Further to Shiva's comment in reply #72 (I apologise but can't seem to access previous pages in order to Quote - can somewone advise if there 's a "user's/ idiot's" guide to posting on this site that shows how such things can be done?):
I don’t know Who was the “certain frater” was who informed you, but Gerald Suster was certainly the certain frater who tipped the Caliphornian “OTO” off about how to get their mitts on Crowley’s bankruptcy copyrights. As I mentioned, he was a graduate in business Law from Cambridge & one of the few people who could therefore combine his specialist knowledge of bankruptcy probate with his similar awareness about A.C. & the OTO’s circumstances. It is unfortunate – a cynic would murmur rather conveniently so – that you are not at liberty to name your own sources. Gerald died in 2001 so cannot input any further anonymously or otherwise on this or any other public forum short of a séance (& he was always scathingly skeptical about those…). It raises the q however I am privy to all of the necessary details – the facts, ma’m, as you put it – and therefore I am asking you, are you disputing my rendition of the events and if so, upon what basis?
Ahem - still trying to get to grips & posted prematurely!! As I was saying, I think, this all raises questions about accountability, since "OTO" is not (as far as I am aware) touted to be a secret society & has certain responsibilities as a presence in the public domain.
I, however, am privy to all of the necessary details – the facts, ma’m, as you put it – and therefore I enquire: are you disputing my rendition of the events and if so, upon what basis?
Re. Los's Reply #73:
"The OTO" will do just fine. There once upon a time were other groups that called themselves that, but they've since changed their names."
Motta's group always was the "Society OTO" - at least they had the politeness not to claim to be anything like "the OTO" while things were still being sorted out... Would you happen to be aware that A.C. was arguably not even legitimately the successor of Theodor Reuss as OHO of the OTO, that his “OTO” was only ever in effect the subset “MMM” of the same, and that his predecessor Reuss denounced both him & Thelema shortly before his death?
Also re. Los's Reply #73:
"I'm aware of goofy, grandiose titles, but my point was that it's not fair to compare them in substance to clerics of a Christian church..."
In the twenty years since I received my IVth in the Caliphornian "OTO" from Lon, I cannot recall one solitary occasion when I have been called upon to use, or felt like using, or received any advantage from by having, any of these lovely evocative-sounding titles such as “Perfect Master”, “Sublime Epopt”, etc. I cannot walk into a hardware store and say “Listen, bub – I’m a Knight of the Iris so you’d better give me special terms!” Nor is the situation any better, unfortunately, with occult bookshops. The (quasi-)masonic aspects of it really are sheer mummery & if Crowley was around today he’d have no part of it; in fact if you read his correspondence from the 1940s he clearly states that the whole OTO edifice was due for a major overhaul. Unfortunately he did not live long enough to do it and McMurtry capitalised on the perceived vacuum at the time: did you know that Karl Germer, Crowley’s “successor” in the Order, was even so disgusted with him as "a big Minus" and the (Agape) Lodge he was in as a whole (“a spiritual desert”) that he’d shut it down altogether in disgust!
Also, that bit about comparing them to [Catholic] church amused me; you obviously haven't had much dealings with the "E.G.C." then, to which OTO is ostensibly connected, and for which the phrase "poncing about in a robe" was specifically made for, in certain cases...
Whirl y Gig,
N. Joy.
[flash=300,300:12jd7qws] https://www.youtube.com/v/pVJdSgW2DdM [/flash:12jd7qws]
The Gnostic Mass, Liber LXV - Part 2 of 4
I haven't yet had an opportunity to enjoy viewing Azidonis’s enclosure of what looks at first glance like people waiting for an appointment in an unconventional barber's shop, but hasten to make clear that I was not mocking celebrants of the Gnostic Mass by my remarks immediately above here – I have myself participated in (as Deacon) and attended many others, the majority of which have on the whole been rightly performed with joy & beauty, dedication, sincerity & energised enthusiasm contributing towards a definitely magical (and not insufferably ‘churchy’) atmosphere.
