you or re-publish it on this BB. This plan is the brain child of Sen. Rev.Dr. Leonard Santucci and I and it is designed for the needs of every constituency of our Church with the objective of removing the financial shackles of the local Church while spiriting growth within the various areas of out denomination God Bless You

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2004
Brother Brangman,

Please do publish it again to this BB. I'm sure we'd all benefit from seeing the plan in its 'close-to-complete' form.

Thanks,

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2004

A follow-up to Sis. Ransom's comment. The American Baptist Association elected a layperson once (early 1990s) as the head (President) of their denomination. This was significant because the individual was a black female, an attorney and the wife of the pastor of Shiloh Baptist Church in Washington, DC. The Lay in the American Baptist Association is inter-racial, exercise real influence and are actively involved in all key decision making activities. The AME Church, like most denominations, is run and managed by the clergy. It would only be logical therefore for voting delegates to vote according to the self-interests of the dominant class. The centralization and concentration of power and decision-making is invested in the clergy. One need not be a neo-Marxian critic to understand this basic truth. With a few exceptions like my AME mentor Paulette Coleman, Richard Lewis or his predecessor Joe McKinney very few Lay even hold General Officer positions. This is the historical and current reality and until a major change is created which results in real power sharing, Lay delegates will remained constrained in their voting liberties much as Robert has previously mentioned. QED

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2004
In one of these responses, someone mentioned removing "the financial shackles" from the local church. I contend there are no shackles on the local church. Every penny that the Connectional Church gets comes from the local church. Even the publishing departments subscriptions origrinate in the local church. So to remove the shackles, simply don't take as much and let the local church grow.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2004

Indeed, it was this very rule which Jesus's own parents (Joseph and Mary) had themselves broken. And this was the reason why the Jews were split in opinion as to whether Jesus was, in fact, their true Messiah. When a dynastic child was conceived at the wrong time of year, the mother was generally placed in monastic custody for the birth so as to avoid public embarrassment. This was called being 'put away privily' and Matthew states quite plainly that, when Mary's pregnancy was discovered, 'Joseph, her husband, being a just man and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily'.

In this instance, special dispensation for the birth was granted by the angelic priest Simeon who, at that time, held the distinction of 'Gabriel', being the archangel in charge. The Dead Sea Scrolls detail that the archangels (or chief ambassadors) were the senior priests at Qumrân who retained the traditional Old Testament titles of Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Sariel, etc. In the case of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, however, the rules of wedlock had been obeyed to the letter, and their first child was properly conceived in December AD 32, to be born in September AD 33.

From the moment of a dynastic birth, the parents were physically separated - for six years if the child was a boy and for three years if the child was a girl. Their marriage would only be recommenced at the designated 'time of restitution'. Meanwhile, the mother and child would enter the equivalent of a convent and the father would enter the 'kingdom of heaven'. This kingdom was actually the Essene high monastery at Mird, by the Dead Sea, and the ceremony of entry was conducted by the angelic priests under the supervision of the appointed Leader of the Pilgrims. In the Old Testament book of Exodus, the Israelite pilgrims were led into the Holy Land by a cloud and, in accordance with this continued Exodus imagery, the priestly Leader of the Pilgrims was designated with the title 'Cloud'.

So, if we now read the Acts verses as they were intended to be understood, we see that Jesus was taken up by the Cloud (the Leader of the Pilgrims) to the kingdom of heaven (the high monastery), whereupon the man in white (an angelic priest) said that Jesus would return at the time of restitution (when his earthly marriage was restored).

If we now look at St Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews we discover that he explains the said Ascension event in some greater detail. Paul actually tells of how Jesus was admitted to the priesthood of heaven when he actually had no entitlement to such a sacred office. He explains that Jesus was born (through his father Joseph) into the Davidic line of Judah - a line which held the right of kingship but had no right to priesthood, for this was the sole prerogative of the line of Aaron and Levi. However, says Paul, a special dispensation was granted, and that 'for the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law'. As a result of this express change of the law, it is explained that Jesus was enabled to enter the kingdom of heaven in the priestly Order of Melchizedek.

In September AD 33, therefore, the first child of Jesus and Mary Magdalene was born, and Jesus duly entered the kingdom of heaven. There is no reference to this child being a son (as there is for the two subsequent births) and, given that Jesus returned three years later (in AD 36), we know that Mary must have had a daughter on this occasion.

By following the chronology of the Acts, we see that in September AD 37 a second child was born, followed by another in AD 44. The period from the first of these two births to the second restitution in AD 43 was six years, which denotes that the AD 37 child was a son. This fact is also conveyed by the use of cryptic wording - the same cryptic wording afforded to the AD 44 child - so we know that this third child was also a son.

In accordance with the scribal codes interpreted from the Dead Sea Scrolls, everything cryptic within the New Testament is set up beforehand by some other entry which explains that the inherent message is 'for those with ears to hear'. Once these codes and allegories are understood, they never ever vary. As Dr Thiering has pointed out, they mean the same thing every time they are used, and they are used every time that same meaning is required. For example, the Gospel of John explains that Jesus was called the 'Word of God': 'And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us'. John goes to great lengths to explain the relevance of this definition and subsequent entries give details such as 'the Word of God stood by the lake' and 'the Word of God was in Samaria'.

Messages conveying information about fertility and new life are established in the Parable of the Sower, whose seed 'bore fruit and increased'. Thus,when it is said that 'the Word of God increased', those 'with ears to hear' would recognise at once that Jesus increased - that is to say, he had a son. There are two such entries in the Acts, and they fall precisely on cue in AD 37 and AD 44.

Probably the most misrepresented book of the New Testament is the book of The Revelation of St John the Divine - misrepresented by the Church, that is, not by the book itself. This book is quite unlike any other in the Bible. It is dubbed with terrible supernatural overtones and its straightforward imagery has been savagely corrupted by the Church to present the text as some form of foreboding or prophecy of warning. But the book is not called The Prophecy or The Warning'; it is called The Revelation.

So, what does the book reveal? Chronologically, its story follows the Acts of the Apostles and the book of The Revelation is, in fact, the continuing story of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and their sons - particularly the elder son, Jesus Justus. It follows his life and details his marriage, along with the birth of his own son. This much misunderstood New Testament book is not a foreboding or a warning as the fearful Church would have us believe. It is precisely what it says it is: a revelation.

As we saw earlier, ordained priests of the era were called 'fishers'; their helpers were called 'fishermen' and baptismal candidates were called 'fishes'. Jesus became an ordained fisher when he entered the Kingdom of Heaven, but until that time (as explained by St Paul) he held no priestly office. In the rite of ordination, the officiating Levite priests of the Sanctuary would administer five loaves of bread and two fish to the candidates, but the law was very firm in that such candidates had to be circumcised Jews. Gentiles and uncircumcised Samaritans were on no account afforded any such privilege. Indeed, it was this particular custom which Jesus had flouted at the so-called Feeding of the Five-thousand, when he presumed entitlement to his own liberal ministry by offering the loaves and fish to an unsanctified gathering.

Apart from eventually becoming a fisher, Jesus was also referred to as the Christ - a Greek definition (from Khristos) which meant the King. In saying the name Jesus Christ, we are actually saying King Jesus, and his kingly heritage was of the Royal House of Judah (the House of David), as mentioned numerous times in the Gospels and in the Epistles of St Paul.

From AD 33, therefore, Jesus emerged with the dual status of a Priest Christ or, as is more commonly cited in Grail lore, a Fisher King. This definition, as we shall see, was to become the hereditary and dynastic office of Jesus's heirs, and the succeeding Fisher Kings were paramount in the continuing Bloodline of the Holy Grail.

Prior to the birth of her second son in AD 44, Mary Magdalene was exiled from Judaea following a political uprising in which she was implicated. Along with Philip, Lazarus and a few retainers, she travelled (by arrangement with King Herod-Agrippa II) to live at the Herodian estate near Lyon, in Gaul (which later became France).