The point I was making was more in reference to the present-day structure of the E.G.C. or Gnostic Catholic Church itself (whose ‘apostolic charter’ of legitimacy is possibly even more contrived & convoluted than the OTO’s own) with all its attendant ecclesiastical superstructure of Bishops (for which I gather one now needs first to hold a VIIth in the [Caliphornian] “OTO” itself – although I am open to correction here) as well as other officials such as “Patriarchs”, “Primates” and “Chaplains” (oh – hang on, correction: that last one belongs to the ‘Church of Chaos’ in the I.O.T.! Silly me, how on earth could I have made that mistake?!)
It is these various grand Bishops & other officials rather than the Priest & celebrants/ officials in the Gnostic Mass itself to whom I was implicitly making reference with my remark: “for which the phrase ‘poncing about in a robe’ was specifically made for” – or, in the interests of greater accuracy, “poncing around in an ecclesiastical vestment with a mitre & a crook in hand” would serve to be even more precise – as some (obviously not all) of these E.G.C. personnel seem to adopt a rather insufferable air of holier-than-thou sanctimoniousness & unthelemic false piety (to my mind), and as such do the wider perception of the Gnostic Catholic Church – and therefore by indirect association, Thelema – no favours at all.
That is not to say that I don’t have some reservations about the Gnostic Mass as it stands either, including the issue of the composition of the Saints – and I think obscuruspaintus had it spot on in Reply #63 when he declared: “I personally view his [A.C.’s] use of the OTO old aeon type religious structure [i.e., the EGC] and Liber XV [the Gnostic Mass] as an initial first step in weaning mankind at large off the Christian teat… ” – but I do not feel that I wish to go into these in more detail just at the moment.
Incidentally, wasn’t it Timothy Leary who first popularised the portmanteau of ‘hir’ for ‘his’ or ‘him’& ‘her’? (There is no comparable difficulty with ‘he’ and ‘she’, as this can be combined in an easy form as ‘s/he’...)
Rig ma Roll,
N. Joy.
It's a Gnostic Mass, of course, as performed by the members of William Blake Lodge, O.T.O., in December 2008.
Mais oui, bien sûr haw-haw-haw [affecting silly French accent] - I was just “going by appearances” here: there was what looks like an appointments book resting on the nearest table & a (admittedly) small basin for washing hands (shampooing hair?) in in the immediate foreground, plus I used to frequent a local hairdressers at one time which also used to have checkered linoleum, chairs down along one side & strip lighting just like in the picture.
No offence intended by my remark of course; it was just a piece of whimsy on my part. It also looks incredibly similar to the one posted on Wikipedia – I know they are all meant to meticulously follow the same layout plan and everything, but the resemblance is uncanny!!
It’s nice to know that William Blake’s name is being honoured by the [presumably Caliphornian?] “OTO”? It seems he’s also now a Saint added to the Collects of the Gnostic Mass by H.B. Speaking for myself, I have no complaint about that at all. (The inclusion of his name’s rather less controversial than the speculative inclusion of some others e.g., dead musical luminaries which I have also seen proposed: Hendrix, Joplin, Morrison, Lennon – the usual suspects - but haven’t seen Kurt Cobain yet, though!)
What exactly ARE the criteria for selection for beatification anyhow, would anyone know? Is it down to the Patriarch [EGC’s head honcho=‘OTO’ Frater Superior] alone, or is there a clerical committee involved that makes these decisions (maybe a sort of “coven” of cardinals? Rather like a "murder" of crows, though I’m not sure what would be the collective noun here).
In a gadda da vida
N. Joy
for anyone following this there is a review of the Book by one of the OTO's Bishops here
http://www.librarything.com/work/13516476/reviews/94048762
and a rebuttal of that review, (which appeared briefly in a thread on the EGC facebook page but seems to have been removed)
http://www.librarything.com/work/13516476/reviews/94048762
and a rebuttal of that review, (which appeared briefly in a thread on the EGC facebook page but seems to have been removed)
Thanks for sharing.