From the earliest times, through the medieval era, to the great Renaissance, Mary's flight was portrayed in illuminated manuscripts and great artworks alike. Her life and work in France, especially in Provence and the Languedoc region, appeared not only in works of European history but also in the Roman Church liturgy - until her story was suppressed by the Vatican.

Mary Magdalene's exile is related in the book of The Revelation, which describes that she was pregnant at the time. It tells also of how the Roman authorities subsequently persecuted Mary, her son and his heirs: 'And she, being with child, cried and pained to be delivered. And behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads and seven crowns stood before the woman for to devour her child. And she brought forth a man-child. And the woman fled into the wilderness. And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war forever with the remnant of her seed - which have the testimony of Jesus Christ'.

It was to Gaul that Mary was said to have carried the Sangréal (the Blood Royal: the Holy Grail), and it was in Gaul that the famous line of Jesus and Mary's immediate descendant heirs, the Fisher Kings, flourished for 300 years. The eternal motto of the Fisher Kings was 'In Strength' - inspired by the name of their ancestor, Boaz (the great-grandfather of King David), whose name similarly meant 'In Strength'. When translated into Latin, this became In Fortis, which was subsequently corrupted to Anfortas, the name of the key Fisher King in Grail romance.

We can now return to the Grail's traditional symbolism as a chalice containing the blood of Jesus. We can also consider graphic designs dating back well beyond the Dark Ages to about 3500 BC and, in doing this, we discover that a chalice or a cup was the longest-standing symbol of the female. Its representation was that of the Sacred Vessel - the vas uterus: the womb.

And so, when fleeing into France, Mary Magdalene carried the Sangréal in the sacred chalice of her womb - just as the book of The Revelation explains. And the name of this second son was Joseph.

The equivalent traditional symbol of the male was a blade or a horn, usually represented by a sword or a unicorn. In the Old Testament's Song of Solomon and in the Psalms of David, the fertile unicorn is associated with the kingly line of Judah - and it was for this very reason that the Cathars of Provence used the mystical beast to symbolise the Grail bloodline.

Mary Magdalene died in Provence in AD 63 and, in that very year, Joseph of Arimathea built the famous chapel at Glastonbury in England as a memorial to the Messianic Queen. This was the first above-ground Christian chapel in the world, and in the following year Mary's son Jesus Justus dedicated it to his mother. Jesus the younger had previously been to England with Joseph of Arimathea at the age of twelve, in AD 49. It was this event which inspired William Blake's famous song Jerusalem: 'And did those feet in ancient time, walk upon England's mountains green'.

But who was Joseph of Arimathea - the man who assumed full control of affairs at the Crucifixion? And why was it that Jesus's mother, his wife and the rest of the family accepted Joseph's intervention without question?

As late as the year 900, the Byzantine Church (which had split from the Church of Rome) decided to announce that Joseph of Arimathea was the uncle of Jesus's mother Mary. And from that time, portrayals of Joseph have shown him as being rather elderly at the Crucifixion, when Mother Mary was herself in her fifties. Prior to the Church announcement, however, the historical records of Joseph depicted a much younger man. He was recorded to have died at the age of 80 on 27 July AD 82, and would therefore have been aged 32 at the time of the Crucifixion.

In fact, Joseph of Arimathea was none other than Jesus Christ's own brother James, and his title had nothing whatever to with a place- name. In fact (like Nazareth), the place later dubbed Arimathea never existed in those times. It therefore comes as no surprise that Joseph negotiated with Pilate to place Jesus in his own family tomb.

The hereditary 'Arimathea' title was an English corruption of the Graeco-Hebrew style ha-Rama-Theo, meaning 'of the Divine Highness', or 'Royal Highness' as we use the term today. Since Jesus was the senior Messianic heir (the Christ, or King), then his younger brother was the Crown Prince - the Divine (Royal) Highness, Rama-Theo. In the Nazarene hierarchy, the Crown Prince always held the patriarchal title of 'Joseph' - just as Jesus was a titular 'David' and his wife was a conventual 'Mary'.