The initial review was somewhat expected, save for the poke at Kenneth Grant.
In reading the second, a few thoughts have arisen:
1) Reference to Crowley as a "gay man". I would have thought bisexual as the better term, but I suppose "gay" counts (?).
2) Wondering if the Mass was ever performed by Crowley in any manner where Crowley or some other male played the role of priestess, and some female played the role of priest, or two males, or two females.
3) A vision of two dudes standing behind the alter arguing over who gets to hold the wand, and who gets to hold the cup (metaphorically speaking). "No, it's my turn." "No, you got to play Nuit last week. It's my turn!"
4)
"I suspect T Polyfilus feels that the main problem with Priest/ess is that it threatens his authority. It is to this threat, therefore, that he is mainly addressing his critique. While I’m certain Michael did not intent Priest/ess as such a threat, it has in fact become one. This is not because of anything Michael or his supporters have done, but because of the reaction of his detractors, like T Polyfilus. The leaders of the OTO and EGC have declared themselves to be the official Thelemic authorities. With the recent attempt by James Wasserman and others to establish themselves as the only legitimate AA lineage, they are seeking a total hegemony on Thelema. If they want to pretend they are qualified to hold such an office, they must be able to answer challenges and criticisms openly, honestly, and satisfactorily; without resorting to name calling, hand waiving, or appeals to authority. Until now much of the criticism in the Thelemic community has been limited to electronic media, easily consumed and easily forgotten. I suspect many of the EGC / OTO leaders have grown complacent because of this, and expect that if they only ignore a criticism for a few weeks it will go away. Priest/ess, as recent events have shown, isn’t going anywhere."
- This could get dramatic!
Greetings on the First Day of the Writing of the Book of the Law! Luxor Media Group and Weiser Antiquarian are proud to present:
PRIEST/ESS: IN ADVOCACY OF QUEER GNOSTIC MASS
Now available in deluxe and standard trade editions.
For more info, visit:
http://www.luxormediagroup.com/
http://www.weiserantiquarian.com/catalogonehundredandeight/
Also, following up on davyp93's post above:
By Michael Effertz
This essay continues the dialogue initiated by Priest/ess: In Advocacy of Queer Gnostic Mass. An open and erudite response to a review by Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica Bishop T Polyphilus, The Argument That Took the Wrong Turning expands on the themes of Priest/ess and addresses in detail the magical, communal, and doctrinal purposes of the Gnostic Mass as they pertain to issues of gender and sexuality.
The paperback booklet is printed on acid free paper, 5.5 x 8.5 and 36 pages. To celebrate its publication, Luxor has included a booklet with each deluxe edition and with the first 100 trade editions of Priest/ess (available for order here). This booklet is not available for sale and can only be obtained with the purchase of Priest/ess.
To celebrate the Holy Days and help increase the accessibility of the booklet, I mailed copies to every Lodge, Oasis, and Camp under United States Grand Lodge O.T.O.
Sorry for the wait! I hope it will have been worth if for those of you who pick up the book and booklet.
An excerpt from The Argument That Took the Wrong Turning is now available courtesy of the Hermetic Library.
Here’s an excerpt, pages 1–8, from The Argument That Took the Wrong Turning: A Vindication of Priest/ess and Queer Gnostic Mass in Reply to T Polyphilus by Michael Effertz, which is offered at the Reading Room courtesy of the author. While you may have had a chance to read T Polyphilus’ review previously posted and heard various other responses about Priest/ess, unless you have had access to one of the few privately printed and distributed volumes, this may be your first glimpse of Effertz’s argument, as well as the tone and tenor, as it appears in the book; and unless you have acquired one of the new editions with which it is offered this may be your first chance to read some of the substance contained within the new pamphlet.