In the early 5th century, Jesus and Mary's descendent Fisher Kings became united by marriage to the Sicambrian Franks, and from them emerged a whole new reigning dynasty. They were the noted Merovingian Kings who founded the French monarchy and introduced the well-known fleur-de-lys (the ancient gladiolus symbol of circumcision) as the royal emblem of France.

From the Merovingian succession, another strain of the family established a wholly independent Jewish kingdom in southern France: the kingdom of Septimania, which we now know as Languedoc. Also, the early princes of Toulouse, Aquitaine and Provence were all descended in the Messianic bloodline. Septimania was specifically granted to the Royal House of David in 768, and Prince Bernard of Septimania later married a daughter of Emperor Charlemagne.

Also from the Fisher Kings came another important parallel line of succession in Gaul. Whereas the Merovingian Kings continued the patrilinear heritage of Jesus, this other line perpetuated the matrilinear heritage of Mary Magdalene. They were the dynastic Queens of Avallon in Burgundy: the House del Acqs - meaning 'of the waters', a style granted to Mary Magdalene in the early days when she voyaged on the sea to Provence.

Those familiar with Arthurian and Grail lore will by now have recognised the ultimate significance of this Messianic family: the Fisher Kings, the Queens of Avallon and the House del Acqs (corrupted in Arthurian romance to du Lac).

The descendant heirs of Jesus posed an enormous threat to the Roman High Church because they were the dynastic leaders of the true Nazarene Church. In real terms, the Roman Church should never have existed at all, for it was no more than a strategically designed hybrid movement comprised of various pagan doctrines attached to a fundamentally Judaeo-Christian base.

Jesus was born in 7 BC and his birthday was on the equivalent of 1 March, with an official royal birthday on 15 September to comply with dynastic regulation and the month of Atonement. But, when establishing the Roman Church in the 4th century, Emperor Constantine ignored both of these dates and supplemented 25 December as the new Christ's Mass Day - to coincide with the pagan Sun Festival with which his Imperial subjects were familiar. Later, at the Synod of Whitby held in England in 664, the bishops also expropriated the Celtic festival of Easter (Eostre), the Goddess of Spring and Fertility, and attached a wholly new Christian significance by aligning it with the Resurrection of Jesus. In so doing, they actually changed the date of the old festival to sever its traditional association with the Jewish Passover.

Hence, today's two main Christian festivals (Christmas and Easter) are spurious Roman inventions and, historically, they have nothing whatever to do with Jesus. Christianity, as we know it, has evolved as a composite religion quite unlike any other. If Jesus was its living catalyst, then Christianity should rightly be based on the teachings of Jesus himself - the moral and social codes of a fair- minded, tolerant ministry, with the people as its benefactors. But orthodox Christianity ('churchianity') is not based on the teachings of Jesus: it centres upon the teachings of the bishops, which are entirely different.

There are a number of reasons for this, the foremost of which is that Jesus was deliberately sidestepped in favour of the alternative teachings of Peter and Paul: teachings which were thoroughly denounced by the Nazarene Church of Jesus and his brother James - teachings which the Nazarenes called 'the faith of fools'.

Only by removing Jesus from the front-line could the popes and cardinals reign supreme. When formally instituting Christianity as the State religion of Rome, Constantine declared that he alone was the true Saviour Messiah - not Jesus! As for the Bishops of Rome (the popes), they were granted a fabricated Apostolic descent from St Peter, since the legitimate Messianic descent from Jesus and his brothers was retained within the parallel Nazarene Church.

The only way for the Roman Church to restrain the heirs of Mary Magdalene was to discredit Mary herself and to deny her bridal relationship with Jesus. But what of Jesus's brother James? He too had heirs, as did their other brothers, Simon, Joses and Jude. For all its effort to forge a new scriptural history, the Church could not escape the Gospels, which state quite clearly that Jesus was the Blessed Mary's 'firstborn son', and so Mary's own motherhood also had to be repressed.