I thank E.G.C. Bishop T Polyphilus for his critical review[sup:21sd6uvx]1[/sup:21sd6uvx] of my book, Priest/ess: In Advocacy of Queer Gnostic Mass. Polyphilus kindly prefaces his critique with the observation that “significant expense and care” went into the production of what became an “attractive little book.” In writing and designing the private edition of Priest/ess, I resolved to evince the same commitment to quality that Crowley once stressed in a letter to Frank Bennett, writing that “it has always been a point of honor with us to make our publications physically worthy of their contents.”[sup:21sd6uvx]2[/sup:21sd6uvx] The Bishop may not share my estimation of Priest/ess’ contents, but his praise is nevertheless well received. It is for this reason that I have endeavored to ensure that the trade edition, handsomely bound in hardcover and released in both a standard and deluxe edition, will likewise please the reader in form.
With this supplementary essay, I offer a reply to Polyphilus’ review in the same spirit as the arguments given in Priest/ess. As such, I will neither speculate as to Polyphilus’ motives nor ascribe to him any ill will in criticizing my work. I cannot say with certainty, and so will not assert, whether the errors in his review indicate an accidental or a willful misunderstanding of my arguments. I will, therefore, focus on the content of the review itself, checking its claims against the facts of each case rather than dwelling on the character of the author or his possible intentions. Where a misunderstanding is evident, I lay the fault squarely on my own deficient exposition; this will require the occasional reiteration of points originally made in the Priest/ess, in which I anticipated several of the criticisms made in Polyphilus’ review.
In his brief review, Polyphilus makes a series of claims about Priest/ess, the Gnostic Mass, and related subjects, which I will address seriatim. These include the claims that:
1. I am wrong about the purpose of E.G.C. clergy,
2. Nobody has the generic right to ordination or to serve as an ordained member of the clergy in the performance of E.G.C. rituals,
3. Clergy do not have the authority to impose their own interpretation on the Gnostic Mass, because it is not a vehicle for personal expression,
4. I obscure and misrepresent E.G.C. policy concerning private and public celebrations of queer Gnostic Mass,
5. For public Gnostic Masses, E.G.C. policy requires Priests who are socially masculine in their life outside the temple and Priestesses who are similarly feminine,
6. Restricting queer Gnostic Mass to private celebrations enhances it, and
7. Prohibiting public queer Gnostic Masses does not “closet” queer personal relationships.
In addition to these explicit claims, Polyphilus insinuates that there are still more issues at stake and criticisms to be made, but opts not to specify in the course of his review what those issues are beyond alluding to their magical and doctrinal nature. E.G.C. policy, he argues, is constructed with a view toward assuring the simultaneous fulfillment of three effects or purposes of the Gnostic Mass (magical, communal, and doctrinal), even when individual celebrants do not consciously comprehend all three. Polyphilus directs the reader to his essay “Discourse on the Sixth Article,” wherein he elucidates his views on these three purposes of the Mass. The essay genuinely rewards study. Contrary to settling the question of queer Gnostic Mass against its acceptance, the three purposes of the Mass proposed by Polyphilus provide us with fertile ground for defending the propriety of its public celebration. While we cannot scrutinize his reasons for dismissing queer Gnostic Mass on magical, communal, and doctrinal grounds, since those reasons are not divulged in his review, we can make our own assessment of the merits of public queer Gnostic Mass as it might pertain to these matters with reference to the wealth of published and publicly available writings by Crowley on the Mass, the Eucharist, the O.T.O. and its various degrees, magick, sex and gender, and other kindred subjects. As Polyphilus’ review is consciously informed by his concept of the three purposes of the Gnostic Mass, we turn first to an evaluation of the magical, communal, and doctrinal considerations at the heart of his critique.
The Magical Purpose of the Gnostic Mass
Polyphilus cites magical issues as under the purview of the E.G.C. in the oversight of its clergy, which issues motivate and guide the construction and enforcement of E.G.C. policy in prohibiting public celebrations of queer Gnostic Mass. In so stating, Polyphilus implies, without evidence or explanation, that public celebrations of queer Gnostic Mass could not fulfill the magical purpose of the Mass. Presumably, the problem of magical bankruptcy is evaded through private celebration.
Of the magical purpose of the Gnostic Mass, Polyphilus writes:
The Magical effect for the individual
Is the one that Crowley explains in Magick in Theory and Practice:
The communicant is gradually made divine,
Being brought swallow by swallow
Towards Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel
And to the ultimate attainment that lies beyond.
And this effect is secret in the sense that it is utterly ineffable.[sup:21sd6uvx]3[/sup:21sd6uvx]
We may then reasonably infer Polyphilus to contend that communicants in a public celebration of a queer Gnostic Mass could not be “gradually made divine, being brought swallow by swallow towards the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel and to the ultimate attainment that lies beyond.” Such a suggestion is contradicted by Crowley’s teachings concerning magical ritual and the Eucharist, as documented in his diaries and other works. For example, in defining the universal object of magical ritual, Crowley instructs the magician to use ritual to confront weaknesses in his understanding and offers sexual identity as one such area for exploration:
There is a single main definition of the object of all magical ritual. It is the uniting of the Microcosm with the Macrocosm. The Supreme and Complete Ritual is therefore the Invocation of the Holy Guardian Angel; or, in the language of Mysticism, Union with God.
All other magical rituals are particular cases of this general principle, and the only excuse for doing them is that it sometimes occurs that one particular portion of the Microcosm is so weak that its imperfection or impurity would vitiate the Macrocosm of which it is the image, eidolon, or reflection. For example, God is above sex; and therefore neither man nor woman as such can be said fully to understand, much less to represent, God. It is therefore incumbent on the male Magician to cultivate those female virtues in which he is deficient, and this task he must of course accomplish without in any way impairing his virility. It will then be lawful for a Magician to invoke Isis, and identify himself with her; if he fail to do this, his apprehension of the Universe when he attains samādhi will lack the conception of maternity. The result will be a metaphysical and—by corollary—ethical limitation in the Religion which he founds. Judaism and Islām are striking examples of this failure.[sup:21sd6uvx]4[/sup:21sd6uvx]
Ritual offers the magician one avenue for symbolically uniting diverse elements within his being, though it is by no means the only method for achieving such union:
The doctrine here put forth is that the initiate cannot be polluted by any particular environment. He accepts and enjoys everything that is proper to his nature. Thus, a man’s sexual character is one form of his self-expression; he unites Hadit with Nuit sacramentally when he satisfies his instinct of physical love. Of course, this is only one partial projection; to govern, to fight, and so on, must fulfil other needs. We must not imagine that any form of activity is ipso facto incapable of supplying the elements of an Eucharist: suum cuique [Lat. “to each his own”]. Observe, however, the constant factor in this enumeration of the practices proper to “hermits:” it is ecstatic delight.[sup:21sd6uvx]5[/sup:21sd6uvx]
The actual or symbolic union of the self with another, or even of different aspects of the self within oneself, is characterized by Crowley as the key to preparing the Eucharist, which process may be carried out through methods proper to the nature of each individual. This notion resonates alongside the previous passage with Liber A’ASH, which proclaims:
All holy things and all symbolic things shall be my sacraments.[sup:21sd6uvx]6[/sup:21sd6uvx]
Among those Gnostic sacraments is semen, which Crowley says may possess different potencies depending upon one’s point of view:
Semen itself is mercury, the river of life flowing throughout the generations. That is fluid mercury. What is (from the point of view of life) waste, is knowledge. Hence the opposition between knowledge and life. One is homo- and the other heterosexuality. Those are reconciled in Mercury, who is wisdom.[sup:21sd6uvx]7[/sup:21sd6uvx]
As with all opposing points of view, it is the work of the magician to reconcile these contradictions in a higher understanding. In this “fluid mercury” Crowley finds one resolution to the “opposition between knowledge and life” in a single Eucharist, which may elevate the communicant to divinity. Crowley provides us with an unambiguous illustration of the transformative power of this type of Eucharist in his notes to the Cephaloedium Working, which sacrament was prepared initially by two men together:
[…]
(7) Make Iacchaion God, by Ether.