As a result, the bishops portrayed Mother Mary as a virgin and Mary Magdalene as a whore - neither of which description was mentioned in any original Gospel. Then, just to cement Mother Mary's position outside the natural domain, her own mother, Anna, was eventually said to have borne her daughter by way of immaculate conception!

Over the course of time, these contrived doctrines have had widespread effect. But in the early days it took rather more to cement the ideas because the original women of the Nazarene mission had a significant following in the Celtic Church. These included Mary Magdalene, Martha, Mary-Jacob Cleophas and Helena-Salome, each of whom had run schools and social missions throughout the Mediterranean world. These women had all been disciples of Jesus and close friends of his mother, accompanying her to the Crucifixion, as confirmed in the Gospels.

In the face of such records, the Church's only salvation was to denigrate women altogether; to deny them not only rights to ecclesiastical office, but to deny them rights to any status in society. Hence, the Church declared that women were all heretics and sorceresses!

In this, the bishops were aided by the words of Peter and Paul, and on the basis of their teachings the Roman Church was enabled to become wholly sexist. In his first Epistle to Timothy, Paul wrote: 'I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp any authority over the man, but to be in silence'. In the Gospel of Philip, Peter is quoted as saying that 'Women are not worthy of life'. The bishops even quoted the words of Genesis, wherein God apparently spoke to Eve about Adam, saying 'He shall rule over thee'.

The Church Father Tertullian summed up the whole Roman attitude when writing about the emergent disciples of Mary Magdalene: 'These heretical woman! How dare they! They are brazen enough to teach, to engage in argument, to baptise. It is not permitted for a woman to speak in church, nor to claim a share in any masculine function - least of all in priestly office'.

Then, to cap it all, came the Roman Church's most amazing document, The Apostolic Order. This was compiled as an imaginary conversation between the apostles after the Last Supper. Contrary to the Gospels, it supposed that Mary Magdalene had been present at the event, and it was agreed that the reason why Jesus had not passed any wine to Mary at the table was because he had seen her laughing! On the basis of this extraordinary, fictitious document, the bishops ruled that, even though Mary might have been a close companion of Jesus, women were not to be afforded any place within the Church because they were not serious! But why has this sexist attitude persisted within the Church to the present day? Because Mary Magdalene had to be discredited and removed from the reckoning so that her heirs could be ignored.

Notwithstanding the avid sexist movement, the Messianic heirs retained their social positions outside the Roman Church establishment. They progressed their own Nazarene and Celtic Church movements and founded Desposynic (Heirs of the Lord) kingdoms in Britain and Europe. They were a constant threat to the Roman High Church and to the figurehead monarchs and governments empowered by that Church. In fact, they were the very reason for the brutal Catholic Inquisition because they upheld a moral and social code which was contrary to High Church requirement.

This was especially apparent during the Age of Chivalry, which embraced a respect for womanhood, as exemplified by the Knights Templars whose constitutional oath supported a veneration of the Grail Mother, Queen Mary Magdalene.

Prior to the Middle Ages, the individual stories of the Grail family were historically well known, but when the Church began its reign of fanatical persecution, the whole Nazarene and Desposynic heritage was forced underground. But why did the vengeful persecutions begin at that particular time? Because the Knights Templars had not only returned from the Holy Land with documents that undermined the Church's teachings, they also established their own Cistercian churches in opposition to Rome. These were, however, not just any churches - they were the greatest religious monuments ever to grace the skylines of the western world: the Notre Dame cathedrals of France.

Despite their present-day image, these impressive Gothic cathedrals had nothing whatever to do with the established Christian Church. They were funded and built by the Knights Templars in collaboration with their Cistercian allies, and they were dedicated to Mary Magdalene - Notre Dame (Our Lady) - whom they called 'the Grail of the world'.