( 8 ) Sacrifice him to the Beast, who thus becomes God. Use here the accendat & the right Mantram, the Tu qui es & the Quia Patris.[sup:21sd6uvx]8[/sup:21sd6uvx]
The “accendat,” “Tu qui es,” and “Quia Patris” all refer to the Grimorium Sanctissimum, ritual instructions for a mass along analogous lines to that of the Gnostic Mass (e.g., the consecration and dressing in ritual vestments of the “priest” by the “maiden,” speeches from “The Ship,” etc.) Another queer interpretation of the mass formula given in Grimorium Sanctissimum is provided in the Paris Working, during which Crowley assumed the role of “maiden” to Victor Neuburg’s “priest.” Throughout his diaries and instructions, Crowley evinces an understanding of the Eucharist that reconciles heterosexuality and homosexuality, life and knowledge, in one transcendent wisdom.
Polyphilus’ implicit contention that a Eucharist produced by a queer pairing cannot lead one “swallow by swallow” to Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel seems especially strange, given Crowley’s description of the relation between the Adept and his Angel:
In a secret code the Adept affirms that he is of the same sex (so to speak) as his Angel. It is not a union of opposites to produce a tertium quid [Lat. “third thing”], but a realization of identity, like the return to consciousness from delirium, whose ecstasy bears no fruit involving new responsibilities, new possibilities of sorrow, but is all-sufficient to itself, with neither past nor future.
The “peeled wand” is the creative Energy of the Angel, stripped of all veils, pointing to the Zenith, ready and eager to act. The Adept exclaims with joy that he has aspired to unite himself with this Idea, and has attained.
Thus concludes the description of the relations of the Adept and his Angel so far as the element of Earth, the concrete and manifest aspect of Nature, is concerned. The whole illusion has been destroyed; the bread has become the body of God.[sup:21sd6uvx]9[/sup:21sd6uvx]
As was delineated above, the sacrament by which bread is transmuted into the “body of God” may take any of various forms. Heterosexual union, whether actual or symbolic, is a commonly cited formula for effecting this transmutation. In Liber Aleph, Crowley provides commentary on “the ultimate attainment that lies beyond” and the manner in which homosexual formulae are efficacious in achieving this attainment:
O my Son, behold now the Mystery and Virtue of the Silver Star! For of these Four Works not one leadeth to the Crown, because Tetragrammaton hath His Root only in Chokmah. So therefore the Formula of the Rosy Cross availeth no more in the Highest. Now then in the Pentagram are Two Lines that invoke Spirit, though they lead not thereunto, and they are the Works of Hé with Hé, and of Yod with Vau. Of these twain the former is a Work Magical of the Nature of Musick, and it draweth down the Fire of the HIGHER by Seduction or Bewitchment. Shall I say Enchantment? Shall I say Incantation? It is Song. But Bewitchment is a Work opposite thereunto, whose Effect formulateth itself by direct Creation in the Sphere of its Purpose and Intent. But there remain yet Two of the Eight Works, namely the straight Aspiration of the Chiah or Creator in thee to the Crown, and the Surrender of the Nephesch or Animal Soul to the Possession thereof; and these be the twin geodesic Formulæ of the Final Attainment, being Archetypes of the Paths of Magick (the one) and Mysticism (the other) unto the End.[sup:21sd6uvx]10[/sup:21sd6uvx]
If we agree with Polyphilus and assert that the magical purpose of the Gnostic Mass is to lead one to the “Final” or “ultimate attainment,” then one may reasonably maintain that the formula of the Gnostic Mass must be, by that fact, robust and flexible enough to find expression in “the Works of Hé with Hé, and of Yod with Vau” as well as those of Yod with Hé and Vau with Hé.
Though it remains unclear why, from the standpoint of E.G.C. policy and its hierarchy, a private celebration of queer Gnostic Mass could adequately fulfill the magical purpose of the Mass while a public celebration could not, a thorough survey of Crowley’s writings on the subject of the magical effect of the Mass, as Polyphilus describes it, offers decisive evidence in favor of the efficacy of queer Gnostic Mass, public and private.