This, of course, defeated every dogma that the High Church had encouraged, and the bishops retaliated by re-dedicating numerous other churches to Mary, the mother of Jesus. But, in so doing, they made a strict decree that all artistic portrayals of Mother Mary (the Madonna) must henceforth show her dressed in 'blue and white only' - so as not to grant her any rights to ecclesiastical office in the male-only priesthood.

Mary Magdalene, on the other hand, was being portrayed by the world's greatest artists wearing the red mantle of cardinal status, the black robe of a Nazarite High Priestess, or the green cloak of fertility, and there was nothing the Church could do about it. The bishops' only option was to proclaim the practice sinful and heretical because, in having previously elected to ignore Mary Magdalene and her heirs, she was for all practical purposes outside their jurisdiction.

It was at that time that Grail lore was itself denounced as a heresy by the Vatican. The 6th-century prophesies of Merlin were expressly banned by the Ecumenical Council, and the original Nazarene Church of Jesus became an underground stream, aided by such notable sponsors as Leonardo da Vinci and Sandro Botticelli. In those days, the Church policed and controlled most literature in the public domain and so, in order to avoid outright censorship, the Grail tradition became allegorical and its message was communicated by way of secret watermarks, esoteric writings, Tarot cards and symbolic artwork.

But why should Grail lore and the prophesies of Merlin have posed such a problem for the Roman Church? Because, within the context of their adventurous texts, they told the descendant story of the Grail bloodline - a bloodline which had been ousted from its dynastic position by the Bishops of Rome who had elected to reign supreme by way of a contrived apostolic succession.

This succession was said to have been handed down from the first bishop, St Peter (indeed, this is still the promoted view), but one only has to consult the Church's own Apostolic Constitutions to discover that this is simply not true. Peter was never a Bishop of Rome - nor of anywhere else for that matter! The Vatican's Constitutions record that the first Bishop of Rome was Prince Linus of Britain (the son of Caractacus the Pendragon), who was installed by St Paul in AD 58, during Peter's own lifetime.

From the 1100s, the powerful Knights Templars and their cathedrals posed an enormous threat to the male-only Church by bringing the heritage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene to the fore in the public domain. The cardinals knew that their whole establishment would tumble if the Messianic descendants gained the upper hand. They had to be crushed - and so the brutal Inquisition was implemented: a hideous persecution of all who dissented from the rule of the bishops.

It all began in 1209, when Pope Innocent III sent 30,000 soldiers into the Languedoc region of southern France. This was the home of the Cathars (the Pure Ones), who were said to be the guardians of a great and sacred treasure -a mysterious secret which could overturn orthodox Christianity. The Pope's so-called Albigensian Crusade lasted for thirty-six years, during which time tens of thousands of innocent people were slaughtered - but the treasure was never found. In 1231, the main thrust of the Inquisition (or Holy Office as it was called) was instituted by Pope Gregory IX during the course of the Languedoc massacre, and it was set against anyone who supported the Grail heresy. By 1252 the torture of victims was formally authorised, along with execution by burning.

Heresy was a wonderful charge to level against captives, because only the Church could define it. The victims were tortured until they confessed and, having confessed, they were executed. If they did not confess, then the torture continued until they died anyway.

One recorded form of torture was to spread the victim with fat, and then to roast him alive (upwards from the feet) over an open fire. These savage persecutions and tortures were openly waged for more than 400 years, to be extended against Jews, Muslims and Protestant dissenters. But the Catholic Inquisition was never formally terminated. As recently as 1965 it was renamed the Sacred Congregation and its powers are theoretically still in force today.

Undaunted by the Inquisition, the Nazarene movement pursued its own course, and the story of the bloodline was perpetuated in literature such as the Grand Saint Grail and the High History of the Holy Grail. These writings were largely sponsored by the Grail courts of France (the courts of Champagne, Anjou and others) and also by the Knights Templars and the Desposyni. In the course of this, Arthurian romance became a popular vehicle for the Grail tradition. Consequently, the Templars became a specific target of the Inquisition in 1307, when the henchmen of Pope Clement V and King Philip IV of France were set in their direction. The papal armies scoured Europe for the Templar documents and treasure but, like the Cathar inheritance, nothing was found. Nevertheless, many Knights were tortured and executed in the process.

In all this, however, the Templar hoard was not lost and, while the Vatican emissaries were searching, the treasure and documents were locked away in the Chapter House Treasury vaults of Paris. They were under the protection of the Templar Grand Knights - those styled the Guardian Princes of the Royal Secret - who loaded the hoard one night onto 18 galleys of the Templar fleet at La Rochelle. By daybreak, the ships had set sail for various destinations - notably Portugal and Scotland. The latter were welcomed, upon their arrival, by King Robert the Bruce who, along with the whole Scottish nation, had been excommunicated by the Pope for challenging the Catholic King Edward of England. The Templars and their treasure remained in Scotland, and the Knights fought with Bruce at Bannockburn in 1314 to regain Scotland's independence from Plantagenet England.

Subsequent to the Battle of Bannockburn, Bruce and the Guardian Princes founded the new Order of the Elder Brothers of the Rosy Cross in 1317 - from which time the Kings of Scots became hereditary Grand Masters, with each successive Stewart King holding the honoured title of Prince Saint Germain.

But, why was it that King Arthur, a Celtic commander of the 6th century, was so important to the Knights Templars and the Grail courts of Europe? Quite simply, because Arthur had been unique, with a dual heritage in the Messianic line. King Arthur was by no means mythical, as many have supposed, but he has generally been looked for in the wrong places. Researchers, misguided by the fictional locations of the romances, have searched in vain through the chronicles of Brittany, Wales and the West of England. But the details of Arthur are to be found in the Scots' and Irish annals. He was indeed the High King of the Celtic Isle and was the sovereign commander of the British troops in the late 6th century.

Arthur was born in 559 and died in battle in 603. His mother was Ygerna del Acqs, the daughter of Queen Viviane of Avallon, in descent from Jesus and Mary Magdalene. His father was High King Aedàn of Dalriada (the Western Highlands of Scotland, now called Argyll), and Aedàn was the British Pendragon (Head Dragon or King of Kings) in descent from Jesus's brother James. It is for this reason that the stories of Arthur and Joseph of Arimathea are so closely entwined in the Grail romances. Indeed, the coronation records of Scotland's King Kenneth MacAlpin (a descendant of Aedàn the Pendragon) specifically refer to his own descent from the dynastic Queens of Avallon. King Aedàn's paternal legacy emerged through the most ancient House of Camu-lot (England's Royal Court of Colchester) in a line from the first appointed Pendragon, King Cymbeline, who is well-known to students of Shakespeare.

By the 6th century, Messianic descendants had founded Desposynic kingdoms in Wales and across the Strathclyde and Cambrian regions of Britain. Arthur's father, King Aedàn of Scots, was the first British monarch to be installed by priestly ordination when he was anointed by Saint Columba of the Celtic Church in 574. This, of course, infuriated the Roman bishops because they claimed the sole right to appoint kings who, according to them, were supposed to be crowned by the Pope!

As a direct result of this coronation, Saint Augustine was eventually sent from Rome to dismantle the Celtic Church when St Columba died in 597. He proclaimed himself Archbishop of Canterbury three years later, but his overall mission failed and the Nazarene tradition persisted in Scotland, Ireland, Wales and across the breadth of northern England.

An important fact to remember is that the Grail dynasts were never territorial governors of lands. Like Jesus himself, they were designated guardians of the people. The Merovingians in Gaul, for example, were Kings of the Franks - never Kings of France. King Aedàn, Robert the Bruce and their Stewart successors were Kings of the Scots - never Kings of Scotland. It was this implicitly social concept which the High Church found so difficult to overcome, for the bishops preferred to have dominion over territorial kings who were authorized by the Pope. Only by maintaining ultimate spiritual control over individuals could the Church reign supreme, and so whenever a Grail dynast came to the fore he was met by the wrath of the papal machine.