1. T Polyphilus. “Priest/ess.” The Hermetic Library Blog. The Hermetic Library. 20 Feb. 2013. .
2. Crowley, Aleister. The Progradior Correspondence: Letters by Aleister Crowley, Frank Bennett, C.S. Jones, & Others. Ed. Keith Richmond. York Beach, ME: 2009. 84.
3. T Polyphilus. “Discourse on the Sixth Article.” Vigorous Food & Divine Madness. The Hermetic Library, n.d. 22 Feb. 2013. . [Formatting and emphasis as in original].
4. Crowley, Aleister. “The Principles of Ritual.” Magick: Liber ABA, Book 4. 2nd ed. York Beach: Red Wheel/Weiser, 2004. 144. [emphasis in original].
5. New Comment to AL, II:24, Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law. Symonds, John and Kenneth Grant, eds. Montreal: 93 Publishing, 1974. 200.
6. Liber A’ASH Vel Capricorni Pneumatici, 20. The Holy Books of Thelema. 1st ed. York Beach: Samuel Weiser, 1983.
7. “The Paris Working.” The Vision & The Voice with Commentary and Other Papers. Boston: Red Wheel/Weiser, 1998. 363.
8. “The Cephaloedium Working.” The Hermetic Library, n.d. 22 Feb. 2013. . [emphasis added].
9. “Commentary to Liber 65 – Chapter I.” Commentaries on the Holy Books and Other Papers. York Beach, Samuel Weiser, 1996. 98-99.
10. “On the Four Major Operations of the Microcosmic Star.” Liber Aleph. York Beach: Red Wheel/Weiser, 2003. 107.
93 A great example of debate that is well reasoned, fair , frank, honest and tactful. Nice job! 🙂
Davy 93 93/93
For anyone following this there is a review of Priest/ess and 'The argument that took the wrong turn' by Fr. D.U. here
http://fraterdocetumbra.blogspot.ie/2013/07/review-priestess-by-michael-effertz-et.html?spref=fb
I attended Mass this week. When I asked the whereabouts of a previous Lodge Master, someone told me he had thrown in his lot with a rogue sect that celebrate the Mass in the "Priest/ess" manner. (I came up with "rogue sect", the individual who informed me made no such description)
This is a very interesting topic, considering how far gay rights have come I think.
My opinion is that the the Mass with a "Priest/ess" quotient should certainly be given permission to be celebrated publicly; but it should be made explicitly clear to the public, so that John/Jane Q. walking in off the street has the option to chose whether or not to attend that particular ceremony.
Let's beat this dead horse, why not start an Ordo Homo Orientis if that is how you get your spiritual kicks and tell us your results? A certain charlatan would be thrilled with that name and you could create your own lamen, might I suggest a male boomer yearning to the people in goatse asana?
PS I have the book for laughs it goes on my crank shelf along with Amando Crowley, RTC, and other illustrious authors.
In Prophetes Veritas Venit. Quod ambulas cum Thelema et Agape est semper fidelis pietas.
Our Full-Time Investing But Arithmetically Challenged Comrade might want to note that the site guidelines ban homophobic posts like the one he just made, and stop doing that:
Unlawful or objectionable content is not permitted: harassing, defamatory, abusive, threatening, harmful, homophobic, racially offensive or otherwise objectionable items are not acceptable. [emphasis added]
Our Full-Time Investing But Arithmetically Challenged Comrade might want to note that the site guidelines ban homophobic posts like the one he just made, and stop doing that:
Unlawful or objectionable content is not permitted: harassing, defamatory, abusive, threatening, harmful, homophobic, racially offensive or otherwise objectionable items are not acceptable. [emphasis added]
He's back in time for the Blessings of the Vernal Equinox – Thelema – LAShTAL.COM Forum don't ya know?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Well ...
Everybody's talkin' about the Birds,
The Birds, Birds, Birds,
The Birds is the Words.