In 751 the bishops managed to depose the Merovingian succession in Gaul, and they established a new tradition whereby kings of the Carolingian succession (that of Charlemagne) had to be approved and crowned by the Pope. But the Church could never topple the Desposynic lines in Scotland, even though the old Celtic kingdoms of England had been dismantled by Germanic Anglo-Saxons from the 6th century.

Even into the Middle Ages - long after the Norman Conquest of England - the Nazarene Church and the long prevailing cult of Mary Magdalene were prominent in Europe. Women's rights of equality were upheld throughout the Celtic structure, and this was an enormous problem for the male-only priesthood of orthodox 'churchianity'.

The underlying principle of the Grail monarchs was always one of Service, in accordance with the Messianic code. Hence, they were kings and common fathers of their realms, but they were never rulers. This key aspect of the Grail Code was perpetuated at the very heart of nursery tale and folklore. Never did a valiant cardinal or bishop ride to the aid of an oppressed subject or a damsel in distress, for this has always been the social realm of Grail princes and their appointed knights.

The Grail Code recognises advancement by merit and acknowledges community structure, but above all it is entirely democratic. Whether apprehended in its physical or spiritual dimension, the Grail belongs to leaders and followers alike. It also belongs to the land and the environment, requiring that all should be as one in a mutually unified Service.

Throughout the ages, parliaments and governments have had as much trouble as the Church in confronting the Messianic social code, and the position is no different today. Presidents and prime ministers are elected by the people. They are supposed to represent the people - but do they? In actual fact, they do not. They are always affiliated to a political party and they achieve their positions by way of majority party vote. But not everybody takes the trouble to vote and sometimes there are more than two parties to vote for. Consequently, at any given time, more than half the people of a nation may not be represented by the political party in power. In this regard, even though a majority vote has been applied, the democratic principle fails. What emerges is not 'government BY the people FOR the people', but 'government OF the people'.

Jesus confronted a very similar situation in the 1st century. At that time, Jerusalem and Judaea were under Roman occupation, with King Herod and the Governor, Pontius Pilate, both appointed by Rome. But who represented the people? The people were not Romans; they were Holy Land Jews: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and the like. Apart from that, there were large numbers of Samaritans and Gentiles (non- Jews; the Arab races). Who represented them? The answer is 'no one' - until Jesus made it his mission to do so. This was the beginning of the Grail code of non-affiliated princely service: a code perpetuated by the Messianic dynasts in their continuing role as people's guardians. The Grail code is based on the principles of liberty, fraternity and equality, and it was particularly apparent in the American and French Revolutions, both of which discarded the lordship of despotic aristocracy. But what has replaced it? It has been replaced by party politics and largely non-representative government.

Many people have asked me why the hitherto suppressed information in Bloodline of the Holy Grail is coming to light at this particular time. The fact is that the information has never been suppressed by those whom it concerns. It has been suppressed by outside power- seekers who have sought to serve their own interests, rather than serve the communities they are supposed to represent. Today, however, we are in a new age of questing as many people grow more disillusioned with the establishment dogmas that prevail. We live in an age of satellite communications, sound-barrier travel, computers and the Internet - so the world is effectively much smaller than before. In such an environment, news travels very quickly and the truth is far more difficult to restrain.

Also, the very fabric of the male-dominated Church and governmental structures is being questioned, and it is generally perceived that the old doctrines of spiritual control and territorial management are not working. More and more people are searching for the original, uncluttered roots of their faith and for their purpose in society. They are seeking more effective forms of administration to combat the all too apparent slide into social and moral decline. They are, in fact, questing for the Holy Grail. This quest for new enlightenment is considerably heightened by the coming new millennium and there is a widespread feeling that this should also present a new Renaissance: an era of rebirth wherein the precepts of the Grail Code are acknowledged and practised - the precepts of liberty, fraternity and equality. Indeed, Grail lore spells out loud and clear that the wound of the Fisher King must first be healed if the wasteland is to return to fertility.

| Back to Page One |



-- Anonymous, June 01, 2004

Moderation questions? read the FAQ